Dear Deeply Readers,

Welcome to the archives of Refugees Deeply. While we paused regular publication of the site on April 1, 2019, we are happy to serve as an ongoing public resource on refugees and migration. We hope you’ll enjoy the reporting and analysis that was produced by our dedicated community of editors and contributors.

We continue to produce events and special projects while we explore where the on-site journalism goes next. If you’d like to reach us with feedback or ideas for collaboration you can do so at [email protected].

Executive Summary for February 23rd

We review the latest issues related to refugees, including an Australian gaffe revealing a murky trade-off deal with the U.S., failure of an appeal over U.K. law dividing families and Starbucks taking a beating over the company’s stance on refugees.

Published on Feb. 23, 2017 Read time Approx. 2 minutes

Australian Minister Reveals ‘People Swap’ With U.S. Before Backtracking

Australia’s immigration minister has retreated from claims that the refugee deal with the U.S. is a people swap, the Guardian reports.

Peter Dutton appeared to confirm there was a U.S.–Australia trade-off before later denying it.

The agreement for the U.S. to take refugees from Australia’s Pacific offshore processing centers is opaque. Australia has denied that the trade-off is acceptance of refugees currently in Costa Rica and not wanted in the U.S.

However, this week Dutton threatened that Australia would not accept the Central Americans until the U.S. took refugees from Manus and Nauru. After Australia’s foreign minister denied the people swap, Dutton then insisted his comments had been misinterpreted, saying it was “words games” and a “storm in a teacup.”

The Trump administration has cast the refugees’ fate into doubt with contradictory statements over the deal. Meanwhile, Australia’s opposition has demanded that the government release the text of the agreements with the U.S. but it has declined to do so.

Britain’s Supreme Court Rejects Appeal Against Spousal Law Brought by Refugees

The U.K. Supreme Court has backed the minimum income rule for foreign spouses that has separated thousands of families.

The case was brought by five appellants, two of whom are refugees, one from Democratic Republic of Congo and the other from Lebanon, the Guardian reports.

The appeal was against an income threshold that British citizens must pass to bring their non-European spouse to the U.K. The court said the threshold was “particularly harsh” but found no legal basis to strike it down.

Campaigners say the requirement has divided tens of thousands of families, including those of refugees. They also drew attention to the plight of “Skype kids” who have grown up away from one of their parents.

Starbucks Brand Perception Takes a Hit After Refugee Plan

Starbucks’ brand appears to have paid a price for its stance on hiring refugees, Business Insider reported. The coffee chain’s brand perception has dropped since it declared it would hire 10,000 refugees.

A perception tracker that measures whether consumers have recently heard about the brand in a positive or negative light has measured a two-thirds drop since January.

That was when CEO Howard Schultz published a letter saying Starbucks would hire 10,000 refugees worldwide in the next five years. Just before the announcement, 30 percent of consumers said they would consider going to Starbucks next time they wanted a coffee, but this is now down to 24 percent.

Some of the backlash may be based on false reports that the chain was hiring refugees in preference to U.S. veterans.

Recommended Reads:

Suggest your story or issue.

Send

Share Your Story.

Have a story idea? Interested in adding your voice to our growing community?

Learn more
× Dismiss
We have updated our Privacy Policy with a few important changes specific to General Data Protection Regulations (GDPR) and our use of cookies. If you continue to use this site, you consent to our use of cookies. Read our full Privacy Policy here.