31 willing to admit provide an important signal to asylum seekers as to the likelihood that their application will succeed. Under their non‐refoulement UN agreement obligations, countries are committed to sheltering all those that enter their border and which they recognize are refugees. Yet most host countries set specific targets of how many they will admit.

Countries also decide on the duration and complexity of legal procedures governing the granting of asylum and, if in the final instance, it is not granted and the migrant does not leave of their own accord, on the alacrity with which the decision to deport is implemented. Though across the host countries many deportation decisions are implemented within days or weeks, that is far still from a uniform practice. For example, per a recent report by the SWP think tank in Berlin, it is estimated that over 215,000 people officially obliged to leave were living in Germany at the end of July 2016; of those about 2/3 were rejected asylum applicants and another 1/4 were irregular migrants who had overstayed their visas. About 3/4 of those technically obliged to leave had obtained “toleration status”, so their repatriation had been suspended due to obstacles of some kind<sup>32</sup> .

Countries also decide on whether the recognition of refugee status is temporary and contingent or whether it is permanent. For example, the United Kingdom’s granting of refugee status includes a 5‐year review, in accordance with the cessation clause, allowing for its withdrawal if the situation in the country of origin improves. In some countries, e.g. the United States, the granting of permanent residence (Green Card), paves the way to citizenship. In many European nations granting refugee status and even permanent residence status, it does not.

Among the most important measures that influence the decision to return is the granting or withholding of a work permit. As already mentioned despite the refugees’ right to work as mandated under the 1951 convention, which stipulates that they should have the same right to work as other non‐nationals, practices vary widely. For example, per the OECD, in the five years following the outbreak of the Syrian crisis, only 18,200 work permits, 15,300 student residence permits and 72,000 family‐reunification permits were granted to Syrians in the 35 OECD member states<sup>33</sup> . In addition to work permits, the extent of assistance in providing the refugees and asylum seekers with food, shelter, health services and education for children are also part of the policy instruments can either to “push” them to return or to “pull” them in, encouraging them to stay.

While most countries recognize that there are legal obligations and moral imperative to treat asylum seekers and refugees humanely and try to do so within limited means, there are very large differences in their treatment. Some of these differences are objective, in the sense that they reflect affordability and labor market conditions, as is most obvious when comparing relatively poor country hosts such as Jordan and Lebanon – which receive by far the largest share of refugees – and advanced country hosts. However, as differences in treatment across advanced countries also show, they can reflect policy decisions (or non‐decisions) about whether they want to help the refugee integrate or encourage them to leave.

> 32 Angenendt, Kipp and Meier, 2017

> 33 OECD Migration Outlook (2016)