TRANSIT MIGRATION IN EUROPE

FRANCK DÜVELL CENTRE ON MIGRATION, POLICY AND SOCIETY (COMPAS) UNIVERSITY OF OXFORD

Presentation Tripoli ‘First Conference on Irregular Migration’ 18-19 June 2008

Contact [email protected]

TRANSIT MIGRATION: A POLITICISED AND BLURRED CONCEPT Franck Düvell (Centre on Migration, Policy and Society, Oxford)

For many years I have been researching irregular migration in the European Union. Recently, I have expanded the scope of my interest and study irregular migration in non-EU countries in the neighbourhood of the EU, mostly in Eastern countries, notably Ukraine. Most countries in this region seem to experience three types of irregular migration, irregular immigration, irregular out-migration of some of their own nationals and irregular migration through their countries of third-country nationals who are heading towards an EU country. I will focus on the latter type, which is widely termed transit migration, from this perspective I will discuss the relation with all other types of irregular migration.

Transit migration – a politicised concept The concept of transit migration as it seems is a relatively new concept and only entered the discourse during the early 1990s. It was pushed on to the agenda by various international organisations, think tanks and European institutions, notably IOM, ICMPD, the EU’s High Level Working Group on Asylum and Migration (HLWG) and others. The popularity of the concept of transit migration is closely related to processes identified with the internationalization or externalisation of EU migration policies, notably capacity building projects in the field of migration control in neighbouring countries and readmission agreements. So far, it is indeed a very European concept which is only occasionally found in South-East Asia, South Africa and Latin America. Many of the earlier publications were quite alarmist, for example, a 1994 IOM (1994a) report on transit migration in Hungary alleged that up to two million migrants who are living in Central Europe in fact want to move to the West; the following year Turkey was identified as a transit country and it was reported that ‘thousands of migrants from the developing world who enter Europe are using Turkey as a transit area on their way to their preferred destinations’ (IOM 1995a: 4). Two years ago, at a meeting at the British embassy in Berlin, a participant argued there are three million migrants in Northern Africa waiting for a chance to cross over to Northern Europe. And only three month ago, an IOM representative in Libya was quoted on BBC saying

-1-

that there up to one million migrants aiming to move north (BBC 2008). In the past, such allegations turned out to be grossly exaggerated. Figures are a sensitive issue and they are often played with in political discourses. Therefore researchers must handle figures with great care and responsibility. So far, almost all neighbouring countries of the European Union at some point have been identified with transit migration, first the Baltic states, Poland, Hungary and Romania; then the southern Mediterranean countries, namely Morocco, Tunisia and Libya, but also Turkey and the Balkan countries; and finally the countries in the East, such as Ukraine, Russia, Azerbaijan and other Caucasus countries.

As this map illustrates, all non-EU neighbouring countries are associated with transit migration and stigmatised accordingly. And within these regions the Canary Islands, Straits of Gibraltar, the waters between Libya and Italy, the Aegean Sea, some Balkan countries and the Carpathian Mountains are considered major hubs. Malta and Cyprus are also often referred too although these are rather dead-end-roads, as migrants once on these islands find it hard to leave them again. What we also need to recognized, however, is the constant changes, the

-2-

emergence of new paths, new points of departure and new countries involved. Thus, we will possibly soon hear about new routes, for example, across the Black Sea from Turkey and Russia to the new EU member states Romania and Bulgaria.

Most reports on transit migration put it on a level with illegal migration and with organised crime, notably smuggling and trafficking whilst other reports link transit migration to asylum migration. Thus, ‘transit migration’ has become a code for ‘illegal immigration’, as well as for asylum seekers that are deemed ineligible. Meanwhile, entire countries are labeled transit countries ‘for traffickers, smugglers and irregular migrants’ (Zvizdovica 2001: 1), this could be considered an offence by the concerned country. Consequently, transit migration is characterised as a threat whilst transit countries are portrayed as problem countries that fail to properly protect its borders. In this sense, ‘transit migration’ has to some extent become sort of a war cry directed at countries that are expected by European Union states to keep unwanted migration off European territories.

Blurred definitions Despite all these reports or publications, there is no single and commonly agreed category or definition for transit migration in international policy or international law, instead there are many. Some are rather vague, such as Papadopoulou (2005: 2) who in an earlier paper describes transit migration as ‘the stage between emigration and settlement’. In contrast, the assembly of Inter-Parliamentary Union in Geneva (2005: 4) assures that ‘transit migrants are …aliens who stay in the country for some period of time while seeking to migrate permanently to another country’, and for UN/ECE (1993: 7) transit migration is ‘migration in one country with the intention of seeking the possibility there to emigrate to another country as the country of final destination’. We even find papers suggesting that migrants, who after a 12-year stay move on to another country are transit migrants, as in the case of Sudanese in Egypt (Roman 2006).

Further to this there is a range of irritating assumptions which seem to inform the discourse: ● It is assumed that migrants from a low-income country who stay in a middle-income country are inevitably heading for a high-income country; but can we be sure about this? Could it not be that they are actually labour migrants in that country?

-3-

● So far, only non-EU countries are labelled transit countries, whereas in fact several EU countries such as Sweden, Germany, Austria, Italy, Spain, France and Greece are also transited by migrants on their way to other destinations, like the Netherlands, UK or US. To me that selective application of the concept seems unjustified. ● Maps as shown above demonstrate a certain Eurocentric view as all arrows seem to point to the European Union whilst other destinations, notably Russia and the oil producing countries, as well as reverse or return flows are usually omitted from such maps implying one-way systems and generating worries over being overwhelmed. ● Reading through the available policy documents reveals that attention has often only been triggered by the appearance of unusual faces on the scene, such as Africans in Turkey, Afghans in Hungary or Indians in Ukraine. Thus, it occurs to me as if there is a certain bias that triggers investigations into this kind of migration. ● The discourse also demonstrates assumptions that refugees are safe where they are and should stay instead of trying to enter EU territory. ● Some of the irritation seems to be rooted in quasi normative believes of orderly migration that consists of a point of departure, a straightforward journey to a point of arrival and subsequent return once the purpose is met. Instead, in migration research it is often found that migrants constantly change plans, respond to new opportunities and that migration can be a continuing process often with an open end.

Suggestion for a typology Now, I would like to address such problems and make some suggestions for clarifying the concept of transit migration. Transit migration principally means that migrants do not go directly from A to B but travel from country A through country C to get to country B.

-4-

Graphics: Transit migration

relatively easy and cheap…

The deviation

…but hazardous

safe...

the Normal

Porous border

Smugg le rs

T r a ve l a gen ts

A SENDING COUNTRY

TRANSIT COUNTRY

Closed border

Open border

C

B ...but restricted

DESTINATION COUNTRY

This, however, is not as clear-cut as it seems. How long, or short, is transit in country C supposed to last to be interpreted as transit migration? After which length of stay does ‘transit’ becomes temporary immigration instead? What if immigrants have no intention to move on but change their mind and set off for other migration projects? What if migrants stay in a country for some significant length of time, a year or two and then decide to move to other country. Is that still ‘transit’ or is it maybe just a separate trajectory? Another dimension is migrants’ intentions. Sometimes, the intention to transit a certain country was there from the outset, but sometimes the intention only emerges as a response to the adverse conditions in the present country of stay, in other cases there is a clear intention and efforts are made to realise this but fail, and sometimes, migrants just dream of moving to another country but no efforts are made to realise this. Further to these uncertainties most references to transit migrants leave in the dark in which other categories they fall, and whether they are refugees or economic migrants, wish to reunite with their family or dream of some good education. Thus, transit migration is a perfect example for mixed migration.

-5-

Finally, authors who refer to illegal transit migration rarely clarify what exactly the irregular aspect is, whether it is entry to the transit country, stay in that country or whatever and I come to that in a moment.

A quick survey of existing reports generates a complex picture of many different forms of transit migration.

Graphic: The various forms of transit migration

Transit Identity

Dreaming of on-migration

Forced short-term stay

Detention: interrupted journey

Unintended transit migration Refusal of status and integration

1

TRANSIT

Intended transit migration

3 month

Intended temporary stay

Intended onmigration

Intended separate trajectory

12 month k

Intended long-term stay

Unintended on-migration

Intention

Forced longterm stay

Trapped/ Stranded in deadend-road

Unintended separate trajectory

Finally, we need to clarify the legal dimension of transit migration and separately analyse each aspect: entry, stay in transit country, exit from transit country and entry into next country.

-6-

Table 2: Scheme of the legal dimension of transit migration Entry

Stay

Exit

Entry

into transit country

in transit country

from transit country

into next country

Legal Illegal

Form this discussion I conclude that there are three dimensions to transit migration, length of stay, intention and legal status. Thus, transit migration rather is an umbrella term embracing various patterns.

Theorising and conceptualising of transit migration Some of the problems with clear-cut distinctions between immigration, transit migration and separate on-migration are due to the fluid and ever-changing nature of migration. For instance, during the 1990s it was noted that previous emigration countries, such as Italy, Greece and Czech Republic have become immigration countries. These countries have also experienced transit migration and the question is whether transit migration is a specific indicator of a migration transition and whether it could be a manifestation of the onset of a migration transition from an emigration to an immigration country (Venturini 2004, also see Zelinski 1971. Another aspect is how the sending, transit and receiving countries are linked together. It could be hypothesised that transit migration is facilitated by overlapping migration networks and systems and occurs in countries where trans-Saharan meet trans-Mediterranean systems, or where Central Asian and post-Soviet systems overlap with Central European and transCarpathian systems. To give you an example, could it not be that there is a traditional migration system from sub-Saharan Africa to, for instance, Morocco where this overlaps with a MoroccanEU migration system? Thus, sub-Saharan migrants switch over from on system to another and finally find their way to the EU. A related aspect is migration to low and medium income countries, such as Ukraine, Turkey and Algeria and maybe also Libya. Such migration seems to disprove classical economic assumptions suggesting that only high income countries are quasi natural destinations of migrants. Instead there are more than just economic reasons that attract migrants to these

-7-

countries, such as geographic, cultural, linguistic and religious proximity. Analysing transit migration could contribute understanding such migration. We must also not forget that transit migration sometimes reflect a certain class aspect. For example, migrants may simply be too poor to just take a flight; instead they take cheaper routes by foot, bus or train through other countries. This is nicely illustrated in VanHear’s (2004) paper on ‘I went as far as my money would take me’. Further to this, transit migrants sometimes have to work whilst underway to make some money for financing their onward journey. Other aspects that help explaining transit migration suggest that transit countries often display certain adverse conditions that make it uncomfortable if not impossible for migrants to stay. For example, if people cannot find jobs, such as in Ukraine, they will not stay but go to another country. And if there are political or cultural problems migrants are likely to move to another country. It is also observed that lack of access to a legal immigration status, as in Turkey, prevents migrants from staying. Or sometimes it is the absence of fair refugee status determination procedures, as in the case of Greece, that drives people out of the country. And sometimes it is a change in the political conditions of a country, as observed after the collapse of the Soviet bloc, that deprived migrant workers or students of their previous certainties and compelled them to consider other options. Hence, the social, economic and legal conditions in the neighbouring countries of the EU too play a role in explaining transit migration. What we also need to look at are the nodal points and hubs of transit migration, such as Moscow in Russia, Kiev and Uzhgorod in Ukraine, Istanbul, Izmir and Cesme in Turkey, Agades in Niger, Zuwara in Libya, and Oujda and Tangier in Morocco. Places where migrants and refugees concentrate, such as reception centres or markets can also play an important role for the dynamics of transit migration. Last, but not least, transit migration must be explained with the expanding migration control regimes of the European Union. It is becoming more and more difficult for certain groups of migrants, notably the low-skilled, to legally migrate to the EU. Notably since the expansion of the EU several governments, e.g. in the UK, believe that they can meet demand for labour by migration from the new member states and cut down on migration from non-EU countries. But those who still wish to come, may this be as workers, refugees, students or family members turn to long journeys, make the strangest circumventions and are driven into hazardous paths in sealed containers or across deserts, high seas or snowed mountains. Thus, transit migration also is a response to the ever-changing control regime.

-8-

From this, three major conditions, economic, social, and political, can be identified that characterise and determine transit migration. The following table investigates likely choices of migrants under either favourable or adverse legal and social conditions in a country neighbouring the European Union and in response to either liberal or restrictive immigration policies of the EU.

Table 3: Migration Control, Socioeconomic Conditions and Transit Migration EU

Legal and social conditions Legal and social conditions

Adverse

Non-EU country

Favourable

Closed border

Open border

Majority stays, Almost all stay minority moves on

Some stay Some migrate illegally

Almost all move on

Some return

Conclusion To wrap up, what I have tried so far is to highlight the politicised nature of the concept of transit migration, its political power and application in international relations over migration. Transit migration has become a prominent issue on the migration policy agenda and has become specifically relevant in justifying externalisation policies. On the other hand, the concept is rather blurred and lacks a clear definition thus further research and theorisation is required to clarify these issues.

-9-

References Alexander, J 1994, Modern, Anti, Post and Neo: How Intellectuals Have Tried to Understand the Crisis of our Time.”Zeitschrift fur Soziologie, 23(3):165-97. Bauman, Z 2003. Flüchtige Moderne [Fluid modernity]. Frankfurt: Suhrkamp. BBC 2008, “Destination UK”, Panorama, 14/1/2008, http://www.bbc.co.uk/mediaselector/check/accessibility/media/panorama/14jan08?size=16x9&bgc=FF 3300&nbram=1&bbram=1&nbwm=1&bbwm=1&st=1. Düvell, F 2006a, Europäische und internationale Migration, Hamburg: Lit. Global Commission on International Migration 2005, Migration in an interconnected world: new directions for action. Geneva: GCIM. Hughes, Everett C. 1971. Bastard Institutions. In Everett C. Hughes (ed.) The Sociological Eye: Selected Papers, Chicago, IL: Aldine-Atherton, pp. 98–105. ICMPD 2008. MTM Map on Mediterranean and African irregular migration routes, Vienna: ICMPD, http://www.icmpd.org/fileadmin/ICMPD-Website/MTM/New-Map-MTM_Poster-Landscape_EN_v1.pdf Inter-Parliamentary Union (2005) Migration and development. Geneva: IPU. IOM 1994a, Transit Migration in Hungary. Geneva: IOM. IOM 1995a, Transit Migration in Turkey. Geneva: IOM. Lipetz, Marcia 1984. Routine justice. Processing cases in women’s court. Chicago: Transaction publishers. Migreurope 2005. Camps in Europe map. Paris: Migreurope, http://www.migreurop.org/IMG/pdf/carteen.pdf. Papadopoulou, A. 2005, Exploring the asylum-migration nexus: a case study of transit migrants in Europe. Global Migration Perspectives No. 23. Geneva: Global Commission on International Migration. Roman, H. 2006, Transit Migration in Egypt. CARIM research report. Florence: European University Institute. UN. Department of Economic and Social Affairs Statistics Division. 1998. Recommendations on Statistics of International Migration. Statistical Papers Series M, No. 58, Rev. 1. New York: United Nations, http://unstats.un.org/unsd/publication/SeriesM/SeriesM_58rev1E.pdf. UN/ECE 1993, International Migration Bulletin, No 3. VanHear, N 2004, ‘I went as far as my money would take me’: conflict, forced migration and class. Working paper 6. Oxford: COMPAS. http://www.compas.ox.ac.uk/publications/Working%20papers/WP0406.pdf. Venturini, A 2004, Postwar Migration in Southern Europe, 1950-2000, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Zelinski, W 1971, “The hypothesis of the mobility transition”, Geographical Review, 61: 219-49. Zvizdovica, A 2001, ‘The interface between migration and asylum in Bosnia and Herzegovina’, Journal of Humanitarian Assistance, http://www.jha.ac/articles/u044.htm

For another paper on this theme see, Düvell, Franck, 2006, Crossing the fringes of Europe: Transit migration in the EU’s neighbourhood, COMPAS Working paper, http://www.compas.ox.ac.uk/publications/Working%20papers/WP0633-Duvell.pdf.

- 10 -