Migrant Smuggling between Two Logics: Migration Dynamics and State Policies

Abstract

Migration processes are driven by forces that are by their very nature difficult to address with government policies, especially when these are aimed at control and restriction. Yet, in response to domestic and international policies, governments, jointly and individually, seek to intervene forcefully in certain types of migration. Paradoxically, these interventions by and large go against the logic inherent in migration processes and thus have perverse effects: they do little to reduce migration and instead create a market for human smuggling. The thrust of current policy development is in the direction of further criminalisation. It is argued that this is not the most sensible course of action.

Keywords:

• human smuggling
• trafficking
• migration policies
• migration processes

Notes

¹For a more detailed discussion, see Doomernik, “Does Circular Migration Lead to ‘Guest Worker’ Outcomes?”.

²Keely, “Demography and International Migration”, 52.

³E.g. De Genova, “Migrant ‘Illegality’ and Deportability”.

⁴Castells and Portes, “World Underneath”.

⁵Maroukis et al., “Irregular Migration and Informal Economy”.

⁶Staring, “Facilitating the Arrival of Illegal Immigrants”.

⁷Massey et al., “Continuities in Transnational Migration”.

⁸Neske and Doomernik, “Comparing Notes”; Van Liempt, Navigating Borders.

⁹A clear example of this mechanism is the 1992 German decision to amend the Basic Law. Previously it provided unprecedented generosity to refugees, afterwards it only did so to those who arrived in the country without having passed through any safe third country where asylum could have been requested. This pertained to all of Germany’s neighbours. As a result, an asylum request could be ruled inadmissible making almost immediate return possible.

¹⁰Philip, “European Union Immigration Policy”; Pirjola, “European Asylum Policy”.

¹¹Doomernik and Jandl, “Conclusions”.

¹²Currently, Greece falls outside of this arrangement as the European Court has ruled that the country is not fulfilling the minimum protection standards and asylum seekers should therefore not be sent back if they are found to have transited through that country.

¹³Jeandezbos, Reinforcing the Surveillance.

¹⁴Even though this obligation would follow from a number of international obligations, these are not spelled out in Frontex’s mandate. See Hayes and Vermeulen, Borderline. The EU’s New Border, 75. And some observers doubt whether Frontex consistently upholds such obligations. See Taylor Nicholson, Cutting Off the Flow.

¹⁵Lavenex, Shifting up and out; Doomernik and Jandl, “Conclusions”.

¹⁶Bigo and Guild, Transformation of European Border Controls; Lavenex, Ibid.; Doomernik and Jandl, Ibid.

¹⁷ Examining the Creation of a European Border Surveillance System (EUROSUR), Brussels, 13 Feb. 2008, COM 2008/68.

¹⁸ Ibid., 3-4

¹⁹Broeders, “New Digital Borders of Europe”.

²⁰Finotelli and Sciortino, “Through the Gates of the Fortress”.

²¹For an assessment of data on irregular flows, see Kraler and Reichel, “Measuring Irregular Migration”.

²²“Fluchthilfe an der Mauer. Flieger in die Freiheit“, Spiegel Online‚ 12 August 2007, http://einestages.spiegel.de/static/authoralbumbackground/144/flieger_in_die_freiheit.html.

²³Van Liempt, Trafficking in Human Beings.

²⁴Van den Anker and Doomernik, “Introduction”.

²⁵ Ibid.

²⁶ Council Directive Defining the Facilitation of Unauthorised Entry, Transit and Residence, 28 Nov. 2002, 2002/90/EC.

²⁷Kyle and Dale, Smuggling the State Back In.

²⁸Schloenhardt, “Migrant Smuggling”, Albrecht “Fortress Europe”.

²⁹Neske and Doomernik, “Comparing Notes”.

³⁰Chin, “Organization of Chinese Human Smuggling”, Neske “Human Smuggling to and through Germany”.

³¹Neske, “Human Smuggling to and through Germany”.

³²Kyle and Dale, Smuggling the State Back In.

³³Van Liempt, Navigating Borders.

³⁴Engbersen and Van der Leun, “The Social Construction of Illegality”; Staring, “Facilitating the Arrival of Illegal Immigrants”; Koser, “The Smuggling of Asylum Seekers”; Spener, “Mexican Migrant Smuggling”.

³⁵1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees and its 1967 Protocol.

³⁶Krissman, “Sin Coyote Ni Patrón”.

³⁷Sassen, The Global City.

³⁸Hollifield, “Politics of International Migration”.

³⁹Freeman, “Modes of Immigration Politics”.

⁴⁰Cornelius and Tsuda, “Controlling Immigration”.

⁴¹Koslowski, “Economic Globalization, Human Smuggling”.

⁴²Jandl, “The Development Visa Scheme Revisited”; Kolb, “Pricing Entrance Fees for Migrants”; Van Os van de Abeelen “New European Employment Migration Policy”.

⁴³Massey et al., Beyond Smoke and Mirrors.

⁴⁴Van Liempt, Navigating Borders; Cornelius, “Death at the Border”; Massey et al., Ibid.

⁴⁵Cornelius, Ibid.; Nevins, Operation Gatekeeper and Beyond.

⁴⁶De Haas, The Myth of Invasion; Carling, “Migration Control and Migrant Fatalities”.

⁴⁷United Against Racism, http://www.unitedagainstracism.org/pdfs/actual_listofdeath.pdf.

⁴⁸Staring, “Facilitating the Arrival of Illegal Immigrants”; Neske and Doomernik, “Comparing Notes”; Koslowski, “Economic Globalization, Human Smuggling”.

⁴⁹See Granovetter, The Strength of Weak Ties, on the differences between strong and weak social ties.

⁵⁰Bilger et al., “Human Smuggling as a Transnational Service”.

⁵¹Chin, Smuggled Chinese: Clandestine Immigration; Chin, “Organization of Chinese Human Smuggling”.

⁵²UNODC, Transnational Organized Crime, 33

⁵³Chin, “Organization of Chinese Human Smuggling”.

⁵⁴Soudijn, Chinese Human Smuggling in Transit.

⁵⁵Bhabha and Zard, “Smuggled or Trafficked?”

⁵⁶E.g. see Betts, Migration Governance, Global Commission on International Migration, Migration in an Interconnected World.

⁵⁷Various contributions to Jandl, Innovative Concepts; Ghosh, New International Regime.

⁵⁸For a review and critique of such proposals, see Doomernik, “Does Circular Migration Lead to ‘Guest Worker’ Outcomes?”