Mobility as a Forced Condition – Uneven Access to Stable Living Conditions
Asylum and migration policies seek to steer those who can enter and remain on national territory, but also to curb migrants’ onward mobility. The Dublin Regulation, for instance, was introduced to prevent so-called secondary movements within Europe – and thus, to limit the mobility of ‘unwanted’ migrants. Little attention is paid to the fact that the Dublin Regulation also enforces mobility, which causes detrimental consequences for those affected. Such downsides of mobility deserve more attention within the field of mobility studies.
(Im-)Mobilities and Inequalities
Access to mobility is rightly depicted as a privilege of persons with sufficient economic capital, who hold the right passport. Migration and mobility studies have made important contributions in showing that there are stark inequalities regarding the possibility of being mobile. Migration policies ease movement for a few well-educated persons and make it almost impossible for others – particularly people from the Global South. European states create legal and geographic barriers to prevent ‘unwanted’ migrants’ mobility to, within and even beyond their territory. However, it is important to also explore whether people are able to lead an immobile life. In a research project about journeys of migrants with precarious legal status in Europe, it became evident how persons can get ‘stuck in mobility’ (Wyss 2019), and might also long for stillness.
Interrupted Journeys of Migrants with Precarious Legal Status
During my multi-sited ethnographic research project about people’s lengthy journeys to and within Europe, I followed persons with low chances of receiving asylum or any kind of residence permit in the Schengen area. To gather information, I conducted interviews with migrants in precarious legal situations in Switzerland.
After a year, most of them had moved on to another European country or had been deported within Europe according to the Dublin Regulation, which defines the country responsible for a particular asylum application. If a person without a valid residence permit in Europe moves on to another Schengen state, this country can deport the person back to the country responsible for his or her case. Some of my research participants had been en route within Europe for more than ten years. Some applied for asylum in different Schengen states and were repeatedly deported back to the country responsible for their case.
Enforcing Mobility as Part of Migration Governance
The analysis of asylum and migration policies often focuses on how migration governance seeks to prevent the movement of people – except for the desired mobility of well-educated or wealthy persons. Less attention is paid to how migration governance also works through enforcing mobility. In many cases, the illegalization of my research participants pushed them into further mobility. Policies, such as the Dublin Regulation, cause increased mobility deporting thousands of persons every year from one country to another. It seems therefore crucial to understand these state-induced forms of mobility, as a particular form of forced migration (cf. Gibney 2013).
The consequence is that settling and social inclusion in a place are rendered exceedingly difficult. This has severe consequences for the well-being of the concerned persons. The impossibility to settle down impedes building stable social networks that could otherwise support people in their precarious situation. My research participants often told me how their mobile lifestyle kept them from planning their future, building a family, or taking part in education. Their living conditions were defined by a permanent temporariness, which caused insecurity and instability (cf. Eule et al. 2019).
Mobility as a Way of Avoiding Migration Control
However, migrants who have been illegalized also actively appropriate mobility to avoid detention or deportation (cf. Scheel 2019). Some engage in onward mobility in the hope of finding better prospects elsewhere. Others go into hiding to avoid detection by law enforcement authorities and eventually to prevent deportation to their country of citizenship. Thus, indirectly the Dublin regulation also pushes people into mobility, when they attempt to avoid law enforcement targeted at their legal and spatial exclusion. Hence, mobility can also be understood as part of migrants’ survival strategies, which challenge the smooth implementation of laws. This becomes, for instance, evident in the difficulty of states to deport non-citizens without the right to remain in the country (Rosenberger and Küffner 2016). Importantly, such subversive ways of appropriating mobility need to be understood as a last-ditch attempt of resistance to highly restrictive migration and asylum policies. Moreover, such acts of resistance push migrants yet again into very unstable ways of living, defined by a high degree of mobility.
Ambivalent Meaning of Mobility
It is crucial to pay more attention to the ambivalent meaning of mobility. On the one hand, mobility can be a resource allowing people to avoid the implementation of restrictive migration law or to evade precarious living situations. At the same time, such a mobile lifestyle keeps people from building a stable living situation. Often, research participants shared the impression of wasting their time, as they got caught up in back and forth movements across Europe and even beyond.
These observations show that research on people’s mobilities could benefit from further critical engagement on how (im)mobilities intersect, are shaped, or caused by different kinds of inequalities. These inequalities do not only play a crucial role in terms of who has access to mobility, but also regarding who is able to lead an ‘immobile’ lifestyle – or in fact, experience any sort of stability. When researching (im)mobilities, we should, therefore, consider how these are produced and how a high degree of mobility might also cause downsides for the concerned persons. Applying a mobility lens, when studying migration should therefore include paying attention to the consequences of increased mobility on individuals’ lives (see also Schaer 2020).
Anna Wyss is post-doctoral researcher in the nccr – on the move project Small Localities at the Outskirts of Europe: Transnational Mobilities, Diversification and Multi-Scalar Place-Making. From a mobility perspective, the project explores how diverse and entangled mobilities shape small localities at the peripheries of Europe.
Bibliography:
– Eule, Tobias G., Lisa Marie Borrelli, Annika Lindberg, and Anna Wyss. 2019. Migrants Before the Law. Contested Migration Control in Europe. London: Palgrave Macmillan.
– Gibney, Matthew J. 2013. ‘Is Deportation a Form of Forced Migration?’ Refugee Survey Quarterly 32 (2): 116–129.
– Rosenberger, Sieglinde, and Carla Küffner. 2016. ‘After the Deportation Gap: Non-Removed Persons and Their Pathways to Social Rights’. In Migration and Integration. New Models for Mobility and Coexistence, edited by Roland Hsu and Christoph Reinprecht, 9–28. Vienna: Vienna University Press.
– Schaer, Martine. 2020. ‘Precarity among Mobile Academics: The Price of a (Successful) Academic Career’. Working Paper 3; The Circulation of People; Maison d’analyse Des Processus Sociaux.
– Scheel, Stephan. 2019. Autonomy of Migration? Appropriating Mobility within Biometric Border Regimes. Routledge.
– Wyss, Anna. 2019. ‘Stuck in Mobility? The Interrupted Journeys of Migrants with Precarious Legal Status in EUrope’. Journal of Immigrant and Refugee Studies 17 (1): 77–93.
