Mixed Migration: Heralding in a New Protection Paradigm
Image courtesy of Freedom House
By Hannah Leach
Migration. Refugees. Economic migrants. Climate refugees. Trafficked populations. Meanwhile people are drowning in a sea of labels, each with their own set of policy implications and a different set of rights to protection, dictating whether we open our doors and welcome others in, lean out the window with a convoluted application form telling them to come back later, or simply draw the curtain and pretend we didn’t hear them knocking.
It’s no wonder Britain’s response to the ever expansive camps in Calais has been somewhat confused and fragmented, not to mention the pitiful refugee resettlement tallies pledged from displacement hotspots in the Middle East, as we rush to define the perimeters of entitlement. By carving up migrant populations along these simplistic lines we neglect the complexity of migration as a whole and fail to see the opportunities in between the borders of these definitions. The answer? A Mixed Migration lens.
What is Mixed Migration, I hear you say?
The Mixed Migration Hub defines this phenomenon through the mouthpieces of the leading actors in these fields:
The IOM: “The principal characteristics of mixed migration flows include the irregular nature of and the multiplicity of factors driving such movements, and the differentiated needs and profiles of the persons involved. Mixed flows have been defined as ‘complex population movements including refugees, asylum seekers, economic migrants and other migrants’. Unaccompanied minors, environmental migrants, smuggled persons, victims of trafficking and stranded migrants, among others, may also form part of a mixed flow.”
UNHCR: “Migrants are fundamentally different from refugees and, thus, are treated very differently under international law. Migrants, especially economic migrants, choose to move in order to improve their lives. Refugees are forced to flee to save their lives or preserve their freedom.
Irregular migrants [dislodged by a real and/or perceived inability to thrive (economic migrants) or motivated by aspirations, a desire to unite with other family members etc. Their movement is often organized and facilitated by smugglers, although some move independently]
Refugees and asylum-seekers (forced migrants)
Victims of trafficking (involuntary migrants)
Stateless persons
Unaccompanied minors and separated children and other vulnerable persons on the move
The Migration Observatory (Oxford University) published a briefing last year named “Who Counts as a Migrant? Definitions and their Consequences”, warning that different categorisations impact the way that data is analysed across sources and how it is recognised in legislative terms. Their analysis also touches on the manipulation of the term “migrant” in public discourse and how it’s been bandied around, more often than not to homogenise all categories into one easily-demonisable format, intertwined with notions of ethnicity, asylum and race. Anderson and Blinder present intended Length of Stay as another identifier between “immigrant” (long term) and “migrant” (transitory).
The sidelining of non-refugee migrants in UNHCR’s rubric has been criticised of late for minimising the vulnerability of other groups when crossing borders for a range of motivations. This dichotomy of “refugee” vs. “migrant” unfortunately lumps a whole heap of categories into what should represent the overarching definition that also encompasses refugee populations. Granted, refugees are their principal charge, yet such simplistic terminology creates blind spots where human beings leap from one sub-group to the next as situations devolve, or straddle multiple simultaneously, as we attempt to pull them down on either side.
Let’s take an example: a woman leaves her country in Thailand for “economic motivations” as an [economic migrant]. Upon being contracted by an agency, she is swiftly roped into a trafficking ring in India, forced into sexual exploitation and modern slavery until she manages to escape from her gangmaster, she has become a [victim of trafficking]. She cannot return to Thailand for fear of encountering her traffickers once again and so she flees across the border of {insert South-Asian country} to seek asylum and refuge and is detained by local authorities, this time as an [asylum seeker]. Luckily, her application is successful and she receives refugee status under international law, taking up residence in her new host country as a [refugee]. Yet, disaster strikes and a tsunami destroys her local area with severe flooding and the population is evacuated across the border, again she is forced to seek refuge as a [climate refugee].
Does this show how reductive working in these silos can be? Every push, every pull factor for migration, whether forced or voluntary, regular or irregular, has knock on implications for another as developments happen en route. RMMS’s recent analysis of bi-directional migratory flows between Yemen and the Horn of Africa drives this point home. Let me illustrate: since the start of the intense conflict in Yemen, 86 000 people have fled the country for safety in the Horn of Africa, yet between March and April 2016 alone, more than 114 000 Ethiopians and Somalis travelled to Yemen in the opposite direction heading for Saudi Arabia and the Gulf states.
Another example of the power of terminology: the latest RMMS report describes how there have been several reported instances of large numbers of irregular Ethiopian migrants detained and deported from mixed migration transit country, Djibouti in the Horn of Africa, after being identified by the government as “economic migrants” (indiscriminate towards minors and adults alike). As protection concerns often also occur outside of the country of origin, these incidents may not be recognised in asylum applications, leaving victims increasingly exposed to further abuses.
The term “economic migrant” doesn’t even hold any standing in international law: it’s something we’ve concocted to appease our need to Other faceless migrants and shirk our responsibilities towards them. As Cole so aptly puts it in her article “Refugee or Economic Migrant? Join the Dots Theresa May”, these terms creates a “false choice” for those hoping to migrate to the UK, completely negating the fact that remittance transfers are the glue that stave off economic instability in many countries balancing on the precipice of insecurity. Lest we forget that once that balance tips, we’ll be welcoming fresh waves of human beings seeking better prospects/ fleeing chaos to our shores. In a anti-Fortress Europe rally organised by Another Europe is Possible earlier this year, James O’Nions spoke of how the destructive colonial past of now wealthier nations demands that we take responsibility for all migrants (whether driven by poverty or conflict) and indiscriminately defend their human rights.
This often singular diagnosis of migration blinkers us into neglecting the complexity of mixed migration and prevents us from making the most of the opportunities this multifocal approach represents.
We’ve talked about Mixed Migration in the context of Britain’s immigration policy, but this concept applies to migration hotspots all over the globe. As I’m currently based here, let’s take Central Asia for one: Tajikistan is a complex case study for migratory patterns. Up until the economic downturn in Russia 2014, more than 50% of the country’s GDP was precariously reliant on labour remittances from Tajik migrants there. All the while, it plays host to 2200 odd protracted refugees and further numbers increasingly displaced by conflict in the tumultuous Northern Badakhshan region of Afghanistan. These communities are integrated with a small number of businessmen who migrate to Tajikistan for labour opportunities. In a country that still recalls the scars of a civil war that left between 5-600 000 internally displaced, effective management and integration of these migratory flows through from a Mixed Migration perspective is key to continued stability.
Organisations such as the IOM, UNHCR, Danish Refugee Council (DRC), RCVC and most recently Mercy Corps are pushing livelihood development as a means of humanitarian assistance, conflict management and increased self-reliance, integrating protection models into mixed migrant communities. This is 1 example of projects moving forward with this in mind.
So have I put a bug in your ear? Then it’s worth keeping track of these key initiatives covering Mixed Migration across the globe:
The Regional Mixed Migration Secretariat: Monthly Mixed Migration report (a joint (RMMS/Danish Refugee Council effort)
Mixed Migration Hub: Monthly trend bulletins & MHub research visualisations (a collaborative platform of North Africa Mixed Migration Task Force members)
Migration Matters: Bite-size courses to digest 5 mins per day on topics conducted by leading academics in the field (LSE, Oxford, Sciences-Po)
Centre on Migration, Policy and Society, University of Oxford (COMPAS): research and publications on global migration processes and phenomena
The Migration Observatory, University of Oxford: resources on international migration and public policy
These projects signal the start of a sea-change in approaches to migration and the way we look at the bigger mixed-up picture, so here’s to heralding in a new paradigm of Mixed Migration and the equal protection of rights for all.
