This special issue of the European Journal on Criminal Policy and Research brings together empirical analyses into the criminalisation of practices related to migration and its implications on human rights. Drawing from the experiences of male and female migrants, civil society, ordinary citizens, brokers and smuggling facilitators and their encounters with law enforcement, this collection reduces this gap and raises questions concerning the way criminal law and policy around the world shapes migrant people\u2019s access to justice.
\n \n\n \n \nThis special issue of Trends in Organized Crime brings together recent empirical research on migrant smuggling. Challenging the overemphasis on \u2018organized crime\u2019 and criminal networks that has long characterized mainstream discussions on smuggling, the contributions refocus our attention towards critical but underexamined dynamics present in the facilitation of irregular migration in a variety of geographic contexts, and shed light on the roles lesser examined elements in smuggling like race, ethnicity, gender, sex and intimacy play in irregular migration.
\n \n\n \n \nThe present brief examines the Proposal for a directive to prevent and counter the facilitation of unauthorised entry, transit and stay (hereafter the Facilitation Proposal), presented by the European Commission on 28 November 2023, in the context of an international conference to announce the launch of a Global Alliance to counter Migrant Smuggling. The Facilitation Proposal replaced Council Directive 2002/90/EC and Council Framework Decision 2002/946/JHA \u2013the so-called \u201cFacilitators\u2019 Package\u201d\u2013both in place since 2002. While the Facilitation Proposal addresses critical gaps present in the Facilitators\u2019 Package \u2013namely the financial or material benefit component\u2013 this brief identifies some potential solutions to persisting challenges. First, it strongly calls for the incorporation of the growing body of empirical evidence concerning the impacts of counter-smuggling, aiming to minimise their adverse effects on vulnerable groups. Second, it calls for clearer, more explicit commitments to eliminate the criminalisation of people on the move who facilitate their own journeys or those of others in order to save their lives. Lastly, it supports the implementation and strengthening of efforts to collect data concerning counter-smuggling activities across EU member states, with the expectation these figures and the methodologies behind their compilation will be fully accessible by the public. A commitment to fairness and transparency on the part of EU agencies involved in enforcing migration controls can in fact improve support for effective counter-smuggling efforts within the Union and its neighbourhoods.
\n \n\n \n \nThe fight against \u2018human trafficking\u2019 has, since the 1990s, become a cause c\u00e9l\u00e8bre of modern\r\npolitics. It is a bipartisan issue that everybody can be safely for and that nobody wants to be\r\nagainst (Quirk and Bunting 2014). It has been championed by high profile political figures\r\nas diverse as Theresa May, George Bush, Robert Mugabe and Ivanka Trump, and many\r\nthousands of NGOs around the world are working right now to eradicate it (ibid.). But,\r\npopular as the cause is, it is not without its critics. Today there are two broad camps within\r\nanti-trafficking work with academics, practitioners, policymakers and activists on both sides.\r\nOne side views human trafficking first and foremost as a crime, perpetrated by individuals\r\nupon other individuals, which can be stopped through sufficient enforcement and prevention.\r\nThe other side views trafficking as the far end of a spectrum of exploitation brought about by\r\nthe regularly functioning, structural mechanisms of modern-day capitalism. Furthermore, it\r\nhighlights the problematic governance effects of the trafficking frame.\r\n\r\n\r\nFirmly grounded in this second perspective, we argue in this chapter that the traction\r\nafforded to the discourse of human trafficking has made it a unique and powerful tool of\r\nmigration governance. It operates primarily by creating a zone of exception within the broader\r\nlandscape of labour migration. Inside this zone, we are told by anti-trafficking advocates,\r\ncriminals move people forcibly or through deception in order to exploit them. This movement\r\nis said to constitute an egregious abuse of vulnerability, a violation of human rights, and\r\na crime, and governments thus have a duty to prevent it.
\n \n\n \n \nChildren on both sides of the US-Mexico border help smuggle people and drugs into the United States. When asked why, they usually say they need money yet lack opportunities to earn it. They know that smuggling is illegal, but on the border it is one of the few ways that young, marginalised people can effectively convert their knowledge into profit. Their earnings, while limited, benefit them and their families, so for them smuggling is a legitimate, albeit criminalised, form of labour.\r\n\r\nThe testimonies in this series revolve around a central moment of violence: the murder of a young man who crossed people into the US. We learn what happened, why, and what the consequences of his death were from those who were closest to him. The stories told by his family and friends not only describe this death but also place it in context. They throw light on the crude mechanics of smuggling, the social and economic pressures of this community, and the burdens and aspirations of its inhabitants.\r\n\r\nTogether these testimonies paint a fractured yet detailed picture of how lives unfold in the shadow of the border wall. They foreground the people, not the crime, and they communicate the complexities faced by a specific group of young people in a city like Ju\u00e1rez. These stories show the often devastating consequences of young people\u2019s choices amid youth criminalisation, border militarisation and migration control, but also the love and determination of a community seeking to achieve change.
\n \n\n \n \nIn recent decades, neoliberal policies have transformed both the world economy and the world of work. Hard-won rights and protections have been eroded by deregulation, outsourcing, and subcontracting. New forms of unstable, isolated, and insecure work have emerged.\r\n\r\nThe new issue of Anti-Trafficking Review examines the driving forces behind the increasing prominence of precarious work, the accelerating role of migrant labour within global economy, and the relationship between everyday abuses and forms of severe exploitation which have come to be defined as human trafficking and modern slavery. It shows that a singular focus on individual cases can draw attention away from the larger systems, interests, and abuses associated with the smooth operations of the global economy. It also shows that some of the energy which has been directed towards combating \u2018modern slavery\u2019 could be usefully redirected towards lower profile interventions concerned with worker and migrant rights.
\n \n\n \n \nMigration from Africa to Europe has, since the long summer of migration in 2015, been at the top of the European political agenda. As right-wing parties have gained at the ballot box through their anti-migration rhetoric, the priority for most policymakers has been to look tough and to prevent such an experience from ever happening again. To this end the European Union and individual EU member states have devoted large amounts of resources to trying to keep people in Africa. As this feature demonstrates in great detail, an awful lot has been going on.
\n \n\n \n \nIt is by now widely recognised that effectively tackling forced labour in the global economy means addressing its \u2018root causes\u2019. Policymakers, business leaders and civil society organisations all routinely call for interventions that do so. Yet what exactly are these root causes? And how do they operate?\r\n\r\nThe two most commonly given answers are \u2018poverty\u2019 and \u2018globalisation\u2019. Although each may be foundational to forced labour, both terms are typically used in nebulous, catch-all ways that serve more as excuses than explanations. Both encompass and obscure a web of decisions and processes that maintain an unjust status quo, while being used as euphemisms for deeper socio-economic structures that lie at the core of the capitalist global economy.\r\n\r\nThe question thus becomes: exactly which aspects of poverty and globalisation are responsible for the endemic labour exploitation frequently described with the terms forced labour, human trafficking or modern slavery? Which global economic processes ensure a constant and low-cost supply of highly exploitable and coerced workers? And which dynamics trigger a demand among businesses for their exploitation, making it possible for them to profit from it?\r\n\r\nThis 12-part report is an attempt to answer these questions in a rigorous yet accessible way. With it, we hope to provide policymakers, journalists, scholars and activists with a road map for understanding the political economy of forced labour in today\u2019s \u201cglobal value chain (GVC) world\u201d.
\n \n\n \n \nIn this article, I examine two different frames of diasporic identity found within the rhetoric of Turkish politicians when they address audiences in Germany. I analyze speeches given in 2011 by the then Turkish prime minister Recep Tayyip Erdo\u011fan and leader of the opposition, Kemal K\u0131l\u0131\u00e7daro\u011flu, during the fiftieth anniversary celebrations of Turkish labor migration to Germany. I argue that both wove narratives of identity that emphasized the continuing relevance of Turkey to the lives of expatriate Turks as well as their continued inclusion in Turkish society. In doing so, I suggest that these were deliberate attempts to construct or maintain imagined communities of diasporic Turks as part of broader political projects. Such transnational reinterpretations of \u201cdomestic\u201d issues constitute an understudied dimension of diasporic engagement and diasporic identity formation.
\n \n\n \n \nThe INTERACT project interviewed 24 migration and integration experts across 19 countries in order to better understand the effects of current diaspora and integration policies. It further sought to determine possible pitfalls, ways forward, and areas of cooperation between countries of origin and destination. Synthesising the results of this survey, the paper argues that the task of integration is to encourage: migrant participation in all areas of society; migrant productivity within the economic sphere; and migrant parity with native citizens. To be successful, efforts must take place across many levels of governance and in a variety of sectors, especially education and labour markets. Both diaspora and integration policies must furthermore put migrants first: strategies that prioritise the perceived needs of countries or destination or origin are unlikely to work. Finally, the onus of integration cannot solely rest on the migrants themselves. Countries of origin must do more to meet migrants halfway by combatting discrimination within their societies and policies.
\n \n\n \n \nThis brief situates the astonishing rise of the group Islamic State of Iraq and as-Sham (ISIS) within Iraq\u2019s much larger history of violent displacement. Looking across the past 35 years, it argues that ISIS may be distinct inasmuch as it has taken and held terri\u00actory from Syria and Iraq, its violence is \u2018non-state\u2019, and it espouses a radically retrogressive ideology. But it is neither unique in its level of brutality nor is it an unprecedented threat to the well-being of Iraqi citizens. This report further discusses the evolution of ISIS and the human displacement it has caused. It demonstrates that Sunnis, Christians and Yazidis are fleeing north into the Autonomous Kurdish Region, while Shi\u2019a are heading toward their southern heartlands. The longer this keeps up, the more striking will be the changes to Iraq\u2019s ethnic and religious geography. Finally, it highlights the fatigue palpable among major donors today. It stresses that this must be overcome, for if Iraq is ever to know peace the full problem of IDPs in Iraq must be addressed and not just those scattered by the ISIS advance.
\n \n\n \n \nLebanon received its one-millionth refugee from Syria on April 3rd, an event that the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), the UN\u2019s refugee agency, called a \u201cdevastating milestone.\u201d Unfortunately, markers such as these only show the distance travelled but not how far is left to go. This one was quickly passed and there is still no end in sight. In the eight weeks following that announcement another 90,538 Syrians made their way to Lebanon in order to escape the fighting that rages on in Syria. With 1,090,538 Syrian refugees now on its territory, undoubtedly even more given the time it took for this article to come to print, Lebanon is home to nearly 40% of the 2.84 million Syrians now living in neighbouring countries. It has accepted an average of 53,000 people each month for the past 12 months, resulting in an incredible 25% population increase since fighting began three years ago. Without greater sharing of the human as well as the financial burden by rich world countries, Lebanon is at risk of paying the price for its hospitality with severe political and economic destabilisation.
\n \n\n \n \nThe concept of global migration governance is widely used but remains quite confusing and often poorly defined. This paper attempts to provide a mapping of this notion, in order to understand its different meanings, its usefulness and weakness, and the key questions it raises in terms of understanding and analysing migration politics. It starts by examining matters of definition, before reviewing the multi-actor and multi-level nature of global migration governance. It then moves to a critical discussion around several difficulties raised by the reliance on this notion. The last section provides a tentative historical perspective, to contextualise the concept of global migration governance.
\n \n\n \n \nThis paper explores theoretical and empirical research examining the ways in which different policy arenas affect people\u2019s decisions to migrate. We propose an analytical framework to assess various qualities of non-migration policies in a systematic way. We then focus on four diverse policy areas: agricultural policy, transport policy, education policy and social welfare policy, and analyse evidence for their direct impact on migration decisions or their indirect effects as they shape the decision-making context. These policy areas are chosen as examples of different types of policies in terms of their source of impact, level, locus and logic of impact, and \u2013 effectively - mechanisms through which they shape decision-making of migrants. Our review is not comprehensive, it rather sets ground for further systematic theoretical and empirical thinking about the role of non-migration policies in migration decision-making.
\n \n\n \n \nDespite huge improvement in data and research on migration, most scientific knowledge about migration is ignored in polarized public debates about migration. Migration policies are frequently ineffective or backfire, because they are not based on a scientific understanding of the nature, causes and consequences of migration. \u2018Talking truth to power\u2019 will not solve this problem, because politicians, international organizations, and mass media routinely ignore evidence that challenges dominant narratives or actively distort the truth about migration. Four narratives dominate public debates: the (1) Mass Migration Narrative, the (2) Migration Threat Narrative, the (3) Migrant Victim Narrative and the (4) Migration Celebration Narrative. These powerful narratives are one-sided, misrepresent the true nature of migration, and largely disregard migrant agency. This reveals the need for researchers to communicate their insights directly to the general public based on a long-term vision of migration as an intrinsic part of global change and development instead of a priori as a \u2018problem to be solved\u2019 or a \u2018solution to problems\u2019. The goal should not be to prescribe a particular policy agenda, but to equip the largest possible audiences with knowledge that will enable them to critically scrutinize claims made by politicians, pundits, and interest groups, and see through the various forms of misinformation and propaganda that abound on this subject.
\n \n\n \n \nThis paper examines the impact of the Covid-19 pandemic on non-governmental organisations\u2019 (NGOs) provision of primary healthcare services and its utilisation by irregular migrants in Italy. Through 30 semi-structured qualitative interviews with key informants \u2013 NGO members and healthcare professionals \u2013 and migrants, the study highlights the critical role of NGOs in bridging healthcare gaps for irregular migrants, particularly during the pandemic. The study also identifies challenges irregular migrants face in accessing public healthcare in Italy, including bureaucratic barriers in obtaining special healthcare registration cards (STP and ENI codes). Policy implications include facilitating regularisation processes, increasing funding for public healthcare, and harmonising interpretations of norms governing healthcare access across regions. Networking among NGOs and associations is encouraged to enhance comprehensive support for irregular migrants. At the same time, information improvement is vital to mitigate disparities in healthcare access and utilisation among different regions and to empower migrants in seeking timely and relevant healthcare. Overall, the study contributes to understanding the dynamics between NGOs, irregular migrants, and healthcare services during crises, advocating for an inclusive healthcare system based on the human right to health.
\n \n\n \n \nThis paper explores the intricate relationship between knowledge and power in migration policymaking. It challenges the notion that knowledge exists as an objective truth awaiting application by policymakers and argues that bridging the knowledge-policy gap in migration requires a deep understanding of the politics of knowledge. This entails grasping the power relations within migration research and policymaking and recognizing the diverse roles knowledge plays within the policy process. By bringing into dialogue literatures on knowledge use and knowledge production, the paper discusses how knowledge is always inherently intertwined with power dynamics, who is deemed legitimate to produce knowledge on migration, how policymakers employ knowledge either instrumentally or symbolically, and how this is shaped by the politicization of migration issues at stake. The paper ends with introducing four key methodological strategies for analyzing the politics of knowledge in migration policy: backtracking dominant assumptions, tracing issue-specific dynamics, identifying temporal shifts, and critically assessing the links between knowledge production and utilization. These strategies form the foundation for the empirical investigation of migration policymaking in the PACES project, which hopes to offer novel insights into the power-knowledge nexus in the field of migration.
\n \n\n \n \nThis paper explores how people make migration decisions. After a review of the rich literature and models that capture the factors, mechanisms, and phases of migration decision-making, this paper presents the Temporal Multilevel Analysis (TMA) framework, which examines how people decide whether to stay or migrate as their personal and societal situations change. The TMA framework explores how people perceive social change, and their role within it, with the goal of identifying under what contextual and personal circumstances people choose to migrate. The framework proposes a two-level comparative model that explores people\u2019s perceptions of their social and personal circumstances, and investigates the role of social norms and values, with the understanding that these are fundamental yet relatively understudied influences on a decision to stay or migrate. The TMA framework also integrates a time dimension to explore how changing views about the past, present, and future influence mobility choices. This document should be read as an introduction to the TMA framework, which will be further refined through its application in empirical research through the PACES project.
\n \n\n \n \n