Ending the myth of migrants

While the right and the extreme right continue to create propaganda, claiming that a massive number of immigrants will land upon European shores, others have a more pragmatic approach. Virginie Guiraudon, the Director of Research at CNRS and the Center of Europeans studies at Science-Po in Paris, refutes the possibility of a mass exodus into Europe. Instead, she analyzes the migration crisis through the European Union’s policies.

Claude Guéant, the new French Minister of Immigration who took his position at the end of February, insisted on the necessity to “fight against the worrisome fact of illegal immigration.” The day before this statement, President Nicolas Sarkozy mentioned the “uncontrollable migratory flows,” and claimed “Europe is the front line.” Is this the reality of the situation?

Virginie Guiraudon: These figures are completely pulled from thin air! No investigation can currently say how many people will emigrate. Libya is also a complicated case because Gaddafi has always played off these numbers, affirming that Libyan migrants wanted to cross the Mediterranean. Why would all the sub-Saharan Africans want to come to Europe? Most likely they are just seasonal workers who would without doubt return home.

Yes, they are two separate cases. In Tunisia, the an improved situation may not be a guarantee against migration. We’ve seen this before in Mexico – contrary to conventional belief, development often leads to emigration. It is not the poor who migrate, it is those who have an educational background and the psychological strength to leave. Migration takes place independently of regime changes.

Does Europe have the capacity to absorb a large number of migrants into its territory?

Yes, because – even though Europe takes every precaution possible – these situations have already been considered. There are coping mechanisms in place, such as the Europeans Fund for Refugees. For the moment, only 6,300 Tunisians arrived in Lampedusa, that’s not a lot. Every year, 1.5 million legal immigrants move to Europe. The real question is not why the Tunisians migrate, but why Belusconi speaks! With the upcoming French elections and the rise of the extreme right, the issue of migration is likely to be manipulated.

For the moment, only the financial structure is in place: The European Fund for refugees gives a nominal sum to countries which absorb the migrants. There is no active solidarity: each country tries to unload the unwanted foreigners onto another country. This is due to the Dublin Regulations, which allows nations to return asylum seekers to the first European country they entered. This “crisis” led the European Commission to the “burden sharing” concept, which it will soon be proposing.

The distribution of people is not just a financial issue. Yet by accepting burden sharing, heads of state would recognize that this is a European crisis. If we consider the international scale of the crisis, then the UN Refugee Agency and the International Organization for Migrants could manage the situation. They are ready to take control because they are specialist in population movements, yet they need to justify their usefulness.

This is not new, but it is becoming more and more of a concern for other countries. The migration to Europe by boat is a politically manipulated fantasy widely used by the European right. In many other countries, the left are unheard on these important issues. The right has a stronger case only be default. It’s the politicalization by political parties and the media that projects a specific opinion onto the public and which reinforced this negative theme. In France, there is an extreme case with le Front national, the far-right party running in the 2012 elections.

That is already happening! It’s the logic behind Frontex’s actions. This European agency works with the National Guard in territorial waters around the origin countries to prevent people from leaving. It precludes people from becoming asylum seekers.

There aren’t many people arriving to Europe by boat, but the main result of this policy only diverts the flow of migration. The military vessels and walls only change the routes. Now, migrants travel by land via Turkey and Greece. Although some people believe that because these roads are more dangerous more people will die in their attempt to reach Europe. Not at all! These are not desperate people, they have plans for their future.This influx could be absorbed by the labor market. Europe will need to compensate for the decline in its workforce, and it has already appealed to the foreign labor market for specific needs such as construction, agricultural and service sectors.

In the short term, some people (such as students) may return to Tunisia. However, the dynamic is not just political, but also economic and social. If people’s future in Tunisia becomes less obstructed, then there may be fewer departures. The idea of mobility does not affect the richest nor the poorest. The poverty stricken are immobile. Also if you look at the evolution of migration, Moroccans are much more likely to move to the US or Canada where they are better received. In Europe, this population faces racism and discrimination.

—

Check out OWNI’s application on Fortress Europe: a deadly exodus.

Article initially published on Marie Barbier’s blog Laissez-Passer, under the title “L’invasion de l’Europe par bateau est un fantasme politique”.

Photo Credits FlickR CC : aggrrrh!

Translation: Stefanie Chernow