In: Gökce Yurdakul, Regina Römhild, Anja Schwanhäußer, Birgit zur Nieden, Aleksandra Lakic (Hg.): E-Book Project of Humboldt-University Students: Witnessing the Transition: Refugees, Asylum-Seekers and Migrants in Transnational Perspective. Berlin (forthcoming)
Frédérique Lang
Introduction: why this question?
“Witnessing the transition:
refugees, asylum-seekers and migrants in transnational perspective”. The title of this book already hints toward a
pregnant issue of the thematic of movement of people and migration: “the conflation between the different terms”
(Goodman & All, 2014, p 21). Making
the distinction between the different terminologies: migrants, refugees and
asylum seekers is often difficult and lead to the existence of various
definitions. For the Migration Observatory of the University of Oxford, for
instance, "migrants might be defined
by foreign birth, by foreign citizenship, or by their movement into a new
country to stay temporarily (sometimes for as little as a year) or to settle
for the long-term”. ”[1].
For the International Federation of Red Cross and Crescent Societies (IFRC),
the term “migrant” includes “labor
migrants, stateless migrants, migrants deemed irregular by public authorities,
migrants displaced within their own country, refugees and asylum-seeker”[2].
For the UNESCO and the United Nations the term migrants is synonym of migrant
workers, people who choose freely to leave their country for residency in
another country, either temporary or long term[3].
Hence, refugees are excluded from this category. According to the article 1 of
the 1951 Geneva Convention relating to the status of refugees the term
“refugee” shall apply to any person who: “As
a result of events […] and owing to well-founded fear of being persecuted for
reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group
or political opinion, is outside the country of his nationality and is unable
or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to avail himself of the protection of that
country; or who, not having a nationality and being outside the country of his
former habitual residence as a result of such events, is unable or, owing to
such fear, is unwilling to return to it“ (Geneva Convention, 1950). A third
lack of consensus can be observed around the distinction between the term
refugees and asylum seekers. The official definition given by the UN Refugee
Agency (UNHCR) is that “an asylum-seeker
is someone who says he or she is a refugee, but whose claim has not yet been
definitively evaluated”[4].
Although this definition serves as frame for the formulation of asylum policies
all over the world[5]
it does not unify academics. For some this classification does not reflect the
complexity of the reality. For instance, not all refugees make the chose to
have their rights protected by applying for asylum. Some have the possibility
to apply for a visa, others are allowed to remain in the country of their
choice without specific resident permit due to their double-nationality, other
choose to become naturalized citizens of their host country after residing
there for enough time. They are not officially refugees but they were still
forced to leave their home in order to preserve their life. Thus, individual
stories and situation are difficulty categorized into official definitions and
often results in confusion when it comes to question of who should receive
protection or who should be let in a country (Withol de Wenden, 2010).
Since
the exponential rise of the number of asylum seekers in Europe in the past
years, and in particularly in 2015, these questions have become very salient issues of the public and political
discourses, both on the national level and the European level (Guiraudon, 2013,
Monforte, 2010). At the European level, the Union’s migration and asylum
politics showed its failure. Despite the effort of the EU to formulate common
politics to harmonize member states’ processes and policies it did not succeed
in reaching agreement on a fair process representative of the global context
and sustainable for all member states. The latest were only able to agree on
securitarian line of actions deciding to reinforce the protection of the EU’s
borders by strengthening deterrent measures such as: harmonized visa
deliverance processes, sanctions against smugglers but also joined police
actions at the borders conducted by the institution created on purpose:
Frontex. Virginie Guiraudon (2010) notes that instead of choosing a political
line focusing on solidarity and the harmonization of protective measures, the
European Union has adopted a security-oriented approach reinforcing the image
of a “fortress Europe” (Ibid; Rinne
& Zimmerman, 2015). The logic behind this approach is to prevent “shopping for asylum” (Moore, 2013) or “shopping around for a new and easily
accessible place to ask for status” (Barsky, 1995, p 128). It justifies the
EU’s safe third country legislation and its asylum demand restriction to the
first country of entrance. Nevertheless, although subjected to the same legal
framework all over Europe, in practice, asylum seekers are treated very
differently from a host country to another (Barthel, 2015; CIMADE, 2010; Spire,
2007).
It is
these two problematics which initiated the reflection leading to the research
presented in this chapter. First, the lack of harmonized common European
migration and asylum politic offers asylum seekers and migrants a large array
of possibilities to establish their new home. It is relevant to know which
factors influence their decision and why they choose one-country over another
one. Secondly, the afore mentioned confusion between the terms migrants,
refugees and asylum seekers, highlight the necessity to focus not on general
categories of people but on single individual life stories.
When
leaving hastily their home country refugees are under a lot of stress and they
can difficulty assess and weight the different options they have (Barthel,
2015). Whatever the factors influencing their decision, Barsky (1995) raises
the question: why should someone who has already suffered in their home country
settle for a less optimal option? For him the choice of a country over another one
is not delegitimizing their claim for asylum and should not be submitted to so
much investigation. This investigation and judgmental perspective is relayed by
the media which often formulate titles using prejudicial expression opposing “bogus”, “fake”, “cheating”
claimants to the “genuine”, “deserving”, “legitimate” ones (Moore, 2013, p 350; Goodman & All 2014;
Neumayer, 2005). Thus, researching the motivations or reasons behind the choice
of country to lay one’s asylum claim is necessary to better understand asylum
seekers, identify their needs and finally, help them (Kabranian-Melkonian,
2015). The literature adopting refugees’ perspective and giving them a voice is
slim (Goodman & All 2014; Kabranian-Melkonian, 2015); though it is
sometimes perceived by searchers as the task of the “human services professionals [to] become the true voice of refugees
who have lost their voice by becoming the bridge between the decision makers
and the victims […], to speak for the voiceless and have their stories told” (
Kabranian-Melkonian, 2015, p 9). With my research, I want to follow these
advices and adopt a too rarely taken stance: the one of asylum seekers in
Europe. I wish to highlights the considerations and the reasons of asylum
seekers, which lead them to claim asylum in a specific place. The existing
literature adopting this perspective is rare. It does not cover many countries
and it is almost 15 years old. Yet, the world changed a lot since the early
2000s, new conflict zones emerged, new routes and new group of refugees (Brian
& Laczko, 2014). With my work, I wish to test the actuality of the
observations made in the existing literature for a country not yet covered by
this literature: Germany.
Literature Review
The
field of migrations studies, including these of displaced population, migrants
and asylum seekers has been particularly researched by academics of the western
world since the early 1990’s. Nonetheless, it is necessary to specify that when
it comes to people’s movement, asylum seekers and refugees are often studied as
part of the broader migration research field, especially when the focus point
is their social network, migration routes, or the characteristics of
destination countries (Barthel, 2015; Neumayer, 2004; Collyer, 2005). Furthermore,
migrants and refugees’ studies have been pursued in all disciplines of the
social and political sciences. In sociology of organizations for instance,
searchers direct their attention to the development of an associative landscape
in France or Germany (Montforte, 2010) or the role of the bureaucracy dealing
with asylum seekers (Spire, 2007 and 2005). The German context was often
approached with a legal perspective, confronting federal migration and asylum
laws’ compatibility with the respect of refugees’ basic human right for
instance. Comparison were drawn between the migrations politics and processes
in use in various European countries, critics to the established systems as
well as pessimism for its future development were expressed. For
institutionalists in particular, the approach taken by the EU to work on
migration and asylum policies is not appropriate and forecasted its failure.
Several authors blame the European Union’s focus on strengthening its economic
union while neglecting its humanitarian tradition (Lavenex, 2001).
Nevertheless,
despite the many obstacles built by the European Union to prevent the
inopportune trespassing of its territory, costing the life of thousands, people
keep coming. Many academics before have wondered why migrants were coming to
Europe and how refugees or migrants, were choosing their destination country (Neumayer,
2004; Collyer, 2005). For many it is a combination of push and pull factors,
which raises or lower the cost of migrating (Neumayer, 2005; Havinga &
Böcker, 1999). The first worry of refugees when leaving their home is the preservation
of their life. In other word, their flight is motivated by push factors: acute
threats such as human rights violations, civil and ethnic wars, or the collapse
of the state authority. These reasons motivate them to leave for other areas of
the countries (the case of Internally Displaced Population) or to easy to
access neighbouring countries. But for asylum seekers coming to Western Europe other
motivations were highlighted by some researches, the economic one. Once in
security, away from acute threats on there life, refugees are then often
confronted to “economic hardship” (Neumayer,
2005. p 406), which pushes them to to seek for better opportunities. They are
then attracted, pulled, toward more developed countries such as the one of the
European Union.
Searcher
then wondered, what were the factors attracting refugees or migrants and
decided to produce quantitative studies of the specificities of some favourite
destination countries. A major interest is given in this aspect to migrant
network (Neumayer 2004, 2005a; Thielemann 2004, 2006a; Hatton 2009, Collyer,
2005, Barthel, 2015). The connection between already migrated individuals with
friends, family or just other member of their community not yet migrated, allow
the exchange of information between them. The aspiring migrant can benefit from
the advices, help and support of people similar to him. This research of a more
familiar environment was also justifying searchers’ theory that migrants were
more likely to go to a country which share cultural similarities (language or
religion for instance) or historical tights (in the case of former colonies for
instance). Above all, the economic characteristics of favorite destination
countries have been put forward as a pull factor. A positive economy, low
unemployment rate and the availability of social benefits are considered as
particularly attractive factors for migrants. Last but not least, attention was
also given to smuggling routes and the role of agents in the decision making
process of migrants and refugees. The latters often are dependent on their
financial means and the route they can afford. But also on the practicability
of the route they aspire to take at the time of their journey (Bijleveld &
Taselaar (2000/02). All in all, the existing literature already offers many
explanation as why asylum seekers comes to Western Europe: family and migrants
network, migration routes, research of a better economic situation. Those are
all reasons advanced by searchers observing the phenomenon from the outside and
treating the asylum migration as the result of a well weighted cost-benefit
calculation.
However,
these researches are all about ten years old at least, and as mentioned before,
the global context changed a lot in the last decade. Moreover, quantitative researches are based
on broad categories and clearly defined groups, not representative of the real
complexity of the world. Only qualitative research allows to gain insights in
the mind of refugees coming to Europe and to unveil other factors playing a
role in their decision process.
A
particularly small amount of studies was conducted to reflect the asylum
seekers or refugees’ perspective. Preliminary researches led me to few authors
who worked on similar problematic as mine and tried to understand what motivates
refugees to claim asylum in their country, i.e Canada, the United Kingdom, the
Netherlands and Belgium (Barsky, 1995; Robinson and Segrott, 2002; Havinga and
Böcker, 1999; C. Bijleveld & Taselaar, 2000/02). In a couple of cases, the
searcher approached the topic with a grounded theory method led by the results
of interviews with asylum seekers and refugees (Barsky, 1995; Robinson and
Segrott, 2002). Others used interviews with a sample of this population and
interviews with “key informants” (Havinga
and Böcker, 1999, p 48) i.e interpreters, social workers and so on, which they
combined with other sources, such as statistics, in order to test their
hypothesis on a specific aspect of the problematic. Hence, the methodology used
was quite diverse and depended on the resource available to the searchers.
Despite the variety of methods used results were convergent.
First
it was noted that the “choice” of a destination country often occurs during
their journey as their departure often happened spontaneously, with little time
to plan in advance. Second, their real choice is quite limited and depends on
the resources available to them: knowledge, financial and personal. In fact,
many of them know little about their possible destination besides the USA,
Canada and English speaking countries in general. Then, they often do not have
the mean to reach their dream destinations, the journey cost is too high or
they lack the necessary documents. As a result, they often have to settle for
another option while on their way and to rely on exterior assistance. All of
the researches agreed on the essential role of paid facilitators or smuggling
agents (Robinson and Segrott, 2002; Havinga and Böcker, 1999, Bijleveld &
Taselaar, 2000/02). Those agents are travelling with them or providing them
with fake of fraudulently obtained documents allowing them to travel
individually. They often represent the only possibility for refugees to reach a
place to seek asylum. Their lack of resources (financial and information)
forces them to rely on the agents to offer them possible option of destination.
Hence, migrants’ self-autonomy is quite limited and one cannot really speak of
a choice. Nonetheless, the journey of migrants is often guided by certain ideas
and dreams of life abroad. Several searchers highlighted the role of asylum
seekers’ imaginary of their destination country prior to their arrival. For
instance, Barsky’s (1995) study of soviet asylum seekers in Canada shows that
wanting to live the “American Dream” was a particularly redundant justification
of their choice. Besides the materialistic appeal of western countries which
are wealthier than most origin countries, other factors were mentioned by
refugees in these studies, such as democracy, freedom, safety, or tolerance. However,
15 years ago, information was not as accessible as it is nowadays. Hence, the
destination country was often idealized (Havinga and Böcker, 1999). People’s
dream and lack of knowledge, the influence of exported cultural products (
literature, movies, music, sports…) or the rumors they hear on their journey to
safety, often nourished by the smuggling agents, who want to sell their
destination country, often lead asylum seekers to occult possible legal
restrictions constraining the establishment of their new life[6].
Nowadays,
fifteen years after these publications, one can assume that the situation
changed quite a bit. Thanks to the normalization of the use of internet and
mobile phones[7],
communication between people living on different sides of the world are made
particularly easy. Information and knowledge can be shared and accessed in a
simple click. The world political situation also transformed itself. New zones
of conflict emerged leading to the movement of different group of refugees
(Hatton & Williamson, 2004). Furthermore, refugees in the 1990’s and early
200’s were not submitted to the same legislation as they are now in 2015. They
were also not confronted to the same obstacles on their journey to Europe and
safety as they are nowadays. Consequently, an updated research of the
problematic raised in this chapter was necessary, and even innovative for the
German context.
Research method xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
As any type of work, the conception of this paper was submitted to some constrains (time, finance…) which limited its aim to testing previous findings to similar researches. I wanted in particular to know more about the influence of family and friends’ network, smugglers’ advice, and previous knowledge, on the choice of asylum country. The goal of this paper is not to set a new, ground breaking theory allowing to generalize the findings to the extensive refugees’ population in Europe, but to test existing results and to initiate reflection on the German context, thus I chose my methodological process accordingly. I adopted a qualitative approach in order to better represent the singularity of each stories and ensure the quality of the data collected. Once the research hypotheses defined, I would test them by directly interviewing asylum seekers and refugees in Germany. The idiographic goal of my research and its wish to illustrate refugees’ perspective rather than to formulate new broadly representative laws, allow me to work with a small group of interviewees. (Goodman & All, 2014; Robinson, 2014). As perfectly formulated by Robinson and Segrott (2002) in their own research “Given the potential complexity of the decision making process and the desire to penetrate the level of practical consciousness [the possibility to generalize] was felt as a trade-off worth making “(Ibid. p 91). I evaluated that given the topic researched, qualitative data collection through semi-opened interviews conducted orally was the most relevant method. It seemed better appropriate to reflect the complexity and uniqueness of each respondents’ answer. Also, I realized during the first interviews that letting some room for the participant to tell his story, insist on what he felt like sharing, helped balance the encounter. The participant could forget my position of searcher, studying his stories, and see me as a genuinely interested person. The equality of the position between the searcher and the interviewee is an important ethical element to consider while working with refugees. Due to their precarious situation in Germany, the difficulty and sometimes horror they experienced in their home country and on there journey to safety refugees and asylum seekers are a particularly vulnerable group to work with. To ensure the quality of the answers given and preserve the dignity and welfare of participants it is important that the latest fully understand the research and agree to their role in it (Mackenzie, 2007).
Working with refugees can also represent another methodological issues because of the language difference which often requires the searcher to work with an interpreter. In this case the searcher has to be aware of the influence the interpret exercises in the interview. Indeed, he may reformulate the question differently or use other words when translating, causing some information to get lost in translation (Inhetveen, 2012).
As any type of work, the conception of this paper was submitted to some constrains (time, finance…) which limited its aim to testing previous findings to similar researches. I wanted in particular to know more about the influence of family and friends’ network, smugglers’ advice, and previous knowledge, on the choice of asylum country. The goal of this paper is not to set a new, ground breaking theory allowing to generalize the findings to the extensive refugees’ population in Europe, but to test existing results and to initiate reflection on the German context, thus I chose my methodological process accordingly. I adopted a qualitative approach in order to better represent the singularity of each stories and ensure the quality of the data collected. Once the research hypotheses defined, I would test them by directly interviewing asylum seekers and refugees in Germany. The idiographic goal of my research and its wish to illustrate refugees’ perspective rather than to formulate new broadly representative laws, allow me to work with a small group of interviewees. (Goodman & All, 2014; Robinson, 2014). As perfectly formulated by Robinson and Segrott (2002) in their own research “Given the potential complexity of the decision making process and the desire to penetrate the level of practical consciousness [the possibility to generalize] was felt as a trade-off worth making “(Ibid. p 91). I evaluated that given the topic researched, qualitative data collection through semi-opened interviews conducted orally was the most relevant method. It seemed better appropriate to reflect the complexity and uniqueness of each respondents’ answer. Also, I realized during the first interviews that letting some room for the participant to tell his story, insist on what he felt like sharing, helped balance the encounter. The participant could forget my position of searcher, studying his stories, and see me as a genuinely interested person. The equality of the position between the searcher and the interviewee is an important ethical element to consider while working with refugees. Due to their precarious situation in Germany, the difficulty and sometimes horror they experienced in their home country and on there journey to safety refugees and asylum seekers are a particularly vulnerable group to work with. To ensure the quality of the answers given and preserve the dignity and welfare of participants it is important that the latest fully understand the research and agree to their role in it (Mackenzie, 2007).
Working with refugees can also represent another methodological issues because of the language difference which often requires the searcher to work with an interpreter. In this case the searcher has to be aware of the influence the interpret exercises in the interview. Indeed, he may reformulate the question differently or use other words when translating, causing some information to get lost in translation (Inhetveen, 2012).
Since young
Arabs and men from the middle east are nowadays forming the biggest group of asylum
seekers in Germany I decided to limit my focus group to individuals coming from
the Middle East, aged between 20 and 30 years old, applying or having applied
for asylum in Germany and currently living in Berlin. Adding to that my
familiarity with the Arabic world, it seemed an appropriate sample group to
work with at it would be representative of the German context but also easy for
me to connect with. I used various point of contact to reach member of this
community. Besides relying on my social circles to introduce me to possible
participants, I also contacted several activist groups and association working with
refugees. Approaching refugees through « gatekeepers » or people they
trust is, indeed a way to favor a feeling of trust between interviewer and
interviewees. It is also through this recruitment process that I met a
volunteer translator interested in assisting me in my research when needed.
Social medias, and in particular facebook, also allowed me to find a
participant who contacted me after reading a message I posted in a
« refugees’ support / Flüchtlingshilfe group» introducing my research. That
is how I reached 5 participants whose characteristics I summed up in the
following chart:
Table 1: participants‘ overview
|
|
Country of Origin
|
Age
|
Gender
|
In Germany since
|
|
W.
|
Syria
|
24
|
Male
|
June
2014
|
|
O.
|
Iran
|
23
|
Male
|
Winter2013
|
|
F.
|
Syria
|
27
|
Male
|
August
2015
|
|
M.
|
Syria
|
28
|
Male
|
July
2015
|
|
L.[8]
|
Syria
|
38
|
Female
|
January
2015
|
Analyze
Push factors
The
purpose of my research was to unveil the reasons behind asylum seekers choice to
claim asylum in Germany. So it seemed a good way to start by directly asking participants:
“what made you come to Germany?” I
generally made my question more explicit by asking them “Why Germany in
comparison to another country?”. Each respondent gives a very different answer
reflecting the unique path their journey had taken. All participants but for
one settled their choice on Germany during their journey. Several of them had
at first no intention at all to go there. For instance, W was first trying to
start a new life in Algeria where he expected to be able to find work easily.
His plan not working he decided to try his luck in Europe. Once in Italy he
learned from an uncle arriving in Berlin and decided then to join him. M. also
had his mind set on England where he would encounter more opportunities to
pursue his career as a dancer. Failing many time to cross the channel between
France and England he researched what other city could make sense and then
headed for Berlin. O was travelling with his mother first to Paris but had to
decide where to go afterward. He told me it was in the plane that they agreed
on joining an uncle established in Germany. L also made up her mind while
travelling after researching which country would enable her and her family to
start her life again the quickest. Comparing Germany with Denmark and Sweden
she told me having settled for the first one because of the language and its climate.
Only F already knew from the start that he would head to Germany as it had been
his dream country for years. He told me in a perfect german, having had the
plan to go there for a semester abroad from the university when the war
started.
As we
can see from the previous paragraph, respondents’ justification of their choice
to come to Berlin are very different. This diversity reflects the complexity of
the mechanism behind making the life changing decision to find a new place to
start a new life. It is also representative of the uniqueness of each
situation, of people dreams and aspirations. Nonetheless giving an honest
answer to “why did you choose Germany?” is not an easy task. It requires a lot
of self-reflection and most of the time, the real factors motivating a decision
may not be the one we think are. In order to shade more light on possible
hidden reasons I followed Robinson and Segrott (2002) method of triangulation.
I first listen to participants’ stories and answer to the direct question, then
I asked them again more details on the three elements I wanted to test:
previous knowledge and image of the country, network and role of the smuggling
agent.
Image of the country
I
wanted to know what people’s perception of the country was before they arrived
in Germany. I asked them “what did you
know about Germany when you first heard about the possibility to go there?”, I
developed my question, by asking what they thought when they were confronted to
the possibility to go there and what they knew about the country. After
listening to their answer, I pushed it a bit further, asking if they knew
anything about the society, the people, or the politics. Most of them had very
little knowledge about Germany prior to their arrival. It is when confronted to
the possibility to seek asylum there, that they started gathering their
thoughts or to make actual research on the country. For some, there first point
of reference were either friends already there or the media and in particular
the TV. They also had some memories of what they had learned at school. W and O
mentioned in particular the Second World War; M remembered that Germany was
separated. Only F. new a lot about Germany because he always has been
passionate about it. Besides the country’s history, he was particularly
interested in its culture. W. and O. also mentioned there support for German
soccer teams even before being on the move. All of there actual knowledge were
gathered while on the road. Many of them researched information about its
language, its climate, its education system or artistic scene. Even the asylum
politic of the country was not an element of interest for the participants.
Only L. researched the family reunification policy before coming. Many of them
first confronted themselves to the matter once in Berlin, after realizing the
complexity of the process and wanting to take the matter in their own hand (M.
and W. for instance). On German people, participants also did not have much to
say. W. mentioned thinking that Germans and Europeans in general were “top people”. Although most of the
participants had quite positive representation of Germany before coming and
indeed expected to be welcomed, helped and kept safe, they did not have much
idea of what to expect and this factor did not influence their decision.
As
participants’ answers show, most of them had very little knowledge of Germany,
its culture and policies before coming there. They all had a quite positive
image of the country and its people; however, this attitude was favorable to
Europe in general. Nonetheless, out of the five participants, two (L and M)
said having done some researches during their journey in order to take a
decision. L researched the culture and some aspect of the asylum polices while
M researched opportunities for his career and further training as a dancer.
Only F new from the start of his journey that he wanted to go to Germany, as it
has been an opportunity he had been looking toward to for several years. Other
factors which will be seen in details in the next paragraph influenced the
decision of the two other participants, O and W.
Network
Network
theories give a lot of importance to the role already established communities,
or relatives and friends, plays in in the decision making process of asylum
seekers and migrants. Therefore I asked participants “where most of their friends and relatives were” but also “who they knew in Berlin before coming”
and if they “knew about a big Syrian or religious
community in Germany and Berlin”.
The answers given were quite heterogeneous. And the importance given to an existing network differ from a respondent to another. Three participants answered that they had family in Germany, O and W had uncles in Düsseldorf and Berlin, while F had a brother in Stuttgart. However, all of them had family elsewhere in Europe and still decided to come to Germany. Furthermore, only two of these respondents stipulated choosing Germany and Berlin because of their uncle there. As for friends, although four out of fives participant mentioned having friends in Europe, and even in the case of W admitted coming to Europe after talking to them, none of them seems to have tried to join them. Regarding to the presence of a big compatriot community or followers of the same religion this does not seem to have play a role. Although, some of them acknowledge knowing that a lot of Syrian were currently seeking asylum in Germany and Europe in general, most of them declared that he did not play a role in their decision making. They were not looking for a community to integrate, but a place to start a new life. So network theories, who predict that asylum seekers often go where ever they have a good established network in order to facilitate their transition and be able to rely on their help does not seem to apply here. Or at least, this network does not need to be present in the same city. All of the participant had smartphone and mentioned the use of communication application such as what’s app as precious tool throughout their journey. For many of them the remote access to this network, to collect information or punctual support, was enough. Smartphones and new technologies revealed themselves essential tools for the organization and success of their journey to Germany as questions on the role of third agent showed.
The answers given were quite heterogeneous. And the importance given to an existing network differ from a respondent to another. Three participants answered that they had family in Germany, O and W had uncles in Düsseldorf and Berlin, while F had a brother in Stuttgart. However, all of them had family elsewhere in Europe and still decided to come to Germany. Furthermore, only two of these respondents stipulated choosing Germany and Berlin because of their uncle there. As for friends, although four out of fives participant mentioned having friends in Europe, and even in the case of W admitted coming to Europe after talking to them, none of them seems to have tried to join them. Regarding to the presence of a big compatriot community or followers of the same religion this does not seem to have play a role. Although, some of them acknowledge knowing that a lot of Syrian were currently seeking asylum in Germany and Europe in general, most of them declared that he did not play a role in their decision making. They were not looking for a community to integrate, but a place to start a new life. So network theories, who predict that asylum seekers often go where ever they have a good established network in order to facilitate their transition and be able to rely on their help does not seem to apply here. Or at least, this network does not need to be present in the same city. All of the participant had smartphone and mentioned the use of communication application such as what’s app as precious tool throughout their journey. For many of them the remote access to this network, to collect information or punctual support, was enough. Smartphones and new technologies revealed themselves essential tools for the organization and success of their journey to Germany as questions on the role of third agent showed.
Role of Smugglers
Previous
researches on the decision making process of asylum seekers and migrants had
shown that the choice of destination country was often not up to them but
depended on their smuggling agent (Robinson & Segrott, 2002; Havinga &
Böcker, 1999). It was therefore essential for me to see if that was still the
case. Hence, I dedicated several questions to this aspect of the participants’
story. The interviews actually often started with them telling me about their
journey to Berlin. I then asked them more details about who they traveled with
or how they found the smugglers. All of the participants were helped by third
persons in their journey. But the involvement of smugglers was very different
for each of them. For O the help of a third person was reduced to the one of a
fellow interuniversalist in Iran, who provided him and his mother with visas et
plane ticket for Paris. M also never paid for assistance but was helped by
another refugee established in Greece after having worked for him several
months. Meanwhile W. had to seek the assistance of smugglers to be able to
reach Europe and actually found them on Facebook, where smuggling networks
advertise there services on specific pages. But once in Europe, he then pursued
his trip on its own. F. and L. at the contrary, relied on the service of agents
for their entire trip.
So,
relying on smugglers is a common practice and most of the time a necessity for
asylum seekers who cannot enter Europe the legal way[9]. However, none of the
participants’ contributions showed that they influenced their decision. As a
matter of fact, respondents were all very aware of the criminality, they were
engaging themselves in by dealing with smugglers. W witnessed a murder, all of
them condemned the inhuman treatments they received and the way the Arabic
community was taking advantage of
them. They already entrusted them to
take them to their destination but would probably never trust them to advise
them where to go to start a new life. Even when limited by their budget, such
as M was, they preferred looking for other alternatives than to review their
choice and adapt it to the price offered by smugglers to take them to another
country.
Results
With
my questionnaire I wanted to learn more about the decision making process of
asylum seekers coming from the Middle East. I wanted in particular to show
whether the importance of previous knowledge on Germany, the existence of a
network and the role of smuggling agents had evolved since the early 2000`s
when similar researches were made. These researches had shown that many
refugees did not have a real possibility to choose their destination country.
Often pressured to leave there home suddenly they did not dispose of the
necessary time to evaluate their options and had to rely on the advice of
smuggling agents. Nowadays, the situation seams to have completely reverse
itself. Although the decision to leave is still a quite spontaneous one, asylum
seekers take time during their journey to weigh their options. The main factors
influencing their decision appear to be the facility for them to start a new
life, to have a future and be “a normal person”[10] .
Research
with this sample of five very different people shows that nowadays, smugglers
do not have the same advantages as they did before. It also conveys that asylum
seekers rely differently on existing networks than they did before. They are
not their only source of information or support anymore. People leaves their
home reluctantly, because they do not see hopes for a normal life there anymore
and are tired of just surviving in terrible condition[11]. They then gave up
everything they once had to venture on a life-threatening journey, and are not
ready to risk any more things by trusting the wrong person or depending on
unreliable information. Nevertheless, my conversation with these five people,
getting to know them and to share a bit of their life revealed that they had
not giving up their optimism, hopes and dreams. They remained particularly strong
willing. When I mentioned my impression to M, he confessed that looking forward
was the only way for him to cope with the difficulty he went through. L
repeatedly said that without the thought of her children, she would never have
succeeded. Overall the results of this study lay bare new realities and
characteristics of migration and people movements, which are symptomatic for
the evolution of societies all around the world during the past decades. These
changes are worth looking into in the conclusion of this paper.
Conclusion: the refugees, just normal migrants like me.
The
goal of this paper was to confront fifteen years old findings on the reasons
behind refugees’ choice of asylum country, with the reasons for current asylum
seekers to come to a specific country, Germany. As described before the factors playing a role
in their decision process are not the same than fifteen years ago. The guided
conversation led for this paper brought to light the important role of social
media and new technologies in the decision making process of contemporary
asylum seekers. All of them have a smartphone connected to the internet and
have access to information anywhere and any when. They talk with their family
and friends all over the world on a daily basis thanks to application such as
what’s app, compare smugglers and stay connected to their network on Facebook,
book their journey to foreign countries on blablacar, meet locals on Tinders,
communicate in unknown foreign languages via instant translators. Within only fifteen
years, the world has grown smaller and access to information made easier.
People can see what each country have to offer and can make their choice
accordingly. Furthermore, all of my interviewees had studied and bright future
ahead of them in their home countries. Our discussions showed that they may
have had to give up their home but were not ready to give up their dreams and
future. In 1995, Barsky wondered why someone who had suffered in his/her home
country should settle for a less optimal option, why they should decide less
rationalistically than a Canadian would and the question is still actual. Their
knowledge on European countries and possible destination may have been limited
when leaving their home country, but was completed via research made during
their journey. Moore (2013) diagnosed the commonality of the use of the
expression “asylum shopping” in British media as a symptom of Bauman’s liquid
modernity. The research conducted for this paper made clear that asylum seekers
are indeed confronted to a multiple choice of destinations and have to select
the country according to their aspiration for the future. They are indeed
acting as consumer looking for the best deal possible. However, more than a
symptom of the Western Europe’s liquid modernity, this can be perceived as a
sign of the liquid modernity phase, origin countries have entered. It has been
shown before by academic researches that developing countries were more likely
to be at the origin of migrants and refugees’ flows than third world countries.
Asylum seekers are now not different from any modern western European consumers
and migrants “operating above all as
entrepreneurs of the self” (Ibid, p 361). Despite racist discourses,
claiming that migrants from Arabic countries are not culturally apt of adapting
to the European culture and way of life, the determination of asylum seekers to
make it in Europe and their consumerist, post modern and very western attitudes
seems to show otherwise.
Bibliography:
Barsky ,R F. (1995), Arguing the American Dream a la
Canada: Former Soviet Citizens'Justification for their Choice of Host Country, Journal of Refugees Studies VoL 8. No2
Barthel F, & Neumayer, E (2015), Spatial
Dependence in Asylum Migration, Journal
of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 41:7, 1131-1151
Bijleveld C, A.P. Taselaar (2000/2), Motieven van
asielzoekers om naar Nederland te komen, Verslag van een expert meeting, Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek- en
Documentatiecentrum
Brian, T
& Laczko, F (2014), Fatal Journeys Tracking Lives Lost during Migration, International Organization for Migration
(IOM)
CIMADE, (2010), Voyage au centre de l'asile Enquête sur
la procédure de détermination d'asile, Rapport
d’observation
Collyer, M Dr (2005), When Do Social Networks Fail to
Explain Migration? Accounting for the Movement of Algerian Asylum-Seekers to
the UK, Journal of Ethnic and Migration
Studies, 31:4, 699-718
Goodman and All (2014) “I’m not happy, but I’m OK”, Critical Discourse Studies, 11:1, 19-34
Guiraudon, V (2013), « L'Europe et les réfugiés : une
politique peu solidaire », Pouvoirs,n°
144
Guiraudon, V (2010), « Les effets de l'européanisation
des politiques d'immigration et d'asile », Politique
européenne, n° 31, p. 7-32
Hatton T.J & Williamson, J.G (2004), Refugees,
Asylum Seekers and Policy in Europe, Discussion
Paper No. 1230
Havinga, T & Böcker, A (1999), Country of asylum
by choice or by chance: Asylum‐seekers in
Belgium, the Netherlands and the UK, Journal
of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 25:1, 43-61
Inhetveen, K (2012), Translation Challenges:
Qualitative Interviewing in a Multi-Lingual Field, Qualitative Sociology Review, Volume VIII Issue 2.
Kabranian-Melkonian, S (2015), Ethical Concerns With
Refugee Research, Journal of Human
Behavior in the Social Environment,
Lavenex, S (2001), The Europeanization of Refugee
Policies: Normative Challenges and Institutional Legacies, Journal of Common Market Studies, Vol. 39, No. 5, pp. 851–74
Mackenzie, C, Pittaway, E, McDowell, C (2007), Beyond
‘Do No Harm’: The Challenge of Constructing Ethical Relationships in Refugee
Research, Journal of Refugee Studies
Vol. 20, No. 2
Monforte, P (2010), « Le secteur associatif face aux
politiques européennes d'immigration et d'asile.» Quels acteurs pour quels
modes d'européanisation ?, Politique
européenne, n° 31, p. 119-145
Moore, K (2013), ‘Asylum shopping’ in the neoliberal
social imaginary, Media, Culture &
Society 35(3) 348 –365
Neumayer, E (2004), Asylum Destination Choice, What
Makes Some West European Countries More Attractive Than Others?, European Union Politics, Volume 5 (2):
155–180
Neumayer, E (2005), Bogus Refugees? The Determinants
of Asylum Migration to Western Europe,
International Studies Quarter, Vol 49, No 3
Robinson, V and Segrott, J (2002), Understanding the
decision-making of asylum seekers, Home Office Research, Development and Statistics Directorate
Rinne, U &
Zimmermann, K (2015), Zutritt zur Festung Europa? Anforderungen an eine moderne
Asyl- und Flüchtlingspolitik, ZBW – Leibniz-Informationszentrum
Wirtschaft, Wirtschaftsdienst
Spire, A (2007), « L'asile au guichet » La dépolitisation
du droit des étrangers par le travail bureaucratique, Actes de la recherche en sciences sociales, n° 169, p. 4-21
Thielemann, E (2004), Why Asylum Policy Harmonisation
Undermines Refugee Burden-Sharing, European
Journal of Migration and Law 6: 47–65
UNHCR, (1951), Convention
and protocol relating to the status of refugees, Text of the 1951
Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees
Website of the Refugee Council of Australia: FAQ: What is the difference between a
refugee and an asylum seeker, accessed on the 16.07.2015 on http://www.refugeecouncil.org.au/fact-sheets/faqs/faq-info-about-refugees-asylum-seekers-and-australias-refugee-and-humanitarian-program/
Website of the Irish Refugee Council, Drop-in Center: Information, accessed
the 16.07.2015 on http://www.irishrefugeecouncil.ie/information-and-referral-service/law-centre-information
Website of Immigration Assist. English Immigration and
Visa Information, article: “What is an immigrant?” accessed the 16.07.15 on: http://www.immigrationassist.co.uk/immigration/what-is-an-immigrant/
Website of the IFRC, article “what is a migrant”
accessed the 16.07.2015 on:
http://www.ifrc.org/en/what-we-do/migration/what-is-a-migrant/#sthash.qiBdVboW.dpuf
Website of the Migration Observatory of the University
of Oxford “Who counts as a migrant? Definition and Consequences” published the
1 of August 2014 and accessed the 16.07.15 on
Withol de Wenden,
C (2010), La question migratoire au XXIe siècle. Migrants, réfugiés et
relations internationales, Paris, Presses de Sciences Po
[2]Website of the IFRC,
article “what is a migrant” accessed the 16.07.2015 on:
http://www.ifrc.org/en/what-we-do/migration/what-is-a-migrant/#sthash.qiBdVboW.dpuf
[3] Glossary of the UNESCO
website on International Migration and Multicultural Policies: accessed the
16.07.15 on: http://www.unesco.org/most/migration/glossary_migrants.htm
Website of the UNESCO article on International Migration Convention accessed the 16.07.2015 on: http://www.unesco.org/new/en/social-and-human-sciences/themes/international-migration/international-migration-convention/
Website of the UNESCO article on International Migration Convention accessed the 16.07.2015 on: http://www.unesco.org/new/en/social-and-human-sciences/themes/international-migration/international-migration-convention/
[4] Website of the UNHCR,
article “asylum seekers”, accessed the 16.07.2015 on
http://www.unhcr.org/pages/49c3646c137.html
[5] In Australia: Website of
the Refugee Council of Australia: FAQ: What is the difference between a refugee
and an asylum seeker, accessed on the 16.07.2015 on http://www.refugeecouncil.org.au/fact-sheets/faqs/faq-info-about-refugees-asylum-seekers-and-australias-refugee-and-humanitarian-program/
In Ireland and more
generally in Europe: Website of the Irish Refugee Council, accessed the
16.07.2015 on
http://www.irishrefugeecouncil.ie/information-and-referral-service/law-centre-information
[6] The content of the interviews also supports this fact.
In interview 1, W explain how his friends exaggerated and idealized life in
Europe. Minute 32:28 and 32:57. The importance of following a dream is visible
in interview 4, M. mentioned “having a dream” has a reason to leave Syria:
minute 8:08
[7] Smartphone user penetration as percentage of total
global population from 2011 to 2018*accessed the 03.09.2015 on http://www.statista.com/statistics/203734/global-smartphone-penetration-per-capita-since-2005/
[8] This participant, although not fitting the sample
group defined, allow to justify the choice of my sample group as it highlighted
the “children factor”. Indeed, preliminary research showed that for parents the
well being and future of their children trump any other variables.
[9] F also stresses the fact
that he needed help to leave Damascus and go through the numerous checkpoints.
[10] Interview 3 with F. He
used several time the expression “to be an efficient Person” (“ein effizienter
Mensch”)
[11] F and L mentioned having
waited so long to leave because at first they only expected the war to last a
couple of month.
Author
Frédérique Lang, MA European Studies
Bitte diesen Beitrag wie folgt zitieren: Frédérique Lang (2016): Reasons behind the decision of asylum seekers from the Middle East to choose Germany as a final destination. In: Gökce Yurdakul, Regina Römhild, Anja
Schwanhäußer, Birgit zur Nieden, Aleksandra Lakic (Hg.): E-Book Project of Humboldt-University Students: Witnessing the
Transition: Refugees, Asylum-Seekers and Migrants in Transnational
Perspective. Preview (Weblog),
https://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=863130166696833325#editor/target=post;postID=3697950972162993466;onPublishedMenu=allposts;onClosedMenu=allposts;postNum=0;src=link
Keine Kommentare:
Kommentar veröffentlichen