Migration Management and its Discontents - Victor Piché
For two days, on November 12 and 13 2010, some 30 scholars met at the University of Osnabrück’s IMIS (Institute for Migration and Intercultural Studies), in Germany, to critically appraise the now widely used concept of migration management. The workshop, put together by Martin Geiger and Antoine Pécoud, was intended to pursue the critical approach developed in their recently edited book on “The Politics of International Migration Management” (Palgrave, Macmillan, 2010). The workshop was truly interdisciplinary with a wide array of specialists coming from the usual social sciences involved in international migration research (sociology and demography), but also from political science and law (a good third of the panelists), with an important contribution by anthropology. The latter discipline is particularly useful as it brings to the field of migration management new “insights from within”, based on ethnographic fieldwork within organizations.
It must be outlined at the outset that the migration management framework is particularly Eurocentric and that most presentations dealt directly or indirectly with European Union policy concerns. No paper dealt with the United States and only one paper presented a critical analysis of temporary programs in Canada. One reason why the migration management framework is less discussed in North America can be that international migration policy-making has been around for a longer period of time than in Europe.
Three main questions or issues prevailed during the workshop. The first one involved a critical assessment of the migration management discourse. In the words of Bimal Gosh, the founder of this new approach (and who was present at the workshop), migration management means managing for more orderly, predictable and human objectives, and to achieve these objectives, there is a need for a global governance migration regime. Migration management is based on one essential premise: namely that migration, if well managed, can be positive and positive for all, i.e. countries of origin, countries of destination and migrants themselves (thus the “win-win-win” slogan). But for many critics, migration management as a paradigm purports to diffuse a hegemonic worldview that migration is a normal feature of today’s globalized world and is largely an expression of European power. This framework has emerged within the context of European Union concerns with irregular migration perceived as a threat and considered difficult to manage given the extension of borders under the different treaties involved.
The second main question was: what does migration management mean in practice? In the context of the main concern with irregular migration, operational aspects of migration management policies cover three important dimensions. The first dimension has to do with more effective control of borders and involve basically the process of de-territorialization whereby migrants are intercepted before gaining access to European Union countries, what has been labeled “preventive refoulement”. The second dimension involves third states, mostly some weak states such as Albania and Greece, which are pressured to develop migration policies more attuned to effective border controls. This approach also involves alliances with transit countries such as Morocco and Libya, which are asked to curtail illegal emigration and where migrants are send back when intercepted. The third dimension refers to co-development programs aiming at stopping emigration pressures from countries such as Senegal, programs criticized for being developed with exclusive EU interests.
Finally, the third issue, very present in most presentations, dealt with a critical appraisal of International Organizations, mainly the International Organization for Migration (IOM), which was the target of many discontents. There was consensus that IOM, an inter-governmental organization, plays a significant role in diffusing the migration management discourse and in contributing to exacerbate the distinction between illegal and legal migration, allowing for the criminalization of unwanted migration. Furthermore, given the sensitive issues involved in international migration, EU members often transfer their responsibilities to these international organizations and ask them to pursue their objectives. But, as one author asked: migration management for the benefit of all or for the benefit of some?
Although the workshop could not cover all aspects of international migration policies and programs, one dimension little discussed was the human rights perspective involved in the migration management paradigm. In particular, this paradigm conveys the notion that temporary programs are best suited for a win-win-win strategy, even though they can represent a worst-case scenario for migrants’ rights.
