Introduction

In recent months, Frontex has come under increasing criticism due to its responsibilities and links to human rights violations against migrants heading towards the European Union. However, it is possible that the seriousness of the matter is not perceived by the public, despite the denunciations of civil society organizations and even UN agencies.

Unfortunately, it is possible that Frontex’s actions, far from being a deviation from its mandate, clearly respond to European Union policy, especially in the context of the rise of extreme right-wing movements with access to spaces of power, as well as with the consolidation of an Islamophobic vision derived from the 2015 refugee crisis and the terrorist attacks perpetrated on European soil in recent years.

In the following, a brief reference will be made to Frontex, as well as to the Schengen Treaty on which it is based. We will then go on to briefly review the performance of Frontex over the last few months, in line with the complaints that have been made public in the press. Finally, we will give an account of the reaction of the European institutions to the criticisms received.

¿What is Frontex?

It is the European Border and Coast Guard Agency, which was created in 2004 and reformed only in 2016, in order to extend its functions to surveillance and rescue tasks with its own personnel. It is made up of the various security bodies of the Schengen Treaty member nations with border control responsibilities, in addition to its own personnel and equipment. Among its tasks is the collection and sending of information to the security forces of member countries, analysis of vulnerabilities of the external borders with special emphasis on the risks of terrorism and cross-border crime, among others [1].

In turn, the Schengen Treaty is the legal instrument that allows many European countries to share border control procedures. Although the Schengen Treaty dates back to 1985, it was not until March 1993 that it came into force for the first group of countries, including Belgium, the Netherlands, Luxembourg, Germany, France, Italy and Spain [1].

The text of this treaty establishes the concepts of internal and external borders. Thus, internal borders are those shared by two-member countries of the treaty, as well as airports and ports, provided that the points of origin and destination of travel are within the territories of the member countries. External borders are defined by corollary, so that we are talking about the boundaries between member countries and non-member countries [1].

This imposes a substantive change in the traditional conception of borders, which has enormous consequences from the administrative point of view. From then on, the member states of the Schengen Treaty will reorganize the control and surveillance of their borders, as well as everything related to the granting of visas, with a single codification, the creation of a list of inadmissible persons, among others [1].

Likewise, the member countries ceased to carry out surveillance and control tasks on their common borders, while concentrating personnel and resources on greater control of their external borders. Thus, instead of devoting efforts to controlling the border between France and Spain, or between Germany and the Netherlands, the focus was on the Mediterranean basin, the Balkans or Eastern Europe.

In principle, neither the Schengen Treaty nor Frontex should pose any human rights problems, except for the fact that the control and surveillance of external borders have been based exclusively on a conception centered on security, on the prevention of terrorism and transnational crime, as well as on a markedly racist and aporophobic vision, while considerations of people’s rights to seek asylum or refuge, and even to be treated in accordance with the law, have been relegated to the background.

 Over the last five years, and as a consequence of the reform, Frontex has evolved from a coordination mechanism between police forces to a multinational security force in its own right, with its own identity, which has not gone unnoticed by those committed to the protection of human rights [2].

A report by the Pro Causa Foundation reported in June that Frontex went from having 50 employees and 6 million euros in budget in 2005 to becoming the decentralized EU agency with the most staff and the largest budget in the European Union, with a total of 1,200 employees and the management of 460 million euros. The Foundation complains that Frontex “seems to have taken on a life of its own, acting without transparency or control, taking over executive functions from member states and turning the securitization of migration into a self-fulfilling prophecy,” and adds that the agency has embarked on recruiting, deploying and equipping (including weapons) 10,000 border guards [3].

¿What is the problem with Frontex?

Frontex is the enforcement arm of EU migration policy, and is responsible for coordinating, promoting or executing clearly illegal actions of force against irregular migrants trying to enter European territory.

According to the Abolition of Frontex network, an estimated 45,000 people have died between 1993 and 2021 due, directly or indirectly, to the actions of this agency, as well as associated law enforcement agencies in each member country [4], which can be broken down as follows:

• People drowned in the Mediterranean Sea or in the Aegean due to a combination of factors such as the use of unsuitable vessels, the refusal to provide support or coordinate rescue actions at sea, the obstacles encountered by nongovernmental rescue organizations and hot returns. The estimates do not consider the so-called invisibles sinking’s, which are not reported.

• The suicides that many people commit due to the desperate situations in which they find themselves as a result of refoulement in highly vulnerable conditions and internment in detention centers.

• People killed as a result of shooting at the external borders. This estimate does not include those people who could have been killed by shots fired by the Libyan coast guard, a country that has agreements for migration control with the European Union, in exchange for money [5] [6]. In 2020, due to the situation generated by the pandemic, the number of asylum applications in EU countries fell to 2013 levels, before the refugee crisis resulting from the war in Syria. However, the flow of migrants through the Balkans increased, due to the large number of people being held beyond the external borders. The enormous difficulties for the transit of these migrants, as well as the appalling conditions in which they survive, are nothing but the consequences of an iron control device installed by countries such as Hungary and Croatia on their respective borders with Serbia, among other cases, all with the support of Frontex [7].

The non-governmental organization Save the Children recently denounced that Croatian police are involved in the use of violence against migrant minors, as well as in the murder of at least one of them, in transit to the European Union, which is particularly serious [8].

Even more serious are reports of forcible returns by Greek border authorities at Evros, the land border between Turkey and Greece. According to an Amnesty International report, hundreds of people have been forcibly returned between June and December 2020. It is known that there is a strong Frontex presence in this area which supports the Greek authorities in some way [9].

In addition, the Greek authorities are also accused by the Turkish government of preventing boats with migrants from reaching their shores, leaving them adrift and in danger of sinking. On occasion, the Greek coast guard has disabled boats to prevent their movement, leaving people to their fate [10].

These unlawful actions have attracted the attention of multilateral organizations. Recently, the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, Filippo Grandi, pointed out that certain actions were undermining Europe’s reputation, referring to the illegal and indiscriminate refoulement of migrants at the Union’s external borders [11].

¿What is the EU doing in relation to Frontex?

However, in view of this situation, it is worth questioning the EU’s plans in relation to migration. Far from taking note of reports of human rights violations against migrants, and taking measures to ensure their protection, there have been certain restrictions on the movement of people at internal borders, given the increase in the number of asylum seekers since 2015, which compromises the economic functioning of the Union. Due to this situation, there are plans to strengthen the external borders through Frontex with a state-of-the-art digital entry and exit system, as well as more cooperation between police and national security agencies, all aimed at increasing confidence in each member country that the others are ensuring common security in the face of threats such as terrorism and transnational crime [12].

Technology seems to be the most relevant change that will be experienced in relation to external borders in the coming years. Currently, at the border between Greece and Turkey, as well as in countries such as Latvia and Hungary, a security network is being tested with long-range cameras and night vision, as well as different sensors whose information will be analyzed through artificial intelligence to detect movement of people on land, or boats at sea. Likewise, lie detectors with artificial intelligence, automated border interview systems, integration of satellite images with images taken by drones on land, in the air and under the sea, as well as biometric readers that register the pattern of the veins in people’s hands for their correct identification have been tested. This is a set of projects for which the EU has invested more than 3 billion euros in research into security technologies that will make it increasingly difficult for asylum seekers to reach safety [13].

On the positive news side for migrants. The European Commission launched a program called “Partnerships for Talent”, through which it seeks to address the shortage of skilled labor to boost innovation [13]. Unfortunately, those we have been talking about are precisely the poor and low-skilled migrants, victims of human rights violations by Frontex, and who are likely to continue to receive the same treatment as they have to date.

Endnote

The future of Frontex’s performance does not give cause for optimism. There is no indication that the EU is reviewing in depth the allegations against Frontex in relation to the violation of human rights of migrants. On the contrary, a reinforcement of the agency’s capacities to effectively prevent irregular migration is announced, as well as the practical impossibility to apply for asylum in the EU.

Greater technological sophistication for the detection of irregular migrants will not prevent them from continuing to try to reach European territory, but the ways of gaining access will certainly be much costlier, and above all much more dangerous for the personal integrity and lives of people, including women and children under 18 years of age.

So, unfortunately, we will continue to see the consequences of a policy focused on security within borders, as well as the dehumanization of migrants and refugees from Africa and Asia.

Due to this situation, at Argos we advocate for a profound change in the European Union’s migration policy, and we join the campaign promoted by the Abolish Frontex Network, as well as many other organizations in solidarity with migrants and refugees around the world.

References

[1] http://www.interior.gob.es/web/servicios-al-ciudadano/ normativa/acuerdos-y-convenios/acuerdo-de-adhesion-deespana-de-25-de-junio-de-1

[2] https://apnews.com/article/noticias-b180ecee22689d0 6b7630014694f2b78

[3] https://www.eldia.es/canarias/2021/06/17/canarias-siguelampedusa-limbo-migrantes-53671814.html

[4] https://www.dailysabah.com/politics/eu-affairs/ngoslaunch-campaign-for-abolition-of-eu-

 [5] https://www.swissinfo.ch/spa/crisis-migratoriamediterr%C3%A1neo_fiscal%C3%ADa-italiana-investigadisparos-de-guardia-costera-libia-a-migrantes/46757378

[6] https://apnews.com/article/8ea6dbded43d36efe61ed9 ececbcb84b

[7] https://elpais.com/internacional/2021-06-29/lassolicitudes-de-asilo-en-la-ue-se-desploman-a-niveles-de-2013. html

[8] https://www.swissinfo.ch/spa/europamigraci%C3%B3n_save-the-children–cientos-deni%C3%B1os-sufren-violencia-en-fronteras-deeuropa/46712178

[9] https://www.swissinfo.ch/spa/grecia-refugiados_aidenuncia-a-grecia-por-las-sistem%C3%A1ticas-devolucionesilegales-de-migrantes/46727382

[10] https://www.europapress.es/internacional/noticiaturquia-rescata-cien-migrantes-frente-costas-maregeo-20210622153049.html

[11] https://www.nacion.com/cables/acnur-pide-a-paiseseuropeos-que-cesen-devolucion/2RPEPAQJTBA7DPREJS AGI5KAJA/story/

[12] https://www.diariolasamericas.com/mundo/ union-europea-planea-reformar-zona-cruces-libresfronteras-n4224334

[13] https://www.swissinfo.ch/spa/ue-migraci%C3%B3n_lace-lanza-una-iniciativa-para-atraer-migraci%C3%B3n-laboralcualificada-a-la-ue/46697732

To speak of human mobility is to speak of stories of change, transformation, flight, rescue, encounters and misencounters. Likewise, to approach the information generated on the permanent migratory flows around the planet is to come across statistics that move the soul, trigger alarms and reveal a stark reality: the death of hundreds of migrants in their attempt to find a new life.

Continue reading “Deaths in the Mediterranean: among the violence of war, the danger of the sea and the neglect of the authorities”

Beyond the conflictive past between Christians and Muslims, as well as the most recent colonialist experience, the relationship between Europe and Islam is currently nourished by the conflicts between Muslim-majority countries and Western powers during the second half of the 20th century, in the first place.  Then there is the phenomenon of migrations originating in these countries, with Europe as one of their main migratory destinations, as well as the growing stigmatization, since the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, of Muslim people, or people coming from Muslim-majority countries without necessarily being practitioners of that religion.

The current chapter of Islamophobia in Europe accelerated substantially with the refugee crisis that started in 2015 as a result of the intensification of the civil war in Syria, a conflict ironically spurred by member countries of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, and which by then intensified with the expansion of the so-called Islamic State.  

In parallel, the terrorist attacks that took place in Paris also in 2015, one at the Bataclan theater and the other at the headquarters of the satirical weekly magazine Charlie Hebdo, as well as many other episodes of this nature that have been recorded in various countries of the European Union during the last two decades, have only reinforced the identification of the Muslim population with terrorism. The next step is the identification of these same people with immigration, despite the fact that a significant part of European Muslims were born in Europe.

Most worryingly, this whole process goes hand in hand with the growing popularity of extreme right-wing parties and movements in countries throughout the Western world, including northern, southern and eastern European countries. Numerous extreme right-wing groups throughout Europe are united in their rejection of immigrants of the Islamic religion, such as the Identitarian Movement and Generation Identity, among other groups, and they tend to spread to various countries in the region.

Likewise, the emergence and strengthening of political parties with access to spaces of power, such as Alternative für Deutschland in Germany, Vox in Spain, Rassemblement National in France, the Lega in Italy, etc., is observed with concern.

The case of Vox is very transparent in identifying Islam with terrorism. In the recent Catalan election campaign of 2021, the party published a video in which images of construction of mosques and Islamic religion classes in schools follow one after the other with images of the August 2017 attack that occurred on the Ramblas in Barcelona. Thus, the full identification between religion, childhood and criminal behavior that seeks to alarm the population and predispose it against a particular human group is transmitted¹.

More worrying is when extremist and Islamophobic political parties actually form governments, and push their reform agendas. Viktor Orban in Hungary is one case. His government had no problem expelling refugees from Syria, and penalizing with imprisonment anyone who helped undocumented people to apply for asylum. Regarding refugees from Muslim-majority countries, they were considered by the Executive as invaders, and claim the right as a country to refuse to receive Muslims. 

However, expressions compatible with Islamophobia, sometimes camouflaged as security policies, are not exclusive to extreme right-wing movements. On the contrary, parties considered democratic have certainly taken actions to try to contain or control the daily life of Islamic communities where immigrants live.

The control, supervision and closure of mosques are not considered outrageous actions when taken by governments of indisputably democratic parties, even though this could be a clear violation of the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion, established in Article 18 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. A recent case of mosque closures occurred in France following the murder of Professor Samuel Paty in October 2020, but since 2015 about thirty mosques have been closed already². On these actions, the question always arises as to whether this type of collective punishment is appropriate and just, or whether it is simply retaliation incompatible with the rule of law.

Particularly symptomatic of a conflictive relationship with Islam in Europe is the banning of the full-face veil, with varying degrees of severity, in a dozen countries of the continent, but led by France and Belgium, which imposed their respective legislation in this regard since 2010. Likewise, we have the prohibition of wearing religious symbols in certain public spaces, which, although affecting practitioners of any religion, was specifically motivated by the political agenda aimed at controlling the behavior of members of Islamic communities.

More recently, the discussion on Islamic separatism in France highlights a potential source of discord between social groups belonging to the same national body, where the Muslim profession of faith, present in about six million people in that country, is intimately related to immigration, as well as to the real difficulties for their social integration. The fight against Islamic separatism, promoted by President Macron, meets with resistance among spokesmen of the Muslim community. In such a way that the French government has been promoting regulations to exercise strict control over the financing of mosques, as well as greater surveillance of sports or cultural organizations of Muslim communities, which does not seem to indicate that there is a harmonious coexistence. It is also true that President Macron himself recognizes a share of responsibility of the State in the isolation of certain communities³. 

Specifically in relation to the stigmatization of Muslims, it is striking that often members of the resident Islamic communities or citizens of European countries are compelled to apologize for crimes committed by their terrorist co-religionists, whereas criminal responsibilities are supposed to be individual. This treatment is not usually applied to terrorists when they profess some variant of Christianity, and whose attacks have also been recorded in recent years.

To a large extent, what is reflected here is an uneasy relationship between Europe and Muslim people, whether they are migrants or not, but this debate has consequences for the reception and integration of new migrants or refugees from Muslim-majority countries.

This conflictive situation is not on the verge of a solution in the short term. To a large extent, the difficulties in integrating the immigrant population, whatever their origin, could be at the root of this situation. In the end, what is at stake is the full enjoyment of human rights for everyone, and more specifically, guaranteeing the enjoyment of civil and political rights, as well as economic, social and cultural rights of immigrant communities in the European Union.

Finally, it would be advisable to treat terrorist actions in a more balanced way, making it clear at all times that they are the responsibility of individuals who must be tried and sentenced according to the law, just as manifestations of terrorism coming from other social groups or other political orientations are usually treated, and to avoid stigmatizing entire communities that generally comply with the law of the countries in which they live.  

References

1 Available at: https://elpais.com/espana/2021-01-28/twitter-cierra-la-cuenta-de-vox-por-incitar-al-odio-contra-los-musulmanes.html

2 Available at: https://elpais.com/internacional/2020-10-24/francia-pone-las-mezquitas-bajo-la-lupa.html

3 Available at: https://www.bbc.com/mundo/noticias-54621839

Looking at human mobility towards Europe involves the exercise of looking at the big picture, and then zooming in on very particular realities and the very concrete dynamics that affect day-to-day life. First of all, Europe, and especially its western part, has become a privileged migratory destination in the world since the middle of the 20th century, once the post-war crisis was overcome. More recently, the countries of southern Europe have also become migratory destinations, as well as obligatory transit points for those moving from Africa and also from the Middle East, Central and East Asia to the more advanced economies of the north of the continent.

Beyond how the different waves of migration have been able to reach Europe, settle and integrate into the host communities, a particular concern is the extent to which the increasing restrictions and controls on entry to European countries increase the risks of migratory displacement to levels that jeopardize the human rights of migrants, with a deterrent intention of debatable results. This excess of restrictions and controls may be forcing more and more people to cross the Mediterranean Sea in fragile boats, to cross European roads in trucks not suitable for transporting people, and even to board containers of goods, in all cases at great risk.

Within the drama of human mobility in Europe, the situation of refugees and the European Union’s migration policies stand out. A good part of the people who enter Europe seeking refuge do so by fleeing situations that have been spurred or directly provoked by military interventions by countries of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO). Such are the cases of Libya, Syria, Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as other complex political situations.

While it is true that most European Union countries have accepted the implementation of a quota mechanism for refugees, the blocking of this policy by the governments of countries such as Poland, the Czech Republic, Slovakia and Hungary only aggravates the situation of people who are confined in refugee camps that do not have the minimum conditions for a life with dignity and respect for human rights, particularly in Greece.

Likewise, the COVID-19 pandemic has only aggravated the situation of refugees and migrants in several ways. On the one hand, many shelters became centers for the spread of the virus, refugees and migrants have been stigmatized as carriers of the disease, and on top of that, the confinement measures, as well as their economic impact, have led to a decrease in the receipt of remittances in the countries of origin of migrants, which may have prompted many people from those nations to take the road to Europe towards the end of 2020, as suggested by the recent migrant crisis in the Canary Islands.

The restrictions adopted to contain the pandemic also meant the closure of ports, which is why many migrant rescue boats chartered by various European NGOs have been forced to wait weeks to be accepted in some Mediterranean port, with all that this entails in terms of supplies, exhaustion, conflicts among the rescued people, etc.

Another pressing problem is that of people who can be considered climate migrants, or those who leave their homes when they realize that climate change does not allow them to continue with their traditional economic activities, particularly agriculture, and who are forced to seek their livelihoods in better-off economies, but which are also usually the countries that contribute most to climate change itself, due to their high levels of consumption of energy and resources of all kinds.

A particularly worrying aspect of migrations in general, and those heading for Europe in particular, is the lack of knowledge we have of the true number of migrants whose movements go undetected by the authorities, and who possibly fall into the hands of mafias that set in motion processes marked by exploitation, violence and abuse, with the human rights violations that all this entails. It is currently assumed that some 110 thousand people cross the Mediterranean Sea every year to reach the coasts of the European Union, at least until 2019, but we do not know how many pass through without being quantified.

The World Organization for Migration has denounced the use of violence and practices such as mass expulsions that violate international law and human rights. Although they do not refer to any country in particular, many denunciations point to the serious situation that has been occurring along the Balkan route.

It has also been denounced that certain countries establish subtle mechanisms to avoid receiving refugees and migrants from Muslim-majority countries, which can only be described as a discriminatory policy based on religion or national origin.

A particularly dramatic situation, which should appeal to the consciences of European rulers, is the type of agreements, including funding, to the Libyan authorities to contain migration across the Mediterranean Sea. As volunteers on NGO rescue ships operating in the area have been denouncing, returning refugees to a country at war is a violation of international maritime law, and is completely unacceptable from a humanitarian point of view. The conditions in which migrants and refugees survive in Libya are completely unacceptable for democratic countries. Yet human rights violations are condoned as the price to be paid to prevent illegal migrations to Europe.

Despite this picture, there is also room for optimism. Numerous non-governmental organizations are making great efforts to rescue migrants on the high seas, the populations of many countries are aware of the need to assist those arriving in their countries, and justice systems often make decisions in favor of migrants, taking into account their fundamental rights. In the context of the pandemic, some countries have chosen to take measures in favor of illegal migrants, such as suspending deportations or issuing temporary general permits. It is also true that these measures have been taken in the context of a growing concern about the possible shortage of foreign workers for all kinds of jobs, but particularly for those considered essential.

The challenges of migration and refugee in Europe are numerous and require a consensual, coherent approach based on international humanitarian law and human rights, but above all a commitment by institutions, non-governmental organizations and citizens in general to solidarity and humanitarian assistance.

A general context

The European Union, together with the United States of America and other Western countries, have become migratory destinations for a large number of people who decide to migrate in search of better living conditions. Women represent in this regard a little more than half of the more than 80 million people who move to European countries, according to data from the Department of Economic and Social Affairs of the United Nations.

However, it should be taken under consideration that only about 30 million people were going specifically to EU countries, and they in turn came from non-EU countries. So, we have a large proportion of people, including women, migrating legally and safely. Therefore, it is unfortunate that this is not the case for all women who migrate.

Although migration to the European Union has been mainly male, it began to become more female dominated in the 1970s. By the 1990s, women were increasingly migrating independently and with their own migration project, rather than as part of family reunification requests¹.

Despite the fact that foreign women have been incorporated into the labor market since the first waves of post-war migration, immigrant women are still portrayed as low-skilled and engaged in housework, when the reality is often quite different. In countries belonging to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), immigrant women with university degrees represent only three percentage points less than immigrant men. In some countries, the proportion of migrant women with university degrees is even higher than that of native women².

Risks of migratory displacement

While it is known that a large part of the migration of women to the European Union is managed, conducted legally, and often encouraged by the receiving countries themselves, other women enter illegally, taking enormous risks to their lives and personal integrity.

As migration control policies become stricter, the risks of illegal entry increase enormously. Let us remember that those who move to the European Union in this way must do so through very complex geographies. Whether crossing the Mediterranean Sea or overland routes affected by the recent conflicts in the Middle East and North Africa, everyone runs great risks to reach their destination, even more so if they are women. Of particular concern is the Central Mediterranean route involving a passage through Libya, a country currently in the midst of a war, where migrants are often enslaved and used as legal tender, as has been reported in recent years.

In the particular case of women, it is known that many of them end up being victims of human trafficking networks, so that their arrival in European territory may be the beginning of an experience of enslavement, in this case of a sexual nature, a situation from which it is difficult to escape, at least in the short term. It is known that in the European Union, 71% of the victims of trafficking are women. Also, the most common form of trafficking in women is prostitution, 66% according to some sources, followed by labor exploitation³.

Labor market insertion of women

Migrant women tend to have the most difficulty in obtaining formal employment in European Union countries, which places them in a situation of greater vulnerability compared to male migrants and to any other category of people. In addition, the crisis generated by Covid-19 has manifested itself most strongly in immigrant women. It is known that the unemployment rate of this group in Spain is double that of native female workers. According to the Labour Force Survey, the unemployment rate for foreign or dual nationality women, who were generally employed in the service sector, was 29.4% at the end of 2020. This means that approximately half of the immigrant women in Spain lost their jobs. It should be noted that native women workers in that country had an unemployment rate of 15.7% in the same study.⁴.

However, the critical situation generated by the coronavirus only reinforced an earlier trend: migrant and refugee women have much more trouble finding a job in Europe, according to a study conducted in Spain, Italy, Austria and Greece in 2019⁵[4].

In the case of France, by 2017 there were 7.9 million immigrants, with women accounting for 51.8% of the total. Although this situation of female majority had been observed at least since 2008, it was not until 2014 that measures were taken to favor female employment in that country. However, it has been said that the limitations to improving the labor market insertion of women lie in language proficiency, ways of accessing employment and exposure to different forms of violence⁶[1].

The situation is somewhat better for those women who enter European territory through family reunification. Although they are not exempt from suffering from social exclusion and discrimination, they can at least take refuge in the family and community networks previously established, which seem to have been key to overcoming the difficulties derived from the Covid-19 pandemic.

With regard to the migration of women, it should be noted that the situations described above contrast with the conditions for women from EU countries to migrate to other countries also belonging to the bloc. In these cases, women’s migration is safe and probably more profitable in terms of social inclusion, personal development and the full enjoyment of human rights. One issue that gives many advantages to women from countries of the bloc is the ease of recognition of academic degrees, while migrant women face the non-recognition of their degrees, so that they must occupy positions below their abilities⁷ [1], or occupy positions in line with their abilities, but with lower salaries.

Women left behind

As migratory movements become longer and costlier, and the inclusion of immigrants in the labor market becomes more difficult, the women left behind must wait much longer to receive the longed-for assistance in the form of family remittances. Certainly, there are many known experiences of people, including women, who arrive in the country of migratory destination after several years. This situation is common to people moving from Africa, as well as those coming from different regions of Asia, from the Middle East to Southeast Asia. Others are less fortunate and do not make it to their destination alive.

In any case, this means that family members left behind in the countries of origin, often women, have little or no chance of receiving any help from their migrant relatives via remittances, which adds to the fact that they are no longer around to help in any other way.

Thus, the obstacles placed in the way of illegal immigration also increase the difficulties faced by family members in the countries of origin, especially women, the elderly and children.

As long as such difficulties continue over time, once they are old enough, it is likely that other young people will attempt to migrate, reproducing the dynamics of irregular immigration in Europe.

References

1 Available at: https://epale.ec.europa.eu/es/blog/linsertion-professionnelle-des-femmes-migrantes-en-france 

2 Available at: https://www.sacialwatch.org/es/node/11612

3 Available at: http://www.elperiodico.com/es/cuaderno/20200322/inefiCAR-İucha-trafico-mujeres-7697673

4 Available at: https://www.lavanguardia.com/economia/20210214/6246258/trabajadoras- inmigrantes-perdedoras-crisis-covid-coronavirus.html

5 Availabe at: https://www.lavanguardia.com/economia/20210214/6246258/trabajadoras- inmigrantes-perdedoras-crisis-covid-coronavirus.html

6 Available at: https://epale.ec.europa.eu/es/blog/linsertion-professionnelle-des-femmes-migrantes-en-france 

7 Available at: https://epale.ec.europa.eu/es/blog/linsertion-professionnelle-des-femmes-migrantes-en-france

Coronavirus, labor and migration

The Covid-19 pandemic has generated a series of consequences both in terms of migratory flows towards Europe, as well as in relation to the treatment that immigrants have received as a consequence of the application of confinement measures, the loss of jobs derived from the economic contraction of 2020 and, more recently, their inclusion in the vaccination plans of each country belonging to the European Union.

The economic contraction itself is a migration push factor, which can be felt in European economies. The United Kingdom, for example, has around 1.7 million unemployed people. Recently, it became evident that the British population is experiencing a drop in its population, closely related to the exodus that the pandemic has generated in the city of London. At least 1.3 million people are known to have left the country between the third quarter of 2019 and the third quarter of 2020, according to data from the Centre of Excellence for Economic Statistics. London alone has lost about 700 thousand inhabitants who have in common being born abroad¹. In this case, it should be noted that these figures include immigrants from European Union countries and from non-EU countries.

As has also been the case in countries such as Spain, migrants tend to be more vulnerable to job loss due to the type of work they tend to do, often in the service sector, which has generated some fears of labor shortages.

On the other hand, confinement measures pose a challenge for migrants in irregular situations. Strict confinement implied remaining without access to resources for the acquisition of food. This lack was solved with government aid for all populations, except for those groups of people who remained in irregular situations. In the case of Spain, the system for the reception of refugees, migrants and asylum seekers maintained the economic aid programs, and the protocol requiring the presentation of certain documents was even made more flexible for the duration of the state of alarm. However, these measures did not contemplate any type of provision in favor of illegal migrants without interaction with the reception system, which is why the mechanisms of solidarity among immigrants and aid from non-governmental organizations have been fundamental². 

Immigrants as carriers of the virus

The coronavirus has also been instrumentalized to try to further hinder the arrival of migrants across the Mediterranean Sea. Apart from the actual closure of ports, attempts have also been made to stigmatize the migrant population as carriers of the virus.

The debate between the protection of European citizenship and the rights of migrants only intensified during the most difficult periods of the pandemic. Thus, it was that in April 2020, the Italian government approved the closure of ports following the request for authorization to dock the ship Alan Kurdi, with 150 migrants, a measure that generated a situation of great chaos. It was from then on, that Italy began to provide boats for the migrants to spend a quarantine period before they could reach port, which was the alternative to the hot returns³. 

The interaction between the refugee camps, mainly in the Canary Islands and on the Greek island of Lesbos, and the coronavirus has led to real crises and situations of serious violation of the human rights of refugees. The fire that broke out in November 2020 in the Moria camp, when some 12,000 people were left homeless, including a significant proportion of women and children, put the solidarity of the governments of the different countries to the test. This situation was largely due to the reluctance of the members of the European Union to detain refugees in camps, thus preventing them from being transferred to other countries and from entering the respective reception systems. The pandemic crisis served largely as an excuse to prolong a situation that was clearly unsustainable, even though sufficient resources were available to prevent such events and to control the spread of the coronavirus⁴.

Vaccination of immigrants

The coronavirus crisis marked a break in solidarity between nations. During the first months of the pandemic, there were frequent reports of fierce disputes between countries over the control and seizure of protective equipment against the virus, particularly masks. More recently, we have witnessed a new chapter in the same story, but this time with newly developed vaccines, which ended up being controlled by the richest countries, leaving the others to wait. In this case, the warnings of experts have been ignored, who point out that in reality vaccination will only be effective if it is carried out in a globally coordinated manner.

In this regard, one might ask what is the disposition of the European Union in this regard. The European Commission issued recommendations for vaccination plans, including the consideration of refugees, particularly those in internment centers or camps. The European Center for Disease Control and Prevention was of a similar opinion, arguing that both migrants and refugees should be considered as vulnerable groups, and should be vaccinated.

However, compliance with these recommendations is not unanimous, although it is not yet known with certainty how each country will act, since not all of them have specified it in their plans. However, it is already known that the Polish government will only vaccinate foreigners with legal residence. While countries such as Germany, the Netherlands, France and Spain do include foreigners in their own plans. In addition, it is known that the Greek government, with the support of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, is making progress in vaccinating people staying in refugee camps in Greece⁵.

It can be concluded, after an observation of the processes in which the coronavirus interacts with migrants and refugees in the European Union, that there is no common policy to address the problem, so that some countries have shown much more solidarity and willingness to respect the human rights of these populations than others.

References

1 Available at: https://www.bbc.com/mundo/noticias-internacional-55855960

2 Available at: https://www.europapress.es/epsocial/migracion/noticia-gobierno-garantiza-ayudas-migrantes-refugiados-sistema-acogida-crisis-covid-19-20200320162745.html

3 Available at: https://www.efe.com/efe/espana/destacada/el-miedo-al-virus-no-viaja-en-patera/10011-4263093

4 Available at: https://www.efe.com/efe/espana/sociedad/unos-200-refugiados-entran-en-el-nuevo-campo-de-lesbos-las-primeras-24-horas/10004-4341671

5 Available at: https://www.lavanguardia.com/vida/20210210/6232388/paises-europeos-refugiados-vacunacion-covid.html

Before addressing the subject of migration statistics in the world, we must make reference to the numerous limitations that we can find for their elaboration, given the complexity of the phenomenon, since this population is permanently subjected to three factors that mark its dynamics: birth rate, mortality and the same mobility in which this group finds itself. These circumstances mean that the numbers we are talking about move every day, as births and deaths occur, as well as entries and exits from the national borders of all countries, regardless of their particular contexts.

States also face difficulties in detecting migrant flows, either because they lack the necessary capacity or because migrants themselves seek to evade controls when there is a risk of being detained or returned to their countries of origin.

Another limitation of the data is the legal differences within each country with respect to the definition of migrant. In some countries, it is sufficient for a person to be born within their territory to be considered a citizen. In other countries, nationality is only transmitted by the parents, so that people born within the borders of a country are considered foreigners. This means that certain ethnic groups may be stateless and therefore inadequately quantified as immigrants.

The Population Division of the Department of Economic and Social Affairs (DESA) of the United Nations (UN) has been publishing every two years information related to cumulative migration in all countries of the world, using the most reliable sources available [1].

Thus, as of mid-2019, the latest year available, there are 271.6 million migrants in the world, distributed as follows according to the income level of the countries of migratory destinations.

Table N° 1: Number of migrants by income level of destination country (2019)

COUNTRIES BY INCOME	MIGRANTS	RATE
High-income countries	175.811.829	49,75%
Middle-income countries	82.237.681	23,27%
Upper middle-income countries	54.279.436	15,36%
Lower middle-income countries	27.958.245	7,91%
Low-income countries	13.072.099	3,70%
Countries with no income information	520.496	0,15%
Total	353.359.290	100%

As can be seen in the table above, higher income countries account for almost half of the migrants registered worldwide, while middle, upper middle, upper middle, lower middle and lower middle income countries account for 50.25%. It is possible that an improvement in data quality would only increase this difference somewhat in favor of middle- and low-income countries, which may have migrant records with lower coverage.

On the other hand, in the following table we have the information on the destination of migrations according to continents. Thus, we have that:

Table N° 2: Migrants by destination continent (2019).

CONTINENT	MIGRANTS	RATE
Africa	26.529.334	9,77
Asia	83.559.197	30,76
Europe	82.304.539	30,30
Latin America and The Caribbean	11.673.288	4,30
North America	58.647.822	21,59
Oceania	8.927.925	3,29
Total	271.642.105	100

As we can see, Asia, Europe and North America are the three main migratory destinations if taken as continents. The case of Asia, which is the continent with the most migrants, reaching 30.76%, explains to a large extent how up to half of the migrants are in middle- or low-income countries, as we saw in the previous table. We also see that Europe is the Western region where most migrants reside, 30.30%, while North America follows with 21.59%.

However, it is worth noting the growth in the stock of migrants over the last three decades. Thus, we have that Europe went from 49,608,231 migrants in 1990, to 82,304,539 migrants in 2019, which represents an increase of 60.27%.

With regard to Europe, some clarifications are necessary. First, Europe includes all the countries of this continent, both those that belong to the European Union (EU) and those that do not, such as Russia, Ukraine, among others. On the other hand, these migrants include those who migrate from one European country to another, so that they also include, for example, German migrants to England, Dutch migrants to France or Russian migrants to Spain.

Now, taking only EU countries, and only migrants from non-EU countries, the total number of migrants accumulated until January 1, 2019 reaches 20.9 million people from outside the EU, as well as 30.2 million people born outside the EU, although in the latter case those who do have a nationality of one of the member countries are added, according to data provided by the European Commission [2].  

On the other hand, the migrant population in North America increased from 27,610,408 migrants in 1990 to 58,647,822 migrants in 2019, which represents an increase equivalent to 47.08%. In this case, the bulk of migrants are concentrated primarily in the United States of America, a total of 50,661,149 migrants, followed by Canada, with 7,960,657 migrants, both for 2019.

Much more modest is the increase experienced in Latin America and the Caribbean, which went from 7,161,371 migrants in 1990, to 11,673,288 in 2019, representing an increase of 61.35%, and including, as is logical, migrations between these same countries.

If we follow up on the countries where the most migrants reside in 2019, we have the following relationship:

Table N° 3: Countries with the highest number of migrants received (2019)

Contries	Migrants
United States of America	50.661.149
Germany	13.132.146
Saudi Arabia	13.122.338
Russia	11.640.559
United Kingdom	9.552.110
United Arab Emirates	8.587.256
France	8.334.875
Canada	7.960.657
Australia	7.549.270
Spain	6.280.065
Italy	6.273.722
Turkey	5.876.829
Ukraine	4.964.293
China	4.372.697
Suráfrica	4.224.256
India	3.967.470
Kazakhstan	3.705.556
Thailand	3.635.085
Malaysia	3.430.380
Jordania	3.346.703

Beyond the fact that the United States of America is the country where most migrants reside, it is striking that there are only two American and six European countries in the list of the top 20 countries with the most migrants. Although it is not the region with the most migrants in the world, it should be noted that there are five countries from the Middle East on the list, as well as another five from the rest of the Asian continent. Only one African country, South Africa, and one oceanic country, Australia, appear on the list.

On the other hand, it is noteworthy that while some countries have seen their migrant population increase over the last three decades, there are other countries where the migrant population has remained stable over the same period, which may be due to different forms of measurement, or to other social phenomena. If we take the same twenty countries in the table above, and order them by the percentage increase in their migrant population between 1990 and 2019, we have the following:

Table N° 4 Countries with more migrants according to percentage increase of their migrant population (1990 -2019)

COUNTRY	2019	1990	PERCENTAGE INCREASE
Spain	6.280.065	821.605	664,37
Thailand	3.635.085	528.693	587,56
United Arab Emirates	8.587.256	1.306.574	557,23
Turkey	5.876.829	1.163.686	405,02
Malaysia	3.430.380	695.920	392,93
Italy	6.273.722	1.428.219	339,27
South Africa	4.224.256	1.163.883	262,95
Jordan	3.346.703	1.146.349	191,94
Saudi Arabia	13.122.338	4.998.445	162,53
United Kingdom	9.552.110	3.650.286	161,68
Germany	13.132.146	5.936.181	121,22
United States  of America	50.661.149	23.251.026	117,89
Australia	7.549.270	3.955.213	90,87
Canada	7.960.657	4.333.318	83,71
France	8.334.875	5.897.267	41,33
China	3.391.219	2.457.623	37,99
Kazakhstan	3.705.556	3.619.200	2,39
Russia	11.640.559	11.524.948	1,00
Ukraine	4.964.293	6.892.920	-27,98
India	3.967.470	7.594.801	-47,76

As we can see, the positions of the countries with the largest number of immigrants change significantly when we analyze the percentage increase in their migrant population, with respect to the context they had in 1990. While countries such as Spain, Thailand, United Arab Emirates, Malaysia and Italy have seen their migrant populations increase by at least 300%, countries in Eastern Europe and Central Asia have experienced a stagnation in terms of their migrant population, as is the case of Kazakhstan or Russia; while other countries have experienced a process of reduction in their migrant population, such as Ukraine and India.

The highly industrialized Western countries of Europe, North America and Oceania have also registered large increases in their migrant population, thus occupying the middle positions in the table. In this case, the United Kingdom has increased its migrant population by 161.68%, while Germany recorded an increase of 121.22%. The country with the largest migrant population, the United States of America, has also seen its migrant population double in the period considered, reaching an increase of 117.89%. 

Finally, it is necessary to consider the differences between what each country considers migrant according to its legislation. This aspect undoubtedly constitutes a source of heterogeneity in the data, which are often presented as if they were comparable. On the other hand, the quality and coverage of administrative records is fundamental for obtaining the data presented, so that phenomena such as illegal immigration or weaknesses in the territorial coverage of the states introduce further distortions to the information.

References

United Nations – Population Division (2021). Available at: https://www.un.org/development/desa/pd/data-landing-page

European Commission (2020), “Statistics on migration to Europe.” Available at: https://ec.europa.eu/info/strategy/priorities-2019-2024/promoting-our-european-way-life/statistics-migration-europe_es