Double-edged risk: unaccompanied minor refugees (UMRs) in Sweden and their search for safety

Abstract

Many unaccompanied minor refugees (UMRs) arrived in Sweden with the mass exodus of refugees who fled to the EU in 2015. UMRs are individuals who are under 18 years of age, outside their country of origin and separated from legal care-givers (Separated Children in Europe Programme 2004). In 2016, Swedish public opinion of asylum seekers began to shift from sympathy to fear (Kärrman 2015; Herz 2018) and Sweden implemented policies restricting UMRs’ rights. It was at this pivotal moment that we interviewed UMRs in two youth asylum-centres in rural Sweden. We contextualized this analysis through our concept of ‘double-edged risk’—that is, being at risk despite being viewed as risky. Portrayals of risky refugees depict them as manipulative, and even predatory (Banks 2012). Many of these minors lacked agency from the inception of their journey to the EU to their waiting for their asylum decision. For instance, all of the UMRs in this study were forced by parents to leave and stated they would not have taken the journey had they known the dangers. Initially, we sought to understand how UMRs garnered agency in light of their ‘double-edged’ risk; however, the most salient theme that emerged was their search for safety. In order to attain safety, many of these UMRs resiliently relinquished agency. These findings demystify ideas of the ‘dangerous’ refugee and are useful for understanding UMRs’ plight for refuge in the EU and to improving policies that thwart UMRs’ development.

Health-related quality of life in refugee minors from Syria, Iraq and Afghanistan resettled in Sweden: a nation-wide, cross-sectional study

“…Minors under the age of 18 now represent above one-third of all asylum-seekers worldwide, with 153,000 reported as unaccompanied in 2019 [ 1 ]. There are also age- and gender-specific threats involved, including forced recruitment, sexual exploitation and being forced to leave parents [ 2 – 4 ]. In 2019, one-third of asylum applicants to Europe were minors aged less than 18 years [ 5 ].…”

The good, the bad, and the why: How do Arabic-speaking migrant men perceive and experience information and services related to sexual and reproductive health in Sweden?

“…Furthermore, the participants are a heterogeneous group with different ages, stages in life, life circumstances, levels of education, and lengths of stay in Sweden; therefore, they might have various understandings of SRH and different experiences of SRH services. Despite this heterogeneity, young migrants coming from the Middle East are often portrayed by part of the Swedish society and media as a ‘homogeneous’ group characterised as sexual perpetrators and a threat to Swedish society, culture, and values ( Herz, 2019 ; Horning et al., 2020 ). We acknowledge that focusing on them as a group under the ‘common’ ground of sharing a language risks reinforcing the idea of a ‘shared identity’ that downplays the heterogeneity of this group and risks stereotypification.…”

The Promise of Belonging: Racialized Youth Subject Positions in the Swedish Rural North

“…Beyond a number of studies focusing on health policy, and service provision (e.g. Derluyn et al, 2007;Kohli, 2006;Wimelius, et al, 2017), a growing body of research takes a critical perspective by analysing concepts such as racialization, home, belonging, masculinities, safety and deservingness (Hedlund, 2015;Herz, 2019;Horning, et al, 2020;Stretmo, 2014;Wernesjö, 2015Wernesjö, , 2020. Among other issues, this research has demonstrated how 'unaccompanied minors' are positioned as either vulnerable victims/or potential threats, but also how the children and youth themselves use, negotiate and resist such subject positions (Herz, 2019;Kohli, 2006;Stretmo, 2014;Wernesjö, 2020).…”

“…Being positioned as the 'other' and/or a stranger has multiple consequences for subjects, such as being exoticized, excluded, and/or held responsible for failed integration. In addition, the 'other' may be positioned as a victim in need of help, or as a potential threat, with the risk of being stopped, detained or even killed (Ahmed, 2000;Hällgren, 2005;Horning et al, 2020).…”

“…The paradoxical question then is whether it is possible for subjects to be positioned both as subjected to threats, and consequently in need of protection, and as threats in themselves. Horning et al (2020) have already framed this aporia in what they call 'double-edged risk'-being at risk, despite being viewed as risky. The coexistence of these two contradictory positions could also be reminiscent of integration discourses based on vulnerability, paternalism and rights, alongside the currently predominant discourses on independence, duties and cultural pathologization (Eliassi, 2017;Hübinette et al, 2014).…”