Steps Towards a Systemic Theory of Irregular Migration

Abstract

In this last, conclusive chapter, the main question at the origin of all the research work in this book – how can irregular migration be explained? – will be the focus of the discussion. The chapter is divided into two parts. In the first part, the aforementioned question will be addressed in relation to cases of the empirical study and it will then be reframed in the following terms: how can Ecuadorian irregular migration in Amsterdam and Madrid be explained? To answer this question, the efficacy of the “classic” theories, discussed in the Chap. 3, will be firstly tested. As it will be pointed out, many of the limitations which emerged in the theoretical discussion will become evident also when those theories are applied to concrete cases. Then, a systemic explanation, based on the theoretical approach developed in Chap. 4, will be proposed as a possible alternative.

COVID-19 and Protracted Displacement: a Scoping Review of Migration Policies in Mexico and Central America

“…Most of the included literature that explored migrant experiences was in relation to the economic conditions of irregular migrants in the region. Since irregular migrants may be unable to access legal status or employment or any form of social service, irregular migrants succumb to harmful living conditions like the ones described in this review (Echeverría, 2020 ). Notably, within this review, migrant experiences are often impersonal, generalized, and communicated by policymakers, health professionals or volunteers instead of first-person accounts from irregular migrants (Love, 2020 ; Vera Espinoza et al, 2020 ) .…”

Patterns of inter-state irregular migration in Africa: insights from Ethiopian migrants to the Republic of South Africa

“…The term "irregularity" refers to the legal status that describes the relationship between a migrant and one or more states. This irregularity arises from conflicts between the social space's logic, which promotes the free movement of people and goods through concepts like free-market economy, globalization, and transnationalism, and the political space's logic, where states aim to limit and regulate mobility factors to maintain their politically constructed, historically and ideologically distinct identity and sovereign power within their territorial jurisdictions (Echeverría, 2020).…”

“…The term "illegal" carries negative connotations that can dehumanize and stigmatize migrants, hindering empathy and understanding. It refers to the movement of individuals across borders without proper authorization, documentation, or in violation of a country's immigration laws (Echeverría, 2020). On the other hand, legal migration involves the movement of individuals across borders in compliance with the immigration laws and regulations of the destination country (Provera, 2015:4).…”

The ‘Long Spring’ of migration management: Labour supply in the pandemic-induced EU border regime

“…Indeed, logistifying migration is above all a governmental fantasy that produces real effects but also collides with the unstable, multi-layered assemblages underlying migration policies, whose coordination evades a centralised and unitary logic ( Bertossi, 2011 ; Bertossi and Duyvendak, 2012 ; Finotelli and Michalowski, 2012 ; Hess, 2012 ; Joppke, 2007 ; Tsianos and Karakayali, 2010 ). This is precisely one of the main characteristics of migration regimes since international migration is part and parcel of broad processes and structures that go far beyond the scope of states’ sovereignty and capacities of control ( Cvajner et al, 2018 ; Echeverría, 2020 ). By adding an additional layer to the assemblage of different interests, desires and logics shaping migration regimes, states’ attempts to manage migration orderly, according to a logistical rationale, may result in some cases in mere ‘quick fixes’ producing limited or contradictory effects, thus making logistification less efficient than planned.…”