Q&A: what is being done to stem migrant crossings in the Mediterranean?

By Nando Sigona, University of Birmingham [This article was originally published on The Conversation]

The UN refugee agency has heavily criticised efforts to tackle the number of migrants crossing the Mediterranean into Europe after a boat capsized off the coast of Libya, with up to 400 migrants believed to have died.

Nando Sigona from Birmingham University, who studies patterns in migration and refugees, explains what is being done to tackle this deadly problem.

Why are migrants risking their lives?

Syrians and Eritreans make up the bulk of those attempting such desperate and dangerous journeys. Years of civil war in Syria means that those who initially moved to neighbouring countries are losing hope of being able to return to Syria in the near future and are looking for a place to rebuild their future. Hopelessness and desperation are very powerful drivers for migration.

What has been done to try to tackle the problem?

Italy’s operation Mare Nostrum brought more than 100,000 people to safety in roughly the year following the drowning of 366 migrants off the shore of the isle of Lampedusa in early October 2013. The operation led by the Italian Navy and Guardia Costiera was commended by the UN and EU as a great humanitarian success, but also a costly one for many Italian politicians.

A Mare Nostrum operation in 2014.
Giuseppe Lami/EPA

Mare Nostrum was wound up in late last year and replaced by Triton, an EU mission led by Frontex, which was much smaller in scale with a narrower mandate – to police and monitor sea borders rather than carry out rescue operations.

Why hasn’t it worked?

The political volatility of Libya has arguably increased lately and control over the ports is highly contested as smuggling is a lucrative business in a country that has undergone years of civil war.

The Italian government tried to use the Italian presidency of the European Council to “Europeanise” the issue and to get political, financial and logistic support for the EU-led mission to replace the Italian one. Italy was only partly successful in this attempt.

The UK government controversially distanced itself from supporting an EU rescue mission because, as the UK Foreign Office claimed, it would create an “unintended pull factor” and encourage more people to attempt the dangerous crossing. This position was reaffirmed recently by David Cameron who incorrectly stated that “more people died during that operation than when it was brought to an end”.

Do rescue operations encourage crossings?

Migration flows result from multiple drivers and there is no evidence to support a causal relationship between border and rescue missions and the size of irregular crossings. One thing that the missions such as Mare Nostrum and Frontex have brought is more visibility to this route, including the availability of statistics of intercepted boats and migrants, but this is certainly not the only route into Europe for irregular migrants. Land crossings are still pursued and to some extent harder to control.

Are there other hotspots?

Migration routes, particularly at sea, are not static. They can be highly responsive to changing political circumstances, both in the countries of transit and destination. A more forceful patrolling of the central Mediterranean route inevitably leads to the emergence of new routes. The arrival of two cargo ships (able to cope with worse weather conditions) packed with migrants from Turkey via Cyprus earlier in the year is example of how smugglers can respond to migration routes.

Is the situation getting worse?

Sea crossings are highly dependent on the weather conditions at sea. Spring and summer are therefore traditionally the period of great mobility along the central Mediterranean route. So yes, we are likely to see a pick up in arrivals, but it is within long-established seasonal trends. The introduction of Triton and initiatives for the political stabilisation of Libya haven’t changed the conditions producing pressure to migrate so there is little reason for migration flows to decrease.

What can be done to minimise the risk of further deaths?

The EU has tried to rebuild pre-Arab Spring diplomatic relations with North African states, including repatriation agreements, logistics support and immigration policing training. However, widespread political instability, particularly in Libya – a very large territory with a relatively small population – has made such attempts less successful than in the past.

The Conversation
Read the original article.

Lampedusa: Italy pays lip service but ignores real cause of refugee tragedy

photo credit: Corscri Daje Tutti! [Cristiano Corsini] via photopin cc

photo credit: Cristiano Corsini via photopin cc

Extract from the article I wrote for The Conversation, 4 October 2013.

Apart from superficial, if not cynical, displays of bewilderment and Christian solidarity by Italian government officials – an obligation for a coalition led by a Christian Democrat particularly at a time when the Church has taken a stronger position in favour of migrants – it doesn’t seem to be a genuine intention to address the causes of the latest tragedy. The call for a more substantial involvement of the EU risks becoming  justification for a further militarisation of the Mediterranean Sea in order to keep aspiring migrants away from EU shores, dead or alive.

Following the publication of the article I have been interviewed by: BBC Radio Scotland, Lithuania National Radio, Bulgaria National Radio, Greek newspaper ‘To Vima’, Turkish News Agency ‘Anadolu’. The article has been translated in Italian by Corriere Immigrazione and in Turkish by Translate for Justice. The piece was also cited in The Express Tribune.

Borderline Justice – book review

[This review was published in the Journal of Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Law, 27 (2): 188-189]

Borderline justice: The fight for refugee and migrant rights by Frances Webber, Pluto Press, 2012

Cover, Borderline Justice by Frances Webber, Pluto Press 2012

Cover, Borderline Justice by Frances Webber, Pluto Press 2012

 Webber’s book offers a captivating and insightful reading. It can be read as a history of how the governance of immigration and asylum developed over the last thirty years from the perspective of someone who has followed its twists and turns very closely as a legal practitioner, as a micro history of how a handful of committed radical lawyers succeeded in creating a network of legal advice centres that over the years became ‘an infrastructure of legal expertise for grassroots organisations fighting for civil rights, justice and equality’ (7), and as a memoir of the daily struggle of a social justice campaigner and lawyer that has seen the legal terrain on which her work is grounded shaking and drifting away due to pressure by anti-immigration media, populist support-seeking politicians and largely hostile public opinion, and a diary of her frustration for a rooted, overpowering and widespread culture of disbelief that shapes the everyday lives as much as the ‘spaces of hope’ (Harvey 2000) of migrants and refugees who are left with little to attach their hopes to.

The chapters of this book offer an insight into the workings of the immigration and refugee regimes in the UK as well as a genealogy of the current political crusade against human rights, the extent of which has been made apparent recently by the leaked emails in which senior civil servants explain to the members of the inter-ministerial group (IMG) on migrants’ access to benefits and public services the potential consequences on the UK’s international standing of the proposal of carrying out checks on applicant’s immigration status as part of school admissions which would de facto limit access to education for undocumented migrant children (Malik and Walker 2013; Sigona and Hughes 2012).

Divided in three parts, the book takes a staged approach to explore respectively issues around arrival, stay, and departure from the UK.

Part 1 examines the criminalisation of refugees and production of ‘illegality’ through rules, regulations and technologies of control that have made access to asylum increasingly difficult to people escaping persecution, substantially transforming in the process the nature of borders and practice of border control. In Part 2, after a brief exploration of the dispersal system and a critique of the use of destitution as a weapon for immigration control, Webber moves her attention to the spread of a ‘managerial’ attitude to migration during the Labour government and the emergence of a nativist bias at time of austerity and economic crisis. This section also looks into current approached to family and student migrations. Finally, Part 3 looks at the securitasation of immigration management marked by the birth of the UK Border Agency (recently dismissed by the Home Secretary Theresa May) and the increase use of forced and assisted removals as well as immigrant detention as tools of ‘ordinary’ immigration governance.

In conclusion, in recommending this fascinating book to everyone interested in understanding the direction of current immigration policy and practice in the UK and the role that legal courts, judges and lawyers have played over the years, I want to point briefly to what I see as three potential risks associated to a court-centred activism for migrants’ rights. Firstly, migrants and refugees sometimes disappear and what one hears of their voices and experiences is only what is relevant and intelligible in the law courts. Notwithstanding the good intentions of many of those involved, these voices end up filtered, if not sanitised, to conform to narratives put together by others. In the US, legal anthropologist Susan B. Coutin (2003) has shown through an analysis of suspension of deportation hearings how in court narratives of deservingness and undeservingness of migrants are constructed to comply with dominant notions of ‘Americanness’, which are gendered, racialised, class-based and heteronormative.

Secondly, it is somehow in the nature of legal activism to convey an atomised portrait of society, made of test cases and individual stories.  As Webber shows in her book, to bridge the individual case to the collective dimension is a difficult task. Translating and feeding in what happens in the courtroom to migrants’ rights campaigners and community organisations and ensuring that the battle in court is informed by political instances and what happens outside the court require a daily engagement with several social actors and the creation of communication infrastructure that go both ways. For Webber to turn (legal) cases into (political) issues is challenging but necessary as legal action alone is unable to produce wider political and social changes needed to transform what over the last thirty years has become an increasingly hostile environment for asylum seekers and refugees and, more recently, also for migrant families, children, low paid workers and students.

Thirdly, in the contest of the ongoing political and media campaign that portraits human rights and the human rights regime as an instrument of foreign interference and the ultimate obstacle for the UK government to succeed in its immigration policy to reduce net-migration to the tens of thousands, a court-centred activism for migrants rights and social justice may risk of further expanding the rift between the ‘deserving’ citizens and the ‘scrounger’ immigrants that seems to dominate current responses to immigration. To avoid this pitfall, legal activists should not only build bridges with the converted (i.e. migrants’ rights campaigners, etc.) but also find ways to reach new audiences and build new alliances. The grassroots campaign against the immigration family rules introduced in July 2012 led by British citizens in mixed status families affected by the new  rules shows the potential for creating a wider alliance across the citizens/immigrants divide that the politicians instead have interest to preserve and reinforce.



Cohen, N. (2013) ‘Beware the lure of Mark Zuckerberg’s cool capitalism’, The Guardian, 31 March 2013: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/mar/31/beware-zuckerberg-cool-capitalism

Coutin, S.B. (2003) ‘Suspension of deportation hearings and measures of “Americanness”’, Journal of Latin American Anthropology, 8 (2): 58-95

Harvey, D. (2000), Spaces of hope, Berkley: University of California Press.

Malik, S. and Walker, P. (2013) ‘Ministers planning immigration crackdown on ‘education tourists’’, The Guardian, 27 March 2013: http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2013/mar/27/ministers-immigration-crackdown-education-tourists

Sigona, N. And Hughes, V. (2013) No way out, no way in: Irregular migrant children and families in the UK, Oxford: COMPAS