TriBloc

On a global scale, many migrant popu­la­tions are stopped in their journey at inter­na­tional border or on the roads and places that are gradually built up as internal state borders. The poli­tical processes of conten­tion are currently a common deno­mi­nator of the produc­tion of blocked situa­tions. As part of a trans­for­ma­tion of the dyna­mics of control and surveillance, these poli­cies don’t succeed in comple­tely prohibit cros­sings, but do limit them and produce distinc­tions between people who will get access to desti­na­tion coun­tries and those who will encounter barriers. The objec­tive of the confe­rence « ”Migra­tion triage” and expe­riences of blockage : Africa, America, Europe » is to analyze the diver­sity of migra­tory situa­tions produced by blockage at different social, spatial and temporal scales accor­ding to their produc­tion context.

Since the 2000s, and even more in the 2010s, the migra­tion poli­cies of both the Euro­pean Union and the United States have been shaped by increased control of borders and migra­tion routes. Depen­ding on national contexts, this logic has gradually imposed itself on States that until then had been desi­gnated solely as transit areas (Mexico, Morocco, Niger, etc.), or as recep­tion areas for large move­ments of refu­gees (Jordan, Lebanon, Turkey, etc.). Other states, in subor­di­nate geopo­li­tical posi­tions, have in a short period of time become host coun­tries follo­wing massive move­ments of people displaced from their places of origin by « natural » disas­ters or poli­tical and social crises.

In both cases, there is conver­gence in terms of poli­cies for control­ling and tracking these move­ments. The logic of exter­na­li­zing borders and the process of inter­na­li­zing these same borders within national spaces, through the multi­pli­ca­tion of controls, have been observed. Although these poli­cies may present diffe­rences in terms of actions at the national and local levels, they have in common to produce stranded migra­tion situa­tions and the emer­gence of new constraints in addi­tion to those previously described.

In this pers­pec­tive, the ambi­tion of the confe­rence is to parti­ci­pate in the construc­tion of a compa­ra­tive frame­work to tackle these situa­tions on three conti­nents, Africa, America and Europe by compa­ring the construc­tion of migra­tion poli­cies and their effects. In spite of strong inter­na­tional injunc­tions, States have a nego­tia­ting space for their migra­tion poli­cies and measures, even if it remains marked by logics of domination/​dependence. On all three conti­nents, « border effects » have in common that they confront migrants, like asylum seekers, with forms of blocking, thus leng­the­ning waiting periods, produ­cing new spatia­li­ties, and even hinde­ring all forms of crossing.

These migrants, some­times referred to as « in transit », despite the fact that the term has become unsui­table, are concen­trated in huma­ni­ta­rian camps, are locked up in deten­tion centers or find them­selves confined in the inter­stices of urban spaces. Stranded by poli­cies of contain­ment, people in situa­tion of mobi­lity are confronted with violent insti­tu­tional measures of exclu­sion. These spaces of limi­na­lity, border areas, preca­rious neigh­bo­rhoods, camps, have been the subject of exten­sive research, focu­sing in parti­cular on waiting and daily living condi­tions. However, depen­ding on places and types of envi­ron­ment, this exclu­sion of forei­gners is accom­pa­nied by a logic of sorting accor­ding to the cate­go­ries of persons defined on the basis of inter­na­tional stan­dards and their appli­ca­tion in national legal systems (asylum seekers, inter­nally displaced persons…) or criteria of vulne­ra­bi­lity (unac­com­pa­nied minors, single women with children…).

This sorting process, built in the inter­ac­tion between state poli­cies and/​or regional orga­ni­za­tions, inter­na­tional orga­ni­za­tions and some­times local autho­ri­ties, parti­ci­pate in the construc­tion of this « long corridor » of waiting which involves all people in a situa­tion of mobi­lity and not only asylum seekers, and produces situa­tions of legal and social waiting or conti­nued mobi­lity, at the risk of wande­ring situa­tions. This margi­na­li­za­tion can also be accen­tuated by the huma­ni­ta­rian measures of inter­na­tional orga­ni­za­tions and/​or civil society, which inter­vene in these different spaces (camps, ghettos, deten­tion centers…) gene­rally in the name of the vulne­ra­bi­lity of people. This notion of vulne­ra­bi­lity, whose use is trans­versal to all the actors, has different meanings depen­ding on who states it and in what context.

Each actor involved follows his own poli­tical, bureau­cratic and opera­tional logic, inclu­ding in the defi­ni­tion of vulne­ra­bi­lity, and there­fore deter­mine who can get aid or not, who can access certain types of rights or not. How are constructed the inter­ac­tions between the actors involved in this exclu­sion of people in mobi­lity ? How does « migra­tory sorting » contri­bute to this exclu­sion, and how has it become a component of filte­ring today ? The aim of the event is to ques­tion these processes in the light of contex­tua­lized indi­vi­dual and collec­tive expe­riences, paying atten­tion to concrete, situated and histo­ri­cized expres­sions of the link between local, national or supra-regional poli­cies and their effects on the situa­tions of mobile populations.

Panel 1 : ”Vulne­ra­bi­li­ties”: Cate­go­ri­za­tion, Limits and Bypasses

Faced with a gene­ra­lized and poly­se­mous use of the term ”vulne­ra­bi­lity” to qualify and describe the situa­tions of people in mobi­lity, the objec­tive is to ques­tion what this term produces in terms of indi­vi­dual and collec­tive migra­tory expe­riences. How have vulne­ra­bi­lity criteria defined by different autho­ri­ties replaced the appli­ca­tion of the law, intro­du­cing new forms of diffe­ren­tia­tion between people ? How do these same people seize on this cate­gory to stand out from the others ? This mana­ge­ment of « vulne­ra­bi­li­ties” addresses not only the ques­tion of huma­ni­ta­rian poli­cies, but more broadly the ques­tion of the forms of inter­ven­tion with these popu­la­tions : how does the assi­gn­ment of mobile people to a situa­tion of vulne­ra­bi­lity justify inter­ven­tions as diverse as repres­sion, ”volun­tary return”, huma­ni­ta­rian assis­tance or even mili­tancy interventions ?

Panel 2 : Bureau­cratic Expe­riences and Admi­nis­tra­tive Wanderings

This panel will focus on the rela­tion­ship to law and the construc­tion of access to rights through migrant expe­riences. How the spaces of rele­ga­tion produced by conten­tion poli­cies are also specific spaces of action for bureau­cra­cies (of asylum, huma­ni­ta­rian moni­to­ring, return…) that run on long-term pros­pects ? How is access to this bureau­cracy nego­tiated at the indi­vi­dual or family level ? The role and status of inter­me­dia­ries, the ways of bypas­sing them, the forms of self-presen­ta­tion will be analyzed. These bureau­cratic expe­riences can be seen both as oppor­tu­ni­ties for long-term settle­ment in a place in spite of uncer­tainty, as well as double rele­ga­tion expe­riences for those who lack the capa­city to access them. For the latter, the complexity and closure of the inter­na­tional bureau­cratic system means keeping outside of any legal-admi­nis­tra­tive system without the possi­bi­lity of a safe haven.

Panel 3 : Visi­bi­lity and Invi­si­bi­lity in Urban Situa­tions of Marginality

The settle­ment and common rele­ga­tion of migrants in urban spaces marked by margi­na­lity is some­times seen as a guarantee of rela­tive invi­si­bi­lity, which would allow certain accesses, to employ­ment for example. As a coun­ter­point, visi­bi­lity can be a condi­tion for nego­tia­ting the recog­ni­tion of specific situa­tions by urban actors and poli­tical deci­sion-makers. In any case, the tension between visi­bi­lity and invi­si­bi­lity deserves to be appre­hended with regard to urban envi­ron­ments. In small and medium-sized cities, as are often border cities or certain transit cities, the stranded migrants are de facto visible, and the condi­tions of incorporation/​acceptance are frequently marked by the effects of this (over)visibility. In larger cities, where disper­sion may allow forms of incor­po­ra­tion similar to the other mino­rity groups, mobi­li­za­tion and access to specific rights or measures may be less acces­sible. How do migrants nego­tiate their place in such contexts, when invi­si­bi­lity can mean renoun­cing rights and visi­bi­lity can autho­rize forms of mobilization ?

Panel 4 : Multi-stake­holder dialogue around an original border situa­tion : the Alpes-Maritimes

In the follow-up of a field­work day prior to the confe­rence, this panel aims to build exchanges between resear­chers specia­li­zing in other geogra­phical areas and civil society or insti­tu­tional actors inter­ve­ning on the French-Italian border. This panel discus­sion is in line with the crea­tion of the Obser­va­toire des migra­tions dans les Alpes-Mari­times which aims to esta­blish a perma­nent dialogue between acade­mics and civil society in order to feed public debate and to co-construct know­ledge with local stakeholders.

MARDI 22 JUIN

9h : Ouver­ture du colloque

9h30 à 13h – Confé­rences d’ouverture et débat

• Harouna Moun­kaila (GERMES,U. Niamey, Niger), Le désir de mobi­lité face au blocage et à la sélec­tion migra­toire au Sahel
• Tanya Golash-Boza (U. Cali­fornie, La Merced), Past, Present, and Future of Migra­tion to the United States : A Human Rights Perspective
• Virginie Guiraudon (Sciences Po Paris), Les effets de 30 ans de la poli­tique euro­péenne des fron­tières de « contrôle à distance » sur les dyna­miques migratoires
• Joce­lyne Streiff-Fénart (CNRS- URMIS) : Modération-débat

14h30 à 17h45 – Table-ronde n°1 : Des « vulné­ra­bi­lités » : caté­go­ri­sa­tion, limites et contournements

• Pasca­line Chap­part (U. Bergen, Norvège) et Dolores Paris (Colef, Tijuana, Mexique), La « vulné­ra­bi­lité » dans l’économie morale et poli­tique du passage des fron­tières : l’exemple du Niger et du Mexique
• Pinar Selek (U. Nice Côte d’Azur- URMIS), Les quêteuses d’asile dans les Alpes-Mari­times : violences et résistances
• Jeremy Slack (U. Texas, El Paso), Deported to Death : Border violence and anti-asylum policies
• Guillermo Acuña (UNA, Costa Rica), El rumor de la sospecha : desub­je­ti­va­ción de un sujeto histó­rico. las movi­li­dades humanas nica­ra­guenses en Costa Rica en contextos de excepcionalidad
• Swanie Potot (CNRS URMIS Nice) : Synthèse et anima­tion débat

18H30 : Inau­gu­ra­tion expo­si­tion Eufemia-Utopia en parte­na­riat avec le labo­ra­toire de socio­logie visuelle de l’uni­ver­sité de Gênes et pot de bien­venue 

MERCREDI 23 JUIN :

9h30 à 12h45 – Table-ronde n°2 : Expé­riences bureau­cra­tiques et errances administratives

• Caro­lina Kobe­linsky (CNRS- LESC) et Filippo Furri (U. Mont­réal), Une bureau­cratie pour les morts en Méditerranée
• Simone Di Cecco (URMIS), L’accoglienza des personnes deman­deuses d’asile en Italie, entre logis­tique et appro­pria­tion (2016–2019)
• Nadia Khrouz (U. Mohammed V, Rabat /​Movida/​LPED), Maroc : poli­tique, bureau­cratie et sens commun dans la déter­mi­na­tion du « migrant dési­rable » ou « indésirable”
• Fran­çoise Lestage (U. Paris- URMIS) : Synthèse et anima­tion-débat 

14h30 à 17h45 – Table-ronde n°3 : Visi­bi­lité et invi­si­bi­lité dans des situa­tions urbaines de marginalité

• Laurent Faret (U. Paris- CESSMA/​CIESAS Mexico), (Im)mobilités, invi­si­bi­lité et agen­ti­vité sous contraintes : migrants “en transit” à Mexico
• Bachirou Ayouba Tinni (GERMES, UAM, Niger) et Florence Boyer (IRD-URMIS- GERMES), L’accueil des étran­gers à Agadez : d’une économie du transit à une poli­tique de l’humanitaire
• Béné­dicte Michalon (CNRS- Passages), La campagne comme enjeu poli­tique. (Faire) accepter la disper­sion des exilés
• Daniela Trucco (Ecole Fran­çaise de Rome), La soli­da­rité aux personnes « illé­ga­li­sées » et leur sur/in-visi­bi­lité dans l’espace urbain de Vintimille
• Cenk Sara­çoglu (Ankara Univ., Turkey) et Danièle Bélanger (Laval Univer­sity, Canada), Mob Violence in the Neigh­bo­rhood : Disci­pli­ning Syrian Refu­gees in the Turkish Cities
• Aman­dine Spire (U. Paris- CESSMA) : synthèse et animation-débat

18H15-20H30 : projec­tion de docu­men­taires et débat

JEUDI 24 JUIN :

10h à 13h – Table-ronde n°4 : Dialogue multi-acteurs autour d’une situa­tion de fron­tière origi­nale : les Alpes-Maritimes

• Avec la parti­ci­pa­tion de :
  – Toutes aux fron­tières, Mobi­li­sa­tion fémi­niste à Nice, Maika Tormo
  – ALC, Service prise en charge des MNA : Julie Chauvet
• - CAFI, Coor­di­na­tion d’ac­tions aux fron­tières inté­rieures, Agnès Lerolle
  – SOMICO collectif de soutien aux migrants ; Coor­di­na­tion du réseau inter­as­so­ciatif de soutien aux migrants : Henri Rossi
• - Kesha Niya, Point d’ac­cueil et break­fast à la fron­tière italienne : Adèle Bras
  – We world, Soutien aux familles à Vinti­mille : Jacopo Colomba
  – Roya Citoyenne, La ques­tion migra­toire dans la Roya
• Co-anima­tion : Dolores Paris (Colef, Mexique) et Daniela Trucco (Ecole Fran­çaise de Rome)

13h – Clôture du colloque