Autonomy and Control of Migration in European “Buffer Zones”

ABSTRACT
Two key concepts that intertwine throughout the text are immigration control and the autonomy of migration. It is important to emphasize that in practice, the former is a response to the latter and not the other way around. The concept of the autonomy of migration makes it possible to consider refugees and migrants without resorting to victimization and security discourse. Control is broken down by presenting typical discourses (the distinction between refugees and economic migrants, security discourse, victim discourse, asylum abuse) and countermeasures (incarcerating “illegal” migrants and the externalization of European borders). The main argument is that in practice, immigration control blocks not only the autonomy of migration, but also the system of international protection (asylum). These concepts and practices are reflected in Europe’s externalized borders – “buffer zones” which are supposed to support the European asylum system and also protect the EU from migrations. The paper views practices in these buffer zones from the perspective of the autonomy of migration, and thus goes beyond the narrow framework of oppression and the ineffective system of protection.
KEY WORDS: borders, asylum, international protection, refugees, detention centre.

SUMMARY
AUTONOMY AND CONTROL OF MIGRATION IN EUROPEAN “BUFFER ZONES”
Uršula LIPOVEC ČEBRON, Jelka ZORN

Two key concepts that intertwine throughout the text are immigration control and the autonomy of migration. It is important to emphasize that in practice, the former is a response to the latter and not the other way around. The concept of the autonomy of migration makes it possible to consider refugees and migrants without resorting to victimization and security discourse. Some actual examples of the struggle for mobility are described and presented as the mobile commons. Drawing on Papadopoulos and Tsianos (2013) this means that people on the move create and share a world of knowledge, information, methods for survival, mutual care, solidarity, etc.
Immigration control is broken down by presenting typical discourses (the distinction between refugees and economic migrants, security discourse, victim discourse, asylum abuse) and countermeasures (incarcerating “illegal” migrants and the externalization of European borders).  The 1951 Refugee Convention has been replaced by the securitisation of migration and a “culture” of suspicion (refugees are perceived as guilty until they can prove otherwise). The asylum procedure is highly problematic due to the way the underlying category of fear is constitutive of refugee status and due to its ineffectiveness in protecting refugees. In the context of securitisation the asylum procedure is seen as an instrument for producing illegalisation in the form of a massive number of undocumented migrants. The main argument of the paper is that in practice, immigration control blocks not only the autonomy of migration, but also the system of international protection (asylum).  
There are roughly 420 detention sites in the EU and its periphery, of which 300 are located inside the EU. In them, some 600,000 men, women and children are being detained while they await deportation. Immigrant detention means administrative imprisonment without the normal due process safeguards commonly demanded by liberal democracies. The perspective of autonomy of migration makes it possible to identify resistance and appreciate the knowledge of the mobile commons in safeguarding mobility even in detention situations which are generally thought to be an unavoidable dead end in the rejected asylum or migration process.
The concepts and practices of the struggle for mobility on the one hand and state control on the other are reflected in Europe’s externalized borders – “buffer zones” which are supposed to support the European asylum system and also protect the EU from migrations. Geopolitics is central to an understanding of immigration control, as neighbouring countries (the periphery of the international system) are co-opted for policing jobs which are at odds with liberal and democratic values. Responsibility for the effects of repressive measures is thus dispersed and blurred. The paper uses examples from Slovenia and Serbia to consider practices in the buffer zones from the perspective of the autonomy of migration, and thus goes beyond the narrow framework of oppression and ineffective systems of protection.