A

t least nine people have died after thousands of migrants crossed from Morocco into the Spanish enclave of Ceuta in one of the largest surges in recent years, prompting local authorities to declare a humanitarian emergency and request military assistance.

Authorities in Ceuta said between 1,500 and 2,000 migrants had entered the enclave over the past 10 days, with hundreds more arriving on Thursday alone. Regional President Juan Jesús Vivas described the situation as an “absolute humanitarian and social emergency” and urged Spain’s central government to deploy troops to help restore control at the border.

Spain’s Interior Ministry rejected calls to declare a national emergency, saying such measures do not apply to migration crises, but announced that 60 soldiers would be deployed to reinforce border security.

Video footage showed groups of migrants entering the territory by sea, many using inflatable flotation devices to swim around border barriers from the Moroccan coast. Others crossed by land after scaling border fences, according to Spanish media reports.

Some migrants were heard shouting “Viva España!” as they entered the enclave.

Zakaria Zarroqui, a migrant rights activist, told Reuters the latest influx resembled the mass crossing in May 2021, when about 10,000 Moroccan and sub-Saharan migrants entered Ceuta within days.

“The situation remains out of control as we speak,” Zarroqui said, adding that people continued gathering in the Moroccan border town of Fnideq in an attempt to reach the Spanish territory.

Ceuta and Melilla

Ceuta, together with the nearby Spanish enclave of Melilla, forms the European Union’s only land border with Africa and has long been a focal point for migrants seeking to reach Europe.

The surge follows a recent ruling by Spain’s Supreme Court that migrants intercepted at sea while attempting to reach Ceuta or Melilla cannot automatically be returned to Morocco.

“It has been a slow trickle since the Supreme Court’s ruling, but today has been an explosion,” a spokesperson for Spain’s Guardia Civil told Reuters.

Spain’s Interior Ministry said it was working closely with Moroccan authorities to respond to the increase in irregular crossings, accusing human smuggling networks of exploiting the court ruling to encourage migrants to attempt the journey.

Interior Minister Fernando Grande-Marlaska is expected to visit Ceuta on Friday to assess the situation and coordinate the government’s response.

(Source: Aljazeera English)

T

he number of immigrants living in the European Union has reached a record 64.2 million in 2025, highlighting the continued growth and uneven distribution of migration across the bloc, according to a new study.

The report, published by the Centre for Research and Analysis on Migration, found that the figure marks an increase of around 2.1 million compared with 2024. It also represents a sharp rise from approximately 40 million recorded in 2010, based on data from Eurostat and the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees.

Germany remained the largest host country in the EU, with nearly 18 million foreign-born residents. The report noted that around 72% of these individuals are of working age, underlining the importance of migration to the country’s labor market.

“Germany remains the main destination for migrants in Europe, both in absolute terms and, to a significant extent, relative to its population,” said Tommaso Frattini, one of the study’s authors.

700,000 immigrants in one year in Spain

Meanwhile, Spain recorded the fastest recent growth, adding roughly 700,000 immigrants over the past year to reach a total of 9.5 million. The increase reflects a broader trend of rising migration to southern European countries.

The study highlighted significant disparities across the bloc. Smaller states such as Luxembourg, Malta and Cyprus reported higher proportions of immigrants relative to their population size, even if their total numbers remain comparatively low.

Asylum applications were also unevenly distributed. Spain, Italy, France and Germany together accounted for nearly three-quarters of all claims across the EU. Germany hosted the largest number of refugees overall, with around 2.7 million.

Immigration debate in Europe

The findings come amid ongoing political debate across Europe over migration policy, border management and labor shortages. While some governments have tightened asylum rules and increased border controls, others have emphasized the economic contribution of migrants, particularly in sectors facing workforce gaps.

Analysts say the latest figures reflect both long-term demographic trends and the impact of recent global crises, including conflicts and economic instability, which continue to drive people toward Europe.

With migration expected to remain a central issue for policymakers, the report underscores the challenges facing the EU in balancing humanitarian responsibilities with domestic political pressures and economic needs.

(Source: Reuters)

I

n a landmark move after protracted deliberations, European Union negotiators have announced a significant breakthrough in reforming the bloc’s dated asylum system. The preliminary agreement, achieved following intense overnight discussions on December 20, 2023, sets the stage for a comprehensive overhaul of the EU’s migration policy framework.

As confirmed by the EU’s Spanish presidency, envoys from the member states, the European Parliament, and the European Commission, have concurred on the principal political aspects of the new Pact on Asylum and Migration. This accord arrives nearly three years after the pact’s introduction in September 2020, a period when the EU grappled with an unprecedented influx of refugees, primarily from conflict zones in Syria and Iraq.

The original asylum regulations had buckled under the strain of over a million undocumented arrivals in 2015, necessitating a robust response. However, progress on the new pact stalled as member countries contended over the distribution of responsibilities for processing migrants and the extent of mandatory solidarity among states.

Key points of consensus

Key points of consensus have now been reportedly reached on critical issues, including the initial screening of undocumented migrants, the application of biometric data, criteria for determining responsible EU countries for asylum claims, and the associated procedural mechanisms.

Amid fading hopes for reform, the EU had increasingly relied on external agreements to manage migration flows, exemplified by a controversial arrangement with Tunisia. Critics have accused such deals of outsourcing the bloc’s migration challenges at the expense of humanitarian considerations.

With the EU elections looming from June 6-9, the pressure is on to finalize the agreement. To implement the plan, officials and legislators emphasize that accord on all ten segments of the pact must be reached by February. This development represents a critical step toward a collective European approach to migration and asylum, balancing responsibility sharing and solidarity among member states.

Hungary and Poland opposition

In the year leading up to November 2023, European authorities have noted 255,332 irregular migrant arrivals, indicating a pressing need for coherent migration management. “The pact needs to be finalized before the European electorate casts their ballots,” insisted Margaritis Schinas, the European Commission’s Vice President, labeling the recent deal as the long-awaited keystone in the EU’s migration and asylum reform efforts.

The perilous journey across the Mediterranean has claimed the lives of countless refugees, many escaping the ravages of war and poverty. Such tragedies underscore the lethal consequences of Europe’s stringent immigration policies, increasingly scrutinized by advocates of human rights.

Amidst the backdrop of such humanitarian crises, right-wing factions in nations like Italy, Hungary, Poland, and Germany are amplifying their calls for more stringent immigration controls, placing the asylum system under the microscope as a central tenet of their political agenda.

Hungary and Poland, both of which have expressed opposition to the recent agreement, are next in line to assume the EU presidency following the impending elections. Despite their resistance, the pact was endorsed by a majority.

Source: The Associated Press and Aljazeera English

Citizenship, a pivotal determinant influencing various facets of our lives, dictates our rights, travel privileges, and, fundamentally, our life prospects. While the process of obtaining a new citizenship poses a formidable challenge for many, for the affluent, including numerous anonymous multimillionaires, the pursuit is often reduced to a matter of price. With sufficient financial resources and the right connections, one can navigate negotiations for citizenship in various places.

In her comprehensive work, The Golden Passport: Global Mobility for Millionaires, Kristin Surak, Associate Professor of Political Sociology at the London School of Economics and Political Science, delves into the expanding global market for citizenship, conducting an exhaustive examination of the dynamics surrounding the acquisition and sale of passports and citizenship. Her meticulous on-the-ground investigation sheds light on the intricate network involving wealthy elites, states, and brokers, revealing the transformation of a once clandestine practice into a prevalent and significant phenomenon.

Beyond exploring the less scrupulous practices of the affluent, Surak delves into Citizenship by Investment (CBI) programs. These programs offer a transparent and expeditious route to citizenship, requiring a defined financial investment that is within reach of anyone who can afford it. Notably, these programs adhere to legal processes that undergo thorough scrutiny and due diligence procedures. But is this too good to be true?

Drawing from six years of extensive fieldwork across four continents, Surak unveils the evolution of passport sales from a dubious enterprise to a thriving citizenship industry concentrated in over a dozen countries, particularly small islands in regions like the Mediterranean, Caribbean, and South Pacific. She systematically breaks down the diverse motivations behind these investments and identifies trends within the industry.

The annual issuance of citizenship to 50,000 individuals underscores the magnitude of this global phenomenon. Individuals opt for these schemes for various reasons, including:

Global Mobility: Seeking increased visa-free travel options for business, leisure, or personal reasons.

Business Opportunities: Opening new avenues for international trade and investment.

Political and Economic Stability: Mitigating risks associated with political or economic instability.

Education and Healthcare: Accessing superior education and healthcare systems.

Tax Planning: Exploring more favorable tax environments and managing tax liabilities.

Personal Security: Ensuring personal safety amid security concerns in the home country.

Diversification of Assets: Viewing a second citizenship as a strategy to diversify personal and financial assets.

Quality of Life: Enhancing overall quality of life through better living standards and improved social services.

I

n Eurowhiteness, Hans Kundnani, Associate Fellow in the Europe Programme at Chatham House, challenges a sanitized and linear history of the EU, prompting the reader to rethink Europe’s peaceful image against its imperial past. He goes on to tackle myopic assumptions about the European project throughout the book.

Kundnani argues that pro-Europeans, who cradled cosmopolitanism and renounced nationalism, have failed to perceive the reality of European regionalism. This provocative critique dissects both the civic and ethnic elements that shape European identity by highlighting Europe’s interaction with the “Other” and linking “Europeanness” and “whiteness.” 

Eurowhiteness may come off as unpalatable to many pro-Europeans, but it raises valuable questions against a backdrop of a rising far-right in Europe. Especially in the wake of the 2015 refugee crisis, the complex relationship between European identity and race demands urgent reflection.

Q. What are some of the myths that cause blind spots in understanding the European identity?

I would mention two in particular. The first is the idea that the EU is a cosmopolitan project. Cosmopolitanism usually has something to do with the whole world, and Europe is not the whole world. There’s a tendency by pro-Europeans and the EU to mistake Europe for the world. For example, when they talk about European integration, they sometimes seem to think that they’re talking about global integration, but they’re not.

Similarly, when they say “I’m a European or I’m a European citizen,” they seem to think they’re saying I’m a citizen of the world, but they’re not; They’re saying I’m a citizen of this particular region that has a very particular history and relationship with the rest of the world.

This is what I call in Eurowhiteness “the of myth of cosmopolitanism in Europe”, and related to that is the idea to think European integration is good for the whole of the world, but that may not necessarily be the case; It may be good for Europeans or may not be good for Europeans, arguably. But even if it is good for Europeans, it’s not clear if it’s good for the whole world.

The second myth would be that the EU is a peace project, and that is not entirely wrong. However, the way that pro-Europeans talk about it is sometimes simplistic; that after 1945 Europeans rejected war, and since then Europeans stand for peace. In reality, Europeans did not reject war in general in 1945. They only rejected war with each other.

In 1950 as the Schuman Declaration, which can be seen as the beginning of the idea of the EU as a peace project, is made by France’s then-foreign minister Robert Schumann, France is simultaneously fighting a brutal colonial war in Indochina.

Similarly, seven years later, when the Treaty of Rome is signed, France fought a brutal colonial war in Algeria. This demonstrates that Europeans are continuing to fight colonial wars until they’re defeated or exhausted.

Europeans like to think of themselves as being uniquely peaceful. The real story is more complicated, and in particular, as I say, to the extent that Europeans have rejected military force, it is military force within what has become the European Union, not even within Europe at large, that is being rejected.

Q. Has the EU’s focus shifted from peace to power?

I wouldn’t say it has shifted from being about peace to being about power. I think it was always about power as well as peace. In particular, it gets to what I was just saying about the idea of the EU as a peace project.

If you go back to the interwar period pan-European movement, which is the inspiration for the post-War European integration project, it is very clear that at that time already that the European integration project is about power and the perception of European decline accelerated by fighting one other.

The idea is: If we want to maintain our position in the world – and at that time this is a position of colonial domination- we have to stop fighting with each other. Not so that we can end European colonialism, but so that we can continue it. So in other words, European integration would take the competitive element out of European colonialism, allowing its practice collectively.

Part of the point of European integration in 1950s was for France and Belgium to consolidate their colonies in Central and West Africa at a time when they were no longer able to on their own. In particular, they needed an injection of West German capital.

The idea of geopolitical Europe goes back to the 1920s. It only seems new because pro-Europeans like to tell a story of Europe through the aforementioned myths. It only seems like a shift because we’ve forgotten the real history of how European integration began.

Q. Does the EU still export the European social model and the general welfare state?

Social market economy and the welfare state are no longer what the EU can to claim export anymore. It may have done once, but even in Central and Eastern Europe after the end of the Cold War we observe that this is not the case. In fact, the former communist countries in Central and Eastern Europe had much more generous welfare states when they were communist countries.

What happened as they joined the EU during the enlargement process is that those welfare states were dismantled as part of their transition to democracy. There are obviously lots of things that you can criticize about the communist systems in those countries, such as the lack of political freedom and so on, but they did have welfare states.

What has happened now is a further stage in which the EU is putting pressure on member states to dismantle the welfare state. For example, during the euro crisis, the austerity Germany imposed on Greece dismantled what was left of the Greek welfare state.

Q. Your book suggests that civic ideas of Europe are being replaced by ethnic-cultural ones. What is the connection of the neoliberalization of Europe to identity politics?

What I try to show in the book is that there have always been both of the elements of civic and ethnic-cultural idea in the history of what I call European regionalism- which is similar to nationalism on a larger continental scale. I’m suggesting that we can think of the history of ideas of Europe in the way we think about the history of nations. Therefore, regionalism is like nationalism.

The earliest ideas of Europe are predominantly ethnic-cultural. For example, in the medieval period, Europeanness is synonymous with Christianity. From the modern period onwards, you begin to get civic ideas of Europe. Then, in the post war period is when the EU came closest to evolving into a purely civic regionalism. Particularly, in the period from the 60s to the 90s-2000s, there was an idea of Europe centered on the social market economy, the welfare state and depoliticized mode of governance which European integration had produced.

I think what’s happened is that the social market economy and the welfare state have been hollowed out by neoliberalism in the EU. Meanwhile, there has been a backlash against the depoliticised mode of governance where the older civic idea of Europe is no longer persuasive in the same way it was before.

The way I understand neoliberalism is not just financialization, but it’s also the depoliticization of economic policy. In other words, it’s taking economic policy out of the space of democratic contestation. Although, to some extent, this has happened in the whole world in the last 30-40 years through things like the World Trade Organisation rules, the EU has taken it further through the creation of the single market, and also the Eurozone and the fiscal rules. Therefore, it’s very difficult now to pursue a left wing economic policy in the Eurozone because the fiscal rules don’t allow you to do it.

My argument is basically that when you take economic policy out of the space of democratic contestation and no longer have big fights between left and right about economic policy, your democratic politics shifts to cultural questions.

The point of democratic politics is to reconcile different interests and to have fights about questions where people in your society have different ideas or different interests. I think a healthy democratic politics is one where you do that about economic issues because there are real differences between the interests and different ideas as well.

What has happened now is that the center left parties and the center right parties converged in the center around neoliberal economic policy, which the EU has constitutionalized. Therefore, the way parties can differentiate themselves from each other now is around cultural questions.

In terms of what Europe says to the rest of the world, there was a time it would say it stood for the social market economy and the welfare state and now it says it stands for European civilisation.

A good example of this is the phrase “the European way of life,” which used to be used by French socialists, specifically, to refer to the social market economy and the welfare state and the idea of solidarity that it was meant to embody, saying “that’s what we in Europe stand for as opposed to the United States.”

Now when you look at the way that the phrase is used, it is in more civilizational terms. In the current European Commission, the Commission of Ursula Von Der Leyen since 2019, a European Commissioner for promoting the European way of life and his job is to keep migrants out, which makes it very explicit that migrants- only migrants from the South, not migrants from the east- are a threat to the European way of life. That is a very explicit expression of civilizationalism where the European way of life is defined in terms of culture and civilisation, not in terms of the social market economy and the welfare state.

Q. In your book you imply that the center right is increasingly mimicking the far right. Is there a pro-European version of the great replacement theory, if so, what is it?

There is an idea that the EU represents a European civilisation which is being increasingly threatened. This is basically a far right idea that has now been taken on by the center right in Europe.

For example, a couple of weeks ago, Eric Zemmour was doing a rally in the South of France with the young far right leader Marion Maréchal, and the slogan on the lectern at which he was speaking was ‘Defend our civilization.’  The way the far right is thinking about Europe is there’s a European civilisation that is threatened right now. The far right tends to talk about this in the context of migration. That is, it’s the migration of non-white and non-Christian people that is threatening European civilisation.

For example, Valérie Pécresse, the Republican candidate in the French Presidential election in 2022, was talking about white replacement theory or alluding to it in terms of migration. However, in addition, what the centre right tends to do is not talk so much about migration as a racial threat, but more in foreign policy terms as a threat to European civilisation. Macron has given speeches where he’s quite explicit about this.

In other words, international politics is a clash of civilizations, like how Samuel Huntington argues, and Europe is a distinct civilization. Moreover, for someone like Macron, the West is not one civilization, which is what Huntington thought but that Europe is a distinct civilisation, separate from the United States as well.

Where I see a connection with great replacement theory is that this is almost the international political equivalent of the great replacement theory. It’s not about migration but it’s that if Europe does not unite and defend itself, it will be also replaced by other civilizations. Macron has basically said that.

Q. What are some key takeaways from history regarding Europe’s interaction with those who it sees as the “Other”?

I try to show in Eurowhiteness that there’s a long history of defining Europe against various different “Others” at various different times and it’s constantly shifting. But roughly, I would say, in the medieval period when Europe is pretty much synonymous with Christianity, Jews are defined as the primary internal other and Muslims as the primary external other, excluding the divide between Western Christendom and Eastern Christendom.

Then, in the modern period, I try to show how there is a new complex modern idea of Europe, which is partly to do with the European enlightenment and the scientific revolution. It is a rationalist, secular idea of Europe rather than a religious one. At the same time, the idea of Europe also emerges in the context of the encounter of Europeans with the populations of Africa and Asia, and especially the Americas, and that’s the context in which the idea of whiteness emerges.

So, the modern idea of Europe is not just a rationalist one as opposed to a religious one, it’s also a more racialized idea of Europe that is closely connected to the idea of whiteness. What I think happens in that context is that non-white people around the world are the “Others” against which Europeans define themselves.

In the 20th century and particularly after World War I, you have the new idea of Europe as a geopolitical bloc, which I mentioned earlier. European civilisation or the European spirit, as they talked about it at that time, is being threatened by the United States on the one hand and the Soviet Union on the other hand. In that context, Russia and also the United States are respectively an “Other.” What I think we’re seeing today is a mixture of all of those “Others.”

I

n an unprecedented move, the World Health Organization (WHO) announced on Monday October 30, the release of its first-ever global research agenda on health, migration, and displacement. This monumental step aims to address the mounting health needs of a staggering one billion people worldwide who are leaving their homes either by choice or due to force.

Prompted by a series of factors such as ongoing wars, deep-rooted conflicts, burgeoning income inequalities, significant economic shifts, rapid urbanization, and the looming threat of climate change, the global displacement issue has reached an alarming rate. The WHO has underlined the urgent necessity for evidence-based policies that ensure the well-being and protection of this vulnerable demographic, emphasizing that “no one is left behind.”

The new agenda comes after a year-long consultative process, during which the WHO collaborated with over 180 stakeholders from diverse regions and backgrounds. This extensive consultation led to the identification of five research themes that warrant significant investment. Among these are:

1. Scaling up access to vital services and achieving inclusive universal health coverage.
2. Enhancing the responsiveness of health emergency preparedness.
3. Gaining a deeper understanding of health determinants and strategizing effective solutions.
4. Prioritizing under-researched groups among migrants and the forcibly displaced.
5. Innovating collaborations in research to effectively translate findings into policy and practice.

A substantial gap

WHO Director-General, Dr. Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, expressed his commitment, stating, “The WHO’s global research agenda on health, migration, and displacement represents a pivotal step in our ongoing efforts. By bridging the knowledge gap on the health needs of the world’s most vulnerable populations, we aim to navigate and address the challenges of a world that is constantly on the move.”

While the magnitude of the challenge is evident, the WHO has indicated that there remains a substantial gap in comprehensive knowledge about best practices to optimally support the health of those in transit. This knowledge deficit not only compromises the well-being of displaced individuals but also hinders progress towards the universal health coverage and the broader Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs).

Jeremy Farrar, WHO’s Chief Scientist, expressed his concern about the current state of global health. “With numerous acute and prolonged crises globally, migration and displacement have become intertwined with global health endeavors. The global research agenda is both an urgent call to action and a reminder to broaden our understanding of the health needs of migrants and the displaced.”

A foundational guide for regional and national research blueprints

In addition to setting the global research direction, the WHO’s agenda will serve as a foundational guide for regional and national research blueprints. The organization has also provided an implementation guide and toolkit within the agenda, designed to support policymakers, civil society, NGOs, and other UN agencies in tailoring the agenda to their specific migration contexts and organizational requirements.

Highlighting the urgency of the issue, an interactive dataset will be incorporated to monitor and evaluate the research funding landscape in the realm of health, migration, and displacement. Preliminary findings suggest that the existing research funding on a global scale is insufficient to address the pressing research gaps identified in the global agenda.

In closing, Dr. Santino Severoni, Director of WHO’s Department of Health and Migration, expressed optimism: “The global research agenda will catalyze specialized knowledge on the health of migrants, refugees, and other displaced groups. By understanding their unique health needs, we can work towards more equitable policies and interventions, pushing forward to achieve the SDGs.”

Sources: WHO, Anadolu Agency and Relifweb

Georgia Meloni’s accession to power in Italy is seen as a remarkable turning point that has redefined Euro-Mediterranean relations in general and Euro-Tunisian relations in particular. Meloni was sworn in as president of the Council of Ministers on October 22, 2022. Her inauguration caused an uproar and raised questions about the future of the region, particularly in relation to the Italian state’s migration policy. In fact, an important factor to consider is that Meloni is the leader of Brothers of Italy, a direct descendant of Benito Mussolini’s fascist legacy, but she is also one of the iconic figures of the new right in Europe, propagating a strong sense of xenophobia and advancing a sterile populist discourse.

Why Italy? Demystifying the fundamental factors behind the unusual dispute

Geographical proximity

It is no secret that geopolitics is the fundamental parameter defining Italian efforts in the European-Tunisian equation. Separated by only 140 kilometers, Italy’s geographical proximity to Tunisia has a significant impact on the bilateral dynamics between the two strategically important countries. In fact, the implications go beyond the borders of Italy, as they directly affect the European continent. The answer to the question “Why Italy?” is therefore multifaceted and fraught with complications and interpretations. From a strategic point of view, the shared Mediterranean Sea serves as an important route not only for the promotion of trade but also for the movement of people, making migration a key issue in the Italian (and European) approach to Tunisia. It is important to stress that Tunisia has a significant position both as a home for illegal migrants and as a transit country for migrants from beyond the Sahara.

The main reasons for intercountry migration are often human capital-related, but also include asylum seekers fleeing the intense political instability in North African countries. Statistics confirm that more than 5.3% of the total population of the EU comprise migrants of non-European origin, amounting to 23.7 million people from Third World countries. In this context, Tunisia’s influence on the European Union depends more on the uncontrollable influx of immigrants than on trade and economic dynamics.

The number of Tunisian citizens arriving by sea on the island of Lampedusa in southern Italy has fluctuated over the years. In 2019, the number stood at 2,654 and in 2018 at 5,181. In 2021, it peaked with 15,671 arrivals, followed by 2020 with 12,883 arrivals. The statistics prove that the problems caused by the sea are a major incentive for the Italian authorities to work with Tunisia to find a solution.

Tunisia: A route for an alternative energy source for Europe

In conjunction with the previous section, we can conclude that the geographical factor has implications for energy reasons, namely, the dependency between Europe and the southern Mediterranean. It is worth noting that Italy is one of Europe’s largest energy consumers and its proximity to Tunisia, a potential producer of renewable energy (especially solar energy), could be beneficial for the country and for Europe at large.

It is useful for reasons of perspective to compare this approach with the trends in the global power struggle that have taken place since 2021. In this context, the outbreak of the Russian-Ukrainian military confrontation is seen as the origin of a number of flaws in the concept of the “balance of power” between the continents.

The European Union is currently facing the direct consequences of its transcontinental policies. Many observers believe that the fighting between the two parties has led to a reshaping of the traditional relationship between the EU and its southern Mediterranean neighbors. In particular, the military hostilities has to some extent broken the archaic “asymmetry of interdependence” that the EU has maintained at a steady pace since the signing of the Barcelona Process with Tunisia in 1995. The Russia-Ukraine war has created logistical difficulties for Europe, and given that Tunisia is a strategic partner, facilitating the transit of gas to Europe across the maritime border with Italy, the “Meloni factor” can be justified in the ongoing unrest over the past month.

The Trans-Mediterranean Pipeline and economic cooperation

Known colloquially as “TransMed,” the Trans-Mediterranean Pipeline is a 2,475 km natural gas pipeline “allowing the transport of large quantities of high-quality energy” through Tunisia and Sicily. Although Tunisia’s share is comparatively small, it is nevertheless considered to occupy an important position that can solve the energy problem in terms of the European Union’s external interests, as well as securing potential containment solutions to prevent Tunisia’s economic decline. It is crucial to highlight that the European Union is still considered the country’s first economic partner, accounting for 73.8% of total exports, while maintaining rates of 45.5% of Tunisia’s total imports. Moreover, Italy’s role in Tunisia’s foreign policy has increased in economic terms in the post-Jasmine Revolution era. With the introduction of democratic elements, Italy became Tunisia’s leading supplier in 2017, ahead of France.

Italian-Tunisian relations are often seen as a projection of Euro-Tunisian relations, due to the sum of all the factors mentioned above. Put simply, the inter(in)dependence between Tunisia and Italy and/or the European Union is governed by multiple parameters, of which the economy and migration work together to define this web of complexities.

Migration at the heart of European diplomacy: the role of “Meloni” Italy

The strategy of bilateral cooperation is underpinned by a series of diplomatic all-round dialogues and coordination, mediated mainly by Italy, and has witnessed an urgent upsurge that comes to fulfil the legacy of the “shared history, geographical proximity and strong relationship” (Directorate-General for Neighbourhood and Enlargement Negotiations, 2023) between the European Union and Tunisia. From a European perspective, the problem of migratory flows is seen as a predator lurking behind the bushes and imposes a multitude of complexities on the Euro-Tunisian platform, exemplified by economic, political, and ethnographic difficulties.

The Italian perception of the situation has been translated on two different occasions by Meloni’s courageous efforts. Georgia Meloni first landed on Tunisian soil on June 6 and returned on June 11 to reaffirm the positive European perception of Tunisia, accompanied by European Union President Ursula von der Leyen and Dutch Prime Minister Mark Rutte. The two parties worked out “a memorandum of understanding on the comprehensive partnership package to be approved by Tunisia and the European Union before the end of June 2023” in order to integrate the country into the European efforts to regulate migration. On the other side of the of the coin, President von der Leyen insisted that “against the backdrop of global uncertainties, it is in our common interest to strengthen our relations and invest in stability and prosperity.”

A

nti-migrant racism in North Africa was thought to be a taboo, but in reality it never was. Racism against African migrants, coupled with unabashed anti-Black xenophobia, is alive and kicking in North Africa. Tunisian President Kais Saied’s recent comments on February 21 about sub-Saharan migrants surely shocked many people. Saied labelled migrants as “hordes” and a “demographic threat” to his country. Even more, Saied called for “the need to put a rapid end to this immigration,” which, to his view, has become a source of “violence, crime and unacceptable acts.”

For a country like Tunisia, a generator of migrants fleeing to find a better life in Europe, Saied’s speech may seem out of place and contradictory. Doesn’t the European far right, which applauded Saied’s speech, say the same about Muslim migrants?

President Saied’s invective is neither unprecedented nor isolated in the larger geographical area, the Maghreb. From Morocco to Libya, passing through Mauritania, Algeria and, of course, Tunisia, hateful allegations are not only the prerogative of what some people there call the “little people” to whom we could add the “uncultured” or the “intolerant.” In the upper echelons, at the highest level of the Maghreb states, the same ideas circulate.

For this discourse is not new. Since the Maghreb became the exit door for migrants from Africa to reach the fabled El Dorado, Europe, this immense territory has been transformed into a huge waiting room for tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, of sub-Saharan migrants unable to reach the European coast. A waiting room that has turned into an open-air prison over time. Especially since, to curb this migration flow, the European Union outsourced its borders and entrusted their guarding to the Maghreb states by rewarding them financially, diplomatically, or both.

A migrant mass

The direct consequence of this strong policy of containment has been the creation of a migrant mass that has settled permanently in the Maghreb and lives on the fringes of society, waiting for a passage to Europe. It has also caused inevitable impoverishment and generated the phenomenon of criminalization that no one questions, especially not the local population in contact with migrants.

It is important to understand that as long as migrants were only crossing the territory, they were tolerated. It was only when they were prevented from doing so that their presence began to pose a problem and the old demon of racism resurfaced.

Over the past twenty years, many serious and sometimes bloody incidents have taken place against migrants in North Africa, without being properly reported by the press. Police raids followed by robberies and humiliations, assaults, lynching organized by neighborhood lords or angry citizens, and even rapes have targeted this vulnerable population.

Racism is as old as the world and knows no borders. The Maghrebi expressions for Black people, “âzzi” (black), “kahlouche” (negro), “âbid” (slave), or “oussif” (slave, servant), which have been heard with force recently, are not new and are not a relic of colonialism. As far back as the 14th century, Ibn Khaldun, a historian of Arab descent born in Tunis, wrote that “the only peoples who accept slavery are the negroes, because of their lower degree of humanity, their place being closer to that of the animal.”

Legacy of French colonization

These expressions are therefore the fruit of a mentality that predates the French colonization of Algeria and Mauritania, the French protectorates of Tunisia and Morocco, and the Italian occupation of Libya. What has changed is the violence of words and actions.

In 2012, the Moroccan weekly Maroc Hebdo devoted an entire dossier to the “Black Peril,” attacking without embellishment those who “live by begging, engage in drug trafficking and prostitution” and “pose a human and security problem for the country.” On Moroccan social media, there are regular calls for the expulsion of African migrants, the closure of borders, and the banning of mixed marriages in order to preserve an improbable “purity of the Moroccan race.”

On the other side of the border, in Algeria, a hashtag on Twitter resurfaces from time to time (in Arabic), #NotoAfricansinAlgeria, which immediately sets the world on fire by calling for the hunting down and deportation of migrants. Sometimes, the creators of these hateful messages deliberately confuse Black migrants with Black North African citizens. From the Atlantic Ocean to the Egyptian border, there is a Black Maghrebi population whose ancestors were slaves or settled in North Africa several centuries ago. They are certainly citizens, but they are still considered second-class ones.

A few years ago, in 2016, a Black model of Algerian nationality, Amina Hamouine, had to face an extraordinary campaign of hatred because she had the idea, or the “bad idea” as her detractors would say, of being photographed wearing a Kabyle dress—the Kabyle people are Berbers from the region of Kabylia. This was an unforgivable mistake for those who identify the Kabyle woman from the whiteness of her skin.

Too Black?

Recently, Khadidja Benhamou, an Algerian citizen from Adrar in the south of the country, was deemed “too Black” to wear the crown of Miss Algeria 2019—her skin color did not represent all Algerians, it seems.

But it is not only the “little people” who indulge in these feelings that sociologists and anthropologists call “systemic negrophobia.” Some Algerian leaders do as well. In 2017, five years before the Tunisian president’s remarks, senior officials of Algiers, which has a virulent anti-colonial past, were not kind to migrants either.

Ahmed Ouyahia, an Algerian politician who has been appointed prime minister ten times—an absolute record— and who at the time was head of President Abdelaziz Bouteflika’s cabinet as a minister of state, described African migrants on the private television station Ennahar TV as “[t]hese illegal foreigners bring[ing] crime, drugs and several other scourges.” At the time, Ouyahia was the secretary general of the National Democratic Rally (RND), one of the two crutches, along with the National Liberation Front (FLN), that support the government in Algeria.

His words were echoed and amplified a few days later by Algerian Foreign Minister Abdelkader Messahel, who identified the arrival of sub-Saharans in the country as a “threat to national security.”

But the ultimate horror was reached again in 2017 in Libya, when footage filmed by CNN journalists revealed to the world the unimaginable in the 21st century: an auction of migrants from Nigeria at a market near Tripoli.

Anti-racism laws

To counter this unfortunate litany of racist acts, Tunisia passed a law in 2018 penalizing racism and established January 23 as the “National Day for the Abolition of Slavery.” However, the 2018 law, historical, innovative, and the first of its kind in the Arab world, was annihilated by the verbal outrage of President Saied on February 21, 2023, when he evoked a “criminal plan prepared at the beginning of this century to change the demographic composition of Tunisia” and whose objective was to transform the country into an “African-only country” and to remove its “Arab Muslim” identity.

Of course, one can try to nuance this reality by recalling, for example, the decision of the Moroccan authorities to launch campaigns to issue resident permits, such as in 2014, which initially resulted in the regularization of 25,000 undocumented migrants. It can also be argued that, like Tunisia, Algeria adopted a law criminalizing racial discrimination in 2020. But these gestures of goodwill have little impact if they are not followed by campaigns to educate the local population on the need to accept the “other.” Campaigns that television stations refused to broadcast, as was the case in Morocco.

All crises, whether economic or security-based, produce exasperation that ends up finding a scapegoat, and African migrants have become the ideal candidates. They pay for the economic crisis and the criminal behavior of a minority in their own community.

As a scapegoat, they also pay the price for some of the services rendered by the Maghreb states to Europeans: to showcase its status as a paid gendarme of the European Commission, Morocco got carried away by its destructive zeal on June 24, 2022, when it violently curtailed an attempt by several hundred migrants, mostly Sudanese, citizens of a “brotherly Arab” country, to force their way into Ceuta, a Spanish enclave on Moroccan territory.

EU responsibility

The result—24 dead according to the Moroccan authorities, 37 according to a local association, not counting the missing—has not only tarnished Morocco’s image in Africa but also revealed another problem that is worth studying. In which state in the world, except for the former East Germany and the now defunct Berlin Wall and migrants escaping war to Greece and Italy, are dozens of people killed to prevent them from leaving a country that is not theirs to seek refuge elsewhere?

A tragedy that ended with a congratulatory gesture worthy of the former East Germany, as the president of the Spanish government, Pedro Sánchez, praised the brutal intervention of the Moroccan police force.

Finally, the European Union’s migration policy, which consists of preventing human beings from moving freely, by force if necessary, has helped this local outbreak of racism and intolerance, and dynamited several principles, some of them religious, that were thought to be immutable.

Pan-Africanism, the egalitarian and anti-slavery utopia propagated in most of the post-independence Maghreb countries, especially Algeria, has come to an end. The myth introduced by these countries of an integrating Islam that makes no distinction between a white and a Black person has been shattered. Despite many migrants adhering to Islam, they are treated as strangers to the Ummah.

Mpanzu Bamenga was eight years old when in 1994, he fled from the Congo to the Netherlands with his mother and older brother. Today, he is a municipal councilor in the Dutch city of Eindhoven and a passionate advocate for human rights. In 2016, he was elected the “Political Talent of the Year” as a councilor in the city of Eindhoven. In 2018, Bamenga arrived at the airport of his Dutch hometown after having lectured on human rights in Italy. He was selected by the border police for a passport check as according to the officials his appearance matched the risk profile of a “Nigerian money smuggler.” Latife Özdemir of Politics Today interviewed Bamenga – you can read the full interview here.

Q. What is racial profiling, and should people worry about it?

Racial profiling is a forbidden form of discrimination by the government. Yes, it is something people should worry about because racial profiling comes from the idea that someone can be judged based on their skin color, ethnicity, or nationality instead of this person’s character. It is also against the fundamental right of being treated equally. It is against human rights. It threatens what we stand for and who we are as human beings.

Q. Not long ago, we were discussing racial profiling in the Unites States, but nowadays it seems that the issue also started to appear in the Netherlands as for example in the cases of Mitch Henriquez and the 17-year-old Rishi Chandrikasing, who was fatally shot by the police in 2012. Is racial profiling of Black people and citizens with an immigrant background becoming widespread in the Netherlands?

I think that racial profiling has always been there. To fight against something, you should first make it visible. It has always been hidden. It’s been brought to light – this is a step to fight against racial profiling. The first anti-discrimination bureaus in the Netherlands were opened 30 years ago. They basically started after situations of racism. It is widespread, not only in practice but also in policy. It is institutionalized in our society and to fight against it, we should address it. It is also part of implicit biases, and we act upon it, which is wrong because it can be contrary to one’s beliefs and values. But it is even worse if you act upon it and you are an official of the government.

Q. Do you think that the situation regarding racial profiling increased after events such as 9/11 for example?

I think that these kinds of events are used as a justification. For instance, now we have people coming from several countries, Syria, Afghanistan, etc. And now we are using it as a justification to say “We have to stop illegal migration, so how can we stop it if we are not able to control passports?” Well, ethnic profiling doesn’t mean that the border police can’t control passports – they can. But the question is “How do they do this?” Do they look at someone’s skin color and assume that this person must be from Syria, Afghanistan, or Africa? Or thinking that someone must be a money smuggler, a criminal, or a terrorist based on someone’s color? This is forbidden and against human rights.

Q. You experienced a racial profiling situation three years ago, how did you feel at the time?

It is very humiliating, and it also stigmatizes because it fits within the idea that the person who is stopped is a non-white person, so there must be, or there could be, something wrong. – It fits into stigmatization, which has consequences in society. For instance, when a young person wants to apply for an internship and the employee just looks at the name (Mohammed) and that person doesn’t even get the opportunity to present themselves or to get an internship at an organization.

This is a very big issue in the Netherlands. We have a lot of labor market and housing discrimination.

This is a very big issue in the Netherlands. We have a lot of labor market and housing discrimination. There are a lot of things going on here when it comes to the idea that when someone comes from a different country, this must be “wrong.” People are not judged by their character but by certain characteristics which you can’t change. It also shouldn’t matter what your religion or your skin color is. What they do is dehumanizing and humiliating if you are the victim.

Q. What are the legal mechanisms to face racial profiling?

When certain individuals have racially profiled a person, this person can file a complaint. This is a simple thing to do, one can go to court. After the complaint, one can go to the Ombudsman. The Ombudsman must look into the situation. One can go to the police or the anti-discrimination bureau as well.

Q. What are your thoughts regarding the decision of the court in your case?

The decision was not what we expected. Even though we know racial profiling is instituted, it is still a shock to hear the judge basically mentioning that it is all fine for the border police to stop someone also based on his or her skin color. It is pretty shocking that the law justifies this.  Still, our legal system gives us the possibility to go to a higher court. Especially in this case, when we talk about a fundamental issue, it is crucial and necessary to go to a higher court.

We started a petition which says “My color doesn’t say anything about my Dutch citizenship.”

Q. The decision at the higher court will be in nine months. What are you going to do until then? Are you planning to raise more awareness or to carry out any other activities?

Yes, we started a petition which says “My color doesn’t say anything about my Dutch citizenship.” We hope that we will get support and as many people as possible will sign it. I am sure that we already achieved more awareness, and that more and more people will understand what it is about and why racial profiling should be forbidden in the Netherlands. I hope the court will decide that ethnicity can never be a part of profiling,when there is no concrete suspect.

Q. As the municipal councilor in Eindhoven, what do you think about the house of representatives’ stance when it comes to racial profiling? Some argue that it’s passive. Do you agree?

At this moment, the judgement is still in the courts’ hands so the parliament must be careful about how to intervene. Therefore, I understand that some members of the parliament are hesitant to act at this point. But at the same time, a legal procedure can take up to six years, while the government is the executive body and parliament the legislative body, they can change this discriminatory situation tomorrow if they want. They don’t need a court decision for that.

Q. Do you think that the profiling and surveillance of people will become a bigger issue in Western democracies?

As long as we don’t fight racial profiling, it could be. It is simply a stupid idea to stop someone according to their looks or ethnicity. I believe that more awareness seems to be important, and especially having a mixed environment in education. We should do more in the field of education.

Q. You said during a speech three years ago that you still believe in a world which is just, inclusive, and where everyone is treated equally. Is the gap between the current situation and the ideal widening? If yes, is there still hope to achieve the world you talk about?

Of course, I believe in it with all my heart. I’m very positive and I believe that we are making important steps, and that we are in a final moment to change the world for the better. I think it is important to mention the words of Martin Luther King, “Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.” This means that even though you are in a good situation you should think and care about other events happening in the world.

Harsha Walia’s Border and Rule, published by Haymarket Books in 2021, bulldozes through political partisanship to present a critical perspective of both sides, reminding us that the Left and the Right may seem different on the surface, but that paying close attention to the vernacular used by adherents would reveal how they are one and the same, and how embroiled both factions are in looking upon the world and its resources as worthy of exploitation.

Thus the immigrant/asylum seeker in the United States (US) through a right-wing lens is seen as ‘stealing jobs’ while through a left-wing perspective, he/she is ‘building the economy’. (19) In both cases, the immigrant/asylum seeker has been commoditized. (14)

Walia directs us to the concerted efforts of not just the US but the rest of the world in their move towards perfecting immigration policy in the optic of ‘displacing, immobilizing, criminalizing, exploiting, and expelling migrants and refugees’. (2) She goes on to point out that the US attracts only 1 percent of the global population of migrants—a fact that may surprise many, given the extensive publicity of how it promotes itself as migrant and refugee-friendly. (160) She believes that border politics should be rephrased in terms of ‘border imperialism’, and encourages moves towards ‘restitution, reparations, and responsibility’, rather than ‘charity and humanitarianism’. (3)

She views ‘anti-migrant xenophobia, immigration enforcement, detention centers, migration controls, and border securitization’ as symptoms of a more fundamental policy at play: ‘the rule of racist, nationalist borders.’ Along these lines, it makes sense that she finally advocates a ‘leftist politics of no borders’ (213) which implies an abolition of the concept of citizenship in order to allow a free movement of people across countries.

Walia’s book focuses on the plight of refugees and asylum seekers as they are forced to abandon conflict-ridden countries and homes affected by natural disasters and climate change.

Walia’s book focuses on the plight of refugees and asylum seekers as they are forced to abandon conflict-ridden countries and homes affected by natural disasters and climate change. She retraces the hardships endured in the course of these travels, commenting especially on the process-burdened entry they face, and eventual acceptance into host countries. But entering the host country is only the beginning of the ordeal of migration, she avers. Delay in issuing work permits or in processing applications for permanent residency or citizenship subjects them in the interim to harsh working and living conditions, as they are turned into an unregulated pool of exploitable manpower.

But there is some respite too, as Walia discusses the success of grassroot level strategies that now allow migrants to be welcomed into countries together with their families, or have even led to the abolition of the live-in requirement for caregivers in countries like Canada. Previously the live-in policy subjected workers to a variety of abuses so that the Filipino Women’s Organisation in Quebec reported how caregivers ‘could not use fans or the internet, lock their rooms, entertain visitors, or leave the home when not working.’ (165-66)

In India, the rise of Hindutva ideology, embraced by Modi and his government, has stoked resentment against Muslim migrants so that among other policies of exclusion, compulsory registration in Assam in the National Register of Citizens (NCR) has turned Muslim Indians of Bengali origin into noncitizens, although they were born and lived there for generations. (159-160)

Walia also explores the effects of the COVID19 pandemic explaining how it provided excuses to tighten border control and impose further injustices on refugees and asylum seekers. Thus the government of Malta abandoned passengers on a boat in its seas so that some of them perished from dehydration and drowning, and later arranged for the remainder to return forcibly to Libya. (11)

Walia also explores the effects of the COVID19 pandemic explaining how it provided excuses to tighten border control and impose further injustices on refugees and asylum seekers.

Moreover in Australia, detained refugees in onshore and offshore centers were among the most vulnerable as they were forced to live in close proximity and many already suffered from health issues. (99) The pandemic also allowed authorities in Lebanon and China to impose stricter regulations on refugees from Syria and Africa respectively, and indulge in discriminatory practices where local citizens were made to adhere to a different set of precautionary rules. (11) In such times, refugees, asylum seekers and/or new migrants were also easily shunned and marked out as ‘vectors of diseases’. (196)

While Walia proposes a solution to remedy the global migration crisis—that is, ‘a leftist politics of no borders’—her war appears to be more ambitious than that. Arguably it may be looked upon as utopian, as she advocates a complete revamp of the capitalist system in place.

‘Empires crumble,’ she says, ‘capitalism is not inevitable, gender is not biology, whiteness is not immutable, prisons are not escapable, and borders are not natural law.’ (215) Her insistence and resilience are both contagious, and it is easy to be drawn by the bigger parentheses of this book that appeal to us to look upon a refugee not as a stranger, an outsider, or chattel, but a human being.

Activism, solidarity and care are what nourish a healthy and awoke society. Europe has known numerous civic mobilization inspired by human solidarity, changing its policies, its governments, even its times, but currently a wide pattern of intimidation and repression has emerged to hinder, criminalize and stigmatize humanitarian assistance to migrants.

Before and during the Second World War, when it was almost impossible to flee a country, Europe still witnessed massive movements of people thanks to countless, and often nameless, ordinary citizens who assumed incalculable responsibilities to save thousands of lives. Similarly, during the Cold War, when a mass migration took place from the Eastern Europe toward the West, smuggling of citizens, particularly to cross the Berlin Wall, was a common practice.

Time, politics, and socio-economic circumstances change the way human rights defenders are seen and depicted, as heroes or as criminals.

Largest Civic Mobilization

At the present, Europe is witnessing the largest civic mobilization in its recent history. Since the emergence of the so-called “refugee crisis,” both spontaneous and organized groups all over Europe have arisen to help people on the move, through humanitarian assistance, search-and-rescue operations, medical care, advocacy or legal aid. As European politicians failed to uphold their legal and humanitarian obligations, their citizens responded to fill the gaps and condemn the dehumanization of people on the move in the name of migration controls.

Yet in recent years, these human rights defenders haven’t met particular support, gratitude or financial assistance from the authorities. On the contrary, they have been subjected to unfounded judicial prosecutions, arbitrary arrests, investigations, undue restrictions of their activities, intimidation, harassment and smear campaigns all around Europe.

A toxic narrative stigmatizing people on the move and the activists who help them is taking place even now, with the COVID19 pandemic still in full swing.

A toxic narrative stigmatizing people on the move and the activists who help them is taking place even now, with the COVID19 pandemic still in full swing. Now that the value of human life and the necessity of helping each other are particularly important to protect the most vulnerable and marginalized people from the worst impacts of the current crisis.

Since the beginning of June 2020, a smear and intimidation campaign and numerous death threats were addressed against Ms. Bihorac. Several times she was even followed and stopped by the police, accusing her of aiding illegal immigration and insinuating that she would be arrested soon.

These are a few recent cases among the hundreds of human rights defenders who have been arrested, harassed or investigated over the last few years throughout Europe. No evidence is found for convictions in most of the cases, suggesting that this is primarily a political tool to deter solidarity, create a hostile environment for migrants and provoke a general feeling of suspicion, fear and intimidation within civil society.

Criminalization of Solidarity

These misguided investigations and the general “criminalization of solidarity” nourish the false image of asylum seekers as criminals and of activists as ambiguous individuals trying to profit out of migration flows and colluding with smugglers. Politicians and media in their speeches frequently fail to distinguish between people smuggling and simple acts of solidarity, but such ambiguity stems from the European legal framework itself.

While for the UN Protocol against the Smuggling of Migrants a for-profit element is required to qualify for smuggling and to establish a criminal offense, in Europe, according to the 2002 Facilitators Package, the facilitation of entry is criminal even without the intent to gain profit in 24 out of 28 EU Member States.

Yet, in 2018 the European Parliament commissioned a study on the various forms and cases of criminalization of solidarity in EU and passed a resolution “on guidelines for Member States to prevent humanitarian assistance from being criminalized.” It underlined that acts of humanitarian assistance should not be criminalized and called upon Member States to ensure that prosecution is not pursued against individuals and civil society organizations assisting migrants for humanitarian reasons.

The limited understanding of African migration continues to hinder effective policies, far from addressing the current lived realities and migration drivers. Often, Africa is negatively represented as a continent of mass migration to Europe, lacking nuance and depth to the existing drivers and patterns.

According to the United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs Population Division (2020), Africans migrate more within the continent than overseas. According to the Africa Migration Report, African migrants comprise no more than 14 percent of all global migrants. An African perspective is needed to demystify all myths, fears, and misconceptions, especially during this pandemic.

Prior to COVID-19 pandemic, socio-economic conditions, climate change, and internal conflicts served as significant push factors for most African migrants. However, the sanitary crisis has resulted in unprecedented socioeconomic impact across the African continent and brought a new driver for a wave of migratory flows. The restriction on human mobility and other measures imposed to tackle the pandemic have impacted the overall economic activities and livelihoods. The situation became alarming for the vulnerable persons in the African countries.

In parallel, as internal conflicts intensify in the Sahel, the region’s socio-economic conditions worsened, and hundreds of thousands of people are awaiting the opportunity to migrate for a better future inside the continent or through Morocco on to the European continent.

Despite the regularization of 50,000 migrants during the two campaigns of 2014 and 2016 launched by the Moroccan government, estimated numbers of irregular migrants in Morocco demonstrate a significant increase of migrants without legal status.

However, it is important to note that the exact percentage of migrants who have been smuggled and trafficked could not be calculated at the national level, whether for those crossing the perilous Mediterranean and the Atlantic, the desert, or those crossing borders in Ceuta and Melilla.

The general trend of migrants opting to reach Europe through Morocco are men and women under the age of 35 and more recently young couples. Migrants mainly from Congo Brazaville, Guinea Conakry, Ivory Coast, Senegal, Cameroon, Mali, Liberia, Nigeria, Gambia, Eritrea, Sudan, Tchad seek to reach Europe by landing on the Moroccan coasts or through the borders of Ceuta and Melilla.  Sometimes, migrants could be minors, especially from Guinea Conakry and Senegal.

“I was working as a maid before the pandemic, I tried to save money to pay my journey to Spain, but I couldn’t work during the confinement, it was challenging and hard to cover basic needs ( food and rent ), I was forced to do prostitution to get some money for a living.”

African countries are most affected by poverty, famine, desertification, and various deadly pandemics, resulting in a high percentage of Africans deciding to migrate and are forced displaced.  Due to the failure of effective policies to address the root causes of irregular migration, migrants are victims of traffickers and smugglers along the routes. According to the Global Report on Trafficking in Persons 2020, migrants are at more risk for human trafficking, disappearance, and loss of life.

As an example, a migrant recounts his dangerous and hell-like journey from Cameroon to Morocco stating to Politics Today that:

“From the beginning of the journey, you are the target of organized criminal groups, you can come across smugglers who take all your money, torture you, and ask you to call the family to send them money so they can free you. I faced the same treatment along the route, it’s Bis-Repitita, in front of me. Two migrants lost their lives as a result of multiple tortures.”

The African countries cannot curb these problems without good coordination between different institutions and adequate support for local development efforts. Without shared responsibility, African countries will not be able to put in place a model that ensures the prevention of irregular migration and the assistance and protection of migrants. In addition, African countries also have to cooperate in developing initiatives to realize the vision of Agenda 2063 of an integrated Africa. The African Union revised Migration Policy Framework (MPFA 2018-2030), and the African agenda on migration was adopted in 2018. In his capacity as an African leader on migration, King Mohammed VI, through the African Agenda on Migration, proposed the creation of The African Migration Observatory in 2018. The official inauguration was under the African Union’s aegis on 18 December 2020 in Rabat, Morocco.

The African Migration Observatory is envisaged to develop a mechanism of collecting, analyzing, and sharing information between members to promote controlled management of migration flows. The Observatory will generate geographically balanced information on migration that responds to the continent’s needs in terms of factual management of the phenomenon. 

It is a real challenge for African Union to develop autonomous institutions, such as the African migration observatory. As such, the implementation of these policies needs to be funded by African funds. Efforts should be made to ensure the complementarity of financial and technical resources between African countries.

They also need to improve the coordination control systems to improve data collection and information exchange. But, in the scarcity of national migration observatories, the African Union members have to create national institutions as focal points of the African Migration Observatory.

Following the end of colonialism which saw the enslavement and migration of hundreds of thousands of people who were brought to foreign lands to serve the interests and wishes of their colonizers, immigrants had to survive by doing manual jobs. In this context, political engagement was severely hindered, if not completely impossible.

The new generations and descendants of these slaves and the new immigrants, however, grew up in different circumstances. Unlike their ancestors, they felt grounded in these new lands, which they came to call their home.

The path to citizenship for people of color was not easy. In the United States, the Civil Rights Movement was able to achieve success, although not a full and a decisive one, in the 1960s, after long years of fighting for equal rights for black people. People of color had to overcome many challenges to be able to engage in politics and to achieve representation.

Growing up in post settler-colonial societies such as the United States and New Zealand and having received the necessary education and skills, the younger generation had a different view of their new home countries and treated the political establishments differently.

Usually, the first generation of immigrants struggle to find work in order to survive. They have to learn a skill that helps them find their way in a foreign place in addition to facing cultural, economic, political, and assimilation challenges.

Their children, however, tend to have fewer such problems; they learn the language and culture of the countries they are in and adapt to their lifestyles.

The second and third generations of immigrants feel that their home is where they were born, although they might not forget their cultural heritage. They find their way in society more easily despite facing problems related to racial discrimination and family pressure.

The second and third generations of immigrants tend to be more involved in politics. This includes family and informal political debates, being involved with political groups on campus, being part of political parties and movements, leading the masses to bring about change, and ultimately running for political posts.

This second generation of immigrants have access to education, and this allows them to play a more prominent role in society. The fact that the second generation usually receives an education, empowers them and makes them feel less foreign. An empowered generation is better prepared to act politically. This political involvement of immigrants appears more prominently in the second and third generations who are more willing to take political action.

The second and third generations of immigrants tend to be more involved in politics. This includes family and informal political debates, being involved with political groups on campus, being part of political parties and movements, leading the masses to bring about change, and ultimately running for political posts.

Recent years have seen a trend in countries such as the United States, the United Kingdom, and New Zealand, among others, of second- and third-generation immigrants who feel politically empowered and who want to be part of bringing about a political change.

In the United States, more and more people with migrant backgrounds started actively participating in politics and forming groups that seek to be part of the political scenes of their country. Recent years have seen the election to the U.S. Congress of more radical and younger voices that call for political, economic, and social change.

Palestinian-American Iman Jodeh is the first Muslim American to be elected to represent the 41^st district in the Colorado House of Representatives in the 2020 general election, becoming the first Muslim lawmaker in the state’s history.

Leaving behind a war-torn country, Ilhan Omar arrived in the United States as a refugee from Somalia and is a U.S. representative for Minnesota’s 5th congressional district. Rashida Tlaib is of Palestinian origin and is serving as the U.S. representative for Michigan’s 13th congressional district, which has a large presence of Arab and Palestinian voters.

Ayanna Pressley is an African American politician who made her way to politics through her early political engagement; she was the first African American woman to be elected to Boston City Council in 2010 and the first black women elected to the congress from Massachusetts.

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez also fought a hard battle to get to the U.S. Congress when she ran against Democratic Caucus Chair Joe Crowley, a 10-term incumbent, defeating him and becoming a national sensation.

The Squad was doubled in 2020 with the addition of more members. The 2020 elections in the U.S. were remarkable in the sense that they saw the election of more Native American representatives to the US Congress such as Deb Haaland, who, if confirmed, will become the first Native American Secretary of State under President Biden.

Palestinian-American Iman Jodeh is the first Muslim American to be elected to represent the 41^st district in the Colorado House of Representatives in the 2020 general election, becoming the first Muslim lawmaker in the state’s history.

In a webinar organized by American Muslims for Palestine, Jodeh said, “We need immediate criminal justice reform; I will do it from the lens of a practicing Muslim Palestinian Arab woman of color.”

Derya Taskin, an American politician of Turkish origin, made history after being elected to the Electoral College, becoming the first U.S. politician of Turkish origin to be elected to such a post. Taskin served as the deputy mayor of Paterson in New Jersey.

“I read and learned more about the United States system, I wanted more involvement. I contacted my local party and started passing out fliers and going door to door during the local election. As time passed, I wanted to make more of a difference because I started to help my community who did not speak English to fill out forms and take advantage of certain benefits the state offered. This brought me to the idea that with politics I can do more, but I had to start from the bottom and this is what I did,” Taskin said.