The Canary Islands 'maritime wall' : migration pressure, security measures and economic crisis in the mid-Atlantic

Chapter 2 The Canary Islands' "Maritime Wall": Migration Pressure, Security Measures and Economic Crisis in the Mid-Atlantic Josefina Domínguez-Mujica, Ramón Díaz-Hemández and Juan Parreno-Castellano Global capitalism, the technological revolution and the security crisis make up the context within which the Canary Islands have reinforced their geostrategic position as Europe's southern border. As part of the Kingdom of Spain, they have historically been linked to the Euro pean continent, and these ti es ha ve be en strengthened by the islands' specialization in tourisrn and their statute as an ultraperipheric and insular region of the European Union .. Their income is thus typical of highly developed countries, which contrasts sharply with their proximity to the shores of Africa, where per cap ita income is four times lower than in Spain - a circumstance that strongly favours an intense irregular immigration flow by sea. Both Spain and the European Union have undertaken political and military rneasures to try and stop a flow that acquired great intensity towards the middle of the first decade of the twenty-first century, when rnany rnigrants lost their lives at sea while trying to pursue their drearn ofreaching European Union territory. The fall in irnrnigration pressure on European Union borders that has taken place from 2008 until 2010, has been interpreted as a success of EU policies based on the irnplernentation of new security rneasures and the signing of certain agreements with African migration sender and transit countries. Without underestimating the importance of these measures, in this chapter we explain our view that the drop in irregular migration flows between Africa and Europe would not have reached the same extent if we had not found ourselves immersed in a phase of deep economic crisis, especially in Spain, where this situation stands in stark contrast to the marked low-productivity growth that favoured economic activity and immigration until 2007. It must not be forgotten, consequently, that borders are porous to the aspirations and drearns of human beings who wish to improve their circumstances, and that this is dependent on their perception of economic situations and opportunities. This forces us to take into account economic cycles and transnational contact and information networks, which regulate human mobility beyond security policies and border controls. In this sense the Canary Islands have become a privileged vantage point fro1n which to analyse mobility within those socioeconomically fractured spaces which delimit wealth and poverty, as well as to study the political and military policies developed by the European Union to put the brakes on irregular immigration, and to examine the strategies for survival adopted by citizens fromAfrican countries hopingto improve their living conditions, even ifit involves risking their lives or that of their children. 28 Borders, Fences and Walls Conceptual Framework The Literature on Migra/ion and Border Control Human mobility is one of the phenomena that have generated the most interest among social researchers throughout history. Examining the bibliographical production of the first few years of the twenty-first century will bring to light the fact that there is not only a vast number of publications whose subject is migration, but that there is also a wealth of conceptual approaches underpinning multiple analyses. However, this wideranging conceptual kaleidoscope narrows down severely when the object of study deals with irregular migration in border regions, and even more so when the migration pressure studied is not related to the US-Mexican border. An example of the first theoretic focus corresponds to the special number of Geopolitics entitled: "Borderline Contradictions: Neoliberalism, Unauthorised Migration, and Intensifying Immigration Policing" (Varsanyi and Nevins, 2007). As far as unauthorized immigration in Europe is concerned, many of the works published relate migration to the issues ofsecurity, sovereignty and mobility within the Union. As Martín-Pérez (2010) has stated, the historie process of incorporating immigration-related issues into the sphere of European Union policies has proven to be extremely complex, since it has brought about a confrontation between the individual member states' reluctance to lose control over . a question rooted in the very concept of national sovereignty on the one hand, and, on . the othef, the need to cope with international challenges, such as migratory pressure and security in a global world. As a result, in the most recent works, the entity of the Union 's borders and the new process of the externalization of borders appear inextricably linked to sovereignty and human mobility within the context of neoliberalism. Nowadays "it is possible to recognize a contradictory process which encourages economic flows across international borders, while at the sarne time maintaining nationalistic political-geographic closure across those same borders via expanding boundary enforcement and militarization" (Carter and Merrill, 2007). Thus, for instance, "the interstate system and sovereignty have been restructured in such a way that it has essentially erased borders. Debordering is a selective process and it is often paralleled by a rebordering, or border creation at new locations to guard against 'undesirable' elements" (Kimball, 2007). Likewise, Clochard and Duyperon (2007) have stated that "it is becoming difficult to know where the borders ofthe European Union are located". Hollifield, 2004; Lavenex, 2006; Rijpma and Cremona, 2007; van Houtum and Pijpers, 2007; Kaufmann, 2007; Ferrer-Gallardo, 2008; Dover, 2008; Rohrmoser, 2008; Illamola, 2008; and Casey, 2010, have authored sorne ofthe research undertaken on this process ofthe restructuring ofEuropean borders. In ali ofthese works migration is analysed asan integral component ofthe actions and policies that, while favouring the free circulation ofpeople between member states (early SchengenAgreement, 1985), have also contributed to the construction of"fortress Europe". Consequently, according to them ali, the blurring of internal borders has been accompanied by the reinforcement of the Union's external borders, as the management of migration has been deferred to non-Union countries. This has meant, in the case of southern Europe, that the containment of African emigration has been left in the hands ofLibya, Morocco, Mauritania and Senegal, among other countries. These same premises coincide with the analyses perfonned by other researchers from a juridical perspective, sorne of them somewhat descriptive in character, as in the cases of Fernández Sánchez, 2006, or Triandafyllidou, 2010, and others more critica! in their The Canary Jslands' "Maritime Wall" 29 approach, as those who highlight the need to ensure that the process of securitization of the Union's externa! borders is not undertaken at the expense of the rule of law or human rights (especially as far as refugees, asylum seekers and minors are concerned). In fact, the predicated existence of new "dangers" -international terrorism and organized crime -is the perfect alibí to justify the restrictive legislation and measures brought about by the expansion of a security-focused culture of military origin. As stated by Kaufmann (2007), "in such a mode, governmental security measures operate in a manner analogous to the networks of terrorism, of organised crime and human trafficking -the very networks it pretends or purports to protect again". For this reason, the works ofSoddu, 2006; BaldwinEdwards, 2006; Femández, Manvella, Rijpma and Cremona, 2007; Spijkerboer, 2007; Gebrewold, 2008; and Ceriani, 2009, make, according to Adepoju, van Noorloos and Zoomers "a critical assessment of the way the EU -and individual countries su ch as Spain, France and Italy -have played active roles in reshaping old and developing new strategies for keeping migration under control" (201 O). The process of externalizing the EU borders has al so led to a shift in the focus of research that has been gaining in importance over the last few years, as a result of the European Union signing border control agreements with third countries andas a consequence ofthe bilateral agreements between sorne member states and third countries. Transit migrations have become a new object of interest, in as much as they are an issue of great importance within the process of the externalization of borders, and they have been studied, among others, by van Moppes, 2006; Collyer, 2006; Schapendonk and van Moppes, 2007; Sadiqi, 2007; Kimball, 2007; Schapendonk, 2008 etc.; in ali the cases mentioned Morocco has been the main area of study. The focus on security, the externalization of borders and respect for human rights, as far as non-authorized migration is concerned, has tended to obscure the relationship that has developed between economic factors, transnational processes and irregular human mobility in border regions. The number of researchers who have shown an interest in these issues is small (Arango and Martin, 2005; Sandell, 2005; Lacomba and Boni, 2008; Gielis, 2009; de Haas, 2010; etc.), despite the fact that in December 2005 the European Council adopted the Global Approach to Migration road map and that the European Union has organized a number of conferences (Rabat, 2006 and Trípoli, 2006) with the specific aim of linking migration and development. These guidelines, however, have not been economically supported and that might explain why scientific debate has been largely lacking as regards the consequences of partnerships and other initiatives that establish a relationship between migration, economic development and the job rnarket. Sorne of the few authors who have tackled this issue are the following: Martin, Martin and Cross, 2007; Bosch and Haddad, 2007; Lavenex and Kunz, 2008; Chou, 2009; Chou and Gibert, 2010; and Serrano, 2010. The Study of Unauthorized Migration in Euro pe S Sóuthern Maritime Borders There are numerous docurnents available on the different actions of control and vigilance undertaken to prevent unauthorized irnmigration across the European Union's southern borders, especially in the case of Spain. The Spanish Ministry of the Interior, in particular, has released a large number of reports and working papers describing these actions and measures in detail. From a strategic and geopolitical perspective, the articles published by the Real Instituto Elcano are worth highlighting; it is a Spanish private foundation that serves as a forum for analysis and discussion of international relations and it has 30 Borders, Fences and Walls recently focused its interest on the role Spain is playing as Europe's southernmost border. Arteaga, 2007; Alvear, 2008; Díaz andAbad, 2008; Vélez, 2008; Ilies, 2009; García, 2010; and Ripjma, 2010, have published works on this issue. As far as the Canary Islands are concerned, as the flow of irregular immigration by sea gained in intensity, a number of scientific papers were published that went beyond a mere description of events or a listing of control mechanisms. Nevertheless, the attention paid by social researchers to these matters has been hardly comparable to the attention paid to them by the media and human rights organizations. Thus, sorne ofthe better known works have been authored by joumalists, such as Naranjo, 2006. As Jorgen Carling stated in 2007: "while there are numerous studies about the dynamics of migration and border control on the US-Mexican border, academic research on irregular migration in southem Europe has by and large concentrated on the situation of undocumented residents after arrival, and not on the unauthorized itself. The European media, by contrast, report on unauthorized migration from Africa almost daily, and measures to contain this flow stand very high on the European policy agenda" (Carling, 2007: 316). Among the most representative scientific papers we have those by the already cited Carling (2007a, 2007b) and Ferrer-Gallardo (2008),' as well as those by Domínguez, Díaz and Parreño, 2001; Parkes, 2006; Carrera, 2007a, 2007b; Godenau and Zapata, 2008; and Fargues, 2009. The works authored by Carling, Godenau and Zapata and Fargues are especially complete, providing a detailed and lengthy analysis of the said unauthorized ,immigration, the changes it has undergone (routes, types of boats, different strategies of ·human sffiuggling), the sequence of arrivals and the fatalities associated to them, as well as an assessment of the measures of control adopted and a critical examination of the management itself of unauthorized flows. However, the analysis of these processes from a short term perspective has meant that insufficient attention has been paid to their economic context, which is an important dimension that we feel contributes to a greater understanding of the complexities of this kind of migration flows. Migrations and Security in a Globalized World The Construction ofthe European Fortress In 1897 Friedrich Ratzel described a border as "the skin of the living state", 2 a poetic definition that contrasts with the less literary but more widespread notion of the border as a fixed line that delimits the territory over which a state is sovereign. Sovereignty is a key concept in intemational law, for it refers to the legitimacy of a state to exercise its power within its territory. However, intemational coexistence and the strategies of capitalist development have increasingly led towards the configuration of regional integration processes that go beyond the traditional concept of the sovereign state, with the result that borders have become more flexible. The firm boundaries that followed the historical consolidation of nation states have gradually succumbed to a trend towards greater accessibility, which facilitates the sharing of the benefits of the free circulation of goods, capital and services, while preserving control over the Iabour market and security. 1 The latter touches on the Canary Islands migration pressure only in passing, as the main focus ofhis work Hes in the cities ofCeuta and Melilla. 2 "Die Haut des lebendigen Zustand". The Canary Jslands' "Mari time Wall" 31 This process, which has already taken place at a regional level, is also beginning to expand worldwide, and globalization is giving rise to a growing opening ofborders or, at least, to their greater permeability. On the other hand, the use of technological developments in the management of borders has led to remarkable changes. The preoccupation with security against terrorism, fanaticism, ann and drug smuggling, transborder crime and unauthorized immigration has resulted in the creation of standardized databases, information networks and, especially, in the incorporation of new technologies (biometrics, sensitive radars, crewless aeroplanes, satellite surveillance systems, etc.) that have led to the strengthening of "technological borders". As a consequence, "the use of these technologies, in combination with the widespread reliance on risk management, contributes to the re-imagination ofborders and the bodies that cross them" (Muller, 2011). As has been said, in the case ofEurope, border management forms part ofthe European Union's policies against illegal immigration and it ranks among its highest political priorities, involving a range of costly economic, commercial and diplomatic measures. The Schengen Agreement, in 1985, laid the foundations of the current EU border control system. Later, in 2002, a border policy plan of action was approved that led to the creation of Frontex in 2004, the European Agency for the Management of Operational Cooperation at the External Borders ofthe Member States ofthe European Union, whose function was further regulated in 2007. Frontex coordinates operational cooperation between Member States in the field of management of extemal borders; assists Member States in the training of national border guards, including the establishment of common training standards; carries out risk analyses; follows up the development of research relevant for the control and surveillance of extemal borders; assists Member States in circumstances requiring increased technical and operational assistance at extemal borders; and provides Member States with the necessary support in organizing joint retum operations. These functions of Frontex highlight the complexities of managing immigration not only from an operational point ofview, but also from the perspective of diplomatic relations, since borders constitute a pivot of complex bilateral relations at different levels: between Spain and Morocco, between southem Europe and the Maghreb, and between the European Union and Africa. In this sense, "migration concerns are central to the agenda of all these relationships, and are invariably entangled with other issues" (Carling, 2007). In fact, the diplomatic effort undertaken by the European Union has resulted in important changes in tenns of material resources and public services in the African countries with whom joint border vigilance agreements have been signed. Shortly after the greatest process of regularization of immigrants ever undertaken in Spain (2005) had been brought to completion, the impact on public opinion ofthe assaults on the border fences ofCeuta and Melilla in September and October 2005, and their tragic consequences, brought about a change in the Spanish government's migration policies. Another contributing factor was the humanitarian Rlarm raised on account of what carne to be known as the "boat crisis", when in summer and autumn 2006 many fishing boats arrived in the Canary Islands carrying youths and children from coastal countries south of the Sabara (Mauritania, Senegal, Gambia ... ) (Figure 2.1). The crossing was long and dangerous and many boats sunk. The social alarm generated by the arrival of a large number of immigrants (only in 2006, 31,678 immigrants arrived this way in the Canary Islands) and the difficulties to cope with the,m (police resources and sea rescue and humanitarian assistance services were overwhelmed) drove the government to -g::i::::P"'S: o o o e :-'l '0""3º!):>-...;: 5·.., - :::; ::l" .., ~ C'tl -- V) o Col• -· o -· ::i ~ :::; -· !):> :::-. (") .., :::; 3 :::! -· c. = 00 3 ~ c. 8' -· ~ ;¡¡· =~~"'" ¡¡ !lri 13g = .g iv !". os " g_ . . ;¡ .,,o!".Clº ;¿ .,," o.:I:"' a~s=ª ~ ;¡g fª ~ == y s 5· ~ is- <: g. ~ §." ,¡¡:-i-"" ~ "~ ""-< - i:.iº ~ :::so ~ n 2' ¡¡- = O ~ ;::: o ,- o - ¡¡: O•ooo<>C.3 '1J :o-3 1'5:'¡;' = " ¡;;·"" a e " ~ o ,,.. (") ~ e: =- ¡;; = - "' q ¡¡. "' '.'.. " 5· g 5E; a· g. g " 15. 3 = S. " s- = g, a o;; a· s. ~ 3 ::; ~- "º"'" "'""~ º~...," '?~=<~ s ~8. ~úl¡¡¡:a,g g:;:·a~ .g =g ~-g"" = " " - g "' c. " c. -· g_ ~ ¡¡-o::\·"'"~- S>"° !:l-2 00 3 c. ,..., =· ~ " C:: n -· - ~ ~ -· %• "' ~ " a· - "' vr ;:; "'"" º""" " s'" "'~:s~ ~ n oo -· 9: {l - 8l o ~ "' ::t. __ E;o@Sl n "'º -3~"' = -· " 00 - ~ ~ o -· = <¡:;· g ri • 8 ii· .g "' >-' • ~ ;¡~""~¡¡: ~ !",3 g."- g " > p. ~ § " ~ ~ ~- ;¡ ;a g ;; ~ " 00 "' c. "' - =· " " ;o 00 ;;! =oo c& "' o& o.- ,..., ¡¡¡¡;;·;¡,,!". ~ ¡;;,, .;rf:fl ¡¡ z ~~ " ~- ¡¡- ~ 00 c. ¡¡· ~ '!Oí g. "'- 3 =-=2'º ~ ;j" "" ;¡.. ()q!:i""'= ~ zg ~~ =<' ~~ ,.,n~=-o "" -- -· 3.P-Cl~- !"3 ¡¡!?;' ¡¡ 3,;8_0" - 00 ~- - ,..oo-Bl .,_,,; = "' ~=-s"'g ,,,. g .,,==""- =- 1 35,,,~-S ¡<¡ i'5 :rº=g= = :;: !180.000. ¡¡- .¡¡- 33 c."" ~ o. ~-"' ~ ~ g g ~ a'O-.c.. i:: 2. º C'tl !):> a C'tl :::; J ... c..Sc..§l :i. ~ " ,,.. 00 ,• Table 2.1 Landmarks in the management of unauthorized migration flo\VS in the EU and in Spain (1985-2010) European Union Date Trea ties/Sum mits/ Agreements 1985 The Schengen (Germany) agreements, (June) abolishing interna! controls and creating a joint externa! border among France, Germany, Belgium, the Netherlands and Luxembourg. 1997 The Treaty of Amsterdam (The Netherlands) (October) established an area "freedom, security and justice", which brought immigration policy under EU jurisdiction. 1 Communications/Conferences/Others Spain and Other Countries 1999 Bilateral agreement with Morocco to facilitate (September) the readmission ofMoroccan nationals as well 1999 (October) 2002 (Junc) 2002 (August) 2002 (December) In the Tampere (Finland) Summit, the European Council agreed to set up a Common European Asylum system and partnerships with countries of originas proposed by Ministers of Justice and HomeAffairs. In Seville (Spain) the European Council established that ali EU agreements with non-EU states are to: "include a clause on joint management ofmigration flows and on compulsory readmission in the event of illegal immigration". Communication from the Commission to the Council on Integrating migration issues in the European Union's relations with third countries. as transit migrants. Development of SIVE (Systcm of Integrated Externa! Surveillance ). A prototype station is set up in Algeciras. w N [ ~ ·" .,, ~ § "- il'i "' Date 2003 (June) 2003 (November) 2003 (December) 2003 (December) 2004 (October) 2005 (January) 2005 (May) 2005 (December) Date 2005 (December) 2006 (January) 2006 (March) 2006 (Ap,il) 2006 (May· and July) 2006 (July) European Union Treaties/Summits/Agreements Treaties/Summits/Agreements 1 Communications/Co1.1ferences/Others (EC) 2007/2004 Frontex regulation. Creation of the Agency for the Management of Operational Cooperation at the Externa! Borders. Communication from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament: The Hague Programme: The Partnership for European renewal in the field ofFreedom, Security and Justice. The European Council adopted the Global Approach to Migration: Priority actions focusing on Africa and the Mediterranean. Europcan Union J Communications/Confcrences/Othcrs Communication from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament: State of the A ENEAS thematic programme for the cooperation with third countries in the arcas of migration and asylum. Council Regulation establishing a Community Code on the rules goveming the movement of persons across borders (Schengen Borders Code ). Euro-African conference on Migration and Development in Rabat (Morocco ). Regional approach to create partnerships and adopt an Action Plan to link migration and development. Spain and Other Countries First revision ofthe CotonouAgreements between A frican, Caribbean and Pacific countries (ACP) and EU on the readmission clause (Art. 13). Passage of a Law in Morocco (Loi, 02/03) regulating the entry and stay of foreign national in the Kingdom ofMorocco and dealing with irregular immigration, Memorandum signed with Morocco regarding the issue ofunaccompanied children (readmission). The first SIVE radar station is set up in the Canary Islands (Fuerteventura). "Guanarteme" Maritime Joint Operations in the Canary I. Spain and Othcr Countrics Contract signcd with AENEAS in order to carry out the SEAHORSE Programme (2006) a plan of cooperation with Morocco, Mauritania, Cape Verde and Senegal for the prevention of illegal maritime migration. Beginning ofthe "Atlantis" programme of cooperation with Mauritania, aimed at fighting irregular immigration by means of ajoint maritime patrol by Spain's Civil Guard and Mauritania 's Gendarmerie. Different European countries send experts to support the Spanish National Police Brigade with the identification ofirregular immigrants arriving in the Canary Islands: "HERA 1 y HERA II" operations. Date 2006 (July) 2006 (August) 2006 (Scptember) 2006 (different months) 2006 (October) 2006 (November) 2006 (November) 2006 (Dccember) Date 2006 (different months and following years) 2006 (June) 2006 (different months) 2007 2007 (January) 2007 (February) 2007. (February) 2007 (March) European Union Treaties/Summits/Agreements Agreement between EU and Mali on migration control in exchange for development aid. 1 Communications/Cop.ferences/Others Creation of a special group of Commissioners dealing with migration. Two short-term cooperation projects between EU and Senegal to contribute to surveillance operations, repatriation and rehabilitation, and to provide local support for activities of nonState actors engaged in migration. Euro-African conference on Migration and Development in Tripoli (Libya). Communication suggestion plans for the control ofmaritime borders. JHA Council meeting on Integrated Approach to Borders and Migration (IBM). European Union Treaties/Summits/ Agrcemen ts 1 Communications/Conferences/Others Decision taken to establish a Migration Infonnation and Management Centre to coordinatc job offers in the EU withjob scekers in Bamako (Mali). Spain and Other Countries Spain's Royal Decree N"845/2006, of7 July, which regulated the concession ofan extraordinary subsidy to the Kingdom of Morocco for the reinforcement of its border control and for its struggle against illegal immigration. Creation of the Regional Coordination Centre ofthe Canary Islands (CCRC), to deal with illegal migration into the Canary Islands, and the establishment ofregulations to develop its functions (BOE 11/10/2006). Spain and Other Countries Bilateral readmission agreements with Morocco, Algeria, Nigeria, Ghana, Mali, Cape Verde, Guinea, Guniea-Bissau and Pakistan. "African Plan" (strategy document on Spanish foreign policy towards Africa 2006-2008). Reissue (2009-2012). Bilateral migration cooperation agreements with Gambia, Guinea, Senegal, Conakry, Mali and Cape Verde. Development ofthe SEAHORSE programn1e by meaos ofthe SEAHORSE NETWORK. Spain issues 700 labour migration visas to Senegalese fishermen. Different European countries send experts to support the Spanish National Police Brigade with the identification of irregular immigrants arriving in the Canary Islands: "HERA III" operations. Bilateral agreement with Morocco to cooperatc in the prevention of"illegal" emigration of unaccompanied children. Date 2007 (July) 2007 (December) 2008 (May) 2008 (June) 2008 (July) 2009 Date 2009 (April) 2009 (September) 2009 (different months) 2009 (December) 2009 (December) 2010 (June) 2010 (November) 2010 (November) European Union Trea ties/Summits/ Agreemen ts Lisbon 2nd Africa-EU Summit to launch Africa-EU Migration, Mobility and Employment Partnership. 1 Communications/Confercnccs/Othcrs Regulation (EC) No 863/2007 of the European Parliament and the Council establishing a mechanism for the creation of Rapid Border Intervention Team ("RAB!Ts Rcgulation"). Beginning ofthe mobility partnership with Cape Verde to facilitate circular migration (Council document). European Union Treaties/Sum mits/ Agreements The Treaty ofLisbon carne into force, with new provisions regulating the common space offreedom, security andjustice that opened the door to the development of a common immigration policy (the teaty guarantees the free movement ofpeople across the Union, with no interna! borders, together with measure regarding externa! border control, asylum, immigration and prevention ofand fight against crime). The Stockholm Programme sets out the European Union's (EU) priorities in the arca of justice, freedom and security for the period 2010-14. European citizenshi¡} and its rights. EU Communication on the Joint Africa-EU strategy. 3rd Africa-EU Summit in Libya. 1 Communications/Conferences/Others Spain and Other Countries The Ministry ofthe Interior (Spain) awarded Indra the contract to set up the Sea Horse Network system (satellite surveillance) for the control ofillegal immigration and drug trafficking between Spain, Portugal and North African countries. The Cooperation Framework Agreement between the Kingdom of Spain and the Republic of Senegal of 1OOctober2006 carne into force. Development of the "Seahorse Cooperation Centers" project by mea ns of the transformation of the "Seahorse network" project contact points (Mauritania, Cape Verde, Senegal and Portugal) into Vigilance Coordination Centres and the reinforcement of the South Atlantic Border Cooperation Centre in the Canary Islands. Spain and Other Countries Modification ofMauritanian legislation to include crimes related to irregular immigration and setting up a Ship Registry. Formal agreement between Spain and Senegal for the prevention of illegal migration and readmission of irregular Senegalese nationals. Bilateral agreements with Morocco, Senegal and Gambia. Modification ofthe Spanish Residents Law. 40 Borders, Fences and fVal!s 30000 " M oroccan Ulw regulating the entry and stayof forelgn nationals ln the Klngdomof Morocco and deallng with Irregular lrrmlgratlon 25000 j-'=======iV'======-1 Maxlmum lntensltyof sub-Sahanm unauthorlzed marltlme lmmigratlon 20000 ~--;======_::::,_"=_'.:====:::::_ Growing lntensityof unauthorized marltime lmp1eroontat!on of the SEAHORSE (plan of cooperation with Morocco, Mauritania, Cape Verde and Senegal for the preventlon of rnegal rmritlme migratlon) 15000 Jnmlgrat!on from P"'-,--"'<::--------. ·--------; Morocco Figure 2.2 Links behveen migration stages and policing mensures . Source: Ministry of the Interior (Spain): http://www.la-moncloa.es/ServiciosdePrensa/NotasPrensa/ MIR/_ 2Ü 1O/ntpr20100116 _ Imnigracion.htm (accessed 27/12/201 O). dehydration ... ) on board, maritime border control requires a range of actions that combine detection, deterrence, and intercepting and dis1nantling human smuggling rings with search and rescue operations and hun1anitarian assistance to immigrants. This frame ofreference invests the illegal maritin1e immigration fiow across Europe's Atlantic border with a characteristic dynamic, \Vhich can be divided into three distinct stages of different dünension: a) from 1994 to 2005, years of growing intensity during which no action protocol had been developed yet to deal with unauthorized :flows; b) from 2006 to 2008, a period of maximum intensity during \Vhich 1nultiple measures were taken and initiatives developed at ali levels in the fields of diplomacy, policing and humanitarian assistance; c) from 2008 to 20 l O, a stage of decreasing intensity and loss of prominence for this type of migration processes (Figure 2.2). a. Until 2005, irregular migration :flows out of sub-Saharan Africa tended to travel by land towards Ceuta and Melilla, and also by sea from other locations in the north of Morocco, across towards the southern coast of Spain. In the case of the Canary Islands, during this period irregular immigrants generally made use of what was known as "slave ships", fishing boats and, to a lesser extent, infiatable rafts. The former were mostly old ships, generally unfit to sail, under fiags of convenience, and which tended to come from West African coastal countries. Inspections in the docks of the islands or water leaks that forced them to moor in the ports of the islands on their way to Europe often led to the discovery oftheir "cargo'', generally a considerable number ofpeople packed in their hold in subhuman conditions. The fishing boats used -essentially, large canoes -are fragile crafts that can easily capsize and sink in the open sea or when they approach a craggy coastline. They The Canc11y Js!ands' "MaritiJne Wal/'' 41 used to set sail fron1 Morocco's southern coast, Western Sabara or Mauritania, and sought to arrive in the eastern islands of the Canarian Archipelago. The first one arrived in 1994, and fro1n that year on their numbers gradually increased until the first years of the twenty-first century -2003, 2004 and 2005 -when a greater cooperation between Spain and Morocco regarding the prevention of departures led to a drop in the immigration :flo\v and to a displacement of the points of departure further south, as human smugglers were forced to reorganize their activities. b. From 2005 on, as a consequence of greater Moroccan vigilance, irregular migrant smugglers and departure points shifted south towards the coast of central West Africa, areas that are further removed from the Canary Islands, and as a result the crossings becan1e longer, more difficult, costly and dangerous (Ki1nball, 2007). The type ofvessel used changed as well, and the immigrants replaced the pateras (small fishing crafts) with cayucos, largerfishing boats \Vith greaterrange. Departure points tended now to be located along the coasts ofMauritania, Senegal, Gambia, Guinea Bissau, Guinea Conakry or Sierra Leone, and consequently passengers, in this second stage, were mostly sub-Saharan nationals who usually disembarked on the coast ofthe western islands ofthe archipelago as a consequence ofthe ne\v sailing patterns. During this period human smuggling developed so successfully that, for instance, in 2006, crossings in cayucos were offered online (senegalaisement.com), very much in the style ofa standard travel agency (Merino, 2010). These crossings were undertaken by young adults, mostly men, and sorne minors who, like their fellow travellers, carne from sub-Saharan countries, especially Senegal and Mali. Whereas, in 1999, 83.9 per cent ofunaccompanied minors ca1ne fro1n Morocco, in 2006 and 2007 this figure changed and 71 percent ofthe children placed under the protection of the government of the Canary Islands ca1ne from countries south of the Sahara. The manage1nent of this flow has required a special protective measures by the goven1ment ofthe Canary Islands in order to safeguard their rights and well-being, as required by international (Convention on the Rights of the Child) and domestic law (Basic Law for the Legal Protection of Minors and Civil Corle), with the entailing obligations to implement special reception and training programmes. c. In the last fe\v years, from 2008 to 2010, there has been a gradual drop in irregular maritime imrnigration :flows across Europe's southern Atlantic border. Many analysts believe that the measures ofvigilance and control adopted by the European Union and by Spain, as well as the agreements signed with sender countries, might have contributed to deter irregular immigration. In fact, the centres for minors that had been set up (CAME) are largely under used at present. According to 2009 figures, the number of arrests for unauthorized n1aritime arrivals in Spain dropped that year down to 7,285, ofwhich 2,246 arrived in the Canary Islands, among the1n only 192 minors (82.2 per cent less than in 2006). There is no doubt that the trend described above is to sorne extent the result of the fact that potential A frican en1igrants and their relatives ha ve come to understand that even if they are successful in reaching Europe, they are very likely to be confined in a detention centre while their deportation is arranged, \Vhich in turn has brought about a decline in human smuggling. However, without denying the importance of these measures, it should be borne in 1nind that in1migration is a very complex phenomenon which is not only conditioned by police vigilance and control actions, but also by the migrants' collective imagination, shaped under the 42 Borden;, Fences and Wal!s infl.uence of diverse infonnation, the support offered by their networks of contacts and their personal assessment of the risk rewards ratio. Consequently, the role played by the evolution ofthe econo1ny should not be underestimated, as it directly affects the migrants' perception of their chances to ünprove their situation and, thus, it indirectly links migration processes to productive cycles. Economic Activity and Human Mobility As is well known, in1migration has been one of the pillars supporting the evolution of developed economies. The availability of immigrant labour has played an essential role in sustaining the productive system and in controlling salary levels in countries with higher national incomes. At the same time, etnigration and its effects cannot be separated from the econo1nic evolution of developing countries. During the expansion cycle of the postFordist stage, especially in the case of certain European countries such as Spain, Jtaly and Ireland, the increase in the demand for labour was met by immigration, as their economic development was based on a low-productivity labour-intensive model dependant on highly flexible employment. However, during a contraction cycle, the drop in demand for labour has affected immigrants severely, particularly in the case ofthose activities in the secondary labour market segment. This drop in demand and immigrants' unemployment rates has had deep effects on the evolution, dimension and characteristics of the rnigrant labour supply and, mcire generally, on international migrations as a whole. Consequently, it is necessary to examine the different productive cycles and the role played by the transnational information networks developed by hnmigrants, in order to establish the relationship between thetn and the different unauthorized 1narithne immigration rates described above. Econonlic Gro,vth during the Cycle of Expansion and Migration 1995-2007 The I 980s saw the beginning of a new phase of capitalist development characterized mostly by technological innovation and fast circulation of capital, accompanied by a restructuring of socio-spatial relationships among the world's different geographical areas. From the point of view of population 1nobility, this phase of global capitalism has contributed to a greater complexity of migration processes, as revolutionary developrnents in transport and means of communication and new channels of information ha ve given rise to \Vhat might be tenned a world perspective, which makes it possible for any country to potentially beco1ne a destination for emigrants and for migration flows to take place anywhere in the \Vorld. For this reason sorne authors regard migration flows as a characteristic feature of a globalized economic system. According to UN data, in 2005 over 195 1nillion people lived outside their home country, 60 per cent of them in developed countries, especially in the EU and the USA. These migrants represented 3.1 per cent ofthe world population and made up the "fifth largest country" in terms of population (UN, 2008). This rise in migrant population was accompanied by a more noticeable visibility than in the past, and it became, given the growing presence of clandestine 1nigrants, one of the main worries of the native population in \Vestem countries. The din1ension of irregular ftows has generated legal and econo1nic insecurity for emigrants and political and social uncertainties for recipient states \Vhich, as a result of the process of globalization, have had their capacity to freely take measures restricted. In fact, 1nigration circuits and 1nobility The Ca11a1y Jslands' "Maritilne Wa/!" 43 trends are now the result of co1nplex processes based on econo1nic and political decisions, on family, ethnic or religious net\vorks and on individual or group aspirations derived from the rnigrants' collective iinagination, \Vhich together structure the new geography of migration ftows (Sassen, 2008). In Spain, the rise in foreign immigration over the last 15 years has been unprecedented and it has transfonned the country into an ernerging destination in the context of international labour rnobility (Domínguez-Mujica et al., 2008). From 1986 on, both Spain's incorporation into the European Union and the process of convergence the country undenvent with its rnost developed neighbouring countries, favoured the arrival of a ne\v type of irnmigrant closely linked to the socioeconomic dynamic that coincided 'vith the onset of a post-Fordist economic phase. Later, from the mid-l 990s on, the consolidation of an economic model characterized by low productivity and rapid growth contributed to intensify migration ftows into Spain. For that reason, until 2007, as the foreign population increased there \Vas also a parallel rise in the number of irregular immigrants anda more intense immigration pressure on the border. The govemment tried to salve the problem of unauthorized immigration without altering the productive rnodel. Among other measures, three important regularization processes \vere undertaken, in 2000, 2001 (regularization on the strength of community ties) and in 2005 (known as normalization process). The first t\vo processes were linked to the length of time migrants had resided in Spain and the last one to the participation of migrants in the labour rnarket. At this point it is \Vorth considering whether unauthorized maritime immigration was also conditioned by the appeal ofthe Spanish productive model and by the "pull effect" generated by the regularization processes. In both cases the answer would be in the affirmative. Regarding the first issue, a survey perfonned in the Canary Islands during the 2000 regularization process confinned that 1nany African immig~ants had arrived in Spain irregularly by sea and that they had benefited from the support of fello\v countrymen who had previously settled in Spain. Regarding the second question, in the case of the Canary Islands, the highest figures in the number of im1nigrants detained after their arrival by sea were recorded in the years following the immigrant regularization processes, · in other words, in 2001, 2002 and 2006 (Figure 2.3). The Global Econonlic Crisis o/2008-2010 and Migrations The circumstances that favoured the growth ofthe world economy up until the year 2007 have not changed in the context of the current economic crisis. Furthermore, sorne of the structural elements on which globalization has been based, such as the fast circulation of capital beyond the control of state regulations, lie at the heart of the economic recession that started in 2008, when the worst cyclical crisis of the capitalist system since 1929 broke out, affecting almost ali countries in the world. Among the consequences ofthis crisis there is the drop in demand for goods and services and, consequently, for labour. As a result, the ILO predicted an increase in unemployment figures for 2009 of between 18 and 30 mili ion workers compared to 2007, or even of 50 million workers if the situation continued to deteriorate (!LO, 2009). As it has been pointed out, during the period of economic expansion the inftux of workers from abroad contributed to maximizing gro\vth and controlling salaries in recipient countries. As opposed to this, in a situation of economic recessio.n, migrant workers are the first to lose their jobs. If at times of growth unemployment rates are higher among migrant workers than a1nong their native counterparts, at times of crisis the difference grows. Thus,