Romani migration and politics Hana Synková

Romani migration and politicsHana Synková • Context – changes in post-socialist society • Fall of an Iron Curtain • Movement of large sections of a majority society • Introduction of a market economy • Hard industry and collective farms havecollapsed and unemployment has risen • Disappearance of the protective state system with an obligatory employment • Most of Roma were not prepared to the changes, had not had much skills, social and economic capital to build on • Were subjected to the rising social, political, symbolic and economic exclusion Uncertainty, impoverishment

Why Roma migrate, even though the economic costs of migration are very high ? • Two main explanation discourses: Exclusion and/or discrimination • Human rights discourse - poverty is mainly caused by discrimination – solution: legalizing of Roma • Social exclusion discourse – migration is caused by an interplay of several factors that cause marginalization of Roma – solution: support of integration and employment programmes • Other important factors: • non-identification and non-confidence to the state and its institutions • usury (people forced to migrate to pay debts) • individual motivations

Social exclusion – multiple sources (www.epolis.cz)

Who migrates the most frequentely? • socialist-style middle class that loses its living standard (Vašečka – Vašečka 2003) • Who migrate less or not at all? • migration abroad is inaccessible for the most impoverished • wealthy people, who have something to lose

Useful theories • Theories explaining migration (Massey 1997) • Neo-classical economics: people migrate to maximise income • New economics of migration: people migrate to minimize risks to family income (income does not have to be only a monetary one) • Dual labour market theory: people migrate because structure of modern industrial economies requires migrants • World systems theory: people migrate as a consequence of economic globalization • Theories in anthropology: • Micro-level theories. Interested in decision process of actors (their own assessment of “push” and “pull” factors) and power relations that play a role as causes and during the migration

Causes of migration x causes of perpetuating the migration • Network theory:spreading of support networks, migration becomes “cheaper”, risks are lower. Migration becomes independent of its former causes, becomes institutionalized. • Institutional theory: migration creates institutions – for profit organizations (services to migrants, black market) and non-profit organizations (humanitarian groups, counselling) – social capital for migrants • Cumulative causation: each act of migration alters social context for the next migrations (value shift in the sending and receiving countries, distribution of income…) • Migration systems theory: migration stabilises and form stable migration system with frequent exchanges

Specificity of Romani migration? • Large social networks if the kinship connection still work • Chain migration, family migration (but an individual one as well!) • Visibility of migration • Usually negative approach of the authorities in the country of origin and often also in the country of destination (not considered as a working force that could benefit the country but as a burden or problem) • High orientation on asylum procedure (less possibilities to migrate otherwise)

Which status can a migrant have? • Naturalized immigrant • Migrant worker with a residence permit • Asylum seeker • Those awaiting the result of an appeal of a negative asylum decision • Tourist (visiting their relatives) etc. • Illegal – expired visa, overstayed

Obstacles in asylum procedure- why Roma were unsuccesful applicants • Writing applications, knowing rights, deadlines • Interpreters are from the majority ethnic group from their country of origin • Discrimination is often collective, but they should prove individual discrimination • They deny any political involvement

Increased media coverage • compared to other migration - both in sending and destination countries • Stereotypes (nomads, beggars etc.). Mere presence of the Roma is a “problem” • Supporting the “economic case” from both sides (they want better social benefits) • Roma as false asylum seekers: asylum tourists or ethno-tourists, bogus asylum applicants • Use of specific “not neutral” terms: exodus, wave • Criminalisation: illegals

Reaction of local people and authorities from sending countries • Buying cheap flats from migrants • Some local authorities supported the departure, but in general they were against it • Activists raised a question of the reasons for migration and position of Roma in society • Negative reaction of the majority population on visa restrictions • From receiving countries • Protests, violent attacks • Migration means unwelcome costs for the local authorities • Pressure of public opinion on authorities, rise of power of right-wing opinions • Special measures for Romani migrants (positive - social support – Dover, negative – dispersion of migrants, isolation, repatriation, not complying or interpretation of international laws) • What has been shown: states interests and own political interests are the main factors of creating policy towards Roma • Returns • Voluntary (visits…) • Involuntary repatriation: Bremen 1990, Lyon 1995, Belgium 1999 (see Cahn – Vermeersch 2000)

Reaction on the governmental level • Downplaying the causes of departure – they abuse the asylum system, so the restrictive policy is justified: • Introduction of visas - abolishing and reimposing several times (Finland, Belgium, Norway), deportations • Reforming asylum system (vouchers, shorter procedures, discouraging campaigns) • General strengthening of the EU borders: Schengen space and 3rd safe country system • Extremely low numbers of granted asylums (e.g. Belgium: from 2015 applications between 1996-1999 only three persons were granted asylum) – “floodgate problem” • The only exception in granting asylum: Canada

History of migration • Matras: To mid 70’s - availability of jobs, acquiring citizenship • Mid 70’s – early 90’s – applying for asylum/illegality • From 1992-1993 “safe countries” of origin or transit – readmission agreements (refusal of asylum, tourist visa, illegality) • Sending countries: • Main: Romania, FYROM, Bosnia-Herzegovina • 1991-1992 Bulgaria, Croatia • From 1995 in much lower numbers: Czech Republic, Slovakia, Poland, Hungary • 1998 Kosovo

History II • Countries of destination (target countries): • In tens of thousands: Germany, Italy, France, Austria, (Sweden) • More recently, in thousands: UK, Ireland, Canada, Belgium, Finland, Denmark • Czech Republic, Poland and Hungary became a countries of transit or destination • Some important migration events after 89 • 1997 Czech Republic-Canada • 2001 UK Immigration officers at the airport

Changes brought by the migration on EU level • Stressing the “minority” status of the group under the philosophy: identity politics stabilizes the minority in place – identity politics as a solution of migration • Human rights discourse (inclusion of the Roma to “policy making” – mostly failed) • Unification of the Romani elites from different countries • Increased space in media for some Romani leaders (supported the “rights rhetoric” and discrimination as the main cause for migration) • EU has been more responsive to hear Romani leaders and their request for funding the equal opportunity and inclusion in decision making (see Guglielmo - Waters) • Stated reasons for this policy: empowered communities will be able to define and defend their interests (separated and integrated at the same time) • Danger of funding: favouring collective rights over investment to socio-economic issues – Roma, who are both poor and discriminated, may not benefit • Increase of interest in Romani issues • NGOs interest, new Romani NGOs in sending and receiving countries

EU Accession • Minority rights protection as an accession priority for Bulgaria, CR, Slovakia, Hungary and Romania • Problem: no unified criteria of this protection, EU itself has not them but wants them from the new states (see Guglielmo - Waters, Vermeersch) • necessity to create criteria in EU (EU constitutional treaty) • Investment (Phare) • Rhetoric (human-rights) vs funding (socio-economic projects)

After CEE countries had entered the EU • migration of Roma is difficult to restrict - visas cannot be applied • EU citizens cannot ask for asylum • Migration cannot be so easily classified as “a problem” • there are still some regulations of work market, which are aimed at the new EU countries • however concerns raised by previous policies persist, stereotypes are not forgotten • EU had „migrated“ as well

Example: Fieldwork in Slovakia • Concentration on migration process and motivations of people • The migration cannot be described separately apart from the exclusion • People are active in handling the boundaries of exclusion • Migration changes a nature of these boundaries • Dolina • 1000 inhabitants including about 250 “Roma” with Slovak nationality: Dana Prešovská (a fictitious name): Up to now, we wrote Slovak nationality everywhere, so why to write Romani nationality? I am not ashamed that I am a Romani woman, but why I should change my nationality? • Slovak Roma, East Slovak dialect of Romani as a mother tongue

Geographical setting and character of boundaries • Inside the village, not in hinterland • Boundaries between Roma and non-Roma and between Roma as well • Some are visible (state of houses, smaller, pavements end, water and sewerage supply ends) • Invisible Roma/non-Roma boundaries • boundary of non-communication, Romani neighbourhood is not a public place • economic boundary (Roma are not involved in local traditional economy – borrowing, lending but always one-way paid relationships) • political boundary – Roma are seen as homogenous group • Romani boundaries • Unclean persons are not visited • Live further from the center • Women of higher status don’t marry lower status (migration of spouses from different villages don’t challenge the status quo) • Double boundaries for the low-hierarchy people – Romani and non-Romani (“wealthy and clean” families are more easily integrated and more attractive to local authorities)

Exclusion /responses to exclusion • Mobility is restricted • Boundaries (political, economic and spatial) are strengthened • Contacts with other Roma and non-Roma are restricted • Techniques to overcome the exclusion • Visual signalization • Good references • MIGRATION (to Czech Republic)

Techniques of short- and long-term migration • Short-term migration • Visits of relatives • Seasonal work abroad • “Examination“ of terrain for a possible future migration • Long-term migration • Migration due to a possibility of finding a job (from Dolina to the CR only) • Seeking asylum (In my research from the CR to the West only) • Marriage (both to the CR and to the West) • Characteristics of the migration since the WW2 • Cca half of the Roma from the post-war village • Short-term work migration (to return after accumulating capital), then long-term migration of families and single young people • All levels of hierarchy, not only economically motivated • Networks of relatives – source of income and prestige

Nowadays • Young generation does not migrate • Deteriorating contacts with CR (intentional and unintentional) • CR has a positive symbolic value as a point of reference • New ways of migration • Migration to West from CR: asylum, visiting, marrying abroad • Depart was considered as legitimate

Motivations to migrate • pull factors • There is no territorialization • There is less discrimination • There is a possibility of improving one’s economic situation • There is a possibility of preserving or improving one’s social status • Most common negative motivations (push factors) - example of quotations • We live like during the war - combination of a discrimination, territorialization and a bad economic situation • There is poverty - bad economic situation plus territorialization (they cannot afford to travel) • I cannot find a job - discrimination, bad economic situation • They are looking at you everywhere - discrimination • Children don’t have future here - combination of the four • We were in disagreement with our relatives - personal motivations

Genealogy of one Romani family

Results of migration • import of idea of “England” to Czech Republic • same motivations for the migration to Czech Republic and to England • wish that similar conditions like abroad existed here and critique of current conditions • verbalization of the concept – people can describe the possibilities of “better practice” • dissemination of the experience and concept through personal networks

Resources on Czech and Slovak migration online • Gabal, I. 2000. Analysis of the Migration Climate and Migration Tendencies to Western European Countries in Romany Communities in Selected Cities in the Czech Republic.Research Report. Prague. At: http://www.gac.cz/documents/romrepen.pdf • IOM 2003. Analysis of Contemporary Migration and Settlement of the Members of the Roma Communities from Slovakia in the Territory of the Czech Republic. At: http://www.iom.cz/english/publications-research.shtml . • Synková, H. 2006. In the Czech Republic, they call you “Mister” – The migration of Slovak Roma as a tactic to overcome exclusion. In: Migrace online. March 2006. At http://www.migraceonline.cz/studie_f.shtml?x=1822541

Relevant articles from this year and last year readers • Barany, Z. 2002. The East European Gypsies. Regime Change, Marginality, and Ethnopolitics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. • Cahn, C. - Vermeersch, P. 2000. The Group Expulsion of Slovak Roma by the Belgian Government: A Case Study of the Treatment of Romani Refugees in Western Countries. Cambridge Review of International Affairs, vol. 13, no. 2, Spring-Summer 2000, pp. 71-82. • Guglielmo, R.- Waters, T. W. 2005. Migrating Towards Minority Status: Shifting European Policy Towards Roma. In JCMS: Journal of Common Market Studies. Vol. 43. Issue 4. November 2005, pp. 763–86, http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/toc/jcms/43/4. • Massey, D. C. 1997. Causes of Migration. In: Guibernau, M. - Rex, J., eds. Nationalism, Multiculturalism, and Migration. Cambridge: Policy Press. pp. 257-269. • Matras, Y. 2000. Romani migrations in the Post- Communist Era. Cambridge Review of International Affairs, vol. 13, no. 2, Spring-Summer 2000, pp. 32-50. • Vašečka, M. – Vašečka, I. 2003. Recent Romani migration from Slovakia to EU Member States – Romani Reaction to Discrimination or Romani Ethno – tourism? Nationalities Papers, March 2003, Carfax Publishing, Taylor & Francis. • Vermeersch, P. 2003. EU Enlargement and Minority Rights Policies in Central Europe: Explaining Policy Shifts in the Czech Republic, Hungary and Poland. Jemie Special Focus, 2003, Issues 1, http://www.ecmi.de/jemie/special_1_2003.html

Romani migration and politics Hana Synková