By María
Hernández-Carretero
In the early 2000s, numerous migrants arrived
in Spain, attracted by the prospects of finding a job in the country’s booming economy. They quickly
grew to represent 11% of the total population in 2008, from 2% in 2000. But
when the financial crisis hit and Spain topped Europe’s unemployment rates,
immigrants became disproportionately affected – 35% were jobless, compared to 22% among people with Spanish or double nationality.
Years earlier their labour had been needed and welcome, but as discontent set
in some Spaniards started calling for unemployed
(especially if also paperless) migrants to “go back” to their countries of
origin, now that no jobs were to be found. Some did leave Spain, whether to
return to their country of origin or seek better luck elsewhere. Yet many others
stayed.
Faced with an economically bleak and politically hostile landscape in Spain, why did so many immigrants choose to stay all the same? This question was part of the starting point for my chapter in Hope and Uncertainty in Contemporary African Migration where, focusing on the case of Senegalese migration to Spain, I look into why for some, deciding to emigrate can be easier than returning home.
Faced with an economically bleak and politically hostile landscape in Spain, why did so many immigrants choose to stay all the same? This question was part of the starting point for my chapter in Hope and Uncertainty in Contemporary African Migration where, focusing on the case of Senegalese migration to Spain, I look into why for some, deciding to emigrate can be easier than returning home.
Is return a better alternative to staying?
“Even
though you didn’t find what you were looking for here, you can’t go back just
like that! If you do, what are you going to do with your life, then? […] Going
back now without certainty... And you’re at an age when you’re no longer
allowed to make mistakes. You shouldn’t make mistakes. Do you understand? Since
you made a mistake by coming here, don’t make a mistake in your return!”
Babacar*, like many
other migrants, arrived in Spain in the 2000s hoping he would find the
opportunities to build himself a better future. By 2012, he had neither a job nor reliable prospects of finding one, but
he did not consider returning to Senegal empty-handed to be a viable option. He
would go back if he had the necessary savings to start his own business, he
explained, but returning with no money and no certainty that he could sustain
himself would for him be senseless: it would only compound his failure at making it in Europe and, as his words above express, amount to a
double mistake.
Return, as leaving, is indeed largely a
matter of resources and opportunities. Access to financial, monetary or social
resources makes it easier to go back, whether temporarily to assess the
conditions for a more durable return, or to stay permanently. Possible income
sources or housing security in Senegal, or an open door to re-entering Europe,
all decrease the uncertainty associated with cutting the migration project
short. Migrants who, for
example, had saved money, started a business or built (and paid-off) a house in
Senegal, had a family business there they could lean on, or had permanent
residence in Spain or Spanish nationality faced an easier choice between
staying or returning.
Lat, another Senegalese migrant, explained
that whether going back to Senegal was a preferable alternative to staying in
Spain at the time of the crisis really depended on what one was returning to.
Going back to the same situation that one left back home could be “worse” than
staying in Spain, he assured me. Landing back in Senegal without savings to
start one’s own business and without prospects of finding employment in a
setting with few employment opportunities is not simply a regression to the
point of departure – a point of livelihood uncertainty and bleak future
prospects. Returning in such circumstances can, as Lat explained, in many ways
be even worse. It is a regression compounded by the failure of having had the
highly-coveted chance of improving one’s situation through migration but failed
at doing so, and having to admit that defeat and lack of progress in front of
one’s family and wider social circle. In this sense, returning empty-handed
would not only be a failure but a risky undertaking too.
Return as the time to show results, not take
new risks
When Babacar talks about not wanting to make
a mistake in his return and relates this to his age and the original act of emigration,
he is pointing to a way of thinking common to many Senegalese emigrants: return
is the point when the success of the migration project is evaluated –
especially by migrants’ social circle back home. Since at the time of speaking
he feels that leaving in the first place might not have been the right decision,
it is all the more important for him to not return as a failed migrant, with no
savings from his time abroad and no prospects of making a living in Senegal. From
Senegal, Europe and more generally “the North” represents a place of wealth and
opportunities. Lavish foreign lifestyles fill TV-screens. Successful migrants
and businesspeople bring back money, gifts, flashy clothing, electronics and
home appliances, cars, business investments and even materials to build houses.
The idea of the West is associated with money and opportunities on which those coming back are expected to have
cashed and then at least partly redistribute among others back home.
Babacar also refers to the fact that, while
it is acceptable for youths to explore and take chances to build their future,
adults are expected to display responsibility through solvency and the ability
to provide for their families. Return
is therefore not the time to take new risks. Neither is it, for most,
something to be done impulsively or rushed, lest one disappoints one’s social
circle and loses face in front of all for having been unable to display proof
of a successful time abroad. In
this light, an unprepared, unsuccessful return might, in fact, be a worse
prospect than staying in Europe. Abroad, one can continue struggling alone,
away from the judging gaze of one’s social circle back home. Remaining in
Europe also allows keeping alive the hope that better times might still lie
ahead.
Giving up Europe, giving up hope
“What
I was looking for, right now . . . there is none of it: work. There is no work.
But . . . Africa is always difficult. Here, it’s difficult, I know. But Africa
is always difficult. Because over there, your family is there, you’re seen,
you’re surrounded by ten people . . . and they see you, and you have nothing to
give them. [He pauses, then chuckles]
But when you’re here, they don’t
see you. But you can talk to them and relieve them. Give them hope. For . . .
yes, give them hope to wait . . . that one day things will be good. And they can feed on that hope.”
The words of Pape, another migrant, reflect
how returning to Senegal without having met one’s migration goals would mean
putting an end to the hope that not only migrants but also their families have
placed on the migration project. They also illustrate how important this hope
is for families in coping with everyday hardship in Senegal. Given the huge,
and increasing, difficulty of entering Europe for would-be migrants, many of
those who have already succeeded in entering are reluctant to relinquish the
possibility to stay in or re-enter Europe. Irregular migrants, especially, could
not return to Europe after leaving. The images along Europe’s borders suggest
what a profound loss of effort, hope, time and resources this would represent. The
difficulty, or impossibility, of crossing the border is likely to make it less
attractive to leave Europe in times of hardship to assess prospects for
returning back home. This has
been shown to be the case along the US-Mexico border where,
as border security increased, Mexican migrants with residence permits in the US
continued to circulate back and forth between the two countries, while fewer irregular
migrants did.
Confronted with the choice of enduring a precarious
life abroad and facing the shame of returning empty handed, some might
therefore choose the former – or at least delay the latter as much as possible.
As some described it, patiently enduring hardship abroad while keeping open the
possibility of a different future signals perseverance and masculinity through
a commitment to finding the means to forge oneself a good life and help one’s
family. By contrast, many fear that going back without achieving this would appear
as merely giving up this quest and the hope it bears.
*All migrant names are pseudonyms.
The photo is by María Hernández Carretero and depicts posters advertising the services of the Concerted Immigration Company, from Canada. They offer the opportunity to continue one's studies in "France, Europe and Canada". They claim to be the "leader in the industry of permanent and student migration." It was taken on the campus of the University Cheikh Anta Diop in Dakar.
The photo is by María Hernández Carretero and depicts posters advertising the services of the Concerted Immigration Company, from Canada. They offer the opportunity to continue one's studies in "France, Europe and Canada". They claim to be the "leader in the industry of permanent and student migration." It was taken on the campus of the University Cheikh Anta Diop in Dakar.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Would you like to respond to anything said by the author of this blog? Please leave comment below.