In the face of recent collective expulsions and return of Roma in France, serious concerns have been raised about the diminished respect for the human person and his or her rights, and the effectiveness and usefulness of forced returns. In specifically targeting the Roma, France has crossed an essential red line in terms of respect for human rights. It is clear, however, that France’s protective policies and approaches are neither unique, nor new. Even if there is yet insufficient correction, there now seems to be recognition of the wrong of targeted collective expulsion, opening the door for a deeper analysis of the underlying question: are the structural responses offered by nations and societies today adequate for incorporating nomadism and human mobility?

History proves how often nomad populations have been questioned, described as a “social problem” in different times and in many societies. Time and time again, and in many parts of the world, people identified as gypsies, travellers and migrants have been confronted with protective reactions ranging from deterrence, to control, restriction and deportation. Today still, these individuals are all too quickly linked to increasing national security debates, or are presented as a ‘risk’ to the local economy. While it may be argued that rejection is a basic human reflex, it is important to recall that such a reflex is predominantly inspired by fear, and the incapacity to manage differences.

For many children, women and men on the move, these protective reactions exacerbate their vulnerability and suffering. Such approaches have contributed to increased feelings of insecurity, generated trauma and pain, left families de-united and led thousands to endure life-threatening situations as they attempt to cross deserts, embark on unseaworthy vessels and hide in locked shipping containers and airplane landing gear.

If governments argue that they are merely applying existing law against people deemed to be in “irregular” situations, the question must be raised as to why such irregularity persists. At its core may be the fact that societies have been built primarily following logics of settlement, i.e., the expectation that the people belong to a certain place and will remain there for many years, if not for a lifetime. While this logic has largely proven practical in the progressive building of societies, it has also contributed to creating divisions and gradations of rights and obligations that differ according to place and length of stay. Today, social acceptability, lawful status and access to rights widely favour longer-term residents over those with only a transient or temporary presence.

Even beyond questions of unacceptable discrimination and expulsion, current concerns regarding the treatment of the Roma and migrants call us all to consider whether existing structures and legal systems are adequate for addressing the number of people on the move, and the changing phenomena of human mobility. Rather than limiting or rejecting numbers or targeted groups of people, there is an undeniable need to manage mobility more positively. There is a need to develop temporary or longer-term work conditions that align to today’s realities, both in terms of human mobility, and the demand for labour. There is equally a need to review existing legal frameworks and procedures to offer adequate access to regular labour markets, health and education systems.

The International Catholic Migration Commission (ICMC) fully acknowledges the many management difficulties these challenges raise: difficulties that become clear when migrants and nomads including the Roma find themselves confronted with rejection and forced return rather than with possibilities to satisfy their basic search for work, access to health and education for their children. We further perceive the need to tailor and re-tailor societal structures in such a way that they reflect consistency between national and global mechanisms. This necessarily means adjusting responsibilities among nations, including border responses, rather than leaving the action and burdens to national procedures alone.

This cross border approach is also key to the larger debate on human mobility and security. Security can be much more effectively guaranteed when people are offered regular, reasonable and transparent paths of integration and community existence, rather than through targeting people in irregular situations. With the growth in human mobility, including fairly stable numbers of refugees and an increase of stateless persons, the need for better adapting society and creating sufficient space becomes even more urgent. This space is not only humanitarian, but also moral and structural. It is time to develop a practical status that fits these new and old forms of mobility in their contexts today: one that provides predictability, coherence and fairness by providing access to essential social services, including transferability beyond national borders. It is time for an internationally recognized status, with a clear set of rights and obligations for those on the move.

Put differently, there is an urgent need to look to the future—a future that takes into account the ever- increasing mobility of services, capital, goods and people, the unprecedented low-birth rate and broad ageing demographics in high-income countries, the movement toward cities that has over 50% of the world’s population living in urban settings for the first time in history, the doubling of the global population in the past 30 years and the further increase to 9 billion people in the next 30.

Engaged in migration issues since 1951, ICMC expresses the hope that today’s debates and reactive modes of rejection and self-defence will open into deeper reflection upon the development of new tools and management terms that will truly serve the future of all humanity.

Johan KETELERS, Secretary General
International Catholic Migration Commission

Roms: Passer de la stigmatisation sociale à des réponses morales et structurelles (480.84 KB)

Rom: Pasar del estigma social a respuestas morales y estructurales (484.15 KB)

Roma: Moving from social stigma to moral and structural responses (408.8 KB)