Route

Abstract

On the official website of the European Commission, the term “migration route” is defined as: “The geographic route along which migrants and refugees move via hubs in transit areas from their country of origin to their country of destination, often travelling in mixed migration flows.”1 This definition was adopted by the European Migration Network, “an EU network of migration and asylum experts who work together to provide objective, comparable policy-relevant information and knowledge on emerging issues relating to asylum and migration in Europe.” The wording was taken from the International Centre for Migration Policy Development , an organization associated with several controversies, including lack of transparency, racist rhetoric, and facilitating cooperation between European Union agencies and various North African groups to prevent migratory movements toward the EU. The definition presents migrants and refugees as two essentially distinct categories, dehumanized through the conceptual metaphor of water (flow) and elements that mix (with pure categories being polluted). It also segments space, assigning different roles and characteristics to it, so we have countries of origin, transit countries characterized by hubs, and countries of destination. These segments form parts of an asymmetrical system—the route. The route itself is presented as a geographical, natural, and objective entity. Using the example of the Balkan route, we will show that migration routes are far more complex phenomena, suitable for a whole spectrum of political, economic, and cognitive uses.Volume 54: Forced Migration: Keywords of the Balkan Route: The European Irregularized Migration Regime at the Periphery, edited by Marijana Hameršak, Iva Pleše, and Tea Škokic. https://doi.org/10.3167/ 978183695245