In this chapter, I have chiefly examined what happens after young people have managed to cross the border wall. In order to understand refugee background youths’ lives, it is also necessary to acknowledge what happened before crossing the border. The experiences of the youths are embedded in a large constellation of global migration, of which forced migration is an intrinsic part. Finland, as a nation state, is a part of what Malkki (1995) calls the national order of things: a global system of territorial national states, a cultural grammar that speaks the language of nationhood.
The national order of things secretes displacement, Malkki argues (ibid., 516): as a system based on an idea of sedentary culture, it presupposes borders and governance of cross-border mobility. As I have shown above, it is those very borders that sort bodies, categorizing some into extremely vulnerable positions. The immigration laws of the Global North, de Genova (2002, 439) argues, produce “illegal” subjects; denial of residence permits (whether the application is based on seeking asylum, labour, or family ties) generates undocumented migrants whose very presence is criminalized and fundamental human rights denied. Furthermore, de Genova (ibid., 438) claims, deportation is a putative goal of this apparatus, which thus works to produce a condition of deportability: “The category ‘illegal alien’ is a profoundly useful and profitable one that effectively serves to create and sustain a legally vulnerable―and hence, relatively tractable and thus ‘cheap’―reserve of labor” (ibid., 439–440). Fear of deportation or ending up undocumented is (or has been at some point in time) palpable in the cases of the young people this research is about, either concerning themselves or some of their family members.
Manasse’s family managed to enter Finland via the quota system, and Afrax, together with his mother and siblings, as a family member of a recognized refugee.
In this sense they were lucky in comparison with Denis, Adel and Emanuel. Due to a lack of other ways of entering Finland, they had first to cross the border clandestinely and subsequently seek asylum. Here, they have had to set foot in the grey zone of irregularized migration; between what is considered legal and what is considered illegal. Entering EU countries without the necessary documents is illegal, even though seeking asylum is a human right. Facing this contradiction means putting oneself at risk. In Emanuel's case, the risk was moderate as soon as he got out of Angola: he was helped by people with resources and selfless motives, and did not have to cross the Mediterranean Sea, as he traveled mostly by plane. As for Denis and Adel, I know very few details of their journeys to Europe and Finland. I know
that Adel took the so-called Eastern Mediterranean migration route, finding his way from the Middle East to Greece and then onwards. The Central or Western Mediterranean route was Denis’ most likely passage. Knowing how vulnerable underage asylum seekers are to different forms of exploitation on these trips, I did not want to question them about this issue at all, and neither were they eager to talk about it unprompted. As the travel has to be done clandestinely, it happens via dangerous routes over land and sea, and deaths and disappearances are not uncommon. Taking these routes often presupposes getting involved in the unregulated markets of organized human smuggling. “A growing body of evidence is beginning to highlight the scale and scope of exploitation experienced by migrants along these routes, including human trafficking”, Galos et al. (2017, xiv) write, stating that 37% of the migrants interviewed for their report had experienced human trafficking or other exploitative practices. Children, Galos et al. (ibid., xvi) underline,
“[...] are exposed to similar risk factors as adults but are less able to address their own vulnerabilities.” In another report concerning unaccompanied Afghan children seeking asylum, Mougne (2010, 21) states that the “[...] risks encountered by children who use the services of such networks [of organized smuggling] are incalculable [...].”
The smugglers often intimidate the children, keeping them under tight control, treating them violently and controlling their possibilities for keeping in touch with their families. While crossing the Mediterranean in overcrowded vessels is generally among the most traumatic experiences for these children, being detained in difficult conditions in different locations while waiting for the next part of the journey to begin, working during the trip in order to cover costs (in cases where the family is not able to pay the whole fee) or being mistreated because of failing to pay by an agreed deadline and crossing dangerous mountain areas are also reported as very difficult experiences (ibid., 18).
To understand refugee youths’ struggles after crossing the border wall, it is essential to bear these large constellations of global migration in mind, along with their highly vulnerable position in the national order of things. Furthermore, it is equally essential to remember that what exists and has happened across the border does not cease to exist after crossing it. All the young people who have taken part in this research have transnational family ties, even though some are―at least for the time being―broken, as family members are now missing. Most have at least some contact to their country of origin, and some have plenty. Some interact with other members of their diaspora communities as well, both physically in their current home surroundings, and virtually via social media (though, it ought to be mentioned, not all of them have these kind of networks: some are surprisingly alone). These
transnational contacts come up here and there in the course of this study. However, I have not discussed transnational aspects at length for two main reasons. The first is the focus of this dissertation; it focusses on what happens here, inside the border wall, in the embodied encounters of everyday life. I thus aim to point out the importance of transnational ties, though I cannot dwell on them. The second has to do with my research participants’ wishes and anonymity: in most cases, when they asked me to leave something out of this dissertation, it concerned their family members or certain details about them. In many instances I would not write about these issues even if the youths themselves would allow me to: there are too many details that would risk their anonymity too gravely. I will go into this and other methodological and ethical questions in detail in the next chapter.
3 FIELD & WORK: METHODOLOGY, SITES, ETHICS
In this chapter, I move from the sociohistorical context of this research to its more immediate surroundings. First, I describe the ethnographic fieldwork I have carried out, shedding light on both my methodological choices (and those imposed on me) and actual fieldwork settings, and introduce my research sites and participants in more detail. Following that, I scrutinize ethical questions faced during this research project, before opening the process of analyzing and interpreting my data.