THROUGH THE EYES OF YOUNG
REFUGEES
A case study on the impact of the migration process on
the agency and aspirations of Syrian refugee youth in
the Netherlands
Title: Through the eyes of young refugees: A case study on the impact of the migration process on the agency and aspirations of Syrian refugee youth in the Netherlands
Author: D.J. Bos
E-mail: diederikjacobbos@gmail.com Student no.: 10791698
Bachelor thesis in Political and Economic Geography Faculty of Social and Behavioural Sciences
University of Amsterdam Supervisor: Dr. D.L. Arnold Second reader: M.A. Verzijl Word count: 10.028
June 16, 2017
Acknowledgements
First and foremost I would like to thank the youth participating in this study for sharing their stories. Without their help and enthusiasm this thesis would not be possible. Thanks are also due to my supervisor, Dennis Arnold, for his constructive feedback and overall assistance during this research. It was a
pleasure meeting all of you and working with you. Lastly, I wish to thank my friends and family for their helpful comments and for supporting me over the last few months.
Abstract
This thesis discusses the impact of the migration process on Syrian refugee youth’s agency regarding educational and occupational aspirations, making it palpable by presenting their stories and reflecting on their aspirations in life. This thesis engages in the agency-structure debate, elaborating on concepts such as border politics and social bordering and reviewing their impact on Syrian refugee youth’s lives in the Netherlands. It is the migration process, including the refugee’s settlement in the Netherlands and the adaptation to a different lifestyle, which leads to a shift in ones’ own social and cultural boundaries. Elaborating on the empirical part of this study, most of the respondents migrated to the Netherlands in order to build a new life and continue with their studies,
using education as a means to get more and better opportunities in the future, in order to make their aspirations turn into reality.
Table of contents
1. Introduction ………. 6 2. Methodology ………... 8 3. Theoretical framework ………...… 11§ 3.1 What is the role of border politics in the European Union?….
………... 11
§ 3.2 What impact do exclusionary politics have on immigrants social rights?…..
………. 14
§ 3.3 How does a migrant’s agency relate to structural constraints?..….
………. 16
§ 3.4 Summary ………...………...………... 18
4. How does the migration process impact Syrian refugee youth’s agency regarding educational and occupational aspirations? ……..………..…..
§ 4.1 The journey to the Netherlands ...
………... 19 § 4.2 The Netherlands as a new home ………...…... ……….21 § 4.3 Looking forward ……… 23 § 4.4 Summary ………..………..……… 24 5. Conclusion ………..………. 26 6. Discussion ………..………..……… 27 7. References ………..………..……….. 29 8. Appendices ………..………... 33
- Appendix 1: Interview guide ……….………...…….. 33
- Appendix 2: General information respondents …..………. ……… 35
1. Introduction
In the last few years, the large share of Arab refugees has changed the image of the archetypal refugee. However, not only their relatively large number made the Arab refugees more eminent, but also the fear of terrorism and greater security concerns have played a role in shaping this image of the contemporary refugee (Nguyen, 2016). In 2016, more than 50% of all asylum applications in Europe were lodged by refugees from Syria, Iraq, or Afghanistan (Eurostat, 2017). Approximately half of these applications were lodged by Syrian refugees
(Eurostat, 2017). This large share of Arab and especially Syrian refugees often results in negative reactions and tensions in the host countries, fuelling the public and political debate around irregular migrants in general. However, the refugees’ perspectives and their agency are often neglected in these debates. Migrants are often considered as mere passive subjects within society.
Migration leads to a shift in one’s own social and cultural boundaries, causing on-going negotiations, adjustments, and adaptations in one’s social and cultural life, such as adapting to a new language, adapting to a new set of norms and values, discovering common practices, and investing in new social relations (Eggerth & Flynn, 2013; Hatoss & Huijser, 2010; Paret & Gleeson, 2016; Van Houtum & Van Naerssen, 2002). Many refugees are caught within this social limbo that eventually determines their life course (Hainmueller, Hangartner & Lawrence, 2016). Even after receiving a residence permit they are confronted with all sorts of social and political structures and structural constraints, which make integration in society even more difficult. Their dependence on top-down policy implementations and social support denies them their agency, which is required in order to construct and reflect upon one’s own life. Taking these aspects of irregular migration into account, this thesis forms a balance between political geography and sociology, focusing on border politics, agency, aspirations, and the opportunities present in the host country upon which to build a new life. The main question addressed in this research is:
How does the migration process impact Syrian refugee youth’s agency regarding educational and occupational aspirations?
I try to answer this main question with the help of three sub-questions: What is the role of border politics in the European Union?
What impact do exclusionary politics have on immigrants’ social rights? How does a migrant’s agency relate to structural constraints?
This thesis, based upon a qualitative research method, is conducted in the Netherlands due to practical reasons, such as the relatively easy access to Syrian refugee youth, while keeping a strict timeframe in mind. Moreover, using Syrian refugee youth in the Netherlands as a case study allows me to reflect on their journeys across Europe. It is the impact of this migration process through Europe that is of focal interest to this study. This thesis continues with the methodology, describing and elaborating on the research strategy and the research design. The three sub-questions will be addressed in the theoretical framework, in which I will elaborate on the European Union (EU) border politics as well as the migrants’ mobility within the EU; the inclusion-exclusion nexus and the concept of social bordering; and the role of the migrants’ agency, social change, and the notion of precariousness. In chapter 4 I will elaborate on the qualitative part of this research by discussing a number of interviews with Syrian refugee youth in the Netherlands, wherein I will come back to and reflect on some of the literature that I have discussed in the theoretical framework, as well as go deeper into the refugees’ educational and occupational aspirations. I will conclude this thesis by answering the main question and elaborate on some discussion points and recommendations for further research.
2. Methodology
This research is based on a qualitative research strategy, giving an in-depth and more personal view on the specific research subject, focusing on the refugees’ own words and perspectives and placing this in context. The 1951 Refugee Convention defined a refugee as:
“A person who owing to a well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion, is outside the country of his nationality and is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to avail himself of the protection of that country; or who, not having a nationality and being outside the country of his former habitual residence as a result of such events, is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to return to it (Nguyen, 2016).” Since I use a qualitative research I do not have any hypotheses. Instead, I want to give a profound in-depth view on the subject matter. The research design is a case study, trying to understand the complex social phenomena by doing a detailed and intensive analysis of a single case, which is Syrian refugee youth within The Netherlands. The United Nations (UN) defines youth as those persons between the ages of 15 and 24 years inclusive (O’Higgins, 1997). For the remainder of this thesis, I will use this definition when referring to ‘youth’. The
goal of this intensive examination of a single case is not to generate theory or generalize the findings to the wider universe. However, the goal is to provide and reflect on the socio-cultural constraints in regard to refugee youth’s agency and linking this to their educational and occupational aspirations within the host society. This provides useful information regarding their lives in a culturally quite diverse environment.
The time frame of this study was approximately five months, two months of which were used for data collection. For this data collection I made use of qualitative semi-structured interviews. Semi-structured interviews give the respondent a considerable amount of leeway. Moreover, it gives me the opportunity to deviate from the interview guide (see Appendix 1) in order to pick up on interesting answers. Selecting the research units has been done through snowball sampling, which is a form of purposive, non-probability sampling, choosing only those research units that are relevant to answer the main and sub-questions (Bryman, 2012). Snowball sampling is done by asking the respondents for other potential research units that are relevant for the research question and/or sub-questions. Due to time constraints and because of the extensiveness of the semi-structured interviews a total of seven interviews were included in this study (see Appendix 2). Among these interviews were five men and two women, all having fled war in Syria, and all aging between 17 and 23 years old. Therefore, all participants can be considered as Syrian refugee youth, the subject of this study.
I interviewed only two women within the context of this research since it was much harder to get in contact with women when compared to men, which may be due to cultural differences such as different norms and values. The two interviews conducted with women also took significantly less time than their male counterparts, taking approximately forty minutes per interviewee, compared to a around sixty minutes among men. However, since the purpose of this research is not to generalize the findings to the wider universe or generate theory out of it, these two interviews are considered a nice and welcome contribution to this research, which tries to give an in-depth and personal view of Syrian refugee youth’s lives within the Netherlands, as well as elaborates on the socio-cultural constraints that they face, which is all closely linked to the real world.
To give you some extra information: all seven participants were granted a residence permit for the Netherlands; only two participants live in an asylum seeker center; five participants were Muslim and two participants were Christians; the time spent in the Netherlands varied between four months and eighteen months; the total time spent on their journey to the Netherlands varied between one day, in the case of family reunification, and nine months; and all of them travelled with at least one family member. For privacy reasons, I chose not to use their real names within the context of this thesis. Instead, I will refer to them with made-up names. All interviews were conducted face to face, without the involvement or interference of a third person. Furthermore, I chose to record all interviews, with the permission of the participants, in order to pay full attention to the answers that were provided and to the overall conversation. All participants were informed of the main purpose of this research, and all participants agreed to take part in this research in accordance with the information provided.
Using qualitative semi-structured interviews results in context dependent, in-depth, and detailed information that is closely linked to the real world. This brings with it a more constructivist view on the social world. However, focusing on refugees’ perspectives links to the interpretivist philosophy as well, wherein making sense of the social world by its participants is a central aspect. Questions
that were included in the interview guide were categorised in six themes: general information, the journey into Europe (e.g. Was the Netherlands your end destination? And if so, why?), encountered structures (e.g. Have you had negative experiences regarding border control in Europe?), educational and occupational aspirations (e.g. How does the Dutch government help you with your educational and occupational aspirations?), personal development (e.g. Where would you go to find information about educational and/or occupational possibilities?), and social life (e.g. How has fleeing Syria affected your social life?). The questions that make up the interview guide deviate from open to closed questions. However, in the case of a closed question the respondent was always asked for an explanation. In total there were 55 questions included in the interview schedule. However, some questions were, depending on the interview and responding to the situation, omitted or added.
An important point that has to be made is the language barrier. Due to the lack of a common language and having no interpreter present, there were some misunderstandings regarding the interview questions. In total there were three languages involved: Dutch, English, and Arabic. Most interviews were conducted in Dutch since most participants wanted to speak Dutch. However, when needed I shifted to English or even some basic Arabic to make myself clear. An advantage of having no interpreter around is that the interviews were very informal, which resulted in very open and pleasant conversations. Being in the same age category as the participants themselves may have contributed to this fact since it makes it easier for both parties to identify oneself with another.
Before we can answer the main and sub-questions we first need to elaborate on the existing literature and theories, which forms a framework during the course of this research, and which I have used to reflect on the qualitative data. When completed all seven semi-structured interviews with Syrian refugees in The Netherlands, I analysed the qualitative data by coding the interviews with the coding and data processing program ATLAS.ti. This way of qualitative data analysis entails reviewing transcripts and labelling and ordering relevant and significant information. Writing out the interviews I chose to leave out all filling words for clarity purposes. Moreover, the quotes that I have included in this thesis are translated into English as precise as possible.
3. Theoretical framework
In this chapter I will address all three sub-questions, logically divided into three sub-sections, and incorporate them within a wider framework, which will be of importance for the empirical part of this research (see chapter 4). Within this theoretical framework I want to take the reader by the hand, starting with the main structures in regard to border politics in the EU and gradually working towards the role of refugees’ agency. The first sub-section introduces the main border policies within the context of the EU, denoting a migrant’s mobility and legal rights. Moreover, this sub-section introduces the Dutch case as well, which is of importance since it represents the legal and social framework for the refugee youth that participated in this study. It is in this sub-section that the importance of political geography is demonstrated, presenting the multi-scalarity of (the developments in) migration politics within the supranational body of the EU and within individual EU member states. Since the first sub-section only addresses a migrant’s legal rights and the structures that are in play in the policy field of migration and asylum within the EU context, the second sub-section will focus on migrants’ social rights within this contextual framework, by explaining the concept of social bordering and elaborating on member states’ exclusionary politics. The third sub-section focuses on migrants’ agency and the way that migrants deal with structural constraints within the EU. The concept of agency is of interest here since it takes the migrants as a starting point in this debate, instead of treating them as passive subjects within society. The three sub-sections are followed by a brief summary, in which I will present the most important points, as well as explain how this theoretical framework links to the following chapter.
§ 3.1 What is the role of border politics in the European
Union?
The establishment of the EU and the Schengen Area
The dominant conception of borders defines a border as a natural symbol, marking the boundary of a state’s authority, which forms the basis on which the international system of state sovereignty is built (Zaiotti, 2008). State sovereignty is an important factor since it constitutes a person’s identity and
therefore contributes to a feeling of belonging (Zaiotti, 2008). However, Walters (2002) states that the state-border nexus is based on historical politics and is not a given entity. This latter conception of borders, originating from the 1960s onwards, constituted a shift in European border politics, adding a vertical dimension to the politics of migration (Guiraudon, 2000).
With the implementation of Council Regulation 1612/68, confirmed in 1973, the EU enabled the free movement of nationals of all EU member states within its territory (Huysmans, 2000). However, nationals of third countries were not enabled this free movement within the EU. After this implementation the focus of border control shifted more and more towards the external borders of the EU. This shift in European border control marks the birth of the Schengen acquis, an institution safeguarding the external borders of the EU territory, through the objective of shared responsibility, while loosening the internal borders between EU member states (Kasparek, 2016). According to Zaiotti (2008) and Léonard (2010) the objective of shared responsibility among EU member states in the field of EU external border control can be regarded as a shift away from intergovernmentalism to a kind of ‘intensive transgovernmentalism’. What makes Schengen so interesting is that its focus is not on borders as a symbol of inter-state political power, but as an opportunity to collaborate between states. The Schengen Agreement was implemented in 1985 (Kasparek, 2016). However, its formal incorporation within the EU legal framework was not until 1999, two years after it was finalised by the Treaty of Amsterdam (Kasparek, 2016; Léonard, 2009; Léonard, 2010).
The signing of the Treaty of Amsterdam resulted in an amendment in the field of Justice and Home Affairs (JHA), which consists of three pillars: freedom, security, and justice (Zaiotti, 2008). Its objectives mainly relate to external border control, asylum, and immigration. According to Léonard (2009) and Neal (2009) asylum and migration are becoming more and more securitized in EU politics, resulting in increased tensions concerning the preservation of human rights.
Dublin Regulation and Eurodac
The EU securitization policies are aimed to minimize and regulate immigration flows. The Common European Asylum System (CEAS) is one of the EU’s main incentives in relation to the area of asylum, in which the Dublin Regulation takes an important place (Brekke & Brochmann, 2014). The Dublin Regulation reduces the ability of asylum seekers to go ‘asylum shopping’ (i.e. submitting an asylum claim in multiple countries in order to choose the most favourable country when it comes to living standards, educational and occupational opportunities, and access to other provisions such as both social and government support). The Dublin Regulation was implemented in 1990 (Kasparek, 2016). However, it was not until 1997 for it to be incorporated into the EU legal framework (Kasparek, 2016). For EU member states, this regulation entails that the first country of registration will, in general, be responsible for the asylum process. Though, important factors such as a potential violation of human rights or the presence of family members in another member state are taken into account in the final determination of the responsible state (Brouwer, 2013). The asylum seeker’s predetermined country of choice is not taken into account in this process.
The Dublin Regulation is accompanied by Eurodac, an EU database, established in 2003, that assimilates and regulates the registration of asylum seekers within the Schengen area. This is done by collecting their fingerprints upon the very first arrival in one of the EU member states (Brekke & Brochmann, 2014). This registration process is legally obliged and should be complied with by all EU member states (Brekke & Brochmann, 2014; Kasparek, 2016). However,
the combined package of the Dublin Regulation and Eurodac result in an imbalance between EU member states, placing a heavy burden on the countries at the external borders of the EU. According to Kasparek (2016) this leads to the divergence of asylum standards among member states, obscuring the EU objectives of harmonization in the area of asylum and migration. Moreover, he states that the Dublin Regulation, alongside Eurodac, have led to a very mobile and isolated population of refugees within the EU (Kasparek, 2016).
Frontex
To support the different EU immigration policies, and to counteract the disintegration in the field of migration, security, and borders, the European Agency for the Management of Operational Cooperation at the External Borders (Frontex) was established in 2005 (Neal, 2009). Its main objective is to improve the cooperation and management of the EU member states regarding the external borders of the EU, striving for a pan-European model of ‘integrated border management’ (IBM) and border security (Léonard, 2010; Marin, 2014; Van Houtum, 2010). The tasks of the agency are to (1) coordinate operational cooperation between EU member states; (2) contribute to the training of national border guards; (3) conduct risk assessments; (4) conduct research concerning both internal and external borders; (5) assist in the case of increased demands regarding external border control; and (6) contribute to the execution of joint return operations (Léonard, 2010; Pollak & Slominski, 2009). However, the Frontex has only few executive powers, due to its role as a regulatory agency, and operates with a relatively small budget (Neal, 2009; Pollak & Slominski, 2009). Its budget is mainly based on a community subsidy obtained from the European Parliament (EP), which emphasizes its importance in the preservation of the Frontex (Léonard, 2010). In 2016, as a consequence of increased immigration due to the refugee crisis, the EU Commission launched the European Border and Coast Guard (Frontex) as a prolongation of the Frontex as established in 2005, allowing for a greater degree of independence (European Commission, 2017; Frontex, 2016).
The role of individual EU member states
Immigration and asylum policies in Europe have become more and more shifted to the supranational EU level (Reslow, 2012). Though, the Frontex, for example, is dependent on the support of individual member states for its functioning (Léonard, 2010). Moreover, EU member states are still responsible for their own legal migration policies, being influenced by questions regarding social welfare, housing, and employment policies, all of which are subjects of the national government (Reslow, 2012). Furthermore, an intensive trans-governmentalist approach (see sub-section 3.1) is often impeded through go-it-alone policies (i.e. countries that do not adhere to concluded agreements and instead act on their own behalf) Heisbourg, 2015; and see Fargues & Bonfanti, 2014; Brekke & Brochmann, 2014). A major difference between individual member states is their position on the distribution of responsibilities directly outside the external border of the EU (i.e. in the territorial waters of a third country) and their role regarding the recognition and safeguarding of human rights (Pollak & Slominski, 2009). According to Lavenex (2001) there is a tension between the trans-governmentalist approach and individual sovereignty, as well as between securitization and the recognition of human rights.
Although the coordination of asylum policies has more and more shifted towards the European level, national migration politics still plays an important role, regulating migrants’ access to welfare provisions as well regulating their access to the labour market. When we focus on the Netherlands, which is of special interest for this thesis, we see that
from the 1970s onwards, immigration was mostly a direct route into welfare state dependency (Joppke, 2007). Dutch immigration politics has changed from an inclusive and multiculturalist politics to a civic integration politics. This civic integration politics focuses on shared national values, equality, non-discrimination and equal opportunities, and passing the civic integration exam is a requirement for naturalisation (Fischler, 2014). This exam has to be passed within the first five years after one’s asylum claim has been approved (Ersanilli, 2014).
National migration politics operates on different scales, bot national and local. It is the Immigration and Naturalisation Service (IND) that coordinates national asylum politics, being responsible for the admission of refugees in the Netherlands, while the Central Agency for the Reception of Asylum Seekers (COA) mainly operates on the local level (Kos, Maussen & Doomernik, 2016). Under the auspices of both the IND and the COA asylum seekers are accommodated throughout the country in order to distribute the costs between the different municipalities, as well as to prevent geographic concentration (Ersanilli, 2014).
§ 3.2 What impact do exclusionary politics have on
immigrants’ social rights?
Inclusion, exclusion, and the social border
Van Houtum (2010) defines bordering as ‘the continuous legitimization and justification of the location and demarcation of a border.’ Moreover, he argues that borders are a social process, open to change and re-imagination (Van Houtum, 2002). Scott (2015) defines borders as a means to fix space, making it concrete as social places. Although both Van Houtum (2002) and Scott (2015) emphasize the social aspects of bordering, social bordering is not clearly defined within the existing literature. However, taking these social aspects of bordering into account, and building on the work of Newman (2006), who denotes the difference between the physical and the cultural border, I define social bordering as the social and cultural aspects of migration and the accompanied social and cultural change that a migrant has to deal with in order to exercise his/her agency.
Contemporary research focuses more and more on borders as socially constructed, impacting upon one’s day to day life and one’s own cultural values (Newman, 2006; Van Houtum, 2002). Migration leads to a shift in one’s own social and personal boundaries, causing on-going negotiations, adjustments, and adaptations in one’s social life (Van Houtum & Van Naerssen, 2002). The notion of identity takes an important place in these debates (Scott, 2009). Leontidou, Donan and Afouxenidis (2005) state that borders display an imbalance between those inside and outside the borders, between ‘them’ and ‘us’. This imbalance is reflected in the securitization politics of the EU. According to Scott (2015) the EU can be seen as a Neo-Westphalian project, implementing state-like politics, and contributing to the notion of borders as symbols of differences and exclusion. According to Léonard (2010) the securitization of asylum and migration in the EU has a negative impact on refugees, reducing their mobility and neglecting their human rights. This kind of external exclusionary and protectionist politics is inextricably linked to fear (Mountz et al., 2013; Van Houtum, 2010; Van Houtum & Pijpers, 2007). Immigrants are often seen as a threat to a state’s ordered space and identity (Van Houtum & Van Naerssen, 2002). Despite the negative impact of exclusion, border politics also ensures that a large number of people are in fact becoming included in society, networks, or other associations or institutions.
Exclusion can also be viewed as an intra-state process, in which refugees are seen as a challenge to the socio-cultural fabric of the western welfare state (Joppke, 2005; Léonard, 2010). This view upholds a negative and xenophobic stance against refugees, irrespective of their actual or potential contribution to society. Moreover, it contributes to the negation of their social rights, including any community support or other social services within the EU member state or any state at all (Huysmans, 2000). This mainly applies to asylum seekers who live in isolated and remote asylum seeker centers. This internal exclusion, which is used as a means of the government to control and restrict the asylum seekers’ mobility, causes a lack of participation in society and therefore imposes a limitation on the integration process (Hainmueller et al., 2016; Mountz et al., 2013; Newman, 2006). This integration process, which is believed to achieve social and cultural inclusion in society, is often contested since it emphasizes the adverse impact of another culture within society (Huysmans, 2000).
The closing of internal borders
Borders are a controversial topic since they represent a paradox between both protection and securitization and increasing levels of globalization (Leontidou et al., 2005). Within this process of globalization and the increasing interconnectedness between states, both politically and economically, borders have become a multilateral interest. This means that national border politics may increase the tension between states, not only on an intercontinental level but also globally, which may result in legal measures (e.g. due to the closing of internal borders) or even in a direct confrontation between states.
When it comes to irregular migration, the 1951 Refugee Convention has established a set of policies, norms, and general procedures concerning the Status of Refugees to which host countries should comply. The Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) has the responsibility to make sure that all countries meet these obligations (Betts, 2015). However, a number of governments, among which are the governments of Hungary and Croatia, have decided to close their borders in order to stop the inflow of refugees (Betts, 2015; see figure 1).
Figure 1. The Hungarian-Serbian border after it was closed in 2015 (Daily Mail, 2015).
Moreover, Poland, the Czech Republic and Slovakia were excessively reluctant in regard to the EU burden-sharing scheme, which entails that these countries, among others, are expected to take up a share of asylum seekers from other member states (Heisbourg, 2015). Consequently, the rules, norms, and policies implemented as a result of the 1951 Refugee Convention, and the associated obligation of states to commit to these implementations, seem to be more and more conditional (Betts, 2015). On another note, in August 2015 Germany opened its borders to all asylum seekers (Heisbourg, 2015). Although this is in conflict with the provisions of the Dublin Regulation (see sub-section 3.2), it shows that not all EU member states act on behalf of the notion of fear.
§ 3.3 How does a migrant’s agency relate to structural
constraints?
Agency
Agency and structure play an important but controversial role in contemporary migration studies and are widely debated. O’Higgins (2012) defines agency as “people’s ability to participate meaningfully in the construction of their daily lives, including their capacity to cope, their ability to adapt, and their resilience.” According to Bakewell (2010) agency can be defined as “the capacity for social actors to reflect on their position, devise strategies and take action to achieve their desires.” In line with Bakewell’s definition, Sibeon (1999) defines agency as “an actor’s capacity to act upon situations.” However, I find this latter definition a bit too simplistic. Therefore, and building on the work of Bakewell (2010) and O’Higgins (2012) I define agency as the ability to actively construct one’s own life, along with the ability to critically reflect on one’s position in society, as well
as having the ability to cope with and adapt to continuously changing environments.
According to Sibeon (1999) structure refers to “the relatively enduring though not immutable circumstances within which actors operate.” Moreover, structure “can constrain actors or facilitate and enable them to achieve their preferred objectives.” Bakewell (2010) states that structure not only constrains or enables actors, but that it is in itself continuously reproduced by these social actors. (i.e. structure affects agency, just like agency reproduces structure). In this thesis I will use the definition of structure as suggested by Sibeon (1999). Though, it is important to remember that both structure and agency are controversial concepts and are used in many different ways and contexts.
Agency within migration studies is still too often overlooked, considering refugees as passive victims of war and peril, instead of being active agents themselves, having their own beliefs, and acting on aspirations and opportunities present in the host country. According to Essed, Frerks & Schrijvers (2004) refugees’ agency is often denied in national politics by implementing top-down policies, without the objectives of involvement and direct empowerment. Neglecting refugees’ agency and considering them as passive subjects also means that potentially useful knowledge and connections are not being acknowledged (Hatoss & Huijser, 2010). These and other structural constraints negatively impact upon one’s agency. However, structure is as much a constraint on agency as it is an outcome of agency, thus eventually reinforcing each other as time goes by (Bakewell, 2010; Sibeon, 1999).
Social change
After the geopolitical border has been crossed, a social and cultural border remains. This represents itself in the dualism between inclusion and internal exclusion (see sub-section 3.2). As already touched upon in sub-section 3.2, migration leads to a shift in one’s own social and cultural boundaries, causing on-going negotiations, adjustments, and adaptations in one’s social and cultural life, such as adapting to a new language, adapting to a new set of norms and values, discovering common practices, and investing in new social relations (Eggerth & Flynn, 2013; Hatoss & Huijser, 2010; Paret & Gleeson, 2016; Van Houtum & Van Naerssen, 2002). This results in the fact that many migrants are stuck in a social limbo that determines their life. The pre-determined vision of building a peaceful life, being politically and socially engaged, attaining a better economic position, and having abundant opportunities is often quite different from reality (Cheong et al., 2007). Expectations are set too high and cultural differences prove to be more difficult to overcome. Culture often forms a constraint instead of serving as an empowering and binding environment (Karlsen & Nazroo, 2002). However, the way in which irregular migrants adjust to different practices, adapt to norms and values, and take advantage of opportunities, differs significantly. This is due to their position in the social structure, their personal background, and previous experiences (Forrest & Kearns, 2001; O’Higgins, 2012).
Moreover, the state plays an important role in integrating migrants into society. However, a comparative study by Korac (2003) on settlement experiences of refugees in both Italy and the Netherlands concludes that a lack of regulations and policies in the field of migration results in advanced integration in society and more informal social relations. A point that I want to make here is that this view supposes that state organised immigration programmes only form an increased barrier to integration in society.
Globalisation and increased interconnectedness in a neo-liberal society brought about higher levels of inequality. This inequality often comes with increased levels of uncertainty, which brings me to the concept of precariousness. Paret and Gleeson (2016) define precariousness as economic insecurity, most often related to the working environment. However, its reference can be extended to encompass other aspects of intersubjective life (Neilson & Rossiter, 2005). Precariousness can be defined as a source of political and economic subjugation due to uncertainty relative to the access to both physical and social resources in society (Arnold & Bongiovi, 2013; Neilson & Rossiter, 2008). I will use this latter definition of precariousness as a reference in this thesis. This political and economic subjugation negatively affects a migrant’s agency, and can be a consequence of the difficult integration process and/or the migrant’s social position in society. Especially this social position, and the ability to build social relations, which is one of the basic needs of a human being, is an important aspect of living a pleasant and satisfying live (Marx, 1990). According to Neilson & Rossiter (2005) an important aspect of precariousness is the lack of stability on which to construct a life. This lack of stability is one of the main aspects of the migration process, which is characterized by uncertainty and on-going social change (see sub-section 3.2).
§ 3.4 Summary
This chapter discussed the main structures in regard to border politics in the EU, while gradually shifting towards the role of refugees’ agency. In the first sub-section the different border policies within the EU and the development of these policies as a consequence of increased immigration in the EU were presented. It emphasized the shift in border control towards the external borders of the EU, relying more and more on the notion of shared responsibility. The policy implementations and regulations discussed in this chapter both enable and restrict a migrant’s mobility within the EU. The second sub-section discussed the border as a social phenomenon, focusing on the effects of exclusionary politics. These exclusionary politics, which result in migrants’ decreased mobility and neglect their social rights, are inextricably linked to the notion of fear. Despite the fact that this sub-section explores the effects of exclusionary politics on migrants’ lives, its main focus is still on borders. Although these borders are regarded as social structures within society, it leaves out the migrants’ agency. The third sub-section addressed this concept of agency, linking it to the structural constraints that irregular immigrants have to face. Immigrants are often regarded as passive subjects within society instead of being regarded as active agents themselves. Even in national politics a migrant’s agency is often denied. This is due to the implementation of top-down policies, lacking the objectives of involvement and empowerment. Contrary to this, it is the creation of an enabling environment that eventually leads to the strengthening of one’s social position in society, which is an important aspect of stability. In chapter 4 I will further elaborate on the refugee youth’s agency, making it palpable by presenting their stories, while reflecting back on the literature presented within this theoretical framework.
4. How does the migration process impact Syrian
refugee youth’s agency regarding educational and
occupational aspirations?
Having explained the main structures in regard to EU border politics, and having shown the importance of agency within migration studies, in this chapter I will further elaborate on the refugee youth’s agency, by presenting their stories and reflecting on their educational and occupational aspirations. This empirical part of the study is of great value since it provides an in-depth and more personal view on the subject matter, which is the aim of this research. I have included seven interviews with Syrian refugee youth within this chapter, and I have used multiple quotes to make this chapter even more personal and vivid. This chapter is divided into three sections, followed by a brief summary. The first sub-section addresses the refugee youth’s journey to the Netherlands, elaborating on their individual agency within the structural framework of migration politics. The second sub-section focuses on the integration process and discusses the refugee youth’s views on building a new life in the Netherlands. While sub-section two elaborates on the refugee’s current lives and their past experiences in the Netherlands, sub-section three is focused on the future and discusses their agency regarding educational and occupational aspirations.
§ 4.1 The journey to the Netherlands
After asking some general questions and being provided with some background information (see Appendix 2), I asked what the main reason was for fleeing Syria and whether this was their own decision or not. All seven respondents indicated that there was no future for them in Syria and that living and studying became too dangerous and too expensive. Two of the respondents explained that they were obliged to serve in the army, being either Bashar al Assad’s army or ISIS, if they had stayed in Syria. Another respondent explained that because of her religious beliefs, being a Christian in a Muslim-majority country, made it too dangerous to stay in Syria. Another more practical reason that was given was the fact that in many parts in Syria there is no electricity or running water.
Decisions to flee Syria were mostly made in agreement with direct family. However, none of the respondents travelled with his/her whole family. Reasons for this were that this would have made the migration process too expensive or that there were opportunities for family reunification once someone made it to
the Netherlands. Three of the respondents had legally arrived in the Netherlands through this family reunification program. The other four, one of them being under-age, illegally migrated to the Netherlands via Greece. These journeys took between fifteen days to ten months in total and took them through multiple countries via different routes and different means of transportation. The price for the journey to the Netherlands cost thousands of euros. Two respondents, Hassan (17) and Karim (20) told me that they had to pay 3.500 and 7.000 euros per person respectively. Hassan (17), whose journey took around twenty days in total, told me that the rubber boat in which he went from Turkey to Greece started sinking in the middle of the sea, after which he was brought to land by the Greek coast guard. He then stayed in Greece for sixteen days after which he continued his journey to the Netherlands.
“I will never forget those sixteen days in Greece. There was not enough place for us at the detention center so we had to live on the streets for the first three days (Hassan, 17).”
Although Greece is officially part of the Dublin Regulation, from January 2011 until March 2017 there were no deportations from other EU member states to Greece due to multiple records of human rights violations, meaning that people such as Hassan (17), as well as the other respondents, were able to continue their journey into Europe (European Commission, 2016). Karim (20), whose journey took fifteen days, received a fake passport in order to take a plane from Greece to Italy, from where he continued his journey by train and bus. When I asked him what impact the migration process had on him, he stated, among other things:
“Although I am only 20 years old, my soul is more like 50 years old (Karim, 20).”
When I asked him about the smuggling process, he explained that it functions as a business: the more you pay, the shorter and safer the journey is likely to be. Moreover, he told me that there is almost no contact with the smuggler. When asking him how this works, he stated:
“At some point, I was told to wait somewhere outside the airport at 18:00 o’clock, and then someone approached me and said: “Are you Karim? Please follow me” (Karim, 20).”
Asking Karim (20) whether the Netherlands was his pre-determined end destination, he said that this was indeed the case. Amir (23), who came to the Netherlands illegally around one year and eight months ago, stated that he first fled Syria and went to Turkey for nine months, from where he planned the rest of his journey. He and his family chose to go to the Netherlands since they heard that the Dutch government has the fastest procedures for family reunification. When I asked Amir (23) what his thoughts were when arriving in Greece safely. He responded:
“For me it was about the rest of the journey. I was not really focussing on how Europe looked there. I was thinking about how Europe looked here, in the Netherlands (Amir, 23).”
Asking him what his thoughts were when arriving in the Netherlands, he responded:
“I came by train and was listening to music, while trying to stare at anything. Now I could think about the future, you know. This is where I was supposed to be (Amir, 23).”
Asking the respondents about their motivation to commence on the journey to the Netherlands, most of them stated that building a new life and continuing with their study was the biggest motivation. Those who arrived through family reunification were mostly motivated by the thought of seeing their family again. Karim (20) stated that his parents were an important motivation for him during the journey, since they made it possible for him to flee Syria. Amir (23) was mostly motivated by the thoughts of visiting some other places in Europe of which he only dreamt about before, such as Santiago Bernabeu, the stadium of Real Madrid C.F.
§ 4.2 The Netherlands as a new home
Having arrived in the Netherlands, which was the pre-determined end destination of all respondents, the process of adapting to the Dutch culture and norms and values begins, causing on-going negotiations, adjustments, and adaptations in one’s social and cultural life (Eggerth & Flynn, 2013; Hatoss & Huijser, 2010; Paret & Gleeson, 2016; Van Houtum & Van Naerssen, 2002). The time of arrival in the Netherlands varied between four months ago and twenty months ago, which may have caused for quite diverse views on life in the Netherlands. According to Forrest and Kearns (2001) and O’Higgins (2012) these diverse views, partly influenced by the time being in the Netherlands, are due to their position in the social structure, their personal background, and previous experiences. However, when I asked whether one feels welcome in the Netherlands most respondents agreed.
“Most people have a friendly look and give you a smile, which means that you are welcome in this country (Hassan, 17).”
Karim (20) explains that although he feels welcome in the Netherlands, building a new life is difficult mostly due to a cultural barrier. Ahmad (20), who arrived in the Netherlands around five months ago, still does not feel fully accepted in the Netherlands. Although he acknowledges the high level of freedom in the Netherlands, he explains that he cannot act on this yet, since he still feels a foreigner here. Aysha (17) shares this feeling, stating that being a refugee and having few or no Dutch friends makes it very difficult to learn the language and participate in society. For Amir (23), Karim (20) and Hassan (17), all being in the Netherlands for around one year and eight months and being able to speak
Dutch or English very well, they find difficulties not in learning the language or interacting with Dutch citizens, but in adapting to the lifestyle and getting accustomed with the different norms and values within the Netherlands.
Elaborating on the adaptation of the different norms and values and the interaction with citizens, I asked the respondents whether the integration of refugees within the Dutch society is a task for the government, and whether the Dutch government has done enough for stimulating the integration of refugees within the Netherlands. Although the general answer to both questions was ‘yes’, a few of the respondents added that it is also the responsibility of the refugee itself to act upon the provisions of the government. This is in line with the contemporary Dutch immigration politics, which has changed from an inclusive and multiculturalist politics to a more civic integration politics, in which the immigrant is responsible for his/her own participation in the integration process
(Joppke, 2007). However, as Amir (23) explains, an important aspect of being
able to actively participate in society is your place of residence, which is assigned to you by the government. Building on this, I want to elaborate on two points that were named multiple times and that relate to being unable to participate in society as well as in education programmes. The first point that I want to address is the isolated location of many asylum seeker centers, which is a form of internal exclusion and is used as a means of the government to control and restrict the asylum seekers’ mobility. Internal exclusion causes a lack of participation in society and therefore imposes a limitation on the integration process (Hainmueller et al., 2016; Mountz et al., 2013; Newman, 2006). The second point that I want to address is the uncertainty in the length of stay in one or more asylum seeker centers before one is allocated a house somewhere else. When I asked Mahmoud (19), being in the Netherlands for around one year and eight months, if he had already started learning Dutch in school, he answered that this had not been possible since he had to move multiple times between asylum seeker centers before he got allocated a house in Amsterdam only two weeks ago. Asking whether the asylum seeker centers were a stimulating environment, he replied:
“It made me very tired, just as for many others I know (Mahmoud, 19).” Asking Karim (20) the same question, he stated:
“The first six months in an asylum seeker center in the Netherlands did not feel like being in the Netherlands since the only people I was confronted with were Arabs and other foreigners (Karim, 20).”
And:
“Life in an asylum seeker center is terrible in every way. I do not have words to describe it. You are just sitting in your room the whole day (Karim, 20).”
This can be linked to the work of Essed, Frerks & Schrijvers (2004), who state that refugees’ agency is often denied in national politics by implementing top-down policies, without the objectives of involvement and direct empowerment. Hassan (17) told me that he had informed multiple times if he could function as a translator for people within the asylum seeker center, but he never got a reply back from the asylum officials.
Hassan’s family had arrived in the Netherlands through family reunification. Being younger than eighteen years old enabled this legal reunification of direct family. As of 9 September 2016 the age limit for family reunification has increased to 25 years (IND, 2016). However, this only applies to new asylum applications, as well as to applications that were still in process at the time of implementation, and is assessed on a case-by-case basis. This enabled Ahmad (20), who arrived in the Netherlands in October 2016, to be legally reunited with his family here in the Netherlands. Karim (20), eighteen years old when he arrived in the Netherlands in August 2015, was denied this possibility. Although he was aware of this before he started his journey, he finds it unfair that his parents are unable to legally migrate to the Netherlands. Another point that he named in regard to the legal differences between those older than eighteen years old and those that are under-age, is the fact that under-age refugees are directly integrated into education, while he had to wait for another six months. Two other respondents had to wait even longer, taking up to one and a half years. Elaborating on this, Karim (20) stated:
“I appreciate the government’s provisions, but time flies and the years pass by very quickly. What I have done in one and a half years, my niece has done in six months (Karim, 20).”
He explains that he has to sort everything out himself, which makes him confused. Although he used to have a contact person at Vluchtelingen Werk Nederland (VWN) for a few months, and institution representing the refugees’ interests and helping them to integrate within Dutch society, for Karim (20) this period has already ended, due to for him unknown reasons. When he has a question, he can still contact the VWN, but now he has to make an appointment, making it very formal and time-consuming.
When I asked about social life in the Netherlands I got very diverse answers. Hassan (17) replied that he has a lot of contact with Dutch citizens, even more than with Syrians. Aysha (17) answered that she prefers to interact with Dutch citizens, being a stimulus to learning the language and building a social life. However, she states that living in a small village, like she does, does not make this easier. Karim (20) shares this feeling, stating that his social life has declined when compared to a few months ago when he still lived in a bigger city. Amir (23) told me that he has mainly Syrian friends and only a few Dutch friends, although he would rather have the opposite. Ahmad (20) and Mahmoud (19) also interact mostly with other Syrians within the Netherlands. For Mahmoud (19) it is the language barrier that stops him from trying to interact with Dutch citizens, while Ahmad (20) stated:
“I am afraid to speak to someone. I am afraid that they do not accept me because I am a refugee (Ahmad, 20).”
Although the interaction with Dutch citizens differs significantly among the respondents, they all indicated that they are really motivated to make more Dutch friends and interact with Dutch citizens.
Despite some difficulties adapting to the new language, culture, and norms and values, five of the seven respondents indicated that they want to stay in the Netherlands and not go back to Syria. Although two respondents, both having arrived in the Netherlands via family reunification, eventually want to return to Syria, they first want to complete their studies here. When still in Syria, most respondents were not able to fully participate in education programmes since this was too dangerous. Although all respondents have finished their secondary education, a few of them indicated that there was at least one year in which they did not participate in any education program. Hassan (17), who told me that ISIS had invaded his hometown Raqqa, stated:
“I was able to go to school. However, there I would have learned how to use a gun instead (Hassan, 17).”
I then asked the respondents about their past and present educational and occupational aspirations and whether these have changed. Aspirations, which are defined by Tlhabano & Schweitzer (2007) as “visions, hopes, and dreams in the short or long term”, are mediated through both agency and structure. According to Van Meeteren (2012) aspirations are constructed by the individual, where they are informed through socialization into larger cultural contexts. Some aspirations were quite specific and well thought out, while others were loosely defined. Most respondents agreed that their aspirations back in Syria got more and more limited by time. Ahmad (20) explained that his dreams have become bigger since arriving in the Netherlands. He now wants to start his own company in biomedical engineering, which would not have been feasible back in Syria. Asking whether he knows how to achieve this he replied:
“I know what I need and I know what I have (Ahmad, 20).”
Hassan (17) told me that he wants to be a surgeon, also knowing exactly what education he needs and having completely planned out his education schedule for the coming years. Aysha (17), wanting to become a furniture designer, planned out her education schedule as well, even knowing which school she wants to go to and when. Amir (23), who told me that he did not have that many specific aspirations back in Syria, now wants to be an English language coach, having found something really interesting in learning new languages since he has arrived in the Netherlands. Karim (20), shortly taking part in the first level of government examination, stated that he does not want to continue with the next level of government examination:
“Then I would lose another year. I just want to enrol in the Dutch education system (Karim, 20).”
When I asked the respondents about how they see their future I got some diverse answers. Although all respondents stated that they plan their education in the Netherlands, three respondents eventually want to leave the Netherlands; two of them want to return to Syria and one of them wants to move to Southern Europe,
preferably Spain. When I asked why he wants to move there he explained that Spain’s culture and general lifestyle is closer to what he is used to when compared to the Dutch culture. Asking the respondents where they see themselves in twenty years time, most of them stated that they hope to have settled in a nice environment in the Netherlands, having a job, and overall living a calm and pleasant life. Aysha (17) replied:
“In twenty years time I want to live in Utrecht and have my job there, and a pet: a dog or a cat (Aysha, 17).”
Elaborating on this she explained that she had always wanted a pet when she was younger but that her mother had never allowed it.
§ 4.4 Summary
This chapter discussed the refugee youth’s agency, presenting their stories and reflecting on their educational and occupational aspirations. This empirical chapter is of great added value to this research since it provided personal experiences on the migration process as well as elaborated upon the refugee youth’s lives in the Netherlands, both contemporary and in the future. In the first sub-section I discussed the refugees’ journeys to the Netherlands. All respondents indicated that there was no future for them in Syria; hence they were forced to leave. Also, all respondents chose to migrate to the Netherlands, both because of the general environment and because of relatively fast family reunification procedures. The second sub-section discussed the refugee youth’s contemporary life in the Netherlands, as well as their past experiences in the Netherlands. Although all respondents feel welcome in the Netherlands, most of them find adapting to the Dutch lifestyle and to the different norms and values a difficult task. This is due to both a cultural and a language barrier. Moreover, all respondents agreed that government provisions are enabling them to build a new life. However, the time spent in asylum seeker centers as well as the constant translocation between different asylum seeker centers, often located in isolated and remote places, imposes a limitation on the integration process. The third sub-section addressed the refugee youth’s educational and occupational aspirations, as well as their general prospects in life. Most respondents agreed that their aspirations back in Syria got more and more limited by time. Being in the Netherlands offers them new and more opportunities, being both educational as well as occupational. Taking advantage of these opportunities, a number of respondents have already planned out their required education, working towards their dream jobs.
5. Conclusion
Refugees are often regarded as mere passive subjects within society instead of being regarded as active agents themselves. Therefore, this thesis intended to incorporate the perspectives of Syrian refugee youth in the Netherlands, focussing on their agency in regard to educational and occupational aspirations and placing this in context. It is the empirical part of the study that is of great added value, providing an in-depth and personal view on the subject matter. The migration process often leads to a shift in one’s own social and cultural boundaries, which causes on-going negotiations, adjustments, and adaptations in one’s social and cultural life. Moreover, the multi-scalarity of migration politics within the supranational body of the EU and within the Netherlands specifically, which both comprise different structures, being social, cultural, and political, generally restrict a refugee’s mobility and denies them their agency. This makes the integration process even more difficult than it already is. The refugee youth interviewed for this study have all fled Syria since there was no future for them there. Although they all feel welcome in the Netherlands and agree that government provisions enable them to build a new life, they acknowledge these structural barriers. The time spent in asylum seeker centers, as well as the isolated and remote location of these centers, lack the objectives of involvement and empowerment, and imposes a limitation on the integration process. However, most respondents want to construct a new life in the Netherlands, focussing on their education as a means to get more opportunities and already planning years in forward, knowing exactly what they need in order to make their aspirations a reality.
6. Discussion
This thesis sought to answer the question: What impact does the migration process have on Syrian refugee youth’s agency regarding educational and occupational aspirations? The focus thereby was on the agency-structure debate, reflecting on existing literature as well as elaborating on a number of semi-structured interviews with Syrian refugee youth within the Netherlands. It was the refugee youth that I wanted to give a central place in this research, focussing on their stories and their agency in a new, and culturally quite different, environment. The main reason for this was because of a course that I attended, which focused on the impact of asylum seekers on the host society, neglecting their stories, agency and aspirations. This provided a unilateral and quite negative view on asylum seekers. The special focus on Syrian refugees is due to their relatively large share among refugees in Europe. Moreover, I already had a few connections to Syrian refugees within the Netherlands, who very kindly introduced me to other potential participants.
An interesting outcome of this study is the legal difference that is being made between those refugees that are older than eighteen years and those that are younger than eighteen years, although all officially considered youth. Being younger than eighteen years gave you the only right to family reunification, even though this age limit has increased as of September 2016 for new asylum applications and for those applications that were still in process at the time of implementation. This point was explicitly stressed by two brothers that I met while doing this research. Being older than eighteen years, one of them was eighteen years old upon arrival in the Netherlands in August 2015, they were unable to qualify for family reunification, which is submitted together with the asylum application. Furthermore, all refugee minors are required to go to school to learn the Dutch language in order to integrate into the Dutch education
system as soon as possible. Another interesting point that was mentioned by two
participants, and that is in line with the notion of exclusionary politics (see chapter 3), is the isolated or controversial location of their residence. Both of the residences considered here were next to a cemetery, and one of them, being an asylum seeker center in the south of Limburg, was even next to a crematorium.
Considering refugees that have fled a war-torn country, this is ethically very difficult to justify.
For the remainder of this discussion I want to elaborate on one practical point regarding this research, both enabling and constraining the research and the final results. Due to time constraints and the intensiveness of the semi-structured interviews, I managed to interview only seven Syrian men and women in the age category of 15 to 24 years. Although there is no consensus in literature as to how big the sample size needs to be when doing qualitative research, according to Adler and Adler, in a review by Baker, Edwards and Doidge (2012), seven interviews are probably too little in order to make analytic generalizations. This is the generation of theory instead of generalizing the findings to the wider universe. However, this research tells the stories of seven Syrian refugees, being active agents within society, and explains their social and cultural situation, which cannot be neglected and which was the main goal of this research in the first place.
Further research is required to examine the impact of the age barrier (i.e. being older or younger than eighteen years) among refugee youth in general since this impact was not considered within the theoretical part of this study. Moreover, the role of asylum seeker centers in enabling refugees’ participation in society has to be further examined. This fits in nicely with the agency-structure debate. However, when compared to this study of the refugee youth’s agency, improvements can be made by taking into account the role of asylum officials and by elaborating on both the enabling aspects of being in an asylum seeker center as well as the constraining aspects of being in an asylum seeker center. Another aspect that needs further research is the impact of the Dublin Regulation and Eurodac on refugees’ agency and on the social consequences of splitting families due to the legal compliance of these regulations. All these research opportunities are directly linked to the refugees’ agency within the social and political structure that is society.
7. References
Arnold, D., & Bongiovi, J. R. (2013). Precarious, informalizing, and flexible work: Transforming concepts and understandings. American Behavioral Scientist, 57(3), 289-308.
Baker, S. E., Edwards, R., & Doidge, M. (2012). How many qualitative interviews is enough?: Expert voices and early career reflections on sampling and cases in qualitative research.
Bakewell, O. (2010). Some reflections on structure and agency in migration theory. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 36(10), 1689-1708.
Betts, A. (2015). The Normative Terrain of the Global Refugee Regime. Ethics &
International Affairs, 29(04), 363-375.
Bhugra, D. (2004). Migration, distress and cultural identity. British medical
bulletin, 69(1), 129-141.
Bhugra, D., & Becker, M. A. (2005). Migration, cultural bereavement and cultural identity. World psychiatry, 4(1), 18-24.
Brekke, J. P., & Brochmann, G. (2014). Stuck in transit: secondary migration of asylum seekers in Europe, national differences, and the Dublin regulation. Journal
of Refugee Studies.
Brouwer, E. (2013). Mutual trust and the Dublin regulation: protection of fundamental rights in the EU and the burden of proof. Browser Download This
Paper.
Bryman, A. (2012). Social research methods (4th ed.). Oxford, United Kingdom: Oxford University Press.
Cheong, P. H., Edwards, R., Goulbourne, H., & Solomos, J. (2007). Immigration, social cohesion and social capital: A critical review. Critical social policy, 27(1), 24-49.
Daily Mail. (2015). Hungarian border police stand guard opposite refugees standing behind a fence at the Hungarian border [Photograph]. Retrieved from http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3238047/Flying-Great-Wall-Europe- Amazing-drone-footage-captures-tear-gas-tanks-tents-sheer-scale-Hungarian-border-fence-keeping-desperate-migrants-out.html
