Human migration and (im)mobility in the light of violence and conflict

Human movement from one place to the other – or occasions of non-movement and stuckness – can lead to various forms of social conflicts and can cater potential for both explicit and implicit forms of violence. In order to pinpoint some of these issues, this DEMIG Online Talks Series aims to provide a nuanced and multifaceted view on conflict, violence, and crime in the context of human migration from a diversity of research perspectives and academic backgrounds. The series is intended not only to present current research but also to inspire us to develop adequate solutions that guarantee safe pathways in accordance with human rights protocols. 

The next DEMIG Online Talk will take place on March 27^th and will be given by Fekadu Adugna Tufa, Professor of Social Anthropology at Addis Ababa University. Drawing on his extensive fieldwork, he will discuss the im-/mobility of Eritreans in Ethiopia in the midst of violent conflicts. He will explore how multiple conflicts affect not only the daily lives of local residents, but also translocal and transnational im-/mobilities and connectivities in situations of prolonged displacement.

Im/mobility in situations of protracted displacement and conflict: the case of Eritrean refugees in Ethiopia

Fekadu Adugna Tufa, Addis Ababa University

Thursday, 27 march 2025, 14:00-15:00 CET | online (registration)

The Horn of Africa is currently grappling with a crisis of displacement, mainly due to a range of different violent conflicts. The region is home to over 18 million internally displaced persons and 5.3 million refugees and asylum seekers. Among these are Eritreans who have experienced protracted conflict and displacement over the last half century. In our previous study (Tufa et al. 2022), we argued that protractedly displaced persons are not only entangled with forced immobility, legal limbo, and highly constrained livelihood options, but also encounter various opportunities to create new migration pathways. In this presentation – by building on our previous Transnational Figurations of Displacement research project (2019-2022) and interviews conducted about the post-war situation (2020-2022) in Tigray, Northern Ethiopia – I discuss the im/mobility of Eritreans in Ethiopia amidst violent conflict. I examine how multiple conflicts affect not only local residents’ everyday lives but also translocal and transnational (im)mobilities and connectivities in situations of protracted displacement. I thereby show how new conflicts re/shape existing im/mobilities of people already suffering from protracted displacement in a complex local, regional, national, and global political landscape of migration governance.

Bio: Fekadu Adugna Tufa has a PhD in Social Anthropology from the Martin Luther University, Germany. Currently, he is an Associate Professor in the Department of Social Anthropology and the Research Chair for Forced Displacement and Migration Studies at Addis Ababa University, Ethiopia. He has been conducting research on a variety of issues including displacement, migration, inter-ethnic conflicts, identity, and border studies. He has coordinated and served as co-principal investigator in several multi-country research projects and has been widely publishing on displacement, social cohesion, migration and borderland studies in the Horn of Africa.

From Conflict Zone Allies to Welcome Home, Allies: How Afghan Immigrants’ Collaboration with the U.S. Affects Public Attitudes towards Immigration

Alex Braithwaite, University of Arizona

Thursday, 20 February 2025, 16:00-17:00 CET | online 

Our research explores some conditions under which anti-immigrant sentiment might be reduced. Specifically, we draw upon the perception of deservingness to examine how paying attention to both past and potential future contributions to the host country affects local public attitudes toward potential immigrants.

To do this, we focus upon the case of Afghan immigrants’ eligibility for U.S. Special Immigrant Visas. Through two experimental designs we test whether highlighting both past service in collaboration with US interests in Afghanistan and potential future contributions in the US influence American citizens’ support for immigration admission decisions. In a vignette experiment, we manipulate temporal framing in recommendation letters. This returns no evidence of significant changes in aggregate attitudes or affect across experimental conditions. Rather, the effects in the vignette experiment are moderated by local immigration context and conceptions of national identity. However, our conjoint experiment, in which we randomize immigrant attributes, does reveal that emphasizing both past and future contributions strengthens admission prioritization in forced-choice comparisons, even if it does not appear to boost absolute admission ratings. Our results contribute to understanding of how temporal perspectives might shape immigration attitudes and carry implications for policy communication and immigrant admission processes.

Bio: Alex Braithwaite is Professor and Director, as well as Melody S. Robidoux Fund Leadership Chair in the School of Government & Public Policy (SGPP) at the University of Arizona. Before arriving in Arizona in 2013, Prof. Braithwaite held faculty positions at University College London and Colorado State University. He received his PhD from the Pennsylvania State University in 2006.

Prof. Braithwaite’s research addresses three broad themes of international relations and security studies: (i) the causes and geography of violent and nonviolent political conflict-including terrorism, protests and riots, civil war, and international wars; (ii) the movement of forced migrants within (as internally displaced persons) and across (as refugees) international border sand the politics and policies that affect this movement; (iii) the causes and consequences of government uses of concentration camp systems.

"Racism and Refuge: Understanding Sanctuary Policies in the United States and Beyond" 

Benjamin Gonzalez O’Brien, San Diego State University

Thursday, 16 January 2025, 16:00-17:30 CET | online 

In this talk, Dr. Gonzalez O’Brien weaves the narratives of his two books together, revealing how the racialized narrative of “migrant crime”, born out of the eugenics movement of the 1920s, has shaped modern immigration policymaking and rhetoric, including sanctuary policies. Undocumented immigrants, he argues, are at once part of the political and social spheres in America, but also perpetual outsiders as a result of their legal status. This marginalization has negative impacts, both for the communities themselves and the spaces in which they move, reducing trust in local institutions and law enforcement. Cities, counties, and states have responded by drawing on the nation’s tradition of immigration federalism through the passage of sanctuary policies, which remove local officials and law enforcement from the equation by prohibiting cooperation with Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). These policies have served as models for localities in other countries looking to signal a more welcoming environment for irregular migrants based on the community’s interest in their incorporation. This has prompted a counterreaction, pitting national government against those localities that pass these policies and is representative of a larger international debate on how undocumented or irregular migrants should be treated, as well as the competing interests in their incorporation or exclusion.

Bio: Benjamin Gonzalez O’Brien is an Associate Professor of Political Science at San Diego State University. He is the author of two books on U.S. immigration policy, as well as numerous articles on the same topic. In his first book, Handcuffs and Chain Link: Criminalizing the Undocumented in America (University of Virginia Press, 2018) Dr. Gonzalez O’Brien examines the roots of modern parallels between immigration and crime policy, arguing this can be traced to S. 5094, also known as the Undesirable Aliens Act, a law passed in 1929 that formally attached criminal penalties to undocumented entry for the first time. In his second book (with Loren Collingwood), Sanctuary Cities: The Politics of Refuge (Oxford University Press, 2019), Dr. Gonzalez O’Brien builds on his earlier research with an examination of American sanctuary cities. This book represents the first comprehensive analysis of U.S. sanctuary policies, which forbid local officials from inquiring into immigration status or participating in enforcement operations. Dr. Gonzalez O’Brien served as an expert witness in the United States vs. Gustavo Carrillo-Lopez, the first federal court case to find that the criminalization of undocumented reentry to be unconstitutional due to the racial animus underlying the passage of the Undesirable Aliens and McCarran-Walters acts. 

"Staying put by staying in motion? The multiple effects of environmental conditions on (im)mobilities in Tajikistan’s Pamir Mountains" 

Suzy Blondin, University of Neuchâtel and Lausanne

Thursday, 12 December 2024, 14:00-15:00 CET | online 

This lecture examines the relation between disaster risks and human (im)mobilities through a case study in Tajikistan’s Pamir Mountains and touches upon issues of post-Soviet transition, livelihood sustainability, environmental hazards, and risk perceptions. The presentation is structured around two main research topics: involuntary immobility induced by physical inaccessibility and voluntary immobility enhanced by place attachment. Hazards impact the state of roads and vehicles and impair rural-urban mobilities, which are essential to the livelihoods of the Pamiri people. Frequent mobility disruptions reduce the accessibility of the Valley and can lead to involuntary immobility, which puts into question the habitability of some villages. Despite these risks and low accessibility, place attachment is deep among residents who generally express strong bonds with their Valley. Many remain in their villages or return after years spent working in other parts of Tajikistan or in Russia. Place attachment, immobility, and adaptive capacity are envisioned as mutually reinforcing phenomena, and the mobility-immobility and voluntary-involuntary continuums are explored in their dynamic and fluctuating dimensions. Through an analysis of individual place attachment and risk perceptions, this work also reaffirms the importance of cultural geography for the field of environmental mobilities. 

Bio: Dr. Suzy Blondin is a geographer based in Switzerland (University of Neuchâtel and Lausanne) whose work mostly examines the intersections between im/mobilities and climate change. Her current research project addresses car-dependence, motion-harming and anti-car movements. She also specializes in the didactics of geography and sustainability. Her recent work has been published as chapters in edited volumes by Routledge and Springer, and as articles in the Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, Mobilities, and Geoforum. 

"It’s Not the Economy: The Effect of Framing Arguments on Attitudes toward Refugees" 

Lamis Abdelaaty, Syracuse University

19 November 2024, 15:00-16:30 CET | online 

Which arguments for refugee admissions are most persuasive to publics in receiving states? This question has given rise to a heated debate among refugee scholars and advocates. Some insist that the way to maximize support for refugee admissions is to emphasize their instrumental economic benefit to receiving states. Others prefer arguments based in legal or moral obligations, arguing that economic arguments risk undermining support for the most vulnerable or needy refugees. In this talk, I explore whether and how economic, legal, and moral arguments affect Americans’ support for refugee admissions, and which types of refugees they prefer to admit.

The talk is based on the results of a nationally representative survey in the US (N=1,219), with an embedded survey experiment and conjoint decision task. This study shows that the moral argument led to more support for refugee admissions, while the legal argument increased support only among non-Republicans, and the economic argument had no discernible impact. In the conjoint task, the economic argument increased preferences for economically productive potential refugees, but with a focus on lower-status occupations. The findings speak to the factors influencing policy support and have important implications for policymakers, advocates, and the broader scholarly community. Although there may be reasons to promote the economic argument, our evidence suggests that other approaches are more likely to increase Americans’ support for refugees. 

Bio: Lamis Abdelaaty is an associate professor of political science at the Maxwell School of Syracuse University. Her research deals with refugees in international relations. She is the author of the award-winning book, Discrimination and Delegation: Explaining State Responses to Refugees (Oxford University Press, 2021), and her articles have appeared in American Political Science Review, Annual Review of Sociology, Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, and other journals.