1. The complex definition of forced migrations

Forced mobility includes both movements of refugees and so-called internal displaced persons, those displaced by natural or man-made disasters, as well as those fleeing chemical and nuclear catastrophes, or even hunger or war. In addition to them, there are also victims of trafficking for the purpose of sexual exploitation or forced labor, as well as the phenomenon of child soldiers and victims of organ trafficking. And this dramatic picture has only been partially detected by the measures that the international community and States have developed to counter this phenomenon and protect its victims. Therefore, the estimates of its size – mentioning about 80 million “fleeing” people [see UNHCR - Italia, Statistiche per analizzare e capire] – are only indicative.

Even the definition of forced mobility is problematic: the growing complexity of the geo-political framework at the planetary level, as well as the progressive expansion of the categories of subjects and cases considered worthy of protection on the other, make the distinction between voluntary migration and forced migration very confusing. As a matter of fact, the universe of forced migrants and refugees overlaps only minimally with the ideal-type described by the Geneva Convention (1951), that is the political dissident persecuted by the authorities of his/her own country.

2. Forced mobility in the current era

Today, forced migration often has a collective configuration, not an individual one, and reflects a common need to escape from crisis situations with an unforeseeable development. The threat which one flees from is no longer, necessarily, the political authority of the state, but can result from an actor of the civil society and even a family member. Fears of persecution do not concern only imprisonment, but also the wider sphere of human rights, including, for example, the fear of being sterilized or excised, violations of the rights of homosexuals, the impossibility of professing one’s faith, and survival jeopardized by environmental catastrophes even though only announced; the latter, in particular, are the cause of the so-called environmental migrations, still not adequately recognized by international conventions. Moreover, the “flight” does not necessarily end in a foreign territory, but is often destined to stop in one of the many refugee camps in which internally displaced people are amassed, fences in which one lives in a sort of state of captivity, in contrast with that yearning for freedom that once marked the journey of migrants for humanitarian reasons. In addition, migration is sometimes not only forced, but even imposed, carried out through various types of trafficking and enslavement. Finally, protection systems, built in accordance with a male archetype, are not always able to reflect the condition and the specific risks faced by women and minors.

To make the scenario even more complex, there is also the fact that, at a historical juncture marked by the concern to control, counter and “defend ourselves” from arrivals rarely solicited by the countries of destination, forced migrations, like voluntary ones, are usually considered an undesirable phenomenon. There is also a widespread opinion that the request for protection is often a way to circumvent the rules governing the entry of economic migrants; and this is a perception certainly fueled by the phenomenon of mixed flows, in which both migrants really in need of protection and others looking for work and welfare converge. Realistically, as a dramatic and paradoxical effect of the extensive use of unsafe routes and irregular channels, and the development of trafficking activities, the need for protection – even if not present at the time of the choice to migrate – is often “conquered” on the ground through the experiences of exploitation, physical and sexual violence, abuses and violations of fundamental rights that unfortunately often affect the migratory routes.

3. The teaching of the Church’s Magisterium on forced mobility

Although the system of protection based on the Geneva Convention represents, to-date, the only example of institutionalized cooperation at the global level – operating under the umbrella of the United Nations with the signature of all liberal democracies and many other countries – it reflects, as has already been stated, a progressive inadequacy.

In the framework of the more general teaching on migration, aimed at affirming the right to migrate in search of more dignified living conditions and the duty of reception by the societies of destination, the Magisterium of the Church on forced mobility firstly attempts to expose the flaws of the international protection systems. Furthermore, it reiterates how, in addressing the problem, the first point of reference must be not the raison d’état or national security, but the human person. Specifically, it is highlighted the unequal distribution of migrants in need of protection, who are concentrated in the countries of the so-called “global South”, often missing the necessary resources to safeguard adequate standards of protection, as well as the lack of the means available to the UNHCR itself to support the impressive number of displaced persons and refugees.

In addition to the invitation to a greater openness to welcome and support humanitarian initiatives, the Magisterium focuses more on the categories that need special attention. In particular, two of them have recently been the topic of as many in-depth studies, carried out by the Migrants and Refugees Section of the Dicastery for Promoting Integral Human Development: victims of trafficking and internally displaced persons.

4. Trafficking in human beings

The phenomenon of trafficking manifests itself in different forms and involves multiple categories of people of both genders and of all ages (especially the most vulnerable members of society, including children and adolescents), victims of processes of exploitation, commodification and dehumanization: from sexual and labor exploitation to enslavement, from begging overseen by criminal organizations to forced marriage, from disguised forms of international adoption to the recruitment of child soldiers, from reproductive exploitation to organ harvesting. Trafficking is handled by different types of actors, variously connected with the victims (sometimes even linked to them by emotional or kinship relationships) who, in turn, can end up getting involved due to deceptions, threats or real kidnappings and even “sales” very similar to those perpetrated in the ancient slave market. The phenomenon is also similar to the smuggling of migrants which, in turn, is fostered by restrictive migration policies (which encourage the use of irregular and unsafe channels) and by the inadequacy of humanitarian programs in meeting the needs of protection and relocation.

In a context still characterized by manifest and unforgivable gaps in the systems to counter the phenomenon and protect victims, a starting point to prosecute this horrendous crime is the so-called Palermo Protocol (Additional Protocol to the United Nations Convention against Transnational Organized Crime to Prevent, Repress and Punish Trafficking in Persons, in particular women and children, December 12, 2018), whose applicability is however limited to cases where trafficking only entangles movements across national borders and the involvement of organized crime.

In addition, the very causes of trafficking and exploitation involve different levels of responsibility, including that of the “final consumer”; therefore, to counter the phenomenon it would be necessary to carefully assess responsibilities, their prosecution, and convict the entire chain of exploitation, from recruiters to consumers (Dicastery for Promoting Integral Human Development, Pastoral Guidelines on Trafficking in Persons, 2019, 21). Hence the invitation to sensitize consumers to their moral and civil responsibilities and the encouragement to promote advocacy action at national and international level, also by voluntarily involving the victims, to whom special protection, psychological assistance, support for socio-occupational inclusion and possible repatriation (whose dangers must always be assessed) in any case must be ensured.

Moreover, the Church’s social doctrine emphasizes that the fight against trafficking cannot be limited to a solely punitive approach, but must be included in the horizon of the integral human development and the protection of the inviolable dignity of every human person, knowing that trafficking dehumanizes both those who are subject to it and those who carry it out, and humanity as a whole (Francis, Words to the participants in the Fourth World Day of Prayer and Reflection against Trafficking in Persons, February 12, 2018). If the immediate goal is to free and rehabilitate victims, the ultimate goal must be the elimination of the phenomenon through a common and global effort (Francis, Video message to the participants in the International Forum on Modern Slavery, May 7, 2018). This also entails questioning economic models and structures of work that do not respect an ethic of integral and sustainable development (cf., among others, Caritas in veritate, 2009, 25).

5. Internally displaced persons

Internally displaced persons are an issue of dramatic dimensions – 55 million at the end of 2020 [see Internal Displacement Monitoring Center] – and constantly growing; however, they are hardly acknowledged in the agenda of the international community, being an emblematic manifestation of the “existential peripheries”. The root causes are multiple and complex: the explosion of conflicts, situations of generalized violence and violation of rights and, increasingly, environmental disasters or catastrophes linked to climate change. Paradoxically, even infrastructural interventions or investments in favor of development can cause the forced exodus of peoples from their places of residence, or the destruction of their subsistence economies. Finally, we have to consider the phenomenon of land grabbing, which is often not accompanied by the adequate compensation and relocation of communities affected by it.

Even though some of the holders of international protection need to be safeguarded, internally displaced persons, having not crossed any national border, are in any case excluded from the protection measures provided by international law and even enjoying an appropriate definition does not apply to them (the only one, legally non-binding, is that proposed by the Guiding Principles on Displaced Persons of the UN Commission on Human Rights, 1998). The responsibility for their protection and humanitarian assistance therefore lies with the State of origin, in many cases unable or unwilling to take it. Despite the first significant efforts to address the issue at international level (see GP20, Plan of Action 2018-2020) and by different civil society actors, the level of protection of internally displaced persons is therefore still seriously lacking, due to the condition of precariousness and lack of resources that often characterize host communities, excluded also from funding and support aimed at displaced populations, a situation that fosters the onset of tensions and difficulties of coexistence.

Since 1992 (Pontifical Council “Cor Unum”, Refugees, a challenge to solidarity), the Magisterium has drawn attention to the problem, asking that internally displaced persons be warranted the protection recognized to refugees by the Geneva Convention, because of the analogy of the two situations. At the same time, the Magisterium (Dicastery for Promoting Integral Human Development, Pastoral Guidelines on Internally Displaced Persons, 2021) urges the adoption of specific policies, the inclusion of host communities among the beneficiaries of the support and infrastructures created for the reception of displaced persons, the adoption of a holistic approach, based on the four verbs welcoming, protecting, promoting, and integrating [see entry “International migrations”] – with a specific attention to situations, far from being uncommon, in which this condition is experienced even for many years – and a real involvement of displaced persons in the decisions that affect them (Francis, Message for the 106th World Day of Migrants and Refugees, 2020).

6. The multiple levels of responsibility

Going back to the general topic of forced mobility, the Magisterium pays attention to the multiple levels of responsibility involved both to protect forced migrants and to lessen the causes of the phenomenon (cf. especially Welcoming Christ in refugees and forcibly uprooted people, 2013) by progressively reducing the number of subjects in need of protection: a condition that is necessary to ensure the economic and social sustainability of protective systems, which are currently under pressure.

A first level of responsibility refers to the international community, called to respond to the needs of new categories of refugees; to develop intervention tools for those situations in which national authorities do not want or cannot protect their population; to address the socio-economic imbalances and the risks of a globalization without rules that produce migrations of which migrants are more victims than protagonists. A second level invokes the responsibility of the national authorities of the countries of destination, urged to preserve the protection of refugees and asylum seekers, but also to extend the possibilities of entry for economic migrants. Another level concerns the responsibilities of the authorities of the countries of origin which, in addition to often closing their eyes to the phenomena of smuggling and trafficking, present serious omissions in all areas of intervention that can contribute to combating trafficking in human beings and offering valid alternatives to migration. It is also necessary to recall the responsibilities of civil society, especially the one related to companies (encouraged to introduce codes of conduct to protect decent working conditions) and to consumers (who must be made aware of the conditions in which certain products are grown or manufactured).

Finally, as for the Church, in addition to the responsibility to assist forced migrants and advocacy to protect their rights (an aspect traditionally present in the social Magisterium: cf. for instance Pacem in terris, 1963, 12), the invitation is to grasp the specifically theological meaning of forced migration, a paradigmatic expression of the vulnerability of the human condition but also a messenger of peace and hope: «Do not forget the flesh of Christ which is in the flesh of refugees: their flesh is the flesh of Christ» (Francis, To participants in the plenary of the Pontifical Council for the Pastoral Care of Migrants and Itinerant People, 2013).

7. Forced migrations: an opportunity for self-reflection for society and for the Church

The phenomenon of forced mobility, in all of its components, reproduces and amplifies plagues of the past: the 40 million people who are estimated to live in slavery are the highest number ever. At the same time, it is one of the most dramatic effects of “globalization without rules” and of the limitations of the systems of protection on behalf of the poor and vulnerable, based on the fictitious conception of societies bordered by national fences and therefore unable to respond to the requests of belonging and justice in today’s global society.

The same recent (2018) Global Compact on Refugees, while defining an important common framework for sharing responsibilities, has found little interest in a concrete commitment to the redistribution and relocation of refugees, the improvement of living conditions in refugee camps (further deteriorated with the Covid-19 pandemic), the fight against the different forms of forced migration and the effective collaboration for the solution of the problems producing forced migration (cf., among others, Laudato si’, 2015, 172). In addition to recalling the above-listed responsibilities, the Magisterium redefines the four verbs welcoming, protecting, promoting, and integrating by referring to the specific needs of forced migrants (Francis, Address to the Participants in the International Forum “Migration and Peace”, February 21, 2017), stating the need to “conjugate them in the first singular and plural person” in compliance with a threefold duty: justice, because economic inequalities violating the principle of the universal destination of the earth’s goods are no longer tolerable; civilization, as an application of the “values of welcome and fraternity that constitute a common heritage of humanity and wisdom”; solidarity, where “in the face of the tragedies that mark the lives of so many migrants and refugees can only flow spontaneous feelings of empathy and compassion”.

Among the many issues challenging the world of research on the one hand, and that of institutions and civil society on the other, let us recall here some of them, referring in particular to the Italian and European experience.

Cradle of human rights and the institution of political refuge, in front of the refugee crisis Europe has manifested all the limitations typical of a technocratic and security approach, showing how it is necessary a qualitative leap in handling forced migration, according to a model that aims not so much at containing entrances and distributing the “expenses” of reception, as for the sharing of responsibilities in the management of an epochal phenomenon. The extension of the humanitarian corridors tested in recent years on behalf of the most vulnerable people (thanks to the joint initiative of the Catholic and the Waldensian Churches) would be a first step in this direction. The principle of the dignity of the human being requires that the needs of protection be put before political or economic considerations and implies that protection be ensured to individuals, even when migration takes collective forms (as in the case of “landings”), and that assistance be offered without any distinction based on aspects such as gender, religion or country of origin. However, it is necessary to build the conditions for the economic and social sustainability of protection systems, also by countering the improper use of the asylum request (which inevitably reduces resources to protect the most vulnerable) and providing for greater opportunities for lawful migration. Public opinion must be adequately informed and trained, and above all made aware of how policies and practices in this matter – for example, the choice of criteria on which to base the right to protection – are a way by which a political community expresses its deepest identity, which would really be threatened if the need to protect the most vulnerable gave way to that of “defending” itself from them.

All migrants, but especially those seeking protection, are an occasion for self-reflection for society and for the Church. The opportunity to come into direct contact with those who have experienced the lack of freedom and security guaranteed by welfare systems should be an invitation to revisiting the concept of citizenship, with attention to both rights and duties and the participatory dimension. As emerged from a research of interest of our University, forced migrations invite us to promote practices to build the common good through the enhancement of a multi-ethnic and multi-religious social capital and urge the Church to see in uprooted people not only privileged recipients of evangelization, but true agents of witness and evangelization.