1. The political construction of irregular migration

Conventionally, irregular migration is defined as a movement that takes place outside the regulatory framework of the countries of origin, transit or destination. Although even today there are states that limit the possibility for their citizens to emigrate legally, far more relevant is irregular immigration, consisting in the violation of the rules governing the entry, stay or possibility of working in a specific country by a foreign citizen (regarding the context of the European Union, see European Commission, 2018).

Irregular immigration is, like regular immigration [see the entry International migrations], the outcome of a process of political construction, involving the identification of a physical or political border, and the conditions of its crossing. It is, therefore, a recent phenomenon, following the “invention” of legal immigration, that is, the introduction, at the end of the 1800’s, of visas and passports. For this reason, it “naturally” starts growing when migration policies become more rigid and restrictive: this is what happened to Mexican immigration into the United States, until the first half of the 1980’s when it was just a predominantly circular immigration linked to seasonal work opportunities and then became a disproportionate stable presence of undocumented immigrants. And this is what happened, in the European case, with the strong limitation of the possibilities of entry for work – since the 1970’s – and the tightening of the external borders that accompanied the establishment of the single European area (a process which the expression “Europe Fortress” refers to).

2. The causes of irregular migrations

The structural reasons and individual motivations behind irregular migrations are mostly similar to those of regular migrations, up to the point that many scholars interpret them as an almost inevitable consequence of the gap between the possibilities of migrating regularly and the number of people who intend to migrate. However, it is also necessary to consider, in many communities of origin, the influence of migratory cultures strongly linked to this type of behavior, meaning they do not consider despicable resorting to an irregular channel when they do not have the requisites to migrate regularly, or do not want to wait for the time needed to fulfill the requirements and obtain proper documentation. The consolidation of a powerful immigration industry and of extensive migration chains is an additional incentive factor. The relatively easy way to obtain entry tourist visas encourages the arrival of migrants who, at the expiry date of their visa (i.e., within a few months or weeks), will find themselves in a condition of irregularity (this is the phenomenon of the so-called “over-stayers”). Even the presence in the country of destination of philanthropic organizations that support migrants in their basic needs can be a pull factor, since it reduces the risks and costs of irregular immigration.

A fundamental pull factor is also represented by the demand for flexible and cheap labor: in some non-democratic countries, the import of irregular immigration is sometimes functional to reproduce slavery-like regimes to support the growth of their economy; in more general terms, there are many who believe that labor markets of the so-called “Global North” benefit from the exploitation of a workforce made particularly flexible by the condition of irregularity; and where the underground economy is widespread and culturally rooted – as is in the case of Italy – it is inevitable for this to become an extraordinarily powerful pull factor. Nowadays, the irregularity often occurs as a result of the denial of the request for political asylum, which only in a few cases is followed by an actual repatriation: it is the phenomenon of the so-called “black asylum seekers”.

3. Between regularity and irregularity: the “status flows”

As is evident in the example of asylum seekers, who fall into the condition of irregularity if their application is rejected, the irregularity does not depend on a subjective characteristic of the person, but on the definition that the legislation in force provides at a given time. Precisely for this reason, there are many pronouncements – from the United Nations to the International Labor Organization, from the Council of Europe to the European Commission, up to the Magisterium of the Catholic Church and to the very orders of journalists – that recommend avoiding terms such as “clandestine” or “illegal”, because of their discriminatory, criminalizing and dehumanizing connotation, suggesting instead the use of less stigmatizing words, like “irregular” or “undocumented”.

On the other hand, precisely because it does not refer to an intrinsic quality of the individuals involved, the condition of irregularity is not established once and for all: persons may find themselves, at different stages of their life, to be an “irregular” or a “regular”, a phenomenon quite common in Italy and in other countries of southern Europe (due to the recurrence of the laws of regularization, the so-called amnesties), but within certain terms common to the whole of Europe, crossed in recent years by “flows related to status” even more impressive than geographical flows (among them, there are especially many cases of immigrants who fall into the aforementioned category of overstayers). The phenomenon of status flows makes it clear that migration, from the viewpoint of defining categories and government procedures, does not necessarily mean a geographical movement – that is, the physical crossing of a border –, but the movement across a political-administrative border [see the entry International migrations].

4. Costs and “advantages” of irregular migration

Although this is a rather controversial phenomenon – for some it would even be the deliberate choice to violate an unjust and illegitimate international order –, the heavy costs of migrating irregularly should never be underestimated. Costs at the individual level – just think about the sad death toll on the routes of immigration and the condition of vulnerability and exclusion inevitably faced by those who migrate irregularly, often detrimental to their own human dignity; at the family level – consider family members forced to stay divided even for years, because the condition of irregularity prevents family reunification as well as temporary returns to the country of origin –; at the social level – from tax evasion to “unfair” competition enacted by those who employ foreign workers irregularly – and, last but not the least, at the political-cultural level – in terms of the evolution of inter-ethnic relations and social cohesion, the consequences of excessive “tolerance” towards irregular immigration should not be underestimated.

Faced with these costs, the massive dimensions of this phenomenon at the global level [cf. Migration Data Portal] certainly have to do with the vast array of actors who profit from irregular immigration: from human traffickers to corrupt officials, from employers to consumers who save on the price of goods and services produced by the labor of irregular foreigners, up to the authorities of the countries of origin who (along evidently with the families of migrants) take advantage of the precious gift of remittances sent by migrants, including irregular ones. At the same time, this phenomenon is a sad confirmation of the inadequacy of the global governance system of human mobility and of the selective and securitarian character of current migration policies, which has greatly decreased opportunities for legal migration, especially for the less qualified and those coming from the poorest countries.

5. Managing irregular migrations

Due to the fact that, especially in a democratic state, the expulsion of an irregular immigrant is a very difficult and costly operation, the fight against irregular immigration mainly involves actions to reinforce border controls (for example through filing operations, fingerprinting, in some cases also the use of preventive detention) and border policing, of which the proliferation of walls and barbed wire barriers is a clear sign. Equally recurrent and controversial is the practice of border outsourcing, applied in various regions of the planet: a peculiar example is the Australian decision to create offshore camps in the Pacific Islands. This strategy has been pursued with strong conviction also by the European Union (and by several member countries), through the identification of the so-called “safe third countries” or the even more questionable practice of signing agreements with transit states (like Turkey and Libya), investing them with the role of “guard” for the European borders, albeit at the price of serious violations of human rights.

The policy of border externalization is a paradigmatic evidence of the ambivalence of current democracies towards the phenomenon of migration and the rights of migrants: since they find themselves bound by their legal culture once a migrant – regardless of his/her status – has set foot on their territory, they leave to other countries the task of doing “the dirty work” – in exchange for lavish economic or other similar rewards –. As already mentioned, the expulsion of an irregular migrant is often difficult or even impossible to achieve, especially when it would be contrary to the “non-refoulement” clause enshrined in international law (which prohibits refoulement to territories where the life and freedom of the rejected person would be threatened because of race, religion, citizenship, membership to a social group or political views). Significantly, the same irregular immigrants who reside in the countries of the European Union are normally granted a number of rights – such as the right to attend public school (if minors) or to enjoy emergency medical services – and a series of measures aim to protect the most vulnerable among them (think, for example, of the rules to protect victims of trafficking or labor exploitation, as well as the support for unaccompanied minors). In some countries, they are also given the opportunity to be regularized, if they show they have nevertheless reached a certain level of integration. When the number of irregular residents exceeds a certain threshold, their impact on tax systems and social cohesion becomes particularly unfavorable. Therefore, sometimes general regularizations are held, or reserved to certain categories of migrants (for instance, to those able to obtain a work contract), or with the provision, for example, of granting temporary protection for asylum seekers who are not eligible for refugee status.

6. Is there a right to immigrate?

The problem of irregular immigration also entails the need to deal with ethical issues and pressures coming from different sectors of civil society. Alongside those who would like a further tightening of the restrictive approach, there is the voice of those who support the right to immigrate based on the principles of freedom of movement and universal equality of all human beings, or the right to seek elsewhere dignified living conditions when they are not provided in one’s own country. Today, especially, in a scenario where the distinction between voluntary and forced migration has become increasingly uncertain [see the entry Forced migrations], even the definition of irregular immigration ends up being the result of an almost always unsatisfactory compromise. In recent years, in the context of collective migrations that have affected countries in southern Europe and the Balkans, the phenomenon of the so-called mixed flows – including either migrants “deserving” humanitarian protection, or the so-called economic migrants, who try to migrate illegally – has revealed all the limitations of both international protection systems and instruments to combat irregular entry, essentially non-applicable in these circumstances, making this distinction appear even more arbitrary.

7. The challenging character of the teaching of the Magisterium

In this context, the specific reflection of the Magisterium – developed consistently over the years (see among others the Messages released on the occasion of the annual Day of Migrants and Refugees), and which has found in the current Pontiff a “megaphone” able to reach a planetary audience – offers a particularly valuable and at the same time challenging contribution.

First of all, by subverting the widespread image of irregular migrants as deviant, or even criminal subjects, the Church’s social doctrine reaffirms the principle that, on the moral level, considering that the person’s dignity constitutes a more precious good than the very respect for the normative framework, the choice to “go elsewhere” must be considered legitimate in any case – when there are no viable alternatives to guarantee a humanly dignified life – consistent with the principle of the universal destination of the goods of the earth and the expression of a fundamental right. And even though this does not mean an unconditional right to migrate, this position leads to questioning the distinction between forced and voluntary migration (where any choice to migrate ends up being “forced” in the absence of alternatives), and therefore the very foundation of the concept of irregular immigration. However, the lack of possible alternatives also indicates the limit beyond which migrating outside the regulatory framework is no longer legitimate either legally or morally, in view of the high risks and costs that this choice entails, for the migrant himself, for his/her family members and for society as a whole.

Hence, the solicitation to increase the opportunities to migrate in a safe, regular and orderly manner [see the entry International migrations], both for those looking for a job, and for those in need of protection (for example through the creation of humanitarian channels), or those trying to reunite with family members; but also to allow the regularization of irregular migrants, considered essential not only to protect migrants and their rights (especially in risky situations such as the one marked from the recent Covid-19 pandemic: The regularization of migrants in conditions of irregularity), and also to be able to maximize the advantages for the countries of destination (in terms, for example, of tax contribution).

8. Between the right to migrate and the right to not emigrate

However – and this is another pivotal principle of the Church’s social doctrine – alongside the right to migrate, the right also to not emigrate must be underscored, that is, the need to promote, in countries of origin, life and work opportunities able to meet the needs of local people, aiming at an integral human development, especially when migration produces the impoverishment of the countries of origin and the separation between children and parents (Fratelli tutti, 2020, 38). The search for the common good, the equitable distribution of the goods of the earth and the integral promotion of peoples are strongly voiced out in countless pronouncements of the Magisterium, as the just and lasting solution to the problem of irregular immigration. In particular, it is emphasized that, in the current framework of “globalization without rules”, immigrants end up being victims and not protagonists of their migratory history: (irregular) migration, more than a real choice expression of individual freedom, often becomes a forced consequence of profound socio-economic imbalances (Erga migrantes caritas Christi, 2004, 29), a manifestation par excellence of that process of production of “human waste”, to which the reflection of the social sciences has been devoting their attention for some years.

In this regard, it is worth mentioning an implication of the teaching of the Magisterium that has been disregarded in the political debate and in scientific reflection, prisoner of the powerful exploitation of the issue for the first party, and prejudicially “pro-migration” much of the second group. Upholding the dignity of the person – of every person – and his/her right to an integral development as a principle to be put before any other objective (Pontifical Council for the Pastoral Care of Migrants and Itinerant People, Welcoming Christ in Refugees and forcibly Uprooted Persons, 2013), the Church’s social doctrine promotes a critical reflection on the choice to migrate in an irregular and unsafe manner, putting expectations of economic well-being before the good of the migrant and his/her integrity, or even helping to institutionalize practices and behaviors that often involve the most vulnerable persons (think, for example, of the dramatic phenomenon of unaccompanied minors – see the entry Migrant minors).

The same regularization measures, although necessary to restore the conditions for an integral human development (strongly compromised by the condition of irregularity), should not be understood as “the solution” to the problem of irregular immigration, a goal that must be pursued instead through migration and integration policies consistent with the auspices of the Global Compact on Migrations and the objectives of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, with a special focus on preventing and combating irregular employment and other forms of exploitation. This aspect takes on an even greater value in the scenario caused by the pandemic, generating a widespread expectation of new economic and social paradigms in which a strategic role will have to be played by the redesign of global production and supply chains, in order to ensure decent working conditions, fair wages, environmental sustainability, adequate prices for both producers and consumers (see, among others: Francis, Message on the occasion of the 103rd session of the ILO conference, May 28, 2014).