We asked Dr. phil. Franck Düvell, a well-known migration sociologist to give his opinion to the scope of migration and migrants problems in the contemporary European society and worldwide. Dr. Franck Düvell, born in 1961, is a lecturer at the University of Bremen and a research fellow at the University of Exeter, whose research and teaching focus deals with a wide range of issues related to migration, such as Illegal Migration, Labour Migration, Asylum Policy (EU, Germany, UK), Migrants' Social Movement, Trade Unions and Migration, Related Labour Market and Social Policy,Social work with Migrants and Refugees, Racism, Discrimination. In addition to his academic activities Dr. Franck Düvell has been (or is) a participant of a lot of organisations and initiatives: Picum, MediNetz, Antirassismusburo Bremen, Rosa-Luxemburg-Initiative, as well as his is a co-worker of "Statewatch".

KK: Dear Frank Düvell, we were really glad to know that You kindly accepted our proposal to make an interview for our journal. My collegue Volha Martynienka has translated Your article "The globalisation of migration control" (appeared on no-racism.net), which summarises Your findings from "Die Globalisierung des Migrationsregimes. Materialien fur einen Neuen Antiimperialismus 7", with an aim to bring the problems highlighted by Your research into discussion in our country. And now we are glad to have an opportunity to ask You several questions.

It must be mentioned, that in Belarus the imperialistic migration policy pushed through by EU is not widely discussed, although our country as first of all a "transit country" is also an object of this policy and our state implements supported by EU and MOM programmes, which fight with illegal migration and trafficking of humans. Moreover, our neighbour-countries are more often studied by European researches, than our country. For example, "Forschungsgesellschaft Flucht und Migration" has published materials concerning Poland and Ukraine. Do You know any researches dealing with the situation with immigrants/refugees in/from Belarus and with the consequences of strengthening of the EU border regime and its restrictions for immigrants and refugees for our country and Eastern Europe in general? How do You personally see our situation from inside the "Fortress Europe"?

Frank Düvell: Unfortunately, I don't know any kind of research on Belarusian situation. The reason is the following: research focus was on the countries entered to the EU, which are considered as so-called buffer countries. Now, since these have become members of the EU, there will be new buffer countries, namely Turkey, Ukraine and Belarus. In top of that, European migration research is mainly interested in what is going in the European Union. But transition migration is not so focused. I am sure, with the enlargement of the Union to the East Belarus, Ukraine, Turkey, Mediterranean countries such as Morocco will raise due attention.

On the other hand, Belarusian immigration too is not a subject of research. There is nothing dealt with Belarusian studies in the EU. There is a small study of Ukrainians, conducted by the British Trade Union on the working conditions. Belarusian illegal immigration is mentioned in the study of Polish migrants in Brussels. It illustrates the existence of segmented labour markets, in which Polish migrants are getting higher wages than the migrants from Belarus, Ukraine or Russia.

I am sure there are hid indications but no study on this topic. I am not aware that there is any topic of the impact of the EU migrant policy on Belarus or Ukraine. However, it is changing though to the case of Turkey or Morocco.

One reason to the lack of study is a political issue. There simply have been difficulties to contact people in Belarus, difficulties to speak freely about the situation. People are so much absorbed with difficulties of the country and situation of their own.

I myself have done a little fieldwork about the issue. We conducted a tiny peace of research in the area of Poland at the Polish-Belarusian border near Hrodna how the new border regime effecting local people at the area. We talked to Poles and Belarusians queuing to the Polish side of the border. The Poles told us that the new regime is painful. It cuts through personal relationship, it cuts through family relationship, and it cuts through trading relationship. These people developed trading systems. But now Poles lost customers from the Eastern side of the border and Belarusians lost their markets. They profited selling mainly agricultural goods at Polish market; however waiting 7 hours at the border agricultural goods are rotted. It has led to the situation where Belarusian lost access to Polish market and Poles lost access to these qualitative goods. These people so have been negatively affected by the introduction of the new border regime.

I'd be very interested to get to this topic much deeper, to study how the border community has been affected.

Furthermore, Belarus will turn into a country of immigration, like Turkey or Ukraine. These countries are no longer simply transit countries. Migrants stuck there, they are not able to move to the west. The borders are better controlled, pricing of smugglers to get over the border are rising. So, migrants have to make money. In Turkey it takes 3-5 years to acquire these funds, and than these migrants are tend to go west. I can assume or foreseen a similar situation in Belarus.

KK: Do You agree, that racist and xenophobic views (and, consequently, right-wing parties) are more popular in Europe today, than even ten years ago? Would You like to dwell on the reasons of this situation?

Frank Düvell:

I am not sure whether it is true. First, you must note that racism is more than righ fing parties and street violence but is intertwined with politics and legislation. Racism is usually deeply imbedded in the legal structure of society.

The second point is you must look at different European countries separately. There was no racism in Italy or Spain in the earlier periods because there were not so many migrants there. Modern xenophobia there is a rather new feature.

In the United Kingdom there was racism in 50-70 of the XX century, but during the late in 1980s the situation has changed considerably. In the UK racism is now declared a crime, there is very strong anti-discrimination legislation n force. And this measure provided good and effective results, as well as equal opportunities.

Germany always had racism though it takes different forms and is changing its face all the time. On the political level, immigrants are legally excluded and disadvantaged. On the streets, it is the police which harasses immigrants all the time. And in everyday live, it is neonazis which threat immigrants with violence. These are the three faces of racism. Racism has always been there, it is not a matter of more or less racism, it is a matter of which face it takes.

The second point is the issue of globalization. With globalization you will have winners and losers, and you will have losers on both the sides of the border. You have poor people, unemployment, poor families in the EU, as well as you see increasing unemployment and poverty in the second and third world. Globalization puts people to competitive situation. And every competition has its winners and losers. This competition is particularly harsh for the lowest strata of society. People in East and West compete for jobs, for housing. The jobs move to the East where the workers are, other workers move to the west, where the jobs are and it is poor where people are put in this competitive situation. This is one root-cause of xenophobia.

People on the West on the base of nationalism and xenophobia try to save themselves not only from migrants but competitives which would relate of another topic.

There is also tension between mobile population (East goes West) and sedentary (immobile) population. We have those who can migrate and who cannot. These sedentary people have their families, house or just not carriage enough. Tense relations between these groups of people bring about xenophobia and racism. There is not just one racism, there are many, racism is changing its face all the time. The racism we now have, is not the racism of the 1960s, it is racism on the conditions of globalization, increasing migration and mobility.

KK: On the contrary, after September, 11 it has become clear that Europe was the shelter for many Islamic terrorists and fundamentalists. Does Europe really face the threat of Islam?

Frank Düvell: First, you should not forget about the tiny number of people who finally conduct such crimes. We should not equalize Islamism, the radical it may be, with terrorists. Who is talking radically is not necessarily a terrorist.

Secondly, terrorism is nothing new to Europe. Europe witnessed the terrorism since 1960th – Basque terrorists in Spain, IRA in Northern Ireland, left-wing terrorists in Germany, France, Italy. And Again, we had a huge movement of left radicals. But they publish articles, spread their leaflets, etc, but very few of them indeed became terrorists.

Thirdly, Muslims in the EU represent a marginalized group, facing high levels of unemployment, bad housing, and bad education. British studies showed that this problem not at least is a class issue. They are not simply Muslims but they also represent a low-class or working class. If you look at the political issue of Islamism you will find such issues as freedom from discrimination and racism, right for jobs and education, generally a decent live.

Finally, it has been shown, that most of these terrorists in the EU were legitimate, well-integrated migrants (for example, they represented students); they had nothing to do with illegal immigration. It means illegal immigration is not so much a security issue.

KK: Recent problems in the Netherlands after the murder of the famous film director Theo van Gogh committed by a Morocco origin person and ban of the Vlaams Blok in Belgium were different but at the same time related issues. How do You see the compromise in contemporary Europe in order not to see migrants as "scape goats" in political goals of certain parties, but at the same time prevent Europe from terrorism and fundamentalism?

Frank Düvell: I can speak on this issue for days

First of all, there is a matter of images you use.

In Germany, when you speak of immigration, three major images are applied:

a). A traditional Turkish of 50 years old, who lives in Germany for 30 years and couldn't speak a single word in German. They represent traditional society of Anatolia of 1960^th with its values and traditions.

b). An asylum seeker. He came to claim something: asylum and housing. The image is that of a poor beggar, undeserving and a burden for society.

c). An illegal immigrant, who does low-paid and dirty work and has no right to be here.

These are the main three images you come across, all very negative, emphasing the negative aspects of immigration. It is no surprise, that, when people are constantly provided with such negative images, tension towards migrants appears in their minds.

But in contrast, you could easily think of an image of thousands of successful Turkish businessmen, globally mobile managers or IT-experts of international businesses or married law-abiding refugees in Germany, who settled down and well does his job. In all level – upper, and middle and lower class people – you find a lot of cases of successful immigrants, but these rarely enter discursive level and become images.

It has been scientifically proven in Germany, Spain, the UK, the USA that immigration is good for economy. It has really positive impact on GDP and net fiscal income, and this scientific evidence is very clear indeed.

It is often said that immigrants are taken jobs. The opposite must be promoted: they create more jobs than they take. In the UK 100 immigrants create 120 jobs, i.e. immigrants create 20 jobs more.

The point I wish to make is that we need to reimage migration, in the media and in politics, emphasise all these issues of success and the positive impact migration has to contributed to a change of public opinion.

And finally, If it is agreed that we want to live in the integrated world that sharing common goals and values such as freedom and economic prosperity, in short, if we want globalisation, then we must accept that we cannot get a globalization without migrants. If we want this world we are to accept that people move and are free to move

KK: Would You recollect, how old is the prevailing now tendency to represent immigrants and illegal workers as danger to security and national economy and how long does the support to immigrants exist in Germany? Are both the repressions concerning illegal immigrants and, as a consequence and counterforce, "Kein Mensch ist illegal" and similar movements and organisations - only a recent phenomenon?

Frank Düvell: The 1^st xenophobic policy in history was anti-Chinese policy in the USA and Canada in 1880^th. In 1880^th anti-Polish xenophobia was introduced in Germany. In 1905 the UK adopted anti-Jewish legislation. These examples attempt to go on, go on and go on.

Xenophobia and hostility towards immigrants is fundamentally related to the concept of the modern national state, with its breakthrough in 1850-1920. After World War I all European empires have been transformed to modern national states. The part of MNS is idea of the national citizenship. Where you have citizens you have also non-citizens, inclusion and exclusion is a pair.

Furthermore, hostility is much related to economic development. There was no hostility in 1950-60th when Europe needed migrants to rebuild devastated continent.

Only after 1973, and in response to an economic downturn, all Northern European governments introduced recruitment stops, and an increasingly hostile immigration policy.

As for "Kein Mensch ist illegal" and similar movements, immigrant support organisations exist since 1980th and really become strong during early 1990th. Before German trade unions, left wing parties, human rights activists ignored and neglected the issue of migrants and turned blind eye on this topic and it basically changed only 15 years ago.

But immigrants’ self-organisations and campaigns against dicrimination, in all European countries, exist since the early days of immigrant arrival.

KK: It would be also interesting to know Your theoretical and political background. Would You mention some theorists who influenced Your personality and Your academic research? How did You become aware of the problems of immigrants and the totalitarianism of migration control?

Frank Düvell: I am coming from a social historical backgound. My first research was devoted to social history of Europe. I have to name the so-called English radical social historians Thompson, Hobsbawm, Rude. – who are the most prominent I think. I then studied social movements of ethnic minorities, so-called "black minority" in the UK. It is not a huge step from ethnic minorities studies to look on the issue of migration and immigration. I translated social historical methodology into the sphere of migration studies.

In terms of sociology I must mention Zigmund Bauman, whom I appreciate, Bordieu. I have taken Italian "operaismo" or in English "workerism" in which Toni Negri is a certain figure.

KK: We realise, that it is impossible to achieve global justice (not only in the issue of immigration) without global and radical change of our world-system. Yet, do You see any provisional but necessary measures and probable directions towards the solving of the problem with immigrants and borders within contemporary state of affairs?

Frank Düvell: The question of the future of the world so to say! There are 3 themes which need to be discussed.

1. Political integration.
2. Global distribution of wealth and income.
3. Methodology of sustainable policies.

I will briefly comment each of them.

1. Political integration. In order to tackle the problems of integration of border-crossing migrants I find this mechanism very promising. Let's take an example of Europe and we'll see I would have been a foreigner in Italy some f years ago with all the related bureaucracy (visas, residence permits, etc.). Now I can freely come there to work and live while we have become Europeans. By political integration migrantion is turned to mobility and no longer causes any kind of problems.

An example of Poles is obvious. Some decades ago Poles discribed stereotypicaly as illegal migrants, but now they are just internationally mobile Europeans. We have similar political progress going on in America, South East Asia, several parts of Africa.

I cannot see the political integration can stop. In theory it can go on till all the world is politically integrated. It will be global mobility.

2. It is widely agreed even by the World Bank that the situation of the rich North and poor South is an express of injusties. There are good reasons and arguments of thinking of a global system of redistribution, through, for example, minimum income, citizens income. Redistribution between wealthier and poorer countries which works in the European Union in the far future can, in principle, work globally.

3. Sustainable methodology in policy-making. All parties who are affected by a social problem must be represented around the table. If the only one party decides others will be neglected, not respected and disadvantaged by the decision. In order to overcome this tension all parties – business, trade unions unemployed, migrants, etc - are to gather in order to get the solutions which are acceptable for all.

KK: To our mind, the most important thing, that helps avoid the victimization of immigrants by any other democratic movement is their own activity (of course, the solidarity with their fight is necessary, but these political movements should work as equal partners). Are there any preconditions for such independent (selbstandig) movement of immigrants in Germany/Europe?

Frank Düvell: As for victimization of migrants, I have already answered to this question. You need to highlight positive impact it has on our countries.

Immigrant support ogranisations are to understand migrants not only as claiments of aid but that they can offer. It is not only migrants need the aid but our success need migrants.

In certain countries this movement is strong, for example black and asian movement in the UK, or Sans-Papiers movement in France.

KK: You have been (or You are) a participant of a lot of organisations and initiatives (Picum, MediNetz, Antirassismusburo Bremen, Rosa-Luxemburg-Initiative). Would You like to describe shortly their activity and the character of Your participation? You are also a co-worker of "Statewatch" - is it easy in German universities to combine radical (or different from that one, presented by establishment and mass-media as the only adequate) political outlook and academic activity?

Frank Düvell: Antirassismusburo Bremen is a local initiative which promotes social and political rights of mainly asylum-seekers in Bremen.

MediNetz is a local organization which provides medical support to illegal immigrants.

Picum is a Brussels based European even International NGO which is concerned with the social and legal situation of illegal immigration in the EU. It is becoming the equivalent to ECRE, the European refugee council, though for illegal migrants. Picum is a Platform for International Cooperation on Undocumented Migrants.

Rosa-Luxemburg-Initiative is a national framework of educational and self-educational initiatives addressing the entire range of social and political concerns.

Statewatch is a London based European magazine which critically reviews EU policy from the perspective of democracy, human rights abd immigrants’ rights.

As for the last question, it is inspiring each other, and fruitful for both activities. As an academician I have a responcibility to feedback my expety to the people and the movements,. And the other way round, such activities can be taken is kind of field work, thereby my political and humanitarian activities are immediately integrated to my academic research. I cannot research without being in contact with those I write about. If I am researching I owe my informants something, I have to be sure that my works can help them. That is my view of the professional ethics of the sociologist of migration.

KK: Thank You very much for the interview. We hope for productive co-working.

The questions for the interview were prepared by Volha Martynienka and Kirył Kaścian.