Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
The author wishes to thank Cris Beauchemin, Douglas Massey, Alejandro Portes, two
anonymous reviewers, and the participants of the MAFE Final Conference on Multi-sited
Approaches to International Migration for their helpful feedback. Partial support for this
research was provided by a grant from the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of
Child Health and Human Development (grant #5R24HD047879) and from the National
Institutes of Health (grant #5T32HD007163). This article uses data from the Migrations
between Africa and Europe (MAFE) project, which is coordinated by INED (C. Beauchemin) and is formed additionally by the Universite catholique de Louvain (B. Schoumaker),
Maastricht University (V. Mazzucato), the Universite Cheikh Anta Diop (P. Sakho), the
Universite de Kinshasa (J. Mangalu), the University of Ghana (P. Quartey), the Universitat Pompeu Fabra (P. Baizan), the Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Cientficas (A.
Gonzalez-Ferrer), the Forum Internazionale ed Europeo di Ricerche sullImmigrazione (E.
Castagnone), and the University of Sussex (R. Black). The MAFE project received funding
from the European Communitys Seventh Framework Programme under grant agreement
217206. The MAFE-Senegal survey was conducted with the financial support of INED,
the Agence Nationale de la Recherche (France), the Region Ile de France and the FSP programme International Migrations, territorial reorganizations and development of the
countries of the South. For more details, see: <http://www.mafeproject.com/>
2014 by the Center for Migration Studies of New York. All rights reserved.
DOI: 10.1111/imre.12154
1062
PATHWAYS
INTO
IRREGULAR STATUS
1063
INTRODUCTION
Illegal migration is a major concern in immigrant-receiving countries, yet
policymaking and research on the topic is hampered by a lack of data and a
misunderstanding of the origins and trajectories of so-called undocumented
migrants legal statuses. Irregular migration is difficult to measure: This
semi-hidden population eludes both immigration-control bureaucracies and
social surveys, leading to the conflation of undocumented border crossing
with the phenomenon of irregularity. In reality, clandestine border crossing
is but one pathway among many into irregular legal status (Triandafyllidou,
2010) and may not even predominate in many countries. Furthermore,
immigration policies actively produce these pathways to irregularity
through restrictive control mechanisms (De Genova, 2002, 2004, 2005). A
more thorough understanding of the implications of irregular migration for
both destination societies and for migrants themselves must therefore recognize multiple pathways into irregular statuses.
An approach that is sensitive to this multiplicity of pathways and the
role of immigration policies in producing them is especially crucial for
understanding irregularity in European destinations. Restrictive immigration policies with an emphasis on border control have become the norm in
Europe, yet the continent hosts an increasing population of migrants with
an array of irregular statuses, while many countries embark on repeated regularization programs (Kraler, 2009). The contradictions inherent in this
system may stem from a misapprehension of the nature of irregularity of
legal status: Overstaying after legal entry may be a more important pathway
to irregularity than illegal entry, and policies may facilitate transitions to
irregular status while the state pursues regularization programs (Sciortino,
2004; D
uvell, 2011a; Finotelli and Sciortino, 2013).
This policy confusion surrounding irregular migration has marked
migration from sub-Saharan Africa in particular. Highly mediatized arrivals
of African migrants in leaky fishing boats on European shores have
prompted fears of an African invasion and a flurry of restrictive measures
to stop it (De Haas, 2008), yet the image of Africans as clandestine migrants
both hides the heterogeneity of African migrants legal statuses and obscures
the role of European states immigration policies in producing these statuses.
This paper will argue that irregularity is legally produced by immigration policies (De Genova, 2002, 2004, 2005) and will advocate for a
PATHWAYS
INTO
IRREGULAR STATUS
1065
PATHWAYS
INTO
IRREGULAR STATUS
1065
1066
Spain
1980s
TABLE 1
SENEGALESE MIGRANTS
SPAIN, 19602008
1990s
AND
2000s
Alignment with common regime : visas required, long stay and work
permit linked
FRANCE, ITALY,
Unilateral suspension of
visa clauses of binational
treaty (1986)
IN
Regularization Programs
Testo
Law 943 :
Law 189 : contratto di
Unico:
No national immigration policy : regulations fixed by administrative decrees and employerMartelli Law :
soggiorno-lavoro
Schengen
circulars
nominated
established entry visa visas; long(residence permit
entry
for specified countries term carta
dependent on work
Circolare n. 38: Senegalese dispensed from visa requirement, but must
permit)
di
regularize situation upon arrival if intent is to stay
soggiorno
Regularization Programs
Regularization Programs
Bilateral
treaty (1960)
FOR
1970s
IRREGULARITY
INTO
Italy
France
OF
1960s
LEGAL PARAMETERS
PATHWAYS
IRREGULAR STATUS
1067
1068
MULTIDIMENSIONALITY OF IRREGULARITY
Policies and institutions in the destination society constitute legal and
social frameworks for pathways into irregularity and thereby create the conditions for a multiplicity of forms of irregular statuses. Research has begun
to question reliance on a documented/undocumented dichotomy by examining continua of legal statuses and transitions between different kinds of
legal status (Coutin, 1998; Massey and Capoferro, 2004; Menjvar, 2006),
highlighting the legal production of multidimensional irregularity.
In disaggregating binary oppositions of regular/irregular status
(Donato and Armenta, 2011), research has uncovered a multitude of precarious statuses and a variety of pathways into these statuses (Menjvar,
2006; D
uvell, 2008; Goldring, Berinstein, and Bernhard, 2009). Much of
this research has focused on non-US contexts of reception where undocumented border crossing is not the only, or even the most important, pathway to irregularity. Goldring and colleagues (Goldring, Berinstein, and
Bernhard, 2009; Goldring and Landolt, 2011) propose the concept of precarious legal status, which highlights how Canadian immigration policy
produces multiple forms of impermanent and insecure statuses. Multidimensional irregularity is common in southern Europe where irregularizing
policies are the norm (Calavita, 1998, 2005; Schuster, 2005). Karakayali
and Rigo (2010) argue that undocumented migrants in Europe do not represent a static social group but instead often pass through irregular statuses
at some point. Wicker (2010) shows that undocumented migrants in Switzerland are not a homogeneous group but are differentiated based on their
relationships to Swiss legal institutions. Even detention camps, while
designed to externalize Europes borders, act as an irregularizing spatio-temporal speed bump encountered by many migrants (Andrijasevic, 2010).
PATHWAYS
INTO
IRREGULAR STATUS
1069
1070
PATHWAYS
INTO
IRREGULAR STATUS
1071
Legal status
Duration of legal
status
Legal status:
NRP_NWP
Legal status:
NRP_WP
Legal status:
RP_NWP
Legal status:
RP_WP
Entry status: no visa
Number of legal
status spells
Context
Period: pre-1991
Period: 19912000
Period: 20002008
Forms of capital
Education (years)
Language of dest.:
none
Trip paid by family
Econ. status before
mig.: good
Num. of contacts at
dest. before mig.
Num. of contacts at
dest.
Num. trips
Variable
7.56
0.40
0.16
0.29
0.44
0.44
1.11
0.50
0.45
0.44
6.40
0.21
0.50
0.32
1.11
2.65
1.22
0.24
0.032
0.13
0.60
0.25
1.77
0.45
0.28
0.27
11.0
0.047
0.47
0.11
0.28
2.35
1.63
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
Min.
France
SD
6.83
Meana
10
12.5
13
1
1
20
1
1
1
1
1
6
45
Max.
1.51
1.60
0.11
0.28
0.066
6.71
0.63
0.12
0.22
0.66
0.53
1.50
0.52
0.045
0.030
0.40
4.13
Meana
0.77
1.82
0.58
0.45
0.25
5.32
0.48
0.32
0.41
0.47
0.50
0.58
0.41
0.18
0.14
0.42
3.64
SD
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
Min.
Spain
1
1
20
1
1
1
1
1
4
24
Max.
1.60
1.94
0.099
0.32
0.086
9.84
0.56
0.19
0.34
0.48
0.46
1.85
0.51
0.13
0.061
0.30
4.68
Meana
0.99
2.00
0.62
0.47
0.28
4.60
0.50
0.39
0.47
0.50
0.50
1.02
0.42
0.29
0.20
0.37
5.17
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
Min.
Italy
SD
TABLE 2
DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS FOR MAFE-SENEGAL SAMPLE
7.50
1
1
20
1
1
1
1
1
5
29
Max.
1.59
2.08
0.20
0.39
0.097
9.81
0.31
0.31
0.28
0.41
0.37
1.73
0.56
0.11
0.039
0.29
5.69
Meana
1.08
2.35
0.91
0.49
0.30
5.99
0.46
0.46
0.45
0.49
0.48
1.00
0.43
0.27
0.17
0.40
6.43
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
Min.
Total
SD
10
12.5
13
1
1
20
1
1
1
1
1
6
45
Max.
1072
INTERNATIONAL M IGRATION R EVIEW
Meana
18
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.38
0.48
0.49
7.99
0.49
0.48
0.45
0.49
0.50
0.43
0.49
305
0
0
0
0.36
0.25
0.50
Min.
France
SD
1
1
60
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Max.
0.32
0.75
0.42
28.3
0.82
0.53
0.34
0.31
0.66
0.61
0.13
0.092
0.011
0.23
Meana
224
0.47
0.43
0.49
6.88
0.39
0.50
0.47
0.46
0.48
0.49
0.27
0.25
0.087
0.42
0
0
18
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Min.
Spain
SD
1
1
65
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Max.
0.45
0.71
0.56
28.0
0.88
0.79
0.64
0.36
0.76
0.60
0.081
0.062
0.038
0.29
Meana
239
0.50
0.45
0.50
6.07
0.32
0.41
0.48
0.48
0.43
0.49
0.22
0.19
0.15
0.45
0
0
18
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Min.
Italy
SD
1
1
49
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Max.
0.31
0.66
0.46
28.2
0.71
0.51
0.39
0.36
0.54
0.47
0.23
0.16
0.066
0.37
Meana
768
0.46
0.47
0.50
7.29
0.45
0.50
0.49
0.48
0.50
0.50
0.35
0.31
0.21
0.48
0
0
18
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Min.
Total
SD
1
1
65
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Max.
INTO
IRREGULAR STATUS
Variable
TABLE 2 (CONTINUED)
DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS FOR MAFE-SENEGAL SAMPLE
PATHWAYS
1073
1074
LEGAL-STATUS QUESTIONS
Legal Domain
Entry
Residence
Work
AND
TABLE 3
CODING, BY LEGAL DOMAIN, MAFE-SENEGAL SURVEY
Question
When you arrived in
[destination country],
did you have a visa? And
then? Did your situation
change?
When you arrived in
[destination country],
did you have a residence
permit? And then? Did
your situation change?
As for work, when you
arrived in [destination
country], did you have a
work permit? And then?
Did your situation
change?
Modalities
Status Codes
Yes
No
V: Visa
NV: No visa
Yes
Did not need
No
Yes
Did not need
No
PATHWAYS
INTO
IRREGULAR STATUS
1075
Predictor Variables
Contextual variables capturing legal and social contexts of reception
include indicators for destination country (France, Italy, or Spain), period of arrival (prior to 1991, 19911999, and after 2000), and an indicator for a regularization program in the destination in the migrants
year of entry (see Kraler, 2009, 3739 for a comprehensive list of
regularization programs). Migration-specific capital or prior migration
experience varies by model and includes prior no-visa entry and previous
legal-status category. Years of education and competence in the language
of the destination capture human capital. Financial capital includes participation of the family in financing the trip and the migrants subjective
economic status before migration. The number of contacts the migrant
reports knowing at the destination (either prior to arrival or during the
year of the outcome, depending on the model) captures social capital.
Links to social institutions include dummy variables indicating the presence of a spouse or children in the destination country and a categorical
variable indicating labor-market status (working, unemployed, or inactive). Individual sociodemographic characteristics included age at migration
and dummy variables for sex (male), ethnicity (Wolof), religion (Mouride), geographic origin in Senegal (Dakar), fathers level of education
(less than secondary school), migration plans (definitive stay), and migration motivation (work/better life).
1076
Models
The analysis includes models for each of the three pathways into irregular
status. The model for no-visa entry is a cross-sectional logistic regression
of starting a trip without a visa. Overstaying is modelled by a crosssectional multinomial logistic regression of migrants residence/work
authorizations during the first year of residence in a destination. The
model for befallen irregularity uses discrete-time survival methods for
transitions over time into fully irregular status.
For the model of no-visa entry, the dependent variable is the dichotomous indicator of whether or not the migrant declared having a visa at
the time of entry into the destination country, with 1 corresponding
to no visa and 0 corresponding to visa. All 768 trips and their entrystatus indicators are included in the analytic sample for the following
cross-sectional logistic regression:
ln
Pr No Visa
a X1 b1 X2 b2 X3 b3 X4 b4 X5 b5 1
1 Pr No Visa
PATHWAYS
INTO
IRREGULAR STATUS
1077
1078
marginal effects over all cases. For categorical predictors, the AME represents the expected change in the outcome with a discrete change in the
value of the categorical variable (see Cameron and Trivedi, 2010 for more
information on average marginal effects). Tables of untransformed coefficient estimates are available in Appendix 1.
RESULTS
Pathway: No-Visa Entry
Descriptive and multivariate results demonstrate that context, both destination and period of arrival, plays an important role in the no-visa pathway
to irregularity and that this pathway is more common in southern Europe.
Descriptive statistics in Table 2 show that 37 percent of the migration
spells of Senegalese migrants in the MAFE sample started without a visa,
but that the probability of no-visa entry varies by destination: While only
25 percent of migration spells in France started without a visa, 46 percent
did so in Italy and more than half (53%) did so in Spain. Figure I shows
Figure I.
France
1991-1999
2000-2008
pre-1991
Italy
1991-1999
2000-2008
pre-1991
Spain
1991-1999
2000-2008
.2
.4
fraction
Visa/No Need
.6
.8
No Visa
Source: MAFE-Senegal. Weighted proportions. Vertical line represents mean of entry with visa
PATHWAYS
INTO
IRREGULAR STATUS
1079
further variation by destination and period. Across all three countries, the
probability of no-visa entry has increased since the beginning of the 1990s.
No-visa entry was most common in both France and Italy during the
1990s, while it was most prevalent in Spain during the 2000s. No-visa
entry has been more common in all periods in both Italy and Spain than
in France.
The results of the logistic regression model of no-visa entry confirm
the importance of context in the no-visa entry pathway. Table 4 shows
that, compared trips to France, migrants are 14 percentage points more
likely to start a migration spell in Spain without a visa, and 18 percentage
points more likely to do so in Italy. The relationship between period of
arrival and the probability of no-visa entry is even greater: Compared to
those migration spells starting before 1991, migrants arriving in the 1990s
experienced a 24-point increase in the probability of no-visa entry, while
for arrivals in the 2000s, the increase was 26 points. Furthermore, destination and period of arrival together shape this pathway. Figure II shows
the predicted probability of no-visa entry for each combination of destination and period and confirms that the probability of no-visa entry to Italy
has been almost 60 percent since 1991, statistically significantly higher
than all periods in France and the pre-1991 period in both Spain and
Italy.
While the indicators for destination country and period could capture the effects of a number of factors, such as economic conditions, there
is reason to suspect that the increase in entry without a visa over time and
in southern Europe is related principally to the evolution toward increased
restrictiveness in the legal context (D
uvell, 2011b). Frances immigration
policy evolved in a restrictive direction (Marot, 1995; Lochak, 1997), and
the southern European countries went from a complete lack of a nationallevel immigration framework to a system designed to plug perceived holes
in Mediterranean borders (Sciortino, 1999; Finotelli and Sciortino, 2009;
Gonzalez-Enrquez, 2009). The increase in no-visa entry over time, especially in southern Europe, is indicative of the creation of this pathway of
irregularity by immigration policy.
Previous irregular experience is positively associated with no-visa
entry. Having entered a destination without a visa during a previous
migration spell is associated with an increase in the probability of no-visa
entry of 34 points. This is the strongest predictor of no-visa entry in
terms of magnitude and thus offers evidence of the links between irregular
statuses. This is also a form of migration-specific capital: Migrants draw
1080
TABLE 4
AVERAGE MARGINAL EFFECTS OF MODELS FOR NO-VISA ENTRY, OVERSTAYING, AND BEFALLEN IRREGULARITY
Outcome
a
I. No-visa entry
Predictor
AME
Context
Period (ref.: pre-1991)
19912000
0.24***
20002008
0.26***
Destination (ref.: France)
Spain
0.14**
Italy
0.18***
Regularization year (ref.: no)
0.067+
Previous migration experience
Previous mig. exp.(ref.: none)
Previous mig. exp. w/visa
0.0056
Previous mig. exp. w/out visa
0.34**
Entry status (ref.: no visa)
N
763
SE
II. Overstayb
AME
SE
0.044
0.047
0.10*
0.21***
0.046
0.045
0.051
0.050
0.036
0.12*
0.083
0.078*
0.052
0.054
0.035
0.00063
0.0032
0.0022
0.0023
0.0026
0.0014
0.075
0.12
0.11**
0.036
0.0014
0.0014
0.062
0.0012
0.0061*
0.00027
0.0057
0.0030
0.0030
0.065
0.14*
0.0022
0.0018
SE
0.0030
0.0024
0.003
0.036
.01***
0.012
0.003
0.041
0.00011
0.0029+
0.0002
0.0017
0.039
0.057
0.084*
0.052
0.038
0.086
0.00046
0.0027
0.0022
0.0023
0.016
0.014
0.1***
0.009
0.021
0.00041
0.0012*
0.0007
0.0005
0.054
0.049
0.14*
0.13**
0.060
0.047
0.068
0.041
0.034
0.036
0.19*
0.11*
0.011
0.026
0.076
0.047
0.033
0.038
0.0027
0.00049
0.01***
Ref.
0.00017
0.00029
0.0020
0.0025
0.0017
Ref.
0.0018
0.0020
0.002
0.044
0.035
0.036
0.035
0.0036
0.066
0.043
0.062
0.087*
0.003
0.041
0.037
0.038
0.035
0.000052
0.00029
0.0045*
0.0017
0.0046+
0.0001
0.0025
0.0020
0.0017
0.0027
0.035
0.053
0.036
0.00020
0.0018
763
0.001*
0.0004
0.0080*
0.0031
6,731
PATHWAYS
INTO
IRREGULAR STATUS
1081
TABLE 4 (CONTINUED)
AVERAGE MARGINAL EFFECTS OF MODELS FOR NO-VISA ENTRY, OVERSTAYING, AND BEFALLEN IRREGULARITY
Outcome
I. No-visa entrya
Predictor
AME
SE
395.37
0.2045
Log likelihood
Pseudo R2
II. Overstayb
AME
SE
690.40
0.2262
SE
1,577.11
0.2290
Notes: AME, Average Marginal Effect; se, standard error of AME calculated by the delta method.
Models include interaction between destination and period.
a
Logistic regression of no-visa entry.
b
Multinomial logistic regression of four legal-status categories during year 1 of trip.
c
Discrete-time survival model (logistic regression) of status change to NRP_NWP (fully irregular).
d
Variable measured prior to migration for model I.
e
Category includes inactive for model of befallen irregularity.
+
p < 0.1, *p < 0.05, **p < 0.01, ***p < 0.001.
Source: MAFE-Senegal.
Figure II.
Italy
Spain
France
0
.2
.4
.6
.8
Predicted probability
pre-1991
1991-1999
2000-2008
on knowledge and skills gained on previous trips starting with an unauthorized entry to make future unauthorized entry more likely (Massey and
Espinosa, 1997).
Other forms of capital are also associated with no-visa entry as
hypothesized. Financial capital plays a role in irregular entry: While there
is no association between family resources, social class (as measured by
1082
Pathway: Overstaying
Context and access to forms of capital structure overstaying, as do links to
social institutions at the destination. Descriptive results in Figure III indicate that transitions to fully irregular status (NRP_NWP) after arrival are
more common in southern Europe: The proportion of migrants transitioning to this status in France is close to half regardless of entry status,
while it is much higher in both Spain and Italy. The probability of transitioning to fully irregular status after arrival also varies by status at arrival:
a higher proportion of migrants entering with a visa transition to fully
irregular first status in Italy and Spain than in France. This is evidence of
overstaying in Southern Europe, as authorized entry to Italy and Spain is
associated with fully irregular status after arrival.
Multivariate results confirm that Senegalese migrants entering southern Europe with a visa have an increased probability of falling into fully
irregular status in the first year after arrival. Table 4 shows selected results
for the multinomial logistic regression of Model II, and shows that, on
average, entering with a visa is associated with an increase of 11 percentage points in the probability of having a fully irregular first legal status.
PATHWAYS
Figure III.
INTO
IRREGULAR STATUS
1083
Visa/No Need
France
No Visa
Visa/No Need
Italy
No Visa
Visa/No Need
Spain
No Visa
0
Fully Irreg.
.2
Mixed (no RP)
.4
.6
fraction
.8
Fully Reg.
This result suggests that irregularity is not merely the result of irregular
entry.
The probability of overstaying also varies by destination. The model
confirms that irregular first status is more common in southern Europe:
The probability of first-status irregularity is 14 and 11 percentage points
higher in Italy and Spain, respectively, than in France. The effects of period of arrival are also evident. Arrival in the 1990s is associated with an
increase of 11 percentage points in the probability of transition to irregular first status, while the increase is 26 points for the 2000s. Arriving during the year of a regularization is positively associated with the probability
of having irregular status upon arrival, suggesting that Senegalese migrants
may have sought out destinations for regularization opportunities (Quiminal and Timera, 2002).
The model allows an examination of how the effect of entering with
a visa varies by context and shows that overstaying is more common in
southern Europe. Figure IV displays the predicted probabilities of fully
irregular (NRP_NWP) first-year status by entry status and destination and
1084
Figure IV.
Predictive Margins of NRP_NWP First Status, by Entry Status and Destination, with 95% confidence intervals
Visa/No Need
No Visa
.2
.4
.6
.8
Predicted probability
France
Spain
Italy
PATHWAYS
INTO
IRREGULAR STATUS
1085
Fully irreg.
0.05
0.13
0.82
0.20
0.31
0.49
0.05
0.03
Fully reg.
0.93
0.09 0.06
0.85
.2
.4
.6
.8
fraction
Destination legal status
Fully irreg.
Fully reg.
1086
DISCUSSION
Research on the legal production of migrant illegality (De Genova,
2002, 2004, 2005) insists on the importance of the legal and policy context in setting the parameters that shape the pathways into irregularity.
This literature has also challenged dominant binary conceptualizations of
legal status by examining multiple forms of irregularity and changes in
these often-fuzzy statuses over time (Goldring, Berinstein, and Bernhard,
2009). This paper has drawn on these insights to model three pathways
into irregular status among Senegalese migrants in France, Italy, and
Spain: no-visa entry, overstaying, and befallen irregularity.
PATHWAYS
INTO
IRREGULAR STATUS
1087
1088
PATHWAYS
INTO
IRREGULAR STATUS
1089
a form of legal capital: Senegalese migrants are able to convert their experience in regular status into a lower probability of falling into irregularity.
Taken together, these results paint a picture of interlinked pathways
of irregularity. Entry with a visa, not irregular entry, is closely related to
first-status irregularity in southern Europe, but is unrelated to later transitions into irregular status. While policies focus on preventing irregular
entry, these results show that externalization of control may simply be
deferring Senegalese migrants irregularity and creating demand for regularization mechanisms, either through formal programs or entitlementbased adjustments of status (Kraler, 2009). Externalization of control thus
does little to prevent irregularity and instead creates a robust pathway into
irregularity in the form of overstaying.
Forms of capital, identified in much previous research as correlates
of both migration and integration (Massey and Espinosa, 1997; Aguilera
and Massey, 2003), are important for the pathways that occur early on
in the migration spell, but fade in importance for subsequent transitions.
Entry without a visa was less likely for those migrants who reported
good economic status prior to the migration, indicating that those who
perceive themselves as better-off have easier access to visas. Indeed, the
requirements of visa policies for proof of resources and the financial
means for the return trip are methods of economically deterring potential migrants (Sciortino, 2004). Previous no-visa entry was positively
associated with the probability of no-visa entry, pointing to the importance of migration-specific capital in this pathway. Belonging to the
Mouride Islamic brotherhood was also positively related to this pathway,
indicating the role of social and even spiritual capital that fellow Mourides and charismatic marabouts provide to aspiring migrants (Carter,
1997; Simone, 2004; Riccio, 2008). Overstaying was the pathway the
most strongly related to forms of capital: While entering with a visa is
resource intensive, gaining regular legal status once in destination is even
more so.
Migrants connections to institutions in the destination country
influence transitions into full irregularity. Having children in the destination country was associated with a reduced probability of overstaying into
first-status irregularity, as was having a spouse at destination. These family
links thus seem to be protective against transitions into less-secure irregular statuses; migrants may be accessing regular status through legal provisions for family attachment, such as family reunification or marriage to
citizens (Gonzalez-Ferrer, 2011).
1090
CONCLUSION
Irregular migration is a controversial topic in most migrant-receiving countries around the world. Unfortunately, understanding of this phenomenon
in Europe is hampered by policy discourses and political processes that use
numbers games (Sciortino, 2004; Vollmer, 2011) to placate public outcry
over irregular migration by increasing border controls at the expense of the
integration of migrants already in destination countries. While academic
research has sought to improve methods of counting the uncountable
(Courau, 2009), many studies use a simplified dichotomy of irregular status
that both privileges examinations of one pathway to irregularity among
many and hides heterogeneity in legal statuses.
This papers findings on the correlates of and links between pathways into irregularity among Senegalese migrants in France, Italy, and
Spain have implications for both research and policymaking on international migration. Results underline the importance of adopting a more
complex conceptualization of irregularity that pays attention to contextual
variation, the multiplicity of irregular statuses, and transitions between
legal statuses over time. Irregular statuses at different points in migration
trajectories have different correlates. Context, particularly country of destination and period of arrival, plays a strong role in shaping no-visa entry
and overstay pathways that occur early in the migration trajectory.
These early pathways of irregularity are also responsive to migrants various forms of capital. Transitions of legal status, such as overstaying and
PATHWAYS
INTO
IRREGULAR STATUS
1091
befallen irregularity, are responsive to links to institutions in the destination country, suggesting that migrants participate actively in seeking pathways out of irregularity as part of a project of integration (Van
Nieuwenhuyze, 2008). Employment is, somewhat paradoxically, related to
increased probability of befallen irregularity, which suggests that the link
between labor market participation and legal status depends crucially on
whether or not the migrant works in the formal sector (Reyneri, 2003;
Calavita, 2005). Previous legal status was an important predictor of all of
the pathways, supporting the emerging view that a static binary measure
of legal status is not sufficient to capture the complexity of legal status
categories and transitions over migrants life courses (Donato and Armenta, 2011).
These results have implications for policymaking on international migration. By underscoring the importance of examining the
instrumentality of legal frameworks (De Genova, 2002, 2004, 2005), this
study demonstrates that irregularity among Senegalese migrants, instead of
being an immutable and transhistorical phenomenon, is instead heterogeneous, dynamic, and produced differently across distinct socio-political and
juridical contexts and across historical time.4 The evidence thus suggests that
immigration policies have actively produced these pathways into irregular
status through consistent irregularization (Calavita, 2005). These results
support the call to question the common explanation of irregularity of an
unintended consequence of immigration policy, and instead interrogate
the instrumental effects of laws that actively produce precarious legal
statuses.
Predictor
APPENDIX
0
1.85***
1.63**
0
1.77**
0.27
1.74*
0.85
0.87
1.01
0
0.39+
0
0.012
1.83**
b
0.79
0.80
1912.0
1142.1
1533.4
1.10
1533.4
1.09
0.39
1142.1
1142.1
1142.1
0
0.57
1.27
1.47
14.6
14.3
0.59
16.0
0.68
0
0.42
0
16.0
0
14.9
0
15.1
SE
0.45
0.50
0.60
0.69
0.69
0.76
0.67
0.75
0.20
0.42
0.70
NRP_WP
b
INTO
0.31
2.66**
0.98
1.35
0.55
1.38
0
0.25
0
0.34
0
0.49
0
2.38**
0
0.74
0.95+
SE
0.94
0.99
0.92
0.96
0.86
0.89
0.28
0.55
0.74
0.80
0.55
0.54
RP_NWP
b
RP_WP
0.22
1.70*
0.64
1.33+
0.25
2.03**
0
0.38+
0
0.23
0
1.50**
0
2.11***
0
0.53
1.01*
IRREGULARITY
Model
TABLE A1
MODELS OF PATHWAYS
FOR
SE
I. No-visa Entry
SE
0.67
0.75
0.69
0.70
0.66
0.71
0.21
0.38
0.53
0.61
0.42
0.40
0
0.43
0.57
0
0.22
0.77
0
0.60
0
0.36
0.15
0.64
0.72
0.67
0.52
0.39
0.40
0.68
SE
III. Befallen
Irregularity
1092
INTERNATIONAL M IGRATION R EVIEW
Predictor
SE
0.38
0.019
0.22
0.22
0.39
0.090
0.44
0.52
0.38
0.24
0.19
0.20
0
1.17**
0.045*
0
0.36
0
0.32
0
0.83*
0.0016
0
0.46
0
0.53
0.14
0.26
0
0
0.32+
0
0.11
I. No-visa Entry
b
0.40
0.90
0.093
0.26
1.28
1.39
0.92
0.71
0.38
0.43
0.61
0.040
0.49
SE
0.97**
0
1.31
0.14*
0.46**
0
1.00
0
0.35
2.26**
1.57***
0
0
0.087
0
0.74*
1.43**
0.059*
0
0.35
SE
0.32
0.81
0.064
0.16
0.72
1.06
0.70
0.34
0.29
0.31
0.48
0.028
0.34
RP_NWP
RP_WP
0.39+
0
0.021
0.098+
0.47***
0
1.45*
0
1.33+
0.91+
0.47+
0
0
0.034
0
0.14
0.12
.075***
0
0.14
IRREGULARITY
SE
0.23
0.53
0.053
0.13
0.62
0.79
0.47
0.28
0.21
0.23
0.40
0.021
0.26
0
0.12
0
1.00
0.095
0.33*
0
1.27
0
0.072
2.26**
0
0
0.098
0
0.031
0
1.43**
0
0.097
0.031
0
0.95
0.55
1.42
0.14
0.13
1.17
0.71
0.77
0.49
0.51
0.49
0.73
0.045
0.63
SE
III. Befallen
Irregularity
INTO
0.45
0
0.42
0.13
0.0034
0
1.33
0
0.79
0.95
1.47*
0
0
0.23
0
0.26
1.06+
0.036
0
0.016
NRP_WP
INTO
Model
TABLE A1 (CONTINUED)
RAW COEFFICIENT ESTIMATES FOR MODELS OF PATHWAYS
PATHWAYS
IRREGULAR STATUS
1093
3.04***
0.59
763
121.1
395.4
0.20
Entry with visa
0.20
0.23
SE
0.014
0.21
0.20
0.19
0.20
0.032*
0
0.24
0
0.18
0
0.73***
0
0.096
0
18.8
0.33
0.023
0
0.21
0
0.79*
0
0.25
0
0.42
0
0.40
0.030
0.44
0.40
0.41
0.37
SE
1142.1
NRP_WP
1.00
1.86+
763
403.6
690.4
0.23
NRP_NWP
0.28
0.59*
SE
0.020
0.33
0.31
0.32
0.29
0.032
0
0.29
0
0.11
0
0.22
0
0.62*
0
RP_NWP
RP_WP
0.50
0.19
0.025
0
0.12
0
0.14
0
0.58*
0
0.61**
0
IRREGULARITY
SE
0.75
0.23
0.016
0.24
0.23
0.24
0.22
SE
0.49
0.034
0.65
0.48
0.50
0.48
0.27**
0.099
2.11**
0.80
1.69
1.69
6,731
165.8
122.5
0.30
Not NRP_NWP
0.068
0.011
0
0.13
0
1.16*
0
0.49
0
1.02*
0
III. Befallen
Irregularity
Notes: Logit coefficients displayed. Predictors with a 0 coefficient and a standard error represent reference category. Predictors with listed for coefficient and standard error
were not included in the model.
+
p < 0.1, *p < 0.05, **p < 0.01, ***p < 0.001.
a
Variable measured prior to migration for model I.
Source: MAFE-Senegal.
Age at migration
Female
Male
Ethnicity: other
Ethnicity: Wolof
Religion: other
Religion: Mouride
Geographic origin: other
Geographic origin: Dakar
Fathers education: more than
secondary
Fathers education: less than
secondary
Status duration
Num. of status spells
Constant
N
v2
Log likelihood
Pseudo-R2
Reference outcome
Predictor
I. No-visa Entry
INTO
Model
TABLE A1 (CONTINUED)
RAW COEFFICIENT ESTIMATES FOR MODELS OF PATHWAYS
1094
INTERNATIONAL M IGRATION R EVIEW
PATHWAYS
INTO
IRREGULAR STATUS
1095
REFERENCES
Aguilera, M. B., and D. S. Massey
2003 Social Capital and the Wages of Mexican Migrants: New Hypotheses and Tests.
Social Forces 82(2):671701.
Andrijasevic, R.
2010 From Exception to Excess: Detention and Deportations across the Mediterranean
Space. In The Deportation Regime: Sovereignty, Space, and the Freedom of Movement.
Ed. N. De Genova, and N. Mae Peutz. Durham, NC: Duke University Press. Pp.
147165.
Beauchemin, C.
2012 Migrations between Africa and Europe: Rationale for a Survey Design. Methodological
Note 5. MAFE Methodological Notes. Paris: INED. http://mafeproject.site.ined.fr/
fichier/s_rubrique/21396/note.5_mafe_rationale_for_a_survey_design.fr.pdf. Accessed on
May 25, 2014
, and B. Schoumaker
2013 Les enqu^etes MAFE: reperes methodologiques. In Migrations africaines: le code veloppement en questions. Essai de de mographie politique. Ed. C. Beauchemin, L.
Kabbanji, P. Sakho, and B. Schoumaker. Paris: Armand Colin. Pp. 2340.
Brochmann, G.
1999 The Mechanisms of Control. In Mechanisms of Immigration Control: A Comparative Analysis Of European Regulation Policies. Ed. G. Brochmann, and T. Hammar.
Oxford: Berg. Pp. 127.
1998 Immigration, Law, and Marginalization in a Global Economy: Notes from Spain.
Law & Society Review 32(3):529566.
2005 .Immigrants at the Margins: Law, Race, and Exclusion in Southern Europe. Cambridge Studies in Law and Society. Cambridge, UK; New York: Cambridge University Press.
Cameron, A. C., and P. K. Trivedi
2010 Microeconometrics Using Stata, Revised ed. College Station, TX: StataCorp LP.
Carter, D. M.
1997 States of Grace: Senegalese in Italy and the New European Immigration. Minneapolis,
MN: University of Minnesota Press.
Casta~
neda, H.
2010 Deportation Deferred: Illegality, Visibility, and Recognition in Contemporary
Germany. In The Deportation Regime: Sovereignty, Space, and the Freedom of Movement. Ed. N. De Genova, and N. Mae Peutz. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
Pp. 245261.
Chauvin, S., and B. Garces-Mascare~
nas
2012 Beyond Informal Citizenship: The New Moral Economy of Migrant Illegality.
International Political Sociology 6(3):241259.
Courau, H.
2009 Country Report France: Undocumented Migration Counting the Uncountable.
Data and Trends across Europe. CLANDESTINO Project. <http://irregularmigration.hwwi.de/typo3_upload/groups/31/4.Background_Information/4.4.Country_
1096
2000 Legalizing Moves: Salvadoran Immigrants Struggle for U.S. Residency. Ann Arbor,
MI: University of Michigan Press.
Cvajner, M., and G. Sciortino
2010 Theorizing Irregular Migration: The Control of Spatial Mobility in Differentiated
Societies. European Journal of Social Theory 13(3):389404.
De Genova, N.
2002 Migrant Illegality and Deportability in Everyday Life. Annual Review of Anthropology 31(1):419447.
2005 Working the Boundaries: Race, Space, and Illegality in Mexican Chicago. Durham:
Duke University Press.
De Haas, H.
2008 The Myth of Invasion: The Inconvenient Realities of African Migration to Europe. Third World Quarterly 29(7):1305.
Donato, K. M., and A. Armenta
2011 What We Know About Unauthorized Migration. Annual Review of Sociology
37:529543.
1988 Realites Francaises et Conventions Franco-Africaines de Circulation Des Personnes. Peuples Noirs Peuples Africains 59-62:149164.
Duvell, F.
2008 Clandestine Migration in Europe. Social Science Information 47(4):479497.
2011a The Pathways in and out of Irregular Migration in the EU: A Comparative Analysis. European Journal of Migration and Law 13(3):245250.
2011b Paths into Irregularity: The Legal and Political Construction of Irregular Migration. European Journal of Migration and Law 13(3):275295.
Fasani, F.
2010 The Quest for La Doce Vita? Undocumented Migration in Italy. In Irregular
Migration in Europe: Myths and Realities. Ed. A. Triandafyllidou. Surrey: Ashgate
Publishing, Ltd. Pp. 115124.
Finotelli, C., and G. Sciortino
2009 The Importance of Being Southern: The Making of Policies of Immigration Control in Italy. European Journal of Migration and Law 11:119.
2013 Through the Gates of the Fortress: European Visa Policies and the Limits of
Immigration Control. Perspectives on European Politics and Society 14(1):80101.
Freedman, J.
2004 Immigration and Insecurity in France. Aldershot, Hants, England: Ashgate Publishing, Ltd.
PATHWAYS
INTO
IRREGULAR STATUS
1097
2010 Spain: Irregularity as a Rule. In Irregular Migration in Europe: Myths and Realities.
Ed. A. Triandafyllidou. Surrey: Ashgate Publishing, Ltd. Pp. 115124.
Gonzalez-Ferrer, A.
2011 The Reunification of the Spouse among Recent Immigrants in Spain. Links with
Undocumented Migration and the Labour Market. In Gender, Generations and the
Family in International Migration. Ed. A. Kraler, E. Kofman, M. Kohli, and C. Schmoll. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press. Pp. 143166.
Izquierdo, R. A.
2006 El acceso de los inmigrantes irregulares al mercado de trabajo: Los procesos de regularizacion extraordinaria y el arraigo social y laboral. <http://www.empleo.gob.es/
es/publica/pub_electronicas/destacadas/revista/numeros/63/Est06.pdf>. Accessed on
August 28, 2013.
Jandl, M.
2004 The Estimation of Illegal Migration in Europe. Studi Emigrazione/Migration Studies 41(153):141155.
Kaag, M.
2008 Mouride Transnational Livelihoods at the Margins of a European Society: The
Case of Residence Prealpino, Brescia, Italy. Journal of Ethnic & Migration Studies
34(2):271285.
Karakayali, S., and E. Rigo
2010 Mapping the European Space of Circulation. In The Deportation Regime: Sovereignty, Space, and the Freedom of Movement. Ed. N. De Genova, and N. Mae Peutz.
Durham, NC: Duke University Press. Pp. 123144.
Kraler, A.
2009 Regularisation: A Misguided Option or Part and Parcel of a Comprehensive Policy
Response to Irregular Migration? 24. IMISCOE Working Paper. Vienna: IMPCD.
<http://www.imiscoe.org/publications/workingpapers/documents/WP24-regularisation.pdf>. Accessed on August 28, 2013.
Lessault, D., and C. Beauchemin
2009 Ni invasion, ni exode. Regards statistiques sur les migrations dAfrique subsaharienne. Revue Europe enne des Migrations Internationales 25(1):163194.
Lochak, D.
1997 Les politiques de limmigration au prisme de la legislation sur les etrangers. In Les
lois de linhospitabilite : les politiques de limmigration
a le preuve des sans-papiers. Ed.
D. Fassin, A. Morice, and C. Quiminal. Cahiers libres. Paris: La Decouverte. Pp.
2945.
Marot, N.
1995 Levolution des accords franco-africains. Plein droit 29-30 (November):9699.
1098
2003 Immigration and the Underground Economy in New Receiving South European
Countries: Manifold Negative Effects, Manifold Deep-Rooted Causes. International
Review of Sociology 13(1):117143.
Riccio, B.
2008 West African Transnationalisms Compared: Ghanaians and Senegalese in Italy.
Journal of Ethnic & Migration Studies 34(2):217234.
Ruhs, M., and B. Anderson
2010 Semi-Compliance and Illegality in Migrant Labour Markets: An Analysis of
Migrants, Employers and the State in the UK. Population, Space and Place 16
(3):195211.
Schuster, L.
2005 The Continuing Mobility of Migrants in Italy: Shifting between Places and Statuses. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies 31(4):757774.
Sciortino, G.
1999 Planning in the Dark: The Evolution of Italian Immigration Control. In Mechanisms of Immigration Control: A Comparative Analysis Of European Regulation Policies. Ed. G. Brochmann, and T. Hammar. Oxford: Berg. Pp. 233260.
2004 Between Phantoms and Necessary Evils. Some Critical Points in the Study of Irregular Migrations to Western Europe. In IMIS-Beitr
a ge: Migration and the Regulation
of Social Integration. Ed. A. Bocker, de Hart B., and I. Michalowski. Osnabr
uck:
Institut f
ur Migrationsforschung und Interkulturelle Studien (IMIS). Pp. 1743.
PATHWAYS
INTO
IRREGULAR STATUS
1099
Simone, A. M.
2004 For the City yet to Come: Changing African Life in Four Cities. Durham: Duke University Press.
Singer, A., and D. S. Massey
1998 The Social Process of Undocumented Border Crossing among Mexican Migrants.
International Migration Review 32(3):561592.
Triandafyllidou, A.
2010 Irregular Migration in Europe in the 21st Century. In Irregular Migration in Europe: Myths and Realities. Ed. A. Triandafyllidou. Surrey: Ashgate Publishing, Ltd.
Pp. 121.
Van Nieuwenhuyze, I.
2008 Getting by in Europes Urban Labour Markets: Senegambian Migrants Strategies for
Survival, Documentation and Mobility. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.
Vollmer, B. A.
2011 Policy Discourses on Irregular Migration in the EU Number Games and Political Games. European Journal of Migration and Law 13(3):317339.
Wicker, H.-R.
2010 Deportation at the Limits of Tolerance: The Juridical, Institutional, and Social
Construction of Illegality in Switzerland. In The Deportation Regime: Sovereignty,
Space, and the Freedom of Movement. Ed. N. De Genova, and N. Mae Peutz. Durham, NC: Duke University Press. Pp. 224244.
Wihtol de Wenden, C.
2010 Irregular Migration in France. In Irregular Migration in Europe: Myths and Realities. Ed. A. Triandafyllidou. Surrey: Ashgate Publishing, Ltd. Pp. 115124.