The term migration refers to spatial movements of people. But not every change of location is considered migration. Exactly which phenomena and processes of regional mobility are understood as migration in scientific, political, media or public debates is contested and subject to constant change.
Text
Since ancient times, the term migration has been used by authors to refer to the spatial movements of people. However, it only became widespread in Europe with the rise of migration research in the late 20th century and entered into public debates at the beginning of the 21st century. Its use is subject to constant change, and the constant expansion of its application is striking:  The scientific production of knowledge about migration conditions intensified in the 1970s and has again risen sharply since the 1990s. A close look at this body of research reveals that the term migration has been used more and more frequently and that an increasing number of processes of spatial movement have been subsumed under it. Both the term and concept of migration have undoubtedly been in great demand over the past two or three decades.
Text
Initially, scientific contributions primarily classified the cross-border mobility of wage-earning workers as migration. Since the turn of the 21st century, there has been an increasing movement of people with higher qualifications, of students, the wealthy as well as the self-employed and elites. Until the 1980s, refugee movements, expulsions and deportations were the exclusive subject of refugee research, refugee studies or exile research. Following this, however, intensive debates about the individual's own self-image led to the development of 'Forced Migration Studies' within the English-speaking Refugee Studies. From then on, it dealt with approaches and perspectives of migration research. At the same time, scholars working with the concept of migration increasingly perceived persecution or war events that were politically defined as the background for the spatial mobilization of people and conceptualized these movements as 'forced migration'.
 
The first results of the debate on 'immobility' and 'immobilization' can be seen as a recent addition to the description of the subject of our own research: Isn't migration research only able to develop approaches that correspond to the complexity of its subject if it can also explain why people do not move? After all, a paradox has long characterized the scientific handling of the concept of migration: A large part of the work that sees itself as a contribution to the study of migration phenomena is explicitly not concerned with movement itself, including its backgrounds and conditions, but exclusively with its consequences. It focuses on the (permanent) settlement of migrants and the presence of their descendants in the destination country, as observed over generations, thus describing migration as an experience that tends to remain unfinished ('people with a migration background').
In recent years, migration research has experienced a considerable increase in attention, above all because its results have appeared to be relevant for different application contexts and the political, media and public debate on the individual manifestations and effects of regional mobility has grown considerably. The rapid growth that has taken place in view of the markedly increased orientation towards application and the high level of non-scientific attention has not been matched by the extent of reflection on the conditions and results of scientific activity, nor by reflective conceptualization and theory production. Too often, migration research continues to adopt political and legal concepts—for example, in the German debate, the term 'Migrationshintergrund’ (migration background), ' Armutsmigration’ (poverty migration) or the legal category of 'Flüchtling’ (refugee)— just as uncritically as it does the results of official data production. Common definitions of migration, as used by the United Nations or national statistical authorities and taken up by migration research, want to make clear distinctions in order to collect data. Contrary to what is often assumed, however, no distinction is usually made here between movement (mobility) and non-movement (sedentariness). Rather, the central criterion is the change in the legal position of a person resulting from the transfer to another legal society and its scope (usually understood as crossing a political-territorial border). A measurement of the duration of a person's stay elsewhere can also be added. In contrast, movements within legal areas or shorter stays are often not considered migration. What is overlooked here is that even people who have not crossed borders have to deal with economic conditions and systems, as well as cultural patterns, social norms and structures, which sometimes differ considerably from those of their place of origin.
Following current scientific debates, among the most diverse forms of spatial mobility that human bodies undergo, “migrations” can be understood as those examples where the movement has far-reaching consequences for the life courses of the people who move and where change results in various social sub-areas, whether in the context of their place of origin, transit and/or destination. Such an open perspective is not based on the view of the (national) state regarding 'its' population and those parts who are not (yet) understood as belonging to it because they are immigrants. Rather, it focuses on the one hand on the experiences of people who have undertaken spatial movements, and, on the other hand, it refers to changes in societies induced by movements. Migration can unidirectionally mean a movement from one place to another, but in many cases includes stopovers, often to acquire the means to travel on, or which are mandatory because a movement has been stopped. Migration is usually not to be understood as a single action, but as a sequence of actions made up of constant confrontations that either facilitate or block movement. Fluctuation, for example circular movement or return migration, has always been a central element of migration. Permanent settlement elsewhere is therefore only one of the possible results of migration. The process of migration remains fundamentally open-ended, because the result of migration does not always correspond to—and in some cases is very far from—the intention of the migration: a planned return is postponed or spatial movements are interrupted because a place initially intended only as a stopover (unexpectedly) offers new opportunities. Conversely, the planned destination may prove unsuitable or unattractive, resulting in further migration.
Migration can mean a deep shift at the center of one’s life, but is often characterized by temporary stays elsewhere that do not explicitly bring about such a fundamental displacement: Seasonal migrations, which more or less regularly lead to weekly or monthly stays elsewhere, are, for example, aimed at earning money in order to be able to maintain a family's existence in the place where they live. Numerous examples of such forms of circular migration, which sometimes remain structurally stable over a long period of time, can be found in societies or regions that are shaped by agriculture, but also in the context of the accelerated urbanization that has been taking place worldwide since the 19th century: A linear migration from the countryside to the city as a 'one-way street' offers only one of many patterns of migration that are essential to the massive growth of urban agglomerations around the world. Another mobility pattern is the 'roundabout' of temporary rural-urban-rural migrations, which may, but do not necessarily have to, end up in permanent settlements in cities after a number of years.
Text
Migration can mean a deep shift at the center of one’s life, but is often characterized by temporary stays elsewhere that do not explicitly bring about such a fundamental displacement: Seasonal migrations, which more or less regularly lead to weekly or monthly stays elsewhere, are, for example, aimed at earning money in order to be able to maintain a family's existence in the place where they live. Numerous examples of such forms of circular migration, which sometimes remain structurally stable over a long period of time, can be found in societies or regions that are shaped by agriculture, but also in the context of the accelerated urbanization that has been taking place worldwide since the 19th century: A linear migration from the countryside to the city as a 'one-way street' offers only one of many patterns of migration that are essential to the massive growth of urban agglomerations around the world. Another mobility pattern is the 'roundabout' of temporary rural-urban-rural migrations, which may, but do not necessarily have to, end up in permanent settlements in cities after a number of years.
Migration is indeed a normal element of human existence, in the sense that there have always been and still are spatial movements of people. However, migration is not yet an individual normal phenomenon, but rather a social practice that rests on a wide range of preconditions. Only a few individuals are in agreement with the common notion that migration is the result of a rational decision made by an autonomous person who is able to formulate goals for the future in the context of a specific 'life plan' in a self-willed, responsible and independent way. Social compulsion, rules and norms can have such an inhibiting effect that migration does not offer any option for action, but rather immobilizes people. But migration can also be the result of social coercion, because other actors, institutions, organizations and structures are able to force people to become mobile. People can be involved in routines that call for movement, for example in the case of nomads or in the context of traditional seasonal work migrations.
Text
Apart from violence-induced migrations (flight, expulsion, deportation, etc.), individuals, families or collectives usually strive to improve their life situation with the help of a movement that promises new opportunities in the areas of employment, consumption or settlement, or labor market, education, training or marriage opportunities. The perspective of understanding a movement as an opportunity depends on a multitude of factors and elements: one’s own past experiences of leaving or staying, knowledge about spatial movements in the immediate geographical vicinity or in the social context, an interpretation of the present that makes movement appear as an opportunity for the future because financial, mental and social costs do not appear to be an excessive hindrance.
Text
In contrast, forms of violence-induced spatial movement become evident when state, semi-state, quasi-state and sometimes non-state actors impose far-reaching restrictions on the lives of individuals or collectives. Because of the threat to their lives and physical safety, to their rights and freedom, and/or to their opportunities for political participation, sovereignty and security, they feel compelled to leave their places of origin in order to gain and safeguard their own agency. In such circumstances, violent migration can be understood as a compulsion for spatial movement that does not seem to allow for any realistic alternative course of action.
The concept of escape refers to the avoidance of (macro-)violence, which is usually exercised or threatened for political, ideological, racist, gender-specific or religious reasons. In the case of expulsions, resettlements or deportations, (state) organizations organize and legitimize spatial movements under the threat and use of violence. The aim here is usually to remove (parts of) populations—often from conquered territories or territories acquired by force—in order to enforce ideas of homogeneity and to secure or stabilize rule. Escapes, expulsions and deportations can be found in all epochs, mostly in the context of war, the collapse of states or the founding of new states, and as a result of measures taken by authoritarian political systems.
State interest in and claims to control migration movements have grown considerably since the late 19th century and are expressed primarily in a far-reaching differentiation with regard to the mobility opportunities of different collectives, which greatly influence the general perception of opportunities offered by migration. Thus, for a long time now, it has been possible to speak of a global migratory class society that offers a small percentage of the population far-reaching and (almost) unlimited possibilities of cross-border migration, which is understood to be legitimate and advantageous. A large part of the world population, on the other hand, could not and cannot legally visit other states; these people are forced to take detours or find themselves relegated to limited channels of migration and their movement is considered a threat to security and prosperity and therefore illegitimate and irregular.
Text
English translation: William Connor

Siehe auch