Who is an irregular migrant? Like most labels, it depends who you ask and where you are. Though there is no internationally agreed definition of irregular migration, for policymakers an irregular migrant is, a person who arrived in a state without the permission of the authorities there, or someone who breached the conditions of entry, or their legal basis for entering and residing has lapsed. The International Organisation of Migration defines irregular migration as ‘Movement of persons that takes place outside the laws, regulations, or international agreements governing the entry into or exit from the State of origin, transit or destination’.
But in fact no movement is necessary for someone to become an ‘irregular migrant’ because sometimes children grow up in a country and their status changes when they reach 18, they do not realise they do not have the correct papers to stay in that country, or the rules have changed around them, as with Brexit. Immigration rules are complicated, and they are constantly shifting. People who are seeking asylum should be able to irregularly cross the borders of states that have signed the 1951 Refugee Convention -without the appropriate travel documents or passports- to reach safety. This is because when someone needs to flee war or persecution, they do not always have access to such documents, or time to apply for them. But in recent decades many states have gone to great effort to stop people moving irregularly, and this has included criminalising refugees who are moving in search of asylum.
As this brief discussion has shown, a vast number of people can find themselves in the category ‘irregular migrant’. But we also know from social science researchers that social categories and ideas play a role in who gets cast as an irregular migrant. This is because border and visa regimes are shaped by social and political ideas about whose movement is desirable and should be facilitated, and whose movement should be curtailed at all costs. What this means is that for some people it becomes very difficult to move across borders ‘legally’ for any reason, whether to reunite with their family, in a desperate economic circumstance, a displacement situation, or another reason. These people, who have very few options for crossing borders legally, are much more likely to become ‘irregular migrants’, because regular routes are not open to them.
Nationality, language, social class, race, ethnicity and religion all play into this casting of some people as problematic movers. These ideas are social and political, they are rooted in prejudice and have emerged through historical processes such as colonialisms, uneven economic relations between countries, and exploitative and extractive practices. In using the concept ‘irregular migrants’ for the database, we need, then, to be cognisant of the fact that these categories are meaningful in the sense that they shape people’s lives in powerful ways. But they are not accidental, and they are not natural. They are not the outcome of migrant criminality or suspicious motives to infiltrate an innocent unwitting host state. They are the outcome of social and political ideas about the world and the various people who live in it.


Who is an irregular migrant? Like most labels, it depends who you ask and where you are. Though there is no internationally agreed definition of irregular migration, for policymakers an irregular migrant is, a person who arrived in a state without the permission of the authorities there, or someone who breached the conditions of entry, or their legal basis for entering and residing has lapsed. The [International Organisation of Migration]( https://www.iom.int/key-migration-terms) defines irregular migration as ‘Movement of persons that takes place outside the laws, regulations, or international agreements governing the entry into or exit from the State of origin, transit or destination’. 

But in fact no movement is necessary for someone to become an ‘irregular migrant’ because sometimes children grow up in a country and their status changes when they reach 18, they do not realise they do not have the correct papers to stay in that country, or the rules have changed around them, as with Brexit. Immigration rules are complicated, and they are constantly shifting. People who are seeking asylum should be able to irregularly cross the borders of states that have signed the 1951 Refugee Convention -without the appropriate travel documents or passports- to reach safety. This is because when someone needs to flee war or persecution, they do not always have access to such documents, or time to apply for them. But in recent decades many states have gone to great effort to stop people moving irregularly, and this has included criminalising refugees who are moving in search of asylum. 

As this brief discussion has shown, a vast number of people can find themselves in the category ‘irregular migrant’. But we also know from social science researchers that social categories and ideas play a role in who gets cast as an irregular migrant. This is because border and visa regimes are shaped by social and political ideas about whose movement is desirable and should be facilitated, and whose movement should be curtailed at all costs. What this means is that for some people it becomes very difficult to move across borders ‘legally’ for any reason, whether to reunite with their family, in a desperate economic circumstance, a displacement situation, or another reason. These people, who have very few options for crossing borders legally, are much more likely to become ‘irregular migrants’, because regular routes are not open to them. 

Nationality, language, social class, race, ethnicity and religion all play into this casting of some people as problematic movers. These ideas are social and political, they are rooted in prejudice and have emerged through historical processes such as colonialisms, uneven economic relations between countries, and exploitative and extractive practices. In using the concept ‘irregular migrants’ for the database, we need, then, to be cognisant of the fact that these categories are meaningful in the sense that they shape people’s lives in powerful ways. But they are not accidental, and they are not natural. They are not the outcome of migrant criminality or suspicious motives to infiltrate an innocent unwitting host state. They are the outcome of social and political ideas about the world and the various people who live in it. 


How ideas about who should be allowed to move shape border regimes and create 'irregular migrants'

Who is an Irregular Migrant?

One of the places that cases were found in initially building the database was the United Nation's SHERLOC case law database. SHERLOC is an online information sharing portal which aims &quot;to facilitate the dissemination of information regarding the implementation of the United Nations Convention against Transnational Organized Crime, the three Protocols thereto and the international legal framework against terrorism&quot;. Part of that work is collecting case law on organised crime. The convention mentioned there defines organised crime as “a group of three or more persons existing over a period of time acting in concert with the aim of committing crimes for financial or material benefit.” The Convention drafters presumably had in mind things like human trafficking, drug trafficking, smuggling for profit, robbery, prostitution, illegal arms trading, forced labour and exploitation. Activities which are both profitable and demonstrably illegal and harmful to individuals and society.
It might seem at first glance that an NGO organising search and rescue in the sea, a volunteer mountain guide helping people find safe passage, or a refugee steering a boat of other refugees and presenting themselves to the authorities to report their arrival, would having nothing to do with organised crime. This is, in part, because these activities do not involve committing crimes for financial gain. They also seek to alleviate harm rather than causing it. And yet, many such people are arrested on the grounds that they are engaging in organised crime. How is this possible?
Often, these are cases where individuals are arrested for people smuggling. Many are even arrested for smuggling themselves. As the 'Convention against Transnational Organized Crime' title indicates, these are agreements which focus on tackling transnational organised crime, and consequently smuggling is defined in the Protocol as a criminal offence when done for financial or material benefit’. It also contains clear expressions that the rights of smuggled migrants must be protected. This means that the key difference between organised criminal human smuggling, and humanitarian or familial smuggling, is the presence or absence of financial gain.
But when states have developed their own anti-smuggling laws, those that end up appearing a lot in the database have tended to remove the material gain provision from their definition of smuggling. So illegal people smuggling (almost always classed as an organised crime) then becomes about helping someone to cross a border without the authorisation of the governing state. It doesn’t matter if you were saving them from drowning, or if you were forced to steer the boat that you thought would take you and others to safety in an emergency, or if you are guiding someone who is clearly in danger down off a treacherous mountain. If you helped them for whatever reason, perhaps even losing money in the process yourself, you are still liable to arrest.
One solution is to insert a humanitarian exemption into national smuggling laws, so someone cannot be arrested unless there is evidence of financial gain. But this will not stop a state that is determined to curtail grass roots humanitarianism. Greece has exempted humanitarian actors from prosecution for facilitation of entry or stay but NGOs particularly are subject to criminalisation by the accusation that they are working with people smugglers and are not therefore acting with purely humanitarian motives. The EU’s border agency, FRONTEX has accused search and rescue NGOs of colluding with people smugglers. This is, as Sergio Carrera and colleagues have pointed out, is contained in their annual risk analysis reports, and in FRONTEX briefings to journalists. The spreading of this idea that many NGO workers are in fact colluding in people smuggling is part of the broader strategy of discrediting their activities and decreasing their support base in Greece.
It is clear, then, that the discursive association of help for irregular migrants with organised criminal smuggling for profit, is central in discrediting their activities. And while the association with smugglers must be proven, often it then falls on the accused to disprove such a connection. In this way, criminalisation is more than just what the law says and instances of it being applied. Understanding what is going on also involves understanding the social and political context, the role of political and media discourse, evidence, and informal tactics which all set the scene for the criminalisation of help.
If you know of any cases of organised crime laws being used to prosecute humanitarians or people acting in solidarity with irregular migrants that are not already in the database, please get in touch.


One of the places that cases were found in initially building the database was the United Nation's [SHERLOC](https://sherloc.unodc.org) case law database. SHERLOC is an online information sharing portal which aims "to facilitate the dissemination of information regarding the implementation of the [United Nations Convention against Transnational Organized Crime](https://www.unodc.org/unodc/en/organized-crime/intro/UNTOC.html), the three Protocols thereto and the international legal framework against terrorism". Part of that work is collecting case law on organised crime. The convention mentioned there defines organised crime as “a group of three or more persons existing over a period of time acting in concert with the aim of committing crimes for financial or material benefit.” The Convention drafters presumably had in mind things like human trafficking, drug trafficking, smuggling for profit, robbery, prostitution, illegal arms trading, forced labour and exploitation. Activities which are both profitable and demonstrably illegal and harmful to individuals and society. 

It might seem at first glance that an NGO organising search and rescue in the sea, a volunteer mountain guide helping people find safe passage, or a refugee steering a boat of other refugees and presenting themselves to the authorities to report their arrival, would having nothing to do with organised crime. This is, in part, because these activities do not involve committing crimes for financial gain. They also seek to alleviate harm rather than causing it. And yet, many such people are arrested on the grounds that they are engaging in organised crime. How is this possible?

Often, these are cases where individuals are arrested for people smuggling. Many are even arrested for smuggling themselves. As the 'Convention against Transnational Organized Crime' title indicates, these are agreements which focus on tackling transnational organised crime, and consequently smuggling is defined in the Protocol as a criminal offence when done for financial or material benefit’. It also contains clear expressions that the rights of smuggled migrants must be protected. This means that the key difference between organised criminal human smuggling, and humanitarian or familial smuggling, is the presence or absence of financial gain. 

But when states have developed their own anti-smuggling laws, those that end up appearing a lot in the database have tended to remove the material gain provision from their definition of smuggling. So illegal people smuggling (almost always classed as an organised crime) then becomes about helping someone to cross a border without the authorisation of the governing state. It doesn’t matter if you were saving them from drowning, or if you were forced to steer the boat that you thought would take you and others to safety in an emergency, or if you are guiding someone who is clearly in danger down off a treacherous mountain. If you helped them for whatever reason, perhaps even losing money in the process yourself, you are still liable to arrest.

One solution is to insert a humanitarian exemption into national smuggling laws, so someone cannot be arrested unless there is evidence of financial gain. But this will not stop a state that is determined to curtail grass roots humanitarianism. Greece has exempted humanitarian actors from prosecution for facilitation of entry or stay but NGOs particularly are subject to criminalisation by the accusation that they are working with people smugglers and are not therefore acting with purely humanitarian motives. The EU’s border agency, FRONTEX has accused search and rescue NGOs of colluding with people smugglers. This is, as Sergio Carrera and colleagues have [pointed out](https://www.bloomsbury.com/uk/policing-humanitarianism-9781509922994/), is contained in their annual risk analysis reports, and in FRONTEX [briefings](https://www.ft.com/content/e294e3d1-e754-3a9d-ab53-b87359a330ca) to journalists. The spreading of this idea that many NGO workers are in fact colluding in people smuggling is part of the broader strategy of discrediting their activities and decreasing their support base in Greece.

It is clear, then, that the discursive association of help for irregular migrants with organised criminal smuggling for profit, is central in discrediting their activities. And while the association with smugglers must be proven, often it then falls on the accused to disprove such a connection. In this way, criminalisation is more than just what the law says and instances of it being applied. Understanding what is going on also involves understanding the social and political context, the role of political and media discourse, evidence, and informal tactics which all set the scene for the criminalisation of help.

If you know of any cases of organised crime laws being used to prosecute humanitarians or people acting in solidarity with irregular migrants that are not already in the database, please get in touch. 




Many people are arrested on the basis of laws aimed at combatting organised crime

Solidarity, Humanitarianism, and Organised Crime

Hello, welcome to the new database website documenting crimes of solidarity and humanitarianism.
Around the world, a growing number of people are subjected to criminal measures for helping irregular migrants, including those who are seeking asylum. Acts as simple as leaving water in the desert, saving someone from drowning in the sea, giving someone a lift to a medical facility, or a bed for the night, lead those offering such assistance open to arrest and imprisonment. While activists keep records of arrests in different countries, and there has been a lot of research in Europe on the criminalisation of solidarity activities, we currently have little understanding of this as a global phenomenon. The Crimes of Solidarity and Humanitarianism database aims to build understanding of criminalisation across borders for research and resistance.
Initial research indicates that there is no typical offender profile. Internationally, people of all immigration and citizenship statuses, ages, and a wide range of occupations from nuns to farmers to university academics have been subject to these measures.  A range of laws are deployed to criminalise solidarity and humanitarian activities. These include laws against facilitating entry (smuggling) and stay, but also anti-terror, anti-organised crime, anti-protest, and anti-NGO legislation; holding dangerous weapons, endangering maritime and airport security, driving an unsafe vessel, espionage, criminal association and membership of a criminal network or gang.
As the database grows analysis of the data will be posted here, so watch this space.
Please use the 'add a case' tab to add any cases that you know of anywhere in the world. Cases can be added in any language. Add as much information as possible, and any corroborating evidence so that the case can be verified.


Hello, welcome to the new database website documenting crimes of solidarity and humanitarianism.

Around the world, a growing number of people are subjected to criminal measures for helping irregular migrants, including those who are seeking asylum. Acts as simple as leaving water in the desert, saving someone from drowning in the sea, giving someone a lift to a medical facility, or a bed for the night, lead those offering such assistance open to arrest and imprisonment. While activists keep records of arrests in different countries, and there has been a lot of research in Europe on the criminalisation of solidarity activities, we currently have little understanding of this as a global phenomenon. The Crimes of Solidarity and Humanitarianism database aims to build understanding of criminalisation across borders for research and resistance. 

Initial research indicates that there is no typical offender profile. Internationally, people of all immigration and citizenship statuses, ages, and a wide range of occupations from nuns to farmers to university academics have been subject to these measures.  A range of laws are deployed to criminalise solidarity and humanitarian activities. These include laws against facilitating entry (smuggling) and stay, but also anti-terror, anti-organised crime, anti-protest, and anti-NGO legislation; holding dangerous weapons, endangering maritime and airport security, driving an unsafe vessel, espionage, criminal association and membership of a criminal network or gang. 

As the database grows analysis of the data will be posted here, so watch this space. 

Please use the 'add a case' tab to add any cases that you know of anywhere in the world. Cases can be added in any language. Add as much information as possible, and any corroborating evidence so that the case can be verified.  

Analysis

Who is an Irregular Migrant?

Solidarity, Humanitarianism, and Organised Crime

Welcome to crimes of solidarity and humanitarianism database