dw.com
Invisible Migration: Croatia's Strict Border Controls and the Rise of Clandestine Movement
Croatia, a Schengen member since January 2023, registered 26,534 illegal border crossings in the first ten months of 2024, primarily from Afghanistan, Syria, Turkey, Russia, and Egypt; however, migrants remain largely invisible due to strict border controls and the risk of pushbacks, leaving traces in mountainous areas near the borders with Italy and Austria.
- What is the immediate impact of Croatia's strict border policies on the visibility and safety of migrants traversing the country?
- "In the first ten months of 2024, Croatian authorities registered 26,534 illegal border crossings, mostly by citizens of Afghanistan, Syria, Turkey, Russia, and Egypt. However, unlike in neighboring countries, these migrants are largely invisible, resorting to hidden routes to avoid detection and potential pushbacks. This invisibility is a direct consequence of Croatia's strict border policies and the high risk of detention.", A2="The invisibility of migrants in Croatia contrasts sharply with their greater visibility in countries like Italy and Bosnia. This difference stems from varying levels of criminalization and the risk of pushbacks, which are significantly higher in Croatia and Slovenia. The lack of visible migrant presence, despite high numbers of crossings, points towards a clandestine migration pattern shaped by restrictive policies.", A3="Germany's plan to return 16,000 migrants to Croatia under Dublin regulations will likely exacerbate the situation. This, combined with Croatia's already harsh policies, suggests a future trend of increased clandestine migration and potentially more human rights abuses. The lack of transparency in migrant movements calls for increased monitoring and scrutiny of border practices.", Q1="What is the immediate impact of Croatia's strict border policies on the visibility and safety of migrants traversing the country?", Q2="How do differences in the criminalization and risk of pushbacks in neighboring countries affect the patterns of migrant movement and visibility?", Q3="What are the potential future implications of Germany's planned return of migrants to Croatia, and how might this affect the nature of migration and human rights challenges in the region?", ShortDescription="Croatia, a Schengen member since January 2023, registered 26,534 illegal border crossings in the first ten months of 2024, primarily from Afghanistan, Syria, Turkey, Russia, and Egypt; however, migrants remain largely invisible due to strict border controls and the risk of pushbacks, leaving traces in mountainous areas near the borders with Italy and Austria.", ShortTitle="Invisible Migration: Croatia's Strict Border Controls and the Rise of Clandestine Movement"))
- How do differences in the criminalization and risk of pushbacks in neighboring countries affect the patterns of migrant movement and visibility?
- The invisibility of migrants in Croatia contrasts sharply with their greater visibility in countries like Italy and Bosnia. This difference stems from varying levels of criminalization and the risk of pushbacks, which are significantly higher in Croatia and Slovenia. The lack of visible migrant presence, despite high numbers of crossings, points towards a clandestine migration pattern shaped by restrictive policies.
- What are the potential future implications of Germany's planned return of migrants to Croatia, and how might this affect the nature of migration and human rights challenges in the region?
- Germany's plan to return 16,000 migrants to Croatia under Dublin regulations will likely exacerbate the situation. This, combined with Croatia's already harsh policies, suggests a future trend of increased clandestine migration and potentially more human rights abuses. The lack of transparency in migrant movements calls for increased monitoring and scrutiny of border practices.
Cognitive Concepts
Framing Bias
The framing of the article emphasizes the negative consequences of Croatia's border policies, using strong emotional language and focusing on the plight of migrants facing pushbacks and dangerous conditions. The headline (if any) would likely reinforce this negative framing. The use of quotes from NGOs further strengthens this perspective.
Language Bias
The article uses emotionally charged language such as "Brutalität des europäischen Grenzregimes" and descriptions of migrants leaving behind "Spuren der Brutalität." These terms are not objective and contribute to a negative portrayal of Croatia's actions. More neutral terms would improve objectivity. The repeated emphasis on the "invisibility" of migrants also frames them as clandestine and problematic.
Bias by Omission
The article focuses heavily on the negative aspects of Croatia's handling of migrants, highlighting pushbacks and the invisibility of migrants within the country. However, it omits potential positive initiatives or government efforts to support migrants, creating an unbalanced portrayal. The lack of information on the destination of migrants who don't apply for asylum in Croatia also limits a full understanding of the situation.
False Dichotomy
The article presents a false dichotomy by contrasting the visible migrant populations in other European countries with the invisibility of migrants in Croatia. This ignores the complexities of migration patterns and the various factors influencing migrant visibility in different locations.
Gender Bias
The article doesn't explicitly exhibit gender bias in its language or representation. However, a more in-depth analysis of the experiences of female migrants would enrich the narrative and provide a more complete picture.
Sustainable Development Goals
The article highlights the negative impact of the European Union's border regime on human rights and the rule of law. Pushbacks, which are illegal under EU law, are mentioned, as well as the lack of transparency and accountability in managing migration. The absence of visible support for refugees in Croatia also contributes to a climate of fear and insecurity, impeding progress on SDG 16.