Searching for a mafia to take down
Critical smuggling scholars agree that large, hierarchical smuggling rings are rare. Their contribution to migration flows is insignificant. The vast majority of migration facilitation instead comes from loose chains of actors who do not share a common employer. A migrant finds somebody who can help with a step or two, and then finds someone new to help with the next step, building out this 'chain' as they go along.
That said, smuggling facilitators of all kinds are more likely to be active wherever borders are particularly restrictive.
European prosecutors ignore these inconvenient truths about migration, but that doesn't change the result. Smuggling 'kingpins' are not ending up in the dock, and the people who do are rarely worth the judge's time.
Substantial academic and journalistic research shows that European smuggling cases predominantly target innocent asylum seekers. And legal actions against European activists – whether in Italy, Greece, Spain, or France – have almost all collapsed in court, though not without first causing significant harm to those involved.
The failure of this policy is not lost on its proponents. They are well aware of the reports that confirm these findings. So when it comes to reducing the number of undocumented arrivals, politicians resort to much cruder methods than the formalities of court procedures, such as so-called 'border externalisation' policies.
These are bilateral agreements between European states and various foreign entities in what Europe labels transit countries – governments, militias, autocratic rulers, law enforcement bodies, and security services. They typically include provisions for military equipment, technology, training, political support, and fat contracts for European and local companies and aid agencies.
In return, beneficiaries commit to intercepting, incarcerating, or taking back undesired migrants. European governments used to conceal these deals, with investigative journalists scrambling to dig them up. But they are now official policy, having shown some effectiveness in curbing migration flows, at least along specific routes and long enough to scrape through an election year.
So if the campaign against migration and solidarity offers, at best, a short-term dip in movement in some places but no real long term results, why is it pursued with such fervour? Authorities claim it's about justice: smugglers exploit migrants in distress for profit and migrants infringe on a country's sovereignty by entering without permission, both of which are morally unacceptable. They can't just let that slide.
Campaigners take a different view: criminalisation, they argue, serves as a political tool to deflect blame from the real culprits of migrants' suffering. "Tens of thousands have died at Europe's borders over the last two decades," says Sara Traylor, an activist in Palermo. "Policymakers push the false narrative that punishing facilitators of border crossings will solve this crisis. But these deaths stem directly from Europe's closed doors and neo-colonial policies."
Making a smuggler
Traylor co-authors "From Sea to Prison," a report tracking the arrests of individuals accused of being "crew" on small dinghies arriving in Italy. Her group in Palermo is part of the broader European Captain Support network, a coalition of grassroots organisations providing information and legal support to those accused of maritime smuggling.
"Since 2013, nearly 3,000 people have been arrested in Italy alone," she said. "Thousands more have faced similar fates in Greece and Spain. The UK and France have also stepped up prosecutions for those attempting to cross the Channel."
The Captain Support network often highlights blatant miscarriages of justice. Their "Free the footballers" campaign seeks to exonerate eight asylum seekers from Libya, Tunisia, Syria and Morocco serving 30-year sentences in Italy. Included among them are professional football players. Arrested in 2015 and accused by the DNAA branch in Catania of steering a dinghy where 49 people suffocated, they were identified by witnesses who received residence permits for their cooperation. Initial testimonies had denied the presence of smugglers.
In court, it emerged that suspects were pre-selected based on their appearance on a military rescue boat. Frontex officers found them "suspicious" due to their clothes, and they had stood out to the Italian police on board "because of their lighter skin". Witness statements collected by the police were nearly identical, with entire sections copied and pasted, and were largely retracted in court. Interpreters often didn't speak the right languages.
Yet despite evidence that at least five were paying passengers, their sentences were upheld. A final ruling this April said only a presidential pardon could address the "disparity" between the sentence "and the moral dimension of their actual culpability".
According to Traylor, this case is not extreme: police interrogations after traumatic crossings, manipulated witness statements, lack of interpreters, inadequate legal defence, and the use of intimidation or inappropriate incentives to secure cooperation are recurrent in smuggling cases.
Traylor doesn't claim that everyone helped by the Captain Support Network is innocent in a legal sense; a few may have acted for profit, but avoiding profit motives doesn't prevent convictions. "Criminalised individuals come from diverse backgrounds and motivations," she said. "The only common factor is that they're accused of helping someone to cross a border."
"The term 'Captains' restores agency to those on the move, who often don't see smugglers as morally reprehensible," she said. "Sometimes, boat drivers are even celebrated as heroes."
The views Traylor holds today are considered fringe. They were once mainstream.
You can read the rest of this feature here. 
0 comentários:
Postar um comentário