Movement, Mobilities and Journeys

422 Pages·3.901 MB·English

by  Caitriona Ni Laoire, Allen White, Tracey Skelton (eds.)

Children and Young People in Migration: A
Relational Approach
Roy Huijsmans
Contents
1 Introduction................................................................................... 2
2 TheDiscoveryof“IndependentChildMigration”.......................................... 4
3 FromCategoriestoRelations................................................................ 6
4 TheRelationalDimensionofAgeandSpace............................................... 8
5 PositioningYoungPeopleinMigrationNetworks.......................................... 12
6 TheFieldoftheHousehold:TheIntimateLinkagesBetween
MigrationandStayingPut................................................................... 14
7 MorethanYoungLives:YoungPeople’sMigrationandSocialChange.................. 16
8 Conclusion.................................................................................... 17
References........................................................................................ 18
Abstract
Migration has long been an important area of study in geography and related
disciplines. Yet, it has only relatively recently gained someanalytical status in
children and young people’s geographies. This essay first presents a brief
overview of the literature on children and migration before concentrating on a
specific subsection of this literature: independent child migration, a research
field that has emerged based on studies in the Global South. Juxtaposing this
with the very different concerns articulated in the youth geographies of migra-
tion(includingresearchconductedintheGlobalNorth),whichoftendealswith
subjects of the same chronological age, raises some initial questions about the
limitationsofacategorizingapproachtoyoungpeopleinmigration.
R.Huijsmans(*)
InternationalInstituteofSocialStudies(ISS)ofErasmusUniversityRotterdam,TheHague,
TheNetherlands
InstituteofSocialStudies,TheHague,TheNetherlands
e-mail:[email protected]
#SpringerNatureSingaporePteLtd.2016 1
C.NíLaoireetal.(eds.),Movement,Mobilities,andJourneys,GeographiesofChildren
andYoungPeople6,DOI10.1007/978-981-4585-93-4_1-2
2 R.Huijsmans
While acknowledging the policy success achieved on the basis of a catego-
rizingresearchagenda,theessayproceedsbydevelopingarelationalapproach
towardyoungpeopleasmigrants.Itdoessobydrawingontheliteraturebased
on research conducted in the Global South predominantly on young people
involved in migration without their parents or caregivers and pays particular
attentiontothecaseofyoungLaovillagersinvolvedininternalandcross-border
migration.Therelationalperspectiveisfirstlydevelopedbytreatingtheconcept
of age as an important relation of social differentiation and not merely as a
markerofstaticagecategories.Secondly,itisfurtherdevelopedbyattendingto
the relational fabric of the networks facilitating young people’s migration and
youngpeople’srelationalpositionwithintheseand,thirdly,bysituatingyoung
people’s migration within the field of the (transnational) household and the
social fabric of intra-household relations. Fourthly, the ways in which young
people’s involvement in migration relates to wider processes of social change
andcontinuityareexplored.
This chapter concludes that while many of the policy questions related to
independentchildmigrationremainunresolved,therelevanceofstudyingyoung
people in migration is not limited to such policy questions – however urgent.
This chapter suggests that realizing its conceptual and theoretical potential for
the field of children and youth geographies as well as the larger discipline is
betterachievedthrougharelationalapproach.Oneapproach towarddeepening
theconceptualandtheoreticalbasisofworkunderthelabelofindependentchild
migration that is suggested throughout this chapter is greater engagement with
the literature on rural youth out-migration in both the Global North and the
GlobalSouth.
Keywords
Migration (cid:129) Gender (cid:129) Generation (cid:129) Independent child migration (cid:129) Relational
approach(cid:129)Age(cid:129)Space(cid:129)Networks(cid:129)Households(cid:129)Ruralyouth(cid:129)Socialchange
1 Introduction
Since theturnofthe millennium,the theme ofchildrenandmigrationhas rapidly
developedintoadistinctareaofstudy.Therearenowanumberof(edited)bookson
the topic (Kno¨rr 2005; Ensor and Goździak 2010; Hashim and Thorsen 2011; Ní
Laoireetal.2011)andjournalsectionsandissuesdedicatedtothetheme(e.g.,Ní
Laoire et al. 2010; Mazzucato and Schans 2011; Orgocka and Clark-Kazak 2012;
Graham and Yeoh 2013). In addition, in the policy realm, influential actors have
also recognized the area of “children and migration.” The United Nations Devel-
opmentProgrammemakesspecificmentionofitinits2009flagshipreport(UNDP
2009, p. 59). The International Organization for Migration (IOM) has issued a
recentreportdetailingitsactivitiesaimedatsupportingandprotecting“unaccom-
panied migrant children” (IOM 2011), and “children & migration” is included as
ChildrenandYoungPeopleinMigration:ARelationalApproach 3
oneoutofatotalofeightmodulesinanonlinecourseofferedjointlybyUNICEF
and the Economic Research Foundation on “Socio-Economic Policies for Child
RightswithEquity”(GhoshandOrtiz2011).
A closer look at the sources cited above shows that children and migration is
hardlyaunifiedfield.Importantly,workonchildrenandmigrationdoesnothavea
disciplinaryhomeasithasbeenapproachedfromarangeofdisciplinaryperspec-
tives, including migration studies, anthropology, geography, development studies
as well as family studies, and law. Consequentially, the theories and conceptual
tools employed in work under the label of children and migration are hugely
diverse. Nonetheless, within work on children and migration, we can broadly
identify two lines of research, each characterized by its own objectives, methods,
andtheoreticalunderpinnings.First,thereisworkonchildrenwhoareaffectedby
migrationwithoutmigratingthemselves,mostlybecauseoneorbothparentshave
migrated.Thesechildrenaretypicallyreferredtoas“left-behindchildren,”atopic
thathasattractedconsiderablescholarship(BattistellaandConaco1998;Asis2006;
Graham and Jordan 2011; Ye 2011). Importantly, this research mostly focuses on
childrenintheirfirstdecadeoflife–theyoungerchildren–andtypicallyconcerns
long-distancemigration,oftentimesintercontinental.Agoodpartofthisliteratureis
informed by development psychology and concerned withthe emotional, psycho-
logical, cognitive, and physical effects of growing up with parent(s) living and
workingelsewhere(see,e.g.,Smithetal.2004;Graham andJordan2011,p.765;
WenandLin2012;AsisandRuiz-Marave2013).
Second, there is work on children who themselves are migrants. This body of
workisusuallyfurtherdividedbetweenresearchwithchildrenwhohavemigrated
as part of family migration and those that migrate without their families (Yaqub
2009). The latter is in the context of the Global South often referred to as “inde-
pendentchildmigration”andtypicallyrefersto“children”intheirseconddecadeof
life.Independentmigrationbyyoungpeopleisnothoweveraphenomenonexclu-
sive to the South. Rural youth out-migration is also studied in many parts of the
Global North (e.g., Gibson and Argent 2008). Yet, it oftentimes, but not always,
concernsyoungpeoplewhomightjusthavecrossedthe18yearsthresholdandare
thus considered of majority age. Another manifestation of independent migration
byyoungpeoplein(to)theGlobalNorthisdiscussedunderthelabelofunaccom-
paniedminors;inthisinstance,thesubjectisbelow18yearsofage (e.g.,Bhabha
and Schmidt 2008). The literature concerning children that have migrated in the
contextoffamilymigrationtendstoconcernitselfmorewithyoungerchildrenand
includesbothshort-distanceandlong-distancemigration(i.e.,Orellanaetal.2001;
Bushin2009).Despitethesevariations,mostworksonchildrenandyoungpeople
as migrants share the conceptual premise of appreciating the subject as social
actors. Consequentially, children and young people’s agency in migration consti-
tutesanimportantresearchfocus.
The three strands of research on children and young people as independent
migrantsalsoshowaspatialdemarcation.Theindependentchildmigrationlitera-
turetypicallyfeaturesyoungpeopleinvolvedininternalmigrationorcross-border
4 R.Huijsmans
migrationintoneighboringcountries.Theworkonruralout-migrationispredom-
inantly concerned with internal migration. Work on young refugees of minor age
seeking asylum in the Global North independent from their parents or legal
guardians typically concerns long-distance, cross-border migration. On a global
scale,thislattergroupofchildmigrantsconcernsarelativelysmallnumber.Yet,it
hasattractedasignificantamountofresearchattention,muchofitrevolvingaround
legalquestions(i.e.,Cardol2005;Crawley2007;BhabhaandSchmidt2008;Terrio
2008).
Having laidoutthebroad terrainofchildren, youngpeople, andmigration,the
remainder of this chapter concentrates on the subfield of “independent child
migration.”Itdoessobyfirstdiscussingthediscoveryoftheconstruct,itsawkward
relation with youth geographies of migration, but also its success on the policy
front. It then suggests a relational approach in order to realize the theoretical and
conceptual potential the study of young people’s involvement in migration holds
forchildrenandyouthgeographies,aswellasthewiderdiscipline.
2 The Discovery of “Independent Child Migration”
Amidst the wealth of material on independent child migration that has appeared
over recent years, it is easy to forget that only very few scholars wrote about
children and migration in the context of the Global South prior to the turn of the
millennium.Furthermore,thosescholarsthatdidseldomframedtheirworkinterms
of “child migration.” Samantha Punch (1998), for example, was primarily inter-
ested in how in the context of rural Bolivia migration by children in their second
decadeoflifespokebacktoEurocentricideasaboutgrowingupandindependence.
AgnesCamacho’s(1999)workonFilipinochildrenmigratingtotakeupdomestic
work in Metro Manila, on the other hand, foreshadows many of the features that
were to become characteristic of research on independent child migration, most
importantly:aconcernwithchildren’sagency.
Theconstructof“independentchildmigration”mustthusbemarkedasarecent
invention,whilewemustatthesametimerealizethatthephenomenonofchildren
migratingindependentlyfromtheirparentsoradultguardiansisfarfromnew(e.g.,
De Lange 2007, p. 147; Hertrich and Lesclingand 2013, p. 178). For example,
BeverlyGrieg(1994,p.29,myitalics)notesinherhistoricalaccountofchildlabor
incolonialZimbabwethatinthe1920stherewas“anexodusfromtheruralareasof
male children seeking work ‘on their own’ [which] brought new problems for
employersofchildlabourandforofficials.”
Anotherexampleillustratingthecontemporarinessoftheconstructaswellasthe
long-standingpresenceofthephenomenoncomesfromtheobservationthatmany
ofthechildrentargetedbypolicycategoriesofdevelopmentpracticethatattracted
muchattentioninthe1980sand1990ssuchas“streetchildren”and“childworkers/
laborers” were probably also “child migrants.” Yet, this migration dimension
seldom received much explicit attention (an exception includes Camacho 1999).
Furthermore, if we define children following common international and national
ChildrenandYoungPeopleinMigration:ARelationalApproach 5
leveldefinitionsasyoungpeoplebelow18yearsofage,thentheliteratureonrural
youthisrepletewith“childmigrants.”Thisincludessomeoftheliteraturebasedon
researchintheGlobalNorth.
Writing about the Global North, Gibson and Argent (2008, p. 135, original
emphasis) observe that “the movement of young people out of virtually all
non-metropolitan settlement zones...signifiesa central, ifnotthe central, issueof
contemporaryresearchconcernregardingyoungpeopleinruralareas.”Inasimilar
vein,FransThissenetal.(2010,p.428)writeinthecontextofruralareasinEurope
about a process of “dejuvenation resulting from the rising participation of young
ruralpeopleinhighereducation[whichtypicallyrequiresleavingtheirruralhomes]
andtheirmigrationtonationalemploymentcentres.”Indeed,realizingadegreeof
socialmobilityhasformanyyouthintheseruralareascometopresumemigration.
In addition, in the former Soviet republics, high rates of out-migration by rural
youth take place against a background of post-socialist transitions that have left
many ruralareas with few social services and little economicopportunities (Hipfl
et al. 2003; Nugin 2014). These conditions underpin discourses of rural decline,
whichnormalizeout-migrationbyruralyouthandconstructit“asmovingforward
rather than moving away” (Nugin 2014, p. 51). A normalization of youth
out-migrationisfurtheraggravatedbyyouthtransitiondiscourseswhichconstruct
“independence,”bymeansof“employment,furthereducationorsettinguphome,”
asanimportantthresholdofsocialadulthood(Stockdale2002,pp.41–42).Sucha
normalization of youth out-migration is well illustrated by qualitative research
conducted by Aileen Stockdale (2002) with people who had left rural Scotland
whenstillyoung:
InmyearlyteensI’dseensomanypeopleleavingtheislands.Ifeltthatpartofgrowingup,
fendingforyourself,youhadtoleavehome.Itwasalmostpartofthenaturallifecycle
(Emilymovedin1975).
Youwereexpectedtogo.Irememberno-onesaidyouhadtogoaway,no-onesaidyou
hadtostay,butyouknewinyourmindthatwaswhereyouweresupposedtobegoing.
No-oneactuallysaidit(MrsJmovedin1982).
Source:Stockdale(2002,p.50)
Anormalizingdiscoursewithregardtoout-migrationbyruralyouthcanalsobe
gleaned from publications based on research in the Global South. Yet, unlike the
caseintheresearchconductedintheGlobalNorth,itisheretypicallymorestrongly
genderedandrelatedtoruralmaleyouthspecifically.Theliteraturethatconceptu-
alizesout-migrationbyruralmaleyouthasariteofpassageisthecaseinpoint(e.g.,
Kirsch1966).GunvorJo´nsson(2008,p.25)describes,forexample,howamongthe
SoninkeofMalithevillageisseenasaconducivespaceforbeingachild.Yet,once
boys grow up into male youth, it becomes of paramount importance to leave this
childhood space in order to achieve the status of social male adulthood (Jo´nsson
2008,p.25).Fortheseyoungmen,beingstuckinthevillageisindeedamuchlarger
concernthanthehardshipstheyoftenencounterinmigration.
Female youth, on the contrary, have long been virtually absent from work on
migration in the Global South not in the least because relocating for marriage is
6 R.Huijsmans
seldomconsideredasamigrationissue.Yet,inmostsocieties,itistypicallywomen
that leave their natal families and villages upon marriage. Over the past few
decades, the presence of young women in the migration literature concentrating
ontheGlobalSouthhaschangedconsiderably.Globaleconomicrestructuringled
manymanufacturingcompaniestorelocate(partof)theproductionprocesstolow
wage economies, especially in Asia. This has not only offered new employment
opportunities to young women in particular; it provided these young women also
with a taste of modernity and scope for reworking gendered and generationed
identities (Koning 1997; Elmhirst 2002). Although this literature seldom employs
the term children to describe its main actors, the Javanese “factory daughters”
Diane Wolf (1992) writes about as well as the young female factory workers
featured in Mills’ (1999b) research in Thailand often left their villages when
technicallystillchildrenbasedontheirchronologicalage.
Insum,incontrastwithdiscoursessurroundingtheout-migrationofruralyouth
in the Global North, the practice of youth out-migration in the Global South may
said to be normalized with reference to young men but much less so when it
concerns young women. In fact, studies that refer to teenaged migrants as “girls”
or“children,”insteadofyouthoryoungwomen,workasadiscursivechallengeto
any process of normalization of youth out-migration. Employing the childhood
frame allows framing the phenomenon as a problem of human trafficking
(Huijsmans and Baker 2012, pp. 926–927) which forges a conceptual break from
the wider phenomenon of youth migration. The relational approach set out in the
nextsectionseekstoovercomesuchanarrowanddemarcatedperspectiveonyoung
people’smobilities.
3 From Categories to Relations
As a specific area of research, independent child migration is thus a fairly novel
field of inquiry. From its conception inthe early 2000s, itcan becharacterizedas
drivenbyacritique-basedresearchagendaconcernedwiththepredominanceofthe
humantraffickingdiscourseinanydebateonminorsinvolvedinmigrationforwork
(Busza et al. 2004; Bastia 2005; O’Connell Davidson 2005; Huijsmans 2007;
Howard2014).
Conceptually,thisbodyofworkdrawsonkeypremisesofthenewsocialstudies
of childhood: appreciating childhood as a social construct and children as social
actors (Ansell 2009, p. 190). The objective of the body of work that came to be
known as independent child migration research was to seek a policy space con-
ceivingofminorsasagentsinmigration,insteadofthenarrowframingofchildren
as victims of human trafficking. In addition, this body of research also set out to
identify more nuanced policy approaches than the banning of independent migra-
tion of minors and the rescue-rehabilitate-reintegrate policy recipe shaping most
anti-trafficking works (Huijsmans 2008, p. 346). In contrast, most research on
independent child migration performed a balancing act when it comes to policy
ChildrenandYoungPeopleinMigration:ARelationalApproach 7
recommendation.Itcallsforaddressingtheexploitationofyoungmigrantswithout
this necessarily translating into removing minors from migrant work altogether
(WhiteheadandHashim2005,p.4).
In retrospect, the plethora of studies emerging under the label can be said to
constituteafairlycoherentbodyofresearchtypifiedbyanumberofcharacteristics:
(cid:129) Identifyingthesubjectsfirstandforemostaschildren
(cid:129) Emphasizingminorsasactiveagentsinmigrationprocesses,ratherthanpassive
victimsofhumantrafficking
(cid:129) Deconstructingthehumantraffickingdiscourseandhowitpertainstominors
(cid:129) Reconstructingthephenomenonof“mobileminors”asanissueofmigration
(cid:129) Shifting the focus of intervention to addressing the exploitation of minors in
migration and away from blanket approaches countering the independent
involvementofminorsinmigrationforwork
The relative success of this research agenda is evident from its impact in the
policy field. For example, the United Nations Development Programme’s 2009
flagship report includes a specific albeit short discussion on “independent child
migrants” (UNDP 2009, p. 59). Even more telling is a shift implemented by the
internationalorganizationTerredesHommes(TdH)initsrecentlylaunchedinter-
national campaign entitled “Destination Unknown” (http://destination-unknown.
org/).
Followingadecadeof“anti-trafficking”programming,theprogrammaticfocus
hasshiftedawayfromanti-traffickingandtowardthe“protectionofchildrenonthe
move.” A 2012 TdH report authored by Mike Dottridge (2012) explains how this
shifthascomeabout:
At the beginning of the campaign, the issue of child trafficking appeared relatively
straightforward.Crimeswerebeingcommittedagainstchildren,whichweregoinglargely
unnoticed,sogovernmentsneededlobbyingtopersuadethemtotakeaction.Astheyears
wentby,however,thecomplexityoftheissuebecamemoreobvious,alongwiththerisk
that certain messages linked to the campaign could have unexpected or even counter-
productiveeffectsforchildren.Italsobecameclearerthattraffickingcasesrepresentedan
extremealongacontinuuminvolvingchildrenwhomovedfromoneplacetoanother...so,
measurestopreventtraffickingneededtobesupplementedbyarangeofothermeasuresto
protect unaccompanied children and other children who had left home, whether they
remainedintheircountryorwentabroad.(Dottridge2012,p.13)
Despitethepolicyimpactoftheacademiccritiqueofindependentchildmigra-
tionresearchandtheobviousneedtofurtherdiscussionsonwhatasafemigration
approach might look like in relation to young migrants of minor age (e.g.,
Huijsmans2014b),reducingthephenomenonofyoungpeoplemigratingforwork
to policy questions risks losing sight of its conceptual and theoretical potential.
Furthermore,itisarguablythearchitectureofthecritiquewhichcontributedtoits
success that is, simultaneously, also accountable for delimiting its theoretical and
conceptualpotential.
8 R.Huijsmans
ThiscanbeillustratedbyreturningtotheUNDPflagshipreportcitedabove.The
report was dedicated to the theme of migration specifically and critical of how
muchofthemigrationliteraturehasdeveloped:
Conventionalapproachestomigrationtendtosufferfromcompartmentalization.Distinc-
tions are commonly drawn between migrants according to whether their movement is
classed as forced or voluntary, internal or international, temporary or permanent, or
economicornon-economic.Categoriesoriginallydesignatedtoestablishlegaldistinctions
forthepurposeofgoverningentryandtreatmentcanendupplayingadominantrolein
conceptual and policy thinking. Over the past decade, scholars and policy makers have
beguntoquestionthesedistinctions,andthereisagrowingrecognitionthattheirprolifer-
ationobscuresratherthanilluminatestheprocessesunderlyingthedecisiontomove,with
potentiallyharmfuleffectsonpolicy-making.(UNDP2009,p.12)
As the excerpt indicates, the report takes issue with the tendency to compart-
mentalizethefieldofmigrationinwhichtheyseereflectedtheproblematicsocio-
logical premise of treating agency and structure in a binary fashion rather than
interactingorevenco-constitutingforces(UNDP2009,p.13).Despitethiscritique,
the report effectively reinforces a compartmentalized approach when it comes to
youngpeopleandmigration.Theinclusionofaseparateboxonindependentchild
migration (UNDP 2009, p. 59) effectively introduces this group of migrants as a
specific category set apart from other migrants and migrations. In addition, “the
voluntary-forcedmigrationdichotomythattheReportcritiquesinrelationtoadult
migrationisuncriticallyreproducedinrelationtochildrenthroughthetrafficking-
independentchildmigrationbinary”(Huijsmans2012,p.30).
Suchacategorizingapproachobfuscatesanumberofrelationaldimensions.Yet,
relationality is central to the deepening of the understanding of how the phenom-
enonofyoungpeopleasmigrantsactuallyworksandgainsitsdiverseshapesand
outcomes.Inaddition,overcomingtheartificialbarrierscharacterizingcategorizing
approaches also helps linking the geographies of children and youth to debates in
thewiderdiscipline.Tothisend,theremainderoftheessayhighlightsanumberof
important relational dimensions of the phenomenon of young people’s migration.
Thisincludeshighlightingageandspaceasimportantstructuringrelations,therole
of networks inshaping young people’s migrations, the fieldof the householdas a
keyrelationalspaceinwhichmigrationdynamicsunfoldandthatitselfisreworked
through migration, and the connections between early involvement in migration
andwiderprocessesofsocialchangeandcontinuity.
4 The Relational Dimension of Age and Space
As the previous sections have suggested and as so often the case in research on
youngpeople,intermsofchronologicalage,wemaywellbewritingaboutthesame
subjects, yet by framing this in terms of “children” or “youth,” we link it to very
differentdebatesandconcerns.GunvorJo´nsson(2008,p.25)showsinherresearch
amongtheSoninkeofMalithattheconstructofchildhoodislinkedtotheplaceof
ChildrenandYoungPeopleinMigration:ARelationalApproach 9
the village and rural spaces more generally. This conceptual association is not
particulartoMali(NaafsandWhite(2012,p.12)suggestsomethingsimilarforthe
Indonesiancontext)andneithertothecontemporaryera.Thelatterisillustratedby
Kenneth Bagnell’s (2001) work on institutionalized child migration of orphaned
anddestitutechildrensentthroughEnglishchildren’shomestobecomeadditional
hands on farms in Canada and Australia in the nineteenth and twentieth century.
PuttingthesechildrentoworkonthelandofEnglishoverseasfarmerswasnotonly
consideredaquickfixtoaddresslaborshortagesinthesecolonies;ruralspaceswere
alsoconsideredamuchhealthierchildhoodenvironmentthanthestreets,factories,
andworkhousesofurbanEnglandwhichwereseenasmorallypollutingspaces.An
apparent benign association between the young and the rural still predominates
todayandexplains,inpart,theparadoxicalobservationthatchildlaborregulation
the world over has long omitted the sector in which most children work: the
agrariansector.
For youth, much the opposite holds true. Villages and farms seldom feature in
popularyouthculture.Thissuggeststhatthesespacesarehardly“cool”andbestleft
behindinordertobeseenasasuccessfulyouthintheeyesofpeers.Gerontocratic
social structures that characterize many rural communities further make rural
spacesconstrainingplacesforthoseyoungpeoplewhoseektoestablishthemselves
as respected individuals. Alongside limited employment opportunities and the
urban bias in higher education provisioning, these factors and relations mean that
most young people are predisposed to leave their rural homes once they have
become youth (White 2012, pp. 14–5). It is not just that many young people in
the countryside aspire a more up-to-date urban youth (Mills 1997); significant
others such as teachers working in rural schools (Morarji 2014, p. 179) and rural
parents (Rigg 2006, p. 194) often also socialize rural children into non-agrarian
aspirationsbeyondthevillage.
Whetherweusethetermchildrenoryouththusframesdebatesonyoungpeople
asmigrantsinverydifferenttermsandconcerns.Usingthetermchildrenevokesa
strongsensethattheseyoungmigrantsare“outofplace.”Subsequently,itleadsto
interventionstakingtheformofchildhoodrestorationprojects.Childmigrantsare
rescued and rehabilitated in institutions, repatriated to their places of origin,
reintegrated into their communities and families, and often put into school or
traininginsteadoftheworldofwork.Incontrast,oncethephenomenonisframed
intermsofyouth,theirindependentinvolvementinmigrationisfarlessunsettling
in moral terms. This is especially true where it concerns young male migrants;
independent migration by young female migrants oftentimes remains far more
delicate though (see, e.g., Mills 1995). Nonetheless, the youth frame provides
interventions with a wider space for action as it becomes possible to think about
safe migration – an approach seldom considered when the subjects are labeled as
children(Huijsmans2014b).
In the social science literature, it is now widely accepted that childhood and
youtharesocialconstructs(Ansell2009,p.190).Atthesametime,itisthroughthe
measure of chronological age, employed in globalized versions of law and social
policies and enforced through birth registration, that constructs of childhood and
10 R.Huijsmans
youth are attributedrather fixed properties.Thisproduces something that we may
call age-normativity: certain rights, responsibilities, and places, as well as the
evaluation of the appropriateness of particular activities carried out by young
people, become normatively (dis)associated to life phases demarcated by the
universalmeasureofchronologicalage(Huijsmansetal.2014,pp.165–166).
CherylLaz(1998,p.92,originalemphasis)observesthat“chronologicalageis
madeimportantinparticularsocialandhistoricalcontextsandininteraction.”This
isparticularlytrueinthecontextofcross-bordermigrationbecausebordersreduce
those crossing them to biographical data such as nationality of birth and date of
birth.Theimportanceofchronologicalageinmigrationregulationisperhapsbest
illustrated by instances where such data are absent or contested (Crawley 2007).
This has led some migration authorities to subject migrants to “mandatory and
controversialscientificassessmentsofbonedevelopmenttodetermine[chronolog-
ical] age” (Terrio 2008, p. 890). Chronological age is also attributed essential
importance in decisions concerning the migration of children in the context of
family reunification (in addition to defining family relatedness). The age of 18 is
generally used as an upper limit for the entry of children and lower limit for
bringing in spouses in the context of marriage migration. Yet, recent efforts to
curbmigrationinvariousEuropeancontextshaveledtoloweringtheformer(e.g.,
to 12 years in Germany) and increasing the latter (e.g., in Denmark to 24 years)
(Kofman 2004, p. 254). Shifting the boundaries of constructs demarcated by
chronological age suggests chronological age cannot be treated as a mere given
but must be acknowledged as an important, and politically charged, structuring
relation.
International age-based definitions of children and youth overlap. The United
Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child defines the child as “every human
beingbelowtheageof18yearsunlessunderthelawapplicabletothechild,majority
is attained earlier” (1989: Article 1), while youth refers in the United Nations’
lexicon to young people aged 15–24 years of age. The upper age limit in defining
a child has over time gradually been lifted upward in United Nations documents
(VanBueren1995,pp.32–38).Thereversecanbeobservedforyouth.TheWorld
Bank,forexample,hassetthe lowerbarforyouthattheageof12(Herrera2006,
p.1427).Atthesametime,variousnationalleveldefinitionsofyouthhavestretched
theupperbarto“35oreven40”yearsofage(White2012,p.10).
Althoughage-baseddefinitionsofyouthdonotcarryalegalstatus,theoverlap
betweentheage-basedconstructssuchaschildhoodandyouthplaguesdebateson
young people and migration. This can be illustrated with survey data on labor
migrationinLaos(n=38,924).Figure1showsthatmigrationstraddlesthe(inter)
national dividing line between age of minority (i.e., children) and majority (i.e.,
adults)whileatthesametimeshowingitisfirmlylocatedintheyouthstageofthe
lifecourseasitinvolvesfewyoungchildrenandalsofewolderadults.
Byraisingquestionsabouthowchronologicalageismadeimportantratherthan
ameregiven,scholarslikeLaz(1998)alsocreatespaceforconsideringalternative
conceptualizations of age. Christina Clark-Kazak (2009, p. 1310) proposesin this
respect the notion of “social age,” which serves to “ensure that the social aspects