While there are undoubtedly some people who decide to relocate due to the joy of migrating, it can be assumed that the majority choose to move because they believe that being somewhere else will improve their living situation. However, it would be inaccurate to describe all but the most privileged migrants as involuntary. While situations may be better in other countries, a lot of migrants would be more than capable of staying in their birth country and living a fulfilling life. This highlights how the binary voluntary-involuntary model does not encompass migrants’ experiences. Therefore, using such a framework can have severe consequences when looking at the implications of being classified as either voluntary or involuntary. If migrants are deemed to be involuntary then they are classified as refugees when they arrive and receive international protection. However, if the host country decides that the conditions migrants are coming from are not dangerous enough, then they are considered the exact same as any other migrant and are not allowed to stay.

A consequence of migrants being either in or out results in an enormous number of migrants seeking international protection being denied support. However, this system of classifying migrants is being cemented in the international system and allows wealthy countries, which are often the desired destination of migrants, to restrict immigration based on their own agenda. In order to tackle this, an alternative framework for classifying migrants should be established, one that approaches migration as a spectrum of experiences. It is necessary to highlight that where migrants fall on this spectrum can change throughout their journey.

If there is a clear-cut distinction between voluntary and involuntary, a line needs to be drawn somewhere in order to distinguish the two. In the current migration system, that line is often based on the United Nation’s 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees. However, this has brought about its own consequences. Since the 1990s Europe has begun implementing stricter border controls and restricting who qualifies as a refugee. By countries implementing a binary voluntary-involuntary framework, and thus controlling who qualifies for refugee status, they are cutting off large groups of immigrants who should be entitled to international support. Generally, only people coming from countries where there has been extensive media covering a crisis are granted asylum without difficulty, as can be seen by the large influx of Ukrainian refugees who were granted automatic refugee status in the EU. However, it’s clear that racial relations also play a part. The European response to the war in Ukraine was completely different to the reaction to Syrian refugees coming during the 2015 migration crisis. Unlike Ukrainian refugees, Syrians had to go through the formal procedure. Additionally, although across the EU the recognition rate of Syrian asylum applications was well over 90%, it was only 50% in Estonia and 43% in Slovakia. The media coverage of Syrian refugees often encompassed xenophobic sentiments, whereas Ukrainian reporting often focused on the threat Russia poses to international security. This shows how countries can decide who they want to allow in, regardless of the real situation of their origin country.

The current binary system of categorizing migrants as either voluntary or involuntary is, therefore, insufficient in capturing the lived experiences of migrants, and consequentially the factors that played into their decisions to leave their home country. Hence, this report will put forward the idea that instead, migration should be viewed as a spectrum of experiences. This is done based on the understanding that a choice is deemed voluntary when it is made in the context of acceptable alternatives, or when the person making the decision is unbothered by the lack of acceptable alternatives. Traditionally, certain implications for staying, for example being made a political prisoner or forced to change religious convictions, are deemed unacceptable alternatives, as they are widely perceived to be affronts to human dignity. However, other push factors such as extreme poverty are not interpreted in the same way. This creates a scenario where those on the brink of destitution are placed in the same voluntary category of migrants as those choosing to migrate because they prefer warmer weather. This presents a similar problem that is presented above, where determining what constitutes acceptable alternatives falls on the labellers’ own perceptions. To avoid this pitfall, this paper argues that such migrants should be distinguishable, and thus a spectrum based on the level of acceptability of alternatives is being put forward. This is based on a theory of ‘mixed migration,’ which accounts for the strong structural forces that are traditionally associated with forced migration such as persecution and oppression, while also recognizing the role that social and economic preferences play in migrants’ choices to flee. The view put forward is that migrants can fall anywhere in between the two categories, as well as at either end. Therefore, placing migrants on the proposed spectrum of voluntary-involuntary migration based on the extent of structural forces and agency at play in their decision, would paint a much more comprehensive understanding of the causes of migration.

While a spectrum of experiences is a better way of explaining migrants’ choices to leave their homes than using a binary voluntary-involuntary model, there are still issues that should be considered. For example, decision-making is presumed to occur at one single moment in time when migrants make the decision to leave based on the information that is available at that point. This does not represent an accurate reflection of the push factors that exist and is problematic when it comes to placing migrants on a scale. Those labelled as refugees can be perceived as victims while residing in camps in neighbouring countries, however, when they show ‘entrepreneurial’ agency by moving further away, they can suddenly be perceived as illegal economic migrants. This showcases the need to acknowledge that migrants can be placed at different points on the spectrum at different stages of their journey.

When the international community relies on the binary voluntary-involuntary model to classify migrants, they are failing to account for individual experiences. Furthermore, such bureaucratic distinctions and labels can have real impacts. While the point has been made that refugees should remain a distinct category to ensure their protection, by doing so the system is allowing countries to disregard those truly in need. This report has showcased how conceptualizing migration as a spectrum of experiences better highlights the situation of migrants. Therefore, if the assumption is that recognizing refugees ensures their protection, it must follow that by introducing a spectrum that identifies the experiences of all, security for an increased number of migrants can be supported. It is essential that the world move away from the conventional voluntary/involuntary model to ensure the protection of those who truly need it based on their experiences.