In the course of the increased need for support, especially since the summer of 2015 due to the increased arrival of refugees at the EU's external borders, a large number of so-called "ad hoc grassroots organisations", i.e. small organisations that have emerged spontaneously from civil society, have been set up within a very short period of time. Since then, they have been providing support in various places and camps at the EU's (external) borders. This is mainly due to the fact that the respective governments were and still are unable or unwilling to meet the increased demand for services.

Although support structures existed before, since this 'long summer of migration', 'grassroots organisations' have played an important role in the refugee support system alongside other established NGOs and governmental organisations. Many organisations were born out of acute need and civil society intervention based on private donations, so that organisational structures were mainly rudimentary and focused on short-term symptom relief, such as the distribution of clothes and blankets in cold weather. In recent years, however, as the situation at the EU's borders and within the EU has remained poor or deteriorated, organisations have increasingly sought to focus on providing longer-term support to people seeking protection. As a result, some of these organisations are now registered and have consolidated their structures. However, other organisations have ceased to operate due to state repression.

The organisational landscape for supporting people seeking protection in the context of EU border policies is constantly changing. The organisations that exist, how they are structured and how they deal with changing political situations are all changing. At the same time, there are very different approaches to support work.

A distinguishing feature of organisations working in the field of supporting refugees is their political orientation and positioning. There are organisations that clearly see their activities as an expression of political conviction and those that tend to describe themselves as apolitical. For the latter, the commitment is usually an expression of a religious or humanitarian conviction, and relates to the alleviation of human suffering rather than political ambitions. However, since these 'apolitical' organisations also operate in a very political context in terms of migration, flight and borders, from our perspective they can be seen as political actors. This is because any intervention in the current political situation of migration, which is characterised by power, oppression and inequality, either supports or challenges it. An apolitical self-image can lead to organisations unquestioningly positioning themselves as supporters of state migration policies and thus indirectly supporting state violence. However, in one way or another, most support structures make visible discrimination, oppression and unequal or unjust treatment of migrants and refugees and seek to challenge it through various strategies. Sometimes this contestation is very visible, with clear demands to policy makers or civil society. In other cases it is more subtle, through the practical realisation of alternative forms of coexistence, for example through joint actions of People on the Move and supporters, in which citizenship and residence status do not play a role. In this way, discrimination based on state categorisation is implicitly challenged.

In attempting to 'systematise' support structures, a distinction can also be made between the 'symptom-fighting approach' and the 'critical approach'. The approaches depend on the organisation's objectives, organisational form and relationship with state actors and refugees. The 'symptom-fighting approach' includes support services such as counselling, care and accommodation, which fill gaps in state responsibility and are sometimes funded by the state. They try to alleviate or improve the situation of refugees in the current circumstances. Social movements, self-organised groups or NGOs that oppose the state and publicly stand up for the rights of people on the move, thus exerting political pressure, can be classified under the ‘critical approach’. They want to tackle the root of the problem and fundamentally question the state's asylum and migration policies and the different rights for people associated with them. There are also mixed forms of organisations that offer both support and political campaigns. This shows that voluntary work and political activism cannot always be clearly separated and can sometimes complement each other very well.

A further distinction can be made between organisations founded and led by migrants (self-organised and self-empowering) and those founded and led by people without migration or refugee experience (supporting). This distinction is often equated with the above distinction between groups with political or social ambitions and state-affiliated organisations. In fact, in some established and state-funded aid organisations, people affected by European border policies are less likely to be part of the organisational structures than people from the majority society. This is problematic, as the former have much more expertise about the existing needs and support options available to them, based on their own experiences and the fact that they are affected. Accordingly, some migrant self-organisations also offer support services, while people who are not affected themselves can of course participate in political struggles out of solidarity. They can use their privileges (such as secure residence status, knowledge of the legal system, social network, etc.) both in the latter and in support structures. In many cases, people with and without migration experience work together.

It becomes clear that these classifications of political/non-political, symptom-fighting/critical and migrant/non-migrant often do not apply to organisations in exactly the same way, but that the various structures lie in a field between the categories, for example providing practical support services as well as making political demands and creating spaces for encounter that challenge the state's intentional isolation of people seeking protection in the asylum system.

Sources and recommended readings:

glokal e.V.: Willkommen ohne Paternalismus. Hilfe und Solidarität in der Unterstützungsarbeit (Welcome without paternalism. Help and Solidarity in support work). (DE)

Larissa Fleischmann (2020): Contested Solidarity. Practices of Refugee Support between Humanitarian Help and Political Activism (EN)

Sara de Jong und Ilker Ataç (2017): Demand and Deliver. Refugee Support Organisations in Austria (EN)

Most of the support is provided by refugees themselves, in both formalised and less formalised ways: Contrary to the humanitarian narrative that reduces refugees to the image of passive victims, people affected by border policies support each other in everyday practices (sharing knowledge, accompanying people to appointments, etc.) as well as through (political) self-organisation, making political demands and standing up for their rights.

We will name a few organised groups. However, we cannot link the informal support work here. There are often diaspora groups of particular nationalities that support each other and organise politically.

• Refugees in Libya
• Refugees in Tunisia
• Moria White Helmets
• Migrationsrat Berlin e.V. (Umbrella organisation of over 70 migrant self-organisations)
• Database of migrant organisations in Hamburg

We talk about European (external) borders all the time. But what do we mean, and why do we always put 'external' in brackets? You can find a brief explanation of our understanding of borders in the glossary.

It is important for us to stress that borders are not natural facts. For example, although the Mediterranean Sea may appear to be one, it would not be a deadly border if all people could simply cross it by ferry and plane. The fact that this is not the case is not because it is not possible, but because it is not politically desired.

The Mediterranean Sea is an example of a European external border. Other national borders within Europe are also relevant for people on the move. The fact that not only national borders play a role is shown by the two English terms border and boundary, for which there is only the word ‘Grenze’ in German.

Borders are perceived as lines between two territories and are associated with an inside and an outside. They are therefore closely related to the territorial state, which defines legal subjects (especially citizens) and controls them at the borders. Borders, states and control are therefore closely intertwined.

Boundaries are more about the process of drawing boundaries than about the line itself. They can be used for all distinctions, not just geographical borders. They are used to create symbolic differences (between classes, genders or races) and to create identities (national, ethnic or cultural communities).

At Europe's external borders, support work is necessary because of the politically maintained situation. However, we would like to emphasise that, on the one hand, there are other European national borders that European citizens can easily cross, but people on the move cannot in the same way. On the other hand, there are also borders within states, which for refugees, for example, manifest themselves in collective accommodation centres in the middle of nowhere. Since we want to include all these forms of borders and not distinguish between European borders and EU borders, we have chosen to refer to them as European (external) borders.

Sources:
Bigo, Didier (2005): Frontier Controls in the European Union: Who is in Control? In: Didier Bigo und Elspeth Guild (ed.): Controlling Frontiers. Free Movement Into and Within Europe. London: Routledge: 49–99.

Fassin, Didier (2011): Policing Borders, Producing Boundaries. The Governmentality of Immigration in Dark Times. In: Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 40 (1): 213–226.

Voluntary work operates within the European border regime and is therefore a politically charged field. Solidarity support work is not always wanted by governments and is therefore sometimes subject to repression and criminalisation. However, this does not mean that support work is no longer possible. In Greece, for example, one consequence is that organisations must now always register.

Although there are more cases of criminalisation than the highly publicised case of Carola Rackete in Germany, organisations are generally aware of the framework within which they operate. Ask your organisation/project what guidelines you should follow.

borderline-europe has been working intensively on the issue of criminalisation (both of solidarity and of refugees themselves), particularly in Greece and Italy. The association has also published an overview of the different forms of criminalisation (EN).