Why fellers demoted

For many of them the threat of violence was one reason to migrate, but they had not always applied for asylum. In the entire sample many migrants were socially demoted, and in the cases analysed here social demotion mostly resulted from legal exclusion Pajo, As discussed above, migration is a highly selective process and the refugee category is central and contested in migration governance.

It is therefore helpful for this article that the larger pool of interviews does not only contain migrants interviewed in Germany, but also those interviewed in other countries, mostly Canada, Turkey and South Africa. These cases serve as a contrast for migrants under duress who were able to reach Germany and Canada. In order to show the value of a sociological approach to migration under duress, data should not focus on migration decisions alone, but on the entire biography of the migrant.

The interviewing technique employed in the studies is narrative with semi-structured follow-up questions. The interviews start with the initial request to the migrants to tell their life-story in great detail. The follow up questions focus on themes which were relevant to the particular study and which interviewees did not cover in enough detail during their initial narration.

In addition, data on the legal and institutional context of the migration were collected by means of expert interviews, by analysing relevant documents and statistical material. The cases discussed in this article are interpreted with the help of the documentary method Bohnsack, ; Bohnsack et al. The documentary interpretation of narrative interviews does not only reconstruct explicit aspects of the life-story as pointed out by the interviewees themselves.

Interpretation also focuses on the implicit set of knowledge that shapes daily practices and is embedded in them. For example, a young migrant may describe his migration decision as voluntary, but we may learn from his account that his social group was persecuted and he himself had been attacked prior to his move abroad. The documentary method thus enables an analytic distinction between explicit self-theorizations and implicit knowledge that is reconstructed through a comparison of narrations.

Both levels of analysis are validated and both contribute to the findings. The case studies in this article are presented in two steps. In the next section, we will contrast two cases of asylum seekers in Germany. Both left their homes in response to persecution, but while one of them fled in a manner that converges with the expectations underlying the Geneva Convention and German administrative rules, the other case diverges in various ways from legal and administrative provisions. In the fourth part, migrants who could fall under the Convention, but who have partially refrained from claiming asylum are included in the comparison.

They were found in Turkey and Canada. Among other things, the comparison shows that those with better resources and a higher degree of socio-spatial autonomy can, if well informed, find better options for reaching protection.

The process of seeking refuge and the legal and administrative provisions for refugee protection. When the Geneva Refugee Convention was adopted, in , it responded to large scale political persecution during the second world war, and it was geographically and temporally limited to protecting people seeking refuge from events in Europe prior to The temporal and geographic restrictions were lifted by the protocol relating to the status of refugees in , 10 but the underlying assumptions on how people become refugees have remained the same.

International refugee protection is complemented by national legal and administrative provisions. Up to the s, the typical refugee in Germany was a dissident from communism who had crossed the border as part of an official delegation. When numbers rose and asylum seekers were not individual dissidents, but e. In our large sample, more than a dozen interviewees, mostly in Germany, explicitly identified themselves as refugees at the time of the interview or as part of their biographical narration.

Looking at some of these cases more closely confirms a frequently voiced contention Koser; Martin, , 7 , that the historical circumstances of the Geneva Convention as well as its administration in nation states may not conform with the empirical reality of many refugees today.

Ibezim 11 fits the archetypal image of a political refugee to which the German legislation is tailored, whereas Mr. Mammud represents the - more frequent - refugees that diverge. Ibezim was interviewed in , three years after he had entered Germany. Sometime after the interview, he was officially recognized as a refugee. In his African home country Mr. Ibezim had been working in an economic sector that had received a lot of international criticism for harming the environment, killing critics and rampant corruption.

Ibezim was trained by a German development agency wishing to support professionals in their endeavor to combat this kind of bad practice. A conference by that agency in Germany enabled him to enter Germany directly and legally via airplane and then go on and claim asylum after arrival. During the short time he spent on German streets weighing his options, he met compatriots who encouraged him to claim a false nationality.

They informed him that chances of acceptance are very low for their nationality, but he says in the interview that he preferred to stay with the truth. We cannot control the extent to which this account is truthful, but the way he portrays himself in the interview attests to the fact that he is skillful in handling suspicion by the migrant administration.

In all of these points, Mr. Ibezim conforms with the historic experience and expectations Germany has concerning asylum seekers: Much like political activists from Eastern Europe during the cold war, he entered Germany legally and then asked for asylum.

These often famous activists received a high degree of respect for their upright stance and asylum was normally granted. This also means that Mr. Ibezim fits into an administrative loophole. As mentioned, the amendment to the constitution ruled that safe third countries should be responsible for processing refugees.

Ever since, all neighboring countries have been deemed to be safe and Germany exterritorialized border controls to airplane companies in order to make sure that no one can enter an airplane to Germany without a proper visa. This ensured that Germany had to process their claims as it was unknown from which country they had entered or to which country they could be deported. This, of course, undermined the credibility of their claim.

Mr Ibezim is an exceptional case of a refugee who was able to legally enter Germany directly from his distant home country with a conference visa, despite of being under threat there. He also is an exception in that he can truthfully claim to conform to all legal regulations and in that he did indeed receive the protection he needs. We can therefore take his case as a test case for exploring our assertion that a life course approach might offer insights into the process of becoming a refugee.

Taking a closer look at the interview we can find some indication that Mr Ibezim is not just concerned with persecution and legal matters. When describing the moment in which he left, he mentions that he had been married for a short time, but was otherwise without social relations, which made it easier for him to leave. Ibezim also details his professional achievements and desire to perform well in the labor market. After claiming asylum, he is amazed to learn that Germany does everything to deport him rather than seeing the contribution that he could make to the country.

Both points confirm that even for a refugee conforming to international and German asylum law, to a high degree his personal life and his professional identity matter both for the decision to flee and for the way he positions himself in the receiving country. The case of Mr. Mammad is discussed in contrast to Mr. Ibezim, because he clearly flees from persecution, but he diverges from several provisions of the Geneva Convention and of German administrative regulations.

Mammad comes from a country that formed after the dissolution of the Soviet Union. Soon afterwards 20 percent of her territory was lost:. We had a two storied private house and about a hectare of farm and we had to leave because the tanks came.

In comparison to Mr Ibezim, his future options appear much more limited, because he loses both his diploma and, as it later turns out, his employability in the course of the flight.

Whether he can contribute to the prosperity of the receiving country is not a consideration he is having in mind. At this time, we might view Mr. Mammad to be a displaced person, but he does not yet conform with the legal definition of refugee because he flees to a camp in the newly founded republic. They protest and after Mr Mammad witnesses police violence against another protester, he and his family flee again.

At this point Mr Mammad takes a more conscious decision. Since he suspects that Russia might turn him back, his main objective is reaching any democratic country. The way in which he reached Germany is not elaborated upon, but hints suggest the then prevailing path, i. At the time of the interview, his case was still processed. Since both of his children are chronically ill, he is likely to receive humanitarian protection.

From the perspective of Germany, his case could also be processed in a safe third country and he undermines the German regime by obscuring the path he took. Finally, the protection he is likely to receive depends more on the bad health of his children, than on the fact of the violent persecution and lack of protection that turned the family into refugees.

Mostly, they show that the complexity of seeking refuge is not sufficiently grasped by legal and administrative provisions which turns refugees like Mr Mammad into asylum applicants that were ready to resort to semi-legal avenues. We may conclude that the attribution of refugee status does not depend on legal matters alone, but also on other factors.

The latter can best be explored with the help of a broader sample and a more general migration theory. After having confirmed that legal and administrative definitions of refugee status may diverge from the empirical patterns of seeking refuge, we will now take a closer look at contrasting cases found in other destination countries. This enables us to better understand the selectivity of migration and the socio-economic inequalities that result in migration trajectories conforming and not conforming to the Geneva Convention.

It also explains why some migrants do not see themselves as refugees even though their migration responded to violence and a lack of protection in their home country. In contrast to the cases discussed above, who did reach Germany, Mr. Young was interviewed in Turkey, in , where he had remained for fifteen years despite of continuous attempts at onward migration to Europe.

His country called him home so that he could join the army. When he refused to do so, his scholarship was discontinued. Without payment, the Russian university at which he studied did not let him take his final exam. In this situation he visited several consulates in Moscow in a vain attempt to get a student visa for any West European country. He then moved to Turkey in the hope of an illegal border crossing to the EU at which he failed, too.

West European consulates again turned down his application which resulted in him assuming the life of undocumented and illegal migrants stranded in Turkey. He starts to work and, since he is highly visible as a black man, he is arrested again and again, but always released after a short time and starts to work again. After two years, the political climate changes for the worse and he is deported to a camp in the East of Turkey which he barely survives.

After managing a successful escape back to Istanbul, he is imprisoned two more times. At the time of the interview he had spent 15 years in Turkey unable to move on.

Assuming a legal perspective and considering that Mr. Young was actually studying law and international relations at the time, we would have expected him to apply for asylum. But in his introductory narration he is concerned about continuing his studies.

It is only later that Mr. Young tries to officially claim refugee status. Looking at Mr. At the moment he turns into a refugee, he still sees himself as a student. Having almost concluded an academic education he is rich in cultural capital. Even though he would see himself as lucky to go to Europe, it is not unreasonable for him to try to continue his academic education there.

At the same time, acceptance as an asylum seeker would not have improved his lot. Until recently, Turkey did not accept refugees from non-European origins and registered refugees were not legally allowed to work. So, claiming asylum status would not have helped Mr.

Young to continue his studies. He therefore first tries to get a student visa, then to reach Europe illegally, which would have put him in about the same position that we have found in Mr. Young is not the only migrant under duress who refrains from claiming refugee status.

Goudareva 13 was interviewed in , too, but in contrast to Mr. Young she has reached Canada with the help of the Canadian point system. Coming from civil war torn Chechnya her narration is similar to that of refugees, but she never identifies herself as such:.

Two were killed, one had a heart attack you know, just and I seriously started to think about immigration. I applied and it was only two countries available: New Zealand and Canada for professional immigration. In many respects, Ms. She never considered emigration before the political situation in Chechnya and her personal life deteriorated dramatically. Then, she simply wants to leave, that is, she does not have a specific destination in mind but only researches what her legal destination options are.

After this point, the accounts start to diverge drastically. In contrast to Mr. Young but like Mr. Mammad and Mr. Ibezim she holds an academic degree. In contrast to all others she has the time and financial resources to apply for professional immigration-which includes travelling to Paris, where she must pass an interview.

She is able to gain access as a professional migrant to Canada, even though she is relatively old, and knows very little English and no French. It seems that the decisive difference between Ms. Goudareva and the others is that she is privileged in her financial resources and that she has the ability and time to gather not word of mouth, but reliable information about legal alternatives to claiming asylum. This becomes apparent by a contrast between Mr.

Young and Mr. Fagan, 15 a white South African who entered Canada with the help of the point system. It is possible that someone might have advised BG Fellers of his uniform mistake, but there did not seem to be sufficient time or opportunity within the flow of the scenes to do so. In the opening sequence the film makers use archival film showing an atom bomb being loaded into the bomb bay a B for the attack on Hiroshima. In the opening sequence, they show a B departing to deliver an atomic bomb incorrectly shown as Fat Man, the Hiroshima bomb was in fact Little Boy , and the aircraft is marked with "A 24" on the vertical stabilizer.

The Enola Gay had a large "R" in a circle on the vertical stabilizer, and the number "82" written on the aft portion of the fuselage. In several scenes General Fellers is seen wearing an uniform with ribbon decorations. They differ from what Fellers actually was awarded per the Wikipedia article on him.

Specifically in the top row he appears to be wearing a Bronze Star, Purple Heart, and Army Commendation, none of which he was awarded. Bonner Fellers held the rank of Lt. Colonel from December 11, until January 31, , when he was promoted to Colonel. During the historic time frame of the movie, Fellers had already been demoted to Lt. Is this interesting? General Bonner Fellers Matthew Fox claims that he diverted bomber missions to protect his Japanese girlfriend's school but his bio states that he was a regular army officer and never a member of the Army Air Force.

In the close up on General Fellers's typewriter upon which he is writing his initial report to MacArthur, he is seen typing "Pearl Harbour", using the British spelling. An American general would have used the American spelling and typed "Pearl Harbor". With your current subscription plan you can comment on stories. However, before writing your first comment, please create a display name in the Profile section of your subscriber account page.

Your subscription plan doesn't allow commenting. To learn more see our FAQ. It looks like you're using an ad blocker. Thank you for supporting our journalism. Sorry, but your browser needs Javascript to use this site. Chunichi Shimbun.