Origins and Background of this Analytical Perspective

The autonomy of migration approach has its origins in two processes from fields that are apart (academia and activism), yet related to each other. On the one hand, the theoretical background of French critical approaches to wage labor from the Marxist perspective of ^{Moulier Boutang (1998}), but also and notably so in terms of the conceptual precedents for the autonomy of migration, the political sociology of migration of ^{Sayad (1992}, ^1999a), which made it possible to think beyond economistic optics and position migrants as social individuals as the central axis of analysis, in the deliberate understanding of the political context in which their life and mobility experiences took place. Likewise, Sayad’s reflections positioned the political state of things of the production of cross-border human mobility at the center, by investigating the way in which nation States, based on certain categories and legal-administrative procedures aimed at certain populations (foreigners and non-citizens), develop the concept/category of the migrant (^{Sayad, 1999a}, ^1999b). As this author pointed out, without the State there would be no migrants (^{Sayad, 1999a}) and no borders (as we understand them today).

On the other hand, when it comes to activism, in the European context of the early 2000s, another important fact in the genesis of the autonomy of migration approach were the dialogues and exchanges between various groups and collectives of activists, students and academics from Germany, France and Italy (^{Bojadzijev, 2009}; ^{Mezzadra, 2011}; ^{Cordero et al., 2019}). As Sandro Mezzadra points out, given the diversity of migrant groups and experiences to each of these three countries (Germany with its guest worker system, France with post-colonial migrations, and Italy with more recent migrations in the 1980s and 1990s), and taking into account the specificities and particular features of irregular migrations to these points of Europe, from its inception, the autonomy of migrations approach acknowledged and weighted in the heterogeneity and differentiation of approaches, experiences and migratory processes (Cordero et al., 2019). Thus, this approach makes visible the flexibility and plurality of experiences, approaches and historical cases that characterize migration.

A Different, Critical View of Migration

Far from considerations of a mainly economic (macro-structural) and political nature (in terms of the legal sphere of citizenship), the autonomy of migration approach was from its inception thought of as a different and critical view of migrations, and especially of migrants (in their relationship with themselves, with the nation States of origin, transit and destination, and with borders and migration policies, in the context of contemporary capitalist systems) (^{Mezzadra, 2005}; ^{Papadopoulos et al., 2008}; Mezzadra & Nielson, 2013).

Rather than as a finished and rigid theoretical framework, the autonomy of migration theory can be read as a research hypothesis (^{Cordero et al., 2019}) and as a conceptual structure undergoing development, with a number of key axes: migration and the exploitation of labor in the context of neoliberal capitalism; the social and political agency of migrants and their various resistance practices and activities; the political subjectivation in and of migrants; the productions of borders as selective and differentiated exclusion/inclusion devices; and the political and socio-legal construction of migratory irregularity, among others (^{Mezzadra, 2012}; ^{De Genova et al., 2014}).

Within this framework, one of the nodal tenets of this approach is to make the inquiry revolve around “the subjective practices, desires, expectations and behaviors of migrants themselves” (^{Mezzadra, 2012},

p. 160), explicitly acknowledging that migrants, in their multiple and precarious cross-border spatial mobility dynamics, are inserted in various exclusion mechanisms and processes (related to borders and the dynamics of migratory regularization/irregularization), processes of violence and State and labor exploitation/domination in various countries (^{Picozza & Castillo, 2021}; ^{De Genova, 2018}).

This context does not pertain an idealization of cross-border human mobilities, insofar as it accounts for the complexity and “ambivalence of [migrants’] subjective behaviors and practices” (^{Mezzadra, 2012}, p. 160). Nor is it an apology for migration, insofar as it does address the production frameworks of such mobilities (^{Cordero et al., 2019}). However, it is indeed a critique of economistic visions (in terms of their strong and unilateral economic determinism), due to the fact that, for the autonomy of migration theory, migrations cannot merely be reduced to the processes of labor supply and demand between countries of origin and destination, within the framework of regional processes of international division of labor in the era of globalization.

It also distances itself from studies on cross-border mobility and migration policies that understand the dynamics of citizenship towards migrants mainly as (exclusionary) legal procedures, in frameworks of migration regulation aimed at determining who is a citizen and who is a foreigner (in relation to the holding certain documents issued by the national State). In this vein, and underpinning an alternative structure for thinking about the political dimension of migration, Mezzadra specifies that, from autonomy of migration theory, it becomes “necessary to conceptualize citizenship in a different way from that employed by conventional studies, in which the essential concern consists of integrating migrants within an already existing legal and political framework” (Mezzadra, 2012, pp. 160). It is in along this line that the author emphasizes that from this approach “we highlight the importance of the practices and claims of those who are not necessarily citizens in legal terms” (Mezzadra, 2012, pp. 160-162).

Autonomy of Migration: Migrants and Border Production

The autonomy of migration theory is a set of diverse approaches in the socio-political, spatial and temporal orders of cross-border mobilities (^{Bojadzijev, 2009}; ^{Mezzadra, 2011}; ^{Casas-Cortés et al., 2015}; ^{De Genova & Velasco, 2017}; De Genova, 2018). For reasons of space, and so as to highlight the most important contributions, here we present three of its main axes: 1) the politicization of migration (in relation to the State, citizenship, migrants and borders); 2) borders as processes of legal and socio-political production, and 3) migrant struggles.

Different Conceptions of the Relationship Between Migrants, Citizenship and the State

Autonomy of migrations theory is characterized by an approach based on more complex, comprehensive and political relations between the nation-State (with its migration and border policies), borders and the heterogeneous groups of migrants, inscribed in the framework of the diverse places and temporalities of international migration processes (^{Mezzadra, 2011}; ^{Domenech & Boito, 2019}). When analyzing this topic, nation-States (especially those of transit and destination) of migrations, are not only seen from the legal frameworks of who is a citizen and who is not -and the legal procedures associated with citizenship- (^{Hollifield & Wong, 2015}), but also from a broader political -not only institutional- lens, which accounts for the various processes of power, exclusion and violence towards migrants. In this sense, effort is made to read the relationship between nation-State and citizenship from other optics and dimensions (especially those of individuals).

On the other hand, as will be seen later in this section, borders are read not only as physical barriers and material infrastructures, but also from more processual and relational perspectives, as socio-political and legal constructs of the nation-State (in its relationship with different social actors and in specific historical contexts). Thus, from the autonomy of migration approach, essentialist considerations and static views are avoided; therefore, it becomes possible to investigate how borders are influenced and determined, not only by nation-States, but also by the different actions, practices and strategies of migrants (especially those who are irregular).

In addition, as will be developed later in this section, migrants are not perceived as passive subjects, but rather from their own points of view, actions and practices, in such a way that they have a relevant role in determining (to a certain extent), both the shaping of borders and certain (anti) immigration policies. A relationship of mutual determination and impact is thus revealed, still with various gradients and intensities, between nation-States (especially those of transit and destination) with their (migratory) policies, borders (involving border policies and actions) and migrant groups (with their discourses, practices and actions).

Borders as Socio-Political and Juridical Constructs

One of the most important approaches of the autonomy of migration theory pertains the particular way in which it conceives borders (as political-legal constructs) (^{De Genova & Velasco, 2017}; De Genova, 2018; ^{Picozza & Castillo, 2021}), and the relationship of mutual determination between these and migration processes (^{Mezzadra, 2012}; Mezzadra & Nielson, 2013). This approach clearly departs from more classical conceptual ones, which from political science and political geography understand borders as a form of (legal and political-administrative) boundary related to the emergence of nation-States and the geopolitical order between countries, whose historical origins date back to the Treaty of Westphalia (^{Gregory et al., 2009}), and which are based on processes such as sovereignty (dynamics of internal and external individuals in a territory from which the former originate), territoriality (the control of a given and appropriated space by a given nation-State) and international relations (in the reinforcement of distinctions among countries and their geographical and political boundaries) (Gregory et al., 2009). In addition, borders are read and constructed as symbols and material expressions of the sovereignty of the nation-State.

Instead, and in an exercise of denaturalization and de-essentialization (^{De Genova et al., 2014}), for the autonomy of migrations theory, borders, rather than mere lines and boundaries (fixed and rigid) with forceful material expressions (walls, fences, etc.), also imply, and above all, practices and policies reflected in certain physical infrastructures. These are diachronic constructions with interventions of different orders (political, legal, administrative), which are de facto changeable (spatially and temporally) (^{Mezzadra & Nielson, 2013}; De Genova, 2018). Hence their undeniable historical condition and their dimension as territorially mobile dynamics, produced according to various political and ideological purposes and intentions within the framework of different scalar orders (micro, meso and macro).

It is particularly relevant to understand borders, rather than in an essentialist and immutable way (as if they were static objects), as articulated relations of various types (social, political, legal) (^{Picozza & Castillo, 2021}). However, as pointed out by ^{Mezzadra (2012}), although borders often involve processes of exclusion and veiled and open violence towards migrants, these same borders must also be seen as complex territories of tension and asymmetrical power relations, in which migrations and borders are mutually constituted in a bidirectional and differentiated manner (Mezzadra & Nielson, 2013), and where the role of migrants is relevant. Thus, for Mezzadra, both the production of borders and the irregularity of migrants can be approached, rather than as mere dynamics of domination and exclusion within the framework of the State and its legal apparatus, as “a strained and conflict-based process, in which subjective movements and migration-related struggles are an active and fundamental factor” (Mezzadra, 2012, p. 160).

In this sense, from the standpoint of the autonomy of migration, there are two related dynamics that allow us delving deeper into the aforementioned dimensions (externalization of borders and border regimes). On the one hand, and from a framework that circumscribes geopolitics, the externalization of borders refers to political-administrative and territorial dynamics and procedures to geographically extend certain migration and border policies of a given national State to a different one (^{De Genova et al., 2014}).

On the other hand, the term border regime bets on a constructivist perspective of borders that not only denaturalizes the conceptualization of them and transcends classic dichotomous conceptual schemes, but also acknowledges the diversity of State and non-State actors and institutions (as well as their respective actions and visions) inserted in their production processes (^{De Genova et al., 2014}). In this sense, it not only identifies State logics, discourses and practices in the production of borders, but also accounts for those of migrants in their mobility dynamics, and the other social actors related to this process (non-governmental organizations, pro-migrant groups in society, among others), who challenge and react to State actions of immigration control and containment. In this framework, borders are not reduced to a single form of organization (that of the State), but are constituted as territories of tension and conflict (^{Mezzadra & Nielson, 2013}; De Genova et al., 2014) in an undeniable political condition (within the framework of diverse and asymmetrical power relations).

Migrants as Active and Constituent Actors in Migration

Another of the strong theoretical stakes of the autonomy of migration approach is the centrality ascribed to migrants within human mobilities across different countries, times and spaces. Of course, this approach acknowledges the huge diversity of migrant groups and experiences, with different forms and strategies for carrying out their mobilities and desires. This commitment to the central role of individuals can be found in at least three dimensions that are developed below.

Migrants as agents who (through their actions, practices and discourses) hold a very prominent role in shaping migrations (and their associated processes and orders: borders, migration and border policies, and so on) (^{Mezzadra, 2012}; ^{De Genova et al., 2014}).

The relationship between migrants and the nation-State they intend to reach, and how migrants relate socially and politically to that destination country (^{Mezzadra, 2012}).

Migrants as social actors deploying different strategies (open and/or veiled) to face the political and legal order of certain national States that exclude and fail to acknowledge them (due to migrants lacking immigration documents).

Regarding the first two dimensions, authors such as Mezzadra proposed that, in the face of certain countries that irregularize and illegalize those who do not have certain immigration documents, migrants act as if they already were de facto citizens in the country of destination (Mezzadra, 2012). In this sense, it stands out that beyond the focus on migration policy and borders, seen from the point of view of the political-administrative procedures of the nation-State (such as those centered on migratory status in terms of legal documentation authorizing regular stay in the country), the autonomy of migration theory focuses on how individuals relate de facto to the nation-State in which they want to stay.

Thus, Mezzadra points out that “the autonomy of migration approach (...) notes that migrants- documented and undocumented-act as citizens and insists that these migrants are already citizens” (Mezzadra, 2012, p. 160). According to this author, the above attempts to address citizenship from another point of view, not only from the State institutions’ political interest of a certain country to incorporate migrants to their legal and administrative order through various processes. On the contrary, yet keeping in mind the socio-legal and political-administrative context in which they are located, and realizing that they are not citizens in legal terms, the autonomy of migration theory focuses on and highlights the importance of the actions, discourses and strategies of migrants in their interactions with State institutions. On the other hand, it also points to the way in which the various strategies they deploy during their cross-border mobility’s impact on and determine the way in which migration and border policies are shaped (in relation to those who are not legal citizens from the State’s point of view).

Regarding the third dimension, the autonomy of migration approach has made two conceptual developments in terms of the incorrigibility of migrants (^{Picozza & Castillo, 2021}), and especially on migrant struggles (^{De Genova et al., 2014}). In relation to the former, De Genova proposed that, as opposed to visions that only perceive migrations as a result of economic-material processes or as dynamics derived from structural causes, incorrigibility emphasizes and bets on the human freedom of individuals to move (according to their interests and across different international borders), as an expression of the agency of these social subjects (Picozza & Castillo, 2021). In this context, the mobility and strategies of migrants are the manifestation of their incorrigibility in the face of and in relation to particular border regimes and legal frameworks of given national States, so that, for this author, they can be read as practices of civil disobedience. In this sense, “the politics of incorrigibility, then, are radically anti-assimilationist, and also radically open” (Picozza & Castillo, 2021, p. 5).

As for migrant struggles, these can be conceived in different ways and have two related meanings (^{De Genova et al., 2014}). On the one hand, the term refers to relatively organized migrant struggles that explicitly oppose, resist and are in tension with certain border regimes and immigration legal ordinances of nation States, within the framework of restrictive and exclusionary mobility policies (^{Squire, 2011}; ^{Picozza & Castillo, 2021}). Examples include the struggles of the sans-papiers in France and the mobilizations of migrants in the United States in 2006; more recently and only in a certain sense, the migrant caravans of Central Americans and Hondurans.

On the other hand, in scenarios that do not allude to clear and open logics of confrontation and tension based on specific demands vis-à-vis certain States, migrant struggles also refer to actions, practices and discourses of resistance of a daily and local nature, through which migrants implicitly reject and challenge social, State and legal orders that exclude them (^{Mezzadra, 2005}; ^{Papadopoulos et al., 2008}; ^{De Genova et al., 2014}).

These two senses described above show and highlight the diversity of the contexts and processes of cross-border mobility in which migrants are inserted, and from which they deal with different national States (within legal frameworks with rigid and exclusionary categories and legal/administrative procedures determining who is a citizen and who is not); all this within the framework of asymmetrical power relations. In this line of analysis, migrations become dynamics of spatial and temporal mobility charged with tensions and political relations of struggle between migrants, borders and the nation-State.

In the terms of what has been just described, and according to the practices and discourses of certain migrant groups to confront the legal frameworks of immigration policies that do not account for them and nor recognize them as social subjects with particular interests and life projects, ^{Domenech and Boito (2019}) specify that, from autonomy of migration theory, “the potential radicality or disruptive force of some migrant struggles derive from their affirmation of incorrigibility and their refusal to codify themselves, within the conventional framework of the political language of the State” (Domenech & Boito, 2019, p. 164).

Scope, Trials and Challenges of Migration Autonomy

One of the main vantage points of the autonomy of migration approach is its critique of mechanical and monocausal perspectives of economic migration, which start from macro scales and emphasize the role played by economic change (in terms of productive processes, labor markets and labor force demand). It also distances itself from political analyses that approach citizenship and migration from the perspective of the nation-State. Criticism of these perspectives is largely based on the fact that they make migrants invisible as (constitutive and constituent) individuals and active groups of these (mostly forced) human mobilities of a cross-border nature.

Another contribution of the autonomy of migration theory is the central position given to migrants as social subjects and the politicization of their actions (in relation to their diverse strategies to overcome adversity and confront a national State of origin that does not fulfill their needs). As political agents and actors (with specific interests in relation to different nation-States), migrants make up heterogeneous/diverse groups, and hold different practices and discourses of resistance of varying intensities and characteristics (sometimes verging on struggle), within the framework of different orders and moments of their migratory processes and experiences (in the countries of origin and especially of transit and destination).

Along these lines, this approach provides a more comprehensive and deliberately political reading of migration. To this end, it is based on more complex and alternative perspectives on the processes of nation-State construction, as well as on the socio-political and legal productions of borders (and their immigration and border policies), and on the actions and strategies of migrants (as social actors enabled for social agency who make an impact on the border productions and immigration policies of different countries).

It is about rethinking from a different perspective the role of migrants and migrations, not only within the processes of highly precarious mobilities towards certain transit and destination countries (frequently in the global North and framed within certain regions such as Europe and North America), but also, as pointed out by ^{Mezzadra (2012}), within neoliberal capitalism and its production, labor and exploitation dynamics.

Nonetheless, this theoretical position is certainly limited in its scope, and so it is essential to ask when and where it is useful (in what contexts). For example, the autonomy of migration theory would not have much analytical potential in the investigation of migration processes of skilled workers to countries with inclusive immigration policies. Thus, it is clear that not all migrations can be read as the product of social groups in resistance and struggle with clear strategies of agency (in relation to and vis-à-vis certain State institutions).

On the other hand, it is true that there has been a marked geographical selectivity in terms of from which migration processes and which countries and regions this approach has been deployed and developed. The autonomy of migration theory, mainly by scholars from Europe, has been widely used to explain different migration processes (strongly represented in several African countries) to the Europe, as well as different migration struggles in that region, and the processes of securitization and border regimes in Europe and certain countries of that continent in the context of the 21st century (^{Bojadzijev & Karakayali, 2007}; ^{Papadopoulos et al., 2008}; Bojadzijev, 2009; ^{Mezzadra, 2012}; ^{Scheel, 2013a}, ^2013b; ^{De Genova et al., 2014}).

In Germany, several scholars have dealt with a number of issues related to this approach. From exercises on its definition (^{Bojadzijev & Karakayali, 2007}) and that of migrant struggles in the global context (Bojadzijev, 2009), to critical studies on the scope of migration autonomy (^{Scheel, 2013a}) and the relationship between migration and securitization (^{Scheel, 2013b}). In Italy, Mezzadra’s work has been very consistent and comprehensive, covering different topics that range from the relationship between migration and living labor, through migrant struggles and the State (beyond the socio-legal frameworks of citizenship), to the processes of border configuration in contemporary capitalism and the relationships between migration, borders and capital (Mezzadra, 2005, 2011, 2012; Mezzadra & Nielson, 2013).

In the United States, although with less effervescence and intensity than in Europe, and especially from the work of De Genova and some of his collaborators (^{Casas-Cortés et al., 2015}; De Genova & Velasco, 2017), this approach has come to developments of its own, both in theoretical and thematic terms. Thus, it has been made use of to address various lines of work, from (generally irregular) migrations in contemporary contexts of border externalization (Casas- Cortés et al., 2015), to the sociohistorical dynamics of political-legal production of borders and migrant illegality and irregularity (De Genova & Velasco, 2017), as well as the incorrigibility processes of diverse migrant struggles (De Genova et al., 2014; De Genova, 2018; ^{Picozza & Castillo, 2021}).

Autonomy of Migration Theory in Latin America

Other recent works have explored the link between this approach and the occurrences in various latitudes of Latin America within the context of neoliberal capitalism, in terms of (irregular) cross- border mobilities, migrant vindications, securitization of borders, and processes of immigration criminalization (in countries such as Argentina, Brazil, Ecuador and Mexico, and in regions such as Central America, North America and South America) (^{Cordero et al., 2019}).

Particularly in the case of Mexico, being a transit country for Central American irregular migrations, there are few and relatively recent studies that take up this theoretical approach (^{Cordero et al., 2019}). Some research has delved into the relationship between international migration, borders, and processes of violence in the Central America-Mexico migration corridor (^{Varela, 2019}). There are also recent works on Central American populations that, from specific groups of migrants (particularly women) and with specific cross-border mobilities (Central America and Mexico), have studied the complex relationships between migration, work and subjectivity (^{Willers, 2019}).

In the case of other Latin American latitudes, and perceiving the production of space in a multiscale and regional way from the autonomy of migration theory, research has been developed on the opening of routes and trajectories between different countries (Ecuador, Mexico and the United States), in the context of different national and regional policies for the control of cross- border mobility (^{Álvarez Velasco, 2019}). Now, further south, we find studies that have attempted to address the centrality of migrants through their struggles in the South American regional context (^{Domenech & Boito, 2019}).

Autonomy of Migration Theory: Betting on a Different Perspective

One of the axes of this article was to open dialogue on and delve into the autonomy of migration theory. Our aim was not to limit ourselves to those positions that emphasize economic and macro historical-structural causes and processes in the analysis of migrations (such as asymmetric development levels, the deterioration of the productive apparatus and the labor market in the countries of origin, the processes of regional trade integration, and the strong demand for labor in the countries of the global north) (^{Gregory et al., 2009}; ^{Márquez & Delgado, 2012}; ^{Lucas, 2014}; ^{Martin, 2015}).

However, while recognizing the specific weight of historical-structural dynamics in migration, the autonomy of migration approach bets on recognizing the central role of migrant groups in these complex cross-border human mobility dynamics (^{Mezzadra, 2012}; ^{De Genova, 2018}).

This approach has focused mainly on the regions of Western Europe (where its main developments have taken place) and North America (particularly the United States). In this order of ideas, it would be suitable to further work systematically and develop the use of this conceptual framework to address migration processes (and their various related dynamics) in other regions of the world; in the American continent in this specific case. As examples of this, although we already have some works in certain countries of the southern cone, Mexico and Central America (^{Cordero et al., 2019}; ^{Domenech & Boito, 2019}), it is still necessary to delve into research from these perspectives on the migratory processes taking place in our country and that originate in the North of Central America. This region and its precarious populations undertaking adverse cross- border mobilities can also be approached in more detail from the autonomy of migration theory.

Regarding the southern hemisphere, some works in South America (especially in Argentina) have resorted to this approach (^{Domenech & Boito, 2019}), but more studies could be carried out from this perspective in various (origin, transit and destination) countries with important migratory flows (such as Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Venezuela, among others).

However, as previously mentioned, it is also true that this approach faces some challenges and limitations (its development has focused on very specific migrant groups, countries and regions, and so it is still necessary to apply this perspective to other contexts and processes). Still, one of its contributions is to center the discussion around the political condition of migrations from the migrant-border-national State triad, in national, regional and global contexts (and from the broad frameworks of power relations not limited to the reading of the political from governmental institutions, nor only from the nation-State referential).

Thus, this article shows how the autonomy of migration theory contributes in two quite important ways at the political level. On the one hand, it places at the center and makes visible the key actors of migration, taking as the guiding axis of its analysis the condition of migrants as social actors with a capacity for agency beyond mechanistic and monocausal explanations. This makes it possible to postulate that the diverse and heterogeneous groups of migrants, through their strategies, discourses and practices, also influence and determine to a certain extent immigration policies, borders and the role of national States (vis-à-vis migration). On the other hand, and by explicitly investigating the production of borders (and the immigration policies linked to them), the role that the nation-State has played and plays in these processes of cross-border human spatial mobility is addressed to a large extent.

Finally, the autonomy of migration approach not only distances itself from forced generalizations for different migrations, but also acknowledges the diversities and specificities of these (oftentimes irregular) processes of human mobility, and the particularities of their respective contexts. Without denying the fact that there are common processes of different scalar character and socioeconomic order for certain migrant groups, this approach still avoids falling into the temptation of either romanticizing or victimizing migrants. It also avoids unjustified exercises of homogenization/standardization of these groups, or of their mobilities, strategies and agencies.

Translation: Fernando Llanas