This work distinguishes between biographical migration projects and migration aspirations. To fully understand the projects of forced migrants, current studies focus on migration plans. By emphasizing context-sensitive, relational migrant agency and structural conditions, this contribution raises the question of whether choices are possible under present geopolitical agendas. The ForMOVe research project, which methodically analyzes migrant agency and biographical projects, provides the basis for the analysis.
Over the past two decades, forced migration has emerged as a defining global issue. In the Global North, it is often framed as a political tool, which is instrumentalized with mostly security interests and transactional cooperation. In this ‘geopolitical moment’, where geopolitical strategies take center stage and global values are eroding, technology-driven migration and border policies are accompanied by violent opposition to migrants and anti-migrant language. Moreover, the deterioration in statistical estimations of the contextual factors driving forced migration, the dramatic deterioration in relevant indices, and the rise in conflict-related deaths all indicate that forced migration flows will remain high. The actors within migration systems do not merely instrumentalize migration or focus on managing forced migration movements through dehumanizing, technology-based border policies. These actors believe they can easily direct the movements of migrant populations from one place to another. Moreover, while studies conducted over the past decades have revealed that migration has become a self-perpetuating structure following the establishment of transnational networks, and while tightened border policies have been found to expose migrants to more violence, the discourse is increasingly centered on greater control and more forced deportations.
Instead of devoting more effort to the integration of forced migrants, their social inclusion, and the strengthening of coexistence, the return of forced migrants—along with the changing and collapsing regimes in their countries of origin—is now increasingly becoming a priority on the agenda and a policy objective. So, what are the future migration aspirations and autobiographical migration projects of forced migrants? After living for years in their host countries, do forced migrants plan to return to their home countries, remain in their current country, or migrate to another country? What factors form these projects? This text looks at migrants’ own migration projects and argues that migrant agency is a relational form of agency shaped by migration structures, the conditions of their host countries, state policies, and regional dynamics. At the same time, this blog questions approaches focusing solely on migrants’ choices, desires, and their own agency.
Forced migration and biographical migration projects
Forced migration is a complex, often protracted process. It involves people’s daily reactions to circumstances, such as adapting to, compromising with, or resisting them, and it cannot be reduced to a linear progression from origin to destination. Migration encompasses the stages before, during, and after movement, unfolding within shifting social and political constellations rather than fixed situations. Thus, migration is a part of the life course of forced migrants, and we can define forced migration as a disruption of the taken-for-granted everyday life that individuals or groups experience as a result of a perceived significant degree of coercion and life-threatening threat.
As forced migration has become a major global issue, there has been a notable increase in migration studies and academic research. In particular, migrants’ migration aspirations are being extensively studied both theoretically (see: Carling and Schewel, 2017) and empirically (see: Adunts et al., 2026; Ruhnke and Rischke, 2024; Müller Funk, 2023; Schiefer et al., 2023). The literature on forced migration, particularly studies examining secondary migration movements from host countries, often concentrate on specific aspects of migration, such as return intentions or onward migration aspirations. Migration research frequently focuses on mobility and employs mobility-centric analyses. Yet migration aspirations—especially for forced migrants—are not solely about mobility. Immobility can be either an aspiration to stay voluntarily—that is, active immobility—shaped by personal characteristics and structural conditions, or a state of compulsion resulting from waiting and being trapped, which is largely shaped by circumstances.
While „migration aspirations“—a term frequently used in the literature—refer to individuals‘ thoughts and feelings about their potential for mobility, „biographical migration projects“ refer to individuals‘ subjective social scenarios about their future migration. These future scenarios encompass aspirations to return to one’s country of origin, stay in the current country, or migrate to another country, and to a certain extent, they involve planning and the agency in shaping one’s own life projections. Since forced migration is defined as a social action, biographical projects are dynamic and also constantly reconsidered in the course of migration, and reconstructed at critical decision-making moments.
Migration aspirations or biographical migration projects
Both policymakers and migration researchers are interested in migrants’ potential (im)mobility. Current studies primarily focus on understanding migration aspirations. However, is modeling or analyzing migration aspirations alone sufficient for understanding the highly dynamic nature of migration, which is influenced by numerous factors? A research project, ForMOVe, which analyzed forced migration, organized violence, and migrants‘ life strategies, including their biographical projects, by comparing migration trajectories across four key transit hubs (Colombia, Jordan, Mexico, and Türkiye), reveals significant discrepancies between migration biographical projects and migration aspirations. The project employed a mixed research methodology, conducting 1,200 survey interviews, 65 autobiographical interviews, as well as several expert interviews in the above-mentioned countries. The descriptive findings from the survey indicate a pervasive aspiration to move on among individuals currently staying in these countries. A survey of migrants in Colombia and Jordan reveals a notable trend: 58% of the former and 85% of the latter expressed a desire to move to another country. Conversely, the return aspirations remained marginal, particularly in Jordan (2%) and Türkiye (3%).
The findings from the survey conducted in the first quarter of 2024—that is, a few months before the regime in Syria collapsed—which focuses on migration aspirations, might suggest that return from Türkiye and Jordan is unlikely. However, the registered migrants under temporary protection—Syrians in Türkiye alone—decreased by more than half a million between 2024 and 2026. Migration is a social phenomenon that is far more complex than migration aspirations alone. Aspirations to reach another country typically represent a complex mix of emotions, including the sorrow of not having a homeland to return to and disappointment with current conditions. However, biographical migration projects are based on social action. Advanced analyses of the ForMOVe study identified three distinct categories of biographical projects among participants. The first group consisted of migrants who specifically planned to stay in their current country; the second group comprised migrants with uncertain ideas regarding their projects. This group is interpreted as migrants who are dissatisfied with their current conditions and the country they are in but are unable to make biographical plans. The third group consisted of forced migrants who specifically planned to move on. A significant portion of migrants in Latin America (50%) had definite plans to move onward. Meanwhile, 81% of migrants in Jordan and 56% in Türkiye belonged to the second group category, characterized as those without clear biographical migration projects. While no follow-up study has been conducted, I assume that the return migration observed from Türkiye and Jordan was more prevalent among migrants falling within the category of uncertain ideas regarding their migration, and that they were more responsive to changes in structural conditions because they were dissatisfied with their circumstances and had not made detailed plans for their mobility. Among migrants in Türkiye who participated in the survey and planned to stay there, 72%—and, among those who planned to move to another country, 62%—said they had never considered returning to their home countries at the time of the survey; however, among migrants who had no specific plans, only one in two said they had never considered returning to their home country. Plans to stay in the current country were most common in Colombia and Türkiye (36% and 34%, respectively).
If migration aspirations and biographical projects differ so greatly, and if forced migration is an ongoing process in which migration projects are continuously reshaped by several social factors, how can forced migration be modeled or analyzed?
Despite the growing interest in empirical and methodological forced migration studies, due to the multilayered nature of migration, comprehensive models to conceptualize forced migration have yet to be developed. Researchers argue about the voluntary-forced migration binary by claiming all migration involves a spectrum of choices and constraints. The general approach in the conceptualization of forced migration is the adaptation of conceptual frameworks from general migration research. The rationalist approaches depict migrants as calculating individuals who attempt to model their migration choices, desires, and utilities. The other approach is structuralist frameworks that emphasize how regional, global, and socio-political conditions impact migration outcomes. Over a decade, a shift toward agency-centered approaches and a growing body of research prioritizing ‘migrants’ voice’ has challenged these dichotomies. Recent studies question the role of ‘giving voice’ and subjectification and address relational agency.
Conceptualization of forced migration: Is choice possible?
The ForMOVe research proposed a new model to balance the dichotomies in the conceptualization of forced migration. According to the proposal, migrants’ biographical projects are dynamically reshaped by their social entanglements (V), experiences (E), socialization (S), preferences (P), expectations (E), and resources (R). The VESPER framework analyzes how forced migrants exercise their agency within structural conditions, such as regional dynamics, migration policies, and broader socio-political patterns. The VESPER component of this model is shaped by the social context in which migrants are situated and exhibits a structure similar to that of a rotating turbine. While VESPER analyses provide detailed perspectives on the interaction of several elements in social action decisions, this blog text aims to highlight shifts in biographical projects during the migration process. The 65 qualitative interviews of the research demonstrate the relevance of the VESPER elements in determining biographical projects. However, cases like that of Afghan migrant Ava exemplify structural constraints, intersectional vulnerabilities, and a sense of being trapped.
Ava experienced various forms of violence along her migration journey, that began in 2021, following the U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan. During the interview, she was a young woman who had recently given birth and had stayed some time in a removal center before obtaining a two-year residence permit with the services of a lawyer. Ava’s narrative begins with a rupture in her living conditions. In 2021, following the Taliban’s seizure of power, she left her country. However, because the embassies are closed, she and her relatives are forced to flee to Iran. In Iran, they extended their visas twice, but their applications for residence permits were repeatedly rejected. When their short-term stay visas were not extended, they began their journey to Türkiye with smugglers. In Ava’s narrative, we learn that she has a husband living in Germany, but there is no indication that her intention in leaving Afghanistan was to reach Germany. In fact, she made efforts to stay in Iran and made applications there. We understand that her migration trajectory was shaped by the decisions of the migration regime in Iran. Her narrative includes details of the flight she took with smugglers, her return to Iran, her regrets, and various forms of violence she endured. At this stage, Ava and her relatives had no choice or the means to exercise their own agency.
During her stay in Türkiye, she struggled with housing problems and inability to meet her basic needs, and she spent nine days in a removal center. Meanwhile, Ava was distancing herself from her relatives—who made up her social network—due to family issues. Mental health problems emerged, and these health issues worsened further when she became pregnant. When she applied to the German Embassy to join her husband, she was not classified as a forced migrant. She was told that she could not obtain a visa without first learning German, a common requirement for family reunification.
Ava’s narrative demonstrates how the biographical projects dynamically shift along her migration course. It also reveals that her own migration projects consist of limited agency shaped by specific contexts. Her experiences while attempting to obtain legal status during her stay in Iran and Türkiye triggered her aspiration to migrate to Germany as soon as possible to reunite with her husband, her experiences during her applications at the German Embassy, however, triggered feelings of uncertainty and helplessness. Ava was a migrant grappling with multi-layered deprivations, limited legal status, shifting migration and asylum policies in desired destination, and restricted rights.
Ava’s narrative and every stage of her trajectory were shaped by the responses she had to give to the social, political, and economic conditions of the countries she was in—or the destination countries she was trying to reach—from the very moment she was forced to make the decision to migrate until the moment she was waiting to move to Germany. Thus, Ava’s projection was shaped not so much by her choices but by the responses she gave to the existing conditions.
These findings reveal that the migration potential of forced migrants is not solely shaped by changing geopolitical conditions or domestic and foreign policy strategies. Nor is it a phenomenon solely shaped by the migrants themselves. Biographical projects are not fixed plans and are bound by conditions.