Throughout the entirety of Hotspots: What They Mean by Didier Fassin , I couldn’t help but take note of the language used to describe migrants and refugees from the perspective of receiving European countries. The overall tone was rather negative, very much “othering” those who migrate to Europe from the continent of Africa.  Fassin, uses the word burden to describe the action of taking in displaced persons , implying that they are a problem, a misfortunate that Europe has to deal with. Additionally, it is made very clear that the reason hotspots exist and the European Union has place in the “crisis” it to take advantage of the economic gain. As practical as it may seem, it’s disturbing that the only circumstance in which granting asylum or hosting immigrants seems like an option, is one in which the host country (or countries) benefit. These are people who are fleeing Africa because they seek a better life for themselves, because they would die otherwise, because they have no other choice. And these are people who are dehumanized and often overlooked unless their suffering presents an advantage or some sort of profit. Take the Geneva Convention for example. “After the ratification of the Geneva Convention, the motivation [to grant asylum] was… due to the need for a workforce to rebuild European countries after the Second World War.” Outside of living up to these expectations, migrants were considered undesirable.

Ultimately human beings are labeled as migrants who are labeled as a strain or a burden, and this is where negative stereotypes and generalizations begin. I strongly believe that motivations control the way that countries and institutions deal with migrants. If people want to change the way these structure treat migrants, dismantling these harmful and exploitive intentions is a good place to start.