Beyond Irregularity: Categorizing Gambian Youth Migration through Vulnerability and Developmental Loss

Beyond Irregularity: Categorizing Gambian Youth Migration through Vulnerability and Developmental Loss | Research Square window.SnipcartSettings = { analytics: { enabled: false } }; (function() { var accessVector = localStorage.getItem('access_vector') || ''; window.dataLayer = window.dataLayer || []; if (accessVector) { window.dataLayer.push({ user: { profile: { profileInfo: { snid: accessVector } } } }); } })(); (function(w,d,s,l,i){w[l]=w[l]||[];w[l].push({'gtm.start':new Date().getTime(),event:'gtm.js'});var f=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],j=d.createElement(s),dl=l!='dataLayer'?'&l='+l:'';j.async=true;j.src='https://www.googletagmanager.com/gtm.js?id='+i+dl;f.parentNode.insertBefore(j,f);})(window,document,'script','dataLayer','GTM-K279D39R'); Browse Preprints In Review Journals COVID-19 Preprints AJE Video Bytes Research Tools Research Promotion AJE Professional Editing AJE Rubriq About Preprint Platform In Review Editorial Policies Our Team Advisory Board Help Center Sign In Submit a Preprint Cite Share Download PDF Research Article Beyond Irregularity: Categorizing Gambian Youth Migration through Vulnerability and Developmental Loss Sambou Darboe This is a preprint; it has not been peer reviewed by a journal. https://doi.org/ 10.21203/rs.3.rs-8619567/v1 This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License Status: Posted Version 1 posted You are reading this latest preprint version Abstract In 2025 Gambian migration activists reported 893 deaths and 777 disappearances among youths attempting irregular migration to Europe via the “backway.” This article uses that tragedy as an empirical lens to interrogate how scholarly and policy categories for “people on the move” shape humanitarian responses, governance priorities, and public narratives. Drawing on activist reports, media coverage, policy documents, and comparative scholarship from Senegal and Nigeria, the study employs qualitative content analysis and an aspirations–capabilities framework to examine how labels—such as “irregular migrant,” “missing,” “returnee,” and “victim”—capture or obscure lived realities. Findings show that legal-status categories often privilege deterrence, while vulnerability- and development-oriented classifications better align with protection, reintegration, and human-capital recovery. The paper proposes a multi-dimensional taxonomy that integrates legal status, vulnerability profile, social embeddedness , and developmental impact to guide research, policy, and programming. The taxonomy aims to reframe migration governance toward dignity and opportunity for Gambian youth and to improve comparative analysis across West Africa. Irregular migration categorization Gambian youth human capital loss civil society activism migration governance West Africa Figures Figure 1 Introduction Irregular migration from West Africa to Europe has become one of the most pressing concerns for scholars, policymakers, and civil society actors over the past two decades. The phenomenon is not merely a matter of border crossings or demographic flows; it is a deeply human process shaped by aspirations, vulnerabilities, and structural constraints. The Gambian crisis of 2025—marked by hundreds of deaths and disappearances along the so-called “backway” routes through the Atlantic, the Sahara and across the Mediterranean—exposes the profound stakes behind classificatory practices. When young Gambians perish or disappear in pursuit of mobility, the categories used to describe them—whether “irregular migrant,” “missing,” “returnee,” or “victim”—carry consequences that extend far beyond semantics. Categories matter: they determine which actors respond, which resources are mobilized, and which narratives gain traction in public discourse. The Gambian case is emblematic of broader West African dynamics. Across the region, youth migration is driven by economic precarity, limited legal mobility, and strong familial expectations around remittances. Yet the ways in which migrants are categorized vary significantly across contexts. In Senegal, migration is often embedded in generational traditions and narrated through civil society activism, while in Nigeria, larger economic scale and diaspora networks produce more diverse mobility pathways. These comparative differences underscore the importance of examining not only the drivers of migration but also the classificatory systems through which migration is understood and governed. Existing scholarship has shown that categories are not neutral descriptors but normative instruments that shape governance priorities and humanitarian responses. Legal-status classifications, for example, privilege deterrence and control, often equating irregularity with criminality. Vulnerability-oriented categories, by contrast, foreground risk profiles such as age, trauma, or unaccompanied status, aligning more closely with humanitarian imperatives. Developmental framings highlight the consequences of migration for households, communities, and national economies, emphasizing human capital loss or remittance dependence. Each of these classificatory strands carries distinct implications for policy and practice, yet they are rarely integrated into a coherent framework. This manuscript reframes the Gambian case to ask how categories used in migration studies and policy shape responses to youth mobility and mortality, and how alternative taxonomies might better serve protection, reintegration, and development objectives. By proposing a multi-dimensional taxonomy that integrates legal status, vulnerability profile, social embeddedness, and developmental impact, the study seeks to move beyond reductionist labels and toward a more holistic understanding of migration governance. The taxonomy is not only a conceptual innovation but also a practical tool for guiding humanitarian action, development programming, and policy design. Literature Review Scholarship on migration categorization has long emphasized that labels such as refugee , asylum seeker , irregular migrant , and economic migrant are not neutral descriptors but normative constructs with significant operational consequences. These categories shape access to legal entitlements, humanitarian priorities, and public discourse, often determining who is seen as deserving of protection and who is framed as a threat (Carling and Hernández Carretero 2011; de Haas 2008 ). The act of categorization itself is deeply political, reflecting institutional interests and governance logics rather than the lived realities of migrants. Scholars argue that such classifications can obscure vulnerabilities and aspirations, privileging legal status over social drivers and structural constraints. The aspirations–capabilities framework provides a useful analytic lens for interrogating these dynamics. It posits that migration outcomes reflect both the desire to move and the means to do so, highlighting the interplay between individual aspirations and structural opportunities or barriers (de Haas 2021 ). Within this framework, categories that emphasize legality often fail to capture the social obligations, vulnerabilities, and community expectations that shape mobility decisions. For instance, youth migration in West Africa is frequently driven not only by economic precarity but also by familial expectations around remittances and social obligations to contribute to household survival. Comparative evidence from West Africa underscores both shared drivers and contextual variation. Adepoju ( 2010 ) identifies economic precarity, limited legal mobility, and strong social obligations to remit as common pressures across the region. In The Gambia, high youth unemployment and entrenched familial expectations intensify migration pressures, with remittances framed as both a survival strategy and a marker of social status (Cham 2019 ; Kebbeh 2020 ; Njie 2022 ). Senegalese migration patterns reveal generational traditions in certain regions, where mobility is embedded in cultural narratives of adulthood and success, and where civil society networks play a stronger role in shaping discourse and advocacy (Gaibazzi 2015 ; Lahlou 2021 ; Nyamnjoh 2010 ). Nigeria’s larger economy and extensive diaspora networks produce more diverse mobility pathways, ranging from irregular migration to Europe to legal labor migration and educational opportunities abroad (Cham 2022 ; Carling and Talleraas 2016 ). These comparative insights highlight how scale, economic structure, and diaspora embeddedness mediate migration experiences and outcomes. Civil society activism has emerged across these contexts as a counter-narrative to romanticized migration stories. Activists document tragedies, challenge deterrence-oriented policies, and advocate for reintegration and protection. Yet their capacity to alter structural drivers remains constrained by entrenched economic precarity, limited legal pathways, and governance frameworks that prioritize control over opportunity (Njie 2022 ; Lahlou 2021 ). The tension between activism and structural realities underscores the need for more nuanced classification systems that capture vulnerability, social embeddedness, and developmental consequences. The literature also critiques deterrence-oriented policy frameworks that equate irregularity with criminality and prioritize border control over protection and opportunity. Carling and Hernández Carretero (2011) and Carling and Talleraas ( 2016 ) argue that such frameworks reinforce exclusionary narratives and undermine humanitarian imperatives. The International Organization for Migration (IOM 2023) similarly notes that deterrence-first approaches often fail to address root causes, instead producing cycles of risk and vulnerability. Scholars call for classification systems that move beyond legality to incorporate multidimensional markers of vulnerability, social ties, and developmental impact (de Haas 2008 ; de Haas 2021 ; Adepoju 2010 ). Recent debates in migration studies further emphasize the importance of comparative and interdisciplinary approaches. Scholars highlight that categories travel across policy domains, shaping not only migration governance but also development planning, humanitarian programming, and public discourse. Comparative migration research demonstrates that while irregular migration is often framed as a crisis in small states such as The Gambia, larger economies like Nigeria negotiate irregularity within broader labor market and diaspora dynamics. This variation underscores the need for taxonomies that can capture both micro-level vulnerabilities and macro-level developmental consequences. In sum, the literature reveals that migration categorization is both a normative and operational practice with profound consequences. Existing frameworks often privilege legal status and deterrence, obscuring vulnerabilities and developmental impacts. Comparative evidence from West Africa highlights shared drivers of migration alongside contextual variation, while civil society activism underscores the need for more humane and effective responses. Scholars increasingly call for classification systems that integrate legal, social, and developmental dimensions, providing a foundation for taxonomies that can reframe migration governance toward dignity, opportunity, and human capital recovery. Methodology This study employs a qualitative content analysis design to interrogate how actors label people on the move and the consequences of those labels. Qualitative content analysis is particularly suited to examining the normative and operational dimensions of categorization, as it allows for systematic coding of textual materials while remaining attentive to context, meaning, and discourse. The approach emphasizes interpretation rather than quantification, enabling the study to capture how migration categories are constructed, contested, and deployed across different domains. Research Design The research design synthesizes four categories of sources: activist and NGO reports, national and regional policy documents, media coverage, and comparative academic literature. This multi-source strategy ensures that the analysis reflects both grassroots perspectives and institutional framings, while also situating Gambian experiences within broader West African debates. By triangulating across these domains, the study seeks to identify recurring motifs and divergences in how migration categories are articulated and operationalized. Source Selection Primary materials include activist reports documenting mortality and disappearance figures during the 2025 Gambian backway crisis, national policy statements on migration governance, media accounts that narrated the crisis and its aftermath, and comparative studies from Senegal and Nigeria. Selection criteria prioritized sources that foregrounded lived experience, policy framing, and civil society perspectives. Activist reports were chosen for their immediacy and moral urgency, policy documents for their articulation of governance priorities, media coverage for its role in shaping public narratives, and academic literature for its comparative and conceptual insights. This purposive sampling strategy was designed to capture both the empirical realities of migration tragedies and the discursive frameworks through which they are understood. Analytical Approach The analysis proceeded through thematic coding, identifying recurring motifs such as legal status labels, vulnerability narratives, social obligations (particularly remittance expectations), developmental framing (human capital loss), and civil society reclassification efforts. Coding was iterative, beginning with open coding to capture emergent themes and progressing to axial coding to refine categories and identify relationships among them. Triangulation across source types was employed to enhance validity, ensuring that findings were not artifacts of a single perspective but reflected broader patterns across activist, policy, media, and scholarly domains. The aspirations–capabilities framework provided an interpretive lens, guiding attention to how categories privilege certain dimensions (e.g., legality) while obscuring others (e.g., social embeddedness or vulnerability). Ethical Considerations Ethical safeguards were central to the research process. The study deliberately avoids sensationalism, respecting the dignity of victims and foregrounding structural conditions rather than reducing lives to statistics. Mortality and disappearance figures are presented as reported by activists and media, with explicit acknowledgment of source provenance to avoid claims of independent verification. The analysis is careful not to reproduce stigmatizing narratives, instead emphasizing the systemic drivers of irregular migration and the need for more humane categorization frameworks. Limitations Several limitations must be acknowledged. Activist and media reports may carry advocacy emphases, framing migration tragedies in ways that highlight particular vulnerabilities or policy failures. Policy documents may reflect aspirational rhetoric rather than operational realities, and academic literature may privilege comparative generalizations over local specificity. The qualitative design does not produce generalizable prevalence estimates; rather, its strength lies in offering conceptual and operational insights into categorization practices and their consequences. The study’s reliance on secondary sources also means that findings are mediated through the perspectives of those who produced the materials, underscoring the importance of triangulation and critical interpretation. Reflexivity Finally, the research process was guided by reflexivity, recognizing the positionality of the researcher and the interpretive nature of qualitative analysis. The decision to foreground activist reports reflects a commitment to valuing grassroots knowledge and civil society perspectives, while the comparative framing acknowledges the importance of situating Gambian experiences within regional dynamics. Reflexivity also entails awareness of the potential influence of scholarly categories themselves, reinforcing the study’s central argument that classification systems are not neutral but normative instruments with real-world consequences. Findings Labels and Their Operational Consequences The content analysis revealed four dominant labels circulating across activist reports, policy documents, media coverage, and academic literature. Each label carries distinct operational consequences, shaping governance priorities, humanitarian interventions, and public narratives. Irregular migrant - This legal status label foregrounds transgression of migration rules and tends to trigger deterrence-focused responses such as border enforcement, anti-smuggling operations, and criminalization narratives. While useful for legal classification, it often obscures structural drivers such as unemployment, remittance obligations, and limited legal pathways. The emphasis on irregularity reinforces securitized framings, privileging control over protection and development. Missing / disappeared - Humanitarian actors and media deploy this label to emphasize urgency, mobilizing search, rescue, and family tracing efforts. While effective in drawing attention to immediate humanitarian needs, framing mobility primarily as disappearance can depoliticize structural drivers such as unemployment, governance failures, and regional inequalities. It risks narrowing responses to crisis management rather than addressing reintegration and long-term development. Returnee - Applied to those who come back, this label facilitates reintegration programming and donor-funded initiatives. However, it often masks stigma and unmet needs. “Returnee” conflates voluntary and forced returns, obscuring heterogeneity in vulnerability and reintegration capacity. Some returnees face community rejection or economic marginalization, while others leverage diaspora networks for reintegration. The label’s ambiguity complicates policy design and program targeting. Victim - This protective label mobilizes assistance and sympathy, foregrounding humanitarian imperatives. Yet it can strip agency and obscure the economic rationales that informed migration decisions. Overreliance on victimhood risks paternalistic interventions that fail to address structural drivers such as unemployment, remittance dependence, and governance gaps. Victimhood narratives, while powerful in advocacy, may inadvertently reinforce dependency framings. Youth Vulnerability as a Cross-Cutting Category Youth status emerged as a critical cross-cutting category. It intersects with unemployment, social obligations, and aspirational narratives, shaping both mobility decisions and outcomes. A youth-centered category captures risk profiles such as: Unaccompanied or poorly networked youths lacking protective social ties. Those with high remittance obligations, facing moral and economic pressure to migrate. Youths excluded from education or employment opportunities, whose aspirations collide with structural constraints. This category better aligns with protection needs (psychosocial support, family tracing) and development interventions (skills training, job placement). It highlights the need for integrated programming that addresses both immediate vulnerabilities and long-term aspirations. Social Embeddedness and Remittance Obligations Social embeddedness—family expectations, community norms, and diaspora ties—shapes both the decision to migrate and the consequences of loss. Remittance obligations create moral and economic pressure that classification by legal status alone fails to capture. A social embeddedness axis in any taxonomy helps identify households at risk of economic shock following deaths or disappearances. It also underscores the relational nature of migration, where individual decisions are embedded in collective survival strategies. Developmental Impact and Human Capital Loss Counting deaths and disappearances as isolated tragedies misses the systemic depletion of human capital. The Gambian losses represent not only immediate humanitarian needs but also long-term developmental costs: Lost labor force participation. Interrupted education trajectories. Diminished local leadership and community resilience. A developmental impact category links mobility outcomes to national progress, helping policymakers prioritize investments in human capital recovery. This framing situates migration not only as a humanitarian crisis but also as a developmental challenge, requiring integrated responses across sectors. Civil Society Reclassification Efforts Gambian NGOs and activists actively reframe young migrants as community members under duress rather than criminals. Their narratives emphasize reintegration, dignity, and opportunity, challenging deterrence-oriented state and international frames. Civil society efforts highlight agency, resilience, and the need for structural reforms. However, these initiatives face resource constraints, donor dependency, and structural barriers that limit scale. Despite these challenges, civil society activism remains a critical counter-narrative, pushing migration governance toward more humane and community-centered approaches. Synthesis of Findings Taken together, the findings demonstrate that prevailing labels—irregular migrant, missing/disappeared, returnee, victim—carry operational consequences that shape responses but often obscure structural drivers. Youth vulnerability, social embeddedness, and developmental impact emerge as cross-cutting dimensions that demand integration into categorization frameworks. Civil society activism provides alternative narratives but requires greater institutional support to scale. The proposed multi-dimensional taxonomy responds to these gaps by integrating legal status, vulnerability profile, social embeddedness, and developmental impact. This taxonomy offers a more holistic framework for migration governance, aligning humanitarian protection with developmental priorities and community resilience. The findings demonstrate that prevailing labels— irregular migrant , missing/disappeared , returnee , and victim —carry operational consequences that shape governance responses but often obscure structural drivers of youth mobility. Cross-cutting dimensions such as youth vulnerability, social embeddedness, and developmental impact reveal the inadequacy of single-axis classifications. Civil society activism offers alternative framings, yet remains constrained by resources and institutional barriers. Discussion The tragic reports of 893 deaths and 777 disappearances among Gambian youths attempting irregular migration to Europe in 2025 provide a sobering empirical lens through which to interrogate the categories used to describe people on the move. These categories—whether legal, humanitarian, or developmental—are not neutral descriptors but active instruments that shape governance priorities, humanitarian responses, and public narratives. The analysis presented here demonstrates that the prevailing reliance on legal-status classifications privileges deterrence and control, often at the expense of protection and reintegration. By contrast, vulnerability- and development-oriented classifications better align with humanitarian imperatives and the recovery of human capital. Building on these insights, the paper proposes a multi-dimensional taxonomy that integrates legal status, vulnerability profile, social embeddedness, and developmental impact (see Fig. 1 ). This taxonomy aims to reframe migration governance toward dignity and opportunity for Gambian youth, while also offering a comparative tool for analyzing migration across West Africa. The taxonomy provides a structured way of locating individuals within a matrix that captures both their immediate circumstances and their broader social and economic implications. Legal status remains an indispensable axis, distinguishing between regular migrants, irregular migrants, asylum seekers, and stateless persons. These distinctions are necessary for determining rights, procedures, and access to services. Yet legal status alone is insufficient. Vulnerability profiles, ranging from high to low, capture dimensions such as age, unaccompanied status, trauma, health needs, and economic precarity. Social embeddedness, whether strong familial ties, weak ties, or diaspora networks, identifies the extent to which migrants are supported by social capital and remittance obligations. Developmental impacts - ranging from high human capital loss to remittance dependence or neutral effects, links individual outcomes to community and national development trajectories. Interpreting migration through this taxonomy reveals how different combinations of attributes generate distinct policy priorities. An unaccompanied youth with weak ties and high developmental impact, for example, would be prioritized for urgent protection, psychosocial support, and reintegration programming. Skilled irregular migrants with low vulnerability but strong diaspora networks may be better served through labor mobility pathways and recognition of skills. Refugees and asylum seekers with high vulnerability and regular status demand sustained humanitarian assistance and legal protection. These examples illustrate how the taxonomy avoids reductionism by recognizing the interplay between individual vulnerabilities, social embeddedness, and developmental consequences. The implications for policy are significant. Humanitarian actors can use vulnerability profiles to prioritize search and rescue, psychosocial care, and family tracing. Development agencies can map developmental impacts to design human capital recovery programs such as education catch-up, vocational training, and local employment initiatives. A multi-dimensional classification tool locating individuals along Legal Status , (Regular → Irregular) and Vulnerability Profile (Low → High) Quadrants illustrate typical cases and policy priorities: Top-right (High vulnerability, Irregular) highlights unaccompanied high-risk youth requiring urgent protection and reintegration; Top-left (High vulnerability, Regular) highlights refugees/asylum seekers needing protection and services; Bottom-right (Low vulnerability, Irregular) highlights skilled irregular mobility and labor pathway potential; Bottom-left (Low vulnerability, Regular) highlights standard legal labor mobility. Social Embeddedness is encoded with circle icons (large solid = strong ties; medium dotted = diaspora-networked; small dashed = weak ties). Developmental Impact is shown by quadrant shading and hatch patterns (deep warm tone + dense hatch = high human-capital loss; medium tone + medium hatch = remittance-dependent households; pale tone = neutral). Source Author’s conceptualization based on activist reports, media, policy documents, and comparative scholarship (The Gambia, Senegal, Nigeria). National governments and regional bodies, particularly ECOWAS, can harmonize classification systems to inform reintegration strategies, anti-smuggling measures, and legal mobility pathways. International partners, meanwhile, are encouraged to move beyond deterrence-first approaches and toward partnerships that expand legal mobility, labor migration schemes, and development investments addressing root causes of irregular migration. Operationalizing this taxonomy requires improved data systems capable of capturing non-legal dimensions such as household remittance dependence, social ties, and vulnerability markers. Surveys, community registries, and civil society reporting can feed into shared databases that inform programming, though ethical safeguards must be embedded to protect privacy and prevent stigmatization. Without such safeguards, classifications risk reproducing exclusionary practices or reinforcing stereotypes. The challenge is to ensure that categories serve as tools for protection and empowerment rather than instruments of control. Future research should pursue longitudinal and mixed-methods studies to trace how migration narratives evolve over time, quantify developmental impacts, and evaluate the taxonomy’s utility in program design. Comparative work across small states such as The Gambia and larger economies such as Nigeria will clarify how scale, governance capacity, and diaspora networks mediate outcomes. Interdisciplinary studies that integrate geography, political science, sociology, and development economics can enrich the taxonomy’s applicability across diverse contexts. Such research would also help to identify how categories travel across policy domains, shaping not only migration governance but also development planning, humanitarian programming, and public discourse. The broader significance of this taxonomy lies in its potential to reframe migration governance toward dignity and opportunity. By integrating legal, social, and developmental dimensions, it provides a conceptual tool for comparative analysis across West Africa and beyond. It encourages a shift from viewing migrants primarily as subjects of control to recognizing them as agents whose aspirations, vulnerabilities, and contributions shape both local communities and national development trajectories. In the Gambian context, where irregular migration has become a defining feature of youth aspirations and tragedies, such a reframing is urgently needed. The taxonomy offers a way to move beyond narratives of crisis and deterrence, toward policies that invest in human capital, expand legal mobility, and strengthen social support systems. Moreover, the taxonomy has implications for how migration is narrated in public discourse. Labels such as “irregular migrant,” “missing,” “returnee,” or “victim” carry powerful connotations that shape how societies perceive and respond to migration. By offering a more nuanced classification, the taxonomy challenges simplistic narratives and opens space for more empathetic and constructive engagement. It highlights the need to see migrants not only through the lens of legality but also through their vulnerabilities, social ties, and developmental impacts. This shift in narrative is essential for building public support for policies that prioritize dignity and opportunity. In comparative perspective, the taxonomy also facilitates cross-national analysis. Migration experiences in Senegal and Nigeria, for example, reveal both similarities and differences in how categories are deployed and how they shape governance responses. Senegal’s activist networks emphasize vulnerability and protection, while Nigeria’s larger economy and diaspora networks highlight developmental impacts and labor mobility pathways. By providing a common framework, the taxonomy enables scholars and policymakers to compare across contexts, identify best practices, and adapt strategies to local realities. Ultimately, the taxonomy is not merely a conceptual innovation but a practical tool for guiding research, policy, and programming. Its multi-dimensional approach aligns with the complexity of migration experiences and offers a pathway for more humane and effective governance. In the Gambian case, where the costs of irregular migration are measured in lives lost and futures disrupted, such a tool is urgently needed. By integrating legal status, vulnerability, social embeddedness, and developmental impact, the taxonomy provides a foundation for policies that protect, empower, and invest in youth. It reframes migration governance from deterrence and control toward dignity and opportunity, offering hope for a more just and sustainable future. Conclusion This study has examined the tragic realities of Gambian youth irregular migration through the lens of activist reports, media coverage, and comparative scholarship, and has interrogated how categories such as “irregular migrant,” “missing,” “returnee,” and “victim” shape governance priorities, humanitarian responses, and public narratives. The analysis demonstrates that legal-status categories, while necessary for rights and procedures, often privilege deterrence and control, whereas vulnerability- and development-oriented classifications better align with protection, reintegration, and human capital recovery. To address these limitations, the paper has proposed a multi-dimensional taxonomy that integrates legal status, vulnerability profile, social embeddedness, and developmental impact. This framework provides a more holistic and context-sensitive tool for locating individuals within migration systems and for guiding tailored responses. By situating migrants within this matrix, policymakers and practitioners can move beyond reductionist labels and design interventions that reflect both individual circumstances and broader developmental consequences. The taxonomy carries important implications for humanitarian actors, development agencies, national governments, and international partners. It encourages humanitarian agencies to prioritize vulnerability in search, rescue, and psychosocial care; development agencies to map human capital impacts for reintegration programming; governments and regional bodies to harmonize classification systems for reintegration and legal mobility pathways; and international partners to shift from deterrence-first approaches toward investments in opportunity and dignity. Operationalizing this taxonomy will require improved data systems that capture non-legal dimensions of migration, alongside ethical safeguards to protect privacy and prevent stigmatization. Future research should pursue longitudinal and comparative studies to evaluate the taxonomy’s utility, particularly across small states such as The Gambia and larger economies such as Nigeria, where scale and diaspora networks mediate outcomes. Ultimately, the taxonomy reframes migration governance away from narrow deterrence and toward dignity, opportunity, and developmental recovery. By integrating legal, social, and developmental dimensions, it offers a conceptual and practical tool for comparative migration studies and provides a pathway for aligning humanitarian responses with long-term development strategies. In doing so, it contributes to a broader reimagining of migration governance in West Africa—one that recognizes migrants not only as subjects of control but as agents whose aspirations, vulnerabilities, and contributions shape the future of their communities and nations. Declarations Author Contribution The author conceptualized the study, designed the taxonomy framework, and conducted the qualitative content analysis drawing on activist reports, media coverage, policy documents, and comparative scholarship from The Gambia, Senegal, and Nigeria. All sections of the manuscript—including the abstract, discussion, and conclusion—were drafted and revised by the author, who also prepared the figures and tables to illustrate the proposed taxonomy. Acknowledgement The author gratefully acknowledges Gambian migration activists and civil society organizations whose documentation provided the empirical foundation for this research, colleagues in the Geography Unit at the University of The Gambia for feedback on early drafts, and comparative migration scholars in Senegal and Nigeria whose work informed the cross-national perspective. References Adepoju, A. (2010). Fostering free movement of persons in West Africa: Achievements, constraints, and prospects for intraregional migration . Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung. (PDF available). Carling, J., & Talleraas, C. (2016). Root causes and drivers of migration: Implications for humanitarian efforts and development cooperation . PRIO Paper. Peace Research Institute Oslo. (PRIO report; PDF available). Carling, J., & Hernández-Carretero, M. (2011). Protecting Europe and protecting migrants? Strategies for managing unauthorised migration from Africa. The British Journal of Politics and International Relations , 13 (1), 42–58. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-856X.2010.00440.x (doi.orgin Bing). Cham, T. (2019). Reducing irregular migration: Experiment and replication files — The Gambia. World Bank Microdata Catalog . https://doi.org/10.48529/5zn5-xr45 Cham, T. (2022). Awareness and perception of intending and returned migrants on the dangers of irregular migration in Nigeria . National Bureau of Statistics. (Report; PDF available). de Haas, H. (2008). Migration and development: A theoretical perspective. International Migration Institute Working Paper 9. (Working paper; PDF available). de Haas, H. (2021). A theory of migration: The aspirations–capabilities framework. Comparative Migration Studies , 9 , 8. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40878-020-00210-4 (doi.orgin Bing). Gaibazzi, P. (2015). Bush Bound: Young Men and Rural Permanence in Migrant West Africa (p. 232). Berghahn Books. https://doi.org/10.3167/9781782387794 Government of The Gambia. (2025). National policy on migration 2020–2030. Policy Repository . Policy document; URL). IOM (International Organization for Migration) (2023). Irregular migration routes to Europe: Western Africa — Atlantic route, January–June 2023. DTM report. (Report; PDF available via IOM DTM). Kebbeh, C. (2020). Snapshot of remittance flows to The Gambia, 2010–2019. GK Partners. (Policy brief; PDF available). Kerr Fatou. (2025). Migration activist reports 893 Gambian deaths in 2025, majority linked to backway route. Kerr Fatou , 5 January 2025. (News article; URL). Lahlou, M. (2021). Migration in Senegal: Societal visions instead of criminalisation and rhetoric of deterrence . Heinrich-Böll-Stiftung. (Policy brief; URL). Mabogunje, A. L. (1970). Systems approach to a theory of rural–urban migration. Geographical Analysis , 2 (1), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1538-4632.1970.tb00140.x (doi.orgin Bing). Njie, M. (2022). The Gambia migration profile . United Nations Network on Migration. (GFMD / Migration Profile; PDF available. Nyamnjoh, H. M. (2010). We Get Nothing from Fishing: Fishing for Boat Opportunities Amongst Senegalese Fisher Migrants. Bamenda, Cameroon: Langaa RPCIG. 234 pp. (Project MUSE entry). The Alkamba Times (2025). Nearly 900 Gambian youths lost to perilous ‘backway’ migration in 2025, activists claim. The Alkamba Times , 5 January 2025. (News article; URL). UNDP (United Nations Development Programme). (1994). Human Development Report 1994: New Dimensions of Human Security . Oxford University Press. (Report/book). Additional Declarations No competing interests reported. Cite Share Download PDF Status: Posted Version 1 posted You are reading this latest preprint version Research Square lets you share your work early, gain feedback from the community, and start making changes to your manuscript prior to peer review in a journal. As a division of Research Square Company, we’re committed to making research communication faster, fairer, and more useful. We do this by developing innovative software and high quality services for the global research community. Our growing team is made up of researchers and industry professionals working together to solve the most critical problems facing scientific publishing. Also discoverable on Platform About Our Team In Review Editorial Policies Advisory Board Help Center Resources Author Services Accessibility API Access RSS feed Manage Cookie Preferences © Research Square 2026 | ISSN 2693-5015 (online) Privacy Policy Terms of Service Do Not Sell My Personal Information {"props":{"pageProps":{"initialData":{"identity":"rs-8619567","acceptedTermsAndConditions":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"archivedVersions":[],"articleType":"Research Article","associatedPublications":[],"authors":[{"id":584910807,"identity":"280c3f18-9a95-4464-8b29-a3856beeeffa","order_by":0,"name":"Sambou Darboe","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"University of the Gambia","correspondingAuthor":true,"prefix":"","firstName":"Sambou","middleName":"","lastName":"Darboe","suffix":""}],"badges":[],"createdAt":"2026-01-16 13:33:07","currentVersionCode":1,"declarations":"","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-8619567/v1","doiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-8619567/v1","draftVersion":[],"editorialEvents":[],"editorialNote":"","failedWorkflow":false,"files":[{"id":101938841,"identity":"8c2d26b6-565a-4e3c-a5fd-b0649e6a22f3","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-02-05 08:59:55","extension":"png","order_by":1,"title":"Figure 1","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":809169,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eTaxonomy Matrix for Categorizing People on the Move\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eA multi‑dimensional classification tool locating individuals along \u003cstrong\u003eLegal Status,\u003c/strong\u003e (Regular → Irregular) and \u003cstrong\u003eVulnerability Profile\u003c/strong\u003e (Low → High)\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"floatimage1.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8619567/v1/26ce8342dee366b6e930308d.png"},{"id":101943522,"identity":"cfd94ae5-5bff-4a4d-996a-c348cb778181","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-02-05 09:42:12","extension":"pdf","order_by":0,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"manuscript-pdf","size":1136415,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"manuscript.pdf","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8619567/v1/8bb97312-4578-4235-8b6a-b19932e9cc67.pdf"}],"financialInterests":"No competing interests reported.","formattedTitle":"Beyond Irregularity: Categorizing Gambian Youth Migration through Vulnerability and Developmental Loss","fulltext":[{"header":"Introduction","content":"\u003cp\u003eIrregular migration from West Africa to Europe has become one of the most pressing concerns for scholars, policymakers, and civil society actors over the past two decades. The phenomenon is not merely a matter of border crossings or demographic flows; it is a deeply human process shaped by aspirations, vulnerabilities, and structural constraints. The Gambian crisis of 2025\u0026mdash;marked by hundreds of deaths and disappearances along the so-called \u0026ldquo;backway\u0026rdquo; routes through the Atlantic, the Sahara and across the Mediterranean\u0026mdash;exposes the profound stakes behind classificatory practices. When young Gambians perish or disappear in pursuit of mobility, the categories used to describe them\u0026mdash;whether \u0026ldquo;irregular migrant,\u0026rdquo; \u0026ldquo;missing,\u0026rdquo; \u0026ldquo;returnee,\u0026rdquo; or \u0026ldquo;victim\u0026rdquo;\u0026mdash;carry consequences that extend far beyond semantics. Categories matter: they determine which actors respond, which resources are mobilized, and which narratives gain traction in public discourse.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe Gambian case is emblematic of broader West African dynamics. Across the region, youth migration is driven by economic precarity, limited legal mobility, and strong familial expectations around remittances. Yet the ways in which migrants are categorized vary significantly across contexts. In Senegal, migration is often embedded in generational traditions and narrated through civil society activism, while in Nigeria, larger economic scale and diaspora networks produce more diverse mobility pathways. These comparative differences underscore the importance of examining not only the drivers of migration but also the classificatory systems through which migration is understood and governed.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eExisting scholarship has shown that categories are not neutral descriptors but normative instruments that shape governance priorities and humanitarian responses. Legal-status classifications, for example, privilege deterrence and control, often equating irregularity with criminality. Vulnerability-oriented categories, by contrast, foreground risk profiles such as age, trauma, or unaccompanied status, aligning more closely with humanitarian imperatives. Developmental framings highlight the consequences of migration for households, communities, and national economies, emphasizing human capital loss or remittance dependence. Each of these classificatory strands carries distinct implications for policy and practice, yet they are rarely integrated into a coherent framework.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThis manuscript reframes the Gambian case to ask how categories used in migration studies and policy shape responses to youth mobility and mortality, and how alternative taxonomies might better serve protection, reintegration, and development objectives. By proposing a multi-dimensional taxonomy that integrates legal status, vulnerability profile, social embeddedness, and developmental impact, the study seeks to move beyond reductionist labels and toward a more holistic understanding of migration governance. The taxonomy is not only a conceptual innovation but also a practical tool for guiding humanitarian action, development programming, and policy design.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Literature Review","content":"\u003cp\u003eScholarship on migration categorization has long emphasized that labels such as \u003cem\u003erefugee\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003easylum seeker\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003eirregular migrant\u003c/em\u003e, and \u003cem\u003eeconomic migrant\u003c/em\u003e are not neutral descriptors but normative constructs with significant operational consequences. These categories shape access to legal entitlements, humanitarian priorities, and public discourse, often determining who is seen as deserving of protection and who is framed as a threat (Carling and Hernández Carretero 2011; de Haas \u003cspan citationid=\"CR6\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2008\u003c/span\u003e). The act of categorization itself is deeply political, reflecting institutional interests and governance logics rather than the lived realities of migrants. Scholars argue that such classifications can obscure vulnerabilities and aspirations, privileging legal status over social drivers and structural constraints.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe aspirations–capabilities framework provides a useful analytic lens for interrogating these dynamics. It posits that migration outcomes reflect both the desire to move and the means to do so, highlighting the interplay between individual aspirations and structural opportunities or barriers (de Haas \u003cspan citationid=\"CR7\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e). Within this framework, categories that emphasize legality often fail to capture the social obligations, vulnerabilities, and community expectations that shape mobility decisions. For instance, youth migration in West Africa is frequently driven not only by economic precarity but also by familial expectations around remittances and social obligations to contribute to household survival.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eComparative evidence from West Africa underscores both shared drivers and contextual variation. Adepoju (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR1\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2010\u003c/span\u003e) identifies economic precarity, limited legal mobility, and strong social obligations to remit as common pressures across the region. In The Gambia, high youth unemployment and entrenched familial expectations intensify migration pressures, with remittances framed as both a survival strategy and a marker of social status (Cham \u003cspan citationid=\"CR4\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e; Kebbeh \u003cspan citationid=\"CR11\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e; Njie \u003cspan citationid=\"CR15\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e). Senegalese migration patterns reveal generational traditions in certain regions, where mobility is embedded in cultural narratives of adulthood and success, and where civil society networks play a stronger role in shaping discourse and advocacy (Gaibazzi \u003cspan citationid=\"CR8\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2015\u003c/span\u003e; Lahlou \u003cspan citationid=\"CR13\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e; Nyamnjoh \u003cspan citationid=\"CR16\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2010\u003c/span\u003e). Nigeria’s larger economy and extensive diaspora networks produce more diverse mobility pathways, ranging from irregular migration to Europe to legal labor migration and educational opportunities abroad (Cham \u003cspan citationid=\"CR5\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e; Carling and Talleraas \u003cspan citationid=\"CR2\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u003c/span\u003e). These comparative insights highlight how scale, economic structure, and diaspora embeddedness mediate migration experiences and outcomes.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eCivil society activism has emerged across these contexts as a counter-narrative to romanticized migration stories. Activists document tragedies, challenge deterrence-oriented policies, and advocate for reintegration and protection. Yet their capacity to alter structural drivers remains constrained by entrenched economic precarity, limited legal pathways, and governance frameworks that prioritize control over opportunity (Njie \u003cspan citationid=\"CR15\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e; Lahlou \u003cspan citationid=\"CR13\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e). The tension between activism and structural realities underscores the need for more nuanced classification systems that capture vulnerability, social embeddedness, and developmental consequences.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe literature also critiques deterrence-oriented policy frameworks that equate irregularity with criminality and prioritize border control over protection and opportunity. Carling and Hernández Carretero (2011) and Carling and Talleraas (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR2\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u003c/span\u003e) argue that such frameworks reinforce exclusionary narratives and undermine humanitarian imperatives. The International Organization for Migration (IOM 2023) similarly notes that deterrence-first approaches often fail to address root causes, instead producing cycles of risk and vulnerability. Scholars call for classification systems that move beyond legality to incorporate multidimensional markers of vulnerability, social ties, and developmental impact (de Haas \u003cspan citationid=\"CR6\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2008\u003c/span\u003e; de Haas \u003cspan citationid=\"CR7\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e; Adepoju \u003cspan citationid=\"CR1\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2010\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eRecent debates in migration studies further emphasize the importance of comparative and interdisciplinary approaches. Scholars highlight that categories travel across policy domains, shaping not only migration governance but also development planning, humanitarian programming, and public discourse. Comparative migration research demonstrates that while irregular migration is often framed as a crisis in small states such as The Gambia, larger economies like Nigeria negotiate irregularity within broader labor market and diaspora dynamics. This variation underscores the need for taxonomies that can capture both micro-level vulnerabilities and macro-level developmental consequences.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eIn sum, the literature reveals that migration categorization is both a normative and operational practice with profound consequences. Existing frameworks often privilege legal status and deterrence, obscuring vulnerabilities and developmental impacts. Comparative evidence from West Africa highlights shared drivers of migration alongside contextual variation, while civil society activism underscores the need for more humane and effective responses. Scholars increasingly call for classification systems that integrate legal, social, and developmental dimensions, providing a foundation for taxonomies that can reframe migration governance toward dignity, opportunity, and human capital recovery.\u003c/p\u003e "},{"header":"Methodology","content":"\u003cp\u003eThis study employs a qualitative content analysis design to interrogate how actors label people on the move and the consequences of those labels. Qualitative content analysis is particularly suited to examining the normative and operational dimensions of categorization, as it allows for systematic coding of textual materials while remaining attentive to context, meaning, and discourse. The approach emphasizes interpretation rather than quantification, enabling the study to capture how migration categories are constructed, contested, and deployed across different domains.\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch3\u003eResearch Design\u003c/h3\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe research design synthesizes four categories of sources: activist and NGO reports, national and regional policy documents, media coverage, and comparative academic literature. This multi-source strategy ensures that the analysis reflects both grassroots perspectives and institutional framings, while also situating Gambian experiences within broader West African debates. By triangulating across these domains, the study seeks to identify recurring motifs and divergences in how migration categories are articulated and operationalized.\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch3\u003eSource Selection\u003c/h3\u003e\u003cp\u003ePrimary materials include activist reports documenting mortality and disappearance figures during the 2025 Gambian backway crisis, national policy statements on migration governance, media accounts that narrated the crisis and its aftermath, and comparative studies from Senegal and Nigeria. Selection criteria prioritized sources that foregrounded lived experience, policy framing, and civil society perspectives. Activist reports were chosen for their immediacy and moral urgency, policy documents for their articulation of governance priorities, media coverage for its role in shaping public narratives, and academic literature for its comparative and conceptual insights. This purposive sampling strategy was designed to capture both the empirical realities of migration tragedies and the discursive frameworks through which they are understood.\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch3\u003eAnalytical Approach\u003c/h3\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe analysis proceeded through thematic coding, identifying recurring motifs such as legal status labels, vulnerability narratives, social obligations (particularly remittance expectations), developmental framing (human capital loss), and civil society reclassification efforts. Coding was iterative, beginning with open coding to capture emergent themes and progressing to axial coding to refine categories and identify relationships among them. Triangulation across source types was employed to enhance validity, ensuring that findings were not artifacts of a single perspective but reflected broader patterns across activist, policy, media, and scholarly domains. The aspirations–capabilities framework provided an interpretive lens, guiding attention to how categories privilege certain dimensions (e.g., legality) while obscuring others (e.g., social embeddedness or vulnerability).\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch3\u003eEthical Considerations\u003c/h3\u003e\u003cp\u003eEthical safeguards were central to the research process. The study deliberately avoids sensationalism, respecting the dignity of victims and foregrounding structural conditions rather than reducing lives to statistics. Mortality and disappearance figures are presented as reported by activists and media, with explicit acknowledgment of source provenance to avoid claims of independent verification. The analysis is careful not to reproduce stigmatizing narratives, instead emphasizing the systemic drivers of irregular migration and the need for more humane categorization frameworks.\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch2\u003eLimitations\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eSeveral limitations must be acknowledged. Activist and media reports may carry advocacy emphases, framing migration tragedies in ways that highlight particular vulnerabilities or policy failures. Policy documents may reflect aspirational rhetoric rather than operational realities, and academic literature may privilege comparative generalizations over local specificity. The qualitative design does not produce generalizable prevalence estimates; rather, its strength lies in offering conceptual and operational insights into categorization practices and their consequences. The study’s reliance on secondary sources also means that findings are mediated through the perspectives of those who produced the materials, underscoring the importance of triangulation and critical interpretation.\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch3\u003eReflexivity\u003c/h3\u003e\u003cp\u003eFinally, the research process was guided by reflexivity, recognizing the positionality of the researcher and the interpretive nature of qualitative analysis. The decision to foreground activist reports reflects a commitment to valuing grassroots knowledge and civil society perspectives, while the comparative framing acknowledges the importance of situating Gambian experiences within regional dynamics. Reflexivity also entails awareness of the potential influence of scholarly categories themselves, reinforcing the study’s central argument that classification systems are not neutral but normative instruments with real-world consequences.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Findings","content":"\u003cdiv id=\"Sec11\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eLabels and Their Operational Consequences\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe content analysis revealed four dominant labels circulating across activist reports, policy documents, media coverage, and academic literature. Each label carries distinct operational consequences, shaping governance priorities, humanitarian interventions, and public narratives.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cul\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cb\u003eIrregular migrant\u003c/b\u003e - This legal status label foregrounds transgression of migration rules and tends to trigger deterrence-focused responses such as border enforcement, anti-smuggling operations, and criminalization narratives. While useful for legal classification, it often obscures structural drivers such as unemployment, remittance obligations, and limited legal pathways. The emphasis on irregularity reinforces securitized framings, privileging control over protection and development.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cb\u003eMissing / disappeared -\u003c/b\u003e Humanitarian actors and media deploy this label to emphasize urgency, mobilizing search, rescue, and family tracing efforts. While effective in drawing attention to immediate humanitarian needs, framing mobility primarily as disappearance can depoliticize structural drivers such as unemployment, governance failures, and regional inequalities. It risks narrowing responses to crisis management rather than addressing reintegration and long-term development.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cb\u003eReturnee -\u003c/b\u003e Applied to those who come back, this label facilitates reintegration programming and donor-funded initiatives. However, it often masks stigma and unmet needs. \u0026ldquo;Returnee\u0026rdquo; conflates voluntary and forced returns, obscuring heterogeneity in vulnerability and reintegration capacity. Some returnees face community rejection or economic marginalization, while others leverage diaspora networks for reintegration. The label\u0026rsquo;s ambiguity complicates policy design and program targeting.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cb\u003eVictim -\u003c/b\u003e This protective label mobilizes assistance and sympathy, foregrounding humanitarian imperatives. Yet it can strip agency and obscure the economic rationales that informed migration decisions. Overreliance on victimhood risks paternalistic interventions that fail to address structural drivers such as unemployment, remittance dependence, and governance gaps. Victimhood narratives, while powerful in advocacy, may inadvertently reinforce dependency framings.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003c/ul\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec12\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eYouth Vulnerability as a Cross-Cutting Category\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eYouth status emerged as a critical cross-cutting category. It intersects with unemployment, social obligations, and aspirational narratives, shaping both mobility decisions and outcomes. A youth-centered category captures risk profiles such as:\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cul\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003eUnaccompanied or poorly networked youths lacking protective social ties.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003eThose with high remittance obligations, facing moral and economic pressure to migrate.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003eYouths excluded from education or employment opportunities, whose aspirations collide with structural constraints.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003c/ul\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThis category better aligns with protection needs (psychosocial support, family tracing) and development interventions (skills training, job placement). It highlights the need for integrated programming that addresses both immediate vulnerabilities and long-term aspirations.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec13\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eSocial Embeddedness and Remittance Obligations\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eSocial embeddedness\u0026mdash;family expectations, community norms, and diaspora ties\u0026mdash;shapes both the decision to migrate and the consequences of loss. Remittance obligations create moral and economic pressure that classification by legal status alone fails to capture. A social embeddedness axis in any taxonomy helps identify households at risk of economic shock following deaths or disappearances. It also underscores the relational nature of migration, where individual decisions are embedded in collective survival strategies.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec14\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eDevelopmental Impact and Human Capital Loss\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eCounting deaths and disappearances as isolated tragedies misses the systemic depletion of human capital. The Gambian losses represent not only immediate humanitarian needs but also long-term developmental costs:\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cul\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003eLost labor force participation.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003eInterrupted education trajectories.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003eDiminished local leadership and community resilience.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003c/ul\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eA developmental impact category links mobility outcomes to national progress, helping policymakers prioritize investments in human capital recovery. This framing situates migration not only as a humanitarian crisis but also as a developmental challenge, requiring integrated responses across sectors.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec15\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eCivil Society Reclassification Efforts\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eGambian NGOs and activists actively reframe young migrants as community members under duress rather than criminals. Their narratives emphasize reintegration, dignity, and opportunity, challenging deterrence-oriented state and international frames. Civil society efforts highlight agency, resilience, and the need for structural reforms. However, these initiatives face resource constraints, donor dependency, and structural barriers that limit scale. Despite these challenges, civil society activism remains a critical counter-narrative, pushing migration governance toward more humane and community-centered approaches.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec16\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eSynthesis of Findings\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eTaken together, the findings demonstrate that prevailing labels\u0026mdash;irregular migrant, missing/disappeared, returnee, victim\u0026mdash;carry operational consequences that shape responses but often obscure structural drivers. Youth vulnerability, social embeddedness, and developmental impact emerge as cross-cutting dimensions that demand integration into categorization frameworks. Civil society activism provides alternative narratives but requires greater institutional support to scale.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe proposed multi-dimensional taxonomy responds to these gaps by integrating legal status, vulnerability profile, social embeddedness, and developmental impact. This taxonomy offers a more holistic framework for migration governance, aligning humanitarian protection with developmental priorities and community resilience.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe findings demonstrate that prevailing labels\u0026mdash;\u003cem\u003eirregular migrant\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003emissing/disappeared\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003ereturnee\u003c/em\u003e, and \u003cem\u003evictim\u003c/em\u003e\u0026mdash;carry operational consequences that shape governance responses but often obscure structural drivers of youth mobility. Cross-cutting dimensions such as youth vulnerability, social embeddedness, and developmental impact reveal the inadequacy of single-axis classifications. Civil society activism offers alternative framings, yet remains constrained by resources and institutional barriers.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"Discussion","content":"\u003cp\u003eThe tragic reports of 893 deaths and 777 disappearances among Gambian youths attempting irregular migration to Europe in 2025 provide a sobering empirical lens through which to interrogate the categories used to describe people on the move. These categories\u0026mdash;whether legal, humanitarian, or developmental\u0026mdash;are not neutral descriptors but active instruments that shape governance priorities, humanitarian responses, and public narratives. The analysis presented here demonstrates that the prevailing reliance on legal-status classifications privileges deterrence and control, often at the expense of protection and reintegration. By contrast, vulnerability- and development-oriented classifications better align with humanitarian imperatives and the recovery of human capital. Building on these insights, the paper proposes a multi-dimensional taxonomy that integrates legal status, vulnerability profile, social embeddedness, and developmental impact (see Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e). This taxonomy aims to reframe migration governance toward dignity and opportunity for Gambian youth, while also offering a comparative tool for analyzing migration across West Africa.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe taxonomy provides a structured way of locating individuals within a matrix that captures both their immediate circumstances and their broader social and economic implications. Legal status remains an indispensable axis, distinguishing between regular migrants, irregular migrants, asylum seekers, and stateless persons. These distinctions are necessary for determining rights, procedures, and access to services. Yet legal status alone is insufficient. Vulnerability profiles, ranging from high to low, capture dimensions such as age, unaccompanied status, trauma, health needs, and economic precarity. Social embeddedness, whether strong familial ties, weak ties, or diaspora networks, identifies the extent to which migrants are supported by social capital and remittance obligations. Developmental impacts - ranging from high human capital loss to remittance dependence or neutral effects, links individual outcomes to community and national development trajectories.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eInterpreting migration through this taxonomy reveals how different combinations of attributes generate distinct policy priorities. An unaccompanied youth with weak ties and high developmental impact, for example, would be prioritized for urgent protection, psychosocial support, and reintegration programming. Skilled irregular migrants with low vulnerability but strong diaspora networks may be better served through labor mobility pathways and recognition of skills. Refugees and asylum seekers with high vulnerability and regular status demand sustained humanitarian assistance and legal protection. These examples illustrate how the taxonomy avoids reductionism by recognizing the interplay between individual vulnerabilities, social embeddedness, and developmental consequences.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe implications for policy are significant. Humanitarian actors can use vulnerability profiles to prioritize search and rescue, psychosocial care, and family tracing. Development agencies can map developmental impacts to design human capital recovery programs such as education catch-up, vocational training, and local employment initiatives.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eA multi-dimensional classification tool locating individuals along \u003cb\u003eLegal Status\u003c/b\u003e, (Regular \u0026rarr; Irregular) and \u003cb\u003eVulnerability Profile\u003c/b\u003e (Low \u0026rarr; High)\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eQuadrants illustrate typical cases and policy priorities:\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cb\u003eTop-right\u003c/b\u003e (High vulnerability, Irregular) highlights unaccompanied high-risk youth requiring urgent protection and reintegration;\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cb\u003eTop-left\u003c/b\u003e (High vulnerability, Regular) highlights refugees/asylum seekers needing protection and services;\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cb\u003eBottom-right\u003c/b\u003e (Low vulnerability, Irregular) highlights skilled irregular mobility and labor pathway potential;\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cb\u003eBottom-left\u003c/b\u003e (Low vulnerability, Regular) highlights standard legal labor mobility.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cb\u003eSocial Embeddedness\u003c/b\u003e is encoded with circle icons\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e(large solid\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;strong ties; medium dotted\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;diaspora-networked; small dashed\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;weak ties). \u003cb\u003eDevelopmental Impact\u003c/b\u003e is shown by quadrant shading and hatch patterns (deep warm tone\u0026thinsp;+\u0026thinsp;dense hatch\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;high human-capital loss; medium tone\u0026thinsp;+\u0026thinsp;medium hatch\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;remittance-dependent households; pale tone\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;neutral).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cstrong\u003eSource\u003c/strong\u003e \u003cp\u003eAuthor\u0026rsquo;s conceptualization based on activist reports, media, policy documents, and comparative scholarship (The Gambia, Senegal, Nigeria).\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eNational governments and regional bodies, particularly ECOWAS, can harmonize classification systems to inform reintegration strategies, anti-smuggling measures, and legal mobility pathways. International partners, meanwhile, are encouraged to move beyond deterrence-first approaches and toward partnerships that expand legal mobility, labor migration schemes, and development investments addressing root causes of irregular migration.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eOperationalizing this taxonomy requires improved data systems capable of capturing non-legal dimensions such as household remittance dependence, social ties, and vulnerability markers. Surveys, community registries, and civil society reporting can feed into shared databases that inform programming, though ethical safeguards must be embedded to protect privacy and prevent stigmatization. Without such safeguards, classifications risk reproducing exclusionary practices or reinforcing stereotypes. The challenge is to ensure that categories serve as tools for protection and empowerment rather than instruments of control.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eFuture research should pursue longitudinal and mixed-methods studies to trace how migration narratives evolve over time, quantify developmental impacts, and evaluate the taxonomy\u0026rsquo;s utility in program design. Comparative work across small states such as The Gambia and larger economies such as Nigeria will clarify how scale, governance capacity, and diaspora networks mediate outcomes. Interdisciplinary studies that integrate geography, political science, sociology, and development economics can enrich the taxonomy\u0026rsquo;s applicability across diverse contexts. Such research would also help to identify how categories travel across policy domains, shaping not only migration governance but also development planning, humanitarian programming, and public discourse.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe broader significance of this taxonomy lies in its potential to reframe migration governance toward dignity and opportunity. By integrating legal, social, and developmental dimensions, it provides a conceptual tool for comparative analysis across West Africa and beyond. It encourages a shift from viewing migrants primarily as subjects of control to recognizing them as agents whose aspirations, vulnerabilities, and contributions shape both local communities and national development trajectories. In the Gambian context, where irregular migration has become a defining feature of youth aspirations and tragedies, such a reframing is urgently needed. The taxonomy offers a way to move beyond narratives of crisis and deterrence, toward policies that invest in human capital, expand legal mobility, and strengthen social support systems.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eMoreover, the taxonomy has implications for how migration is narrated in public discourse. Labels such as \u0026ldquo;irregular migrant,\u0026rdquo; \u0026ldquo;missing,\u0026rdquo; \u0026ldquo;returnee,\u0026rdquo; or \u0026ldquo;victim\u0026rdquo; carry powerful connotations that shape how societies perceive and respond to migration. By offering a more nuanced classification, the taxonomy challenges simplistic narratives and opens space for more empathetic and constructive engagement. It highlights the need to see migrants not only through the lens of legality but also through their vulnerabilities, social ties, and developmental impacts. This shift in narrative is essential for building public support for policies that prioritize dignity and opportunity.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eIn comparative perspective, the taxonomy also facilitates cross-national analysis. Migration experiences in Senegal and Nigeria, for example, reveal both similarities and differences in how categories are deployed and how they shape governance responses. Senegal\u0026rsquo;s activist networks emphasize vulnerability and protection, while Nigeria\u0026rsquo;s larger economy and diaspora networks highlight developmental impacts and labor mobility pathways. By providing a common framework, the taxonomy enables scholars and policymakers to compare across contexts, identify best practices, and adapt strategies to local realities.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eUltimately, the taxonomy is not merely a conceptual innovation but a practical tool for guiding research, policy, and programming. Its multi-dimensional approach aligns with the complexity of migration experiences and offers a pathway for more humane and effective governance. In the Gambian case, where the costs of irregular migration are measured in lives lost and futures disrupted, such a tool is urgently needed. By integrating legal status, vulnerability, social embeddedness, and developmental impact, the taxonomy provides a foundation for policies that protect, empower, and invest in youth. It reframes migration governance from deterrence and control toward dignity and opportunity, offering hope for a more just and sustainable future.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Conclusion","content":"\u003cp\u003eThis study has examined the tragic realities of Gambian youth irregular migration through the lens of activist reports, media coverage, and comparative scholarship, and has interrogated how categories such as \u0026ldquo;irregular migrant,\u0026rdquo; \u0026ldquo;missing,\u0026rdquo; \u0026ldquo;returnee,\u0026rdquo; and \u0026ldquo;victim\u0026rdquo; shape governance priorities, humanitarian responses, and public narratives. The analysis demonstrates that legal-status categories, while necessary for rights and procedures, often privilege deterrence and control, whereas vulnerability- and development-oriented classifications better align with protection, reintegration, and human capital recovery.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eTo address these limitations, the paper has proposed a multi-dimensional taxonomy that integrates legal status, vulnerability profile, social embeddedness, and developmental impact. This framework provides a more holistic and context-sensitive tool for locating individuals within migration systems and for guiding tailored responses. By situating migrants within this matrix, policymakers and practitioners can move beyond reductionist labels and design interventions that reflect both individual circumstances and broader developmental consequences.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe taxonomy carries important implications for humanitarian actors, development agencies, national governments, and international partners. It encourages humanitarian agencies to prioritize vulnerability in search, rescue, and psychosocial care; development agencies to map human capital impacts for reintegration programming; governments and regional bodies to harmonize classification systems for reintegration and legal mobility pathways; and international partners to shift from deterrence-first approaches toward investments in opportunity and dignity.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eOperationalizing this taxonomy will require improved data systems that capture non-legal dimensions of migration, alongside ethical safeguards to protect privacy and prevent stigmatization. Future research should pursue longitudinal and comparative studies to evaluate the taxonomy\u0026rsquo;s utility, particularly across small states such as The Gambia and larger economies such as Nigeria, where scale and diaspora networks mediate outcomes.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eUltimately, the taxonomy reframes migration governance away from narrow deterrence and toward dignity, opportunity, and developmental recovery. By integrating legal, social, and developmental dimensions, it offers a conceptual and practical tool for comparative migration studies and provides a pathway for aligning humanitarian responses with long-term development strategies. In doing so, it contributes to a broader reimagining of migration governance in West Africa\u0026mdash;one that recognizes migrants not only as subjects of control but as agents whose aspirations, vulnerabilities, and contributions shape the future of their communities and nations.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Declarations","content":"\u003ch2\u003eAuthor Contribution\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe author conceptualized the study, designed the taxonomy framework, and conducted the qualitative content analysis drawing on activist reports, media coverage, policy documents, and comparative scholarship from The Gambia, Senegal, and Nigeria. All sections of the manuscript\u0026mdash;including the abstract, discussion, and conclusion\u0026mdash;were drafted and revised by the author, who also prepared the figures and tables to illustrate the proposed taxonomy.\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch2\u003eAcknowledgement\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe author gratefully acknowledges Gambian migration activists and civil society organizations whose documentation provided the empirical foundation for this research, colleagues in the Geography Unit at the University of The Gambia for feedback on early drafts, and comparative migration scholars in Senegal and Nigeria whose work informed the cross-national perspective.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"References","content":"\u003col\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eAdepoju, A. (2010). \u003cem\u003eFostering free movement of persons in West Africa: Achievements, constraints, and prospects for intraregional migration\u003c/em\u003e. Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung. (PDF available).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eCarling, J., \u0026amp; Talleraas, C. (2016). \u003cem\u003eRoot causes and drivers of migration: Implications for humanitarian efforts and development cooperation\u003c/em\u003e. PRIO Paper. Peace Research Institute Oslo. (PRIO report; PDF available).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eCarling, J., \u0026amp; Hern\u0026aacute;ndez-Carretero, M. (2011). Protecting Europe and protecting migrants? Strategies for managing unauthorised migration from Africa. \u003cem\u003eThe British Journal of Politics and International Relations\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e13\u003c/em\u003e(1), 42\u0026ndash;58. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-856X.2010.00440.x\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1111/j.1467-856X.2010.00440.x\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e(doi.orgin Bing).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eCham, T. (2019). Reducing irregular migration: Experiment and replication files \u0026mdash; The Gambia. \u003cem\u003eWorld Bank Microdata Catalog\u003c/em\u003e. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.48529/5zn5-xr45\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.48529/5zn5-xr45\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eCham, T. (2022). \u003cem\u003eAwareness and perception of intending and returned migrants on the dangers of irregular migration in Nigeria\u003c/em\u003e. National Bureau of Statistics. (Report; PDF available).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003ede Haas, H. (2008). \u003cem\u003eMigration and development: A theoretical perspective.\u003c/em\u003e International Migration Institute Working Paper 9. (Working paper; PDF available).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003ede Haas, H. (2021). A theory of migration: The aspirations\u0026ndash;capabilities framework. \u003cem\u003eComparative Migration Studies\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e9\u003c/em\u003e, 8. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1186/s40878-020-00210-4\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1186/s40878-020-00210-4\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e(doi.orgin Bing).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eGaibazzi, P. (2015). \u003cem\u003eBush Bound: Young Men and Rural Permanence in Migrant West Africa\u003c/em\u003e (p. 232). Berghahn Books. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.3167/9781782387794\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.3167/9781782387794\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eGovernment of The Gambia. (2025). \u003cem\u003eNational policy on migration 2020\u0026ndash;2030. Policy Repository\u003c/em\u003e. Policy document; URL).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eIOM (International Organization for Migration) (2023). \u003cem\u003eIrregular migration routes to Europe: Western Africa \u0026mdash; Atlantic route, January\u0026ndash;June 2023.\u003c/em\u003e DTM report. (Report; PDF available via IOM DTM).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eKebbeh, C. (2020). \u003cem\u003eSnapshot of remittance flows to The Gambia, 2010\u0026ndash;2019.\u003c/em\u003e GK Partners. (Policy brief; PDF available).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eKerr Fatou. (2025). Migration activist reports 893 Gambian deaths in 2025, majority linked to backway route. \u003cem\u003eKerr Fatou\u003c/em\u003e, 5 January 2025. (News article; URL).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eLahlou, M. (2021). \u003cem\u003eMigration in Senegal: Societal visions instead of criminalisation and rhetoric of deterrence\u003c/em\u003e. Heinrich-B\u0026ouml;ll-Stiftung. (Policy brief; URL).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMabogunje, A. L. (1970). Systems approach to a theory of rural\u0026ndash;urban migration. \u003cem\u003eGeographical Analysis\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e2\u003c/em\u003e(1), 1\u0026ndash;18. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1111/j.1538-4632.1970.tb00140.x\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1111/j.1538-4632.1970.tb00140.x\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e(doi.orgin Bing).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eNjie, M. (2022). \u003cem\u003eThe Gambia migration profile\u003c/em\u003e. United Nations Network on Migration. (GFMD / Migration Profile; PDF available.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eNyamnjoh, H. M. (2010). \u003cem\u003eWe Get Nothing from Fishing: Fishing for Boat Opportunities Amongst Senegalese Fisher Migrants.\u003c/em\u003e Bamenda, Cameroon: Langaa RPCIG. 234 pp. (Project MUSE entry).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eThe Alkamba Times (2025). Nearly 900 Gambian youths lost to perilous \u0026lsquo;backway\u0026rsquo; migration in 2025, activists claim. \u003cem\u003eThe Alkamba Times\u003c/em\u003e, 5 January 2025. (News article; URL).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eUNDP (United Nations Development Programme). (1994). \u003cem\u003eHuman Development Report 1994: New Dimensions of Human Security\u003c/em\u003e. Oxford University Press. (Report/book).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003c/ol\u003e"}],"fulltextSource":"","fullText":"","funders":[],"hasAdminPriorityOnWorkflow":false,"hasManuscriptDocX":true,"hasOptedInToPreprint":true,"hasPassedJournalQc":"","hasAnyPriority":false,"hideJournal":true,"highlight":"","institution":"","isAcceptedByJournal":false,"isAuthorSuppliedPdf":false,"isDeskRejected":"","isHiddenFromSearch":false,"isInQc":false,"isInWorkflow":false,"isPdf":false,"isPdfUpToDate":true,"isWithdrawnOrRetracted":false,"journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"researchsquare","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"externalIdentity":"","sideBox":"","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"/submission","title":"Research Square","twitterHandle":"researchsquare","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":false,"editorialSystem":"","reportingPortfolio":"","inReviewEnabled":false,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true},"keywords":"Irregular migration, categorization, Gambian youth, human capital loss, civil society activism, migration governance, West Africa","lastPublishedDoi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-8619567/v1","lastPublishedDoiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-8619567/v1","license":{"name":"CC BY 4.0","url":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/"},"manuscriptAbstract":"\u003cp\u003eIn 2025 Gambian migration activists reported 893 deaths and 777 disappearances among youths attempting irregular migration to Europe via the \u0026ldquo;backway.\u0026rdquo; This article uses that tragedy as an empirical lens to interrogate how scholarly and policy categories for \u0026ldquo;people on the move\u0026rdquo; shape humanitarian responses, governance priorities, and public narratives. Drawing on activist reports, media coverage, policy documents, and comparative scholarship from Senegal and Nigeria, the study employs qualitative content analysis and an aspirations\u0026ndash;capabilities framework to examine how labels\u0026mdash;such as \u0026ldquo;irregular migrant,\u0026rdquo; \u0026ldquo;missing,\u0026rdquo; \u0026ldquo;returnee,\u0026rdquo; and \u0026ldquo;victim\u0026rdquo;\u0026mdash;capture or obscure lived realities. Findings show that legal-status categories often privilege deterrence, while vulnerability- and development-oriented classifications better align with protection, reintegration, and human-capital recovery. The paper proposes a multi-dimensional taxonomy that integrates \u003cem\u003elegal status, vulnerability profile, social embeddedness\u003c/em\u003e, and \u003cem\u003edevelopmental impact\u003c/em\u003e to guide research, policy, and programming. The taxonomy aims to reframe migration governance toward dignity and opportunity for Gambian youth and to improve comparative analysis across West Africa.\u003c/p\u003e","manuscriptTitle":"Beyond Irregularity: Categorizing Gambian Youth Migration through Vulnerability and Developmental Loss","msid":"","msnumber":"","nonDraftVersions":[{"code":1,"date":"2026-02-05 08:59:50","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-8619567/v1","editorialEvents":[{"type":"communityComments","content":0}],"status":"published","journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"researchsquare","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"externalIdentity":"","sideBox":"","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"/submission","title":"Research Square","twitterHandle":"researchsquare","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":false,"editorialSystem":"","reportingPortfolio":"","inReviewEnabled":false,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true}}],"origin":"","ownerIdentity":"92336b68-4b43-4d80-b23f-91ae853b6432","owner":[],"postedDate":"February 5th, 2026","published":true,"recentEditorialEvents":[],"rejectedJournal":[],"revision":"","amendment":"","status":"posted","subjectAreas":[],"tags":[],"updatedAt":"2026-02-05T08:59:50+00:00","versionOfRecord":[],"versionCreatedAt":"2026-02-05 08:59:50","video":"","vorDoi":"","vorDoiUrl":"","workflowStages":[]},"version":"v1","identity":"rs-8619567","journalConfig":"researchsquare"},"__N_SSP":true},"page":"/article/[identity]/[[...version]]","query":{"redirect":"/article/rs-8619567","identity":"rs-8619567","version":["v1"]},"buildId":"XKTyCvWXoU3ODBz1xrDgd","isFallback":false,"isExperimentalCompile":false,"dynamicIds":[84888],"gssp":true,"scriptLoader":[]}