migration studies – MDC Space

At the Edge of Humanity: Reflections on the Movie Green Border and Enacted Resilience (2023)

Dr. Azher Hameed Qamar

Postdoc Fellow COFUND Migration, Diaspora, Citizenship

ah.qamar@uni-muenster.de

Recently, as part of the COFUND (Migration, Diaspora and Citizenship) project at the University of Münster, I suggested the movie Green Border by Agnieszka Holland at Cineplex Münster. What began as a cinema screening gradually turned into a deeply emotional and thought-provoking experience, inviting reflection on migration, responsibility, humanity, and morality. Set in the forested border region between Belarus and Poland, the movie portrays the experiences of people caught in migration systems shaped by law, politics, and humanitarian crisis. In this blog post, I reflect on and share some thoughts about the movie’s portrayal of borders, migration, human lives, and dignity.

Still from Green Border (2023), directed by Agnieszka Holland. Presented at Cofund MDC Film Series, Cinema/Kurbelkiste Münster (University of Münster collaboration screening).

The movie Green Border engages us deeply with lived realities. It exposes enacted resilience that is a collective course of action to endure and survive while challenging a system marked by inhumanity. In an interview with Swedish Radio, Holland said “It’s a human story, and the most important thing is to give a voice and a face to those who were left without a voice and a face because of propaganda. To show that we are all human.”

The movie, on the one hand, connects us to the pain and suffering of migrants, and on the other hand demands a higher moral engagement – one rooted in empathy and a willingness to confront oppressive forces in the name of humanity and the sanctity of human life.

The movie begins with the hope of a Syrian migrant family seeking to enter Europe. The hopes, initially awakened by the Belarusian government’s promise of safe passage into Poland, are later shattered by both Belarusian and Polish border authorities. The movie portrays a raw, lived, survival-based resilience that emerges when systems fail to recognize humanity and human values.

Below is a breakdown of the movie’s key scenes that illustrate how resilience is practiced, shared, and at times painfully reclaimed.

The Swamp Crossing — Survival is a Collective Act

Several scenes in the movie depict the torture inflicted by the border police and the harsh weather conditions endured by migrants as they are repeatedly pushed back and forth between the Polish and Belarusian borders, abandoned in dark, wet, muddy, and freezing forests. Neither the brutality of the border forces nor the cruelty of the weather distinguish between children, elderly people, pregnant women, or breastfeeding mothers.

Throughout this struggle, the characters show endurance with a shared sense of resilience that appeared as a collective action to survive. With this sense of resilience, the strangers become connected through a mutual and communal determination. They care for children and pregnant women. They share their resources and stay together to fight for survival at any cost. Ultimately, the forest that is designed to strip people of their life and dignity becomes a site of enacted resilience – the resilience that does not let them give up. They move on with warmth, connection, and relationships that emerge from shared pain and suffering.

The Pushback Cycle — Human Resilience against an Inhuman System

While the migrants are repeatedly pushed back and forth by the Belarusian and Polish forces, they are treated as though they are disposable. Their money is taken, water is wasted in front of their parched lips, children and elderly people are assaulted, and they are mocked, called “stinky,” and stripped of dignity. The disrespect extends not only to the living but also to the dead bodies of those who died (or were killed) at the border.

The pushback cycle symbolically shows the systemic cruelty and dehumanization. The harsh loop of inhuman acts tends to destroy hope. However, the migrants do not give up on survival. They are tired and broken, yet they gather themselves each time they are pushed to face the hardships. In their silent cries of suffering and pain, we hear a powerful rebuttal to surrender their right to live.

The Activists’ Courage and Moral Resilience in the Face of Systemic Inhumanity

We see migrants trapped in the forest, suffering from hunger, injuries, and cold. At the same time we watch the heart touching moments when some Polish activists appear, showing courage and moral resilience to support them. They choose to uphold humanity with their skills and passion to serve the humanity. They frequently visit migrants to provide food, shoes, blankets, and medical aid. They encounter surveillance, legal threats, and the consequences of challenging the border police who want to stop them from helping.

The movie does not characterize these activists as heroes by romanticizing their actions. Instead, we see them arguing, burning out, becoming exhausted and frustrated. However, their physical and emotional exertion does not hinder their mission. They continue to return, driven by moral resilience and persistence in the name of humanity.

The movie also presents a Polish border guard who begins to question the brutality he witnessed and was expected to carry out himself. His internal struggle eventually leads him to a moral reckoning, and he refuses to allow institutional power to override his humanity and conscience.

Resilience: We Do Not possess it, We Enact It.

In the movie, enacted resilience appears in many different forms, inviting us to rethink the dominant understanding of resilience as merely heroic individual strength or the ability of a person to withstand crisis alone. We see in the movie that:

Migrants sharing whatever little they have despite the scarcity surrounding them.
Some activists doing everything they can, despite the risks and consequences they may face, to create support networks for migrants.
Migrants consistently resisting the system that is designed to dehumanize them.
Migrants and activists show resilience in action, practicing it through their choices and relationships, without surrendering to the conditions imposed on them.

Hence, the resilience demonstrated in the movie, is not a ‘heroic’ strength, but it appears in practice through collective care, moral action, and persistence. It is relational and communal rather than purely individual.

The movie does not answer the questions, but it tells a story that does not have a conclusion. The characters are separated, displaced, and killed, while their suffering continues unresolved and unforgotten. Their resilience is not an outcome, but an on-going process that leads a persistent struggle to move forward and survive. The movie invites us to think beyond abstract debates on migration. It engages us with what it means to respond as humans to other humans in situations of vulnerability.

Interview with Jessica Bruckner from Radio Kaktus Münster e.V. – Radio Kaktus im Bürgerfunk

This interview was conducted by Shepherd Mutsvara, a researcher in the COFUND project Migration, Diaspora, Citizenship, with Jessica Bruckner, project coordinator at Radio Kaktus Münster. In this conversation, Jessica reflects on the role of community media in bridging language and cultural barriers, the practical challenges of multilingual programming, and how organisations like Radio Kaktus support the resilience of migrant communities amid significant funding pressures.

Q: Could you introduce yourself and Radio Kaktus Münster?

A: My name is Jessica Bruckner. I’m here on behalf of Radio Kaktus Münster. We do a lot of outreaches: we produce a radio broadcast, and we also have a museum. We’re available to the community and are mostly dedicated to children and youth in many ways. I worked for many years with a cooperation partner, an association in the same field called AFAQ e.V. Their focus is more on refugees and recent migrants, not only children and youth. Through my volunteering there, I learned about Kaktus and its programmes as well. [At Kaktus] I help design, organise, and deliver workshops for children and youth. We also plan social and cultural events. We publish different types of media: radio, of course, but also books, video, and other formats.

Q: Who are the children and young people you work with?

A: We primarily focus on children with a migrant background, though local children are not excluded. Our focus is on the needs of the migrant community. Many participants have Turkish backgrounds, backgrounds from different Arab states, Ukrainian backgrounds, and African backgrounds as well.

Q: How do people join the programmes: do you recruit them, or do they come to you?

A: It depends on age. With children, they usually come through schools or school-affiliated organisations. A key focus is interculturality, for example, how children can interact and play with classmates who don’t share the same language. We see this especially with Ukrainian refugees integrating into the school system. For youth, older teens and people in their early twenties, they often come for internships via an academic institution and spend the full internship period with us, usually working with the radio. When we offer new programmes, we do go from school to school and speak with school social workers or coordinators who can refer students. But that isn’t our main responsibility. We’ve been active in Münster for over 50 years, so we’re relatively well known at the city level.

Q: Language is a major issue for many migrants. How does Radio Kaktus bridge that gap?

A: It’s difficult, it’s a big challenge, and we know it firsthand as migrants ourselves. Within the organisation we currently have German, English, Turkish, and Polish represented. However, we don’t provide all those languages in the materials we publish or in the training we provide to interns. Workshops are offered in German and English. Other languages aren’t something we can offer now, and that’s a challenge. That said, children learn languages quickly, and in our experience German or English usually covers a large enough group.

Q: Do you have radio segments specifically for migrant communities?

A: Yes. We broadcast in the Bürgerfunk format, which means we have a dedicated broadcast slot, currently twice a month. We are a nonprofit association, so we need to secure funding for that broadcast spot. One of the stipulations of that funding is that we must incorporate multilingualism. Typically, that comes in the form of Turkish or Farsi, though it is certainly not limited to those languages. That said, about 90 to 95 percent of the broadcast content is in German. Sometimes we provide translations from the original language into German, but overall, we are German-language focused. For each broadcast, however, we feature a “spotlight” interview with a local artist or someone active in the community, and we prioritise people with a migration background.

Q: As a migrant yourself, you have spoken about resilience being central to migrant experience. How does community radio promote resilience and support migrants in coping?

A: Most of us working there are migrants, and many of our interns have migrant backgrounds too. We hope that if interns feel self-doubt, especially in professional settings, we can reduce that through practical experience. They can bring their own ideas and see them realised through projects in radio, video, or other media. They practise speaking on a microphone or in front of a camera. We also address themes like pacifism and criticism of anti-democratic tendencies. We discuss how to create programmes for people coming from regions affected by war or conflict and how to offer material that draws on firsthand experience. For example, we are working on an anthology with contributions from professors and experts. We hope to use it in a youth workshop series: invite a contributor to speak and then discuss democratic topics with young people.

Q: Do staff members share their own experiences as migrants?

A: It depends on the definition of the term migrant. Official definitions used locally can include people with up to three generations of migrant background. I’m the only one on the team who was born outside Germany. Two coworkers have migrant backgrounds but were born here and speak German as their native language, so their experiences overlap more with each other than with mine. Our director is also a migrant and has worked hard to build a standing in the city. He is from the Turkish guest-worker generation.

Q: Can radio help migrants feel at home?

A: The question is reach: how many people have a radio now? Many people listen in cars, but new arrivals may not have cars. Some may listen at work. And do people know we exist, and do they speak enough German to connect with the topics? That is a genuine concern. Our broadcast is currently on the last Wednesday of every month and the first Monday of every month, around 8 p.m., on Antenne Münster (95.4 FM). You can listen online or on the radio.

Q: How much does the current political climate, including right-wing extremism and anti-migrant sentiment, affect your programming?

A: It doesn’t affect us in the sense of taking sides. We are called “Kaktus” for a reason: we don’t prioritise any one political party or belief. Sometimes we are asked to do professional media work, videos or interviews, for political parties; if we do it for one, we do it for essentially all. But political developments can influence which topics appear in broadcasts, for example, far-right extremism or proposed changes to mandatory military service.

Q: What are the major challenges you face going forward?

A: The future is uncertain. Funding for this sector is unstable right now. We are seeing around a 70% reduction in available funds. That creates uncertainty across associations trying to secure funding for next year and upcoming quarters. At the moment, we are not stopping our work. We take interns continuously and try to listen to their needs and support how they want their work to develop.

Q: Despite the challenges, do you still see Radio Kaktus as a source of strength and support in the community?

A: We hope so. Even if we must restructure because of funding, I believe we can still provide valuable work. One future idea is to expand beyond radio into public-access television with a live format. That won’t happen soon due to current constraints, but it is something we are interested in how we can be more present and reach more citizens in an increasingly digital environment. One of our core pillars is that we see multilingualism and multiculturalism not as a threat, but as something that enriches the community.

Interview with Benedikt Kern from the Ökumenisches Netzwerk Asyl in der Kirche in Nordrhein-Westfalen

This interview was conducted by Azher Hameed Qamar, a post-doctoral researcher in the COFUND project Migration, Diaspora, Citizenship, with Benedikt Kern, a theologian who works at the Ökumenisches Netzwerk Asyl in der Kirche in Nordrhein-Westfalen.

As part of my ongoing work on migration, diaspora, and citizenship, I spoke with Benedikt, a staff member at the Ökumenisches Netzwerk Asyl in der Kirche in Nordrhein-Westfalen. His organization supports parishes across Nordheim-Westphalia in offering church asylum, providing theological, legal, and practical guidance to communities that protect people at risk of deportation. In this conversation, Benedikt reflects on the grassroots structure of the church asylum network, the moral and political tensions surrounding migration in Germany, and the role of faith-based actors in responding to border violence and restrictive asylum regimes. His insights offer a grounded perspective on solidarity, human rights, and the everyday realities of protecting vulnerable migrants.

Q: Can you explain your role and the work done by your organization regarding church asylum?

A: I work at the Institut für Theologie und Politik (Münster) on the topic of church asylum (Kirchenasyl), supporting parishes in the Nordrhein-Westphalia region with all questions related to church asylum. This includes theological, juridical, and practical support from Catholic, Protestant, and evangelical churches. Over the past year, we organized between 500 and 600 church asylums in Nordrhein-Westphalia.

Q: Is there a network structure leading this work, or how is it organized?

A: It’s a grassroots network with no hierarchical leadership structure. The association, founded in 1994, is called Ökumenisches Netzwerk Asyl in der Kirche in Nordrhein-Westphalen. It’s financed through donations, church subsidies, and foundations. We have offices in Münster and Köln, with a team of five to six people supporting church asylum in Nordrhein-Westphalia.

Q: How is migration, particularly refugee migration, perceived in German society, and what are the main perspectives on this issue?

A: German society (post-WWII) has always had issues with racism, and migration has long been seen as a problem, often associated with criminalization and border control.

There are three main perspectives, especially regarding refugee migration:

Right-wing perspective: Sees refugee migration as illegal and opposes welcoming refugees.
Neoliberal perspective: Supports migration for economic reasons, both for low-skilled and highly educated workers (Fachkräftezuwanderung). Recent governments have changed laws to facilitate work migration but have also tightened asylum procedures.
Solidarity perspective: Emphasizes human rights and the necessity to welcome those fleeing danger. Church asylum aligns with this view, prioritizing the protection of everyone’s right to freedom of movement, regardless of nationality or status.

Q: Earlier in our conversation, you mentioned Pope Leo describing border violence as a “crime.” What does that mean?

A: Yes. He referred to the violence and police brutality at borders as governmental crimes. When states refuse to accept asylum seekers and use violence or pushbacks, it constitutes a crime against humanity. For example, he said in his speech:

“States have the right and the duty to protect their borders, but this should be balanced by the moral obligation to provide refuge. With the abuse of vulnerable migrants, we are witnessing not the legitimate exercise of national sovereignty, but rather grave crimes committed or tolerated by the state. Ever more inhumane measures are being adopted — even celebrated politically — that treat these “undesirables” as if they were garbage and not human beings. Christianity, on the other hand, refers to the God who is love, who creates us and calls us to live as brothers and sisters.”

Q: Many migrants coming to Germany are from different cultural and religious backgrounds, particularly Muslim-majority countries. How does your organization or churches accommodate these differences?

A: Within churches, there are varying views, but most parishes we work with focus on protecting people from deportation, regardless of their religion. The essential requirement for a good church asylum is maintaining strong, trusting relationships within the parish—both among the guests and the people who are actively engaged in supporting them. Most church asylums in Germany welcome Muslim or atheist refugees, not just Christians. For us, the central value is solidarity and living together, not forcing assimilation into German society. Our priority is protecting people from border violence and deportation regimes, which we see as problematic for German society.

Q: Can you clarify the difference between “church” and “parish”?

A: “Church” refers to the institutional structure—like the Catholic diocese or Protestant church administration hierarchy, including bishops, clergy, and administrators. These institutions often have a critical view of church asylum, prioritizing their relationship with the state. “Parish” refers to the local community level, where decisions about church asylum are made. Local parishes are more likely to support church asylum based on values like mercy, freedom, and justice.

Q: From a Christian perspective, how do you see the church’s asylum and the validity of law?

A: From a Christian perspective, the validity of a law cannot be absolute, but must always be measured against the criterion of whether or not it helps the weakest. Jesus puts it this way: Is man there for the Sabbath law, or is the Sabbath law there for man? This understanding of the law also guides action in church asylum: even if church asylum conflicts with state law, it is legitimate, even if it is not legal.

Q: How does the church network interact with bureaucracy, politics, and the media regarding church asylum? Can you share examples?

A: Since 2015, there is an agreement between the Catholic and Protestant churches and the German government that church asylum is accepted in certain cases, especially under the Dublin Regulation. During the six-month Dublin procedure, if churches protect someone, they can request a case review with the BAMF (Federal Office for Migration and Refugees). Most of these requests are denied, so churches often wait out the six months, after which deportation is no longer possible, and the person can enter the national asylum process.

Sometimes, there is pressure from authorities on parishes to end church asylum within six months, but parishes must remain strong. Rarely, police have forcibly removed people from church asylum, which we publicize in the media to pressure the government and defend the practice. With the rise of far-right parties, we expect more challenges and will need to increase our advocacy to ensure church asylum is tolerated as a form of human rights protection.

Q: Thank you so much for your time. I appreciated your openness and the depth of your reflections.

A: Thank you.

This interview highlights the complex moral, political, and practical dimensions of church asylum in Germany. Benedikt’s reflections reveal how local parishes navigate state pressure, shifting asylum policies, and rising hostility toward migrants while remaining committed to solidarity and human dignity. His account underscores the importance of grassroots networks, interfaith cooperation, and public advocacy in defending the rights of those facing deportation and border violence. This conversation with Benedikt contributes meaningfully to our understanding of migration and the role of faith-based communities in supporting those seeking protection.

Rethinking Social Resilience: Towards a Lived-Experience Approach in Migration Studies

Azher Hameed Qamar

Postdoc Fellow COFUND Migration, Diaspora, Citizenship

University of Münster

Resilience is now becoming a popular term in migration studies and policy debates. Particularly in the context of migrants’ integration, it is often seen as a desired ability that helps migrants do well even when things are difficult. This dominant rhetoric frequently conceptualizes resilience as an individual characteristic or ability, overlooking the underlying social and political processes, structural conditions, and institutions that significantly influence migrant experiences. Such technocratic and neoliberal framings of resilience shift the burden of responsibility onto individuals, obscuring the complex, relational, and contextual factors that shape migrants’ lived experiences.

This blog post is based on my research on social resilience and migrants’ lived experiences. I propose to explore social resilience as a concept that is based on the lived experiences of migrants, reconceptualizing it as:

“A social phenomenon marked by the social experiences and practices of vulnerable individuals or groups as they navigate political, economic, cultural, and social (PECS) changes and challenges (Qamar, 2023a).”

Through these experiences, individuals and groups learn to re‑examine their lives within new contexts and develop adaptive and transformational capacities. From a life-course perspective, this is an ongoing process. During the process, migrants’ status, social networks, accessible resources and support, and visibility illuminate how migrants adapt and change in a world where they bear the responsibility to be integrated. This perspective proposes the concept of resilience as a dynamic, socio-political process that develops via everyday interactions and institutional involvement.

Reconceptualizing Resilience Beyond the “Bouncing Back” Paradigm

By and large, accepted definitions of resilience focus on the capacity or ability to “bounce back” from adversity, which highlights coping strategies and recovery following challenging circumstances. This approach addresses key aspects of adaptation; however, it is inadequate, particularly in the context of migration influenced by persistent crises such as climate change, globalization, and socio-political crises. Researchers now argue for a broader conceptualization of resilience, which includes the idea of “bouncing ahead,” referring to the process-oriented resilience through which migrants adapt, (re)learn, (re)examine, and move forward in society (Qamar, 2023a, 2023c).

The shift in perspective means that it is necessary to recognize the diverse social experiences and behaviors in resilience studies. Migrant populations exemplify the dynamic interplay between agency and structure; as individuals and families transition from precarity to stability, their choices, strategies, and adaptations are inextricably linked to the social, political, and cultural contexts in which they live. In this connection, a life‑course perspective offers a valuable analytical lens for examining how lives, identities, and belonging evolve over time, providing a useful approach for understanding these processes. Focusing on resilience, a life‑course perspective has rarely been applied in migration research, yet it offers significant potential for illuminating the temporal and relational dimensions of migrant resilience.

Social Resilience: A Lived‑Experience Perspective

By the end of the twentieth century, resilience research primarily focused on individual characteristics, suggesting that personality characteristics such as self-esteem, temperament, competence, and cognitive abilities influence the ability to withstand adversity. Critics pointed out that such models as “heroic resilience” are narrow and often downplay the crucial role of institutions, social structures, and social actions (Qamar, 2024a).

On the other hand, the concept of social resilience focuses on the ability to withstand crisis and restructuring. This ability is shaped by access to livelihoods, resources, and institutions, all of which exist within evolving socio-political contexts (Adger, 2000; Adger et al., 2002). With this relatively new conceptualization, ‘social resilience’ emerged as the key concept in contemporary resilience research. However, resilience in the context of migration is fundamentally a social, cultural, and political phenomenon shaped by interdependence, institutional arrangements, collective responses, and the dynamic interactions between actors and their socio‑political contexts (Keck & Sakdapolrak, 2013; Obrist et al., 2010; Qamar, 2023a, 2023c). Hence, resilience is understood as a dynamic social process that shapes the abilities to respond, recover, and move forward within specific contexts (Bohle et al., 2009; Dagdeviren & Donoghue, 2019; Qamar, 2023a).

Recent multidisciplinary research has broadened the understanding of resilience, emphasizing how it applies within social, political, and cultural systems. For example, Ungar’s (2012) socio-ecological approach emphasizes how resilience is culturally situated and influenced by the person-environment interactions, complexity, and cultural relativity. This approach acknowledges a spectrum of resilience strategies, particularly within vulnerable groups such as migrants.

Migration, whether voluntary or coerced, represents a significant transition characterized by fractured family connections, financial constraints, language barriers, and the development of new social roles. These interruptions create a “new normal” state for the migrants in which they struggle to adjust, redefine their belonging, and experience personal and social transformation. In this context, social resilience is an evolving process shaped by cultural practices, interpersonal relationships, community values, and institutional supports. It is deeply ingrained in and driven by the political, economic, and cultural contexts that migrants experience.

A lived experience perspective in migration studies is particularly useful for examining the developing process of resilience through continuity, decisive moments, and interdependence. It presents resilience as an inherently social phenomenon that is shaped by the continuous interplay between migrants and the political, economic, cultural, and social contexts of the host country. Migrants’ vulnerability, evident in marginalization, racism, restricted access, and political invisibility, significantly influences the process of resilience.

Conclusion

In the field of migration studies, the concept of social resilience needs to be adequately framed to capture a bottom-up understanding of migrants’ lived experiences. It should be examined as a social construct, giving voice to the participants in the research. Rethinking social with a lived experience approach will help to include the interaction of social, cultural, economic, and political factors in understanding resilience. It will also help to emphasize the importance of community practices, institutional interactions, and the broader environmental context. By recognizing lived experiences as valid empirical data, scholars, policymakers, and practitioners can better understand the migrants’ agency and the complexity of inclusion, belonging, and a meaningful existence in their everyday lives.

References

Adger, W. N. (2000). Social and ecological resilience: are they related? Progress in Human Geography, 24(3), 347–364.

Adger, W. N., Kelly, P. M., Winkels, A., Huy, L. Q., & Locke, C. (2002). Migration, remittances, livelihood trajectories, and social resilience. AMBIO: A Journal of the Human Environment, 31(4), 358–366.

Bohle, H. G., Etzold, B., & Keck, M. (2009). Resilience as agency. IHDP Update, 2(2009), 8–13.

Dagdeviren, H., & Donoghue, M. (2019). Resilience, agency and coping with hardship: evidence from Europe during the Great Recession. Journal of Social Policy, 48(3), 547–567.

Keck, M., & Sakdapolrak, P. (2013). What is social resilience? Lessons learned and ways forward. Erdkunde, 67(1), 5–19. https://www.jstor.org/stable/23595352

Obrist, B., Pfeiffer, C., & Henley, R. (2010). Multi-layered social resilience: A new approach in mitigation research. Progress in Development Studies, 10(4), 283–293.

Qamar, A. H. (2023a). Conceptualizing social resilience in the context of migrants’ lived experiences. Geoforum, 139, 103680.

Qamar, A. H. (2023c). Social dimensions of resilience and climate change: a rapid review of theoretical approaches. Present Environment and Sustainable Development, 17(1), 139-153.

Qamar, A. H. (2024a). Social Resilience: A Critical Synopsis of Existing Definitions. Corvinus Journal of Sociology and Social Policy, 15(1).

Ungar, M. (2012). Researching and theorizing resilience across cultures and contexts. Preventive Medicine: An International Journal Devoted to Practice and Theory, 55(5), 387–389. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ypmed.2012.07.021