Kuja Kuja
Migration Narratives
Back
Actors & Intermediaries
This analysis is based on 1,256 semi-structured conversations conducted across seven countries between September and November 2024. These conversations prioritized open-ended, qualitative dialogue to understand migrants' lived experiences and perspectives in depth.
Personal networks were the dominant information source
71.28%
of participants
Digital platforms served as critical information channels
53%
of participants
Official sources had limited reach despite online presence:
- Migrants reported difficulty accessing or trusting official information.
- Many lacked internet access or awareness of where to find reliable resources.
- Usage of official information sources dropped to just 4.3% among irregular route migrants.
- Demographic disparities were evident: women (10.97%) vs. men (4.97%).
Information Quality and Accessibility
Misinformation challenges were frequently reported:
- Social media platforms were described as sometimes spreading inaccurate information.
- 48.89% expressed confusion or skepticism about available legal pathway information.
Information asymmetry appeared when comparing migrant groups at different points
Legal and Regular Transportation
- Commercial transportation was widely used but presented challenges.
- constituted 53.4% of recorded movements.
- travel represented 12.6%, primarily for long-distance segments.
Irregular Movement Assistance
- Smugglers (‘Coyotes’) played a complex role, mentioned by 28% of those traveling through irregular routes and using the CBP One app by a group of 254 people.
Local guides and transport providers operated on a spectrum
- Some offered legitimate transportation services for reasonable fees.
- Others charged extremely high prices, particularly in crisis situations.
- Package deals (e.g., 500 quetzales for transport to Mexican border) were valued by migrants.
- Indigenous guides in the Darién Gap provided essential navigation, with mixed reports of helpfulness versus exploitation.
- Local facilitators at border crossings arranged transportation.
- Guide relationships ranged from supportive and service-oriented to exploitative.
Protective Intermediaries
24%
Shelters served as critical safe spaces (mentioned by 24% of participants).
Security Threats and Predatory Actors
94%
Criminal networks posed severe risks (referenced by 94% of total participants).
Formal Process Facilitators mentioned by participants
9.3%
Legal assistance providers were mentioned by a minority of total participants (9.3%)
Informal Administrative Support
Shelter staff provided critical application assistance
- 39.7% of CBP One users mentioned receiving help from shelters
- Assistance ranged from internet access to form completion
- Shelters often functioned as information hubs about legal pathways
Financial Support Networks
Family members were the primary source of migration funding.
- Remittances from relatives already in destination countries supported transit expenses.
Economic Service Providers and Exploitative Actors
Financial service providers operated across a spectrum.
- Some offered necessary services at reasonable costs (currency exchange, funds transfer).
- Others charged excessive fees for basic services (up to 30% for money transfers).
- Migrants often distinguished between fair payment and exploitation.
- High fees were sometimes accepted as necessary when alternatives were limited.
Intermediary Patterns Across Different Migration Pathways
Migrants' accounts revealed distinct intermediary ecosystems associated with each migration pathway, highlighting how context shapes these relationships:
Irregular Routes
See Legal & Irregular Pathways
- Most frequently mentioned intermediaries: Smugglers, transportation providers, other migrants, and local guides.
- Interaction patterns described: High-risk and transaction-based, with limited protections but often perceived as necessary.
CPB One Tool
See Digital Tools
- Most frequently mentioned intermediaries: Shelters (39.7% of users mentioned receiving support), informal app facilitators, peer migrants.
- Interaction patterns described: More structured than irregular routes but with technical barriers creating new dependencies.
Safe Mobility Offices
See Legal Pathways
- Most frequently mentioned intermediaries: International organizations, embassy officials, legal service providers, community networks.
- Interaction patterns described: Formal and bureaucratic, with both structured support and significant communication gaps.
Geographic Variations in Intermediary Ecosystems
Different regions featured distinct intermediary landscapes in migrant accounts, creating specific challenges and opportunities:
Northern Mexico Border Region
- Key intermediaries mentioned: Shelters, CBP One facilitators, smugglers, cartels.
- Security incident rates: 73.94% of CBP One users reported victimization.
- Major challenges: Many migrants described experiencing kidnapping risk (12.06%) and extortion (20.93%).
Central America Transit Corridor
- Key intermediaries mentioned: Transportation networks, officials, local guides.
Darien Gap
- Key intermediaries mentioned: Indigenous guides, criminal groups, humanitarian organizations.
- Physical challenges: 44.07% cited environmental hazards, 18.63% highlighted physical exhaustion.
- Financial relationships: Both legitimate services and exploitation were reported, with 86.96% of those mentioning smugglers reporting some form of financial pressure.