Between Cross-Border Friction and Opportunity: Moldovan Immigrants in Spain

  • Silvia MarcuEmail author
Part of the Societies and Political Orders in Transition book series (SOCPOT)


This chapter highlights the migration process of Moldovans in Spain as a result of the collapse of the USSR and which led to the country’s independence. Drawing on 30 in-depth interviews with Moldovans who migrated to Spain from the late 1990s to the present, the chapter examines how the political processes that occurred in Moldova, which are reflected in the gradual opening up of the Schengen border, produce friction and uncertainty, influencing the experiences of Moldovans and having repercussions in their subsequent lives and work trajectories in Spain. First, the chapter aims to introduce the concept of “friction” to examine how the reinforcement of the State border as a (re)bordering process contributed to the development of uncertainty as a subjective experience of immigrants who contend with frustrations in the Spanish labor market. Second, I raise the term of “opportunity” as a consequence of fluidity marked by opening up of borders that favor the free movement of citizens. Opportunity as a concept aims to show how the new scenarios created by greater EU integration help Moldovan immigrants achieve better integration in Spain.


  1. Active Population Survey. (2018). Retrieved December 28, 2018, from
  2. Andreas, P. (2003). Redrawing the line: Borders and security in the twenty-first century. International Security, 28(2), 78–111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Ansell, N., van Blerk, L., Hajdu, F., & Robson, E. (2011). Spaces, times, and critical moments: A relational time – space analysis of the impacts of AIDS on rural youth in Malawi y Lesotho. Environment and Planning D, 43, 524–544.Google Scholar
  4. Balibar, E. (2002). What is border? Politics and the other scene. London: Verso.Google Scholar
  5. Barth, F. (1989). The analysis of culture in complex societies. Ethnos, 54, 120–142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Brown, L. (2009). The transformative power of the international sojourn: An ethnographic study of the international student experience. Annals of Tourism Research, 36, 502–521.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Cebotari, V., Siegel, M., & Mazzucato, V. (2018). Migration and child health in Moldova and Georgia. Comparative Migration Studies, 6(3), 1–22.Google Scholar
  8. Collins, F. (2012). Transnational mobilities and urban spatialities: Notes from the Asia-Pacific. Progress in Human Geography, 36, 316–336.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Cooper, A., & Rumford, C. (2013). Monumentalising the border: Bordering through connectivity. Mobilities, 8(1), 107–124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Delegation EU Moldova. (2017). Travel to the EU from Moldova. Retrieved March 4, 2018, from
  11. Ferguson, J., & Gupta, A. (2002). Spatializing states: Toward an ethnography of neoliberal governmentality. American Ethnologist, 29, 981–1002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Findlay, A., King, R., Smith, F., Geddes, A., & Skeldon, R. (2012). World class? An investigation of globalisation, difference and international student mobility. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, 37(1), 118–131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Glaser, B., & Strauss, A. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. New York: Aldine.Google Scholar
  14. Glick Schiller, N., Basch, L., & Szanton-Blanc, C. (1992). Transnationalism: A new analytical framework for understanding migration. New York: New York Academy of Sciences.Google Scholar
  15. Hannam, K., Sheller, M., & Urry, J. (2006). Editorial: Mobilities, immobilities and moorings. Mobilities, 1(1), 1–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Hannerz, U. (1996). Transnational connections: Culture, people, places. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  17. Haverig, A. (2011). Constructing global/local subjectivities: The New Zealand OE as governance through freedom. Mobilities, 6, 103–123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Inkson, K., & Myers, B. (2003). The big OE’: Self directed travel and career development. Career Development International, 4, 170–181.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Jansen, A. (2013). Mobility regimes and borderwork in the European community. Mobilities, 8(1), 35–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. King, C. (2003). Marking time in the middle ground: Contested identities and Moldovan foreign policy. Journal of Communist Studies and Transition Politics, 19(3), 60–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Marchetti, S., & Venturini, A. (2014). Mothers and grandmothers on the move: Labour mobility and the household strategies of Moldovan and Ukrainian migrant women in Italy. International Migration, 52(5), 111–126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Marcu, S. (2014). Between migration and cross-border mobility: Return for development and Europeanization among Moldavian immigrants. Southeast European and Black Sea Studies, 14(1), 83–107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Marcu, S. (2016). Learning mobility challenging borders: Cross-border experiences of eastern European immigrants in Spain. Mobilities, 11(3), 343–361.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Ministry of Employment and Social Security Spain. (2007, June). August 22, 2018, from
  25. Ministry of Employment and Social Security, Spain. (2013, June 30). Retrieved July 15, 2018, from certificado/201306/Residentes_Tablas_PR_30062013.pdf
  26. Ministry of Security and Social Employment. (2017). Retrieved April 2, 2018, from
  27. Murphy-Lejeune, E. (2002). Student mobility and narrative in Europe: The new strangers. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  28. National Bureau of Statistics. (2017). July 1, 2018, from
  29. Newmann, D. (2006). The lines that continue to separate us: Borders in our ‘borderless’ world. Progress in Human Geography, 30(2), 143–161.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Paasi, A. (2009). Bounded spaces in a ‘borderless world’: Border studies, power and the anatomy of territory. Journal of Power, 2(2), 213–234.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Portes, A., Guarnizo, L., & Landolt, P. (1999). The study of transnationalism: Pitfalls and promise of an emergent research field. Ethnic and Racial Studies, 22(2), 217–237.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Romanian citizenship Law 21/1991, Romania. (1991). Retrieved August 29, 2018, from
  33. Rumford, C. (2007). Does Europe have cosmopolitan borders? Globalizations, 4(3), 327–339.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Shevchenko, O. (2009). Crisis and the everyday in postsocialist Moscow. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
  35. Simpson, P. (2008). Chronic everyday life: Rhythm anaysing street performance. Social and Cultural Geography, 9, 807–829.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Stenning, A. (2005). Post-socialism and the changing geographies of the everyday in Poland. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, 31, 113–127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Tsing, A. (2005). Friction: An ethnography of global connection. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Van Houtum, H. (1999). Internationalisation and mental borders. Tijdschrift voor Economische en Sociale Geografie, 90(3), 329–335.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Wallace, W. (2002). Where does Europe end? Dilemmas of inclusion and exclusion. In J. Zielonka (Ed.), Europe unbound: Enlarging and reshaping the boundaries of the European Union (pp. 78–94). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  40. Waters, J. (2006). Geographies of cultural capital: Education, international migration and family strategies between Hong Kong and Canada. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, 31, 179–192.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Instituto de Economía, Geografía y Demografía Consejo Superior de Investigaciones CientíficasMadridSpain

Personalised recommendations