Mig. Pol. 3, 001 (2024) ·
published 8 April 2024
|
· pdf
This article examines how refugees advocate for themselves with the UN Refugee Agency (UNHCR), and what responses their communications engender. It analyzes letters sent by refugees in Kenya to UNHCR headquarters in Geneva between 1983 and 1994. The findings underline a disjuncture between refugees’ efforts to constitute themselves as political agents, and UNHCR’s insistence on viewing them as depoliticized subjects. The refugees perform citizenship vis-à-vis UNHCR, using their shared identity as a basis for collective claims-making and trying to renegotiate their unequal relationship with the international organization. To empower themselves, they adopt the international organization’s own refugee rights vocabulary and play off different organizations and layers of UNHCR against each other. UNHCR’s responses (or lack thereof) demonstrate the consequences of its insulation and bureaucratization. These insights are especially noteworthy in light of recent progress on meaningful refugee participation in the refugee regime.
Mig. Pol. 3, 002 (2024) ·
published 19 June 2024
|
· pdf
Over the past four decades, maritime geographies have become prominent sites of migration governance. While there is important scholarly work on these spaces, charting changing techniques of control and containment, what continues to demand attention is the governance that works through systematically keeping people seeking asylum mobile at sea. This article focuses on Australia, examining the coerced mobilities that follow interdictions at sea and their carceral nature. I interrogate the High Court case, CPCF v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection, which addresses the extended maritime detention of 157 people seeking asylum in June 2014. Through analysing the language used in this case, such as the conclusion by the majority that “to detain” a person at sea mandates a concomitant duty “to take” that person somewhere, I highlight how coerced mobility has become central to Australia’s strategy of maritime migration governance and how this has come to legitimate detention at sea without any clear time limitation. This will reveal the extent to which carcerality informs migration governance in Australia’s maritime geographies.
Mig. Pol. 3, 003 (2024) ·
published 12 August 2024
|
· pdf
The last decade and a half have seen a dramatic increase in the outsourcing and offshoring of asylum processing and resettlement to countries in the Global South. This article advances a new theoretical framework to examine the surge in new asylum regimes worldwide. Drawing on ethnographic fieldwork in several externalised asylum sites and specifically in Guatemala, it looks at these recent developments through the lens of ‘resource frontiers.’ Merging critical political ecological approaches on resource frontiers with research on border externalisation, I argue that ‘asylum frontiers’ are the social spaces connected to the exploration and development of a resource sector that extracts value from people on the move. I centre my analysis on the US-driven development of an asylum regime in Guatemala’s northern Petén region. I consider the specificities of Guatemala’s emerging asylum frontier, detailing how this arrangement sits with the country’s own histories of asylum and enforced return. In doing so, I show how different political actors – migrants, Indigenous Mayan refugees, and deported Guatemalans – ‘live with’ these frontier economies.
Mig. Pol. 3, 004 (2024) ·
published 11 October 2024
|
· pdf
In immigration detention centres, emotions run high; tensions, conflicts, anxiety, and affection occur amid bureaucratic procedures, paperwork, files, lists of people, systematisation of cases, buses that come and go with detainees, and people who will be deported. Although immigration detention belongs to administrative law, in practice, detention centres operate closer to penal detention. Little is known about the operation of these places in Mexico, including how punishment takes place in daily practice. Even less is known about the people who work there, especially the rationale and emotions behind their daily decisions and the different ways in which they collaborate with a system that promotes punishment as a central element of immigration detention. In this article, I study how fear and disgust are emotions embedded in institutional practices that reinforce punishment in immigration detention, while empathy can challenge it. I analyse working conditions and daily interactions in detention centres, immigration control facilities and their surroundings. I argue that immigration agents can develop punitive subjectivities to channel emotions derived from anxieties and frustrations of daily work, as well as to embrace a sense of institutional belonging and the illusion of order and control. However, border officers also show empathy towards migrants to cope with emotional distress and humanise their daily work. I intend to answer the questions in this paper: Under what institutional conditions do emotions become power in immigration detention settings? What do emotions reveal about the functioning of punishment in immigration detention centres? How do emotions expressed by INM agents (such as fear, disgust and empathy) enhance or challenge punitive subjectivities?
Mig. Pol. 3, 005 (2024) ·
published 30 October 2024
|
· pdf
This paper is about the state-driven process of ‘migrant ‘illegality’ (Genova 2002) and its impact on the life of Bengali speaking residents in the Assam state of India. While the movement of people across borders between India and present-day Bangladesh has been historical and complex, this ethnographic work explores how the state-driven process of migrant illegality and the production of ‘bare life’ have disrupted intimate relations and family life among this population in Assam. While the recent NRC (National Register of Citizens) update in Assam identified 1.9 million people as illegal migrants, there has been bureaucratic enactment of ‘migrant illegality’ by Assam Border Police for the last several years. The institutional procedures, court documents and narratives of the select cases of ‘detected’ as well as ‘detained’ migrants from ethnographic fieldwork reveal how the absence of formal papers and errors in the family records, kinship relations and property inheritance among the poor migrant families transforms actual citizens to ‘illegal migrants’ in the bureaucratic manoeuvring and reduces them to their ‘bare life’. The paper also shows how prejudice, arbitrariness, and contradictions feed into the bureaucratic process and lead to intense crises among family units, as several families have both Indians and alleged ‘Bangladeshis’ in their homes today. The paper argues that the major consequence of this state-driven ‘migrant illegality’ in the last two decades has been the creation of national borders among families, unsettling intimate relations and shared spaces.
