Who is a Migrant? Abandoning the Nation-state Point of View in the Study of Migration

To the reviewers and editorial team of MigPol,
First of all, we would like to thank you all for taking your time to review out manuscript and for the thoughtful comments and constructive suggestions we received. In the list of changes below we will briefly explain, how we have tried to address each point, in particular the points highlighted by the editor-in-charge, Leila Hadj Abou. Whenever possible, we have provided page numbers referring to the passages in which the changes have been implemented in the revised manuscript.
We did however not highlight the changes in a particular colour or the like as we could not find anything about this in the guidelines for authors, so we decided to submit a clean version of our revised manuscript.
We hope that we have addressed all comments to your satisfaction. Should you require any clarification or additional information please do not hesitate to contact us.
With best wishes,

Martina and Stephan

List of implemented changes:

1. Reviewers have asked us to stress that there is not a singular ‘migrants’ perspective’ and that “at the very least this should be recognised by using the plural.”

Response: On page 2 in the introduction we have inserted a few lines which emphasise that there exist only a multiplicity of migrant perspectives because there are a myriad ways to be a migrant which are criss-crossed and shaped by lines of class, race, gender and so on. We have also tried to clarify that out definition of a migrant tries to emphasise this irreducible multiplicity with its focus on border struggles and its suggestion to begin the analysis by asking who is enacted as a migrant in this particular situation pertaining to the context under study. We have also added a short paragraph right after introducing our definition on page 9 of the revised manuscript to dispel this potential criticism.

2. Based on the reviews the editor notes, that if struggle is centralised in our alternative definition of a migrant, “then presumably not all those who are subject to immigration controls are migrants (unless having to apply for a visa counts as struggle).” While the editor acknowledges, that we will probably not have enough space to discuss all possible nuances and configurations, the editor invites us, nevertheless, to “anticipate some of the criticisms [and objections] that might be made” against our definition and to discuss some limit cases.

Response: We have added a few lines before and a short paragraph right after introducing our definition on page 9 in which we anticipate and try to dispel some of the doubts and criticisms that may be raised against our alternative definition of a migrant. In this new passage we (1) clarify what we mean with the notion of ‘migrant struggle’ in order to stress (2) that our definition does not intend to imply that all people subjected to border controls qualify as migrants according to our definition (3) because this requires that they are denied to move to or stay in a desired place because they are considered as ‘quintessential others’ vis-à-vis people considered as native/national citizens. We have also clarified in the section on the visa regime on page 11 that the young man is only enacted as a migrant in the moment that his visa application is rejected because he is considered as a ‘migration risk’. So not all people subjected to a visa requirement are migrantised, but those who are refused a visa.
In the new paragraph on page 9 we underscore, moreover, that our definition does not seek to reduce all migrants to one migrant condition. Quite to the contrary, it highlights the irreducible multiplicity of migrant conditions, perspectives and border struggles by inviting scholars to engage in a situated analysis and to begin their investigation by asking who is enacted as a migrant through what kind of practices of bordering and boundary-making in this particular situation I want to study? In this way our definition implicates a fracturing of the category of the migrant, thus resulting in an understanding of migration as something that is relational, contested and multiple.
Moreover, in the conclusion (pages 14-15) we point out that, while our definition may indeed open up space for difficult and ambiguous ‘marginal cases’ in regards to the question who should be considered as a migrant, (1) these marginal cases allow to invert the problem of migration and to scrutinize and problematize the implications of the national order of things for people who are migrantised. Furthermore, we emphasise (2) that the existing standard (state-centric) UN-definition of a migrant can only be maintained and operationalised by introducing all sorts of exceptions (for diplomatic staff, military personnel etc. that are not considered and counted as migrants) and methodological tricks.

3. To this regard, the reviewers and the editor have also asked us to “be clearer about who might, and who might not, count as a migrant under this definition and engage more with the fact that there is not a singular migrants perspective”.

Response: On page 9 as well as in the introduction we have inserted a few lines in which we explain and underline that our definition does not intend to reduce all migrants to one singular migrant condition. Quite to the contrary, it highlights the irreducible multiplicity of migrant conditions, perspectives and border struggles by inviting scholars to engage in a situated analysis and to begin their investigation by asking who is enacted as a migrant through what kind of practices of bordering and boundary-making in this particular situation I want to study? In this way our definition implicates a fracturing of the category of the migrant, thus resulting in an understanding of migration as something that is relational, contested and multiple.
On page 9 we also emphasise that not all people subjected to border controls or processes of boundary-making qualify as migrants. Only if they their right to reside in or move to a desired place is denied or called into question because they are considered and addressed as the ‘others’ of native/national citizens due to racialized notions of belonging and practices of bordering they qualify as migrants according to our definition. In the three examples that follow we have tried to clarify this further by discussing limit cases or ambiguous cases for each example, including examples in which ‘migrants’ contest being labelled and addressed as ‘migrants’ (see below).

4. They have also asked us to “add some lines on operationalization” i.e. to elaborate on how to operationalise our definition and to also “add some reflections if your ideas hold when taking some „harder“ cases.”

Response: We have updated and slightly extended the opening paragraph of the article’s third and last part on page 9-10 of the revised manuscript. In this paragraph we have provided some concrete instructions of how our definition can be put to use, namely by asking, as the first question of any research on migration, ‘who is (not) enacted as a migrant in the situation under study and how and through what kind of practices of border and boundary drawing is this migrantisation done?’ We have also provided a list of things and aspects scholars should look out for while engaging with this question. In addition, we have also added a few lines on how to operationalise our definition in particular contexts, for instance in relation to processes of boundary-making in context of ‘integration policies’, which require a different research strategy than conventional practices of bordering (page 13). Due to space constraints, we could only add a few reflections on ‘harder’ or more ambiguous cases in the conclusion (page 14-15).

5. We have been asked to “clarify the distinction between bordering and boundary making” and to also include boundary-making as a distinct element in our definition of a migrant.

Response: We have inserted a new endnote (5) on page 2 in the introduction, in which we explain that we distinguish between practices of bordering, which we understand as practices of statecraft enacting the nation-state as a bounded territory, jurisdiction and people, and processes of boundary-making which operate, in contrast, more on the discursive and symbolic level, playing a key role in the constitution of groups along lines of ethnicity and nationality. We have also added ‘processes of boundary-making’ as another element of our alternative definition of a migrant.
Building on these clarifications, we now highlight in section on integration that second, third etc. generation migrants refuse, contest and resist being labelled as a migrant or a ‘person with migration-background’ (page 12). We argue that these contestations and refusals are precisely one form of the border struggles we have in mind in relation to processes of boundary-making, highlighting the contingent and contested character of processes of migrantisation.

6. One reviewer rightly noted that we should provide “an explanation of why groupism necessarily constitutes methodological nationalism”

Response: We have addressed this comment on page 5 of the revised manuscript where we have added two lines. There, we explain that this form of methodological nationalism has become a cornerstone of ‘integration studies’, a whole branch of the field of migration studies, because [quote from revised manuscript] “groupism supports territorialised understandings of culture and (national) identity and the related conception of migrants (and their descendants) as ‘people not from here’ in need of integration.” We have also added references to two studies supporting this argument (Dumitru 2014 and Renard 2018).

7. The editor has asked us, in line some reviewers, to engage more with and acknowledge important “mainstream literature” that has criticised processes of migrantization.

Response: on page 8 of the revised manuscript we have inserted a new, short paragraph that refers to some important contributions, such as Roger Zetter’s labelling approach and his related critique of the fragmentation of the label of the refugee through the invention of new categories or the more general critique of the distinction between economic migrants and refugees/ forced migration as well as critiques of the dominant state-perspective in taxonomies of and distinctions between temporary vs. permanent, internal vs. international migration.

8. The editor-in-charge has asked us to “shorten the introduction and streamline/cut repetitions”

Response: We have tried to trim and streamline the introduction and to cut out any repetition throughout the manuscript, also to address the points raised above while keeping the manuscript close to the word limit of 12.000 words.

9. Finally, it was requested that we “harmonize the citation style” and do a final round of thorough proofreading.

Response: After liaising with the three editorial fellows we changed the citation style to APA 6th and updated the list of references. We also did a thorough proofreading. In particular we corrected all the mistakes and errors discovered by Ayse Dursun (report 2) whom we would like to thank for the close reading.