The "humanitarian border" that emerged at the Aegean Islands of Chios and Lesbos during the so called "refugee crisis" arose out of various engagements with care and control. A humanitarian border can be said to consist of the entanglements between humanitarianism and securitization. But how do care and control materialize in practice and how can they move from one place to another? By combining the notion of the "humanitarian border" with the concept of "viapolitics" and an actor-network lens, and based on interviews with state authorities, volunteers and NGOs, this article brings in three claims. First, by studying the "missing masses", the humanitarian border can be said to arise out of "conjoint actions" that concern engagement with peoples and objects of all sorts. Second, the humanitarian border is not only of a composite nature but of a mobile nature as well. Third, the interstructure of the humanitarian border is generated by a productive relationship between the fluidity of network configurations on the one hand and emerging frictions on the other. By studying the situated tensions between humanitarianism and securitization and focusing on the circulation of materialities of all sorts the movements that make up a humanitarian border can be displayed.

This contribution focuses on volunteer initiatives that seek to assist refugee status holders in Rotterdam. It studies initiatives that are still in the process of fine-tuning their focus, grappling for funds, searching for volunteers, and seeking collaborations. The article lays bare the inequalities that such aspiring initiatives can be premised on and produce. In analyzing moments in which the label of 'volunteer' is rejected-or instead celebrated or transformed-this article demonstrates that the elastic representation of volunteering clashes with callous boundaries between 'being only a volunteer' and 'doing something together.' These boundaries are heartfelt by the organizers of these aspiring initiatives, who often have a refugee background themselves. By understanding inequality in volunteering in relation to debates about active citizenship, this article seeks to examine the workings of the glass ceiling that hinders the organizers of volunteer initiatives to transition into a position they consider more credible and professional.

Since 2015, residents in Europe have responded to the so-called "refugee crisis" by undertaking bottom-up activities in which they engage with newcomers. These resident responses-both supportive and restrictive towards refugee reception-apply pressure on governments to change protection regimes. In the Netherlands, for example, "ordinary people" join anti-migrant patrol groups that target refugees, or assist border-crossers and accommodate refugees. In this article, I study grassroots movements in which residents undertake practices focused on refugee reception in the Netherlands, and discuss the democratic potential of these undertakings. In the wake of extensive neoliberal processes that seek to "craft good citizens" and emerging forms of public action that bring perceived injustices to light, this article investigates the cracks and continuities between practices of care and control. It does so by analysing and comparing two explanatory mechanisms that prevail in recent literature to account for grassroots movements: active citizenship and counter-powers.

In the wake of mass-migrations of refugees seeking safety and stability in Europe, this contribution studies emerging grassroots organizations that support refugee status holders in Rotterdam, the Netherlands. The municipality expects these organizations to adhere to the European trend to incorporate immigrant integration priorities in interventions that apply to all residents. The article discusses the paradox of how bureaucratic classifications regarding preferred target groups cast certain grassroots responses as fringe-activities that are less legible bureaucratically. Based on a year of ethnographic fieldwork, this article shows how this lessened legibility translates into profound insecurities for grassroots organizers. The article discusses how these insecurities, in combination with the uncertainty grassroots organizers feel regarding their employability, motivate them to play guessing games and to give in to municipal preferences to boost their eligibility for funding. It argues that this process of giving in to municipal preferences should be understood as an attempt to render their endeavors legible, reduce precariousness, secure a livelihood, and turn affective labor into a life-sustaining practice. In so doing, this contribution evokes the story of a particular grassroots organizer—a woman of color with a forced migration background.