Asylum‐Seeking Work, Precariousness, and the Making of Claimant‐Workers

Abstract

This article contributes to the anthropological discussion on precariousness and labor precarity, with regard to temporality, potentiality, and subjectivity, by examining how asylum-seeking accounts intersect with, interrupt, and, above all, inform people's everyday labor activities outside the asylum process. Drawing on my ethnographic research among Nepali migrants and asylum seekers in the United States, I document people's adoption of a familiar sociocultural understanding of "the work of making paper" and retrospective logic to describe their subjective entanglement with the asylum documentation process and their impending labor subordination. I argue that it is through asylumseeking work that people participate in and inhabit the precarization process, sustaining and exacerbating, in some cases, their precarious working lives. In this sense, asylum-seeking work involves a subjective transformation of asylum seekers into precarious "claimantworkers," providing the condition of possibility for labor precariousness.

Unsettling the American Dream: Mobility, Migration and Precarity among Translocal Himalayan Communities during COVID‐19

“…One cannot overstate the huge risk of COVID‐19 infection for new immigrants and other marginalized communities; the pandemic has laid bare the relationship between structural inequality and health outcomes (Ross, 2020). Beyond risks to personal health prompted by the virus, immigrants face higher levels of precarity as a result of linguistic barriers, job insecurity, unequal access to healthcare, and legal uncertainty around visa and citizenship status (Shrestha, 2019). Mustangi households coped with ill family members and the loss of income.…”

On not seeking asylum: Migrant masculinities and the politics of refusal

“…For displaced people and other migrants, legal categories, openings for regularization, mechanisms for status determination or status conversions change over time, from place to place, and are rolled out differently for people with different backgrounds, nationalities or mobility histories (Coddington et al, 2020: 7, 9). Often shifting enforcement and ad-hoc or discretionary decision-making means those seeking status must expend considerable time and resources navigating these changes (see for example : Shrestha, 2019). This is often not just an accidental by-product of discretionary forms of regulation of mobility, but an intended effect (Coddington, 2020;Feldman, 2018).…”