Crackdown or Symbolism? An Analysis of Post-2015 Policy Responses Towards Rejected Asylum Seekers in Austria

Abstract

This chapter explores the policy responses of the federal government in Austria regarding non-removed rejected asylum seekers after the country served as both a transit and a host country in 2015 to an increasing number of asylum seekers. Shortly after the summer of 2015, non-removed rejected asylum seekers moved to the centre of political debates. The federal government introduced a series of restrictive policy responses that sought to deter these individuals from staying, while simultaneously trying to gain control over them through various punitive measures, including confinement. These substantive measures were accompanied by several symbolic policies that aimed to demonstrate the government’s tough approach to rejected asylum seekers to the electorate. Based on a qualitative content analysis of parliamentary documents and media coverage of policy responses addressing this group of irregular migrants, we show how this mix of symbolic and substantive policy responses emerged and discuss factors that stimulated this policy strategy.

Return Policies and Everyday Resistance: An Exploration of Nigerian Migrants’ Experiences in Austria

“…The European continent is grappling with a notable surge in the influx of refugees and migrants, prompting various nations to implement stringent measures to address this complex and multilayered issue. Over the past decade, numerous European countries, including Austria, have adopted a series of rigorous policies, particularly in response to the 2015 long summer of migration and subsequent challenges posed by the COVID-19 pandemic (Ataç/Schütze 2020). These policy advancements have had a substantial impact on the decision-making processes of migrants, particularly regarding their choices to return to their countries of origin.…”

Symbolic control of return migration: The South Tyrolean example (1946-1955)

“…Instrumental and expressive symbolic forms are also often interrelated. For example, immigration removal centers can be used to exclude specific parts of the population and to have a deterrent effect on those who consider to immigrate, but also, symbolically, to mark those parts of the population out as threatening and dangerous (Ataç & Schütze, 2020). A distinction, however, needs to be made between symbolic policy-making and symbolic politics.…”