Landscapes of refugee protection

Coddington, Kate

doi:10.1111/tran.12224

Cited by 38 publications

(26 citation statements)

References 45 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…For example, in the UK asylum-seekers experience contradicting temporal framesfrom stillness brought on by the slow decision-making bureaucracy that denies them the right to work, to the sudden raids and transfers to removal centres if their applications are unsuccessful. Stripped of many rights, and unable to control their own times, they suffer from constant anxiety, insecurity and often destitution (Coddington, 2018;Gill, 2009;Griffiths, 2014) Making people wait through various restrictions becomes a key tool, utilized by an assemblage of state and non-state actors. These tactics of immobilizing people are equally present in Lebanon where governance structures may be different.…”

Section: Waitingmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The restrictive regulations in Lebanon in relation to Syrians or indeed other refugees violate international norms with regards to refugee crises, yet they are not out of step with much of what is practiced in many other countries, including in the Global South that face protracted refugee situations (Coddington, 2018). Indeed, geopolitical shifts and changes to practices of meeting obligations under international refugee law since the 1980s have meant increasing pressure on predominantly countries in the Global South to abide by principles of non-refoulement while simultaneously carrying the burden of mass displacements of refugees.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Managing through ad hoc measures: Syrian refugees and the politics of waiting in Lebanon

Sanyal¹

2018

Political Geography

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Managing through Ad Hoc Measures : Syrian Refugees and Legal Geographies in Lebanon This paper explores how the ad hoc and uneven implementation and enforcement of policies in the context of the Global South particularly in situations of large-scale refugee crises creates forms of waiting and precarity amongst refugees. This exploration is initiated by questions about how states in the Global South manage mass displacements of people whilst adhering to the principles of non-refoulement , a customary international law forbidding countries from forcibly returning refugees to conditions that may endanger their lives. How is this complicated in situations where states are not party to the Refugee convention and where refugee crises become protracted? How does this then lead to immobilizing refugees and compelling them to wait? I focus on the practices of the Lebanese state in response to the Syrian refugee crisis that has continued on from 2011. Lebanon has changed its regulations and decisions towards the large number of Syrians living in the country over the course of the crisis whilst adhering to the principle of nonrefoulement. However, the policies enacted by the government are arbitrarily implemented and enforced at different scales of governance creating legal anxieties and immobilities for Syrians in the country. I draw on the work of critical legal and political geographers to argue that the ad hoc nature of the law, creates a fragmented landscape of mobility for Syrians, exacerbating conditions of precarity and poverty and, importantly, colonizing their futures.

show abstract

Section: Waitingmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Managing through ad hoc measures: Syrian refugees and the politics of waiting in Lebanon

Sanyal¹

2018

Political Geography

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Migration governance in the United Kingdom, United States, and Thailand shares many similarities: a focus on ad hoc and arbitrary policies toward migrants (Coddington 2018), the expanding role of private contractors in immigration enforcement practices (Flynn and Cannon 2009;Conlon and Hiemstra 2017a;Martin 2017), the shrinking of global aid budgets affecting support for refugees and migrants, and the increasingly xenophobic rhetoric targeting refugees and migrants across the world. Yet our comparison highlights that in the United Kingdom, United States, and Thailand, migrant destitution is embedded within strategies to limit opportunities for protection for refugees even as destitution becomes enmeshed within circuits of value creation.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In this case, the deliberate use of ambiguous, selective, or malleable status produces potential value, specifically embodied as flexible, underpaid, legally precarious migrant labor. Thus, the SEZ's location and labor force are made possible through the deliberate use of gaps between recognized refugees and unrecognized asylum seekers or migrants (Coddington 2018).…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Destitution Economies: Circuits of Value in Asylum, Refugee, and Migration Control

Coddington

Conlon

Martin

2020

Annals of the American Association of Geographers

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In this article, we argue that destitution economies of migration control are specific circuits of exchange and value constituted by migration control practices that produce migrant and refugee destitution. Comparative analysis of three case studies, including border encampment in Thailand, deprivation in U.S. immigration detention centers, and deterrence through destitution in the United Kingdom, demonstrate that circuits of value depend on the detachment of workers from citizenship and simultaneously produce both migrant destitution and new forms of value production. Within destitution economies, migration and asylum's particular juridico-political position as domestic, foreign, and securitized allows legal regimes to produce migrants and asylum seekers as distinct economic subjects: forsaken recipients of aid. Although they might also work for pay, we argue that destitute migrants and asylum seekers have value for others through the grinding labor of living in poverty. That is, in their categorization as migrants and asylum seekers, they occupy a particular position in relation to economic circuits. These economic circuits of migration control, in turn, rely on the destitution of mobile people. Our approach advances political geographies of migration, bordering, and exclusion as well as economic geographies of marketization and value, arguing that the predominance of political analysis and critique of immigration and asylum regimes obscures how those regimes produce circuits of value in and through law, state practices, and exclusion. Furthermore, law, state power, and forced mobility constitute circuits of value and marketization. Conceptualizing these migration control practices as destitution economies illuminates novel transformations of the political and economic geographies of migration, borders, and inequality.

show abstract

“…By November 2018, the Trump administration was looking to the Mexican government to intercept potential refugees in complete disregard of legal commitments to provide hearings to those seeking refuge from potentially deadly circumstances back home. This disregard for established law and norms governing refugees is increasingly shared across the world irrespective of the formal obligations of the governments in question (Coddington ; Fisher and Taub ).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

The Asymmetric Border: The United States’ Place in the World and the Refugee Panic of 2018

Agnew

2019

Geographical Review

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The year 2018 saw a moral panic in the United States in the media and among many citizens over the treatment of refugees/asylees at the U.S. southern border, particularly the separation and detention of children apart from their parents. This happened in the context of a period in U.S. political history in which “immigration,” without much discernment about different types of immigration, was central to political discourse. In fact, in terms of numbers, there was no immigration crisis at the border. Undocumented migration from Mexico across the southern border of the United States has been in decline for many years, and the irregular movement of people from El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras is currently small by historical standards. The only crisis, to which the U.S. panic was a response, has been a human rights crisis. Families and children seeking asylum from horrendous civil‐rights conditions in their countries of origin were criminalized and denied their right to asylum hearings. The panic points both to the extreme politicization of immigration in the United States, particularly since Donald Trump's entry into national politics in 2015, and to popular confusion over categorizing different types of immigrants. But it also raises questions about the nature of the U.S. southern border in relation to the United States’ place in the world. Rather than thinking about the United States as simply the rich destination country of unfortunate people coming from poor origin countries, the refugee panic of 2018 brings into the focus the fact that the United States itself is complicit in the conditions in those countries that produce so many refugees in the first place.

show abstract

Landscapes of refugee protection

Cited by 38 publications

References 45 publications

Managing through ad hoc measures: Syrian refugees and the politics of waiting in Lebanon

Managing through ad hoc measures: Syrian refugees and the politics of waiting in Lebanon

Destitution Economies: Circuits of Value in Asylum, Refugee, and Migration Control

The Asymmetric Border: The United States’ Place in the World and the Refugee Panic of 2018

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About