Lives in limbo: Temporary Protected Status and immigrant identities

Abstract

The United States formulates much of its immigration and refugee policy to match economic and political circumstances. We interpret these policy shifts as a set of graduated positions on immigration and refugee flows that attempts to discipline the lives of newcomers and, in so doing, shapes immigrant identities. In this article, we analyse the interplay between the US government and Salvadoran asylum applicants negotiating procedures that grant only temporary relief from deportation via the policy of Temporary Protected Status (TPS). We find that each policy shift results in the strategic renegotiation of asylum applicants' identities so as to achieve the best opportunity for a successful outcome. Based on Foucault's ideas of governmentality and Ong's concept of flexible citizenship, we argue that what appears more superficially as a patchwork strategy of immigration laws and asylum practices may be theorized more deeply as a set of flexible responses by the state that turn on identity construction at different scales, and that aim to mediate transnational relations.

Enduring Uncertainty

“…She does not assume that all migrants are victims of structural violence and social suffering, but rather documents how the new 'arsenal techniques' developed by the Israeli Immigration Police criminalise undocumented migrants, and how the 'newly intensified threat of arrest and deportation began to reverberate into every corner of migrants' complicated lives' (Willen 2007: 17). Like Mountz et al (2002) and Willen (2007), Burman (2006) focuses on migrants' fear of deportation (in her case, in Montreal), revealing how they are haunted by their deportability and insecurity. Like Willen, she examines how migrants' deportability affects their sense of time, space and mobility.…”

Asylum Seekers’ Credibility Burden: Managing Trauma in the Asylum Process without Collective Support

“…Due to many nation-states addressing an influx of undocumented migrants and concerns for border security generally, asylum seekers face suspicion of their validity (Castenada, 2008;Einolf, 2001;Chavez, 1997;Black, 2003;Ranger, 2005;Mountz, Wright, Miyares, & Bailey, 2002;Schafer, 2002;Uçarer, 1989;Loescher, 1989;Abeyratne, 1999). Although these perceptions are questionable with regard to the rights associated to refugees and asylum seekers, host states have claimed that they are seeking to verify asylum seekers and support border security measures (Ricoeur, 2010;Kivisto & Faist, 2009;Welch & Schuster, 2005;Einolf, 2001;Neumayer, 2005;Loescher, 1989).…”

“…Although committed to accepting asylum seeker applicants, host states are struggling to integrate them (Einolf, 2001;Widgren, 1987, p. 601). Measures have been adopted by nation-states to decrease undocumented migrants (via criminalization) as well as indirectly restrict asylum seekers (Engbersen & Leerkes, 2010, p. 211;Demleitner, 2010, p. 229;Kivisto & Faist, 2009;Schuster, 2011;Black, 2003;Rottman et al, 2009;Loescher, 1989;Abeyratne, 1999;Mountz et al, 2002;Neumayer, 2005;Barnett, 2002). For instance, policies that facilitate non-officials to make asylum reviews have complicated the process for asylum seekers (Rottman et al, 2009;Eades, 2005;Loescher, 1989;Uçarer, 1989:292;Abeyratne, 1999;Barnett, 2002;Mountz et al, 2002).…”

“…The ability to develop a sound claim for asylum is often scrutinized by asylum officers who perceive asylum seekers as potential false claimants (Shuster, 2011;Crawley, 2010;Stabile & Rentschler, 2005;Ranger, 2005;Pickering, 2007;Shafer, 2002;Mountz et al, 2002;Visweswaran, 2004, p. 490;Welch & Schuster, 2005;Black, 2003;Abeyratne, 1999).…”

Hyenas of the Limpopo: The Social Politics of Undocumented Movement Across South Africa’s Border with Zimbabwe

“…This form of engagement with both the power and magic of the state (Das, 2004), what others (Hoag, 2010) have termed the magic of the populace, takes on both this ambivalence to bureaucracies, and creative responses to state mechanisms of regulating people at the level of identity (often with a possibility for personal gain) (Mountz, Wright, Miyares, & Bailey, 2002). These positionalities regarding general attitudes towards border enforcement result in what I shortly discuss as illegibility.…”