Shaping the “Deserving Refugee”: Insights from a Local Reception Programme in Belgium

Abstract

The sudden increase of asylum applications in the aftermath of the 2015 “refugee crisis”, has sparked the debate on the concept of “deservingness” in public discourse. Who deserves to enter into European territory? Who deserves to receive state-funded assistance? This article unpacks the notion of “deservingness” by analysing the rationalities of care underpinning a European-funded local support programme in Antwerp (Belgium). The programme offers special assistance to former unaccompanied minors, recognised as beneficiaries of legal protection, who have recently turned 18. By examining the categories, attitudes and perceptions shaping this local project, we show how the idea of “deservingness”, a central notion in wider European discourses on refugee reception, is reproduced and critically implemented by local actors of refugee assistance. Drawing on focus group interviews with five municipal and civil society organizations, we untangle legal, moral and economic dimensions of deservingness and illustrate how these can overlap or contradict each other within stakeholders’ perspectives. The analysis of the different stakeholders’ perspectives about the assumed characteristics of this “new” category of refugees deserving special care shows the significance of stakeholders’ respective organisational backgrounds. On a deeper level, ideas on deservingness reflect stakeholders’ different aspirations about the kind of citizens young refugees should become. As such, this chapter contributes to deeper understanding of moralities and rationalities shaping public discourse and local reception of refugees in Europe. It also highlights the role of localities in shaping innovative policies and in the wider debate on refugee assistance.

Le travail de l’irrégularité. Les migrant·e·s sans papiers et l’économie morale de l’emploi

“…Pour éviter d'ajouter d'autres infractions à celle concernant le séjour tout en permettant aux migrant•e•s de « mériter », certains programmes encouragent l'investissement dans la formation ou encore le bénévolat, travail gratuit autorisé aux non autorisé•e•s, parfois accompagné d'une maigre compensation et dont la valeur « civique » va au-delà de la visée de régularisation et peut être plus généralement vécue comme la performance d'une bonne citoyenneté économique pour qui se trouve dans une position légale et morale probatoire (Aubry, 2019 ;Di Cecco, 2016 ;Di Cecco et al, 2020). Ainsi, le mode de légitimation et de traitement humanitaire des flux est lui aussi traversé par la reconnaissance attribuée au travail, et n'est pas exempt de dynamiques de sélection, notamment en termes de classe sociale, qui viennent nuancer l'idée d'un ciblage systématique des plus vulnérables et conditionnent typiquement le séjour de long terme à l'anticipation d'une productivité civique future (Van Hear, 2004 ;Tcholakova, 2017 ;Chauvin et Garcés-Mascareñas, 2018 ;Ravn et al, 2020). Ce faisant, l'humanitarisme valorise une figure de la victime rédimable, qui fait apparaître la performance non tant comme l'inverse de la vulnérabilité que comme la nouvelle définition de la bonne vulnérabilité.…”

Constrained to be (im)mobile? Refugees' and Asylum seekers' practices to integrate in restrictive socio-economic urban contexts in Northern Italy

“…In the above case, the key person was a social operator working in vocational training programmes who tutored the refugee in the search for employment. In other words, entering the networks of local native people allows refugees to withstand racial discrimination as locals can stand as guarantor for the character of people to whom house owners rent out their property (Ravn et al, 2020 ). Beyond racism or discrimination, though, refugees may be rejected access to housing due to the precarious or informal character of their employment, which gives no guaranty to house owners.…”

Young refugees and locals living under the same roof: intercultural communal living as a catalyst for refugees’ integration in European urban communities?

“…Stakeholders argue that their inclusion would overburden the refugee's flatmate, make communal living impossible, and would not contribute to reaching the project's goals. In addition, refugees were required to have sufficient proficiency in Dutch, as it was feared a that a too low Dutch language proficiency would negatively affect the quality and quantity of social interactions between the refugees and their flatmates (Ravn, Mahieu, Belloni, & Timmerman, 2020).…”