Whose (in)security counts in crisis? Selection categories in Germany’s humanitarian admission programmes before and after 2015

Abstract

This article investigates refugee categorisations in humanitarian admission programmes. Official selection categories and the way they are enacted at the frontline have significant implications for refugees' unequal (im)mobility and (in)security as they determine who can safely and legally travel to Europe. Based on original ethnographic data, the analysis examines how different political actors mobilise humanitarian and security 'orders of worth' to justify how selection categories prioritise some refugees' security and mobility over others' in times of perceived crisis. Contrasting Germany's admission programmes from Lebanon (2013Lebanon ( -2015 to those from Turkey (2016-) demonstrates a shift from an overall humanitarian, to a combination of humanitarian and state security orders of worth. The focus on categorisation and justification practices advances a grounded understanding of how inequalities in refugees' (in)security and (im)mobility emerge and shift in the course of changing crisis definitions.

Policy differentiation and the politics of belonging in India’s emigrant and emigration policies

“…The Indian emigration and emigrant policies are another instance of how colonialism configures mobility regulations and exclusionary/inclusionary policies (see Mayblin and Turner 2021 ). Therefore, this article connects to the broader debates about the hierarchization of human worth (see, for example, Welfens 2021 ) – a relevant issue beyond postcolonial societies.…”

“…Categorizations used as selection criteria are a vital tool for governing (migrant) populations and mobility (see Welfens 2021 ). A plethora of literature has shed light on boundary work in the immigration context, exploring how states classify people as belonging to ‘us’ or ‘them’ through selective visa policies, rights attribution, and pathways to citizenship.…”

“…As boundary work concerns the construction of identity in relation to others, research adopting this approach, with a focus on bureaucratic boundary drawing in immigration contexts, has scrutinized boundaries as institutional regulations which draw distinctions between migrants and refugees as non-citizens, as opposed to citizens (e.g. Anderson 2013 ; Raghuram 2021 ; Welfens 2021 ). Boundary making, of course, is not unique to immigration contexts: States also select among their emigrants to restrict exit (see Shivakoti, Henderson, and Withers 2021 ) and the distribution of rights and privileges (Ho 2011 ; Mylonas and Žilović 2019 ; Pedroza 2020 ; Tsourapas 2015 ).…”

Migration in the Context of Climate and Environmental Changes within Central Asia and to the European Union and the Russian Federation

“…Priority is particularly given to cases of (or risk of) violence and/or torture; illnesses and genital mutilation; persecution against ethnic, social or religious groups; sex-based discrimination or persecution ; family unity; and ties with the country as well as to single parents, the elderly and children (ibid. ; Welfens, 2022). Humanitarian admission programmes in Germany do not specifically refer to environmental stressors as causes of migration or as criteria to be taken into account when deciding whom to admit.…”

Values and Organizing Principles in the Swedish Resettlement System: Exploring the Benefits of an Ethnographic Regime Approach

“…The system is thus dependent on political will in each receiving state, and, by extension, also on popular support (ibid.). Welfens (2021), reminiscent also of Bose's (2020) argument about the US and Canada, highlights an important aspect in this regard, namely that shifts in international and political environments seem to intercept the grounding on which the refugee admission programs to Germany is based, so that the orders of worth used to steer the program has shifted from mainly humanitarian prior to 2015, to a combination of humanitarian and security based foci thereafter.…”