Policing Asylum Seekers’ Flight Within Europe

IF 1 Q3 SOCIOLOGY
Tom Montel
{"title":"Policing Asylum Seekers’ Flight Within Europe","authors":"Tom Montel","doi":"10.5195/JWSR.2021.1024","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"A critical assessment of the Dublin regulation requires a look beyond its official function of allocating asylum seekers across EU Member States. This article argues it embodies the “hidden face” of Schengen insofar as it legally fixes them in the sole country responsible for their application. Because this responsibility lies primarily with the first country of arrival, it is consistent with the core-periphery axis of division of labor in the EU. The first part of this paper examines how the Schengen/Dublin dual regime of (im)mobility might respond to the constant need for bridled labor alongside free wage labor in the world-system. However, equally constant is labor power’s propensity to evade its subsumption under capital; this is exemplified by Dubliners’ appropriation of freedom of movement through irregularity. By deserting the “plantations” of the European peripheries, those “maroons” of our present time disrupt the European geography of power and contest their assigned position in it. But the widely acknowledged failure of this regime to deter “secondary movements” does not necessarily mean it is non-effective. Attention must then be given to mechanisms of “exclusion from within” experimented on Dubliners. The second part will offer an overview of the tactics of internal rebordering that have been recently deployed in core countries and question the extent to which those attempts to recapture their flight meet the conditions for the optimization of capital’s operations.","PeriodicalId":36882,"journal":{"name":"Journal of World-Systems Research","volume":"27 1","pages":"77-108"},"PeriodicalIF":1.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-03-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of World-Systems Research","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5195/JWSR.2021.1024","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"SOCIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

A critical assessment of the Dublin regulation requires a look beyond its official function of allocating asylum seekers across EU Member States. This article argues it embodies the “hidden face” of Schengen insofar as it legally fixes them in the sole country responsible for their application. Because this responsibility lies primarily with the first country of arrival, it is consistent with the core-periphery axis of division of labor in the EU. The first part of this paper examines how the Schengen/Dublin dual regime of (im)mobility might respond to the constant need for bridled labor alongside free wage labor in the world-system. However, equally constant is labor power’s propensity to evade its subsumption under capital; this is exemplified by Dubliners’ appropriation of freedom of movement through irregularity. By deserting the “plantations” of the European peripheries, those “maroons” of our present time disrupt the European geography of power and contest their assigned position in it. But the widely acknowledged failure of this regime to deter “secondary movements” does not necessarily mean it is non-effective. Attention must then be given to mechanisms of “exclusion from within” experimented on Dubliners. The second part will offer an overview of the tactics of internal rebordering that have been recently deployed in core countries and question the extent to which those attempts to recapture their flight meet the conditions for the optimization of capital’s operations.
监管欧洲境内寻求庇护者的航班
对都柏林条例进行批判性评估需要超越其在欧盟成员国之间分配寻求庇护者的官方职能。这篇文章认为,它体现了申根的“隐藏面”,因为它在法律上将它们固定在对其申请负责的唯一国家。由于这一责任主要在于第一个到达国,因此与欧盟的核心-外围分工轴一致。本文的第一部分考察了申根/都柏林双重流动制度如何应对世界体系中对束缚劳动力和自由工资劳动力的持续需求。然而,同样不变的是劳动力逃避资本包容的倾向;都柏林人通过不规则行为侵占行动自由就是例证。通过放弃欧洲周边的“种植园”,我们这个时代的那些“放逐者”扰乱了欧洲的权力地理,并对他们在其中的既定地位提出了质疑。但这个政权在阻止“二次运动”方面的失败并不一定意味着它是无效的。然后必须注意在都柏林人身上试验的“内部排斥”机制。第二部分将概述最近在核心国家部署的内部重新预订策略,并质疑这些夺回航班的尝试在多大程度上符合资本运营优化的条件。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Journal of World-Systems Research
Journal of World-Systems Research Social Sciences-Political Science and International Relations
CiteScore
1.80
自引率
0.00%
发文量
24
审稿时长
30 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信