Informing for the sake of it: legal intricacies, acceleration and suspicion in the German and Swiss migration regimes

IF 1.2 3区社会学 Q3 POLITICAL SCIENCE

Citizenship Studies Pub Date : 2022-10-03 DOI:10.1080/13621025.2022.2137941

L. Borrelli, Anna Wyss

{"title":"Informing for the sake of it: legal intricacies, acceleration and suspicion in the German and Swiss migration regimes","authors":"L. Borrelli, Anna Wyss","doi":"10.1080/13621025.2022.2137941","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT In migration law, being informed about legal and administrative procedures constitutes an essential procedural safeguard. Yet, in practice, the transparency of legal practices is often structurally undermined, resulting in the curtailment of procedural safeguards and potentially affecting perceptions of procedural justice. Building on our multi-sited ethnographic research in Germany and Switzerland, we first argue that migrants find it often difficult to anticipate how laws work, contradicting the key procedural law principle of legal certainty. Second, a general trend towards acceleration in migration administration allows limited time for information to reach migrants on the ground, leaving them uninformed about legal procedures. Third, migration law is implemented in an atmosphere of suspicion, which has a negative impact on trust between migrants and state officials – and on transparency. We thus demonstrate how procedural safeguards become empty and routinised, aggravating the structural violence at the heart of the distinction between citizens and non-citizens in interactions with the state.","PeriodicalId":47860,"journal":{"name":"Citizenship Studies","volume":"26 1","pages":"944 - 960"},"PeriodicalIF":1.2000,"publicationDate":"2022-10-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"5","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Citizenship Studies","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/13621025.2022.2137941","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"POLITICAL SCIENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 5

Abstract

ABSTRACT In migration law, being informed about legal and administrative procedures constitutes an essential procedural safeguard. Yet, in practice, the transparency of legal practices is often structurally undermined, resulting in the curtailment of procedural safeguards and potentially affecting perceptions of procedural justice. Building on our multi-sited ethnographic research in Germany and Switzerland, we first argue that migrants find it often difficult to anticipate how laws work, contradicting the key procedural law principle of legal certainty. Second, a general trend towards acceleration in migration administration allows limited time for information to reach migrants on the ground, leaving them uninformed about legal procedures. Third, migration law is implemented in an atmosphere of suspicion, which has a negative impact on trust between migrants and state officials – and on transparency. We thus demonstrate how procedural safeguards become empty and routinised, aggravating the structural violence at the heart of the distinction between citizens and non-citizens in interactions with the state.

查看原文本刊更多论文

为此提供信息：德国和瑞士移民制度中的法律复杂性、加速和怀疑

摘要在移民法中，了解法律和行政程序是必不可少的程序保障。然而，在实践中，法律实践的透明度往往在结构上受到损害，导致程序保障措施受到限制，并可能影响对程序正义的看法。在我们在德国和瑞士进行的多点民族志研究的基础上，我们首先认为，移民往往很难预测法律是如何运作的，这与法律确定性的关键程序法原则相矛盾。其次，移民管理加速的总体趋势使信息接触当地移民的时间有限，使他们对法律程序一无所知。第三，移民法是在怀疑的气氛中实施的，这对移民和国家官员之间的信任以及透明度产生了负面影响。因此，我们展示了程序保障是如何变得空洞和常规化的，加剧了在与国家互动中公民和非公民之间区别的核心结构性暴力。

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

Citizenship Studies POLITICAL SCIENCE-

CiteScore

3.60

自引率

11.10%

发文量

期刊介绍： Citizenship Studies publishes internationally recognised scholarly work on contemporary issues in citizenship, human rights and democratic processes from an interdisciplinary perspective covering the fields of politics, sociology, history and cultural studies. It seeks to lead an international debate on the academic analysis of citizenship, and also aims to cross the division between internal and academic and external public debate. The journal focuses on debates that move beyond conventional notions of citizenship, and treats citizenship as a strategic concept that is central in the analysis of identity, participation, empowerment, human rights and the public interest.