After the Deportation Gap: Non-Removed Persons and their Pathways to Social Rights

Rosenberger, Sieglinde; Küffner, Carla

doi:10.14220/9783737004749.137

Cited by 21 publications

(23 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Additionally, the analysis also suggests that the tool is practically unwise, as it seems hardly able to meet its stated objectives. Policy-makers face significant constraints in dealing with the phenomenon of precarious residence (Gibney 2009;Rosenberger and Küffner 2016;Thym 2016). A liberal state, however, needs to be able to reconcile the apparent trade-off between migration control and integration management more competently than with a country-of-origin based instrument, as seen in the case study analysed here.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…At the end of March 2018, there were 892.355 pending asylum cases in the EU, 420.305 of which in Germany (Eurostat 2018). The presence of migrants in this and similar limbo situations is an EU-wide phenomenon (Rosenberger and Küffner 2016) and similar to situations all over the world (Gibney 2009), and so the question of normative permissibility of differential treatment of these 'unwanted' migrants will remain significant. As Shachar (2014, 122) argues regarding "the current state of affairs in immigrant democracies", it is precisely "the proliferating 'in-between' categories [i.e.…”

mentioning

confidence: 94%

See 1 more Smart Citation

A prospect of staying? Differentiated access to integration for asylum seekers in Germany

Schultz

2019

Ethnic and Racial Studies

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper investigates the normative permissibility of differential inclusion policies, taking Germany as a case study. In the face of mounting asylum applications, Germany introduced new administrative rules differentiating access to integration for asylum seekers. The paper normatively examines whether this practice is consistent with two conventional liberal concepts: special obligations grounding the moral commitments of the liberal state towards its own citizens and the principle of legal certainty grounding its moral commitments towards everyone under its jurisdiction, including asylum seekers. Combining these two usually separately employed perspectives, it argues that while differential inclusion is in principle consistent with these liberal principles, the crude criterion of the country of origin does not comply with both perspectives. The paper contributes to the debate on the ethics of immigration by scrutinizing this realworld instrument of differential inclusion from a political philosophy perspective.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 94%

A prospect of staying? Differentiated access to integration for asylum seekers in Germany

Schultz

2019

Ethnic and Racial Studies

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…However, since host countries are often unable to enforce removal and return them to their country of origin or a third country, NRAS remain in the territory of the host countries. The reasons for not removing asylum seekers vary (Lutz, 2018;Rosenberger & K€ uffner, 2016). Some are practical obstacles, such as a lack of travel documents, lack of cooperation from the countries of return, or a lack of transport options.…”

Section: Non-removed Rejected Asylum Seekersmentioning

confidence: 99%

Deserving Shelter: Conditional Access to Accommodation for Rejected Asylum Seekers in Austria, the Netherlands, and Sweden

Ataç

2019

Journal of Immigrant & Refugee Studies

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Limitations in access to welfare services for noncitizens of a host country are structured through conditional entitlements, which require benefit claimants to meet certain conditions to access welfare services. This article explores the conditions and regulations determining access to state-organized accommodation facilities for non-removed rejected asylum seekers in Austria, the Netherlands, and Sweden and the way in which these conditions are implemented. Based on qualitative interviews with stakeholders and analysis of policy documents, I argue that qualities of deservingness, such as vulnerability and performance, determine noncitizens' access to state-provided accommodation, which strengthens the logic of migration control.

show abstract

“…The gap between removal orders and effective returns has existed for many years and is not related to the migration crisis per se. Scholars have framed this phenomenon as 'non-deportability' (Paoletti, 2010) or a 'deportation gap' (Rosenberger and Küffner, 2016). Many planned deportations fail due to a lack of co-operation by the receiving state (Ellermann, 2008) or are prevented by ad hoc, local 'grassroot' protests (Rosenberger and Winkler, 2014).…”

Section: The Issue Of Effectiveness In the Eu's Return Policymentioning

confidence: 99%

How do Member States Return Unwanted Migrants? The Strategic (non‐)use of ‘Europe’ during the Migration Crisis

Slominski

Trauner

2017

J of Common Market Studies

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article analyzes how Member States have used the opportunities and avoided the constraints of the EU's multilevel governance architecture to return unwanted migrants. Drawing on sociological approaches to the EU and a broad understanding of return policies, we investigate the ways in which the northern Member States, notably Germany and Austria, have increasingly relied upon the EU's operational and financial resources to achieve their goal of pursuing a bold return policy. A key 'usage' of Europe has been the pooling of political and financial power to externalize and informalize its return policy. At the same time, the northern Member States' deliberate -yet widely under-researched -'non-use' of Europe, such as using and maximizing national leeway, has been an equally important strategy to reduce migratory pressure and achieve higher return rates.

show abstract

After the Deportation Gap: Non-Removed Persons and their Pathways to Social Rights

Cited by 21 publications

References 0 publications

A prospect of staying? Differentiated access to integration for asylum seekers in Germany

A prospect of staying? Differentiated access to integration for asylum seekers in Germany

Deserving Shelter: Conditional Access to Accommodation for Rejected Asylum Seekers in Austria, the Netherlands, and Sweden

How do Member States Return Unwanted Migrants? The Strategic (non‐)use of ‘Europe’ during the Migration Crisis

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About