Framing Asylum at the Local Level: Experts’ Narratives of Conflictual Dynamics in the Post-Reception Period in Italy

Abstract

Studies on the framing of the refugee crisis have focused on media and political discourses, revealing contrasting views and an increasing politicization of immigration. However, the framing-of-asylum discourse in relation to the reception and settlement of asylum seekers in local communities has so far received less attention, especially when conflictual dynamics emerge. This article investigates the ways in which experts at different levels make sense of how the refugee crisis has unfolded in local communities in Italy. Insofar as asylum governance has become a contentious issue, it looks at conflictual situations. The research challenges the binary between humanitarian and fear frames by suggesting the prevalence of a managerialist frame focusing on a problematic implementation of asylum policies. Taking into consideration the opinions of local experts, it also reveals a shift from a fear frame to an inconvenience frame, which denies xenophobic discourses on invasion or social/public disorder in local communities, but finds other reasons to deny acceptance. The article also adds to the study of the horizontal dynamics between public and private actors, which are central, especially at the local level, and introduces refugees as subjects who actively participate in the “battleground” of asylum governance. Therefore, claims about a negotiated order between different tiers of governance within the multilevel governance approach are challenged.

Refugees and asylum seekers in informal and precarious jobs: early labour market insertion from the perspectives of professionals and volunteers

“…reasons for migration disconnected from job-seeking, limited knowledge of the host country labour market, lack of local language competences, lack of access to social networks, vulnerable health) or structural elements in the host society (e.g. policies regulating access to asylum, recognition of qualifications and skills, dispersal policies, discrimination and hostility across locations) (Dimitriadis and Ambrosini, 2023a). Such programmes are often implemented through the cooperation of public and private organisations, as well as volunteers (Be si c et al, 2021).…”