Globalised citizenship and the perceived legitimacy of immigration control: narratives and acts of resistance in immigration detention

Abstract

This article considers the legitimacy deficits of immigration control in the eyes of unwanted migrants. We explore the consequences of globalisation-related changes in the institution of citizenship for the perceived legitimacy and operation of immigration control. The study is based on ethnographic research and in-depth interviews in 2018 with 35 migrants in the Detention Centre Rotterdam, the Netherlands. We find that immigration detainees use both denationalised and transnational/cosmopolitan definitions of citizenship and belonging to contest the legitimacy of restrictive admission requirements and, to a lesser extent, the authority of states to stipulate and implement admission requirements. Based on these narratives, immigration detainees engage in forms of resistance that are meant to diminish the likelihood of deportation (‘instrumental resistance’) and in forms of resistance that are unlikely to change the outcome of the deportation procedure yet do make immigration control more costly for states (‘expressive resistance’). The narratives and strategies of resistance seem correlated with length of stay: settled migrants seem more inclined to use denationalised repertoires and instrumental resistance. Our analysis confirms the need for migration scholars to pay more attention to changing social norms regarding the perceived legitimacy of immigration control for the operation and outcomes of immigration control. The results are therefore relevant for our thinking about the future of migration governance in the context of globalisation-related changes in the institution of citizenship.

The unintended consequences of US immigration enforcement policies

“…At the same time, the survey experiment indicates that awareness about the widespread use of immigration detention in the United States negatively impacts individuals' assessments about the procedural and outcome fairness of the US immigration system. This finding extends the growing body of research that shows that immigration detention-both in the United States and in other developed countries such as the UK and the Netherlandsfosters widespread legal cynicism among immigrant detainees (14,52,53). Because the subjects in this study are prospective immigrants living in their origin countries (the majority of whom do not have a US migration history, as shown in Table 1), this finding shows that personal experiences with immigration detention is not necessary to generate a "legitimacy deficit" (51).…”

Talking about return. Governmental caseworkers' regulative, normative and cultural‐cognitive strategies during “return conversations” with irregularised migrants

“…The caseworkers, for example, feel that some migrants that are expected to return have de facto become Dutch citizens (e.g., when women have become “emancipated”). In addition to indications that migration law only resonates to some extent with migrants' norms and “cultural repertoires” (Van Houte et al, 2021), this study indicates that certain legitimacy deficits are thus also present among street‐level bureaucrats that are expected to implement migration laws (cf. Bosworth, 2014).…”

“…Conversely, the use of immigration detention does not align with the social norm that detention should be used for criminals only, creating a legitimacy deficit. Leerkes and Kox (2017) and van Houte et al (2021) report that the detainment of migrants to enforce the return decision caused many to resist their deportation. In addition, Ryo (2013) shows that in Mexican communities with significant out‐migration rates to the US, the intention of individuals to migrate to the US without governmental authorisation correlates with the opinion that the US does not have a right to control migration.…”