Recuperation through Crisis Talk

Abstract

The diagnosis of a migration crisis has prompted multiple processes of rebordering in Europe and beyond. These include the build-up of physical barriers like walls and fences, the tightening of asylum regimes, the expansion of biometric databases and the enrolment of authoritarian regimes in controlling Europe's borders. These developments have prompted a revival of the image of the 'fortress' in critical accounts of the European border regime. Building on existing criticisms of the metaphor Fortress Europe, this article proposes an alternative political imaginary of the European border regime. Starting from a version of the autonomy of migration approach that is based on the notion of appropriation, it proposes to apprehend the European border regime as a parasitic and precarious apparatus of capture. This apparatus of capture tries to recuperate migrants' practices of appropriation in order to turn the knowledge and creativity of these practices into a driving force for its own development. Important aspects of this dynamic are illustrated through two examples: the refinement of control mechanisms of the European visa regime and the repeated tightening of Germany's asylum regime since the 'summer of migration' in 2015. Taken together, these examples illustrate three aspects of processes of recuperation: first, that legal changes often only formalise previously informal practices of recuperation, secondly, that the framing of migration in terms of crisis functions as a vehicle for processes of recuperation which open up, thirdly, new opportunities for practices of appropriation as they are incoherent. In sum, the reading of the European border regime as an apparatus of capture paves the way for more assertive antiracist politics as it invites us to apprehend increasingly violent forms of border control not as signs of strengths of the European border regime, but as indicators of its increasingly desperate fight for survival.

Toward Fortress Capitalism: The Restrictive Transformation of Migration and Border Regimes as a Reaction to the Capitalist Multicrisis

“…Second, the concept, thus, complements motives present in border studies and the autonomy of migration literature that emphasize the uncontrollability of migration and the constant “imperfection, precarity, and ‘productive failure’” (Scheel :269) of border regimes. While acknowledging the reality and relevance of such failures, the concept holds that analyses of the heteronomy of bordering practices, which are often highly effective in deterring migration, is equally important.…”

“…There have been many attempts to conceptualize the tendencies that I have described thus far. One example is Scheel's () interpretation of the European border regime as a “parasitic and precarious apparatus of capture” that, while mostly ineffective and constantly failing, tries to absorb migration practices “in order to turn them into a driving force for the refinement of the means and methods of regulation and control” (p. 269). Other concepts that focus, among other aspects, on the repressive elements of mobility controls and the mobilization of migrant labor, include “enclave society” (Turner ), “fortress world” (Raskin, Electris, and Rosen ), “gated capitalism” (Rilling ), “global apartheid” (Golash‐Boza ), and “bordered capitalism” (Chang ).…”

“…migration policies (Ireland ). Scheel (:269), whose own proposal to interpret the European border regime as a “parasitic and precarious apparatus of capture” I mentioned above, has helpfully summarized the criticism of the fortress metaphor within migration and border studies. He distinguishes four points of critique and I will add a fifth point.…”

“…First, the metaphor allegedly ignores the autonomy of migration, that is, the fact that mobile populations constantly circumvent border regimes, evade control practices, and appropriate social and political rights. According to this critique, the metaphor therefore overestimates the effectiveness of constantly failing attempts to control migration (Scheel :271; see Karakayali and Tsianos :12). Mezzadra and Neilson (:165) argue that it focuses too much on controls and too little on migrant practices:

“[It] drives the political imagination in a too unilateral way onto mechanisms of control and domination.

…”

“…This article starts from the claim that the shocking conditions in Libya and the E.U.’s co‐responsibility for them are not simply isolated cases; rather, they are representative of a systemic process: a severely restrictive and violent transformation of key aspects of migration and border regimes worldwide. Within academic debates, several concepts have been suggested to analytically grasp this process, including “global apartheid” (Golash‐Boza ), “bordered capitalism” (Chang ) and “parasitic and precarious apparatus of capture” (Scheel ). My aim in this article is to systematically develop the concept of “fortress capitalism” (Brie and Candeias ; Mann :96; Minsky and Whalen ; Parenti ) as a key category for understanding and fighting this tendency.…”