Organizer: dr. Thomas Swerts, DPAS, Erasmus University Rotterdam,
Panel Abstract:
Cities have historically played a crucial role in providing sanctuary and fostering solidarity towards illegalized migrants. While national governments seek to restrict illegalized migrants’access to rights and resources, many cities have embraced a more inclusive stance that offers(limited) support and service provision to residents with a precarious legal status. The local scale is widely acknowledged as a strategic arena where restrictive national policies and systemic exclusion can be contested. Over the past few years, engaged scholarship has done important research to map the variety and range of sanctuary practices in self-declared‘welcoming’ and ‘sanctuary’ cities. Based on case studies in European and North American cities, this scholarship argues that notions of urban citizenship and illegalized migrants’ rights are effectively being rescaled and renegotiated (see e.g. Darling and Bauder 2019).While this proposition may hold true in liberal, immigrant-friendly cities, local struggles over solidarity and sanctuary take on another meaning in hostile urban environments. Given the rise of right-wing populism, existing sanctuary and solidarity practices are increasingly under pressure and at risk of being criminalized. In countries like the US and the Netherlands, national governments are trying to (re)gain local control by eroding support for and/or renationalizing sanctuary initiatives.
This panel therefore looks to bring together international scholars working on sanctuary and solidarity practices for illegalized migrants in hostile environments. We are particularly interested in papers that explore the dynamics and tensions in local state-society relations, the roll-out of anti-sanctuary policies and the counterstrategies that civil society actors come up with. The panel will tackle the following questions: How are sanctuary and solidarity initiatives for illegalized migrants currently being challenged? How does the suspension of sanctuary impact the in/and exclusion of illegalized migrants? And what does the criminalization and renationalization of sanctuary practices potentially teach us about processes of ‘organized disintegration’?
Those interested in participating should submit a 250-word abstract and names, affiliations, and contact details for all authors to Thomas Swerts (