Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies
Stephan Scheel
Online First: https://doi.org/10.1080/1369183X.2024.2371207
State authorities in Europe invest immense resources in what the EU insists on calling the ‘fight against illegal migration’. Based on ethnographic research in two German cities, this paper shows that a tough approach towards illegalised migration can only be implemented through state practices that operate at the margins of, or even cross, the boundaries of what is legally permissible. This argument is developed through an analysis of informal practices that frontline staff in registry offices and migration administrations deploy to prevent, or at least disturb, illegalised migrants’ attempts to regularise their status by becoming the parent of child that is entitled to German citizenship. Drawing on the autonomy of migration approach, I use migrants’ struggles within and against Germany’s migration and citizenship regime as an epistemic device to expose three kinds of informally institutionalised counter-tactics of street-level bureaucrats that qualify as unlawfare. The analysis shows that officials, in their attempts to forestall migrants’ practices of self-legalisation, frequently resort to practices that are legally questionable or outright unlawful themselves. Ultimately, not only a tough stance on illegalised migration, but the very production of migrant illegality emerges as contagious as it implicates an illegalisation of state practices.
Geopolitics
Stephan Scheel
Online First: https://doi.org/10.1080/14650045.2024.2368620
Since the 2015 ‘migration crisis’, various measures have been introduced in Europe to enforce deportations. They include detention in prison-like facilities, unannounced executions of deportations at night-time and the scraping of legal safeguards like medical reasons prohibiting deportations. These evidently violent measures are justified with alarmist reports which suggest, supported by statistical knowledge, an ever-widening ‘deportation gap’. The term refers to the divergence between the number of migrants issued with a return order and the much smaller number of deportations. Illustrated through the case of Germany, this article combines insights from ignorance studies with a sociology of translation to show that the claim of a widening deportation gap is a statistical chimera that is based on various kinds and sources of nonknowledge. Contrary to actor-based approaches in ignorance studies, it is argued that this nonknowledge is not reducible to the production of ‘strategic ignorance’ (McGoey 2019) by policy actors seeking to advance their agenda. Rather, the production and circulation of nonknowledge appears to be dispersed and messy as it is facilitated by complex and fragile sociotechnical networks. In this way, a sociology of translation allows scholars to avoid the impression of entertaining a conspirational logic in the study of strategic ignorance and other forms of nonknowledge.
Politics
Stephan Scheel, Soledad Álvarez Velasco, Nicholas de Genova
Online First: https://doi.org/10.1177/02633957241229377
The introduction to the special issue (SI) lays out the agenda and key concepts of the SI ‘COVID Capitalism: The Contested Logistics of Migrant Labour Supply Chains in the Double Crisis’. The contributions to the SI focus on the reconfiguration of the means and methods of the exploitation of migrant labour during the COVID-19 pandemic and the related reorganisation of contemporary border and migration regimes. They all focus, more or less explicitly, on the adaptation and reorganisation of migrant labour supply chains which were disrupted through the ‘double crisis’ of public health and existing border and mobility regimes during the COVID-19 pandemic. In this way, the SI seeks to contribute to a more nuanced understanding of COVID-capitalism, understood as a form of disaster capitalism, in which fractions of capital try to turn the multiple crises implicated by the pandemic into a source of profit. If and how they succeed with these endeavours is, however, not guaranteed from the outset but an empirical question. The study of migrant labour supply chains does thus not only help to develop a more nuanced understanding of disaster capitalism but also contributes to debates on the logistification of migration management.
Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, Vol. 50(9), pp. 2289-2308
Stephan Scheel
Open Access: https://doi.org/10.1080/1369183X.2024.2307782
In a growing number of destination countries state authorities have started to use various digital devices such as analysis of data captured from mobile phones to verify asylum seekers’ claimed country of origin. This move has prompted some critics to claim that asylum decision-making is increasingly delegated to machines. Based on fieldwork at a reception centre in Germany, this paper mobilises insights from science and technology studies (STS) to develop a framework that allows for more nuanced analyses and modes of critiques of the digitisation of asylum procedures. Rather than thinking human and non-human forms of agency as external to one another in order to juxtapose them in a zero-sum game, I comprehend the introduction of digital technologies as a reconfiguration of existing human-machine configurations. This conception highlights how the use digital technologies enables caseworkers to retain their position as an epistemic authority in asylum decision-making by assembling clues about asylum seekers’ country of origin generated by digital technologies into hard juridical evidence. Subsequently, I develop an alternative critique that focuses on epistemic implications of the digitisation of asylum procedures. I identify a particular version of data colonialism that enables epistemic domination by means of data extraction.
Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, Vol. 50(9), pp. 2163-2187
Nina Amelung, Stephan Scheel, Rogier van Reekum
Online First: https://doi.org/10.1080/1369183X.2024.2307766
This special issue (SI) calls for reinventing the politics of knowledge production in migration studies. Academic migration research should make knowledge production an essential part of its research agenda if it wants to remain relevant in the transnational field of migration research. A risk of marginalisation stems from three interrelated tendencies: First, non-academic actors producing authoritative knowledge about migration have proliferated in recent years. Secondly, academic knowledge production is challenged both by counter-knowledge produced by social movements as well as new digital methods and information structures owned by policy-oriented and private actors. Thirdly, academics no longer hold a hegemonic position in the transnational field of migration research. The contributions to this SI interrogate the politics of knowledge production on migration along three lines of inquiry: (1) the enactment of migration as an intelligible object of government through practices of quantification, categorisation and visualisation; (2) the production of control knowledge in border encounters about subjects targeted as migrants and (3) the modes of thought seeking to unknow and re-know migration beyond dominant nation-state centric understandings. This introduction elaborates how the nine articles of the SI intervene in the politics of knowledge production in migration studies along these lines of inquiry.