大象传媒

In this blog post,聽our aim is to聽trace lines of enquiry that might be productive for聽addressing聽the co-production of law and time聽within聽interdisciplinary studies of migration.聽Specifically,聽we discuss the role of time in processes of regularisation and the production of migrant il/legality.聽聽

Migrants who reside on a state鈥檚 territory for years without state authorisation have become a common feature in many countries around the world.聽 Their unauthorised territorial presence is often seen聽as聽a conundrum for policy makers in destination countries, with deportation, toleration, or regularisation as the alternative policy聽options.聽Regularisation is often understood聽as聽a聽last resort in the face of failing internal or external migration control, and as a聽measure that governments聽might deploy聽to improve the social situation of migrants and labour marked transparency (Levinson 2005).聽聽

Regularisation, though, should not simply be understood as a pathway to legal inclusion and membership.聽Scholars such as De Genova (2002)聽have effectively argued that migrant il/legality should be understood and approached as a legal and political product of聽particular historical聽and national contexts. Migrant il/legality is a product of (national) frameworks of immigration regulation, rather than the consequence of individual migrants' actions. In this perspective, regularisation聽becomes聽graspable聽as a policy measure that shape the meaning and scope of migrant il/legality.聽With聽these聽insights from the anthropological literature on the socio-legal production of migrant il/legality聽in mind, how can we address the role time play in聽relation to聽regularisation?聽聽

Temporal formulas聽and thresholds聽in regularisation legislation聽

Regularisation, we suggest,聽is聽a聽prime聽example of how law聽uses聽a point in time聽and/or duration to both allocate and terminate rights.聽For example, time聽is聽central to regularisation mechanisms, either because the requirements specify a set date defining who can apply, define a set聽period of time聽for when one can apply, and/or require that the person has resided聽and/or worked in the country for a certain length of time.聽

Many liberal states use temporal thresholds or formulas, such as dates and durations of time, to聽govern access to citizenship and to rights within the institution of citizenship.i聽The political scientist Elisabeth Cohen (2012) have argued that temporal formulas are powerful governing instruments because they appear as impartial and scientifically measurable ways of conferring and denying rights and membership.聽However, while temporal聽formulas聽may be administratively convenient, they are produced in political negotiations and embody specific rationalities.聽Cohen聽therefore聽argues that it is important to ask聽how and why specific moments, dates, ages, and durations of time come to have value in politics.聽

What seems to聽be聽particularly聽significant聽for聽regularisation聽purposes,聽is not聽how much time a person has resided in a territory but rather how聽and whether聽that time is counted by the state (Lori聽2020).聽This is seen for example, in the challenge of what legal anthropologist Susan B. Coutin (2003) has called聽the temporal double bind of illegal time. While social participation over time can create grounds for legalization as proof of attachment and deservingness, it can also work to聽document lengthy breach of聽immigration law, thus making it a more serious offense in the view of the immigration authorities.聽In鈥痮ur own research on temporality in migration governing聽as part of the research project 鈥�WAIT - Waiting for an uncertain future: The temporalities of irregular migration鈥�聽we鈥痜ind鈥痶hat how the state counts聽peoples鈥� time - days, months, and years - in decisions on migrant聽regularization聽and the distribution of rights, varies according to factors such as people鈥檚 economic contributions,聽skill-levels,聽age,聽and country of origin.聽This highlight, we suggest, the need to investigate how the valuation of time聽in regularisation mechanisms聽are shaped through聽gendered,聽classed聽and racialized norms of deservingness and economic desirability.

Temporal assumptions in regularisation claims聽

We further suggest that it is important to unpack the temporal assumptions underlying regularisation claims, and their implications.聽The significance of time for聽irregular migrants鈥� claim to rights and membership聽has聽been addressed聽notably聽by legal and political theorists聽committed to聽develop聽a聽normative聽argument聽for regularisation.聽The central justificatory account in this literature聽centre聽around the assumed significance of,聽and connection between,聽time and social ties.聽The political scientist聽Joseph聽Carens聽(2009), for example, argues that聽liberal democracies should acknowledge the social ties that migrants establish over time.聽Hence to him,聽the accrual of residence time engenders a moral right to membership.聽Correspondingly,聽the legal scholar聽Ayelet聽Shachar聽has聽elaborated the聽principle of 鈥榡us聽nexi鈥� or 鈥榬ootedness鈥� which she sums up as follows: 鈥榯he longer the stay, the deeper the social connectedness, the stronger the claim for inclusion鈥� (Shachar聽2009,聽171).

These scholars聽do not address specifically how one聽can translate abstracts such as 鈥榬ootedness鈥� and 鈥榮ocial ties developed over time鈥櫬爐o measurable time units.聽Their聽social membership account for聽regularization, though,聽relies on the temporal assumptions that聽a) time can be a proxy聽for the quality and significance of connections or contributions made to society聽by migrants, and 2) that聽social ties have聽a linear logic,聽e.g.聽that social ties is something that聽is simply built over time聽through daily spatial activities. Based on this logic, rights should also accrue over time.聽A challenge with these聽temporal聽assumptions聽in the context of present regimes of migration governing聽is that migrant illegality tends to be shaped by public聽policies聽that aim at the civic exclusion of illegalized migrants (see Karlsen 2021a). Several legal scholars have thus argued that by excluding migrants who, despite prolonged residence, fail to meet social ties or rootedness criteria, social membership-based arguments聽risk reproducing聽some of national citizenship鈥檚 marginalizing aspects despite its apparently inclusionary promise (Bosniak聽2013,聽Ellerman聽2014).

Regularisation, being in and relating to聽time聽

The third line of enquiry that we would like to highlight, concerns the聽temporal聽implications of regulations on those affected by them.聽In our ethnographic work in Norway and Germany, we have聽explored how聽the presence and absence of regularisation聽possibilities聽enhances聽particular聽ways聽of being in and relating to time.聽聽For example, in the past few years Germany has opened various pathways to聽regularisation聽for tolerated migrants聽based on聽criteria of economic self-sufficiency and language聽skills (e.g.聽the聽Ausbildungsduldung聽and聽Besch盲ftigungsduldung鈥�). In her study of聽such聽contingent offers of regularisations,聽Drangsland聽(2020a and b)聽investigates their聽temporalising聽effects and聽shows聽how聽they聽work to聽compel migrants to recalibrate their temporal horizons and schemes聽to the temporal order of the German state. She聽argues, furthermore,聽that聽regularisation聽works聽as a technique of governing by temporally 鈥榖racketing鈥� present harm through the promise of a聽future residence permit.聽鈥楲iving in the offer鈥� became in this sense a redemptive state that served to聽discipline irregular migrants into聽enduring聽suspension and deportability in specific and productive ways. That is to聽wait聽patiently聽and聽in the right way. Exploring how migrants navigate their conditions in Hamburg, she shows how people are unevenly positioned in relation to this expectation to 鈥榳ait well鈥�.

The redemptive promise of future residency in Norway was more ambiguous as there were few existing pathways to regularisation聽for adults.聽Still, Karlsen聽(2021b)聽shows聽in her research among so-called 鈥榰nreturnable鈥� or 鈥榣ong-staying鈥� rejected asylum seekers聽in Oslo聽how the asylum system continued importantly to shape their future horizon.聽聽The persistent promise of regularisation as the only route to 鈥榯he good life鈥�, she聽suggests, served to聽individualise聽and internalise a聽mode of governing聽the self into waiting orderly,聽despite few real possibilities for regularisation. Migrants鈥� continuing affective investment in the promise of asylum聽names in this sense a cruel attachment to a聽compromised condition of possibility.聽Cruel optimism (Berlant 2011)聽is,聽similarly聽to bracketing, a technology of patience that enable a concept of the聽later聽or the聽future anterior聽to suspend questions about the cruelty of the聽now.

Not only law聽

In this blogpost, we have attempted to trace some lines of聽enquiry that might be productive for聽exploring聽the co-production聽of law and time in regularisation聽processes.聽Scholarship on the production of migrant illegality has聽highlighted how immigration law shapes聽life for migrants in multiple ways through the classifications it creates.聽Migrants鈥� legal status has been seen as聽a聽鈥榤aster聽status,鈥櫬爓hich聽overshadows the impact of other social聽locations聽(Gonzalez, 2016). The聽need to unpack law and time is therefore clear. However, as noted, law produces its effects in a world where people are differently positioned聽within intersecting racialized, gendered, and classed structures of power 鈥� structures of power spanning multiple spaces and scales. Relatedly, people live their lives in relation to temporal schemes and constructs that are not only defined by migration law. To grasp these times and the unequal workings of law in the context of聽regularisation, it is thus necessary both to widen the 鈥渢emporal gaze鈥� (Adam 2000) on 鈥榣aw鈥� as described so far, and, also to widen the gaze beyond the temporalities of law. In our blogpost 鈥楳ultiple, uneven and relational time in ethnographic research鈥櫬爓e embark on this聽endeavour and foreground the importance of situating聽the聽analysis of law and time in a wider context of social relations of power.聽

搁别蹿别谤别苍肠别蝉:听

Adam B. (2000) The temporal gaze: the challenge for social theory in the context of GM food.聽The British journal of sociology聽51(1): 125-142.聽聽

Berlant, L (2011)聽Cruel Optimism.鈥疍urham,鈥疍uke University Press.聽

Bosniak, L. (2013) Amnesty in immigration: forgetting, forgiving, freedom, Critical Review of International Social and Political Philosophy, 16:3, 344-365,聽聽

Carens, J., (2009). The case for amnesty.聽Boston review May/June.聽

Cohen EF. (2012) Citizenship and the Law of Time in the United States.聽Duke J. Const. L. & Pub. Pol'y聽853.聽聽

Coutin, S.B. (2003)聽Legalizing moves: Salvadoran immigrants鈥� struggle for U.S. residency. Ann Arbor, University of Michigan Press.聽

De Genova, N. (2002)聽Migrant 鈥榠llegality鈥� and deportability in everyday life.聽Annual Review of Anthropology. 31 (1), 419-447.聽聽

Drangsland KA. (2020a) Bordering through recalibration. Exploring the temporality of the German 鈥楢usbildungsduldung鈥�.聽Environment & Planning C聽38(6): 1128鈥�1145.聽聽

Drangsland KA. (2020b) Waiting as a redemptive state: The 鈥楲ampedusa in Hamburg鈥檃nd the offer from the Hamburg government.聽Time & Society聽29(2): 318-339.聽聽

Ellermann, A. (2014). The Rule of Law and the Right to Stay: The Moral Claims of Undocumented Migrants*.鈥疨olitics & Society,鈥�42(3), 293鈥�08.鈥�聽聽

Gonzales, R. G.聽2016. Lives in Limbo: Undocumented and Coming of Age in America. Berkeley: University of California Press.聽

Levinson, A.聽2005. The regularisation of unauthorized migrants: Literature survey and country case studies. Centre on Migration, Policy and Society, University of Oxford聽

Lori, N. (2020). Migration, time, and the shift toward autocracy. In鈥疭hachar, A. The shifting border: Legal cartographies of migration and mobility; Ayelet Shachar in dialogue. Manchester, UK: Manchester University Press聽

Karlsen, M. A., (2021a). Migration Control and Access to Welfare. The Precarious Inclusion of Irregular Migrants in Norway.聽London and New York: Routledge聽

Karlsen M-A. (2021b) Waiting out the condition of illegality in Norway. In: Jackobsen C, Karlsen M-A and Khosravi S (eds)聽Waiting and the Temporalities of Irregular Migration.聽London: Routledge. DOI: 10.4324/9780429351730聽

Shachar, A., (2009). The birthright lottery. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Pres