| Srl | Item |
| 1 |
ID:
164509
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
Critical border studies have shown that it is no longer very useful to think of borders as fixed demarcations at the edge of the nation state. Instead, such scholarship has illustrated how contemporary borders are enacted both beyond and within state territory—as well as how borders derive their meaning from the various bordering practices that determine who is (not) welcome on the ‘inside’. In this study the role of corruption in such bordering practices take center stage. Drawing upon fieldwork conducted in the Malaysian city of George Town, the study investigates migrants’ experiences of corruption in the context of (internal) border enforcement as it is performed through everyday immigration policing. The results show how corruption forms an integral feature of immigration policing in Malaysia, and how migrants tactically use bribery as a means to avoid arrests and consequent deportation. Beyond illustrating how corrupt arrangements influence migrants’ ability to transgress the border (in this case through avoiding expulsion), the study shows how corruption distorts the enforcement logic in ways that influence why, when and where the border is actually controlled. As such, the paper argues, corruption should not merely be read as part of the border performance, but also as performative of the border itself.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 2 |
ID:
165901
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
It is well established in the literature that migration has become increasingly securitized. In this article, we examine the racialized and gendered grids of intelligibility that make securitizing moves possible in the migration context. Specifically, we argue that the securitization of migration during the so-called EU refugee crisis comes into being through intertwined and mutually dependent representations of racialized, masculinized threat and racialized, feminized vulnerability, which are woven into the scaffolding of colonial modernity. We construct our argument through an analysis of relevant newspaper articles published in British newspapers between September 2015 and March 2016. Accordingly, our discussion advances understandings of the dominant narratives through which the ‘refugee crisis’ has been understood. In addition, in highlighting the naturalized inequalities that underpin securitizing speech acts, the article also contributes to literature that seeks to add an improved understanding of power to securitization theory.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 3 |
ID:
164711
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
Immigration control constitutes a particular technique for regulating urban space and for controlling and disciplining migrant subjects within it. Unlike other manifestations of state power in exemplary urban settings, the architecture of urban immigration control is not recognisable through grand buildings or walls, but rather through its momentary presence and continuously shifting location: ad hoc identity controls in public spaces, roadblocks in neighbourhood streets or raids against workplaces. Building on fieldwork conducted in the Malaysian city of George Town, this article takes an interest in how migrants navigate this urban borderscape in order to avoid exploitation and encounters with the police. Read through Asef Bayat's notion of ‘street politics’, the article shows how migrants use the means (made) available to them in order to extend their room to manoeuvre. While such tactics are often driven by the force of necessity, they do nonetheless cumulatively encroach on the state's ability to produce migrants as (un)wanted or even (il)legal subjects in the city. Through this, migrants also challenge the very notion of what an exemplary urban space is as well as who is considered a legitimate part of it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|