Advertisement

Querying the Queue: A Review of the Literature on the Management of Borders and Migration in the European Union

  • Roos Pijpers
Part of the Environment & Policy book series (ENPO, volume 49)

Abstract

This chapter presents a review of a recently published body of thematic literature. The aim of this literature is to excavate a more generally expressed discontent with the widely observed contradiction between the supposed greater openness of the EU's internal borders and the strengthening of external border controls. This formulation, however appropriate, to some extent underexposes the geopolitical motives and implications at stake. In particular, two claims stand out here. The first is that the line between the state and the non-state in regulating migration issues is rather thin. Without de facto rejecting the influence of market actors in migrant control and selection, many contributors to the current debate abundantly describe and criticise the market-inspired managerial features of European migration policy. The second claim is that, spatially, these policy practices translate into a conception of the borders of the EU as networked power instruments used to control security risks and the risks posed by flexible capitalism. In reviewing the arguments that sustain these claims, it is found that the management of borders and migration in the EU entails many aspects of governmentality and territoriality that, together, are expressed in the metaphor of the ‘queue’, literally a waiting line in a waiting space.

Keywords

EU-borders migration governmentality territoriality queues 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Amato, G. (2002). The long-term implications of a new EU external border. In M. Anderson and J. Apap (Eds.), Police and justice co-operation and the new European borders (pp. 1–9). Den Haag: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  2. Anderson, M. and Bort, E. (2001). The frontiers of the European Union. Basingstoke: Palgrave.Google Scholar
  3. Bigo, D. (1998). Frontiers and security in the European Union: the illusion of migration control. In M. Anderson and E. Bort (Eds.), The frontiers of Europe (pp. 148–164). London: Pinter.Google Scholar
  4. Bigo, D. (2001). Migration and security. In V. Guiraudon and C. Joppke (Eds.), Controlling a new migration world (pp. 121–149). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  5. Bigo, D. (2005). Frontier controls in the European Union: who is in control?. In D. Bigo and E. Guild (Eds.), Controlling frontiers: free movement into and within Europe (pp. 49–99). Aldershot: Ashgate.Google Scholar
  6. Bigo, D. and Guild, E. (Eds.) (2005). Controlling frontiers: free movement into and within Europe. Aldershot: Ashgate.Google Scholar
  7. Brown, D. (2002). Storming the fortress, the external border regime in an enlarged Europe. In H. Ingham and M. Ingham (Eds.), EU expansion to the East (pp. 89–109). Cheltenham. Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
  8. Christiansen, T. and Jorgensen (2000). Transnational Governance ‘above’ and ‘below’ the state: the changing nature of borders in the new Europe, 10(2), 62–77.Google Scholar
  9. Christiansen, T., Petito, F. et al. (2000). Fuzzy politics around fuzzy borders: the European Unions “near abroad”. Cooperation and Conflict, 35(4), 389–415.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Comaroff, J. and Comaroff, J. (2002). Alien-Nation: zombies, immigrants, and millennial capitalism. The South Atlantic Quarterly, 101(4), 779–805.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Crowley, J. (2005). Where does the state actually start? The contemporary governance of work and migration. In D. Bigo and E. Guild (Eds.), Controlling frontiers: free movement into and within Europe (pp. 140–160). Aldershot: Ashgate.Google Scholar
  12. den Boer, M. (1995). Moving between bogus and Bona Fide: the policing of inclusion and exclusion in Europe. In R. Miles and D. Thränhardt (Eds.), Migration and European integration (pp. 92–111). London: Pinter.Google Scholar
  13. den Boer, M. (2002). To what extent can there be flexibility in the application of Schengen in the new member states?. In M. Anderson and J. Apap (Eds.), Police and justice cooperation and the new European borders (pp. 139–161). The Hague: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  14. EC (European Commission) (2001). New European labour markets, open to all, with access for all. Brussels: CEC.Google Scholar
  15. EC (2002a). Commission's action plan for skills and mobility. Brussels: CEC.Google Scholar
  16. EC (2002b). Green paper on a community return policy on illegal residents. Brussels: CEC.Google Scholar
  17. EC (2002c). Integrating migration issues in the European Unions relations with third countries. Brussels: CEC.Google Scholar
  18. EC (2003a). The future of the European employment strategy (EES): “a strategy for full employment and better jobs for all”. Brussels: CEC.Google Scholar
  19. EC (2003b). Wider Europe — neighbourhood: a new framework for relations with our eastern and southern neighbours. Brussels: CEC.Google Scholar
  20. EC (2003d). On the development of a common policy on illegal immigration, smuggling and trafficking of human beings, external borders and the return of illegal residents. Brussels: CEC.Google Scholar
  21. EC (2003e). On immigration, integration and employment. Brussels: CEC.Google Scholar
  22. EC (2004a). Proposal for a directive of the European parliament and of the council on services in the internal market. Brussels: CEC.Google Scholar
  23. EC (2004b). Report on the implementation of the internal market strategy (2003–2006). Brussels: CEC.Google Scholar
  24. EC (2004c). Study on the links between legal and illegal migration. Brussels: CEC.Google Scholar
  25. EC (2004e). Green paper on an EU approach to managing economic migration. Brussels: CEC.Google Scholar
  26. EC (2005). Green Paper on the future of the European migration network. Brussels: CEC.Google Scholar
  27. Europese Conventie (2003). Ontwerp-Verdrag tot Vaststelling van een Grondwet voor Europa. Luxemburg: EP.Google Scholar
  28. Favell, A. and Hansen, R. (2002). Markets against politics: migration, EU enlargement and the idea of Europe. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 28(4), 581–601.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Foucault, M. (1991). Governmentality. In G. Burchell, C. Gordon and P. Miller (Eds.), The Foucault effect: studies in governmentality (pp. 87–104). London: Harvester Wheatsheaf.Google Scholar
  30. Foucher, M. (1998). The geopolitics of European frontiers. In M. Anderson and E. Bort (Eds.), The frontiers of Europe (pp. 235–250). London: Pinter.Google Scholar
  31. Guild, E. (2005a). The legal framework: who is entitled to move?. In D. Bigo and E. Guild (Eds.), Controlling frontiers: free movement into and within Europe (pp. 14–48). Aldershot: Ashgate.Google Scholar
  32. Guild, E. (2005b). ‘Who is entitled to work and who is in charge? Understanding the legal framework of European labour migration. In D. Bigo and E. Guild (Eds.), Controlling frontiers: free movement into and within Europe (pp. 100–139). Aldershot: Ashgate.Google Scholar
  33. Guild, E. and Bigo, D. (2002). The legal mechanisms, collectively specifying the individual: the Schengen border system and enlargement. In M. Anderson and J. Apap (Eds.), Police and justice co-operation and the new European borders (pp. 121–138). Den Haag: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  34. Guiraudon, V. (2000). European integration and migration policy: vertical policy-making as venue shopping. Journal of Common Market Studies, 38(2), 251–271.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Guiraudon, V. (2001). De-nationalizing control: analyzing state responses to constraints on migration control. In V. Guiraudon and C. Joppke (Eds.), Controlling a new migration world (pp. 31–64). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  36. Hudson, R. (2005). One Europe or Many? Reflections on becoming European. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, 25, 409–426.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Huysmans, J. (1995). Migrants as a security problem: dangers of securitizing societal issues. In R. Miles and D. Thränhardt (Eds.), Migration and European integration (pp. 53–72). London: Pinter.Google Scholar
  38. Huysmans, J. (2000). The European Union and the securitization of migration. Journal of Common Market Studies, 38(5), 751–777.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Jessop, B. (1994). Post-Fordism and the state. In A. Amin (Ed.), Post-Fordism: A Reader (pp. 251–279). Oxford: Blackwell Publishers.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Jileva, E. (2002). Visa and free movement of labour: the uneven imposition of the EU Acquis on the accession states. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 28(4), 683–700.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Jordan, B. and Düvell, F. (2003). Migration: the boundaries of equality and justice. Cambridge: Polity.Google Scholar
  42. Jordan, B., Stråth, B. and Triandafyllidou, A. (2003a). Contextualising immigration policy implementation in Europe. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 29(2), 195–224.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Jordan, B., Stråth, B. and Triandafyllidou, A. (2003b). Comparing cultures of discretion. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 29(2), 373–395.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Kostakopoulou, T. (2000). The “Protective Union”: change and continuity in migration law and policy in post-Amsterdam Europe. Journal of Common Market Studies, 38(3), 497–518.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Lahav, G. (2000). The rise of nonstate actors in migration regulation in the United States and Europe: changing the gatekeepers or bringing back the state. In N. Foner, R. Rumbaut and S. Gold (Eds.), Immigration research for a new century (pp. 215–241). New York: Russel Sage Foundations.Google Scholar
  46. Menz, G. (2002). Patterns in EU labour immigration policy: national initiatives and european responses. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 28(4), 723–742.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Mitchell, D. (2001). The devils arm: points of passage, networks of violence, and the California agricultural landscape. New Formations, 43, 44–86.Google Scholar
  48. Mitsilegas, V. (2002). The implementation of the EU Acquis on illegal immigration by the candidate countries of Central and Eastern Europe: challenges and contradictions. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 28(4), 665–682.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Moraes, C. (2003). The politics of European Union migration policy. The Political Quarterly, 4(3), 116–121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Pastore, F. (2002). The asymmetrical fortress: the problem of relations between internal and external security policies in the European Union. In M. Anderson and J. Apap. (Eds.), Police and justice co-operation and the new European borders (pp. 59–80). Den Haag: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  51. Peixoto, J. (2002). Strong market, weak state: the case of recent foreign immigration in Portugal. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 28(3), 483–497.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Thränhardt, D. and Miles, R. (1995). Introduction: European integration, migration and processes of inclusion and exclusion. In R. Miles and D. Thränhardt (Eds.), Migration and European integration (pp. 1–12). London: Pinter.Google Scholar
  53. Samers, M. (2003). Invisible capitalism: political economy and the regulation of undocumented immigration in FRANCE. Economy and Society, 32(4), 555–583.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Samers, M. (2004). An emerging geopolitics of “illegal” immigration in the European Union. European Journal of Migration and Law, 6, 27–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Sassen, S. (1988). The mobility of labor and capital: a study in international investment and labor flow. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  56. Sassen, S. (1996). Losing control? Sovereignty in an age of globalisation. New York, Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
  57. Saybasili, N. (2004). Crossing borders. Paper presented at the ABS 2004 European Conference, University of Graz, Graz.Google Scholar
  58. Smith, M. (1996). The European Union and a changing Europe: establishing the boundaries of order. Journal of Common Market Studies, 42(1), 5–28.Google Scholar
  59. Verstraete, G. (2001). Technological frontiers and the politics of mobilities. New Formations, (43), 26–43.Google Scholar
  60. Walters, W. (2002). Mapping Schengenland: denaturalizing the border. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space, 20(5), 561–580.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Walters, W. (2004). The frontiers of the European Union: a geostrategic perspective. Geopolitics 9(3), 674–698.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Walters, W. and Haahr, J. (2005). Governing Europe: discourse, governmentality and European integration. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  63. Zielonka, J. (2001). How new enlarged borders will reshape the European Union. Journal of Common Market Studies, 39(3), 507–536.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Zolberg, A. (2003). The archaeology of “remote control”. In A. Fahrmeir, O. Faron and P. Weil (Eds.), Migration control in the North Atlantic World. The evolution of state practices in Europe and the United States from the French Revolution to the Inter-War Period (pp. 195–222). New York: Bergahn.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Roos Pijpers
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Human GeographyRadboud University of NijmegenNijmegenThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations