Introduction
TheaimistocreatehereinBritainareallyhostileenvironmentforillegal migration…whatwedonʼtwantisasituationwherepeoplethinkthey cancomehereandoverstaybecausetheyʼreabletoaccesseverything theyneed.
HomeSecretaryTheresaMay,May20121
Brothers,youhaveopenedyourarmstoour25thousandsiblingsfrom Syria.Now,donotpayheedtothosewhostrivetoexpelthemfromhere. Theypartofour[religious]fraternity.Theycameherebecausetheytrust andbelieveus[…]Wewillbeensar,wewillopenourarms,wewillnever givecredencetothisdiscordandunrest.
PrimeMinisterTayyipErdo˘ gan,11May20132
Democratsaretheproblem.Theydonʼtcareaboutcrimeandwantillegal immigrants,nomatterhowbadtheymaybe,topourintoandinfestour Country,likeMS-13.Theycanʼtwinontheirterriblepolicies,sotheyview themaspotentialvoters.
PresidentDonaldJ.Trump,@realDonaldTrump,June20183
Atthetoughestmomentofmigration,whenthereisxenophobia,persecutionandrejection,Colombiaoptedforfraternitywiththe#TemporaryProtectionStatuteforVenezuelans[#EstatutoDeProtecciónTemporal paravenezolanos]andweshowtheworldthatalthoughwearenotarich country,weareinsolidarity.#JóvenesALaCancilleria.
PresidentIvanDuque,@IvanDuque,9February20214
Withinawidevarietyoftraditionsandcultures,hospitality,welcome,solidarityand friendshipareconsidered‘goods’;virtues,practices,orcharacteristicstobepursued, praised,andprovidedwhereverpossible.Itisraretoseehostilityacclaimedinquite
¹ Quotedin KirkupandWinnett,2012.
² Seetranslationin Tol,2018
³ SeearchivedcopyoftheTweetat: https://perma.cc/K6B4-65AZ (lastaccessed21May2021).
⁴ ‘Enelmomentomásdurodelamigración,cuandoexistexenofobia,persecuciónyrechazo,Colombiaoptóporlafraternidadconel#EstatutoDeProtecciónTemporalparavenezolanosydemostramosal mundoqueaunquenosomosunpaísrico,sísomossolidarios.#JóvenesALaCancillería’.Translatedby Twitter.Availableat: https://twitter.com/IvanDuque/status/1359266992344231936 (lastaccessed21May 2021).
ARelationalEthicsofImmigration.DanBulley,OxfordUniversityPress.©DanBulley(2023). DOI:10.1093/oso/9780192890009.003.0001
thesameway.Untilrelativelyrecently,an‘hostileenvironment’wassomethingwe mightseedescribedinemploymentlawjournals,oronHumanResourceswebsites, assomethingtobeavoidedatallcosts.A‘hostileenvironment’inthiscontextis aworkplacethatknowinglyallowssevere,pervasiveandpersistentdiscrimination againsttheprotectedcharacteristicsofanemployee(suchastheirage,race,religion ordisability;see Muller,2020).Hostilityinthiscontextisfoundinexposuretoovert prejudiceandbigotry.Thisisperhapsthekindofhostileenvironmentforimmigrants createdintheUSandexemplifiedbyformerPresidentTrump’sobjectificationand dehumanisationofimmigrantsas‘illegal’figuresthat‘pour’inand‘infest’thehost countrylikeaplagueofpestsorparasites.⁵
Whenfacedwiththreatening,invasivelife-forms,however,ahostileenvironment canoftenappeartomakesensetoanythingthatconsidersitself‘native’.Forthehost thatfindsithasbecomeinfestedwithunwelcome,parasiticguests,creatingahostile environmentisamatterofextinguishingthemeansnecessaryforthosegueststo continueliving.Inscientificjournals,anenvironmentisdescribedashostiletolife whenithaslowmicrobialactivity,limitedbiodiversityandweakdevelopmentofan ecosystem(WilliamsandHallsworth,2009).Itisonlyinextremelocationssuchasthe hot,saltylakesofAfrica’sRiftValleythatwefindenvironmentstoohostiletosupport lifeassuch(Pennisi,2019).Buteveninitsmorelimitedform,abiological‘hostile environment’issomewherethatsmothersdiversity,stiflesdifference,preventingthe flourishingoflife.ThisismorethesenseinwhichtheUK’sthenHomeSecretary, TheresaMay,usedtheterm.Shedecrieda‘situation’inwhichimmigrantstothe UKfeltthattheycould‘accesseverythingtheyneed’.Thesolutionwasthereforeto removeaccesstosuchnecessities,chokingoffthepossibilityoflifeanditssurvival.
Whatunitesbothformsofhostileenvironmentistheimplicationthatthehost societycanensurethepest,theunwantedguest,experiencestheirnon-belonging, theirunwelcomeness,andthenecessityoftheirexclusionandrejection.Thiscan bedoneeitherintheformofprejudiceanddiscriminationauthorisedorpermitted fromabove,orthroughthesystemicremovalofaccesstothematerialnecessitiesthat sustainlife,suchasfood,heat,water,shelter,andmeaningfulrelationships.Incontrast,appealstohospitality,solidarity,friendship,andcompassionsuggesttheexact opposite:thewelcomingofthestranger,theirtreatmentashumansubjectsworthy ofequalcare,responseandperhaps,even,belonging.
Immigrationisalwaysamatterofhospitalityandhostility:thewelcomereceived orrefused;theextenttowhichthehostsocietymakestheimmigrantfeel‘athome’or outofplace;thelengthoftimetheguestispermittedtostaybeforetheyaredeported or‘integrated’,becomingahostorejectedforoverstayingtheirwelcome.Immigration isalsofrequentlydiscussedusingthelanguageofhospitalityandhostility,whether thecharacterisationismadebypoliticians,internationalorganisations,thenews media,civilsocietygroupsorsimplyaspartofeverydayconversation.Forinstance,
⁵ Eachofthequotations(fromMay,Erdogan,Trump,andDuque)atthestartofthisIntroduction linktospecificpoliciesandpracticesofhospitalitythatwillbethefocusofthecomingchapters.The UK’shostileenvironmentwillbeexploredinChapter 5;Turkey’sfraternalwelcomewillbeexploredin Chapter 3,alongwithTrump’swhitesupremacismandColombia’ssolidarity.
‘RefugeesWelcome’hasbecomeaninternationalnetworkofindividualsandfamilies welcomingrefugeesintotheirhomes.⁶ Ithasalsobecomearallyingcallthatunites cities(e.g.Gdansk,Leipzig,Manchester,Vienna,andZagreb)acrossaEuropethat haslargelycloseditsexternaldoors,andabanneratprotestsandralliesthroughouttheworld(EuropeanResettlementNetwork,2015).Similarly, MigrantsOrganise isaplatformforimmigrantsthemselvestoarrangetheiradvocacy,campaigningto ‘turntheUKintoawelcomingandhospitablecountry’bydirectlychallengingthe government’shostileenvironment.⁷ IntheUS,groupssuchas WelcomingAmerica seektobuildhospitablecommunitiesthroughlocalworkandnationalcampaigns like‘BelongingBeginswithUs’.Suchcampaignsaimtobuild‘amorewelcoming nationwhereeveryone—regardlessoftheirbackground—canfeeltheybelong’.⁸ A moreovertlyreligiousresponseisfoundintheCatholicNGOsandcharitiesthat makeupthenetworkofshelters,localcommunities,andhumanitarianorganisations alongtheMexicanmigrationcorridor.This DimensiónPastoralDeLaMovilidad (PastoralDimensionofHumanMobility)networkaimstoprovidehospitalitytopeopleintransit,seekingentryorwhohavebeendeportedfromtheUS(Olayo-Mendez etal.,2014).
However,asweseewiththequotationsfromErdo˘ganandDuquethatbegan thisIntroduction,thelanguageofhospitalityisnotconfinedtograss-rootsactivists, charities,andsocialmovements.IthasbeencentraltoTurkey’sresponsetoSyrian refugeesandColombia’sjustificationfortakingindisplacedVenezuelans.Andthese arenottheonlyexamplesofhospitablestateresponses:inFebruary2017,UNSecretaryGeneralAntonioGuterrespraisedGermany,andspecificallyChancellorAngela Merkel,foractingasasymboloftoleranceand‘hospitality’towardsthoseforcibly displacedbytheSyrianregime,a‘symbolIwouldliketoseefollowedinmany,many otherpartsoftheworld’(UNNews,2017).Likewise,inMarch2018,theUNHCR andtheIOMlaunchedajointappealfordonorstomeettheneedsofthe900,000 Rohingyarefugeesand330,000‘vulnerableBangladeshisinthecommunitieshosting them’.TheBangladheshigovernmentandpeoplewerepraisedfortheir‘extraordinarygenerosityandhospitality’,withtheUNResidentCoordinatorinBangladesh notingthatthishospitalitywentfarbeyondprovidingimmediateprotection:
Intermsoffirstresponders,intermsofprovidingland,intermsofkeepingits bordersopen,intermsofprovidingasylum,intermsofbuildingroads,extending electricitynetworks,providingfood,secondingcivilservants,providingpoliceand armytokeeporderinthecamp.Thebiggestdonortothiscrisiscontinuestobethe peopleandthegovernmentofBangladesh.
(UNHCR/IOM,2018)
⁶ See https://www.refugees-welcome.net/.
⁷ Forexample,MigrantsOrganiseledthewayinestablishingtheNationalRefugeeWelcomeBoard, coordinatingactivistinterventionsinthehostileenvironment.Thisalsoincludedcampaignssuchas ‘PatientsnotPassports’aimstokeeptheNHSopentoall.See: https://www.migrantsorganise.org/?page_ id=26373
⁸ See https://welcomingamerica.org/belonging-begins-with-us
TheseelementsoftheBangladeshiwelcome—includingfood,space,energy,protection,infrastructure,andresources—areprovidingpreciselyfortheliving‘needs’that ahostileenvironmentseekstostifle.Whatthisbrieftourofglobalexamplesdemonstrates,then,isthathospitalityandhostileenvironmentshavebecomethelanguage ofeverydayimmigrationethics.Thesearetheconceptsandpracticesthroughwhich societiesunderstandandnegotiatetheirresponsibilitiesandobligationstowardsthe inclusionandexclusionofthosecomingfromoutsidetheirborders.AsMirielle Rosello(2001:6)argues,‘whetherornotthewordisexplicitlyused,hospitalityis nowatthecenterofthispolitical,social,andeconomiccontroversy’ofimmigration. And,ofcourse,thiscontroversyisalsoalwaysalreadyoneofethics—responsibilities, obligations,rights,andjustice.
Acentralclaimofthisbook,then,isthatthelanguageandpracticeofhospitalitymustbeunpackedandunderstoodintheincreasinglynoisyimmigrationethics debatetakingplaceininternationalpoliticaltheory.Butwhatmight‘unpackingand understanding’hospitalitymean?Untilquiterecently,academicdiscussionofthe responsibilitiesandobligationsincurredbythemovementofpeopleacrossstatebordershasbeenlargelyabsent,especiallyinthedisciplineofpolitics.Latterly,there hasbeenasteadilygrowinginterestintheconceptandpracticeofhospitality,with anincreasinglywiderangeofbooksexploringitshistorical,gendered,commercial,racial,philosophical,spatial,religious,andpoliticalaspects(see McNulty,2007; Molzand Gibson,2007;Hamington,2010a; Baker,2011; 2013; Claviez,2013a; Siddiqui,2015; Bulley,2017a).Yet,asIwilloutlineinChapter 1,westilllackaproper explorationofwhathospitalitymightmeanintermsofimmigrationethics,aninvestigationthatrespondstothemorepopularclaimsforopenborders,noborders andindividuals’righttofreemovement(Hayter,2003; 2004; Andersonetal.,2009; Carens,2013; Bauder,2014;Jones,2017),orfortheconstrainedrightsofstatesto restrictthatmovementandcontrolitsborders(Walzer,1983;Miller,2007;Wellman, 2008; Bauböck,2009; Pevnick,2011; Miller,2016).
Totakehospitalityseriouslymeansofferingitthesamelevelofcriticalattentionas discussionsthatoriginateinliberalprinciplesoffreedomandmoralequality,human rights,andcommunalself-determination.Giventhatsomuchofthepublicdebate aroundhowstatesandsocietiesoughttorespondtomigrationrevolvesaroundhostingandhostility—theacceptanceandabuseofhospitality,makingrefugeeswelcome andmakingthemunwelcome,theopeningandclosureofarmsandhomes—itistime hospitalityreceivedtheattentionitdeserves.Ultimately,myclaimisthathospitality canofferaverydifferent, relational approachtotheethicsofimmigration;analternativevoicetothemorestraightforwardlynormativepositionsofopenborders,free movementandstates’rightstobordercontrol.
HospitalityasRelationalPractice:CaveatHospes
Whatissoimportant,invigoratingandinfuriatingabouthospitalityisthatitis notthekindofabstractandrigorouslyexplicableideathattendstodominateacademicethicaldebates.Ithascertainlyplayedlittlerolewhenthosedebatesconcern
immigration.Hospitalityisnotasgrandorall-encompassingas‘humanrights’ (Benhabib,2004),inthatitdoesnotseektocoverallbasesorgrounditselfinauniversalunderstandingthe‘human’.Equally,hospitalityisnotnovelorunfamiliarin thesamewayasaconceptsuchas‘non-domination’(HonohanandHovdal-Moan, 2014).Nordoeshospitalityalienateactivists,politiciansandundergraduatesbybeing asabstractandunapproachableasideaslike‘associativeownership’(Pevnick,2011). Itisrecognisable,comfortableeven.Itissomethingweseeasagrounded,everyday experience,anormalpracticeofhumansociality—theacceptanceandwelcomingof othersfromoutsideinto‘our’homespace,andviceversa.Thereisnothingambitious orexceptionalabouthospitality;onthecontraryitappearsratherdullandbanalnext totheexpansiveselflessnessofdeontologicalcategoricalimperatives,orthehardnosedcalculationsofconsequentialism.Itisnotsuitedtoforminganegalitarian theoryofglobaljusticewithinwhichthedominanttheoriesofimmigrationethics placethemselves(Walzer,1983; 1994; Miller,2007; Carens,2013).Indeed,hospitalityappearssolimited,unambitious,andfamiliarthatmanytookitforgranted beforetheglobalCovid-19pandemicmadehostingfirstlargegatherings,andlater singleindividualsandevenfamilymembers,acriminalactinmanycountries.⁹
Thecommonplace,everydaynatureofhospitalityisperhapswhatmakesitso appealingtopublicandprivateactors,fromstatestocivilsocietygroups.Itisan easywayofcommunicatingpolicies,responsibilities,andgoalstoawiderpublic. Asametaphor,hospitalityisasimplewaytomakesenseofandunderstandwhatis goingoninimmigration—whereanationalsocietystandsinasanupscaledversion ofthefamilyhomeandthemigrantbecomesawelcomeorunwelcomeguest.But itisalsoa‘metaphorthathasforgottenitisametaphor’(Rosello,2001:3).States andtheirbordersareincreasinglygovernedasiftheywerea‘home’,withdepartmentsof‘HomelandSecurity’and‘HomeOffices’,discussionsof‘fortress’Europe andmigrantstoldto‘GoHome’(Walters,2004;Jonesetal.,2017).Alongwithhostile environmentsthishasmeantthatimmigrationpoliciesandtheirdailyenactmentare treated literally aspracticesofhospitality.Thoughtheveryeverydaynessofthisrenderingmakesitappealingforpublicdebate,italsomakeshospitalityanimprecise, messy,andelasticmodeofbehaviour.Standardsandnormsofreceivingstrangers varywildlydependinguponcontext,culture,time,andplace.Judith Still(2011) has notedthatalargepartofhospitality’sappealisthatitisseenasuniversallysignificant.Butthatveryuniversalitycaneasilycoveroverthefactthat‘hospitality’means differentthings,atdifferenttimes,todifferentculturesandtraditions.
Thisvarietyincludesdisparitiesoveratleastthreethings.First,thereisnoagreementoverwhoorwhatevenconstitutesthe subjectofhospitality—whoisaguest andwhoisahost?Arefriendsandfamilytheonlygueststowardswhomonehasa trueresponsibility?Orarefriendsandfamilyactually‘hosts’,andtruehospitality isaccordedonlytocompletestrangers,assuggestedbyJacquesDerrida(in DerridaandDufourmantelle,2000:25)?Asecondelementinitsdiverseconstitution regardsthe spaceofhospitality—howmuchofthehomemusttheguestbegiven
⁹ Forausefulmapof‘stayathome’restrictionsandtheirdevelopmentthroughthepandemic(from1 January2020),see https://ourworldindata.org/covid-stay-home-restrictions
accessto?Onlythe‘reception’rooms,ortheentiretyofthespace?Mustthehostliterallymaketheguest‘feelathome’,givinguptheirownfeelingof‘at-homeness’and ultimatelyreversingtherelationshipandbecomingaguest(Derrida,1999:92–93)? Andfinally,disagreementaboutregardingthe temporalityofhospitality—howlong musttheguestbeallowedtostay?EventhefamouslygenerousBedouinhospitality onlylastsforthreedaysandathird(Shryock,2012).So,whendoesaguestoutstay theirwelcomeandwarrantexpulsion?Andwhenhasaguestbecomesoestablished, sointegrated,soincharge,thattheybecomeahost?
Intheseenquiries,itbecomesclearthatquestionsaboutthesubject,spaceand timeofhospitalityallimplicateandoverlapwitheachother.Equallyclearisthatthey havenosimpleoruniversalanswers.Neitheristhereaneasyanswertothequestion ofwhenrestrictionstothesubjects,spacesandtimesofhospitalityslidebeyondthe acceptable—whenourhospitalitybecomesitsapparentopposite,turningthehome intoahostileenvironment.Hospitalityisthoroughlymarkedbythisimprecisionand insecurity;hostilityisnottheoppositeofhospitalitybutalwayscontainedwithinit. WecanevenseethisetymologicallyinthefactthatforbothLatin(hospes)andFrench (hôte),thesamewordisusedforboth‘host’and‘guest’.Thesubjectofhospitality isunstable,reversibleandinterchangeable:asDerridanotes,thegiving,openhost (hôte)caneasilybecomethe hostage oftheguest(hôte)(in DerridaandDufourmantelle,2000:123–125).Hospitality,astheopeningofthehometothestrangerisnota peacefulgesturethatinstitutesjusticeandequality.It marks apowerstrugglerather thanendingit:astruggleoverthesubject,spaceandtimeofhospitalitythathasno easyresolution.Itisinthissensethat,justascontractlawcustomarilydictatescaveat emptor (letthebuyerbeware)regardingthepurchaseofproperty,anyinvocationof hospitalitymustbeaccompaniedby caveathospes (lettheguest/hostbeware).
Thesemanycaveatsandblurryedgessurroundingthesubject,spaceandtime ofhospitalitymayleadonetodespairofeverdefiningit.Derridawarnsusofthat anyprecisedelineationofhospitalityisdoomedtofailasitsvariabilityrefusestobe tamedwithindiscretelimits(2000:6).Forothers,thisambivalencemakeshospitalityaninterestingbutultimatelyinappropriateanddoubtfulconceptforemployment inethicaldebates(Benhabib,2004:39; Altman,2017:94).Iagreewithpartsofthis argument:hospitalityisnotan idea ora concept thatcanbedrawnoutanddefined intheabstractandthenappliedtoconcretesituations,inimmigrationorelsewhere. ItdoesnotfitwiththisvisionofwhatIcallnormativeethics,whichMargaretUrban Walker(2007:58)¹⁰ describesasfollows:
Theregnanttypeofmoraltheoryincontemporaryethicsisa codifiable (andusually compact)setofmoral formulas (orproceduresforselectingformulas)that canbeappliedby any agenttoasituationtoyieldajustifiedanddeterminate
¹⁰ MargaretUrbanWalkerdoesnotdescribethisdominantunderstandingofethicsas‘normative’,but Ipreferthislabeltothatwhichsheuses:the‘theoretical-juridical’model.Thisisdealtwithfurtherin Chapter 2.However,itisimportanttonoteherethatIamadaptingWalker’sworkthroughoutthisbook, ratherthanemployingitinastraightforwardfashion.Itakeinspirationfromher‘expressive-collaborative’ modelinconstructinghospitalityasarelationalethics,butmyadaptationislooseratherthanslavishly followingherapproach,andtheresultisunlikelytobesomethingshewouldfindeasytoendorse.
action-guidingjudgement.Theformulasorprocedures(iftherearemorethanone) aretypicallyseenasrulesorprinciplesatahighlevelofgenerality…Theseformulasmodelwhatthemorallycompetentagentoridealmoraljudgedoesorshould know,howeverimplicitly.
Hospitalitydoesnotallowitselftobetranslatedintothiskindofethics.Thereare toomany caveats impingingonthe hospes (hostandguest)topermithospitalityto becomeacodifiableformula,evenifwethoughtthatthisiswhatethicsis,orwhat itoughttobe(whichIdonot).Rather,thevalueofhospitalityliesinthefactthatit isa practice—whatIamdefiningasasetofbehavioursthatmakesensewithin,are producedby,andconverselyalsoreproduce,aspecificsocialandpoliticalcontext.It isa‘performedactivitydirectedatparticularindividuals’andgroups(Hamington, 2010c:32).Ifweabstracthospitalityfromthatparticularcontext,drawingitout, findingits‘true’principlesasanormativeconceptthatwilltellus‘right’from‘wrong’ or‘good’from‘bad’,itisnolongerapractice.AsPierreBourdieuargues,totreat practicesinsuchawayistostripthem‘ofeverythingthatdefinesthemdistinctively aspractices,thatis,theuncertaintyand“fuzziness”resultingfromthefactthatthey haveastheirprinciplenotasetofconscious,constantrules,butpracticalschemes, opaquetotheirpossessors,varyingaccordingtothelogicofthesituation’(Bourdieu, 1990:12).
AsIwillargueinChapter2,thoughpracticessuchashospitalitycannotbedefined inprecise,codifiableformulasanduniversalterms,wecansaysomethingabouttheir structuralorganisationaspractices—whatseparatesthemfromother,similarpracticessuchascaring,humanitarianismorfriendship.Whateverelseisinvolvedin hospitality,Isuggestthatitisalwaysa spatial and emotional practiceinwhich power isemployedtoincludeandexclude,enforcingbelongingandnon-belonging.Initself, thisdefinitionispurelystructural—itpointsonlytotherelationsbetweenmoving parts(space,emotion,power),partsthatwillbeverydifferentlyconstituteddependinguponthecontext.So,whereascaringandhumanitarianismmayrequirespatial andemotionalelements,theemotionsinvolvedarerarelythoseofbelongingand non-belonging;thespatialelementsdonotnecessarilyincludethemovementacross athresholdofbelonging;andtheexerciseofpowerisunlikelytobeemployedto includeandexcludefroma‘home-like’space.Myclaimisthatforaparticularactivity tobeconstitutedasoneofhospitalityand/orhostility,itrequiresastructuralrelation betweenthosespecificparts:space,emotion,andpower.
Whatthisdefinitioncannotofferisthenormativeformulasthatregnantmoraltheorywouldperhapsaimfor,aclearsetofguidanceonhowhospitality,theinclusion andexclusionofothers,ought tobepracticed.TherenderingIamofferingisprimarilydescriptive,withoutclearresourcesforprescription.Ratherthantreatingethics asadeterminablecodeforhowwe ought tobehavetowardsstrangers,Iproposehospitalityasarelationalethics—anethicswithoutmoralism—thathelpsusunderstand andpossiblytransformthewayweactually do embraceandevadeobligationsand responsibilitiestoeachother.Idonotarguethatbeinghospitableisanethicalgood; theargumentisnotthatweshouldbemoreopen.Rather,hospitalityisdevelopedasa structuralandemotionalresponse,apracticewhichinvolvesdrawingandredrawing
boundariesofinsideandoutside,belonging,andnon-belonging,responsibilityand itsevasionordeflection.Ittherebyactivelycreatesasocietyasacommunalspacewith aparticularethos,ratherthanwelcomingstrangerstoapre-existingcommunity.
Hospitalityisthereforetreatedasacriticalmodeofreflectingon how wecreate a‘we’andrelatetoothers.Itisa‘performativeactofidentity’inthesensethatitis onlyinthepracticalaction,theperformanceofwelcomeandunwelcome,thatthe host(whetheranindividualorasociety)comesto be,and beknown (Hamington, 2010c:24).Howwerelatetoothers,welcomingandrefusingthem,makingthem comfortableorencouragingtheirinsecurity,tellsusaboutasociety’slived,concrete identity,ethics,andvalues—nottheethicalprinciplesit claims or professes,butthose itactuallyenacts Itisinthissensethatwecansay,‘[h]ospitalityiscontext’(Ahmed, 2010:118).Andonlythroughsuchareflectiveunderstandingofsocialcontextandits practicesofwelcomecanwehopetotransformimmigrationregimes,sotheybetter reflectanalternativeoraspirationalethos,orsotheysimplycultivateratherthan undercutasociety’scapacitytorespondtothosetheyconstituteasoutsiders.
Myunderstandingofethics,then,emergesfromatraditionthatIrefertoas ‘relational’—atraditionthattiestogetherpartsofcriticalfeminist,poststructuralist,decolonialandnon-WesternphilosophiessuchasConfucianismandsouthern African ubuntu (see Robinson,1997; Fagan,2013; Tronto,2012;Metzand Miller, 2016;Odysseos,2017;Hutchings,2019;Ngomane,2019).Despitethemassivedifferenceswithinandbetweentheseapproaches,allacceptthatparticularresponsibilities forotherpeoplearenotgeneratedsimplybyacommonhumanity,orashared citizenship/nationality.Rather, particular responsibilitiesaregeneratedthrough interaction,interdependence,andconnection.Whetherthoserelationshipsaretight orlose,closeordistantintimeandspace,whethertheyareeconomic,political, social,historical,orbiologicalinnature,theyaremorallysignificantandgenerate responsibilities(Young,2006; Tronto,2012).
InChapter 2 Ithereforeoutlinehospitalityasarelationalethicsthateffectively helpsusdrawoutwhereourresponsibilitieslieandhowwe‘map’andassignthem, endorsingandacceptingsomeasrequiringresponse,whiledeflectinganddenying others(see Walker,2007).Suchamapping,Iargue,doesnotincludetheresources totellushowresponsibilities ought tobeassignedandaccepted.Rather,itoffers anunderstandingofasociety,aculture.Itpromptscriticalreflectionratherthan necessitatingmoralendorsementordisgust.Possiblere-mappings,includingactionablechanges,arealwaysavailable;wecanseetheminthewayasociety’sethos ofhospitality,itsresponsibilitymap,iscontestedandopposedfromwithin.Other responsesalwaysexist,counteringthedominantapproach(aswewillexploremore inChapter6).Butthereisnotimeless,universal,idealscenarioofwelcome.Advocacy ofa‘better’,moreresponse-ablevisionofhospitalityiscrucial.Butitisanethicopoliticalstancewemusttakeandnegotiateinaparticularcontext,accordingtothe differentforcesandfactorsatplay.The right waytowelcomeorrejectotherscannot begeneratedorendorsedinanysimplewayfromarelationalethicsofhospitality. Whatwehavethenisanother caveathospes.The‘relationalethics’ofhospitality thatIwillexploreandunpackinthisbookdoesnotoffersecurity,aguaranteeof
bestpractice,rightconductoraclearconscience.Myrenderingofhospitalitydoes notofferitupconceptuallyasasetoffirmprincipleswhichcanguideactionsand judgements.Suchanormativeunderstandingofmoralinquiryasa‘safetynet’,which promisesandassuresusofourowngoodness(Caputo,1994:18),isnotwhatIam aimingforletalonehitting.Farfromit.¹¹ Iamnotattemptingtocleanupthemessinessofhospitalityasaneverydaypractice,bluntitssharpedgesorpolishawayits imperfections.Instead,Iseethatmessiness,thosejaggedboundariesandlimitations askeycharacteristicsofanethicsthatexploresandreflectsuponconcretesituations, realinter-humanrelations,andtheresponsibilitiestheygenerate.Sucharelational ethicscanonlyoperateinandthroughtherealworldofinconsistencies,powerstrugglesandresistancewithouttheexpectationofultimatelyresolvingorpacifyingthe skirmish.
NotesonMethod
Thebook’sargumentemergesfromtheclaimthatforethicalandpoliticaltheoriststo haveapurchaseonimmigrationdebates,theyneedtostartfromtheactualbehaviour ofimmigrantsocietiesandthelanguagecommonlyusedtojustifyandcontestits practices.Whilstpublicdiscussionsof‘our’responsibilitiesforimmigrantshastaken placeintermsoftheeverydayexperiencesofhospitalityandhostility,recent scholarly debateonimmigrationethicshasbeendominatedbylargelyabstractconcepts takenfromnormativeliberal(international)politicaltheory.Ratherthanisolatean idealfromthemessinessofhospitality,makingitintosomekindofnormativemodel, suchasanunconditionalopennessoranideallyconditionalwelcome,Iadvocate exploringhospitalityasagrounded,relationalethics.Todosorequiresthatwetreat hospitalityasasetofpractices,actionsandinactionsthatmakessensewithin,are producedby,andconverselyalso(re)produce,aspecificsocialandpoliticalcontext.Suchpracticesofmakingwelcomeandunwelcome,encouragingbelonging, andenforcingnon-belonging,needtobedrawnoutofspecificexamplesinthe contemporaryworld.
TakingmyleadfromMargaretUrbanWalkerandher‘mappings’ofresponsibility, then,themethodIemployinthisbookisoneof‘reflectiveanalysis offormsofmoral life’,ananalysisthatcan‘onlyoperateoninformationabouttheflowofinteractions indailylife’(2007:11).Todrawoutthelived,everydayethicsofaparticularpolicy orpractice,suchareflectionneedstocompareandcontrastbetweensocietiesand withinthem.Wecanmosteffectivelydrawouttheethosofasociety,theparticularwaysinwhichitmapsitsresponsibilitiesforbothnationalsandnon-nationals, throughacontrastwithothersocietiesthatmayespousesimilarordifferentvalues andwaysofbeing-in-relation.Forinstance,IbeganthisIntroductionbycomparing
¹¹ AsDerridanotes,‘Anethicswithguaranteesisnotanethics.Ifyouhaveanethicswithsomeinsurance, andyouknowthatifyouarewrongtheinsurancewillpay,itisn’tethics.Ethicsisdangerous’(in Payne andSchad,2003:31–32).
thelanguageofhospitalityandhostilityusedbyUK,Turkish,USandColombian politicians—examplesIwillgoontoexplorefurtherinChapters3–6.Butwecanalso notehowaparticularsociety’sethosisendorsedorcontested,bothfromwithinby domesticsocietalactors(see WelcomeAmerica and SanctuaryCities intheUS),and bytransnationalactorsininternationalsociety(RefugesWelcomeInternational and theUNHCR).Theprimarymethodofthebookisthereforetodrawouttheparticularwaysinwhichresponsibilityisassigned,accepted,deflected,anddeniedthrough practicesofhospitalityandhostilityinstatesandsocietiesaroundtheworld.This willincludearangeofillustrativeexamplesinChapters3–6,includingpracticesfrom Australia,Canada,Colombia,Turkey,Lebanon,Tanzania,theUnitedArabEmirates (UAE),theUK,theUSandVanuatu.
Atrueattempttodrawoutaculture,ethosor‘moralorder’ofasociety,isofcourse enormouslydemanding,intricate,andarduous.Suchamethodisneverthelessnecessarytoarelationalapproachthattriestostepbeyondatheorist’sownbeliefsand understandings.AsWalkeroutlinesit:
Anempiricallysaturatedreflectiveanalysisofwhatisgoingoninactualmoral ordersneedstobesuppliedbymanykindsoffactualresearches,includingdocumentary,historical,psychological,ethnographic,andsociologicalones.These researchesarenotthemselvesmoralphilosophy,butwithoutthemethicshas nothingtoreflectonbutmoralphilosophersʼownassumptionsandexperiences. Givinguponthepurecoreofmoralknowledge,andtryingtomakethebestand mostcompletesenseofalltheinformationwecangetabouttherealformsmorality takesindiversehumanlives,isnosmalltaskformoralphilosophy.
(2007:11)
Arelationalapproachisnot,however,purelydescriptive—italsorequirescritical reflectionontheculturesofresponsibilitythataredrawnoutbytheseempirical enquiries.Suchcriticalreflectionaskswhetherthese‘moralunderstandingsreally areintelligibleandcoherenttothosewhoenactthem’,whethertheycanaccountfor themselvesmorallyintheirownterms,whether‘whatisgoingoninmoralorders makestherightkindofsensetotheparticipantsinthosewaysoflife’(2007:12).To putthisindifferentwordsforanimmigrationcontext,criticalreflectionmeansaskingwhetherthevaluesrevealedbypracticesofhospitalityareanaccurateimageofa society’sself-understanding.Whatkindofethosisunveiledbyasociety’spracticesof hospitalityandhostility?Istheethosacoherentandfairreflectionofhowthatsociety sees‘itself’intermsofmoralbeliefs,attitudes,andstandardsofbehaviourtowards others?Isasociety’smappingofitsresponsibilities—thoseitacceptsandthoseit deflects—afairreflectionofitsself-image?Doesthismappingeffaceandignore responsibilitiesgeneratedbyhistoriesofinteraction,interdependence,andconnection?Wouldamorecoherentethos,oramorecompletemappingofresponsibilities, leadtomoreorlessopennesstostrangers?Inwhatwayscouldsuchahospitalitybe moreresponsivetothosewithwhomasocietysharessignificantconnections?
Afterhavingnotedabovethathospitalitydoesnotlenditselftograndvisionsof ethicaltheorising,suchamethodnowappearsalmostoutrageouslycomprehensive andfar-reaching.The‘empiricallysaturatedreflectiveanalysis’ofarangeofdifferentsocietiesisbeyondoneacademiccareer,letaloneonebook.Wecertainlycannot caterforitthroughwhatI’mcallingarangeof‘illustrativeexamples’.Ialsolackthe sociological,anthropological,psychological,historical,anddocumentarytraining forwhatWalkerisrecommending.Forthisreason,Ihavemadetwomethodologicalchoices.First,Itriedtostrikeadifficultbalancebetweenthegeneralandthe particularwhenitcomestoanalysingpracticesofhospitality.Ideally,analysesof moralorders,lifeworldsandtheircontestationwouldtakeplaceataclose,finegrainedlevel,allowingperhapsonesocietalcasestudytobelookedatindepth.This ishowtheworkofElenaFiddian-Qasmiyehandhervariouscollaboratorsoperates— bringingtogetherdetailed,ethnographicstudiesofhowhospitalityisconductedin particularlocalities,refugeecampsandcommunitiesfocusedontheglobalsouth (see BergandFiddian-Qasmiyeh,2018; Fiddian-QasmiyehandQasmiyeh,2018; Fiddian-Qasmiyeh,2020).Iwantmyexamplestoincludesuchdetailedanalyses, whicharebasicallyignoredinliberalinternationalpoliticaltheoryinfavourofthe biggerpictureofglobaljustice.
Butunlikethesemeticulousethnographies,Ialsowanttobeabletotalkaboutthe widerframeandmakemoregeneral,comparativeclaimsacrosssocietiesoftheglobal northandsouth,aswellasacrossgroupswithinsocieties.Thisidentificationofmore generaltrendsandcomparisonsisdevelopedandtakesinspirationfromtheworkof afeministtheoristofhospitality,Maurice Hamington(2010b; 2010c).However,his briefbutsignificantcontributionstothedebatedonotengagedetailedempirical examples—likeJacquesDerrida’swork(DerridaandDufourmantelle,2000; Derrida,2000; 2001; 2002; 2003),theconcentrationisonexegesisofothertheoristsand philosophers.
Thegeneralcomparisonofexamplesisnecessarytorevealdifferences,alternativewaysthatresponsibilitiesareacceptedanddeflected,welcomeisextendedor retracted,linesofbelongingaredrawnandredrawn,andenvironmentsaremade moreorlesshostile.Withoutacertainabstraction,wecouldnotcompareandcontrasttheculturesofwelcomeofferedtopeoplewhohavebeenviolentlydisplacedin theUS,UK,Colombia,andTurkey,forexample.Andwithoutitwecouldnotinclude illustrativeexamplesfromboththeglobalnorthandtheglobalsouth.AsIwillargue inChapter 2,oneoftheadvantagesoffocusingonhospitalityisthatitallowsthe chanceofanon-Eurocentricethicsofimmigration.Unlikeliberalnationalismand liberalcosmopolitanism,orevensomepartsofMarxism,hospitalityallowsusto exploreawidervarietyofsocieties,includingthenon-Western,theilliberalandthe non-democratic.Followingpracticesofhospitalityallowsustoexplorespacesthat donotnecessarilyrespecttheliberalvaluesdemandedinacademicdebateandyet haveoftenprovenmuchmoreopenandwelcomingtoimmigrants.
Suchcriticalcontrastsdemandacertaingenerality;theycannotrealistically includethedetail,precisionandempiricalsaturationrequiredofarelational
approachtoethics.Thisisperhapswhysomanycriticalapproachestotheethics andpoliticsofimmigrationhavefocusedonin-depthanalysisofspecificcasesof solidarity,compassion,andhospitality(seeexamplesinChapters 2 and 6).Andit isperhapswhytherehasbeennomajorattempttoprovideabook-lengthrelational ethicsrivaltothetraditionalethicsofimmigrationliterature.However,asIhavechosentoofferawiderangeofbriefillustrativeexamples,myanalysisalsooftenfocuses onimmigration policies ratherthan practices inaBourdieusiansense.Policiesare treatedashigherlevelplansandguidanceforhowhospitalitypracticesaremeant tobecarriedoutatalowerlevelofstateorsocietalauthority.However,atacertain level,policiesandpracticesblendintoeachother,formingtheconcretebehaviour, actionsandinactionsofhostsandguests.Morespecific,grounded,in-depthand detailedanalysesoflocalpracticesofhospitalityarethereforeimportantresources forChapters 3–6,evenifthecriticalanalysisprovidedbythisbookoperatesina broader,comparativecontext.
Asecondmethodologicalchoiceisthat,partlybecauseIlacktheexpertiseand detailedcontextualknowledge,Ihavebasedmycriticalanalysisintheexisting meticulousandinformedresearchofothers.Wherepossible,thisistheworkofgeographers,anthropologists,historiansandsociologists;wherenosuchresearchexists,I haveusedreportsfromjournalists,NGOsandresearchinstitutions(e.g.theMigrationPolicyInstitute),internationalorganisations(e.g.theIOMandtheUNHCR) andcharities.Thisisnotnecessarilyasecond-bestoption.Criticaltheoristsneed tobekeenlyawareoftheirownpositionality,nevermoresothanwhentheyarea whitemanseekingtorepresentcultures,societies,andcommunitiesofwhichthey havelittleornolivedexperience(suchasColombiaandTurkey).Ithereforestrive forself-reflectionandaconstantawarenessofmy‘unearnedauthority’inthisregard (Walker,2007:57).Asmuchaspossible,Ihavetriedtoincludethevoicesofthose thatconductorexperiencethepracticesofhospitality,orthathavethecontextual knowledgethatIlack,speakingforthemselves.IdothisinawarenessofthepowerI exerciseineditingandcuratingthosenarrativesanddescriptions.
Withthisinmind,threegroupsofquestionsanimatethisbook’sinvestigationinto particularnationalexamplesoftheethicsofimmigration.Thefirstgroupasks,how aretheresponsibilitiesforthoseenteringorseekingentrymappedbyparticularstates andsocieties?Thismeansasking,inpractice,whoisassignedtheresponsibilityfor welcomingwhom?Whoacceptsthatresponsibilityofhospitality,andwhen?Who deflectstheresponsibilitytowelcomeandonwhatbasis?Asociety’spracticesofhospitalityareareflectionofthisresponsibility-mapping,sothesequestionsarecrucial toreproducingaparticularillustrativeexample.Thesecondsetofinquiries,however, askshowcompletethismapis:whatrelationalties(historical,social,cultural,political,economic)arebeingembracedinitsimmigrationpoliciesandpractices?Which arebeingdeflected,orassignedelsewhere?Andwhichareeffectivelybeingeffacedor deniedaltogether?Thethirdandfinalinquiryaskswhateachsociety’smappingsof responsibilityandpracticesofhospitalitytellusaboutitsethos,itsmoralcharacter andwayofbeinginrelationtoitselfandothers?Thisoffersaninsightintothepractical,everydayethicsofasociety,regardlessoftheprinciplesandvaluesitprofesses
andproclaims.Chapters 3–6 willaskthesequestions,butnotinarigidlystructure fashion,norinthisparticularorder.
Ofcourse,fromthesemethodologicaldecisions,anontologicalchoicealso becomesclear:throughoutthediscussionsofar,Ihavebeenreifyingnationalstates andsocieties.Toevenspeakof‘immigration’—whichthe IOM(2019a:103)defines as‘[f]romtheperspectiveofthecountryofarrival,theactofmovingintoacountryotherthanone’sowncountryofnationalityorusualresidence’—istotreatthe notionsofa‘countryofarrival’,a‘countryofnationality’andthemovementacross bordersfromonetotheother,asreal,unproblematic,andmeaningfulfacts.Likewise,tospeakofan‘immigrant’assomeonewhomakesthisjourneyintoacountry thatisnottheir‘usualresidence’isalreadytoassumetheirnon-belonging.Ofcourse, criticalperspectivesinIRhavelongarguedthatthesovereignstateandthesociety itgoverns(takentogether,whattheIOMiscallinga‘country’)isitselfa‘historical effect,producedinandthroughpractice’(Soguk,1999:38).Andoneparticularly importantpracticeofproducingastateandsocietyisthedeterminationofmembership,thosethatbelong(citizens)andthosethatdon’t(immigrants).Insteadofbeing ‘thepoliticalexpressionofacommonlifeand(mostoften)ofanational“family”’ (Walzer,1983:42),statesandsocietiesareproducedinandthroughtheirinteractions withothers.Throughprocessesofdifferentiationanddeterminationsofmembership,ofinclusionandexclusion,thenational‘family’,itshome,its‘values’andway ofbeing(ethos)isconstructed.So,whilsttheinvestigationappearstostartfroma positionofreifyingthestate,thethreesetsofquestionsoutlinedaboveareaimed atuncoveringtheseconstructionsandassumptions,denaturalisingandchallenging theiracceptance.Thesamecanbesaidofallthedichotomiesthatemergeinsections ofthediscussion:stateandsociety;globalnorthandglobalsouth;hospitalityand hostility;insideandoutside.Thoughattimesitmayappearthatmyrelationalethics ofhospitalityisreifying,asserting,orworkingthroughtheseoppositions,theultimateaimistoshowtheyfallapartwheninterrogatedwiththethreesetsofquestions outlined.
StructureoftheBook
Thebookwillproceed,inChapter1,byintroducingtheconventionalethicsofimmigrationdebateininternationalpoliticaltheorywhichhasignoredhospitality,with afewproblematicexceptions(Benhabib,2004; Kukathas,2016).Afterexploringthe rolethatKanthasplayedinpartsofthisdiscussion,thechapterexploresthereasonsforthislacuna,drawingoutthelimitingassumptionsandmethodsofliberal internationalpoliticaltheory.Inparticular,itconcentratesonthreeissues.First,the dominantapproachesofliberalcosmopolitanismandliberalnationalismsharea basisinliberalegalitarianism,leadingtoanextremelynarrowandlimiteddebate. Bothassumethestateasapre-existing,morallylegitimateentity;theirdisagreementboilsdowntoargumentsfor(more)openbordersand(more)closedborders (Bader,2005).Second,duetotheirliberalegalitarianism,thedebateisunashamedly
Eurocentric—onlyapplyingtosocietiesthatsharetheprinciplesofthesetheorists. South-Southimmigrationisignored,asaretheethicsofsocietiesthattakeinmost oftheworld’sforcedmigrants—societiesthatoftenjustifytheirpracticesinterms ofhospitality.Athirdlimitingfactoristhedebate’stendencytoavoidtheeveryday languageandpracticalconceptualisationsinwhichtheethicsofimmigrationarediscussedpublicly—oftenthelanguageofhospitality.Inplaceofthis‘messy’worldof emotionsandinconsistency,liberaltheoryprizesabstraction,consistency,andrigorousreasoning,limitingitsabilitytospeaktopublicdebatesandunderstandings ofimmigrationcontrol.Ultimately,theaimofliberalinternationalpoliticaltheoryistomitigatethetensionsinternaltoliberalism:theuniversalismofvaluesand theparticularismofthestate.Theintentionistofinda‘moralyardstickforjudging’(Hovdal-Moan,2014:71),orjustifying,inclusionandexclusion.Incontrast, hospitalityofferssomethingdifferent.
Chapter2situateshospitalitywithinatraditionofrelationalethicsthatparticularly drawsonfeministandpoststructuralapproaches.Hospitalityisintroduced,based onthephilosophyofJacquesDerrida,asexpressingthe ethos ofahomeordwelling place,defininghowwerelatetoourselvesandothers(2001:16–17).Drawingthis out,Ioutlinehospitalityasaparticularformofrelationthatinvolvesatleastthree elements:a spatial practiceofdefininginsideandoutside;theexerciseof power,tryingtoencourageandpreventothersfromcrossingtheboundarybetweenthetwo; andan emotional practiceofdefiningandenforcingfeelingsofbelongingandnonbelonging,akeyaspectofany‘home’.Thisunderstandingistiedintoarelational traditionofethicsthatemergesfromunderstandingindividualsandsocietiesassocial subjects,formedthroughhistoricalandongoingconnections(Young,2013).Arelationalethicsthereforefocusesontheresponsibilitiesandobligationsproducedby theseformativeconnections,andhow‘practicesofresponsibility’emerge,through whichwe‘assign,acceptorreflect’thoseobligations(Walker,2007:10).Hospitalitybecomesaparticulartypeofrelationalethics;similartocareandfriendship,but differentiatedbyitsparticularstructuralandemotionalpractices.Thisleadsintoa deeperdiscussionofhospitality,howiteludesmoreconcretedefinitionandcannot generateanormativeideal.Itonlyexistsinthosepracticesofhostility/hospitality (or‘hostipitality’)thatcanhelpusunderstandandrevealtheethosofatimeand space.Thefinalsectionofthechapterunpacksthosecorecomponentsofhospitality:spaces(inside,outsideandthresholds),emotions(belongingandnon-belonging) andpower(inclusionandexclusion).
Arguablythemodernstateisinherentlyhostileandexclusionary,asitisconstitutedintryingtoestablishafirmdivisionbetweeninsideandoutside.Butthis hostilityoftenreliesonanevasionofrelationaltiesformedoutofaviolenthistoryofcolonialism,occupation,trade,andexploitation.Somestatesandsocieties have,however,embracedcertainobligationstowelcomeothers,duetoashared cultureandhistoricalexperience.Chapter 3 exploresthewaythathospitalityin immigrationsystemsthroughouttheworldisjustifiedasaneconomiccalculation ofthebenefitsmigrantswillbringtosociety(deHaasetal.,2020).Certaintiesare respected,primarilythoseoffamilyandkinship,butmostwelcomesaredependent
uponamigrant’sproductivity.Whatdominatesinthiscontextisanethosofcapitalaccumulation,usingexternalborderstosiftandshapetheimmigrantsthatseek entry.
Societiesseparatemoreclearlyinthewaytheytreatthoseseekingmoreurgent hospitality.Basedinaminimalembraceofinternationallegalobligations,statesin EuropeandNorthAmericahaveunderstoodthisasagenuinefirst-timeencounter, pre-emptingthestranger’sarrivalattheborderbycontainingtheminthelesswealthy statesoftheglobalsouth(Bialasiewicz,2011).Northernstates’responsibilityfor creating theeconomicdeprivation,climateemergenciesandviolencethatproduces migrantpopulations,throughhistoriesofdisplacement,environmentaldegradation, colonisationandunequaltrade,areignoredoreffaced.Thishasproducedanelaborateexportingofborders,withtheEUpayingstatessuchasTurkeyandLibyato provide‘protection’forrefugees(Bulley,2017b),whilsttheUShasturnedtoHonduras,GuatemalaandElSalvadorwithsimilardeals(HackmanandMontes,2019), displayinganethosofwhitenationalism.Responsibilityforforcedmigrantsisthereforedeniedordeflected,financiallyoutsourcedonthegroundsofhumanrightsand justice,withanyobligationtowelcomeeffectivelyexpunged.Incontrast,statessuch asJordan,Lebanon,Turkey,andColombiahavedemonstratedamuchmoregenerousethos,basedineverydayprinciplesofhospitalityandfraternity.Chapter 3 exploresthewaythatsharedculturalunderstandingsandhistoriesofexploitation andmobilityhavehelpedgeneratethiscomparativeembracingofobligationatthe externalstateborder.Suchhospitalityisdeeplyconditionalandoftenviolent,yet thereisstillasenseinwhich‘universal’Westernunderstandingsofjusticeandhuman rightshaveattimesbecomeathreattolocalpracticesofhospitality.
WhilstChapter 3 focusedontheproductionandmaintenanceoftheexternal borderthroughpracticesofwelcominganddeflecting,Chapter 5 exploreshow internalbordersareusedtocontroltheemotionalaspectofhospitality:feelings ofbelongingandnon-belonging.Betweenthesetwo,however,Chapter 4 explores theproductionofinterstitialspacesarising between theseborders.Thesearethe spacesandpracticesof hostipitality thatresultfromtheever-thickeningexternal bordersoftheglobalnorthandtheiroutsourcingpractices,aswellasthehostile environmentsproducedbyinternalborders.Suchin-betweenspacessuchasformalrefugeecamps,informalsquats,spontaneouscamps,andEUhotspots—exist in-betweenformsofsovereignauthority,neitherfullyinsidenoroutsideasociety’spracticesofwelcome.Theyaremeanttobetemporary,emergencymeasures buthavebecomeapermanentfeatureof‘managed’migration.Ignoredorendorsed bymuchoftheethicsofimmigrationliterature,thesespacessuchasAzraqinJordanandthe‘jungles’ofCalaisareanincreasinglyimportantresultofpractices ofhospitalitythatseektoseparatedifferentformsofdeservingandundeserving immigrant,deflectingresponsibilityontointernationalorganisations,NGOs,and therefugeesthemselves.Revealinganambivalentethosofracialiseddivision,these spacesencourageandensurenon-belongingthroughtemporarypracticesofhumanitarianismalongsideracialisedseparationandtheharassmentofthosedeemed undeserving.
