Abstract

A critical assessment of the Dublin regulation requires a look beyond its official function of allocating asylum seekers across EU Member States. This article argues it embodies the “hidden face” of Schengen insofar as it legally fixes them in the sole country responsible for their application. Because this responsibility lies primarily with the first country of arrival, it is consistent with the core-periphery axis of division of labor in the EU. The first part of this paper examines how the Schengen/Dublin dual regime of (im)mobility might respond to the constant need for bridled labor alongside free wage labor in the world-system. However, equally constant is labor power’s propensity to evade its subsumption under capital; this is exemplified by Dubliners’ appropriation of freedom of movement through irregularity. By deserting the “plantations” of the European peripheries, those “maroons” of our present time disrupt the European geography of power and contest their assigned position in it. But the widely acknowledged failure of this regime to deter “secondary movements” does not necessarily mean it is non-effective. Attention must then be given to mechanisms of “exclusion from within” experimented on Dubliners. The second part will offer an overview of the tactics of internal rebordering that have been recently deployed in core countries and question the extent to which those attempts to recapture their flight meet the conditions for the optimization of capital’s operations.

Highlights

  • This journal is published by the University Library System, University of Pittsburgh as part of its D-Scribe Digital Publishing Program and is cosponsored by the University of Pittsburgh Press

  • Once we adopt the gaze of the [relative] autonomy of migration (Moulier-Boutang 1998; Mezzadra and Neilson 2013; De Genova 2017; Scheel 2019), it becomes possible to avoid those blind spots by envisioning borders as Foucauldian “fields of struggle” (Foucault 2004; Tazzioli 2014)

  • It generated a new category of migrant: the “Dubliner” (Picozza 2017), which can be defined in their broader sense as a non-EU citizen for whom the place where they desire to settle in Europe differs from the one they are assigned to

Read more

Summary

Introduction

This journal is published by the University Library System, University of Pittsburgh as part of its D-Scribe Digital Publishing Program and is cosponsored by the University of Pittsburgh Press. Drawing from an ongoing ethnographic field-work research—between southern Italy and northern Europe—as well as archival work into the EU documentation and available statistical data1, this article first discusses the relevance of a core-periphery analysis to understand the Dublin regime effects in terms of subsumption of migrant labor under capital.

Results
Conclusion
Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call