Sanctuary and activist cities Flashcards
Sheffield City Council (2007)
A City of Sanctuary is a place that welcomes and includes asylum-seekers and refugees and enables them to contribute fully to the life of the city.
It is not about encouraging more asylum-seekers to come to Sheffield – most asylum-seekers don’t have any choice about where they live.
But in a City of Sanctuary these new arrivals are treated with understanding and respect, in a way that local people can be proud of
Derrida (2001)
Identifies a duality at the heart of hospitality…
a) An ethic of (unconditional) hospitality; welcoming is a good thing to do since it is ethical
b) A law of (conditional) hospitality; you are always constrained by the reality of the situation (controls and limits)
“Hospitality is based upon the prerequisite ‘that the host…remains the patron, the master of the household, on the condition that he maintains his own authority in his own house” (Derrida 2000)
By opening up and offering hospitality, there is always a form of ownership introduced. You have to own the space that you are offering to people (re-affirming the binary of host and guest)
Rigley (2011)
Argues that in the US, debates around sanctuary can be traced back to two contexts:
1) Berkley in 1971 (offered protection to soldiers resisting the Vietnam war with local residents providing resources for those soldiers)
2) San Francisco in 1985 (passed the first ‘City of Refuge’ resolution; prohibiting the use of city funds to assist in federal immigration enforcement)
Toronto No One is Illegal (2010)
Sanctuary City is about building ways of living that allow us to horizontally make decisions with collective communities, on the ground, every day, with or without the approval of a colonial state that we believe is an illegitimate occupying force
Walker and Leitner (2011)
Sanctuary cities are a contentious area of debate.
For example, state legislatures in Texas and Tennessee banned sanctuary ordinances and Trump threatened to defund sanctuary cities.
States and cities pass restrictive immigration control measures to counter-sanctuary. The geography of sanctuary cities maps broadly onto the political divisions of the US state map, with some notable exceptions.
This reflects a range of localized politics of race, class and place imaginaries.
Places of rapid migrant growth are most likely to impose restrictive measures compared to other areas
Ridgley (2008)
Cities are at the forefront of ‘everyday bordering’ through workplace raids, landlord restrictions, stop and search, and the suspicion of citizens
The criminalization of migration within the law has opened a space for the involvement of local police and other non-state actors in the practices associated with border control. These people and local police are now involved in the everyday monitoring of immigration status- this should be understood as a strategy of citizenship.
“Cities become a kind of factory for the production of illegality”
However, the history of sanctuary practices place limitations on the use of local police or resources in the enforcement of immigration law. This challenges the exclusionary articulations of political belonging.
Varsanyi (2008)
Example: Hazelton, Pennsylvania
The city passed the Illegal Immigration Relief Act, imposing fines on landlords who rent to unauthorised migrants. This increased city powers to close businesses that hire undocumented migrants.
A focus on land use and public nuisance ordinances that constrain behaviours and living conditions of undocumented migrants.
Nyers (2006)
Identifies that the city can also be understood as a site through which activism emerges. Disruptive political acts which challenge expectations of docility and patience on the parts of refugees and migrants
These acts can be understood as assertive and claims making subjects rather than objects outside of political discussion. Threatening the position of the ‘authoritative citizen’ and the ‘passive refugee’.
Nyers (2003)
Example: CASS in Montreal
This was a group of Algerian non-status refugees living in Montreal who had applications for refugee status refused but could not be returned due to a moratorium on removals to Algeria since 1997. They were essentially held in immigration limbo .
In 2002 the Canadian government lifted this moratorium on deportations which put the Algerian community at risk of being deported.
CASS then mounted a highly visible campaign to stop deportations and to regularize immigration status by making a series of claims to political space and to political voice. This activism forced the state to recognize them as speaking political agents BUT also raised visibility and identification within the city, such that citizens are confronted with their fellow residents.
“When speechless victims begin to speak about the politics of protection, this has the effect of putting the political into question
Darling (2010)
In 2015, Sheffield declared itself as the UK’s first city of sanctuary. The city was declared to be a hospitable and welcoming city to refugees and asylum seekers. This re-imagines the city as a space of refuge. Done through the support of businesses, visible campaigns and encouraging encounters of difference.
This was about promoting the responsibility of the city to care towards distant and proximate strangers. The role of Sheffield was situated in a wider network of deportation, trafficking ad conflict which required a re-examination of responsibility closer to home.
BUT, migrants have no choice if they end up in Sheffield or not. Is this simply an image for the city to promote? Also conflicts with ‘hospitality’ (Derrida, 2001)
Varsanyi (2006)
A system which assumes each person belongs to one of the 190 or so nation states is certainly losing saliency. This concept is no longer relevant, especially when taking into consideration the contradictions between a nation-state world and diversifying migration patterns
BUT, nation-state citizenship is still central to the livelihoods of contemporary migrants. The author suggests that citizenship is being remade at a sub-national level; particularly in cities.
While undocumented migrants have not been invited to join the hegemonic community of citizens at the nation-state level, this is much different at local and state scales. Many of these residents are granted a variety of rights and are being written into local and state law
The author terms this ‘grounded citizenship’
Bauder (2017)
Sanctuary cities aim to accommodate illegalized migrants and refugees in the community. However, the term is highly ambiguous and varies according to different policies, practices and locations (criticised of becoming a ‘catch all’ phrase)
USA
An important milestone for SC occurred in San Francisco in 1985 by the city passing a ‘City of Refuge’ resolution; prohibited the use of city funds/resources to assist in federal immigration enforcement. This was intended to end discrimination by the municipal administration of El Salvadorian and Guatemalan refugees who lack resident status
Another milestone was the launch of the faith-based New Sanctuary Movement (NSM) in 2007. This shifted the focus from new migrants onto those who have been living in the US for longer periods of time. Seeks to maintain the life they have already built in a place they have come to call home
Today dozens of cities have passed sanctuary legislation; Don’t Ask Don’t Tell policies- prohibiting municipal forces from requesting, recording or disseminating status information.
Therefore, SC policies in the US are about offering protection to illegalized migrants. BUT, one of the problems raised by this is that these policies do not eliminate illegalization. They merely enable illegal migrants to cope better with their circumstances- not tackling the root of the problem. This may even evoke a sense of security among illegal migrants.
UK
The first CoS was established in Sheffield in 2005; now there is around 80 cities involved in the scheme. This focuses on promoting a culture of hospitality towards migrants taking sanctuary; through a range of practices (see below)
This does not focus on municipal policing practices or refusing to cooperate with authorities. The scheme doesn’t even engage in the material or physical provision of accommodation or protection. More about intervening in refugee discourse and transforming the geographical imaginary of the city
A critique given about these cities in the UK have been that they may discursively normalise the precarious situation of migrants, rather than proving tangible and legal solutions. Rather, the CoS label is suited towards a city’s image as a cosmopolitan and inclusive space.
