Search

In February 2017, the city of Montreal adopted a policy entitled Access to Municipal Services Without Fear with a view to allowing non-status migrants to access some municipal programs and services without fear of being arrested and removed from Canada. This article offers a critical analysis of the city of Montreal’s policy. We discuss the main barriers to implementation, namely, the limited jurisdictional power and authority of the city in migration matters and the municipal police’s refusal to comply with the policy. We draw on the conceptual framework of the sanctuary city to argue that the municipality crafted creative solutions to barriers as part of its bid to make the city more inclusive., En février 2017, la Ville de Montréal a adopté une politique intitulée accès aux services municipaux sans peur dans le but de permettre aux migrants sans status d’accéder à certains programmes et services municipaux sans craindre d’être arrêtés et renvoyés du Canada. Cet article propose une analyse critique de la politique de la ville de Montréal. Nous discutons des principaux obstacles à la mise en oeuvre,à savoir le pouvoir juridictionnel et l’autorité limités de la Ville en matière de migration et le refus de la police municipale et de se conformer à la politique. Nous nous appuyons sur le cadre conceptuel de la ville sanctuaire pour soutenir que la municipalité a élaboré des solutions créatives aux obstacles en vue de rendre la ville plus inclusive.

Riassunto. L’articolo si propone due obiettivi. In primo luogo intende approfondire il tema del ritorno dei confini, illustrandone l’articolazione a diversi livelli e il funzionamento selettivo, come effetto di un regime neo-liberale di governo della mobilità umana: un regime che incorpora disuguaglianze profonde nella distribuzione del diritto a muoversi attraverso i confini. Il caso dei respingimenti al confine con la Bosnia e la responsabilità dell’agenzia Frontex verranno approfonditi per illustrare il funzionamento della vigilanza sulle frontiere da parte dell’UE. La pandemia inoltre ha favorito il rafforzamento di misure di restrizione degli accessi dei migranti indesiderati nei paesi sviluppati. In secondo luogo, l’articolo rivolge lo sguardo agli attori e alle iniziative che cercano di aprire spazi di solidarietà e accoglienza nei confronti dei migranti e dei richiedenti asilo, contestando sul piano pratico l’assolutizzazione dei confini e l’esclusione di chi bussa alle porte del Nord del mondo. Tra i molti esempi possibili, ne vengono trattati due: le cosiddette “città santuario” e i corridoi umanitari. A partire da questi esempi sarà sviluppato nelle conclusioni il concetto di “solidarietà contro i confini”. Abstract The article has two objectives. First of all, it intends to deepen the theme of the return of borders, illustrating its articulation at different levels and its selective functioning, as an effect of a neo-liberal regime of government of human mobility: a regime that incorporates profound inequalities in the distribution of the right to move across borders. The case of push-backs at the border with Bosnia and the responsibility of the Frontex agency will be investigated to illustrate the functioning of border surveillance by the EU. The pandemic has also favored the strengthening of measures to restrict the access of unwanted migrants in developed countries. Secondly, the article looks at the actors and initiatives that try to open spaces of solidarity and welcome towards migrants and asylum seekers, challenging on a practical level the absolutization of borders and the exclusion of those who knock on gates to the North of the world. Among the many possible examples, two are discussed: the so-called "sanctuary cities" and the humanitarian corridors. Starting from these examples, the concept of “solidarity against borders” will be developed in the conclusions.

This article draws on theoretical insights about bordering and citizenship as strategies for socially constructing difference and the scholarship on scalar challenges underlying contemporary bordering to analyze sanctuary cities in the United States and cities of refuge in Spain. We argue that these initiatives challenge and resist restrictive national migration policies from below, at the local level, with attention to their implications at the global scale. Such policies have the potential to create meaningful social change by 1) amplifying and producing political unity across socially constructed differences and 2) “scaling down” migration politics from the national to the local level and, simultaneously, “jumping scale” via reliance on human rights framings. We conclude that sanctuary city and city-of-refuge designations are not merely symbolic; instead, these designations can be conceived of as locally based, global repertoires of action that make positive contributions in pursuit of social justice.

This quasi-experimental study examined whether "sanctuary city" policies are an effective mechanism for reducing mental health inequalities by immigrant origin status in Latinx populations in California. Ample evidence indicates that people experience mental health problems when restrictive immigration policies are imposed. It remains unclear whether sanctuary city policies can improve population mental health in the groups targeted by restrictive immigration policies: undocumented immigrant Latinxs, documented immigrant Latinxs, and native-born Latinxs. We combined data on California's 482 cities concerning whether and when they implemented a sanctuary policy with health data on approximately 142,000 adults, 6400 adolescents and 13,000 children from the multi-year California Health Interview Survey. After using propensity score matching to identify non-sanctuary cities comparable to sanctuary cities, we estimated respondent-level difference-in-differences models to determine whether sanctuary city policies had beneficial mental health effects on three age groups: adults, adolescents, and children during the period 2007-2018. There was a trend toward improved mental health in sanctuary cities after policy enactment, but the patterns of mental health in the three Latinx immigration sub-groups of each age group did not conform to our hypotheses. Buffering the adverse effects of harsh federal immigration policies may need to involve other approaches, such as expanded local mental health care access. We discuss these results in terms of alternative treatment interference, residents' policy awareness, the policy's capacity to address past health impacts, methodological issues, and potential policy momentum.

Der Beitrag nimmt die "Corona-Pandemie" zum Anlass, um sich mit der Paradoxie von Solidarität mit "den einen" und Entsolidarisierung mit "den anderen" zu befassen. Während Appelle der Parteienpolitik an die Solidarität der Bürger:innen in einzelnen Nationalstaaten zu fluiden Solidaritätsbekundungen vor Ort führen, schottet die Europäische Union (EU) ihre Außengrenzen mehr und mehr ab und setzt geflüchtete Menschen prekären Lebenslagen an Europas Rändern aus.

This report is aimed at people working in, directing or otherwise administering services to persons without status. It summarises the barriers and challenges that frontline service workers reported when attempting to support persons without status as well as recommendations gleaned from interviews. While fundamental change to immigration policy would be required to fully respond to the needs of persons without status, the researchers took a “harm reduction” approach, focusing on what agencies and policy makers might do to improve services without a restrictive legal paradigm. In sum, we found strong support from frontline service workers for an AWF policy. While typically an AWF policy is implemented at a city level, it is possible for agencies to implement their own internal policies. AWF policies vary widely from community-to-community. Ultimately a "made in Windsor” approach should be crafted to meet the community’s current and ongoing needs.