Knowledge production through regularisation and ex-post regulation strategies: Italy and Germany compared
This chapter addresses the use of regularisations and ex-post regulation measures as an instrument to produce knowledge on social problems. Regularisations, more than other migration regulation tools, were addressed to highlight the “efficacy gap” existing between Northern and Southern European cont...
| Autor: | |
|---|---|
| Tipo de recurso: | capítulo de libro |
| Fecha de publicación: | 2023 |
| País: | España |
| Institución: | Universidad Complutense de Madrid (UCM) |
| Repositorio: | Docta Complutense |
| Idioma: | inglés |
| OAI Identifier: | oai:docta.ucm.es:20.500.14352/114743 |
| Acceso en línea: | https://hdl.handle.net/20.500.14352/114743 |
| Access Level: | acceso abierto |
| Palabra clave: | Migration control Regularisations Italy Germany Asylum Toleration Ciencias Sociales 5902 Ciencias Políticas 5906 Sociología Política |
| Sumario: | This chapter addresses the use of regularisations and ex-post regulation measures as an instrument to produce knowledge on social problems. Regularisations, more than other migration regulation tools, were addressed to highlight the “efficacy gap” existing between Northern and Southern European control regimes and were the object of several confrontations between Northern and Southern European Member States. Especially in times of migration crises, the use of regularisations seemed to strengthen the stereotype on “weak” Southern European migration regimes, in which chaotic and unplanned regulation mechanisms dominate. Yet, in this chapter it is argued that the function of regularisations should be assessed beyond the dichotomic distinction between “weak” and “strong” migration control regimes in Southern and Northern Europe. Regularisations and ex-post regulation strategies should rather be observed as an instrument to overcome weak internal controls and to produce knowledge on the presence of irregular migrants. To this end, the Italian and German immigration regimes will be used as comparative examples since they represent two opposed migration patterns in Europe with opposed approaches to unauthorised residence. The aim of the comparison is not only to discuss how very different migration regimes produce knowledge on unauthorised residence on their territory, but also to highlight the importance of these measures for the stabilisation of precarious immigrant populations. |
|---|