Demand and Deliver: Refugee Support Organisations in Austria

This article analyses four emerging refugee support organisations in Austria, founded before the so-called refugee crisis in 2015. It argues that these organisations have managed to occupy a middle space between mainstream NGOs and social movements with structures of inclusive governance, a high degree of autonomy, personalised relationships with refugees, and radical critique combined with service delivery. Based on interviews with the founders of each organisation, we show that their previous NGO and social movement experience formed a springboard for the new initiatives. It not only allowed them to identify significant gaps in existing service provision, but also provided the space of confrontation with the asylum system inspiring a strong sense of outrage, which in turn developed into political critique. We argue that this critique combined with identifying the needs of asylum seekers and refugees has produced a new type of organisation, which both delivers services and articulates radical demands. Each organisation offers a space of encounter, which undoes the ‘organised disintegration’ of the asylum system

Civil society organisations engaged with illegalised migrants in Bern and Vienna: co-production of urban citizenship

In recent years, several studies have shown that, within Europe, innovative approaches towards migration emerge at the local level against the backdrop of increasingly restrictive and polarizing national and EU immigration policies (Agustin and Jørgensen 2019; Ataç, et al. 2020; Bauder 2019; Darling 2017; Spencer and Delvino 2019). The political space of the city has thereby become a “dynamic battleground” (Hajer and Ambrosini 2020) and a field of experimentation not only around the future of migration regimes but also for a fundamental democratization of urban life in the sense of a general right to the city for all. Looking at this “local turn” specifically in the field of illegalised migration, we observe a growing activism by both municipalities and local civil society actors calling for the inclusion of migrants without legal status in public service provision, for formal rights protections, and for democratic participation. Various comparative studies indicate that policies and practices of solidarity towards illegalised migrants vary greatly, depending not only on place-particular circumstances and factors such as national and regional legal frameworks; varying institutional competences of cities; the constellation of political parties in power; the ethnic diversity of the electorate; as well as the financial wealth of the municipality but also on the presence and strength of civil society actors (Ataç, et al. 2020; Bauder 2021; De Graauw 2016; Kaufmann and Strebel 2019; Kron and Lebuhn 2020). In recent years, several researchers (such as Kreichauf and Mayer 2021; Lambert and Swerts 2019; Hajer and Ambrosini 2020; de Graauw 2021; Holm and Lebuhn 2020) have identified civil society actors as crucial in improving the precarious situation of illegalised migrants. Nevertheless, there is often little investigation and theorizing about the variety of civil society actors engaged in urban citizenship practices and their interplay with formal politics and municipal bureaucracies. We argue that, for a more nuanced understanding of urban citizenship, we must take a closer look at the role of CSOs in urban contexts in relation to the provision of inclusionary services for illegalised migrants and the construction of urban infrastructures of solidarity. Drawing on empirical data from two cities (Vienna and Bern), we therefore engage in an in-depth analysis of the variety of actors co-producing and negotiating local welfare arrangements for illegalised migrants within urban settings. We thereby examine the organisational structures and practices of CSOs who support illegalised migrants and how they differ in their relation towards the city and urban authorities. To do so, we use Agustin’s and Jørgensen’s (2019) typology of three types of solidarity (institutional solidarity, civic solidarity, and autonomous solidarity) and refine it in relation to CSOs in the field of illegalised migration. The article proceeds as follows: We first present our theoretical framework (2.) and our methodological approach as well as the context of our empirical fields (3.). We then analyse the practices of multiple CSOs working with illegalised migrants and highlight some commonalities and challenges they face on the ground (4.). To draw a more precise picture of the landscape of CSOs in this field, we differentiate between three types of CSOs and discuss their organisational structures and their relations to municipal authorities (5.). In the concluding section, we summarise the results and discuss the relevance of our empirical findings for debates on urban citizenship (6.)

Struggles of migration as in-/visible politics

Ever since the Hungarian authorities enacted a temporary halt on international train travel from Keleti Station in Budapest and more or less abandoned thousands of stranded refugees, countless images, both impressive and deeply disturbing, reach us daily: Refugees by the hundreds making their way on foot through Hungary, Austria, Germany and Denmark, walking on motorways and train tracks because international train and bus travel has been shut down; overwhelming transnational willingness to support refugees by offering rides in private cars, by welcoming them and providing for them at train stations, or by organising aid convoys to Hungary, Croatia, Greece and Macedonia. But we also witness violent behaviour of border officials and camp personnel, neo-Nazis stirring up hatred, bawling ‘concerned citizens’, and the burning down of refugee shelters. During this “long summer of migration” (Kasparek/Speer2015), Schengen and the project of the European Union as a whole have entered a severe crisis, as highlighted not only by the reinstated controls along the borders of Germany, Austria, the Netherlands and Denmark, but also by the de facto suspension of the Dublin system. In the past months, through these marches and other enactments of the freedom of movement, the struggles of migration have become more dynamic every day and asserted their self-determined mobilities, thereby exposing the contradictions of the European border regim

Building transversal solidarities in European cities : open harbours, safe communities, home

Over the past years, we have seen a rise in political mobilisations in EUrope and elsewhere, by and in solidarity with migrant newcomers. This article focuses on specific examples of what we conceptualise as transversal solidarities by and with migrants, and rooted in the city, the focus of this special issue. The examples we explore in this article include: Trampoline House, a civil society organisation which provides a home to migrant newcomers in Copenhagen; Queer Base, an activist organisation in Vienna providing support for LGBTIQ (Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Intersex and Queer) migrants; and finally, the Palermo Charter Process, a coalition of diverse groups seeking to create open harbours and ‘corridors of solidarity’, from the Mediterranean to cities throughout EUrope. While these examples are situated in and across different urban spaces, they share a common grounding in building solidarity through spaces of encounters related to ideas of home, community, and harbour. By exploring these distinct solidarity initiatives in tandem, we examine, on the one hand, how the production of spaces of encounters is linked to building transversal solidarities and, on the other, how transversal solidarities also connect different spaces of solidarity across different political scales

Local Responses to Migrants with Precarious Legal Status: Negotiating Inclusive Practices in Cities Across Europe

Across Europe, an increasing number of cities have developed strategies to support migrants who are deemed ineligible for social benefits by national policies and thereby effectively deprived of basic social rights. In contrast to such restrictive national policies, cities often provide access to certain key services, such as health care, housing, education, and legal aid, and ensure safe reporting of crime. This paper introduces the concept of ›migrants with precarious legal status‹ to capture their common focal point: the support of persons who lack, or are vulnerable to the loss of, their legal status. Based on this concept, we review existing research on vertical and horizontal networks and governance arrangements that has tried to grasp municipal strategies toward migrants with precarious legal status. We propose to complement these approaches through a perspective that focuses on negotiations over precarity within municipalities and try to reveal the different and at times conflicting approaches of the various service providers toward migrants with precarious legal status within a municipal authority. By tying together these concepts, we argue for a deeper and more comprehensive understanding of the different interests and power dynamics at play when creating inclusive local practices for migrants with precarious legal status. Lokale Ansätze zur Unterstützung von Migrant*innen mit prekärem Aufenthaltsstatus – Aushandlung inklusiver Praktiken in europäischen Städten Immer mehr Städte in Europa entwickeln Strategien, um Migrant*innen zu unterstützen, die aufgrund nationaler Regelungen keinen Anspruch auf Sozialleistungen haben und damit effektiv grundlegender sozialer Rechte beraubt werden. In diesem Beitrag fassen wir verschiedene prekarisierte Gruppen – Drittstaatsangehörige ohne Aufenthaltsstatus, abgelehnte Asylbewerber* innen, arbeitslose EU Bürger*innen u.a. – als ›Migrant*innen mit prekärem Aufenthaltsstatus‹ zusammen, d.h. als Personen, die keinen gesicherten Aufenthaltsstatus haben oder vom Verlust dieses Status bedroht sind, wenn sie Dienstleistungen in Anspruch nehmen. Im Gegensatz zu den restriktiven nationalen Politiken bieten einige Städte diesen Personen z.T. Zugang zu wichtigen Dienstleistungen wie Gesundheitsfürsorge, Wohnraum, Bildung und Rechtsbeistand oder gewährleisten die sichere Anzeige von Straftaten. In unserem Beitrag betrachten wir bestehende Forschungsarbeiten zu kommunalen Strategien gegenüber Migrant*innen und den sie tragenden vertikalen und horizontalen Netzwerken und Governance-Arrangements. Wir schlagen vor, diese Ansätze durch eine Perspektive zu ergänzen, die sich auf die Verhandlungen über Prekarität innerhalb von Kommunen konzentriert und versucht, die unterschiedlichen und manchmal widersprüchlichen Ansätze innerhalb einer Stadt(verwaltung) zu erfassen. Indem wir diese Konzepte miteinander verknüpfen, plädieren wir für ein tieferes und umfassenderes Verständnis der verschiedenen Interessen und Machtdynamiken, die bei der Schaffung inklusiver lokaler Praktiken in Bezug auf Migrant*innen mit prekärem Aufenthaltsstatus im Spiel sind

Gaygusuz v. Austria: Advancing the rights of non-citizens through litigation

(VLID)465102

Civil society organisations engaged with illegalized migrants in Bern and Vienna: co-production of urban citizenship

In our paper we investigate the role of civil society organisations (CSOs) in the provision of services and in forming advocacy coalitions for illegalized migrants in Bern and Vienna. We analyse the variety of CSOs which actively challenge policies of exclusion at the urban level. We examine the political and social practices of CSOs in local welfare arrangements and their organizational structures, the way they build up solidarity relations, networks and alliances, and their relations to municipality and urban authorities. By focusing on varieties of practices and strategies of CSOs, we shed light on civil society’s crucial role concerning the construction of urban infrastructure of solidarity and aim to show how local arrangements for illegalized migrants are co-produced and negotiated by a variety of actors within urban settings