Love on the move: Understanding the mobility ex-perience of mixed-status couples in the EU

(1)

Love on the Move

Understanding the mobility experience of mixed-status couples in the EU

Gregg Saldutti

8-7-2020

(2)

Master’s Thesis: Human Geography- Globalization, Migration and Development Author: Gregg Saldutti

Student No.: s1022630

Supervisor: Dr. Rianne van Melik

Nijmegen School of Management, Radboud University Nijmegen, the Netherlands Contact: greggsaldutti.jr@gmail.com

(3)

Acknowledgements

First, I must congratulate myself on the fact that, although I make numerous cliche references to music and literature thoughout the entire thesis, I refrain from quoting Hamlet in a work foucsing, in large part, on the state of Denmark. Second, and more importantly, I would like to thank all of those involved in this process who made it possible.

First, Dr. van Melik, thank you for all of your guidance and advice during this process, and your detailed comments, which always challenged me to improve every detail. More importantly, I appreciate your understanding of all of the personal factors that went into choosing this research topic, and your personal guidance as I was struggling to forumlate this research.

I would also like to thank Dr. Schapendonk for your insights into the theoretical portion of this thesis. Thank you for taking the time to review and discuss this with me, and help me create a stronger work.

Of course, I would like to thank Kaj and Andrea, Karl and Katerine and Anne and Thore for their willingness to be part of this research, and their openness in sharing their experiences. I hope that I have done them justice in capturing the expereinces that they shared with me, and I hope that this research will create a better understanding for their sake, and for the sake of couples like them. Best of luck to you all, and I hope you find happiness together wherever you end up!

Thank you to my family for always supporting me: for coming to visit, for letting us sleep on your couch and for getting us Little Stevie tickets; and to the Granbergs, for all of your support as well.

Finally, thank you Alex for sharing this life with me and for making sacrificies so that I may accomplish more. After Canisiussingel, anything is up, even if it is sitting on the ground and staring at each other for 12 hours a day from two meters away.

(4)

Summary

In recent years, national family reunfiication laws in countries in the EU have diverged from the EU’s own family reunification laws that apply to mobile Europeans. These national policies have become onerous for mixed-status couples attempting to live together under national laws. This is espeically the case in Denmark. Mixed-status couples have taken to exercising their legal EU mobility in order to access more favorable family reunification laws. Using mixed methodologies (phenomenology and auto-ethnography) this thesis explores the experiences and meanings behind couples’ mobility given their own ‘constellations of mobility’ (Cresswell, 2010). This research also explore how mobility regimes (Glick-Shiller & Salazar, 2013) shape the expereinces of mobile couples, and how mobility can emerge as a form of social capital (Kauffman et al., 2004; Moret, 2018).

Couples are driven to be together, but they are also compelled to move together. Their experiences with stringent family reunification laws shape how they view their

subsuquent EU mobility; their experiences are also shaped by the security that EU residency status present them. Beyond their legal status, mobilty is also a way to improve prospects, hav new experences and regain a feeling of control over their everyday lives.

(5)

Gladys Knight took the midnight train to Georgia; Wayne Carson got a letter, so he went straight to the airport (there was no time for the fast train); as the sun rose over north Jersey’s industrial skyline, Bruce Springsteen was still trying to get back to where his baby lived (three more hours, but coverin’ ground); and the Cajun Queen left New Orleans for somewhere in the Rocky mountains to resurrect Big John from the ‘bottom of a dirty old mine’ - and all because he moved her. The uniting message of all these tales is clear: love moves. And while marriage may mean settling down, first you have to get there.

For my partner Alex (A) and I there is still undecided. We met in Lebanon in the beginning of 2016. I moved to Denmark in the fall of 2016 to be with A, who was studying in Copenhagen. For A, the move to Copenhagen was relatively painless- she is Finnish. It was not only an easier move physically, it was also frictionless bureaucratically. The same was not true for me. I arrived in Copenhagen in October on a tourist visa. From the day I arrived, the clock was ticking, the border always looming in the background.

I spent the next months on the fringes of the European Union (EU), while A studied in Poland and visited me, until I was finally able to return. A and I were married in Copenhagen in the spring of 2017. It was a simple affair. We were married surrounded by some of A’s classmates along with A’s mother, who came from Finland, as mine watched via video chat from her office in Detroit. A week later we filed for my residency permit to stay in Denmark under EU law. This was also relatively simple, but it took an inordinate amount of time and energy to understand the in’s and out’s of this immigration regime that we had stepped into.

In scouring for information about how to navigate our situation, we came across a phenomena where mixed-couples- a Danish citizen and a third country national (TCN)1_{- in a}

similar situation to our own. Some couples were moving to Sweden or Germany in order to bypass the restrictive Danish national laws on family reunification. Ironically, the process of applying for family reunification in Denmark was much easier for us than it was for Danish citizens. We would come to find that, due to the complexities and tensions surrounding national and supra-national law, Danes could also benefit from the much less restrictive EU laws, but only after exercising their right to free movement under EU law. But, like us, it seemed that they were harnessing their mobility to their advantage when needed.

(10)

This research grew from my own experience navigating the ‘regimes of mobility’ (Glick-Schiller & Salazar, 2013) in the years since A and I met. It explores our own story with mobility as a mixed-status2_{couple in the EU more generally, before focusing on the}

Danish case, and the phenomenon described above. In this research, I hope to explore how other couples experience, use and are shaped by mobility and mobility regimes in the context of mixed-status couples in the EU.

1.1 Research Aim

This research aims to understand the (im)mobility experiences of mixed-status couples in the EU. I will begin by using my partner’s and my own experience as a way to explore the dynamics of how mixed-status couples become mobile, how decisions are made and how they experience their own mobility, and in particular, their mobility in relation to their partner. I will then focus on the case of Denmark: a country with particularly strict family reunification laws compared to other EU countries, and where there has been a development of the phenomenon of couples moving across borders in order to access family reunification under the less strict EU laws.

In this research, I have set out to answer three questions:

I. How do mixed-status couples in and around the EU experience their cross-border (im)mobilities?

A core pillar of the EU is mobility for citizens of EU states. This right can be extended to any TCN partner of an EU citizen- provided the EU citizen can prove their mobility and the couple can prove the legitimacy of their romantic relationship. This question centers on the relationship between these two facts and couples’ experiences of (im)mobility (Cresswell, 2010). Taking the ‘couple’ as the empirical unit, this research allows a deeper look into how mobility experiences are shaped in relation to another, particularly in the case where this relational mobility comes with legal implications.

II. How do mobility regimes and stratified family migration procedures between Denmark and the EU affect the experiences of mixed-status couples in the EU?

2 Chauvin et al. (2019) have defined ‘mixed status couples’ as “those couples whose members hold unequal residence statuses in the receiving country” (p. 4). They do this in order “to focus on the effects of rights inequality rather than merely on national difference” (p. 4). I have chosen to use the same term in this research for the same reason.

(11)

While EU law requires proof of mobility and relationship legitimacy, it is often a much less burdensome pathway to residency for the TCN than the national laws of the country of the EU partner. This has created a phenomenon of EU citizens exercising EU mobility with their TCN partner in order to benefit from more lenient EU laws. However, fulfilling the requirements for family reunification set out by the EU creates difficulties of its own. This question aims to provide a better understanding of mobility experiences in light of interactions with couples encountering the different mobility regimes (Glick-Shiller & Salazar, 2013) between the EU and EU states (Staver, 2013). For the latter issue, this question takes Denmark and Danish family reunification law as a phenomenological starting point.

III. How are cross-border mobility practices strategically leveraged by mixed-status couples as a form of mobility capital and transformed into other types of social capital?

Following the Bourdiuesian theory of capital- as family reunification criteria can be linked to the capitals that each partner carries- this question seeks to understand how couples utilize the capitals available to them. The notion of mobility capital- or motility- (Kauffman et al., 2004; Moret, 2018) is useful to explain how, in the case of mixed-status couples, mobility becomes a source of capital to be transformed to other forms of capital, or to simply make up for the lack of capital that might otherwise be required for family reunification purposes. The concept of mobility capital is also useful in understanding how decisions to be mobile affect experiences with mobility.

1.2 Scientific Relevance: Mingling marriage(,) migration and mobility

This research attempts to combine three bodies of scientific work often separate from each other: marriage migration, family reunification and mobility. These works have often converged, but few have touched on the mobility experiences of couples involved in the legal process of family reunification and social process of marriage migration.

From a legal standpoint, family reunification law and policy (especially in the EU) has been researched thoroughly. The legal justification and implications of family reunification law on (would-be) migrants and their families has been explored (Strik, de Hart & Nissen, 2014; Bragg & Wong, 2015; Staver, 2015) including the ‘civic stratification’ of rights resulting from different family reunification laws at different levels of governance

(12)

(Staver, 2013), as well as the legal logic of stratifying family reunification law in the context of the EU (Schweitzer, 2015).

Other researchers have examined the political side of marriage migration (Morris, 1997), including perennial topics of migration, such as: citizenship, gender and control of the family (Pellander, 2015; Turner, 2008; Wagner, 2015a); integration and belonging (Block, 2015; Strik, de Hart & Nissen, 2014); problematization, class and worthiness (Chauvin, Salcedo Roboledo, Koren, & Illidge, 2019; Scheel & Gutekunst, 2019; Kofman, 2018; Moret, Andrikopoulos & Dahinden, 2019; Pellander, 2015; Sirriyeh, 2015; Staver, 2015; Wray, Kofman & Simic, 2019); and even on the case of these issues within the context of Danish-TCN couples moving between Sweden and Denmark (Fernandez, 2013; Rytter, 2010, 2011; Schmidt, 2013; Wagner, 2015b; Wagner, 2015ba; see Chapter 5).

This study builds on the concept of mobility, and follows the critique of the ‘solitary mobile subject’ (Manderscheid, 2013). This critique has urged researchers to move towards understanding how (im)mobility shapes relationships in general (Schapendonk & Steel, 2014) while the issue of cross-border marriages in particular has been given recent attention (Moret, Andrikopoulos & Dahinden, 2019). Others have called for research into co-mobilities-relational mobilities or entangled mobilities: this has been taken up in some fields, such as employment (see Dorow, Roseman and Cresswell 2017), the dependence of mobility on other family members (Jensen, Sheller & Wind, 2015, Valentine, 2008). Others have urged to focus on the experiences and struggles of couples, rather than viewing the subject of marriage migration and mobility from the perspective of state control (Scheel & Gutekunst, 2019).

While some migration studies have been helpful in understanding the experiences of couples or families in the process of marriage migration (Block, 2015; Bragg & Wong, 2015; Staver, 2015), there has been little work done towards understanding couples’ experiences of cross-border marriage from an (im)mobility perspective (Cresswell, 2010; Sheller & Urry, 2006; Schapendonk & Steel, 2014).

1.3 Societal Relevance: Let’s (try to) stay together

Cross-border partnerships form a significant path to residency in the EU, but family migration (like most forms of migration) has been problematized since the 1990s. Writing from a legal standpoint, Schweitzer (2015) notes that family migrants “together with asylum seekers (whose claim for admission is likewise based on a human rights norm)...have become

(13)

emblematic of a kind of permanent immigration often perceived as being imposed on receiving societies instead of being chosen” (p. 2131). Discourses surrounding family migration have covered a wide range of issues. Family migrants (and migrants in general) have been perceived as undeserving of residency and unwilling or unable to integrate into the host society. They and their EU partners have been cast as characters in tropes imbued with gendered and racialized stereotypes: of villainous men preying on naive women (Scheel, 2017); as subservient women unable to make their own choices (Pellander, 2015); or as not living up to the western, Romantic discourse of ‘love’ that has come to dominate perceptions of how intimate relationships should look (D’Aoust, 2013; 2014).

This problematization of marriage migration has led to more restrictive national policies in EU member states. These policies function as restrictions on potential migrants (and their resident family members) who do not meet certain economic criteria, but also create hurdles for those would-be migrants who have come to be portrayed and seen as more othered on some subjective spectrum of cultural and social ‘otherness’ (for some examples, see Sirryeh, 2015; Staver, 2015; Strik et al., 2014). Though some of the more restrictive policies have been struck down in court at the EU level, these examples show the continued efforts and creativity of member states in attempting to curb family reunification and marriage migration. But in today’s increasingly connected and mobile world (Sheller & Urry, 2006), more people are making connections (including romantic ones) across borders (Valentine, 2006), and have an increased ability to nurture these transnational relationships (Pellander, 2015; Scheel & Gutekunst, 2019; Wray, Kofman & Simic, 2019). These trends highlight the growing significance in understanding cross-border partnerships.

1.4 Structure of the thesis

Having introduced the topic and the aims and the relevance of the research in this chapter (Chapter 1), I will discuss the theoretical basis of this research in Chapter 2, including the conceptual framework that I will use in the analysis of the empirical data. In Chapter 3, I discuss the dual-methodology of auto-ethnography and phenomenology employed in this research, as well as the methods used in data collection and analysis, including the use of email interviews and a self-interview with my partner.

The empirical analysis begins with Chapter 4, which is an auto-biographical account of my and A’s experience as a mobile couple. Chapters 5 and 6 include an examination of the

(14)

Danish case. In Chapter 5, I briefly examine the political context of Danish family reunification law, and how Danish law differs from EU law. I then discuss the differing criteria between the two systems. In Chapter 6, I analyze interview data from mixed-status couples consisting of a Danish citizen and a TCN that have chosen the EU family reunification procedure as opposed to the Danish procedure. Finally, Chapter 7 concludes the research, with reflection on the process and results, along with suggestions for policy making and further research.

(15)

2. Theoretical Framework

2.1 Introduction

This chapter outlines the concepts most relevant to understanding the experiences of mixed status couples in the EU. It begins with an overview of the concept of mobility, the starting point of this study. From there it differentiates mobility from marriage migration, which plays a role in the experience of couples, but, conceptually, does not provide the nuance required to understand the experiences of mixed status couples. Following that is a discussion of mobility regimes, including how these regimes permeate intimate relationships; how they might force couples into mobility; and how experiencing different regimes shape couples’ experience with mobility. Finally, I discuss mobility capital as a way to understand how couples’ use resources strategically, and how these resources might be transferred and converted.

2.2 Get movin’: Mobility

The concept of mobility has gained traction in social sciences in the past decade. The seminal work of Sheller and Urry (2006) referred to this growing interest in mobility as the ‘new mobilities paradigm’. Their work highlighted the “diverse yet intersecting mobilities…[and the] consequences for different peoples and places...around the globe” (p. 207), and has challenged the “ways in which much social science research has been ‘a-mobile’” (p. 208). And it is not just people that are mobile, but ideas and things: the mobility of all three has had a profound impact in a globalizing world. Fifteen years on from Sheller’s and Urry’s work, their call for social sciences to embrace the conceptual lens of mobility has been answered in fields from tourism to transportation, migration, employment and many others (Adey et al., 2014). Indeed, the concept of mobility has been applied to analyze “diverse phenomena at different scales: form daily mobility in the urban space to transportation systems, from residential mobility to transnational migration trajectories” (Moret, 2018, p. 13).

Since the ‘mobilities turn’ and the outlining of a NMP, there has been a call to understand how mobility is experienced in terms of its meanings beyond physical movement (Cresswell, 2010; Merriman, 2014; Sheller, 2014). Cresswell’s (2010) ‘politics of mobility’ calls for an understanding of mobility that goes beyond the ‘raw material’ of movement, and

(16)

includes not only movement, but also meanings or representations associated with that movement and experienced practices of movement. He further breaks down mobility into six constituent parts, including: 1) a motive force, or compulsion to movement; 2) the speed or slowness of movement; 3) the rhythm of movement, or the alternation of movement and rest; 4) the routes of mobile of mobile subjects; 5) the sensation of mobility vis-a-vis comfort, or difficulty; and 6) the stopping, or the friction involved in getting from point a to point b, highlighting the contingent immobilities that sometimes accompany mobility. His urge is to move beyond an understanding of mere physical mobility in order to create a broader image of mobility that includes the meanings of mobility to those involved, as well experiences of mobility that depend on “who we are and what we can expect”- whether our differences stem from disability, race, nationality, etc. (Cresswell, 2010, p. 20).

NMP scholars have also pointed to the differential access to mobility, and the tendency of early mobilities research to focus on privileged forms of mobility (Adey et al,, 2014; Hannam, et al., 2006, Schapendonk et al., 2018; Sheller, 2014). Sheller (2014) points out that updates to mobility theories have attempted to address root assumptions, which saw mobility from a masculine standpoint and overlooked the movement from the standpoint of a “gendered, sexualized, and racialized production of space” (p. 795), while also noting unequal relationships surrounding access to mobility (Skeggs as cited in Sheller, 2014). This access (or lack thereof) is just one example of friction in mobility- that which slows movement (Cresswell, 2014). This friction can be physical, such as geographical space, but it can also be political, economic or otherwise. The question of power and access was also raised by Schapendonk et al. (2018), who highlighted the tendency of academics to romanticize frictionless and privileged forms of mobility in a so-called borderless world, and their focus on the movements of those who can travel easily across, such as tourists or business people. In their discussion on trajectories of mobile migrants from the Global South, they call for refocusing on how mobilities are “controlled, monitored, differentiated and blocked” (p. 2) by governments, and mobility regimes. Since Sheller and Urry’s NMP, mobility scholars have since sought to understand the experiences of (im)mobility, power relations and the pressures of being mobile (Cresswell, 2010; Moret, 2018; Schapendonk et al., 2018; Schapendonk & Steel, 2014).

In this research, I draw on the NMP as well as further work that has been done to encompass the broader meaning and context of mobility. These updates have helped to bring

(17)

in the social realities of being mobile, and how the experience of mobility is itself constantly in flux. In defining mobility, I draw on Cresswell’s (2010) “politics of mobility” and see mobility as movements (and related moorings) that carry meaning, and that are differently accessed and practiced (Cresswell, 2010; Moret, 2018).

2.3 Moving while Moving: Mobility or Migration?

Migration research has often taken the migration event and subsequent settlement as the main focus of research, and was particularly focused on the governance of migrants and migration from the point of view of the state (D’Amato et al., 2019; Dahinden, 2016). However, this categorization of the migration process as a “one-way and once-and-for-all movement” from a place to a destination (D’Amato et al., 2019, p. 5) misses the complexity of mobilities en route, and post-migration mobilities that TCNs often practice. In order to deal with the conceptual bifurcation between migration and mobility, D’Amato et al. (2019) propose the Migration-Mobility Nexus: “a continuum between the two polces of migration and mobility (p. 4). This nexus provides a better starting point for understanding the complexity of movement and categorization between and among the couples in this research.

Along with the emergence of trends between migration and mobility in mobility and mobilities studies (as discussed in the last section), states have also begun to delineate dual regimes of migration and mobility (D’Amato, 2019; Moret, 2018).3_{Moret (2018)}

documented the post-migration movements of Somali nationals within the EU, painting a more vivid picture of the post- migration trajectories and mobility practices of these migrants. In her ethnographic study, her starting point is a migration event, but from this migration event, she explores subsequent mobilities of migrants, and how these movements are leveraged to gain access to different legal privileges and create opportunities for social mobility. Similarly, Schapendonk and Steel (2014) trace the trajectories-in-migration that make up the often fragmented and tangential journeys en-route to the EU as well as after arrival; again, rather than seeing the migration as a singular process of “uprooting-movement-regrounding” (p. 268), those authors take a mobility view of what might typically be seen as a migration process. Schapendonk (2017) also examines the mobility of undcomumented African migrants inside the EU. In this latter work, he brings into the realm 3 Indeed, the cross-border movements of TCNs in the EU (at least from a political and legal standpoint) are categorized as migrations, while the movement of the EU spouse is considered mobility, as I have discussed in chapter X.

(18)

of discussion the binary political distinction that is often made between migration and mobility: on the one hand, European states and EU lawmakers have problematized migration of TCNs (see Chapter 5), while on the other hand, the EU has applauded mobile Europeans and promoted mobility for European citizens.

Moret (2018) unpicks the logic of the EUs promotion of mobility for EU citizens, while it continually restricts its external borders. She notes, “in Europe, mobility has been contrasted with migration based on a political and legal distinction: the movements of people from third countries entering Europe (migration) are opposed to the free movements of European Union citizens moving within Europe (mobility)” (Moret, 2018, p. 11). This is true in academic debates as well. Schapendonk (2017) critiques the distinction of migrant vs. mobile European, contrasting the favorable light shed on socially and physically mobile Europeans- who Favell (2008) has termed Eurostars- with mobile African migrants in the EU: Afrostars. In Schapendonk’s (2017) research, Afrostars display the same type of cross-border mobility patterns and aspirations as Eurostars. However, seen from a standpoint of problematized migrants, Afrostars are not celebrated, but rather forced to live in legal limbo (see also Schapendonk, Liempt & Spierings, 2015).

The large body of marriage migration research within the EU sees the issue as just that: migration. Rightly enough, as TCN spouses are migrants from the point of view of the state, and are therefore often “migrantized” (Dahinden, 2016). But, what is missed in taking migration as a theoretical starting point is the (im)mobility underlying the whole marriage migration process (D’Aoust, 2014a)- particularly in the context of the EU, where there is not only the political distinction, but also a legal distinction between mobility and migration. Couples in this research have activated their legal and physical mobility in order to move across borders to take advantage of different migration procedures. In fact, the TCN partner within these couples may never actually encounter any national migration regimes, but instead gain permanent residency or citizenship through the internal mobility regime of the EU.

While this activation of European mobility has been a starting point for some previous research, the focus has mostly been on issues common in migration studies, such as integration, transnationalism (Wagner, 2015a; 2015b; see also Chapter 5) or legal status (Rytter, 2011). Only recently has marriage migration been explored from the starting point of understanding strategies of couples using EU free movement to bypass strict national law and

(19)

the role that class plays in this decision making (Wray et al., 2019). Additionally, a mobility approach in this research captures the longer life-course of these couples, including pre-migration mobilities, such as long distance-relationships, or post pre-migration mobility, such as exercising EU free movement even after a TCN has ‘migrated’. The couples in this research fall on different points in the Mobility-Migration Nexus. Starting from a conceptual standpoint of mobility helps shed a light on the intricacies and entanglements of both processes. It is also particularly helpful in this research, as I explore mixed-status couples: one being a migrant, the other a mobile European.

2.5 Love, (im)mobility and the state

In 2018, family reunification became the leading category of ‘first resident permits’ issued in the EU (Eurostat, 2019). With this trend set to continue, it is clear that love (romantic and familial) will continue to play an important role in mobility and migration motivations and trends in the EU. In surveying emerging trends in geographies of movement in Europe, King (2002) identified the increasing importance of intimacy as a motivating factor in emerging migrations and mobilities, noting, “as far as migration factors are concerned, ‘love conquers all’” (p. 99). But, in 2008, Valentine noted that the study of family, love and intimacy was still missing from the discipline of geography (Valentine, 2008). Mai and King (2009) also noted the absence of love, particularly in mobility and migration studies, and argued for a deeper exploration of the role of love, sexuality and emotions in motivations and experiences of migration and mobility. They critiqued past migrations and mobility studies that saw decisions as either economically or politically motivated, and note that scholars have often failed to include analysis of “the affective, sexual and emotional dimensions” (Mai & King, 2009, p. 297) of mobility and migration decisions, and that “‘people on the move’ are sexual beings expressing, wanting to express, or being denied the means to express their sexual identities (p. 296). While they argue for an ‘emotional turn’ in mobility studies, and recognize that love is an important driver for cross-border moves, in the context of migration and migration control, the idea of love has also become a political concept.

The idea of ‘romantic love’ has become an essential aspect of “highly individualized and neoliberal model of society...and Northcentric ‘civility’” (Mai & King, 2009, p. 300). In this sense, the idea of romantic love has been co-opted by migration and mobility regimes. D’Aoust (2013; 2014a) explores the notion of love and governmentality, highlighting the

(20)

interplay between law, love and mobility. She outlines the increasing problematization (as discussed on Chapter 5) of marriage migration- citing Denmark’s attachment law as a prime example of marriages called into question for their validity (D’Aoust, 2013). She labels love an emotional technology, one akin to passports or biometrics used by the state to control migration. Love as a political concept rearranges the relationality of citizens to the state, while technologies of love join in larger assemblages which are connected to “other regimes of mobility controls'' (D’Aoust, 2014a, p. 334). These assemblages can often be confusing and contradictory for couples. In some cases, conflicts in values that run to the core of what ‘love’ and ‘marriage’ mean might across different cultures force couples to purposely mischaracterize their relationship to different state authorities.

For example, Scheel and Gutekunst (2019) show how mixed status couples must sometimes ‘perform’ their relationships to suit “the desired narratives and informal decision-making criteria of state officials” (p. 863), but they also highlight how these criteria can often be contradictory among different states. They use the case of a mixed status, EU-Moroccan couple, that must be married under Moroccan law before applying for an EU visa. On the one hand, these couples might have to show EU authorities proof of a ‘genuine’ relationship, which might include intimate details about living arrangements or ‘hot pictures’ showing physical intimacy. On the other hand, couples might have to lie to Moroccan authorities about their intimate sexual lives in order to be married- a requirement to begin the family reunification process in some EU states. These differing cultural standards of what constitutes a ‘genuine’ relationship can compel the couple into “forced fraud” (Garcia as cited in Scheel & Gutekunst, 2019, p. 863). Mobility regimes force couples to not only prove that they are legally bound together, but also that their relationship is the right kind of relationship in the eyes of the state- that they are worthy of living together. Yet, even with these performances, some couples still fail to meet the requirements for one reason or another.

Not only do border regimes force couples into a performance of their relationships, they also use other practices aimed at infiltrating and testing romantic relationships. These include attempts by migration officials to delay applications in order to stress relationships, and test the truthfulness of a couple’s motivations for marriage (Kulk & De Hart, 2013; Scheel, 2017). Following the notion of love and governmentality, these informal practices can be seen as “technologies of government that either target or feature the motion of love in

(21)

the regulation of marriage migration …[where] love features as ‘target and object’ in projects of immobility” (Scheel, 2017, p. 402). The result here, Scheel (2017) argues, is that the border regimes infiltrate private lives, not only of potential migrants, but also of citizens of the EU.

Love emerges as a main motivation for the decision of people to move, a compulsion even; it also emerges as a technology of control for the state. Understanding the affective dimensions of the choice to be mobile, as well as how mobility regimes operate in relation to love, is essential in understanding the experiences of the couples in this study. The concept of love is also essential in understanding projects of physical (im)mobility that couples navigate.

2.5.1 Settling down… once you get there: Experiencing Mobility regimes

In critiquing the celebration and romanticization of mobility that stemmed from the “mobility turn” (Urry, 2007), Glick-Shiller and Salazar (2013) write of “regimes of mobility...that normalise the movements of some...while criminalising and entrapping the ventures of others” (p. 189). These regimes are networks of control and influence that structure movement, and that bind together different state, supra-state and non-state actors (Schwarz, 2018). One key goal of theirs was to delineate the mobility control systems that affect the (im)mobilities of individuals and the control over “movement and mobility potential…[that] has become a central concern for projects of biopolitics and governmentality” (p. 195). While they aim to steer mobility research away from methodological nationalism (the notion of a segmented and bounded society delineated by the borders of nation-states), they call for scholars to recognize the relationship between structural forces and the movement (ie: agency) of people. This is especially relevant for this case as I attempt to understand cross-border movements in relation to national policies.

This structural view is a good starting to understand the experiences of couples. From the concept of mobility regimes I will explore how the state and its policies infiltrate the most intimate of relationships in controlling movement, and potential movement (Schmidt, 2013; Scheel, 2017; Scheel & Gutekunst, 2019). In Denmark, mobility regimes have operated in tandem with the governmentality of emotions through ‘affective border controls’ (Jenholm & Bissenbakker, 2019). Conceptually, mobiltiy regimes allow for an undestanding of how couples experience not just their marriage migration, but also the parts of their

(22)

relationship before they acquire a legal status in any particular country. That two people decide to have a relationship does not, by any means, afford them the right to live together- at least in the eyes of states, and therefore relationships are not as straightforward as meeting and moving. The concept of mobility regime also provides a starting point to understanding the role of class and capital in the couples’ physical mobilities and experiences of those mobilities (Cresswell, 2010), as family reunification requirements have increasingly excluded not only couples lacking social or cultural capital, but also economic capital. However, I will not only examine the structuring aspects of mobility regimes, but also the strategies and resources that actors use to overcome these structuring forces and how individuals may react (Kaufmann, Bergman & Joye, 2004; Moret, 2018; Schapendonk et al., 2018).

2.5.2 Love and Relational (im)mobility

Of course, in matters of the heart there are always two people involved (one assumes). And if love in this context is a project of (im)mobility, then there are also two people involved in this process as well. Recalling Cresswell (2010), this is also an opportunity to explore the relational and associated moorings of couples’ mobility. It is little surprise that couples move together. Schapendonk and Steel (2014) recognize this relationality between people, noting that bordering practices and mobility opportunities are often shaped by the “most intimate spheres of migrants’ relationships” (p. 266). Dorow, Roseman and Cresswell (2017) also touch on this, particularly in their interest in “relational mobilities”, which brings attention to “interactive effects and meanings among many moving parts and people” (p. 6). Relationships, then, play an important role in shaping the mobility and mobility experiences of partners.

Cangia and Zittoun (2018) cite the importance of family as an “anchoring yet shifting entry point through which people live movement” (p. 4), and set out to understand “how family shapes, and is shaped by...life trajectories” (p. 4), and how family dynamics relate to mobility experiences. Jensen, Sheller and Wind (2014) explore relational mobility within the daily life of families’ commutes, and how these relationalities affect physical as well as experienced movements, this entanglement of mobility (the mobility of one being dependent and tied to the mobility of the other). There is also a body of research that explores family mobility, particularly the (im)mobility experiences of ‘expat’ families. Cangia (2017)

(23)

investigated the emotional experiences of female expat spouses and how they balance discourses surrounding the “excitement of mobility” (p. 27) with the emotional realities of continually navigating new social fields. Cangia (2018) also has also studied the experiences of accompanying spouses and how interruptions arising from their relational mobilities can alter typical gender roles within families, and force a reimagination of personal identity for the spouse whose own life has been interrupted.

In this research, relationality plays a significant role in the cross-border (im)mobilities of couples. Their mobility is intimately tied to their relationship, so their experiences with that mobility must also be. These relational mobilities emerge as complex entanglements between love and emotion, resources and abilities and the state. The (im)mobilities in this research stem in part from couples' natural desire and right to live together, but also in the differing legal frameworks which allow and force certain (im)mobilities.

2.5.3 Waiting

The idea of relational mobility is also helpful in understanding the moorings of couples in this study. Their mobility is punctuated by a long period of waiting, not only in a new place, but in a place where they may not settle. How people can ‘wait’ is important in understanding couples’ experiences. Brun (2015) explored waiting in displacement, and the role of temporal movement- how people get stuck in the present or envision the future- as an important aspect of agency and experience in waiting. Schapendonk and Steel (2014) have explored the aspect of waiting from a mobilities perspective; Strik et al. (2014) examined the difficulties of waiting for status in marriage migration scenarios as well. They found that periods of waiting can often be frustrating and taxing on relationships. Waiting is not always negative, but the experience of waiting highly dependent on the opportunities and resources available to those in limbo (Wagner, 2015). Thinking about migration not just as an isolated phenomenon, but as a part of a larger entangled mobility will help to better understand the experiences of couples in this study.

2.6 Movin’ On Up: Mobility capital and motility

In previous sections I have mentioned that mobility is accessed and practiced differently. These differences sometimes stem from different experiences, but they often stem from different resources. This social aspect of mobility is elaborated by Kaufmann et al. (2004)

(24)

with their conceptualization of mobility capital, or motility. Motility is a linking of spatial mobility and social mobility. This concept is based on Bourdieu's (1986) theory of capital. Briefly, Bourdieu says that individuals have access to different capitals- economic, cultural and social- which can be accumulated in order to increase the social position of an actor, and in the process, create or further social inequality (1986). Importantly, these types of capital can be converted between other types of capital.

In conceptualizing motility, Kaufmann et al. (2004) note that motility consists of three factors: access, skills and appropriation (see also Moret, 2018). The authors note that motility refers to the potential for mobility that actors have (their access to mobility), and not necessarily the exercise of this mobility. They link spatial and social mobility, highlighting the social differentiation that occurs as a result of spatial arrangement. They conclude that “the concept of motility makes it possible to account for the strategies and constraints in the negotiation of social and geographic space” (Kaufmann et al., 2004, p. 753).

According to Kaufmann et al., (2004), access might mean finances, time or even the legal capital (Moret, 2018)4_{- the legal right to cross borders, or stay in nations- to be}

mobile-particularly across borders; for Moret (2018) access is “linked to opportunities and constraints” resulting from social situations of actors (p. 103). Skills refer to the ability to practice movement: this may mean the ability to read a map, but may also mean the ability to navigate a new bureaucratic system; skills may also refer to experiences gained in past mobility. Finally, appropriation refers to the strategic use, and transformation of mobility to capital- “needs, plans, aspirations and understanding of agens, and it relates to strategies, motives, values and habits” (Kaufmann et al., 2004, p. 750). Moret (2018) builds on the concept of mobility, concluding that the “ability to be mobile is related to the ability to deploy strategies to improve one’s situation” (p. 103), though she notes that being mobile does not always mean being better off.

Mobility capital is helpful in understanding how individuals can use mobility strategically. While capital can be converted between forms, the ability of individuals to transfer motility to others has not been explored. In this case both layers are at work: TCN spouses acquire rights through their EU partner, but not solely through the EU citizenship of that partner. Instead, rights are acquired and transferred through exercising the physical 4 For Moret (2018), legal capital is capital in the form of residency rights in or citizenship and can be

transmitted to one’s descendants in particular in nation-states. In the case of mixed-status couples, this capital can be transmitted to partners.

(25)

movement that that citizenship allows. Though I will explore the skills and access of couples in this research, I am particularly interested in how mobility is appropriated and used as a strategy in navigating mobility regimes. I am also interested in the use of the border in this strategy.

2.7 Putting the pieces together: Conceptual framework

The conceptual framework (see page 20) is rooted in mobility and how couples in the marriage migration process experience this mobility, but also what this mobility represents. Physical movement is one experience, but a movement layered with political and legal meaning reframes that movement. Taking a mobility approach (as opposed to migration) in this research allows for an understanding beyond a one-off resettlement. While the ultimate goal may be migration through family reunification, studying these couples from a mobility stand point allows a broader picture of how their relationship and their experiences change through their mobility. Studying this phenomenon from the standpoint of migration would fail to capture these intricacies sufficiently.

In the eyes of the state and mobility regimes, mobility may serve an essential role in ‘legitimizing’ a relationship, where mobility is seen as a sign of commitment, and where migration or marriage following a short relationship is cause for suspicion. And while mobility pervades mixed-status relationships from the start, so enters the role of the mobility regime into the experiences of mixed-status couples- whether they are applying for visas to visit partners, or building their ‘relationship portfolio’ to show to the migration officer.

Studying couples allows for a view of how the individuals respond to mobility, especially a relational mobility to the other and also in relation to the state. When mixed-status couples (legally) partner up, they alter their relationship to the state, and, depending on that relationship, they are required to move together. Mixed-status couples also move simply to be together- as is implicit in their differing statuses.

Finally, the concept of mobility capital, or motility, help to explain the rationale behind exercising mobility and how couples attempt to strategically leverage certain resources in an attempt to make up for a lack of others. Within couples, each individual brings their own skills and abilities; these resources may be past experiences, financial capital or even legal capital. As a couple unit, these resources may be pooled and transferred, as is the case with legal status.

(26)

(27)

3 .

(28)

3.

Methods and Methodology

In this chapter I will detail how I carried out this study, including the methods I employed in collecting and analyzing the data, as well as certain philosophical underpinnings of the methodology. The chapter begins with a discussion of the qualitative methodology of hermeneutic phenomenology and auto-phenomenology. Following that is an explanation of the methods employed in this research, including recruiting respondents, interviewing and analysis of the data. Finally, I discuss the main challenges I faced during this process.

3.1 Methodologically speaking: Research philosophy

Questions pertaining to experiences are best researched using qualitative research methods. Qualitative research allows researchers to answer complex questions, and is best suited when we want to “empower individuals to share their stories, hear their voices, and minimize the power relationships that often exist between researcher and participant” (Creswell, 2007, p.40). In this research I have taken a mixed-methodology approach: designing the research around the philosophy of hermeneutic phenomenology, as well as analysing and interpreting auto-biographical information based on approaches taken from auto-ethnography as well as auto-hermeneutics.

3.1.1 I am he, as you are me, and we are all together: hermeneutic phenomenology

Phenomenology broadly seeks to uncover the essence of lived experiences, or “the essential meaning of something” (van Manen, 2016, p. 77). A phenomenological5_{methodology is best}

suited for research questions (like the one I have sought to answer) concerned with the lived human experience, and is useful in research which focuses on “illuminating details and seemingly trivial aspects within experiences that may be taken for granted in our lives, with a goal of meaning making and achieving a sense of understanding” (Laverty, 2003, p. 24). The hermeneutical approach to phenomenology brings subjectivity and perception into the realm of scientific study. Both phenomenology and hermeneutics are rooted in an interpretivist ontology, which sees reality as multiple, constructed and alterable by the knower (Laverty, 2003); but, unlike phenomenology, the hermeneutical approach deems the practice of 5 This section differentiates the phenomenology of Husserl and the hermeneutic phenomenology of Heidegger. Once I have made this differentiation, all uses of phenomenology will not imply differentiation, only

(29)

bracketing6_{impossible as individuals and experience are co-constituting- we cannot escape}

ourselves in the process of analysis and interpretation (Heidegger as cited in Koch, 1995; Heideigger as cited in Laverty, 2003). Indeed, van Manen (2016) asks “how does one put out of play everything one knows about an experience?” (p. 47). Here “[p]phenomenology is not only a description, but is also seen as an interpretive process” (Cresswell, 2007, p. 59). In the hermeneutical approach the researcher’s own subjectivity is recognized as an inevitable part of the research- and, perhaps, valuable.

3.1.2 I’ll be me: auto-methodolgy

In this study I have explored the experiences of other couples, but I have also used my own experience as a source of data. Self-study- particularly autoethnography- has been recognized as a valuable qualitative research methodology (Creswell, 2007) within the field of geography (Butz & Besio, 2009), and has been used in a number of studies focusing on mobility, migration and belonging (Khosravi, 2008; Student, Kendall & Day, 2017; Symes, 2012). While some have critiqued auto-ethnography as lazy and narcissistic, akin to an academic selfie (Campbell as cited in Stephens-Griffin & Griffin, 2019), measures can be taken to preserve the value of an auto-ethnographic study, including creating robust links to theory, exercising reflexivity (Stephens Griffin & Griffin, 2019) and including other participants. Larsen’s (2012) mobile (auto)ethnography with cyclists notes the importance of avoiding self-indulgence (following Benjamin) in auto-ethnographic writing, and argues for an auto-ethnography that does not generalize solely from one’s own experience, but that participation in an activity alongside others allows him a bodily experience, but also to learn from others involved.

Gorichanaz (2017) proposes auto-methodology as it has the added benefit of the researcher having the “direct experience of the participants’ experience” (2017, p.3). He points to Dennet (1992), who writes that it is possible to interpret one’s self- “to think about one’s past, and one’s memories, and to rethink and rewrite them” (n.p). But Gorichanaz notes that the “researcher engaging in auto-hermeneutics must have a capacity for self-awareness, have a concrete way to externalize inner experiences, and be trained in qualitative research” (Benjamin as cited in Gorichanaz, 2017, p. 3).

6 Bracketing is the process of setting aside one's own ‘historicity’ and pre-understandings in the research and interpretation of experiences.

(30)

Though the experiences of myself and my partner differ from the criteria of the phenomenological portion of the research they can still be analyzed from the theoretical starting points as set out in the conceptual framework of this research (Chapter 2). The use of an auto-methodology aids this research in three ways. First, by sharing and attempting to understand personal experience of some phenomenon, researchers can better interpret and represent experiences of other participants (Creswell, 2007; Méndez, 2013). Second, it provides access into “private worlds and provides rich data”, which, when compared with other participants, can help to triangulate experience and interpretation (Méndez, 2013, p. 282). Finally, it allows for “‘contextualizing’ [...] within the ongoing life experience” (Creswell, 2007, p. 87); using our experience allows a deeper look into mobility experiences of couples beyond a single phenomenon. The experiences of couples interviewed for this study provides a snap-shot of couple mobility, while the inclusion of our own experience with mobility allows one look at how the single phenomenological event may fit within a broader life-course of mobility.

Reflexivity. This research stems from my own experience as one-half of a mixed-status,

mobile couple. In a sense our relationship has been defined by mobility, and our relationship with mobility has always been a dialectical one. Though our situation is not a carbon copy of those couples involved in this research, my own experience with mobility leaves me with a certain understanding, relationship and specific set of assumptions with the topic at hand. The goal of this research was to understand the experiences of those involved in this type of mobility. Accordingly, this research is grounded in the philosophy of hermeneutic phenomenology, and seeks to “explore and examine experiences” of participants- myself included (Gill, 2014, p.128).

3.2 Sampling and recruitment procedures

This section outlines the methods of data collection and analysis used in the process of this research.

3.2.1 Picking the people: Sampling and recruiting participants

Creswell (2007) sets out suggestions for selecting who to research in a phenomenological study, how to choose them and how many participants should be involved. While Creswell (2007) suggests anywhere from 5-10 participants, he also points to wide parameters set by other authors, ranging anywhere from 1 to 325 (Dukes, Polkinghore as cited in Creswell,

(31)

2007). Smith and Shinebourne (2012) also call for small sample sizes in phenomenological studies.

For phenomenological studies, Creswell (2007) rightly notes the fact that participants must have experienced the phenomenon under study, meaning that the participants for the phenomenological portion of the research were selected using criterion sampling. These criteria included: (1) a mixed status couple consiting of one Dane and one TCN citizen); (2) that was planning to apply for EU family reunification; was waiting on a decision for EU family reunification; or had filed for EU family reunification in the past; (3) and who were moving, or had moved mainly for the reason of family reunification procedures.

In regards to the first criteria, the decision to focus on Denmark was made for a number of reasons. First, I had previous knowledge of this phenomenon in Denmark, and knew of at least one legal orgainzation, Ægteskab uden grænser7_{(AEUG) offering legal}

advice to couples applying for family reunification through Danish and EU laws in Denmark and particularly to Danes moving abroad for EU family reunificiation8_{. On the discussion}

forum of the AEUG website, there have been more than 31,000 posts under the section “Stay according to EU rules” (AEUG, 2020). The ”Frequently asked questions about EU rules” post in this category has been viewed more than 100,000 times since 2009 (AEUG, 2020). While the exact number of couples following this pathway to residency are unknown, estimates range in to the thousands every year (Schmidt, 2013). Second, I had experience with EU family reunification in Demark, and had previous knowledge of the national policies of Denmark, something that would help to contextualize background research. Third, as I will show in Chapter 5, Denmark has been at the forefront of creating barries to family renification through national policies. And, as many countries in Europe have started to restrict their own national laws, Denmark provides an example of future potentialites if this trend continues.

The choice of focusing on couples stems from the conceptual notions of relational mobility and the transfer of capital (particularly legal capital). Due to the legal requirements of the process of family reunification that couples must cohabitate, creating a form of 7 Marriage without Borders

8 With this prior knowledge, I attempted to arrange an internship with AEUG as well as with another small organization, The Trampoline House, which works more generally with migration and integration in Denmark. However, arranging a research internship, particularly with the latter- as the former never replied to multiple emails- was delayed, and later abandonned after the coronavirus lockdown in Denmark.

(32)

relational and forced mobility. This relationality might be experienced differently by each member of the couple. Furthermore, the decision is based on a combination of social capitals that the couple shares, but that may also be transferred from one member to the other- such as legal status. By focusing on couples, I hoped to capture the entanglement of experiences in better detail, and not only examine how each partner sees this individually, but how it may affect the relationship to the other.

In this phenomenon, some couples may use the closest border as an opportunity to gain residency for the TCN as well as activating the Danish citizens' EU mobility. This move across the border is essential, as it allows the couple to return to Denmark and apply for family reunification under EU laws, rather than the stricter Danish national laws. While this border hop is enough for some, other couples use the opportunity to go further afield in the EU in order to experience life abroad, or pursue educational opportunities (Wray, Kofman & Simic, 2019).

In order to gain access, I contacted a number of organizations that were tangentially connected to helping couples through the administrative marriage migration process in Denmark, individuals involved in the online community of family reunification applicants, as well as Danish expat organizations. I was directed to a number of Facebook groups created specifically to help Danes navigate the EU family reunification laws and put out requests for participants in these groups. I also created posts on the website Reddit asking for interested participants. I was able to get participants from both Facebook and Reddit9_{. As these virtual}

communities were created to assist couples in learning more about requirements and strategies for undertaking cross-border moves, they allowed direct access to self-selected individuals and couples who fit my criteria. Between the two Facebook groups, there were more than five-thousand members.

However, one drawback of using these groups was that these groups were created speficially for people having questions or encountering problems with their family-reunificiation process, which means that my call for participants was seen mostly by couples 9 Reddit Copenhagen page: www.reddit.com/r/Copenhagen

Ægteskab uden grænser - En gruppe for problemer: https://www.facebook.com/groups/623380214423626/

ÆUG Region Skåne: https://www.facebook.com/groups/408048509211004/

Familiesammenføring i Danmark efter EU-retten [Family reunification in Denmark under EU rules]:

https://www.facebook.com/groups/970263116436553/

(33)

who had sought out such groups. There is also the potential that this type of recruitment creates a potential for a bias in self-selction, whereas those couples having little to no-trouble at all may not be interested in participating. Such specific groups also meant that there were diminishing responses to each new post, and when attempts at snowball sampling were made, I was referred back to these groups.

3.2.2 Respondent Profiles

The couples in this study provided background information in addition to information about their experiences. The background information presented here largely speaks to the capitals that couples had available to them.

Table 1 Respondent Profile: Katerine and Karl

Katerine (TCN) Karl (EU)

Age 27 25

Country of residence*

Netherlands Denmark

Nationality United States Denmark

Education Master’s (in progress) Bachelor (in progress)

Residency status Student visa- Netherlands ** Danish resident***

Approximate combined income♱

€ 32,323

Met Japan - 2013

Email responses Katerine answered all emails and relayed answers from Karl

Transcript length 3,621 words

* As of July, 2020- Katerine was interviewed while living in Denmark.

(34)

*** Karl will move to the Netherlands in Fall, 2020.

At the time of first family reunification application- annualized (where applicable) and converted from ♱

DKK.

Table 2 Respondent Profile Andrea and Kaj

Andrea (TCN) Kaj (EU)

Age 30 35

Country of residence

Germany Germany

Nationality Russia Denmark

Education Secondary Technical Degree

Residency status EU (in progress) EU

€ 32,323

Met Online - 2012

Married Denmark - July, 2019

Email responses Kaj answered majority of emails, and relayed some answers from Andrea, though Andrea also answered certain questions.

Transcript Length 7,781 words

♱At the time of first family reunification application- annualized (where applicable) and converted from DKK.

(35)

Table 3 Respondent Profile: Anne and Thore

Anne (TCN) Thore (EU)

Age 35 38

Sweden Sweden

Nationality United States Denmark

Education Bachelor Master

Residency status EU (in progress) EU

€ 161,172

Met Denmark - 2018

Married Denmark - Spring, 2019

Email responses Thore and Anne answered separately

Transcript length 4,601

Table 4 Respondent Profile: G & A

G (TCN) A (EU)

Age 30 28

(36)

Nationality United States Finland

Education Master (in progress) Master

Residency status EU (Netherlands) Denmark (as Nordic citizen)

€ 12,000

Met Lebanon- 2016

Married Denmark - Spring, 2017

3.3 Data collection procedures: Iterative email interviews

Hermeneutic phenomenology requires rich qualitative data, and benefits from an iterative process of questioning and interpretation. With this in mind, I have chosen to use semi-structured email interviews in the collection of data from couples involved in the study. The use of semi-structured interviews is the bread and butter of qualitative research. In phenomenological studies, data collection often involves multiple, in-depth interviews aimed at getting a description of the experience and meaning of a lived phenomenon (Creswell, 2007). I began the interviews with open-ended questions about their experiences with this phenomenon, as well as questions about background information, such as ages, income and mobility history. I created a loose interview guide based on reflections of my own experience with the phenomenon, and built upon these reflections as analyzed participants’ responses throughout the study.

For the interviews, I was interested in creating an informal relationship, and wanted to build rapport with the participants and conduct interviews with a more conversational feel, while allowing for flexibility. I did not want to impose on the participants with multiple, set-time calls where both partners had to be present. I felt that email was the best way to have

Love on the move: Understanding the mobility ex-perience of mixed-status couples in the EU

Love on the Move

Understanding the mobility experience of mixed-status couples in the EU

Gregg Saldutti

8-7-2020

Table of Contents