Indigenous Communitarian Strategies in Northern Europe in the context of Migration: The Pasanaku Case in Amsterdam

Indigenous Communitarian Strategies in Northern

Europe in the context of Migration:

The Pasanaku Case in Amsterdam

Master Thesis submitted to the Graduate School of Humanities in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of

Research Master’s in Cultural Analysis awarded by the University of Amsterdam

Carolina Chávez Villacreses 11117222

Thesis RMA Cultural Analysis Supervisor: Dr. Joost de Bloois Second Reader: Dr. Niall Martin

Table of Contents

Acknowledgments ... 3

Introduction ... 4

Chapter 1: ‘Global Cities and International Migration: Living in Amsterdam ... 8

1.1 Introduction ... 8

1.2 Geographic spaces ... 10

1.3 A Shift in the European Territory ... 14

1.4 Coming to Europe ... 16

1.5 Border-Crossing, Settlement and Regularization: The Bare Life ... 20

1.6. Global cities: The Relation Between Migration and Precarity ... 26

1.7 Conclusions ... 30

Chapter 2: ‘Thinking from Where I am: Decolonial Spaces of Hope’ ... 31

2.1 Introduction ... 31

2.2 Global Linear Thinking ... 33

2.3 Andean Cosmology ... 38

2.4 Pasanaku ... 39

2.5 The rules ... 41

2.6 Counter-Hegemonic Global Thinking ... 44

2.7 Sociology of the Absences ... 45

2.8 Sociology of Emergences ... 49

2.9 Translation ... 50

3. Conclusions ... 52

Conclusions ... 53

Acknowledgments

This present thesis has represented a personal grow for myself, it opened my eyes and mind to another experiences. I has enriched my life in several senses.

To my professors Dr. Joost de Bloois and Dr. Niall Martin who had given guidance and support during the whole process of the thesis.

To my parents and my sisters for their love and support that made possible all of this dream. To the Pasanaku women, who had opened their arms, dreams and hearts to me, who trusted their experiences and lives to give me the opportunity to research this thesis. I feel infinitely grateful for had this privilege.

I specially want to express my gratitude to Sylvana who has been a magnificent support for me; to Claire who has been a sister of life.

Introduction

The current thesis sheds light on how a communitarian practice from Bolivia named Pasanaku, based on certain principles of the Andean cosmology, namely solidarity, reciprocity and cooperation, has been adapted and used by a group of Latin American women living in Amsterdam. This serves multiple purposes: at a first level, it serves as a money lending system or a pool to collect money, as an alternative to banks; however, on a deeper level, its purpose is to create a symbolic space of solidarity, cooperation and contention, to allow people to cope with the dynamics of being an immigrant living in a Global city with a historical tradition of accumulation. Therefore, the objective of this dissertation is to close read the practice and the histories of its members, to analyze the diverse dimensions embedded within migration and decolonial theory, from a Cultural Analysis perspective.

Why does Pasanaku become relevant and even more powerful in a migratory context? The logic of the western matrix of power, inherited from colonial times, divides and classifies people into ‘Anthropos and Humanitas’, the ones who inhabit the zero point and the ones who are outside of it, the ones who belong and the ones who are part of the periphery. This logic is deeply embedded and exerts its influence on several levels, such as: the accumulation and dispossession of resources in the places where the ‘Anthropos’ come from; the control of freedom of movement and migratory policies, applied by the nation states in the wealthiest regions of the world; the division of labor that perpetuates stereotypes based on race and ethnicity; as well as in forms of racism experienced in daily life in a global city.

In terms of migration, the western matrix of power perpetuates exclusion by constantly disciplining the population, to keep them caught up in a ‘deportation regime’, which means people remain deportable even when they have a residence permit, or denying to others any possibility of regularizing their migratory status. Concretely, having limited or no access to a regular migratory status imposes numerous practical limitations in daily life, such as: the access to legal labor and proper income, housing, citizenship and child care; it also affects emotional experiences, such as the sense of belonging to a community. Therefore, the western matrix of power, supported by the current state of neoliberalism and globalization, creates post-colonial spaces in global cities, where precariousness, precarity and governmental precarization are experienced by immigrants on a daily basis.

The object of study:

How does Pasanaku relate with the Andean Cosmology and why are those principles powerful in a context of migration? As discussed in the second chapter, the Andean Cosmovision constitutes codes, symbols, beliefs, understandings and practices from a region (the Andean), which in this case is based on ‘earth-beings’ (De la Cadena, 2010: 336-337). The Cosmovision of the Andean world was based on principles of reciprocity, distribution and a relation with nature and the spiritual world. The center of life and production was constituted by the community and its relation with the territory; solidarity and cooperation represent connectivity and the shared energy that all of us have (Mutuberria Lazarini, Valeria; Henry Chiroque Solano; my transl, 2011: np).

Pasanaku, as a money lending pool, is based on the principles of solidarity and reciprocity. The logic

behind Pasanaku is communitarian, since the members of the circle have a close relationship and understand the purpose and advantages of having a community to work with. It does not require contracts and it is based on trust and the value of one’s word. The communitarian logic exceeds the economic dimension, as the practitioners reproduce the foundations of the Pasanaku on other levels too: finding accommodation, employment, taking care of each other’s kids, legal advice, emotional support, etc.

Therefore, Pasanaku constitutes a symbolic space to connect people, but is, moreover, also a symbolic space where those factors – practical an emotional – can be satisfied by the appearance of ‘spaces of hope’. This communitarian practice generates a decolonial space to defeat exclusion and anonymity and reclaims the right to exist, offering a new place of enunciation, as the practice exists itself as a result of absences and lack of opportunities. It is in this context (the private), where social interaction is converted into something even more powerful, capable of creating a safe space to resist the regime of exclusion, precariousness and anonymity.

I decided to choose this study case after the first time that I assisted in one of these meetings and found a piece of my country there; it was not only the smell of the food, the warmth of the people and the laughs and histories that we shared at that time. I realized that the object itself could be analyzed in diverse dimensions and layers: migration, global cities, precarity and decolonial theory. Plus, researching communitarian practices in Northern Europe from a decolonial and communitarian perspective constitutes a different approach, which only increases its relevance.

Research questions

Central to this thesis are these research questions:

- How has a Southern (Andean) communitarian practice been adapted to perform a symbolic space, to overcome anonymity and precariousness, in the globalized North?

 How does this practice, based on solidarity and trust, go beyond usual money exchange schemes and how is it replicated in other spheres of life, such as access to jobs, childcare, accommodation, food, health care, legal advice and communitarianism?

 How can we understand how Pasanaku becomes a transnational space that is helpful to Latin American women in the context of globalization? Does Pasanaku become more powerful and transnational in the space of the global city?

- How does the Pasanaku form a symbolic space, to configure subjectivities where migrants can empower themselves even in the context of ‘territorial security’, ‘exclusion’ and ‘not being part of the system’?

Pasanaku becomes even more important here, since there are no other means to have representation or

discussion.

My thesis will be structured around the analysis of three types of objects:

 Pasanaku as a formal set of rules and procedure, but also Pasanaku as a symbolic space (Object)

 Participatory observations whenever the members of the Pasanaku meet.

 In-depth interviews with practitioners of Pasanaku, focusing on questions that arise from participatory observations during the Pasanaku and a theoretical understanding of this phenomenon.

The Pasanaku (through these three objects) will be analyzed through the lens of and in constant dialogue with these main concepts: global cities and contemporary migration, precarity and decolonial theory. The thesis has been divided in two main chapters: ‘Global cities and international migration: Living in Amsterdam’ and ‘Thinking from where I am: decolonial spaces of hope’.

The purpose of ‘Global cities and international migration: Living in Amsterdam’ is to describe the process of migration and how this has influenced the context of this group of Latin American women. Therefore, the following questions are asked: How do they live in a global city like Amsterdam? What are the implications of living outside of the state? How do they construct their quotidianity? How do they face precarity? Have they accomplished forms of social mobility when they migrated to the North? At the theoretical level, in this section, I will point to the broad context to interpret global changes and their relation

with migration. Here, I mainly refer to these two authors: Stephen Castles and Saskia Sassen, regarding migration and global cities. Afterwards, I will shed light on how the western (colonial) matrix of power keeps reproducing a segmentation based on the perceived value of lives, inherited from colonial times, through the regulation of the freedom of movement. Additionally, I refer to the theoretical approach of Nicholas de Genova and his understanding of the ‘Deportation Regime’. Thirdly, at a more concrete level, I will ground those categorical concepts to understand how the global context, plus the migratory discipline, have been influencing the quotidianity and have led to increased precarity. I will explore these issues through the use Isabel Lorey’s three dimensions of the precarious.

In the second chapter, ‘Thinking from where I am: decolonial spaces of hope’, I will show the potential of the Pasanaku as a non-Western practice to cope with precarity in the global North. First, I will draw from several concepts from decolonial theory, developed by Walter Mignolo and Anibal Quijano, to describe the expansion of the Western hegemony, setting up an economic, political and ideological model aimed at accumulation as well as how this hegemonic logic classifies people into ‘Anthropos and Humanitas’ and denies people their own culture and worldview. The logic of the colonial matrix of power is still present in current times, operating through neoliberalism and globalization, facilitating capital accumulation, fragmenting spaces and dividing and classifying people. Secondly, I will shed light on some concepts from Boaventura de Sousa Santos’ ‘Sociology of the Absences and Emergences’, to close read Pasanaku as a practice that visibilizes at the private level, what has been made invisible and denied by the hegemonic power. In sum, I will open up the possibility of understanding, from a non-Western perspective, other communitarian practices that have become even more powerful in the context of the global North.

Chapter 1: ‘Global Cities and International Migration: Living in Amsterdam

1.1 Introduction

In this chapter, I will analyze the context where a group of Latin American women are living in Amsterdam. This group of Latin American women gathers together to perform a cultural practice from Bolivia called

Pasanaku – which contains several principles of the Andean Cosmology, such as cooperation and reciprocity

– with the purpose of creating a meaningful and symbolic space to help each other with: first, money lending by forming an alternative financial system or pool, in order to collect money and be able to save it, as they do not have access to the regular financial system; and secondly and even more importantly, to create a network of care, cooperation and reciprocity to cope with their migratory status, in order to be able to live in a global city and to resist neoliberalism.

The women forming this example of Pasanaku live in Amsterdam, a city with a rich history of accumulation. It is now categorized as a global city, which is defined by Saskia Sassen as: “Geographical points where the economic power concentrates”1 (2007: 39); “Command points in the organization of world

economy (…) key locations and marketplaces for the leading industries of the current period-finance and specialized services for firms” (2012: 7). I reckon that the accumulation of resources that characterizes the global city could illustrate the idea of a place full of opportunities to live, in comparison to some other places. In reality, migrants are exposed to live in conditions of constant precarity and invisibility, because of a combination of factors, such as: the western (colonial) matrix of power that crosses race, ethnicity, gender among others; the current state of neoliberalism that looks for flexibilization of markets to increase profits, regardless the effect upon the quotidian lives of the majority of the people, (for example by exacerbating the lack of access to housing and proper living wages); plus the lack of a regular migratory status, which reflects the logic of segregation and restriction of movement that has been developed by the fortress Europe to further its own interests.

Therefore, the most difficult aspects directly experienced by those who have migrated to the Global North2 or any other geographic and strategic point of accumulation, constitute living with the limitations and

1 It is my translation of Sassen’s text, as follows: “Las ciudades globales acumulan concentraciones inmensas de poder económico” (2007:39).

2 I refer to the classic division of the world based on development factors. The North has been constituted by the countries that are considered developed economies, which are not necessarily located only in the northern hemisphere, as this also includes Australia, for example. Although the differences between accumulation and poverty have been increasing, some contemporary

uncertainties resulting from their migratory status and the limited possibilities of regularization, and, worst of all, the persistent vulnerability to the ‘regime of deportation’3 _{the recurrent condition of being disciplined by}

the regime through the nation state’s sovereignty and their migratory regulations; regulations that can change and be revoked by states according to their needs, even for those who have been ‘granted’ a temporary residence permit.

Therefore, the western matrix of power, under the logic of the zero point which divided the world between the ‘Humanitas and Anthropos’: the ones who inhabitated the zero point and the others, who inhabited the periphery. Now, the same western matrix of power through its deportation regime4, operates and disciplines the ‘aliens’ or ‘outsiders’ living in its territory (and beyond it) on several levels, reproducing the division of the world based on categories of race and ethnicity inherited from the colonial times. The discipline operates in the quotidian, ranging from apparently simple things, such as not being able to open a bank account, to the more complex, like the lack of freedom of movement and the consequent risk (and punishment) of crossing borders; having to deal with regulations coming from the State, but also living outside of it; not having the space to ‘appear’ or ‘becoming visible’, despite being present and producing life in those spaces; and ultimately the risk of detention in ‘temporary’ camps (as is the current case of refugees and asylum seekers) and deportation.

Having said that, what does coming to Europe imply? What are the barriers that migrants, and specifically this group of women, face in Europe, as South Americans? The purpose of this chapter is to describe the process of migration and how this group of Latin American women that I am working with have produced quotidian life, but also, how their siblings or close relatives are living in this land. In other words, to describe the reasons and implications of having immigrated, the process of leaving the country of origin and establishing themselves in the new one, the construction of their lives and identities under harsh migratory laws and nation state sovereignty, and, also, strategies to cope with their migratory status, to construct community and give themselves agency. To summarize, then, the main objectives are to shed light

authors had questioned this metaphor of division of the world in the era of globalization, since diverse conjunctures, such as: the raising of some economies in the South as the B.R.I.C.S, the economic crisis in the southern and eastern countries of the North, or enclaves of the south in the north or vice versa, had made the previous differences blurred. As Castle mentions: “It would be wrong to reduce the whole world to North or South. There are many countries which belong geographically to the South, but which have achieved industrial take-off” (2003, 21).

3 Here I refer to the conceptual term analyzed through several cases by N. de Genova in the book: ‘The Deportation Regime’ (N. De Genova, N. Peutz editors, 2010).

on the following questions: How do they live in a global city like Amsterdam? What are the implications of living outside of the state? How do they construct their quotidianity? How do they face precariousness? Have they accomplished some form of social mobility when migrating to the north?

At the theoretical level in this section, I will be reasoning using a scheme that ranges from macro to micro level. First, I will point out several reflections regarding the broad context, to understand global changes and its relation with migration. Afterwards, I will shed light on how the spaces that have been configured by diverse global changes, discipline migration, and how the western (colonial) matrix of power keeps reproducing a segmentation based on the value of lives inherited from colonial times. Thirdly, at a more concrete level, I will ground those categorical concepts to understand how the global context, plus the migratory discipline, have been influencing the quotidianity. To that end, I will perform a close reading of a few passages that depict Pasanaku women’s lives, in light of the previous theoretical discussions. I will interconnect the Pasanaku practice with the histories of the quotidian lives of its members. Therefore, by understanding the context that surrounds this group of women and migrants in general, one can visualize and feel how powerful Pasanaku as a practice could be, as they have created this symbolic space to function as a network to produce visibility among each other, belonging, cooperation and a reciprocal system to help them out in precariousness and being far away from home.

1.2 Geographic spaces

What does it mean to migrate? Why do people leave everything behind and take the risk to move, to cross borders to live in uncertainty far away from home? The causes and reasons for migration are vast, however, in order to understand the practicalities of the space the women in this Pasanaku inhabit, I propose to shed light on the close relation between different geographical points and economic power of accumulation and how migration (especially in Europe) has been intertwined with them since times immemorial.

First, Sassen points out that the changes creating a global economy have shaped the world and those changes can be seen geographically. As she states:

Geography is a key empirical feature of the world economy regardless of the century or what empire dominates (…) When international flows consist of raw materials, agricultural products or mining goods, the geography of transactions is in part determined by the location of natural resources (2012:17).

From this opening paragraph, one can realize that regardless of the economic stage, the flow of accumulation and transactions changes, requires and transforms spaces in order to create transnational alliances and world

trade, to dispossess territories and to co-opt diverse resources either in material or in material way. And similarly, when times of recession arrive, this prompts fluctuations in the geographies and the global economy. In both scenarios, of course, human lives are a part of these flows and movements. However, in order to succeed, these operations include or need ‘[C]hanges in the regimens governing the world’ (Sassen, 2012: 26). Changes that include de-regularization or adjustment (if it is the case) of markets and corporative governance, as well as the administration of the population.

In Guest and Aliens, Sassen analyzes the traces of migration in Europe two centuries ago, finding out that migration as inter-regional and seasonal labor had been a strategy in the stage of urbanization and industrialization in Europe, and has been part of the continent in different stages. As stated, Europe has experienced migration related to work, such as ‘long distance and seasonal migrations’, where immigrants ‘were welcomed, on the whole, by the receiving community’, but were also expected to be temporary residents and not settle down (1999,9). In this case, the regime administrated the labor to their convenience, their presence was considered temporary and an advantage, the systems were open to receive and to facilitate them. On other hand, when times of recession and insecurity came, migrants of any kind were stereotyped as not desired and disciplined by the sovereign power.

Therefore, migration can not only be explained to operate under the basic ‘right of free movement’ or the ‘right to improve our own lives’ (rights that could be questioned in their own right, as they have also been restricted and segmented and do not apply to the entire population); migration has always responded to geographic, political and economic changes; thus, migration has been part of the system during expansion, reconstruction, development, but also restricted, segmented and/or halted if inconvenient or seen as a threat. In fact, the ‘push or pull’ effect, which means being co-opted or expulsed by the sovereign power, is present and alive today, despite the fact that there are international agreements to protect human rights, prompting one to question the right of free movement. In short, migration has been occurring geographically according to regional needs, but it has also been disciplined and used by governments to serve their convenience.

As Castles mentions: “Migration is clearly a systemic element in processes of globalization, but this is merely a new form of a systemic role that has existed in various guises ever since the beginnings of the capitalist world market around the sixteenth century” (2002:1144). As a recurrent event, migration has been researched under two main theoretical models used by academics throughout the twentieth century: one defined as ‘the settler model’, in which migrants have assimilated and established social and economic relations in the host countries, even for second and third generations; and the other defined as ‘the temporary

model’, where migrants, often temporary workers, settle in the host country only for a limited period of time and maintain their affiliation with their country of origin (Castles, 2002: 1143). However, what characterizes the contemporary scenario and how we can interpret the economic impact of globalization on migration?

Sassen characterizes the contemporary scenario as follows: “[T]he ascendance of international finance and services produced a new type of world economy with deregulation regimes that often have sharply negative effects on other industries, especially manufacturing, and on regional development” (2012: 26); plus, as she adds, the current global economy has been designed to privilege profits, to the detriment of other interests. The global economy or economic globalization is symbolized and materialized in “[F]our types of places: export processing zones, offshore banking centers, high-tech districts and global cities” (33). Consequently, the disparate relations between the north and south have increased inequalities; however, globalization has impacted and stressed already existing differences around the world, by causing new and complex disparities, as globalization is not only embedded within the economic system and the states, it is also embedded within culture, the transformation of subjectivities, the labor market and international migration.

Furthermore, in the contemporary scenario, conflicts are not only local and ‘apparently far away’ in the south or somewhere else beyond ‘our sight’, conflicts and disparities have become transnational, as people are moved by diaspora, people migrate to other places considered secure in order to have a better life (Castles 2003: 16-19). As Saskia Sassen argues: “The context in which today’s efforts to stop immigration assume their distinct meaning for me is the current transnationalization of flows of capital, goods, information and culture (…) Governments and economic actors in highly developed countries are increasingly seeking to reduce the role of national borders in such flows, to create transnational spaces” (1999: 4). Therefore, the North or other geographic strategic points of accumulation are constantly opening transnational spaces to allow the flow of finances, trade and people. However, they are containing those spaces as well to prevent undesired migration, as it is migration that reminds them that conflicts are close. They are not only containing spaces and borders at the local level, but governments also form pacts and create transnational spaces with neighboring countries, in order to detain people where they might start their route of migration.

Indeed, several authors discuss the relation between globalization and migration (Castles, 2002; Lacomba, 2002; Bauman, 1999; Scholte, 2002; Harvey, 2000, Sassen,1999). Although it is not my purpose to discuss the different theoretical frameworks to understand globalization and migration, I do want to highlight what

Stephen Castles and Saskia Sassen argue regarding the need of changing the current research on and understanding of migration from the old pattern, which focuses on migration and its relation with nation-states, national borders, sovereignty and security, because the current state of globalization requires new understandings, as migration has become a more complex phenomena, with diverse areas and blurred differences among them: transnational spaces, transnational communities, economic migration, forced displacement, asylum seekers, etc. As Castles mentions regarding the volatility of mobility in the contemporary scene:

A first clue is provided by Zygmunt Bauman, who argues that mobility has become the most powerful and most coveted stratifying factor (…) The new global economic and political elites are able to cross borders at will, while the poor are meant to stay at home: The riches are global, the misery is local” (Bauman Z. in Castles 2003:16).

As Castles argues, it is needed to rethink international migration and social transformation beyond the two models, since “Globalisation does not only involve an economic aspect related to ‘flows of capitals, goods and services’ but also, could not happen without a ‘parallel flow of ideas, cultural products and people” (2002: 1146). In fact, globalization has changed the ‘spatial organization of the world’, as he quotes Manuel Castells: “A change in the spatial organization of the world from a ‘space of places’ to a ‘space of flows’” (Castells in Castle, 2002:1146). Thus, globalization is also “Not a system of equitable participation in a fairly-structured global economy, society and polity, but rather a system of selective inclusion and exclusion of specific areas and groups, which maintains and exacerbates inequalities” (Castles, 2003:16). Therefore, globalization has opened up a diversification of the types of migration, has shifted the appearance of transnational spaces and networks, changed identities and cultures, but has also blurred national borders (Castles 2002:1146-1147). Finally, as Sassen mentions: “Migrations are acts of settlement and of habitation in a world where the divide between origin and destination is no longer a divide of Otherness, a world in which borders no longer separate human realities” (1999: 6). In sum, understanding migration, transnational spaces and communities under globalization constitutes an emerging and necessary urgency, nowadays, since previous understandings about nation-states and migration have become more complex.

As mentioned before, globalization is linked to ‘economic integration and migration’, as its characteristics are: the growth of cross-border flows, and their organization by means of multi-nodal transnational networks. Those networks are not only involved with economic factors, such as international trade or investment, but transnational networks are also related to flows of people. Flows that allow circulation of wealthy people, such as executives or diplomats, who have freedom of movement and can

cross transnational spaces, as well as highly skilled immigrants (who might be segmented again); and, on the other hand, the ones who are considered low-skilled migrants, forced migrants, asylum seekers coming from the south or east to the north, and are not considered welcome according to the states and their policies (Castles 2003:16).

Similarly, within globalization, transnational spaces and transnational communities are created when groups are based in two or more countries, engaged in cross-border activities either in economic, social, political or cultural terms. As Castles states, transnational theory argues that “The rapid improvements in transport and communication make it possible for migrants to maintain their links with co-ethnics in the place of origin and elsewhere, while also building communities in the place of residence” (2003: 20). However, as stated by the author: “Only a minority of migrants probably belong to transnational communities, with most still fitting into earlier models of either temporary migration or permanent settlement” (Castles 2003: 21). Therefore, since transnational spaces and transnational communities have increased and mutated with globalization, new approaches to understanding migration are required, since both the idea of the nation-state regulating its borders and the attachment of immigrants to the territory have changed.

1.3 A Shift in the European Territory

As stated before, globalization has shifted the spaces in the world and diversified migration. In this particular case, since the women in this Pasanaku have migrated to Europe in a range of 25-15 years ago, they have literally experienced a shift in the ‘spatial organization of the world’, as the Schengen Territory was in process of conformation, so they experienced the impact on the space and its borders but also other major changes, such as the adaptation of the euro as a common currency. The Schengen territory or space responded, among other factors, to the need of international trade and cooperation among its members, in order to form a block; as a consequence, the external and internal borders of the area have shifted, with consequent changes in regulations and policies both inside and outside the EU.

As the women in this Pasanaku had already migrated to Europe, they experienced the changes to the EU borders, the flow of goods, services and free movement of certain segments of the population within the EU’s outer borders, while increasing restrictions and difficulties arose for others who cannot enter fortress Europe, unless it is proven necessary. Thus, in this transnational flow, even though the members of this Pasanaku identified as South Americans, they were affected by migration from the south and eastern European countries and the population coming from the Middle East and Africa, as it represented for them a

displacement and competition in terms of labor. In certain areas their opportunities have been reduced in terms of competition, because of preferences for the employment of new Europeans, which implied them being asked additional requirements for work as they come from outside of the EU, but also through stigmatization, because of the very fact of their migration and even the lack of speaking more than two languages compared to the European migrants. Furthermore, these women experienced differences in their economy, by having earnings and savings within the local currency (Florins and Pesetas) and as well as in euros. As they mentioned, it was easier to save money in the local currency, whereas with the euro, the remittances and savings are significantly less, as living expenses in Europe were higher. As stated in the following quote:

Before it used to be easier to work and we used to have more money to save. There was more openness to work in restaurants or public places; but now, we have more competency from everywhere even for cleaning. Obviously people coming from Spain, Poland or the Eastern European countries, they have more rights as they are Europeans and the owners’ of the places are not going to be fined if they hire them, they come and work in restaurants, and they speak at least one more language. People from Turkey, Middle East, Moroccans or other Africans, they function in group, they are very united and help with each other for work and they might have papers as well. For us, is different, here we are few and there was a wage of people coming from Brazil, and they reduced the wages per hour for cleaning houses. If the average was 12.50 euros per hour, they were charging 8-9 euros, and they broke the business for us (S, personal interview, June 2017).

In this sense, the histories of the lives of this group of women becomes a case to analyze the different times and implications of people who have immigrated from the South to the North, seeking for a better future in times of globalization, with the consequent shifts in borders and migratory policies. Thus, the histories show the processes of crossing borders, establishing a network and the construction of identities in the country of residence. As such, it is possible to compare the differences of migratory processes, experiences and expectations about the future between generations, as this group of women contains a diverse range of ages.

Lastly, the Pasanaku itself functions as a transnational space and community in Amsterdam, as the members are from different South American countries, who, by gathering together, create a space without borders, a space to interchange their social and cultural capital, a space where they create networks to support each other. Thus, within the Pasanaku practice, as I explain and expand in the second chapter of this thesis, the space also literally functions as a transnational space to collaborate and organize any effort to support people beyond its own members, even in the countries of origin.

1.4 Coming to Europe

In one of the brochures of the European Commission Migration and Home affairs website, it reads: “Within it [The Schengen area], people may freely move from one country to another without being subjected to passport controls” (2014: 3). According to the interviewed women there are two different moments in which the external and internal borders of Europe shifted in order to regulate mobility for South American people willing to come to Europe, depending on the country of origin. For instance, Bolivians, Ecuadorians and, until recently, Colombians are required to have visa, whereas Argentinians or Chileans are not, because of their history of European migration. The first moment was before and during the complete establishment of the Schengen territory. In that period, entrance to some countries of Europe was less difficult, as possession of a visa was not requested for staying a short period of time (up to three months). The requirement was to possess a ‘letter of invitation’ from someone living legally in the country and having means of subsistence. As stated by one of the women:

I came to Europe eighteen years ago, it was not required to have a visa as it is now. I was required to have a letter of invitation signed by someone who was legal here in the Netherlands and obviously money. I came here as a tourist, and the person who helped me was waiting for me at the airport, in case I have any problem, as the decision of entrance used to be taken at the airport (K, personal interview, May 2017).

While the Schengen Agreement was in process of being fully implemented, seeing adoption by more and more member states, free mobility through internal borders of the Schengen area took some years to become a reality, therefore mobility through the internal borders was more complicated at that stage, as every state had to control their own internal borders. As one of the women claims:

I came without a visa, at that time it was not necessary, however, moving from one country to another was more difficult, because there were controls over the frontiers, so people mainly came to one country and stayed there. Now to come to Europe it is required to have a visa which is extremely difficult to obtain, however, the controls when crossing borders –even though it happens – are less strict than before, and they only request your passport (S, personal interview, May 2017).

In the second period, after a huge economic crisis in Ecuador around 1997, there was a massive wave of migration mainly to Spain and Italy, countries that were in a better economic situation than they are nowadays. Because of the ‘real estate boom’ in Spain (before the explosion of the bubble), the country

became an attractive place to migrate to, a place ‘full of opportunities’ where the closeness of the culture and language facilitated migration, while on the contrary, other countries, such as the U.S., were closing and strengthening their frontiers. At that time, Ecuadorians drowned by bankruptcy and the economic crisis in their country, as well as other South Americans trying to cope the structural poverty and violence, started to migrate to work in construction, agricultural labor, such as picking vegetables or fruits, or a feminized care kind of job, such as cleaning and taking care of children and elders5. Because of the increase in migration of Ecuadorians, Bolivians and Colombians (among others from Central America) and the parallel economic crisis in southern Europe, the laws changed and it is currently mandatory to have a visa to enter not only Spain or Italy, but to enter any other country of the Schengen territory, as each one of the members has to follow the same policy regarding the external borders of the Schengen area. As we can see here, economic changes caused a shift in the geography of accumulation, which in turn had an influence on migration. South American migration, which at one point was attracted to Spain and Italy and was welcome and required as non-skilled labor, is not welcome anymore now, because of the crisis.

Thus, as the external borders of the EU have to be secured for all the members of the agreement, it is now necessary to obtain a visa prior to even having the intention to move. To obtain the visa, it is necessary to fulfill diverse requirements, such as income, having capital, or a clear purpose for staying, such as: tourism, work or study. Therefore, the possibilities of obtaining a visa are reduced and needless to say extremely complicated, subjected to diverse segmentations that classify people extra-territorially before crossing any borders, in their country of origin. However; once the visa is obtained, free mobility within the Schengen space is granted for a limited period of time, according to the type of visa. As stated in a brochure on the European Commission Migration and Home affairs website: “Schengen cooperation entails common criteria for controlling the external borders, common rules for entering into the Schengen area and increased cooperation between the participant countries” (2014: 3).

The women of this Pasanaku have come to Europe in the range of twenty five to fifteen years ago, when the restrictions and requirements to South Americans were not as difficult as they are now. In this case, the ‘less restricted policies on the entrance through the external borders’ helped the first generation of the

Pasanaku’s women to enter into the EU territory, under conditions that currently, with the strength and

unification of the EU as a transnational space, could be extremely more difficult to attain, as there is a clear segmentation in the criteria for obtaining a visa. As this passage could exemplify:

5 _{Here I relate to my own experience and knowledge as Ecuadorian during the times of the migratory wage to Spain.}

I decided to come to Europe because we were facing an economic crisis in Bolivia. I had a job, a profession, nevertheless I was in debt and the chances to have a future were almost none. There was no future for me or my family so I came, and with time my family came as well; however, all of us came before the requirements of visa and changes in laws; at that stage it was only required to have a ‘letter of invitation’, money of course and to have a contact here. Only my daughter came to France after the regulations, so she did it by applying through a student visa, she is already married and has a stable situation (K, personal interview, May 2017).

As Castle mentions, diverse elements, such as the ‘pull and push’ factors, which means younger generations seeking to migrate to the north despite the barriers that they might face to improve their future (as the economic differences and opportunities among countries are vastly different); plus other choices, such as ‘familiar and communal strategies to survive’ with the purpose of sending remittances, or the mobility of the family, had become reasons to migrate (2002: 1149). As some of the interviewed stated, they were the first to come and, after them, their family was able to come as well. In some of the cases, the first person of the family to migrate and to establish in Europe, made it possible to send remittances to maintain their siblings overseas and even, as in the case of K, to help them with the amount of money necessary to apply for a student visa, so their migratory status could be more stable.

Furthermore, Castles also mentions the existence of cultural and social capital as the ‘knowledges and connections’ needed to migrate and to settle down. In these terms, having a network helps to create a path to migrate, as migrants tend to go where their compatriots have established before, so migration can be ‘effective and efficient’ (2002: 1150). In K’s testimony, her friend was the connection to open up the possibility to migrate, as it helped her with accommodation at the beginning, seeking employment afterwards and being able to settle. As quoted:

My friend helped me at the beginning, she wrote the letter for me to be able to come, she provided me accommodation and introduce me to the Latin community so then I could find a job afterwards. I started expanding the network and becoming close to other South Americans, and that was how I found the first job: a Colombian friend was sick, and I replaced her at the local pub” (k, personal interview, May 2017).

Furthermore, ‘S’ another member of the Pasanaku, related that:

People used to know how to come, no one comes without anything, we always have a network, someone can help you at the beginning at least, and we at the Pasanaku, keep this network of trust. The members of Pasanaku are family or related somehow, people

who with time gained the trust, because here friends become family” (S, personal interview, May 2017).

‘A’ on the other hand, relates how establishing the network helps not only with settlement, but also to create a safety net to feel secure and supported. She states:

The Pasanaku members are family or closely related to some of the members. It is like a chain, if you are new, you come here to the Pasanaku because someone who we trust, knows you, so that’s the guarantee that we have. Here, one never knows, it has happened that people from the same country, even being close friends, have others deported after a fight” (A, personal interview, May 2017)

Therefore, the shift in the global economy (globalization), transnational spaces and communities could be seen in different levels through the narrative of the Pasanaku members. First, as stated previously, the Schengen territory constitutes a transnational space where the flows of finances, goods and people moves through external and internal borders, however at the same time, the external borders have become fortress-like, difficult to surpass for the ones who do not meet the ‘conditions’ to guarantee their mobility. In terms of migration, the western matrix of power and accumulation is tangible in this space, as it privileges the flows of capitals, goods and culture but it also selects and segregates the ones who can move, work and live throughout their territories.

At the same sense, globalization and transnational spaces are also experienced in terms of how the economy and social processes of neighboring countries could affect their migratory status, directly or indirectly. For instance, one of the members, after experiencing the economic crisis in Spain in 2008, had to re-emigrate for a second time to another European country, in order to seek employment. The economic impact crossed borders and, because of the movement of Southern and Eastern Europeans within the Schengen territory, the status of irregular migrants had also shifted, as they might face displacement on the labor market indirectly.

Transnational communities are created when the Pasanaku’s members use their social and cultural capital to be able to migrate, especially, as stated, in the times before the visa regulations. When crossing borders, transnational communities form important points of contact, as some of the members had crossed more than one country before reaching The Netherlands as their last destination. Although for the ones who re-emigrated the migratory situation might be ‘better’, since some of them had regulated their status in Spain, several barriers, such as the knowledge about how the system functions in the Netherlands, the language, the culture and the access to accommodation and employment, could be still difficult. Therefore, contacts and

network help them out in starting and establishing themselves once again. In the Pasanaku case, one of the main areas of the practice is to use the communal knowledge and support to help the former newly arrived people (themselves), and the few newcomers to get started. The knowledge and support have different dimensions, which I will describe further, however, at the level of transnational communities, the knowledge and support could involve practicalities, such as having contacts in others EU countries in the extreme case they need to move for a short period, or, as is also the case, the transnational community can function as a ‘telephone’ to ‘spread the word’ (with the consequent guidance) if there is any opportunity or any migratory regulation in another EU country that has changed, which might help them with the regularization of their status or at least grant them access to basic rights.

Nonetheless, in the specific case of the Latin American community in Amsterdam, the links of transnational communities in both countries, the country of origin and the receiving one, might not be functioning as such literally, as the Latin American community is not as visible as it is in the case of Spain or the U.S, therefore, the bonds with the territory of origin might not be strong enough or could change with time. Consequently, throughout the Pasanaku practice, they symbolically establish a transnational community to strengthen their link to their origins, to embrace their heritage and to have a community with people with similar characteristics to where they come from. Thus, as the women have had their siblings grow up in the Netherlands, the symbolic space provided by the Pasanaku, its communitarian practices, and the network built through it, help their siblings to connect, understand and embrace their heritage and culture as well.

1.5 Border-Crossing, Settlement and Regularization: The Bare Life

In the previous section, I have discussed how globalization has changed transnational spaces, communities and migration. What does it mean to be ‘an irregular immigrant’ in the European territory? How does the migrant status interfere in people’s lives? What is the role of the states regarding their own migratory policies? After arrival, how did the Pasanaku’s women settle in The Netherlands? In this section, I will describe some theoretical concepts taken from Nicholas de Genova (2010) and Sciortino (in Echeverría, G; 2015) to describe border-crossing and irregular migration, thus, I will show how the process of settlement has been regarding nation-state regulations, but also how the process of community formation, belonging and attachment to the receiving territory has been, with regard to their residence premise.

First, Nicholas de Genova, in the Deportation Regime, discusses how nation-states and their sovereignty regulate and impose boundaries over the space to control migration and freedom of movement.

As stated by Torpey, the modern deportation law emerged from “The particular confluence in the late nineteenth century and the early twentieth of sovereign nation-states monopolizing the legitimate means of movement” (Torpey in De Genova and Nathalie Peutz, editors, 2010:10); plus as Arendt states: “The post -World War I enactment of the citizen, not the individual person, as the only former bearer of alienable rights” (Arendt in De Genova and Nathalie Peutz, editors, 2010:10).

Therefore, the deportation regime constitutes a “Complex sociopolitical regime that manifests and engenders dominant notions of sovereignty, citizenship, public health, national identity, cultural homogeneity, racial purity and class privilege” (2010: 2). The regime is a response to people’s desire of ‘freedom of movement’, the need to regulate who can and who cannot enter the affluent zones of the world in order to preserve the welfare of their citizens, based on claims of increasing the security of its borders, have segmented population into: the members or citizens, the ones who belong and have rights, and the aliens, the ones who are intruders, the ones who are not welcomed (2). As stated: “Deportation, then as now, is premised on a normative division of the world into territories, defined as “sovereign” (nation-)states, and within these states, the ubiquitous division enacted between more or less “rightful” members (citizens) and relatively rightless non-members (aliens)” (7).

De Genova also states that some scholars ( Serhat Karakayali and Enrica Rigo) have argued that “The European space exists only to the extent that it is thus circulated” and they reject the distinction between “citizens and aliens”; instead, they look to “[T]he government of human mobility” and they argue the existence of different figures of migration in Europe since the World War 2: ‘the labor migrant’, whose mobility depends on short-term rotations and is excluded from the welfare state; ‘the refugee or asylum seeker’, which emerged as a figure after the end of the job recruitments programmes in 1973, when those were the main legal ways of migration; and the ‘undocumented migrant’, who is defined as the result of the tough migratory policies and the externalization of the EU borders, which consider a person ‘potentially illegal’ even before crossing borders (12). Therefore, as Karakayali and Rigo theorize, the European space and its policies of movement impact beyond their territorial space, as people are de-territorialized on the basis of the EU’s external and internal borders. As stated: “We argue that the de-territorialization of the EU’s external and internal borders defines the European legal and political space as space that is dedicated not to a sedentary community but to the government of mobility, both inside and outside official member states’ perimeters” (127). Therefore, to them, migrants are ‘politically included’ in its domain, regardless of their status.

Consequently, under this regime, the freedom of movement and the desire to move, to find a place to create our own history does not constitute a right, it constitutes a privilege granted to those who are considered ‘rightful’ members, which is regulated and administrated by the states not only through the control of their own borders by also extended to extra-territorial spaces, as the “[W]orld’s political, economic and geographical landscapes have been dramatically transformed and even integrated in recent decades” (7). As De Genova states: “Deportation seems to have become a virtually global regime” (34). The deportation regime ascribes value to lives based on their origin; plus, by appealing to citizenship, it administrates and controls the movement of people, to keep them in the spaces where they are from, or outside its borders, or if it happens that they are in the territory, to keep them in a deportable situation regardless of their bonds and attachments to the country of reception, or if they are living outside of the state, the regime will maintain their status as irregular and almost impossible to be normalized. In this sense, the deportation regime is founded and replicates – somehow – the principles of ‘the Western colonial matrix of power’ that divided the ‘Anthropos and the Humanitas’6_{, with the subtle difference that in this case, the Humanitas are those who}

belong and are considered citizens, whereas the Anthropos are the savages, the outsiders, the ones who are prevented from being part of the humanitas’ world, or if they are welcome, just for specific purposes and for a limited period of time; however, paradoxically, the outsiders are coming from the places that were exploited to permit and afford the wellness of the humanitas.

The regime has produced deportable and bare lives. However, the contribution of De Genova is, as stated: to “[r]esituate Agamben’s concept of ‘Bare life’ in relation to living labor to examine the indispensable disposability of ever deportable migrant labor not in terms of exclusion but in terms of its incorporation within the mutually constituted regimes of global capitalism and territorially defined and delimited (“national”) state sovereignty” (2010: 9). What does it mean to resituate the concept of bare life? Does the bare life reflect in some sense the essence of the Anthropos? Here, it is important to mention that De Genova also makes the relation between sovereign power and bare life explicit, by mentioning Foucault’s biopower concept, which has as its highest function “[t]he administration of the bodies and the calculated management of life” (43). Therefore, biopower refers to the “set of mechanisms through which the basic biological features of the human species became the object of a political strategy” (43). As one can see, biopower indeed classifies populations into Anthropos and Humanitas, therefore, the management and

6 _{I expand and explain the concept of ‘Anthropos and Humanitas’ in the second chapter of this thesis. However, by the}

purpose of this chapter, I am borrowing the concept to explain that the division of the world created in colonial times, where the Anthropos and Humanitas were divided, is still alive and is operating in the current times in aspects such as migration.

control of population through borders, as its political policies and deportation regime still perpetuate who has the right to life and who does not.

Having said that, the bare life, as a concept formulated by Agamben, refers to “[w]hat remains when human existence, while yet alive, is nonetheless stripped of all the encumbrances of social location, and thus bereft of all the qualifications for properly political inclusion and belonging (Agamben in De Genova, 2010: 37).7 Thus, as De Genova expands, the bare life goes beyond the concept of inclusion or exclusion, it is produced by the sovereign power of the state in a perpetual and persistent relation. The bare life, by inhabiting the space that is ruled by the sovereign power, is vulnerable to its decisions and whims, either causing inclusion or exclusion; however, the relation is contradictory itself, as bare lives could be ‘included’ indirectly to become a ‘highly exploitable workforce’, while at the same time keeping the status of ‘potential deported labor’. Thus, if the freedom of movement is supposed to be a right, in the case of migrants who might become deportable, their freedom of movement is subjected to the value of their labor, as their status of being illegal or deportable exposes themselves to potential exploitation (38). Therefore, the regimen fabricates ‘bare lives’, who constitute living labor useful and subsumed to the whims of the capitals and the states.

Consequently, the Deportation Regime has indeed arisen as effective and efficient by maintaining migrants under the conditions of ‘illegal and/or deportable’ not just in a juridical state; also “In a practical, materially consequential, and deeply interiorized mode of being – and of being put in place” (De Genova: 2010, 14). Thus, as it is stated, deportability as a system ‘[Is] experienced equally by documented and undocumented migrants alike, all of whom can ill afford to lose the job for which they have indebted themselves (through the cost of visas, travel and intermediaries) to acquire” (19).

In a PhD dissertation, Echeverría, G. addresses irregularization by quoting Sciortino in his text: “Irregular migration is not a natural by-product of migrations themselves; it is, rather the result of the existence of a structural tension between the social preconditions and the political preconditions that interact with them (Sciortino, in Echeverría, G. 2015: 63). As Echeverria explains, the ‘social space’, is the scenario where two different and opposite logics interact: on the one hand, the logic of free movement of people and

7 _{Here, De Genova makes explicit that the figure of the bare life has been reduced to ‘exclusion’, however, Agamben’s}

formulation “is rather more subtle, however, as it revolves around, ‘the zone of indistinction between inside and outside, exclusion and inclusion’ whereby bare life is produced by sovereign (state) of power” (De Genova, 2010: 37); thus, another definition of ‘bare life’: “deportable or detained population are conceptualized as ‘bare life’ that is excluded from the juridical-political order of citizenship, only through its inclusion within it” (N. De Genova, Nathalie Peutz editors, 2010: 14).

goods, and, on the other hand, the logic of the states with their political-juridical constructions, which differ among themselves according to their history and ideology. Accordingly, the ‘social space’ – the space where the social interactions occurs within the limits of the state – overlaps with the ‘political space’– defined as the space where the social transactions are regulated by the sovereign power – therefore, the social and political space are in constant tension. Thus, within globalization, there is an increased tension or clash between the ‘global social processes and the logic of the states’, as, on the one hand, the social forces are pushed to be moved beyond borders, while, on the other hand, the political forces are trying to regulate the influx of movement. Irregularity then, as he states, could be understood and researched as a result of this clash (63-64).

However, how could the theorization by De Genova, Sciortino and Echeverria be used to understand the practicalities of constantly living as a ‘deportable and/or irregular migrant’? In his PhD dissertation, Echeverría compares the Ecuadorian irregular migration between Madrid and Amsterdam, and establishes several differences among the channels of regularization in both countries. According to his research, the regularization channel in Spain is easier (or used to be easier) than in The Netherlands. He compares both scenarios on a timeline and establishes that in the Netherlands, some regulations were implemented to increase the difficulties of becoming a regular migrant. For instance, the regular trajectories, such as regularization through marriage, cohabitation or family reunification, became very difficult compared to those in Spain. Similarly, the regulations were also tightened in terms of work and internal controls, such as checks on the street. As he explains, before the 2000’s, the working conditions in the Netherlands were better for irregular migrants, as they were able to work in hotels, restaurants or construction without many problems or checks. After the 2000’s, though, the public sector reduced the hiring of irregular migrants (to almost none), alongside the increase of internal controls and fines, causing a reduction of the possibilities of employment. Thus, the internal controls over the public space have also increased, with the consequent fear of deportation. Lastly, changes in healthcare were implemented too: until 1998 there was free access to healthcare, whereas, since then, access has become dependent on payment, with the exception of emergencies. Therefore, as he states, “working opportunities and conditions for irregular migrants in Amsterdam, have been evidently affected by the restrictive turn adopted by the government since the end of the 1990’s (266-267).

As we can see, it is true that the immigration laws of the Dutch government (or any other European country) are tough to satisfy even for those who have been born and raised in the country (when their

background is not Dutch) as the deportation regime is operating at its core. Therefore, as a part of my research, I wanted to perceive how the regularization conflict has been experienced not only by the

‘Pasanaku’ women, but also outside that circle. I attended a workshop in Amsterdam called “BasicRights”

provided by the ‘Wereldhuis’ and the movement ‘We are here’. The purpose of the workshop was the launch of a website called ‘Basicrights.nl’ where information about rights when one is an immigrant, either regular or irregular, is provided. However, the purpose was also to open up dialogue about the fears and desires of the immigrants who were attending the workshop. As one of them said: “We are here, we do not want to hide, we want to work and to have an opportunity to have a decent life”; however, most of the assistants (myself included) did not have the knowledge on what to do or where to go in case of medical emergencies, housing or labor exploitation and so on. The fears of being deported caused these people to hide and remain hidden, and, most of the times, not even feel entitled to the basic right of medical access when this is needed. When I reviewed the website, indeed, there are ‘safe’ spaces provided by the system or other organizations (for example hospitals or schools) where people can go, regardless of their migratory status, and, most importantly, it is legally established that their migratory status should not interfere in meeting their basic needs. Nevertheless, the construction and experience of life here, as an irregular/ or potentiable migrant indeed, is harsh; therefore, the ‘Basic rights’ movement called to the need of empowering themselves, to ‘be proud and not be ashamed of their status’, as ‘we are humans first, not irregular migrants’.

It is to this last statement ‘To be empowered, to be proud, to be brave’ that I want to call attention. Women in the Pasanaku experience the clash between the ‘social and political space’, as other immigrants, even those who have a temporary visa, are constantly being disciplined by the regime; thus, the condition of being an irregular/deportable migrant persists, even to their descendants, as their children who have been born or raised in the European territory have limited or almost no access to becoming a regular migrant and entering to the system, which perpetuates the exclusion and discipline; and, at worst, it subsumes the younger generations into a problematic situation with regard to identity and belonging, as they have to deal with growing up here, attending the education system until they are eighteen years old, speaking the language, but still not being able to continue developing their lives, not continuing their studies unless they go abroad and apply for a ‘student visa’ and come back; neither are they allowed to work legally or to rent a house in the regular market; the system keeps reproducing the exclusion that their parents have faced. This is also stated in the following quote:

I came here with 12 years old, I learnt the language, attended the school and now I even have a baby who is half Dutch but still, I can not regularize my status, not

even because of my daughter. I had to drop the school as I can not study legally anymore, nor do I have the money to go abroad, apply and to pay as a non-European student, what if I go abroad and can not come back? (…) What if I want to work? I can not work legally either, as I will be requested my residence permit, the same with trying to rent a room, therefore, as I have a baby to raise, I am going to start cleaning, as my mom and aunts did and still do when they come here. Do I want to go back to Bolivia? No, maybe on holidays I would love to go, however, I do not have anything left there, my family is here even my daughter was born here, so I do not know what life is going to be like; but I know that I could work perfectly, I have studies in the High School, I speak Dutch and French but still, I can not work. (A, personal interview, May 2017).

This quote sums up and exemplifies how the deportation regime operates on every level of the immigrants’ life, thus, it penetrates deeply into their bodies, as the system perpetuates the exclusion and exposes them to a constant precariousness and lack of movement. Thus, if they are ‘allowed’ to stay, they are permanently being subjected to exploitation, and, as it was mentioned in the previous paragraph, their pride and value should not be based on their migratory status, as they are here – we are here. People should be given the opportunity to prove themselves and to design their future, to be able to have the same opportunities, regardless of the place where they come from. Once again, the Anthropos and Humanitas principle segregates and maintains us in a second category, the place of a subject to be studied, rather to be considered as equal.

Therefore, as stated in some interviews, the Pasanaku practice helps them with contention, belonging and functioning as a ‘therapy’, to laugh, to form community, to go beyond the status of ‘irregular migrant’. In fact, as it was claimed, there is a point where being an irregular migrant is not an issue anymore, it is not something to be ashamed of, as all of us are facing or have faced the same situation when coming here. This sole realization encourages them to be proud, to have self-esteem and to feel empowered. Thus, in some cases, the network helps them with contacts and knowledge to try to regularize themselves (or at least the youngest generation) by applying through other countries within the EU, which is very complicated as well, but at least, offers people access to the shared knowledge and even a place to stay while they arrange the requirements.

1.6. Global cities: The Relation Between Migration and Precarity

As stated before, the women in this Pasanaku live in a ‘global city’, which is defined by Sassen as: “[S]trategic sites for the management of the global economy and the production of the most advanced