A provisional and contingent border : a border assemblage study of negotiations of belongingness concerning ‘out of procedure’ asylum seekers

1

A provisional and contingent border

A border assemblage study

of negotiations of belongingness concerning

‘out of procedure’ asylum seekers

Master's thesis

Author:

Marte Sikkema

Master's Thesis

Student ID:

10742506

Programme:

Political Geography

Supervisor:

Dr. I. C. van der Welle

Second Reader: Dr. V. D. Mamadouh

I

NDEX

Chapter 1 - Introduction: ... 7

'Out of procedure' asylum seekers ... 7

Chapter 2 - Theoretical framework: ... 13

Conceptualising borders' multiplicity ... 13

From territorial lines to social processes ... 14

The application of assemblage for the study of bordering ... 15

Elements of the border assemblage ... 16

Bordering as political project of belonging ... 19

Belongingness according to Antonsich (2010) ... 20

Place-belongingness ... 20

Politics of belonging ... 21

Application of belongingness in empirical studies ... 21

Belongingness applied to a border assemblage case study ... 22

Chapter 3 - Methodology: ... 25

Applying the border assemblage concept in a case study ... 25

Research questions ... 25

Operationalisation ... 26

Research location and design ... 27

Sampling ... 30 Semi-structured interviews ... 32 Interview analysis ... 33 Ethical considerations ... 34 Exploring limitations ... 35 Role as researcher ... 36 Chapter 4 - Analysis: ... 39

The negotiation of belongingness in municipality X ... 39

The family centre as an element of a border assemblage ... 40

Locality ... 40

Discernibility ... 40

Temporality ... 41

Meanings originating from various actors ... 43

The situation of children ... 44

Rootedness ... 46

Relationships and actions ... 48

The role of individuals ... 48

Connections with important organisations or individuals ... 50

Influence of connections in exceptional border practices ... 51

The contingent nature of the assemblage... 54

Chapter 5: Conclusions and discussion ... 57

Conclusions ... 57

Discussion ... 59

Recommendations for future research ... 60

Policy suggestions ... 60

References ... 64

C

1

-

I

:

'O

'

In early 2019, there was a lot of turmoil in the Netherlands about ‘out of procedure’ asylum children (Hendrickx, 2019a). These are children of whom the asylum application has been rejected, and who have been ordered to return to their ‘home country’ (Kalir, 2017, p. 63). However, some of these children and their families have been residing in the Netherlands for many years in hope of obtaining a residence permit. The cases of a few of these children, who were soon to be deported, gained widespread attention through protests and in national news media. This unleashed a debate about the rights of these young ‘out of procedure’ asylum seekers who have lived in the Netherlands for years on end (Hendrickx, 2019b). Especially the degree to which some children were believed to be ‘rooted’ in the Netherlands became a vital point of discussion (Hendrickx, 2019a). Some political parties wanted to stick to the rules and argued in favour of deportation. Others called for a more generous asylum policy for rooted children. While protests were ongoing, and media attention was still soaring, political tensions got so heated that the government coalition almost reached a ‘crisis’ (Hendrickx, 2019c). However, after days of consultation between the coalition parties, an agreement was reached by granting a residence permit to ‘illegal’ children who have lived in the Netherlands for over five years. This settlement is called the

kinderpardon (children’s pardon) (Harbers, 2019; IND, 2019).

This recent case in the Netherlands exemplifies that asylum and deportation can be very sensitive and complex topics within society and politics, especially when children are involved. It is through asylum and deportation that a certain category of people is formally included or excluded in society. Laws and policies are created and enforced, on the basis of which it is decided who has the ‘right’ to reside in the country and who does not, after which removal might follow. Asylum and deportation can be considered as processes through which a spatial differentiation is made on the basis of social categories. These processes and practises of inclusion and exclusion can be called bordering (e.g. Houtum,

2002; Houtum, Kramsch & Zierhofer, 2005), in which notions of belongingness play an essential role (Wemyss, Yuval-Davis & Cassidy, 2018; Yuval-Davis, Wemyss & Cassidy, 2018). Understood as a social-discursive process in which numerous actors play a role, the border is no longer to be found on the outer edges of the state’s territory only, but is multiplying and spreading to various locations (e.g. Brambilla, 2015; Houtum, 2002; Rumford, 2008).

When studying borders, it is therefore insufficient to focus on the scale of the state, or on policies in general (Hinger, Schäfer & Pott, 2016, p. 443). As the beginning of this introduction illustrates, policies can be subject to change through pressures from civil society and media. Actually, a multitude of actors can play a role in debates and conflicts concerning asylum and deportation (Hinger, Schäfer & Pott, 2016, p. 442). As they are involved in negotiations of inclusion and exclusion, these actors can be said to be performing bordering practises, according to notions of belongingness (Wemyss, Yuval-Davis & Cassidy, 2018, p. 151)

Furthermore, the accommodation of asylum seekers takes place at the local level (Doomernik & Glorius, 2017, p. 433) which results in specifically located negotiations about asylum and deportation between particular actors (Hinger, Schäfer & Pott, 2016, p. 445). In this thesis, I argue that the study of these negotiations as bordering processes in a local setting can exemplify the multiplicity of borders.

One of the local settings in which these bordering processes can be studied, is a municipality in which a specific type of shelter for ‘out of procedure’ asylum seekers is present. In the Netherlands, the accommodation of asylum seekers is organised and effectuated by the Central Agency for the Reception of Asylum Seekers (COA). In the case of a definite rejection of the asylum application, the right to accommodation within a COA reception centre expires after 28 days. During this time period, departure from the Netherlands should be organised voluntarily, or else the Repatriation and Departure Service (DT&V) might proceed to enforced return (DT&V, 2015). However, there are many

possible reasons why migrants do not depart from the Netherlands within this period, such as the unwillingness of migrants themselves and/or the absence of travel documents (Kalir, 2017, p. 64), or the unwillingness of other states to accept returnees (Gibney, 2008, p. 152). The ‘deportability’ of ‘out of procedure’ asylum seekers can change over time (Paoletti, 2010). Irrespective of the reason for non-departure, the right to accommodation in a COA-reception centre will be terminated after four weeks (DT&V, 2015).

However, an exception has been made for families with children of who at least one is younger than 18 years old. This happened, because the European Committee for Social Rights proclaimed that the Dutch policy of refusing to organise shelter for minors was a violation of their human dignity (ECSR, 2009). Moreover, in 2011, a Higher Court in the Hague concluded that this policy is in conflict with the United Nations’ Convention on the Rights of the Child (Gerechtshof ‘s-Gravenhage, 2010). The Dutch state came up with a ‘solution’ in the form of family centres for ‘out of procedure’ asylum seeking families of whom at least one is a minor. The centres can be characterised as having a ‘sober regime’, intended to encourage return (COA, 2019). Currently, there are five of these centres located throughout the Netherlands, in which around 1280 people are residing (COA, 2019; Ministerie van Justitie en Veiligheid, 2019).1

These family centres are spaces in which processes of inclusion and exclusion are constantly present. All the inhabitants of a family centre share the status of being ‘out of procedure’, and are thus formally categorized as unwanted subjects that should be removed (Kalir, 2017, p. 63). However, in reality the trajectories for different families are not homogeneous. Some indeed depart from the Netherlands, but this is only a small proportion (<20%). A larger part (~40%) continues to live in the facility for a prolonged period of time (Winter, Bex-Reimert, Geertsema & Krol, 2018, p. 8).2 _{It is also possible to}

lose an ‘out of procedure’ status, as for a substantial part of family centres' residents, receiving a residence permit is the reason for leaving the facility (Ibid.).

1 _{Reference date is January 1, 2019.}

The residents of family centres thus find themselves in a situation in which neither inclusion or exclusion can be ruled out. Importantly, this situation might sustain for years on end, in which children go to school and connections within local communities can be established. This grey area of inclusion and exclusion, in combination with the possible lengthy stay of 'out of procedure' asylum seeking families within a particular community, makes localities in which a family centre is present interesting for the study of bordering processes.

Hence, for this thesis it has been chosen to do a case study in one of the municipalities of the Netherlands in which a family centre is situated. This creates an opportunity to explore bordering processes by studying how the belongingness of ‘out of procedure’ asylum seekers is being negotiated by various actors. In a broader sense, this can give an insight into the multiplicity of borders. To conduct this research, the following research question has been formulated:

How is belongingness negotiated in a border assemblage concerning ‘out of procedure’ asylum seekers in municipality X?

In order to be able to answer this research question, this thesis will be build up as follows. In chapter 2, a theoretical framework on the multiplicity of borders and the subsequent evolution of the study of borders will be given. As will become clear, the concept of

assemblage, based on the theory of Deleuze and Guattari (1987) and applied to borders by

Sohn (2015; 2016), can be used to study the multiplicity of borders by emphasizing their relational attributes. Next, I will follow the analytical framework of Antonsich (2010) to explore the concept of belongingness, which can play a role in bordering processes (Wemyss, Yuval-Davis & Cassidy, p. 151).

In chapter 3, the research questions of this thesis will be stated and the important concepts will be operationalised. The reasons for, and implications of, treating the research location as an anonymous entity will be clarified as well. Furthermore, it will be explained how the

concept of border assemblage is used within this case study, by unfolding the research design that formed the basis of this thesis. To do so, there will be attention for the fieldwork location, the sampling of respondents, the research methods and strategies for data-analysis, the ethical considerations, the positionality of the researcher and the possible limitations of the research.

In chapter 4, the concept of border assemblage will be used as a tool with which to analyse the data gathered through the fieldwork.

The research findings, as presented in the analysis, will lead to the conclusion in which the main research question will be answered. This will be presented in chapter 5. The thesis will be concluded with a discussion.

C

2

-

T

:

C

'

Hundreds of miles from the external borders of the European Union (EU), along the Canary Islands and Africa, EU border management agency ‘Frontex’ is performing surveillance activities as part of a move towards ‘integrated border security’ (Vaughan-Williams, 2008, p. 64), thereby offshoring the EU border (Bialasiewicz, 2012). In the United Kingdom, church ministers are expected to act as border guards by reporting couples who are suspected of avoiding UK immigration law through a ‘marriage of convenience’ (Wemyss, Yuval-Davis & Cassidy, 2018, p. 151), which generalizes the border throughout society (Rumford, 2008). And with a passport, ‘we carry the border in our pocket’ (Häkli in Amilhat-Szary & Giraut, 2015, p. 98).

As illustrations of contemporary borders, these three examples show that there are a multitude of border forms and functions. Processes like globalization, the 'war on terror', strategies of securitization, technological developments and international collaborations have changed and complicated the significance of borders (e.g. Amilhat-Szary & Giraut, 2015; Bialasiewicz, 2012; Jones, 2012; Vaughan-Williams, 2008). Furthermore, national and international politics have brought the attention for borders to the forefront of our news media (Amilhat-Szary & Giraut, 2015, p. 1). Although there was a short time after the fall of the Berlin Wall in which scholars envisioned a world in which borders would no longer play a role (Amilhat-Szary & Giraut, 2015, p. 4), the spreading and multiplication of border functions, forms and effects at different levels of social and political action and in different contexts (Sohn, 2016, p. 183) shows the opposite. This constant evolution of borders requires a continuous revision of the ideas that are developed about them (Amilhat-Szary & Giraut, 2015, p. 1).

F

In the past, borders were merely understood as territorial demarcation lines to be found on the edges of a state (Houtum, 2005, p. 673). Influenced by feminist and post-structuralist approaches in the 1990s, space began to be understood as being socially produced rather than simply as a physical container for social and political forces, during what can be called geography’s ‘social-discursive turn’ (Houtum, Kramsch & Zierhofer, 2005, p. 4) or border studies’ ‘processual shift’ (Brambilla, 2015, p. 14). Subsequently, borders were no longer studied as fixed, territorial entities, but as social-cultural and discursive processes and practises (Brambilla, 2015, p. 15). As the semantic implication of ‘a border’ is a fixation of place in space and time, there was a transition to the concept of bordering (Houtum & Naerssen, 2002, p. 126). This allowed borders to be viewed as dynamic social processes and practises of spatial differentiation (Brambilla, 2015, p. 15).

Since bordering is a diffuse process, borders are no longer only to be found at the edges of a polity (Rumford, 2008, p. 1). Borders are spreading and multiplying (Brambilla, 2015, p. 15) in a process of concomitant bordering and rebordering (Amilhat-Szary & Giraut, 2015, p. 4). Bordering has moved from the margin of peoples’ lives, encountered only when they leave or enter a country, to become part of everyday experience (Wemyss, Yuval-Davis & Cassidy, 2018, p. 152). Borders thus become generalized throughout society (Rumford, 2008, p. 1) and can be found in different forms and at different locations and scales. They can be found at railway stations, at airports, throughout city centres (Rumford, 2008, p. 1) and at the scale of the body (Häkli, in Szary & Giraut, 2015; Popescu, in Amilhat-Szary & Giraut, 2015). There are border walls (Jones, 2012), mobile borders like international train connections (Zhang, 2019), and borders can be invisible and made visible (Pellander & Horsti, 2018). All these different forms of borders do not exist in an autonomous way, but are created through the meanings that are being attached to them in different contexts and by different actors (Sohn, 2016, p. 184; Wemyss, Yuval-Davis & Cassidy, 2018). So, borders do not have the same meaning for everyone (Balibar, 2002, p. 81).

Many different actors, like societies, advocacy groups, citizens and supranational institutions are involved in the process of bordering (Rumford, 2007, p. 327). These actors can be considered border actors, who perform border practices, in the process of bordering (Cote-Boucher, Infantino & Salter, 2014). It can be said that the state is enacted, embodied and produced at the level of intermediaries and their practises (Gill, 2009, p. 230) and even at the level of the civil society actors who can create, reinforce or erode borders (Rumford, 2007, p. 8).

T

The diversity of actors involved in bordering practises and the subsequent creation and erosion of borders, which lead to a variety of perceptions, claims and beliefs at different scales (Sohn, 2016, p. 184), has created the challenge for scholars to develop concepts with which to better understand borders. The borderscape concept was coined as a ‘gaze’ with which to grasp the ‘variations’ of borders in space and time (Brambilla, 2015, p. 25), while the borderities concept was developed as a way to understand the multiple rules and experiences of a border as a political category and technology of power (Amilhat-Szary & Giraut, 2015). Sohn (2016, p. 184), however, noted that it is insufficient to view the multiplicity of a border as being defined by the absence or presence of certain meanings. It is necessary to understand the ways in which these meanings relate to another and why some gain influence or legitimacy while others are contested (Ibid.). Therefore, he proposed the concept of assemblage, as developed by Deleuze and Guattari (1987), to better apply relational thinking in the study of borders.

An assemblage can be understood as a heterogeneous and open-ended grouping of elements that do not form a coherent whole (Sohn, 2016, p. 183). This helps to explain how different meanings originating from various actors may interact and endure in a way that is dependent on context and arranged for the present with the possibility of changing later (Ibid). Such a view on borders goes beyond the territorial-relational divide (Paasi, 2012, p. 2303), which makes it possible to view a border as a mechanism of division and exclusion,

and as a site of encounter and connection simultaneously (Sohn, 2016, p. 184). This is helpful to better understand the fluid and multifarious nature of borders (Sohn, 2016, p. 188).

It is important to note, that in current debates, dynamics and conflicts concerning asylum seekers, a multiplicity of actors play a role within constantly changing structures (Hinger, Schäfer & Pott, 2016, p. 442). It is at the local level where the absorption of migrants is taking place (Doomernik & Glorius, 2017, 433), and therefore it is essential to consider the local setting when investigating the conditions and ways of inclusion and exclusion of asylum seekers in what Hinger, Schäfer and Pott (2016, p. 440) call a migration regime. One of the essential and obvious characteristics of migration regimes, which can be understood as arrangements of interrelated practises, is that they are located (Hinger, Schäfer & Pott, 2016, p. 445). Negotiation processes, in which a multiplicity of factors and changing networks of individual, collective and institutional actors, with their specific interests, perceptions, strategies, technologies and possibilities, play a role, produce patterns of inclusion and exclusion (Hinger, Schäfer & Pott, 2016, p. 444). Arguably, such located, interrelated fields of negotiation processes considering the inclusion and exclusion of asylum seekers can be understood with the concept of border assemblage, placing the emphasis on bordering processes. This concept can help to uncover the relational aspect of bordering through the study of various actors’ border practises, while keeping in mind the locatedness of these and other elements of the assemblage. The assemblage can thus be used as a conceptual toolbox with which to explore complex systems (Sohn, 2016, p. 185).

E

Sohn (2015; 2016) explains some essential parts of assemblage thinking that are useful to better understand the multiplicity of borders. First of all, as a given border means different things to different people, the type of assemblage that should be considered is made up of various actors, like individuals, organisations and networks, and their meaningful expressions (Sohn, 2015, p. 185). These can thus be considered border actors with various,

situated gazes, performing bordering practises in different ways (Wemyss, Yuval-Davis & Cassidy, 2018, p. 151). When the assemblage would be considered in more detail, aspects that play a material role, such as border markers, money, information, passports and visas, would be required as well (Sohn, 2016, p. 185). Furthermore, the physical locales where bordering practises are performed and materialise in all their diversity should be considered too (Ibid.), placing an emphasis on the local setting (Doomernik & Glorius, 2017; Hinger, Schäfer & Pott, 2016).

Secondly, notions, beliefs and narratives, but also categories and legislation concerning legitimate migration should be taken into account, when considering an assemblage approach (Sohn, 2016, p. 185), which will be elaborated upon in a later paragraph on bordering as a political project of belonging. Kalir and Wissink (2016) have argued that the deportation regime in the Netherlands can be viewed as a continuum, in which worldviews on issues like belonging and justice and the usage of terminology seem to be quite similar between state agents and NGO workers. Such worldviews about belonging can be considered to be elements of an assemblage. It shows that it is not only the role of individuals, but the constellation of meanings that derive from an assemblage which matters (Sohn, 2016, p. 185). Also, policies can have real effects on patterns of migration, although they are not always implemented or executed in the way that they are formulated and brought to the fore by politicians (Czaika & Haas, 2014, 503). Politicians might want to ‘advertise’ harsh policies, like deportation, in order to create the image of controlled migration (Czaika & Haas, 2014, p. 492). Policies on different scales should thus also be considered as elements of the assemblage.

Thirdly, time and space are important for particular assemblages to exist, as negotiation processes take place in a certain moment and location (Hinger, Schäfer & Pott, 2016). Connections are not defined or made permanent by their specific roles, but the relationships in a particular configuration matter (Sohn, 2016, p. 186). Parts of a particular assemblage can be part of a larger assemblage. This means that actors, networks and policies should be considered at different scales. This scalar aspect is important, for

example when considering the interconnectedness and negotiation of international, national and local legislation and policies and the ways in which they are coped with. For example, national asylum policies are influenced by international (human rights) conventions and treaties (Abukar et al., 2014, p. 10). These national policies have certain effects on the local level (Doomernik & Glorius, 2017), in which local policies play a role as well (Hinger, Schäfer & Pott, 2016, p. 442). Moreover, policies can also be contested at multiple scales. For example, aspects of national asylum policy are counteracted and cushioned in certain ways by various Dutch municipalities (Kos, Maussen & Doomernik, 2016, p. 356). It is important to note that the particular configuration of relationships within an assemblage is not static. Components can be attached or detached from the assemblage, making it dynamic and open to change (Sohn, 2016, p. 186).

Moreover, Sohn (2016, p. 186) explains that processes of transformation are considered more valuable than form and structure in assemblage thinking. Assemblages can be stabilised by their territorialisation, but they can also become deterritorialised and unstable, when certain elements of the assemblage are adjusted or removed (Ibid.). The duration of certain arrangements and the emergence of new properties are not derived from external factors or essentialist conditions. What matters are the properties and capacities of the assemblage. Borders can display properties such as the enforcement of immigration rules, but also have capacities that are often unpredictable (Ibid.).

So, depending on the context, relational, material, territorial and temporal elements can dwell together in a border assemblage, in which notions, beliefs and discourses, and formal categorisations and policies should be considered as well. The border assemblage then functions as a provisional, contingent constellation of all these different elements (Sohn, 2016, p. 183).

B

As mentioned before, it is possible to ascribe various specific functions to borders. But most important, as a political entity, a border is a separation ‘between an inside and an outside and an interface between adjacent socio-spatial systems or categories’ (Sohn, 2016, p. 184). Bordering is thus interrelated with the ordering of society, through the creation of categories and systems that have a social and spatial component (Houtum, Kramsch & Zierhofer, 2005).

Through the creation of these categories, bordering and ordering are in turn connected to the process of othering: the continuous distinction between ‘us’ and ‘them’ and the inclusion and exclusion that results from it (Houtum & Naerssen, 2002, p. 134). 'Others' can be made through the territorial fixing of order, and are both constitutive for the formation of borders, as well as a cause of the process for forming borders (Ibid.). To maintain the cohesion and presumed order of a territorially demarcated society, there is an ongoing production of others (Ibid.). It is through the lens of spatial bordering that the practise of ordering and the associated categorization of people, which in turn results in othering, comes to the fore (Ibid.).

Bordering practises can be considered as an element of a particular border assemblage, being constituted in the specificity of political negotiations and in their everyday life performances and being shifted and contested between various actors (Yuval-Davis, Wemyss & Cassidy, 2018, p. 230). The constellation of meaningful expressions, feeded by beliefs, narratives, and (in)formal categories (Sohn, 2016, p. 185), result in these practises, which are important to understand the ordering and othering processes that can lead to practises of inclusion and exclusion (Houtum, Kramsch & Zierhofer, 2005). Issues of asylum can form interesting cases in which these processes come to the fore (Hinger, Schäfer & Pott, 2016; Pellander & Horsti, 2018; Wemyss, Yuval-Davis & Cassidy, 2018). In that context, bordering can be seen as a growing political project of belonging which is experienced in complex ways, as differently situated individuals, including asylum seekers themselves, negotiate internal and external borders (Hinger, Schäfer & Pott, 2016, p. 443;

Wemyss, Yuval-Davis & Cassidy, 2018, p. 152). In this way, belonging can also be seen as an essential element of border assemblages in which asylum is being negotiated.

B

A

(2010)

PLACE-BELONGINGNESS

Antonsich (2010) argues that belonging should be analyzed both as place-belongingness and as politics of belonging. He describes place-belongingness as a personal, intimate feeling of being ‘at home’ that an individual can attach to a place, in which ‘home’ serves as a symbolic space of familiarity, comfort, security, and emotional attachment (Antonsich, 2010, p. 646). Feelings of belonging to a place and the process of self formation are intertwined (Ibid.). Because of the emotional connotation to place-belongingness, the notion is sometimes also described in terms of rootedness (Morley, 2001 in Antonsich, 2010, p. 646).

Antonsich (2010) has uncovered five factors that can contribute to place-belongingness: auto-biographical, relational, cultural, economic and legal. The first, autobiographical, has to do with one’s past history, like place of birth and the memories that were made throughout life. Second, relational factors are important, because they refer to social ties that can create a sense of connectedness. Third, language is considered the most important cultural factor (Buonfino & Thomson, 2007 in Antonsich, 2010, p. 648). Cultural expressions, traditions and habits, related to for example religion, are considered as cultural factors contributing to place-belongingness as well (Ameli & Merali, 2004, in Antonsich, 2010, p. 648). Fourth, economic factors can add to the feeling of being at home by providing a stable material condition. Lastly, legal factors like citizenship and resident permits can form a ‘formal structure of belonging’ (Fenster, 2005, p. 244 in Antonsich, 2010, p. 648). This is also a precondition to participate in and actively shape one’s environment, which can in turn evoke feelings of belongingness (Mee, 2009, in Antonsich, 2010, p. 648). Length of residence is added by Antonsich (2010, p. 649) as an additional, somewhat all-encompassing factor which can contribute to place-belongingness.

POLITICS OF BELONGING

The second component of belonging that Antonsich (2010, p. 649) describes is the ‘politics of belonging’. Within this concept, belonging is considered as a discursive resource that constructs, claims, justifies or resists forms of socio-spatial inclusion and exclusion (Ibid.). The politics of belonging can thus be considered as a form of bordering. Membership to a group and ownership of a place are the two most important aspects in any politics of belonging (Crowley, 1999 in Antonsich, 2010, p. 649). The politics of belonging always involves two opposite sides: the side that claims belonging and the side that has the power of ‘granting’ belonging. The side that claims belonging will do so on the basis of an appeal to human rights, the embeddedness in the local economy and the participation in social relations (Antonsich, 2010, p. 650). The side that grants belonging will do so through a process of negotiation (Ibid.). Any dominant ethnic group tends to fill this notion of belonging with a rhetoric of sameness (Ibid.), which requires someone to assimilate to the language, culture, values, behaviour and religion of the dominant group (Yuval-Davis, 2006, in Antonsich, 2010, p. 650). The politics of belonging encompasses specific political projects aimed at constructing belonging to particular assembled collectivities, within specified boundaries (Yuval-Davis, Wemyss & Cassidy, 2018). These boundaries are often spatial and relate to a specific locality or territory and not merely to constructions of social collectivities (Ibid.). State citizenship can be considered as such a political project of belonging (Yuval-Davis, Wemyss & Cassidy, 2018, p. 230). It has important implications, since someone can be entitled to certain rights, like the rights to stay, to work or to obtain social benefits, through citizenship or a resident permit (Antonsich, 2010, p. 648).

APPLICATION OF BELONGINGNESS IN EMPIRICAL STUDIES

‘Although the expression ‘I belong here’ remains first and foremost a personal, intimate feeling of being ‘at home’ in a place (place-belongingness), it is also unavoidably conditioned by the working of power relations (politics of belonging)’ (Antonsich, 2010, p. 652). Also,

other elements of belonging, like language and legal status, can both evoke feelings of ‘being at home’, while they are also factors that are essential for, or can be activated in, the politics of belonging (Antonsich, 2010, p. 648). Therefore, Antonsich (2010, p. 653) argues that empirical studies that consider feelings of territorial belonging should take into

account both dimensions of belonging. In that way, belongingness is not solely treated as an individualist matter, independent from its social context, and also not as merely the product of social practices and discourses.

B

Since bordering can be considered as a political project of belonging (Hinger, Schäfer & Pott, 2016, p. 443), the concept of belongingness can be considered as part of a border assemblage concerning asylum seekers. Both dimensions of belongingness, place-belongingness and politics of belonging, as described by Antonsich (2010), should be taken into account to understand inclusionary and exclusionary processes and practises concerning asylum seekers. These processes and practises do not happen spontaneously or univocally, but according to negotiation processes in which a multiplicity of actors and factors play a role (Hinger, Schäfer & Pott, 2016, p. 444). A border assemblage can be considered as the configuration of these actors and (material) elements, within which negotiation processes concerning the belongingness of asylum seekers play a role. To emphasize that there are multiple negotiation processes between actors and other (material) elements within a border assemblage, this thesis will apply the concept of belongingness as explained by Antonsich (2010) in a case study by studying negotiations of belongingness concerning ‘out of procedure’ asylum seekers.

C

3

-

M

:

A

From the theoretical framework, it has become clear that the concept of assemblage can be used to study borders in a way that recognizes both their relational and territorial aspects. This chapter will explain how the concept of assemblage was used to perform a case study on asylum issues. First of all, the research questions will be stated and important concepts will be operationalised. Afterwards, it will be described which research design and research methods were used. Then, the strategies for the data collection and data analysis will be discussed. Next, the ethical considerations for this research will be reviewed, and its possible limitations will be explored. Finally, I will reflect upon my positionality as a researcher.

R

The theoretical framework has demonstrated that the concept of border assemblage can be used to understand borders' multiplicity. By using the border assemblage concept, this research will move beyond the territorial-relational divide (Paasi, 2012, p. 2303) and will explore bordering processes by studying how the belongingness of ‘out of procedure’ asylum seekers is being negotiated in a particular location and by various actors. To do so, the following main research question has been formulated:

How is belongingness negotiated in a border assemblage concerning ‘out of procedure’ asylum seekers in municipality X?

In order to answer this question, the following subquestions will be taken into account: 1. How can certain material elements of the examined assemblage in municipality X be

2. How can certain meanings about asylum and return that originate from different actors

within the examined border assemblage in municipality X be understood?

3. How can certain relationships within the examined border assemblage in municipality X be

understood ?

4. In what way are various actors within the examined border assemblage in muncipality X

involved in bordering practices?

O

The concept border assemblage will be used as explained by Sohn (2016), who based his conceptualisation on the theory of Deleuze and Guattari (1987), and is part of a view on borders that sees bordering as a practise that disperses borders in physical and socio-political space. An assemblage is a heterogeneous and open-ended grouping of elements that do not form a coherent whole (Sohn, 2016, p. 183). Different elements that constitute an assemblage can be distilled from the theoretical framework. First of all, various actors and the meanings that originate from them can be considered as elements of an assemblage. Also, material elements and physical locales are constituents of an assemblage. Notions, beliefs and formal categories and policies can be elements of an assemblage as well. It should be stressed that the relationships that exist between different elements, are considered as the crucial element of an assemblage. These connections can be multi-scalar, linking different elements within and between assemblages. It should also be noted that the existence of a particular assemblage depends on a context of time and space. Therefore, temporality should be included as an element of a border assemblage as well.

The concept belongingness is seen as essential for the inclusionary and exclusionary practises that can occur as a result of bordering processes, as it can categorise people into the ‘wanted and unwanted’ and is therefore a basis on which the ordering and bordering of society takes place (Antonsich, 2010; Houtum, Kramsch & Zierhofer, 2005; Yuval-Davis, Wemyss & Cassidy, 2018). Belonging can be operationalised into two dimensions: place-belongingness and politics of belonging. The former is a feeling of being ‘at home’, while the

latter is a discursive resource that constructs, claims, justifies, or resists forms of socio-spatial inclusion and exclusion (Antonsich, 2010, p. 653). A more detailed operationalisation of belongingness is offered below in table 1 and follows Antonsich’s (2010) analytical framework for the study of belonging.

The concept ‘out of procedure’ asylum seekers is operationalised as migrants who have not been granted a residence permit by the Dutch state and are therefore obliged to leave the state after 28 days (Kalir, 2017, p. 63). Throughout this thesis, this concept will be used interchangeably with the term 'out of procedure' asylum seeking families and 'out of

procedure' asylum seeking children.

The concept negotiation is operationalised as being a process in which a multiplicity of factors and changing constellations of individual, collective and institutional actors, with their specific interests, perceptions, strategies and technologies, play a role (Hinger, Schäfer & Pott, 2016, p. 444). Both the formation of particular dominant discourses about inclusion and exclusion, as inclusionary or exclusionary border practises, should be considered as aspects of negotiation.

Lastly, the concept bordering practices is operationalised as being practices that involve the ordering of people through the creation of categories that can lead to processes of inclusion and exclusion.

R

This research stresses the importance of the complexity of the local setting to describe a particular border assemblage concerning ‘out of procedure’ asylum seekers in a municipality in the Netherlands. The research will make use of a case study design, which entails the detailed and intensive analysis of a single case (Bryman, 2012, p. 69). With a case study, the case is an object of interest in its own right, and the researcher aims to provide an in-depth elucidation of it (Ibid.). As a consequence, it is impossible to generalise the research findings is impossible. However, this does not need to be considered as a disadvantage, since it can be highly valuable to explore the complexity of localities.

Moreover, it is intrinsically impossible to generalise research findings when using the concept of assemblage, due to the provisional and contingent nature of the grouping of its different elements (Sohn, 2016, p. 183). The research will remain descriptive in the analysis of various elements of the border assemblage in municipality X.

Since issues concerning the accommodation and deportation of asylum seekers can be very sensitive and can evoke emotional reactions and critique, the necessity of guaranteeing the anonymity of interviewees was considered attentively. Some of the respondents are key actors and public figures in the specific municipality in which the fieldwork for this thesis was conducted. It would not have been sufficient to simply change the names of the interviewees in the analysis. In that case, it would still be relatively easy to trace back some of the respondents. Therefore, the municipality will be treated as an anonymous location with the name ‘municipality X’.

For this research, the type of case can probably be considered in between the ‘unique case’ and the ‘exemplifying case’, (Yin, 2009 in Bryman, 2012, p. 71). Municipality X is somewhat Table 1: Operationalisation of the concept of belonging

Following the analytical framework of Antonsich (2010)

Concept Dimension Variables Indicators

Belongingness

Place-Belongingness (sometimes described as rootedness)

Auto-biographical One’s past history, place of birth, life memories

Relational Social ties

Cultural Language, traditions and habits

Economic State of employment

Legal Citizenship, resident permits

Length of residence Years of residence

Politics of belonging

Side that claims

belonging Appeal to human rights, economic situation and social relations

Side that has power of granting belonging

Rhetoric of sameness:

Demanding assimilation to

dominant language, culture, values, behaviour, religion

unique as being one of the five municipalities in the Netherlands where a reception centre for 'out of procedure' families is located. This solution was effectuated after the European Committee for Social Rights proclaimed that the Dutch policy of refusing to organise shelter for minors was a violation of their human dignity (ECSR, 2009). This exemplifies the interconnectedness of policies on multiple scales: certain rights, formulated in international treaties, are transformed into national legislation and executed in a particular way, which will affect specific local settings. Furthermore, the presence of a family centre in municipality X creates a grey area of inclusion and exclusion. In combination with the possible lengthy stay of 'out of procedure' asylum seeking families within the community, municipality X serves as a case in which bordering processes will emerge.

With the purpose of encouraging departure from the Netherlands, family centres are characterised by a ‘sober regime’ (COA, 2019). Adults receive only a small amount of money to buy food. Moreover, there are freedom-restricting measures, like the obligation to give notice five times a week, and the prohibition of leaving the municipality’s boundaries (Ibid.). For children, the facilities are the same as in other reception centres and they are allowed to go to school (Ibid.). Yet, family centres have been reported as not being suitable for the accommodation of children (Abukar et al., 2014) and some parents describe the stay in the facility as a traumatising experience for their children (Pozzo, Bender & Visser, 2018, p. 32).

Despite the sober regime and efforts made by the DT&V only a small portion (<20%) of the residents of family centres actually depart from the Netherlands, while a larger part (~40%) continues to live in the facility for a prolonged period of time (Winter, Bex-Reimert, Geertsema & Krol, 2018, p. 8).3 _{For a substantial part of the inhabitants of family}

centres, receiving a residence permit is the reason for leaving the facility. Nonetheless, the possibility of becoming subject to deportation also remains for those residing in a family centre (Ibid).

For this research, it is useful to examine a border assemblage in the context of a family centre, because the specific characteristics of this type of asylum centre create a particular physical locale in which there are many contrasts. There is a sober regime to focus on return, but people may stay for years on end and children can go to school. Also, the centre is offered as a type of shelter to prevent ‘out of procedure’ families of 'living in the streets', but the restrictive measures also create a sense of incarceration. Moreover, the presence of a family centre in a municipality creates a particular reality in which the negotiation of the inclusion and exclusion of asylum seekers plays an explicit role. The fact that many residents of family centres reside there for an extended period of time, might add to their embeddedness within the municipality and creates an opportunity for the formation of social relations. In turn, these characteristics make it possible to study the various meanings originating from different actors and can give insight into a particular border form, located within a local community. In a broader sense, this can then be considered a study of the multiplication and complication of bordering throughout society.

Hinger, Schafer and Pott (2016, p. 445) caution against understandings of localities as ‘given, non-porous and fixed sites’. Variations, influential adaptations, interactions or interrelations (scalings) should be considered, not only deriving from political regulation, but from actions by various actors under particular circumstances. As localities should be considered as socially constructed, continuously produced forms of socio-political relations and discourses (Ibid.), it is important to note that the ‘location’ municipality X is also constantly evolving and changing and that the research done was thus specific to not only space but also time.

S

For this research, purposive sampling approaches were used in order to find relevant respondents with whom interviews could be conducted (Bryman, 2012, p. 418). Participants were sampled in a strategic way, so that they were relevant to the research questions of this thesis (Ibid.). At the start of the sampling phase of this research, a list was created of possible parties that could play a role in bordering processes and practises in

municipality X. This was done after having read scientific articles about ‘every-day border guards’ (e.g. Wemyss, Yuval-Davis & Cassidy, 2018), which helped uncover actors who are active in bordering processes, besides official state border guards or border agents. Moreover, (local) newspaper articles helped to explore connections between particular parties and the family centre in municipality X, for example through coverage about protests against the deportation of certain ‘out of procedure’ asylum seeking children. Moreover, a general brainstorm session helped to sample the initial list of parties from which actors would be contacted later.

Some parties were quite obvious, like DT&V, IND and COA. These are three institutions that are part of the ‘small chain’ through which Dutch asylum and return policy is effectuated. The local police department was sampled initially as well. Other parties were a little less straightforward, like local primary and high school boards and particular foundations. The list of initially sampled parties, on the basis of which it was attempted to set up interview appointments with particular actors, is shown in table 2.

For several reasons, it was not possible to set up interview appointments with actors of some of the parties that were initially sampled. Employees from the local departments of DT&V and COA seemed positive towards an interview at first, but later expressed that they did not want contribute to the research out of fear of commotion in the local community. The formal research request at the main office of COA was said to be taken into consideration, but no more response followed. The local police department responded that they do not cooperate with any student, because of the quantity of requests they receive. Other parties responded that they did not have time or the right employee at the moment to set up an interview appointment. Furthermore, some parties did not reply at all. Moreover, a common reply was that the particular organisation or institution was not a local one in municipality X and that they therefore advised me to contact a different, local organisation. Also, some parties responded that the accommodation and return of asylum seekers is a purely national affair. However, in many of these cases, news articles had shown that there was a connection between the particular organisation and the family

centre in municipality X. So, it seemed that a bit of confusion was created by connecting the local situation in municipality X to national asylum and return policy.

During the research, the initial list of parties was constantly adjusted with new possible parties to be contacted. This was for example done through snowball sampling, as participants recommended new interview candidates (Bryman, 2012, p. 424). Also, the more information was gathered through the interviews, the more border actors seemed to exist. However, as the research process proceeded, time began to form another constraint to the sampling of this research. For example, an actor from a local mosque agreed to an interview, but only after Ramadan was finished. This was too late for the interview to be conducted, transcribed an analysed for the final product of this thesis.

Eventually, a diverse set of 12 parties agreed with doing an interview. The list of respondents that eventually participated in this research is shown in table 3.

SEMI-STRUCTURED INTERVIEWS

Semi-structured interviews were conducted in order to find rich, detailed information about predefined topics. The interview process was flexible, and the emphasis was on how the interviewee frames and understands issues and events (Bryman, 2012, p. 471). Multiple interview guides were developed in advance of the interviews, in order to fine-tune topics considered fruitful to discuss per type of respondent (e.g. state actor, activist). Moreover, during the fieldwork, information gathered through interviews served as a source on the basis of which themes and questions were adjusted on the interview guides. This helped to pose relevant questions to the adjacent interviewees.

INTERVIEW ANALYSIS

All interviews were conducted in person, with exception of the first interview, which was done by phone. The interviews were conducted in a location of each respondent's choice. Most often this was a private setting, like an office, home, or some other space in which no other people were present. In two instances, the interview was carried out in a (semi)public setting: the hallway of an office where lots of people were walking by and a crowded coffee place. Although this could have created a situation in which the respondent was not able to speak freely, this did not seem to be the case.

1. DT&V

2. IND

3. COA

4. Foundation Nidos

5. Refugee Council

6. Foundation Landelijk Ongedocumenteerden Steunpunt

7. Foundation Bridge to better

8. Foundation Solid Road

9. Foundation Vluchtkerk

10. Local church communities

11. Local government actors

12. Local police unit

13 Local social workers

14. Local primary- or high school boards

15. Local journalists

16. Inhabitants of the family centre

Table 3: Date and duration of interviews and list of respondents

Interview Date Interviewee Occupation Duration

1 10-04-2019 Interviewee 1 Member of the Christian community ~ 40 min.

2 10-04-2019 Interviewee 2 Member of the Christian community ~ 80 min.

3 11-04-2019 Interviewee 3 NGO employee ~ 70 min.

4 11-04-2019 Interviewee 4 Local politician and volunteer ~ 80 min.

5 11-04-2019 Interviewee 5 Local politician ~ 45 min.

6 12-04-2019 Interviewee 6 Lawyer ~ 80 min.

7 18-04-2019 Interviewee 7 Volunteer ~ 50 min.

8 30-04-2019 Interviewee 8 Journalist ~ 75 min.

9 01-05-2019 Interviewee 9 _{Interviewee 10} International Organization of Migration _{(IOM) employee} ~ 120 min.

10 08-05-2019 Interviewee 11 Refugee council employee ~ 40 min.

11 09-05-2019 Interviewee 12 Municipal civil servant ~ 50 min.

All interviews, except for the first phone interview, were recorded. This was done with approval of the interviewees. Later, all those recordings were manually transcribed. The interview analysis was done using the programme Atlas.ti. This made it possible to code the transcripts in a well-ordered manner. The coding was done in a way that can be said to be both inductive and deductive. The former, because the theoretical framework served as a guide with which to search and code particular themes, words and phrases. For example, the operationalisation of belongingness, following Antonsich's (2010) analytical framework, was used to code excerpts of text that contained the notion of 'rootedness'. The analysis was also partly deductive, since the transcripts were read thoroughly with an open mind, in search of overlapping themes that might not have been described in the theoretical framework. During the analysis process, the transcripts were re-read multiple times in order to complement the coding of previous reading sessions with newly discovered codes.

ETHICAL CONSIDERATIONS

As mentioned before, the topic of this research is a sensitive one. Therefore, it was very important to take ethical considerations into account. First of all, the anonymity of respondents has been looked after as good as possible, not only by concealing names in the transcripts and final thesis, but also by treating the municipality in which fieldwork was done as an anonymous location. Also, when contacting respondents, but at the start of each interview as well, the topic and goal of the research was explained. Respondents were explicitly asked for approval of the recordings. Moreover, the respondents were informed that they could refuse particular questions if they did not want or could not answer them. Diener and Crandall (1978, in Bryman 2012, p. 135) have broken down the four main discussions about ethical principles in social research: (1) whether there is harm to participants, (2) whether there is a lack of informed consent, (3) whether there is an invasion of privacy, and (4) whether deception in involved. In this research, these four issues have been avoided.

E

The willingness of people to contribute as an interviewee was one of the biggest limitations of this research project. Although an effort was made by paying a visit to employees of DT&V and COA in municipality X and some connections were established, it later became clear that these state officials did not want to contribute to the research. They did not like the fact that many actors from the municipality would be involved as respondents of the research. They stressed that the topic concerning 'out of procedure' asylum seeking families is very sensitive and that they often have to deal with commotion, which they did not want to be reactivated through this research.

The absence of state officials as respondents can be considered as a limitation of this research, because it would have been very interesting to understand the perspective of these state institutions from first hand interview data. Other respondents talked about these state institutions, which can still be considered as valuable information, albeit to a certain extent.

Nonetheless, the fact that these executive state institutions agreed to talk initially, but were too afraid of commotion to agree with doing an interview, actually exemplifies the sensitivity of the topic. Also, it implies a certain divide between the side of ‘the state’ and the side of the local government, as actors working in state institutions refused to do an interview, while certain actors within the local government did agree to be interviewed. However, other actors within the local government did not reply or returned interview invitations by saying that ‘out of procedure’ asylum seekers and issues concerning their return were not a local, but a national affair. Yet, other actors that were contacted immediately agreed to do an interview, or recommended people who they believed were involved in the topic. This shows that there are certain people who feel like they are part of what can be considered the local assemblage, while others feel like they are disconnected from it.

Another significant limitation stemmed from the choice to conceal the precise research location. This has rendered it impossible to describe certain particular contextual information about the municipality. Also, this made it impossible to cite information in which particular events were described, because this could reveal the exact research location. If it would have been chosen to describe the research location in an uncensored way, this could have provided a more detailed description and understanding of the case. Another limitation, connected to the fact that it was impossible to establish a cooperative relationship with the local key actors from DT&V and COA, is that no interviews were conducted with ‘out of procedure’ asylum seekers. Again, other respondents did comment on their perspectives, but it would have been interesting to have first-hand data from this group as well. Especially, because asylum seekers themselves can be considered as one of the actors that observe, support, influence or contest the treatment of asylum seekers (Hinger, Schäfer & Pott, 2016, p. 443).

Lastly, since the point is made in this thesis that a particular context of time and space is important for an assemblage to exist, it should be noted that the usage of interviews as a research method also inherently creates some limitations. Respondents often discussed situations that happened some time ago and used those events to explain particular relationships and practises. Although respondents were asked about the same cases and themes as listed on the interview guide, it is not possible to grasp the complete complexity of the spatial and temporal context of an assemblage.

R

One of the feminist perspectives on doing (geographical) research, is that all knowledge is produced in specific circumstances and that those circumstances shape it in some way (Rose, 1997, p. 305). Connected to the previous points made, I could argue that as a researcher, I was also part of the particular assemblage that I studied. By doing my research, particular actors within the assemblage, including myself, had to reflect upon their ideas, practises, and relationships with other actors, which possibly reactivated their thoughts on the topic. The research can thus be perceived as feminist, since the researcher

developed connections with the actors who were interviewed, and thereby the researcher became a constituent of the research itself. Subsequently, these connections might open up the possibility for the assemblage to transform (Sohn, 2016, p. 186).

Another point about my role as a researcher, is that as a Political Geography student, I have an open minded but also critical view on the topic of asylum, in the sense that I do not take certain categories or processes as ‘natural’ or ‘legitimate’, just because it is the current (legal) state of affairs. Possibly, the image of being critical, which can be connected to being a social science student, might have been a reason for some actors to be reluctant to agree with an interview.

C

4

-

A

:

T

X

Localities, such as municipality X, in which a family centre for ‘out of procedure’ asylum seekers is situated, should be considered as continuously produced forms of socio-political relations and discourses (Hinger, Schäfer & Pott, 2016, p. 442). In turn, these spaces of accommodation and forced migration have their effect on the daily production of social relations and discourses (Ibid.). There is thus a reciprocal relationship between the production of a certain locality and the production of social relations and discourses. In this chapter, the specificity of the local setting will be studied by using the concept of border assemblage. The family centre in municipality X will be considered as a material part of a particular assemblage in which various other elements, like a multitude of actors, normative discourses and policies, play a role. This will be done according to the data that was acquired through a dozen of in-depth interviews conducted in April and May, 2019. First of all, several characteristics of the family centre in municipality X will be analysed, as well as certain aspects of Dutch asylum and deportation policy. Next, the meanings about ‘out of procedure’ asylum seekers that originate from various actors will be examined. Then, the relationships that exist between various actors within the particular border assemblage will be explored. Lastly, the bordering practices that take place within the examined border assemblage will be studied. Each of these different components will be considered as elements of a particular border assemblage. Together, they can give insight into the way that the belongingness of ‘out of procedure’ asylum seekers is being negotiated in municipality X.

T

LOCALITY

The first point that should be made when considering the family centre that is situated in municipality X as a central element of a particular border assemblage, is that it functions as a specific physical locale in which asylum and return policies come to the fore. A local politician explained this relationship clearly:

"Of course we have the family centre here. So [municipality X] has to do with situations a lot in which people are being deported. Or not only deportations, for that matter, but there are also other situations in which people get sent onto the streets, because they are not allowed to stay in the reception centre anymore. Uhm... so we see the incidents of the policy a lot."

[Interviewee 5, local politician]

Simply because a family centre is situated within the boundaries of municipality X, this means that it is municipality X in which policies about the accommodation and return of ‘out of procedure’ asylum seeking families have their real effects. Regulations concerning asylum that are formulated within international treaties, are modified to national legislation which is then executed in particular ways and in specific locations. National policy can thus lead to differences on sub-national level (Doomernik & Glorius, 2017, p. 433), as only particular municipalities get confronted with the ‘incidents’ of asylum and return policies.

DISCERNIBILITY

A family centre accommodates many families who find themselves in the similar situation of being ‘out of procedure’ asylum seekers. The ‘technical capacity’ of the family centers in the Netherlands varies between 200 and 500 persons (Winter, Bex-Reimert, Geertsema & Krol, 2018, p. 6)4_{. These people are grouped together within a building that can be easily}

identified as an asylum reception centre, due to the COA-signs at the entrance. The family centre is furthermore located in proximity of a residential area in municipality X and many

locals will pass the centre every day. Furthermore, many of the residents of the family centre have an appearance that could be recognized by people as being non-western. So, the location of the family centre, as well as its institutionalised accommodation of a group of people with a specific legal status, adds to the discernibility of the asylum and return policy that ‘out of procedure’ asylum seeking families get confronted with. This will have an effect on the way in which various actors perceive and attach meaning to the workings of asylum and return policy and of ‘out of procedure’ asylum seekers.

TEMPORALITY

Even though one of the official functions of family centres is the encouragement of return, in reality only a small proportion of the inhabitants of family centres depart from the Netherlands, either autonomously or forced (Bex-Reimert, Geertsema & Krol, 2018, p. 7).5

The people that continue to live in a family centre might do so for years on end, until the youngest child turns 18 years of age. Although data is not available for family centres specifically, data about the duration of residence within asylum centres shows that 24% of all residents are already staying for longer than a year, and 820 people (4% of all residents) have been residing in asylum facilities for longer than five years already (Ministerie van Justitie en Veiligheid, 2019).

The fact that many residents of family centres will reside in these accommodation facilities for years on end, can be viewed as the outcome of the way in which Dutch asylum and return policy functions in reality, instead of on paper. 'Out of procedure' asylum seeking families are left in a ‘limbo’ (Kalir, 2017, p. 68) of having been denied an asylum status, while still having a possibility of (re)starting certain legal procedures to obtain a residence permit. Although a proportion of the inhabitants of family centres return voluntarily or are deported, another proportion obtains the right to stay. A member of the local Christian community noted this ‘relative temporality’ in the following way:

"But this asylum centre is a very strange category. It’s quite a closed world. People are there obviously temporary, although it is quite a relative temporality. Because sometimes people are there for, well, I wouldn’t say years… well, yes, years."

[Interviewee 2, member of the Christian community]

The family centre can be regarded as a space which encompasses a twisted temporality in which often years of proceeding could result in definite exclusion, but also in permanent inclusion. There is thus no monotonous trajectory for the families who are residing within the family centre, although the reason for being accommodated in this specific facility is the shared status of being ‘out of procedure’.

A consequence of this relative temporality with chance of inclusion, is that children are born in the family centre who are simultaneously denied access to being a legal citizen in the Netherlands, while this is also the country where they spend the first few years of their lives and where they will go to school. It also means that there are young adults living in family centres, because of the fact that one of their younger siblings is underage, who are not allowed to work or follow an education and for who the future is insecure. As it is no exception that inhabitants of a family centre receive a residence permit in some way after having lived there for many years, for certain people there will be a possibility to escape the limbo by becoming a legal resident. This will then open up possibilities of work, education, and social support (Antonsich, 2010, p. 648).

The duality of being a temporary resident while living in a community for an extended period, creates a complex reality. 'Out of procedure' asylum seeking families might establish different connections within the community. Children go to school, are members of the local soccer club and build friendships. If a residence permit is obtained, families may continue the interpersonal relationships that they have developed with members of the local community. On the other hand, the possibility of forced removal remains which creates an uncertain future. It has been reported that this uncertainty causes stress and is harmful for children and adults alike (ACVZ, 2013).