Navigating Knowledge, Power, and Diverging Frameworks: How Workers in Small Amsterdam-based NGOs Interact with Their Undocumented Clients

Navigating Knowledge, Power, and

Diverging Frameworks: How Workers in

Small Amsterdam-based NGOs Interact

with Their Undocumented Clients

Title page

Aino Karhu 11118830 poutiaino@gmail.com

MA Cultural and Social Anthropology Faculty of Social and Behavioural Sciences University of Amsterdam

Thesis supervisor Shanshan Lan Second reader Kristine Krause Submitted 14.08.2020

Abstract

Small NGOs that work with undocumented migrants face tremendous structural and other difficulties in their day to day work. Employees of organisations like the Globalvillage, a small daily shelter in Amsterdam directed at undocumented migrants, struggle dearly trying to fulfil their humanitarian calling and help to uphold the undocumented migrants’ human rights. European nation-states’ immigration practices, like the illegalisation of certain migrants, limit migrants’ lives considerably, as well as the NGO workers’ possibilities to assist them. This research intends to show light on the daily life experiences and struggle of employees in such NGOs. It also studies how they interact with their clients inside conflicting frameworks, hierarchies of power, and in relation to different forms of knowledge. Building on existing literature on NGOs, states, and migration this research maps out the multiple tensions and contradictions present in the functioning of such small NGOs, and analyses how those contribute positively or negatively to the employees' objective of doing good. These include the tension between universal human rights frameworks and nation-states’ immigration rationale; the tension between local and practical knowledge and scientific university-based knowledge; and the tension between unconsciously Eurocentric understandings and more culturally diverse perceptions. The findings indicate that the different tensions and contradictions that prevail in the day to day functioning of small NGOs do indeed affect and often complicate the employees’ goal of doing good. Tensions and contradictions lead to aftereffects like misunderstandings, exclusion, resistance, and standstill. This thesis recommends deeper inclusion of the undocumented in the making of agendas and approaches, both in grass-root level NGOs as well as on the macro and miso levels.

Keywords: immigration, undocumented migration, nation-state, NGOs, power, knowledge

Table of contents

Title page

1

Abstract

2

Table of contents

3

Introduction

4

1 Heterogeneous groups and hierarchy

19

1.1 Groups and subgroups at the Globalvillage

19

1.2 Intragroup relations

24

1.3 Intergroup relations

29

2 Differing perceptions on human rights, ambivalent responses to the

nation-state

35

2.1 Ambivalent responses to the nation-state

35

2.2 Perception of human rights and power inside the hierarchy of the shelter 39

2.3 Various perceptions of human rights and tools for inclusion

46

3 Divergent agendas and knowledge production

51

3.1 Diverse agendas and expectations for the counselling

52

3.2 Divergent understandings during the counselling sessions

57

3.3 Power structure, consequences and knowledge produced on the

undocumented migrants

61

Conclusion

68

Plagiarism declaration

76

Bibliography

77

Introduction

It is Friday. After his usual morning routine Mark jumps on the bike and heads over to the Globalvillage. When he arrives at the shelter some people are already waiting at the door; some because they are volunteering today, others because they have nowhere else to be. He opens the doors and walks to the offices thinking to himself: “let’s see what today brings.” On paper Mark’s daily schedule does not look too hectic, although the reality paints a completely different picture; already before lunchtime, he has had three impromptu meetings with visitors of the Globalvillage. Also, he tried to concentrate in his first meeting but had to excuse himself two times because of phone calls, and another two to organise something quickly at the shelter. As if that was not enough, one of his colleagues just informed him that a new visitor has arrived at the Globalvillage; a young woman with two small children is sitting next to the offices, waiting for Mark to finish his meetings and help her find a place to sleep. While he sits in the second meeting and tries to focus on the matter at hand, his mind is drifting to make a plan for later. He knows two individuals are waiting for him since morning, first he needs to talk quickly with them. Still, the sooner he starts to organise a place for the woman to sleep in, the better his chances are of finding a place for her. He looks at his watch and thinks to himself “dear lord, can it already be two o’clock? How on earth can we find time to help everyone?”

Mark is a full-time employee of the Globalvillage, the setting for this research, originally from Chile. He is a man in his forties and has resided in the Netherlands already for years, having thus mastered the language and culture. The Globalvillage is a non-governmental organisation (NGO) that runs a daily shelter, which is open during the day on weekdays and welcomes undocumented migrants residing in the Netherlands. The Globalvillage is one of the projects initiated by the Protestantse Diaconie, which is a part of Amsterdam’s Protestant Church. DecentLabour is also an NGO located in the centre of Amsterdam that works with undocumented migrants, but they concentrate on cases of labour exploitation and precarious working conditions. DecentLabour welcomes clients to their offices in the case of suspected exploitation and provides them with social and legal counselling. Both NGOs have just a handful of full-time employees and are largely run by volunteers. These two NGOs decided to

with support, advice, and education on working in the Netherlands. This collaboration is one of the themes of this thesis and the main subject of chapter three.

Amsterdam is perceived by many as the epicentre for openminded, liberal and accepting people. Although this is the reality for a large part of its local and international residents, for many it is also a fallacy. Masses of people coming to the Netherlands, the majority from outside the European Union, are not accepted as residents and their stay is limited to a few months. Refugees, asylum seekers and other undocumented migrants arrive in Amsterdam; some are allowed to stay by the Dutch Immigration and Naturalisation Service (IND). The rest enter either a long list of application procedures, aiming to one day obtain a legally recognised status in the country, or a grey area in between leaving and remaining legally - thus becoming ‘illegal migrants.’ This grey area, named by Abraham and van Schendel (2005: 25) the “Borderland,” is the larger setting for this research. Volunteering at a shelter dedicated to helping these in-betweeners, which is the more precise setting of this research, I witnessed how undocumented migrants are pushed to the margins of Dutch society, so much so that they become non-existent to the majority. After being rejected by the IND they lose connection to the state apparatus and become dependent on NGOs for food, counselling and shelter. They are encouraged to adjust to their new reality: they are offered activities, like dancing or football practice; they can take part in free English and Dutch lessons to facilitate integration; and they can participate in workshops that focus on education on Dutch culture, working possibilities and labour rights. The undocumented migrants are told not to focus their energy on finding legal ways of remaining in the Netherlands; in most cases, that ship has sailed. Instead, they should focus on creating a life within the perimeters of undocumented residency.

This thesis answers the following dual research question: What are the tensions and

contradictions present in the daily interactions between the employees and clients of two small Amsterdam based NGOs? Also, how do these tensions complicate the process of achieving the employees’ goal of doing good? There are three subquestions that are

1. What kinds of power relations are embedded in the organisational structure of the Globalvillage?

2. In which ways do the clients and employees of the shelter perceive tensions between supranational human rights frameworks and Dutch immigration control frameworks?

3. What kind of knowledge is being produced on undocumented migrants through daily life interactions between the two organisations’ employees and their clients?

This thesis contemplates on a series of questions related to the undocumented migrants residing in the Netherlands; the workers of the Globalvillage and DecentLabour, who live and breathe the field of immigration; and how the two perceive of one another and the field within which they exist as a whole. Through studying these issues this thesis invites more public conversation on the question of undocumented migration in Amsterdam, and Europe in general. By helping the public understand better the everyday life of the undocumented individuals, this thesis hopes to increase open dialogue between the two usually separated groups, the haves and the have-nots. Further, by giving an example of a small Amsterdam-based organisation, and by realistically conveying the daily struggle of its workers, this thesis wishes to give concrete evidence to the local government of the struggle in which such organisations and their visitors live. Ultimately, this thesis questions if the undocumented migrant’s human rights are respected within the current organisational framework of the state, immigration control and grass-root organisations.

The importance of this research lies in its attempt to convey the real-life struggle of the workers of the Globalvillage and DecentLabour, and the difficulties they and their clients face during the everyday operation of the shelter. Employees and volunteers of these organisations work extremely hard trying to improve their clients’ lives in all their aspects. Nevertheless, their work clashes against the structural constraints formed by European and Dutch immigration rationale and practice. Thus, the underlying motif throughout this thesis is to convey the employees’ complex position; they are caught between a rock and a hard place. They struggle against the current immigration dogma, and although they are motivated by

their humanitarian calling, the structure within which they operate does not grant equal value for their mission. Due to the dominance of the current immigration rationale, both on the nation-state and EU level, the entire field is affected by its manner of conceptualising immigration and especially the undocumented as a problem and a threat. Thus, this research invites all actors and individuals in this field, as well as laypersons, to consider moving beyond our common and deeply-rooted Eurocentric way of conceptualising immigration and human rights. To better uphold and respect migrants’ and undocumented groups’ human rights, I argue that we should include them more deeply into the decision making processes that affect their lived experiences, equally so in small organisations as on the national and international level. This research argues that through deeper inclusion of the migrants, NGOs working with them could achieve even more good. The employees of the Globalvillage and DecentLabour do amazing things every day, saving lives and giving hope to undocumented migrants. Still, unconscious ways of constructing the undocumented as the Other, and racialising the migrants, are present even in the practices of these organisations. These intrinsic undertones originate in the nation-states’ Eurocentric conceptualisation of immigration, which has disseminated to such organisations for they are ultimately a part of the state apparatus. This thesis wishes to encourage self-reflection, and through it increase awareness, of the Eurocentric mannerisms that most of us Europeans unwittingly carry in our everyday practices.

Theoretical framework

This research is situated within the existing literature on state immigration policy, NGOs and human rights frameworks. The next four subsections discuss legal production of illegality; the grey area in between legal and illegal; the tension that emerges from contradictions between human rights frameworks and immigration control rationale; and racialisation of migrants.

First of all, the role of modern nation-states in legally producing illegality within their borders is central for this research. Nicolas De Genova (2002) has written about immigration control practices in the context of the United States. He argues that states produce illegality - “illegalise” migrants - through a monopoly on dictating what is legal and what is illegal. He also discusses questions of asymmetry in immigration law and criticises the generalised

“immigration experience,” which leads to the fact that “... the inequalities generated by the law's apparently uniform application among asymmetrically constituted migrations from distinct sending countries tend to be naturalized.” (ibid.: 424) Immigration law naturalises illegal migrants, just as it naturalises a homogenous migrant experience. Illegalisation of migrants means that immigration law creates a new political and juridical identity, comparable to citizenship, and transforms “... mundane activities - such as working, driving, or traveling - into illicit acts….” (ibid.: 427) Besides from creating illegality via immigration policy, as De Genova has argued, states also produce illegality through citizenship: “Illegal immigration’ is an inevitable feature of border controls and nation state organised citizenship.” (Anderson and Ruhs 2010: 175) Similarly, Bridget Anderson (2010) writes that “The construction of a category of people who are residing illegally is in part an inevitable function of any form of immigration control and nation state organised citizenship.” (ibid.: 311) She discusses the power of citizenship legislation in her article on migrants and precarious work and argues that migrants arriving from outside the EU are marginalised by legislation, which rejects their intentions of longterm integration. Gathering from these authors; not only does state legislation on immigration control and citizenship illegalise migrants, and by constructing a legal citizen produce the illegal migrant. It also disrupts their intentions to connect in the long term with their new locality and leaves them struggling alone with this illegal ‘in-betweenness’ (Silverstein 2005).

In modern nation-states, aside from citizenship legislation and immigration policy, the creation of borders has contributed to the production of illegality. Abraham and van Schendel (2005) have argued that through the establishment of modern nation-states the idea of borders was naturalised; unauthorised movement over those borders is now seen as a threat: “...individuals and social groups that systematically contest or bypass state controls do not simply flout the letter of the law; with repeated transgression over time, they bring into question the legitimacy of the state itself by questioning the state’s ability to control its own territory” (ibid.: 14). Extending the discussion about borders beyond physical ones, Paul A. Silverstein (2005) has argued that

... what remains constant is that the incipient mobility of immigrants, within the context of a European nation-state system based historically on the fixity of spatial and cultural borders ... constitutes them as a racial problem that states, scholars, and immigrant populations themselves have been compelled to address. (Silverstein 2005, 377)

Not only does the creation of physical borders give mobile people an image of illegality, borders further entail cultural coherence and racialise groups that move beyond them. Therefore, to sum up, modern states legally produce illegality through immigration law, the establishment of citizenship, and by erecting physical and metaphysical borders. The undocumented migrants of Amsterdam that visit the Globalvillage exist within this created illegality, and its limits also restrict the work of those with citizenship who have decided to work in improving the undocumented’s reality.

Secondly, Abraham and van Schendel (2005) have written on transnational issues of (il)legality and (il)licitness, and discuss the grey area between legality and illegality. They differentiate legal and illegal from licit and illicit saying that states and international actors conceive of the division differently, and that since there is no legitimate international authority this division is always predominantly tied to states’ interests (ibid.: 5). The authors explain that illegality is not something innate or natural, but is determined by current authorities; although authorities regulate the division into (il)legal and (il)licit, they do not engage solely in legal and licit activities. Objects or people in themselves are not criminal or illegal, their location within a ‘particular regulatory scale’ makes them that: “Another way of saying this is to recognize the importance of identifying the origin of regulatory authority. Based on this criterion, we find it useful to distinguish between political (legal and illegal) and social (licit and illicit) origins of regulatory authority” (ibid.: 17). Combining these four concepts, Abraham and van Schendel identify four “spaces of competing authorities[:]” the Ideal State (legal and licit); Anarchy (illegal and illicit); Crony Capitalism/Failed State (legal and illicit); and Underworld/Borderland (illegal and licit). (ibid.: 20) In their analysis they focus on Underworld/Borderland, which is specifically interesting also for this research. The state’s partially obscured view of the borderland activities, the gap between people’s understanding

of what they are doing versus the state’s, inconsistent notions of illegality, and the presence of other legalities across the border, all make, for the state, the borderland an area where by definition criminality is rife and sovereignty under constant threat. (ibid.: 25)

Thus, the illegal but licit Borderland is an epitome of state’s struggle, where immigration control rationale and functioning of NGOs (like the Globalvillage and DecentLabour) culminate. In this Borderland the Globalvillage operates; the employees are constantly struggling with the state’s practices pushing the visitors down, making them seem and feel like they truly were something bad, something illegal. Furthermore, the Globalvillage is constantly competing in the Borderland against the state’s practices, by for example sheltering the undocumented and educating them to better survive their situation. Although the Borderland is created by the state apparatus through its formation of a category of illegal individuals and can be thus seen as an inherently state-run area, the Globalvillage’s employees do try and fight against the practice and category. Forms of resistance are further discussed in chapter two.

Thirdly, to analyse the tensions between national immigration control rationale and human rights frameworks, the latter need to be first addressed. Afterwards, these frameworks will be connected to the role of citizenship concerning immigration control, and alternative approaches to the citizen/non-citizen binary. Lastly, NGOs’ position inside these tensions will be examined.

Macro-level human rights frameworks produced by the United Nations, the European Union and International Labour Organisation amongst others, present the world with ideals on what universal human rights are in theory, and ought to be in practice. The United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) (1948) is the foundation for modern universal human rights, referred to in subsequent statements like the ILO recommendation R204: “Recalling the Declaration of Philadelphia, 1944, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 1948….” (ILO: 2015) The UDHR article 1 announces that “All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.” (UDHR 1948: 72) This rationale is

also the cornerstone for NGOs like the Globalvillage: “Many undocumented migrants are not aware of the fact that they do have some basic rights like access to medical care, a right to legal help, education for children and protection from trafficking[;]” and DecentLabour: “If you are undocumented you are not allowed to work in the Netherlands. But IF you do work, you have the same rights as Dutch workers or migrant workers with a residence permit....” However, human rights frameworks are not the only setting for these NGOs’ work; they must also combine them with national immigration control rationales that are largely based on citizenship construction.

Like Ruth Rubio-Marín (2014) argues, referring to freedom of religion, association and education as examples, “Human rights treaties have invariably articulated them as rights of universal application, citizenship being, in principle, irrelevant regarding their enjoyment or protection” (ibid.: 78, emphasis added). Thus, she introduces a core element that majorly defines the tensions between human rights frameworks and national immigration control rationale; citizenship. Macro-level frameworks recognise that human rights are simply too universal to be linked to such national components as citizenship. Yet,

I have explored how despite the promise of a universal human rights ethos privileging personhood as a source of rights claims, the human rights system ... has not meant the displacement of either the state order system or national sovereignty as an organising concept. Rather, a delicate balance has been struck whereby bound national communities have retained wide discretion in deciding whom to accept on their territory, or as to the status of national citizenship. (ibid.: 90)

Hence, despite signing human rights declarations, states hold a monopoly largely untouched by these frameworks, where the creation of citizenship is the state’s natural right and granted only to certain groups of people. Therefore, states’ double commitment to respecting human rights, whilst simultaneously protecting the rights of their citizens, has led to a deadlock dominated by national immigration control rationale. Instead of being irrelevant for the materialisation of human rights, citizenship based immigration control rationale in the context of modern nation-states divides people into those who possess it and to those who do not.

Groups in possession of citizenship are naturally allowed to enjoy human rights; others deprived of it come knocking on NGOs’ door and depend entirely on their employees’ beliefs in universal human rights.

Although it is important to look at citizenship as a central rupturing force restricting the effective functioning of human rights frameworks in national contexts, we should also try to look beyond it. In this attempt, Monisha Da Gupta (2006) discusses alternative responses to immigration control rationales by analysing “how certain groups of immigrants fight against multiple techniques of subordination through claims that do not rely on citizenship.” (ibid.: 12) She focuses on South Asian organisations in the US, and on the ways in which these organisations try to generate social change through focusing on migrants’ rights instead of the national binary between citizens and non-citizens. (ibid.: 257) Even though citizenship is a pivotal factor in producing illegality, and thus important for my research, following Da Gupta’s example I also wish to look at ways in which these NGOs and their employees move beyond the binary and utilise alternative tactics for improving their clients’ reality. Apart from the citizen/non-citizen binary, or moving beyond it, what most determines NGO’s functioning is its relationship with the state. Kalir and Wissink have identified three types of NGOs, categorised according to their relationship with the state: the first are organisations close to subcontractors to the state, dealing with deportations; the second are NGOs “that operate more or less in agreement with state policies[;]” and the third includes those blatantly resisting state policy. (ibid.: 42) Thus, in conclusion, tensions between human rights frameworks and national immigration control rationale arise from inconsistency in the universality of human rights, and from the citizen/non-citizen binary. NGO’s position in this contradiction is determined by its approach to the binary, submitting to it or seeking alternative responses, and by its relationship with the state.

Fourth, this thesis considers issues of migrant racialisation in terms of nation and immigration, mobility and borders, and its connection to continued othering in Europe. Silverstein (2005) has contemplated on issues of nation(hood) in relation to immigration and migrant racialisation and asserts that racialised othering arises largely from discourses on national belonging. Since the emergence of nationalism in the nineteenth century European

states have become exclusively nation-states, and still in contemporary Europe each one is understood to possess one homogenous national character. (Leerssen 2006: 15) It is taken for granted that to be one with the nation, to be allowed to remain inside the physical and immaterial borders of a nation, one must share in this utopian national character. One modern tool for governing national character is citizenship legislation; it defines the character by steering policy on who can possess it and who not. The field of collective identifying and identity-making inherently produces also the non-citizen, the non-national character, the Other. Kalir and Wissink consider the making of a nation in relation to immigration and the Dutch deportation regime: “A deportation continuum thus highlights societal configurations where the figure of the deportable subjects serves more to reinforce internal cohesion among

citizens than instigate conflict around competing imaginaries of citizenship and

non-citizenship.” (2016: 36, emphasis added) Hence, utopian ideas of nationhood and its homogenous character, together with modern national tools to instigate it like immigration control and citizenship legislation, lead to creation and naturalisation of a racialised Other.

Two interlinked phenomena that have determined the Other for modern Europe, and increased its racialisation, are borders and mobility. As Silverstein (2005) has discussed, the construction of the modern European self happened through “Studies of migration conducted throughout the colonial period[, which] lent themselves directly to the projects of national construction, [and] support[ed] national narratives through historical explorations of racial origins on the one hand and of nomadism on the other.” (ibid.: 369) This study on nomadic mobility, together with the consequent image of savage borderlessness of colonial subjects, enforced a racialised understanding of the European self as confined within fixed national borders. Following from this, Silverstein (2005) concludes that in the new sphere of modern European nation-states with rigid material and immaterial borders, non-European migrants became the racialised Other. Trouillot (2003), in his discussion about anthropology and the savage slot, writes that “The seminal writings that inscribed savagery, utopia, and order were conceived in the same era.“ (ibid.: 21) I argue that in this era when savagery (the Other) and

utopia (the Nation-state) were established, through order (the formation of modern European

nation state’s borders; racialisation of nomadism and fixity of European national character; and later creation of immigration policies and citizenship legislation) they became ingrained

in the European rationale. I also argue that many European national policies, like the Dutch immigration control rationale and policy, still operate according to the binary between the savage Other and the European national utopia. Lastly, I argue that this continued racialisation of the Other continues to be embodied in contemporary migrants of Europe, like in those residing undocumented in Amsterdam.

Regarding the already existing body of knowledge, the theoretical relevance of this research is threefold. First of all, it analyses how the life of an undocumented migrant is differently perceived by the employees of Western organisations that work with migrants, and the migrants themselves through their lived experiences. This increases theoretical knowledge on immigration usable for many actors varying from local organisations to governance and academia. Secondly, it presents empirical data connected to existing theoretical frameworks on the day to day struggle of employees working for organisations that fill in the gaps created by national and supranational immigration rationales. Through this empirical data on the employees and their clients’ struggle this thesis points out the inadequacy of state policy and practice that direct the functioning of such organisations. Thirdly, this thesis contributes to the theoretical knowledge of racialisation of migrants in Europe by arguing that racialisation does still exist, and prevails especially robustly in the way in which different types of knowledge are valued.

Methodology, COVID-19 and chapter structure

The main research method for this fieldwork was participant observation, equally so for each of the research questions. This included participation in formal activities, as well as in informal discussions and gatherings that took place at the Globalvillage. Besides from observing the collaboration project, where I remained a researcher, in the day to day activities of the shelter I acted as one of the volunteers. That entailed organising clothes and other donations; helping visitors with maps, CVs and daily errands; taking visitors to the hospital or other NGOs; and assisting the employees with their tasks. The focus of participant observation was to look at how the organisations’ employees talk about the visitors, different cases, the field they work in, and human rights frameworks. The same focus was extended to the undocumented migrants, but there it also included their views on the organisations and the

employees’ working mannerisms. Participant observation was chosen as the main method for this research for various reasons: first of all, as a volunteer, I had already gained access to the shelter and the people working there and visiting it. This access made participant observation ideal, for it allowed me to observe the daily interactions at the shelter. Secondly, this method worked best because of the mobile nature of the groups and subgroups. The undocumented, as well as the employees and volunteers, were as a whole an unstable research population, always coming and going unpredictably. This made me choose participant observation over, for example, focus groups. Participant observation worked well for this research, as it helped the researcher identify the shelter’s deep power structures and complex intragroup relationships. Furthermore, it let me observe and follow individuals on a long term basis and collect a good quantity of in-depth ethnographic data in real everyday situations at the shelter. I was able to get especially good insights from participant observing the counselling collaboration between the Globalvillage and DecentLabour.

My decision to participant observe arose also from the value of the method, expressed well in a list of advantages created by Gary Alan Fine (2015: 530-1): “...rich data, validity, verstehen (or interpretive understanding), and economy.” I agree with Fine on the richness of data; especially in such a versatile space as the Globalvillage, data collected from observing the daily activities was extremely extensive. Still, gathering enough data for a deep reading needs a lot of hours spent in the field (ibid.: 531). During the three months’ fieldwork, I spent as many hours at the Globalvillage as possible, varying weekly from about 25 to 32 hours. I also took into account the need to make notes, code and transcribe. I was able to collect copious notebooks filled with notes and direct quotes, which together after digitalising amount to about 200 pages. Fine has also listed the disadvantages of participant observation: ”... proof, generalizability, bias, and time commitments.” (2015: 531) In relation to these disadvantages, this research project does contain some problematic elements. For example, the research populations were fairly small. Although I had good access to them, the employees and visitors formed very specific and limited groups. These negative aspects are, nevertheless, largely balanced out by the success of the research in collecting sufficient data and continuously self-reflecting on possible hindrances.

The validity and verstehen of participant observation are further increased by the use of participatory action research (PAR) method, as discussed by Van Willigen (2002: 77-89). The idea of PAR is to create a research project through collaboration between the researcher(s) and the researched, which in my case took place in preliminary meetings with employees from the Globalvillage and DecentLabour. In these meetings, the employees mapped out shared issues and possible fields of collaboration, after which we discussed how my research could be used to increase positive results. Thus, the research project was not imposed top-down or outside-in but is based on the interpretive understanding formulated together. This, I argue, makes it more valid. Other forms of data, which serve a supportive role for the data collected from participant observation as a brief media analysis, come from posters, info leaflets, Facebook posts and Whatsapp group messages that were sent during the research period.

Reflecting on this research, one truly lamentable event transpired: the COVID-19 virus broke out. Luckily, it did so right after the research period had ended, but unfortunately before I could conduct interviews following up on questions that had emerged from observations. For this reason, this research relies on data collected through participant observation and does not include interviews although they were originally planned. Despite this setback, I do believe the research to be extensive and thorough enough to justify its arguments. Despite my previous affiliation with the shelter and already formed relationships with the employees and considerable amount of visitors, I had not expected the warm embrace with which my data collection and presence was met at the Globalvillage. Especially for this reason, I do sincerely believe that the data presented here can be of use for the workers and visitors of the shelter, as for academia. On the other hand, despite constant self-reflection, the same preferential position which I had achieved pre-fieldwork might have had some dubious effects for this research. First of all, my already gained position and knowledge of the field might have blinded me to some extent, making it hard to see the forest for the trees. I had to constantly say to myself “how would you perceive and interpret this, had it been your first time witnessing it?” Second, I had to make sure to explain my changed position to everyone at the shelter, although it was not always easy, in order not to mislead anyone. Also, announcing my changed position and research intent might have made some of the individuals consider their words more carefully, or even to hide certain elements. Nevertheless, I believe that through

constant self-reflection, ultimately the positive elements of these ethical questions outweigh the negative ones. To assure every individual’s safety and to diminish possible negative results of this research for the subjects, the names of the two organisations have been changed, as have been all the names of the individuals mentioned. Also, the data collected has been encrypted since the first day to ensure the safety of especially the more vulnerable undocumented subjects.

This thesis includes five chapters. After this introductory chapter, the next three data chapters answer the three subquestions for this thesis. Lastly, the conclusion chapter wraps the subsections together and answers the main research question. Chapter one explains the heterogeneous group dynamics and hierarchies that reign at the shelter, and following James Scott’s (1998) writings discusses how at the Globalvillage scientific knowledge of the Western volunteers is valued over the undocumented migrants’ lived experiences. Chapter two delves into the aforementioned tension between supranational and local frameworks and discusses the perceptions migrants and employees of the Globalvillage have on human rights, and on who is responsible for protecting them. Chapter three discusses the knowledge produced during the joint project between DecentLabour and the Globalvillage and argues that differing expectations and understandings between the counsellors and the counselled led to a considerable amount of resistance and standstill. Furthermore, the two organisations were primarily interested in learning more about their clientele, which is the focus of appendix 1. In the appendix findings on the needs of the undocumented migrants analysed during this research are presented, and recommendations are given to the commissioning organisations for improving certain practices.

Sunday is a 27-year-old man from Ghana. He had to leave his home country five years ago because his life was in danger there. He travelled North and was smuggled over the Mediterranean Sea from Libya by human traffickers, who for payment forced Sunday into prostitution once they reached Italy. He was able to escape and began a process to seek asylum in Italy. Sunday lived and worked in one of the asylum seekers camps for a year before he got a positive response to his application; he was given a temporary residence permit for three years in Italy with the possibility of extension afterwards. Due to lack of work, and since he felt that many Italians disapproved of him, he decided to leave the country. After arriving in Amsterdam and asking around a few days for work, whilst sleeping on the streets due to having no money or connections, he realised that he needed help. From other migrants, he heard of a daily shelter called the Globalvillage, and after the fifth night spent on the streets, he finally got up, googled its address and started walking.

When Sunday arrived at the address, he saw a beautiful old Amsterdam building with a grand staircase; “this cannot be the right place” he thought to himself. He was walking past the door, gazing upwards in amazement when he saw another door leading down to a basement. The walls and ceiling were all done with brown tiles; potted plants stood by the entrance and dangled from the sealing. The long room he entered had a roof in the form of a half-circle, and the ceiling stooped low. Warm lights, plants and acoustic guitar music made the first impression pleasant. He observed tables with chairs around them, some empty and some filled with people. Some people had just their phone on the table, others had big bags with them. While he was taking in the shelter, Sunday was approached by a man with long black rastas, a neat shirt and glasses. The man asked him for his name, ready to type it into an iPad he was holding, and as Sunday looked a little surprised the man commented that it must be his first time at the shelter. Sunday nodded, and the man told Sunday he should walk through the shelter to the back, where the people could help him get settled.

A young woman called Rebecca came to Sunday when he was approaching the offices, asking if he needed help. After hearing it was Sunday’s first time, she sat down with him to explain how the shelter works and to discuss his situation. He shared a short but honest version of the events and reasons that had brought him to the Netherlands. After he finished Rebecca took a

minute, looked down sighing, and said: “listen, there is something you must understand.” She then explained to Sunday that although he had documents in another European country, he was not allowed to work in the Netherlands. Thus, she explained, his options were to go back to Italy, and to find formal work there; if he decided to stay in Amsterdam, he would only be able to obtain informal work. Rebecca also told him that he might face trouble with the Dutch immigration office and police if they found him working and living in the Netherlands without a local permit. After their chat Sunday was offered some food; now eating and sitting alone he buries his head in his hands in disbelief and frustration. “This was supposed to be the new start,” he thinks to himself. “What should I do?”

1 Heterogeneous groups and hierarchy

1.1 Groups and subgroups at the Globalvillage

When I began volunteering at the Globalvillage in November 2018 what attracted me the most about the shelter was what I initially perceived as harmonious co-existence of a multitude of individuals from different countries, backgrounds, social standings and languages. I had never had the possibility to talk, help out and spend time with people from places like the Philippines, the Netherlands, Peru and Ghana, all in just one day. I thought the individuals visiting and working were admirably focused on achieving a good life for all collectively; creating a more inclusive Amsterdam; and building a better world together. What escaped me in this initial high on cultural differences and learning was the inherently heterogeneous and complex nature of groups that work, volunteer and visit the shelter. With time I realised that the Globalvillage is comprised of a large variety of groups and subgroups, which form a basis for the shelter’s functioning. The multitude of groups and subgroups was not only personally confusing to me, but it also brought forth issues of hierarchy and power, which are mapped out and analysed in this chapter. I have established five main groups present in the daily actions of the Globalvillage, which are later divided into subgroups: the Upstairs; the Team; the Small Questions Team; the undocumented volunteers; and the visitors. For lack of data on the Upstairs, a small group of matured Dutch individuals who ran the

from the discussion. By looking at the rest of the groups individually, together, and in comparison with one another I wish to elaborate on the hierarchical power present in the shelter’s organisational structure and illuminate this construction’s consequences for the persons working and visiting the Globalvillage.

The Team was the operational brain of the Globalvillage: it consisted of a few paid full- and part-time employees, a part-time volunteering retiree, and two young women contracted through the European Voluntary Service. The Team dealt with daily issues at the shelter; organised events, workshops and classes; did intakes with new arrivals; managed and guided other groups; maintained peace and stability at the shelter; solved issues that arose from time to time; offered weekly social counselling to the undocumented; and communicated the needs and happenings of the shelter to the Upstairs. During this research, the Team had three, and later two full-time paid employees; after about a month one of the members was moved to another position inside the Diaconie. These employees had the most responsibility at the shelter; they would organise the tasks for all other groups, function as a link of communications in between the Upstairs and the shelter, and even take on new projects and collaborations outside of the Globalvillage. One of these two was the coordinator of the shelter called Lotte. She was a young Dutch adult with an academic background in anthropology and a lot of experience in the field of immigration. She was in charge of the shelter in the eyes of the Upstairs and held, therefore, most responsibility for its functioning. The other employee, Mark, was an originally Chilean man in his forties, also with a degree in anthropology, who had resided in the Netherlands for a long while and was fluent in a number of languages, such as Dutch, French, Spanish and English. He took on a variety of tasks and projects at the shelter, as well as outside of it, and also gave counselling to the undocumented visitors weekly. The other groups’ members would come to these two individuals for an ultimate decision when a question or problem arose, for they had the most standing at the shelter.

Besides from Lotte and Mark, two other employees worked part-time giving social counselling to the undocumented two or three days a week. One of them was also a paid employee, called Jan, and the other, Selma, volunteered to keep herself active during

retirement. Both were Dutch-speaking individuals, Jan with local background and Selma originally from the Philippines. They worked by inviting individuals to their office to discuss personal questions and issues they might have, varying from immigration procedure to health problems. The last subgroup inside the Team were the European Voluntary Service (EVS) volunteers. EVS is a programme run by the European Commission where young adults under thirty years of age with residency in Europe can volunteer internationally in interesting projects. The Globalvillage has at all times two EVS volunteers working at the shelter; they start in September and complete one year of voluntary work. They are given housing and some pocket money by the organisation, and work four days a week; their position is something in between volunteers and paid employees. During my research period, they were two young women from Italy, Rebecca and Luna; in the past, the EVS volunteers have predominantly been from Italy or Spain, and almost all have been women. The EVS do not speak Dutch when they arrive at the Globalvillage, and depending on their personal motivation they learn a little or a lot during the year. As they are a part of the Team, the Team’s general working language is English. Still, depending on which individuals were present, the language changed.

The Small Questions Team (SQT) was a group of young European and American women who volunteered at the shelter. During the fieldwork period majority of these women were current university students who had decided to volunteer on their days off, and most studied or had recently graduated from social sciences, linguistics or teaching programs. The task of the SQT was to help with small problems that the visitors had; to assist the Team with their tasks; to make CVs; to escort the visitors occasionally to the hospital, an NGO or to shower; to act as a filter in between the visitors and the Team, ensuring that the Team could focus on the more difficult and urgent cases; and ideally to go around the shelter chatting with visitors and creating an inviting atmosphere. Due to the work’s voluntary nature, and the fact that there were no exact guidelines or a list of tasks for the SQT members, all had created a different manner of working and positioned themselves slightly diversely in relation to the other groups. Most came to volunteer once a week, although some had taken up more responsibility with different projects or events, and thus came more often. Majority of the SQT members knew each other superficially, but there was little contact beyond niceties and contemplating

on matters related to the Globalvillage. The SQT volunteers could be seen as the left hand of the Team, for they worked close to them and helped with their tasks and projects.

The undocumented volunteers were the most fluctuating group at the Globalvillage; apart from the visitors it was also the largest group. Many of these volunteers had resided in Amsterdam for a long period of time, all had a past in migration, and a lack of documentation in the Netherlands. The undocumented volunteers had generally more established lives than most of the visitors of the shelter. This group included four subgroups: cooks, house masters, receptionists and cleaners. This research will focus on the housemasters, as they were the biggest and most powerful of the subgroups. In general, the idea at the Globalvillage is to give as much responsibility of the running of the shelter to the undocumented migrants themselves as possible. As is written on their website “The Globalvillage is a center for and run by undocumented migrants – people who have only limited rights and who are searching for new perspectives.” The incentive is so to activate them and to cultivate a sense of meaning and purpose. The undocumented volunteers had their weekly working day, similarly to that of the SQT. They were also paid a small compensation for their work monthly, unlike the Western volunteers. The house masters consisted of men of all ages from Northern and Southern Africa. Each day there were two house masters on duty, and each individual had one shift per week. Besides from helping the Team and other volunteers, their main responsibilities included monitoring the daily visitors; organising the shelter in the morning and in the evening; making sure visitors left at the closing time; helping with serving lunch; keeping the coffee and tea table up and running; and maintaining peace and harmony amongst the visitors. The house masters were mostly on the move, but when they were not running errands, they sat at a table next to the entrance, from where they could observe most of the shelter easily. The house masters worked firmly together with the Team; they could be seen as its right hand.

Lastly, there were the undocumented visitors of the shelter. They were a colourful and varied bunch of migrants, some of whom had recently arrived in Amsterdam or the Netherlands, and others who lived there already for ages. Majority of the Globalvillage’s visitors came from the African continent, although there were also regular visitors with a background in Latin America, the Middle East and Asia. The best part of the visitors were young men. There were

some older men and women of all ages visiting the shelter, but they were a clear minority. Most women visiting were young, and some had small children they brought to the shelter with them. On average there were from seventy to a hundred visitors per day; the number of visitors daily depended largely on weather conditions, on the season of the year, and on the existence and opening times of night shelters. Individuals came to the shelter to use wifi; to eat lunch; to escape the cold, wind or rain; to be safe; to sit down or sleep at the tables; to ask questions, seek help with their issues, or to merely have someone to talk to; to meet with counsellors and lawyers.

Most undocumented visitors and volunteers had come to Europe through Italy, Spain or Malta, and had gone through an asylum-seeking process in one of these countries. Majority of the undocumented I spoke with had first come to Italy, where they had applied for and acquired local documentation. Many had a temporary residence permit from Italy for two or three years with which they were allowed to live and work in Italy, and to stay in other European Union states for a maximum of 90 days. Regardless of their permits and documentation in Southern European countries, they had ventured to Amsterdam. Some were running from human traffickers or other people who threatened their lives, others wished to find work in the Netherlands, and some complained about Southern Europeans being small-minded and even racist. Sometimes the undocumented decided to go through another process in the Netherlands, which after a long wait often came out negative due to their already existing permits in another EU country. Those who did not seek for asylum, but had an EU permit, had 90 days to stay in the Netherlands officially, and those who were given a negative from their asylum process in the Netherlands normally had about 30 days to leave the country. If they stayed after these limits they became truly undocumented, illegalised by the state as De Genova (2002) has argued, with next to no rights or position in the society. Therefore, they come to depend dearly on organisations like the Globalvillage.

1.2 Intragroup relations

In order to understand the jungle of intergroup and intragroup structures, this section is divided into two parts: first, the connections inside the main groups will be discussed. Secondly, the intergroup relations will be mapped and larger networks at the shelter explained. In keeping with the previously used hierarchical structure of groups at the Globalvillage, the Upstairs must be first mentioned. The exact composition of this group remains unclear even after the research period; if there were tensions or intragroup elements to discuss in regards to the Upstairs, they were not visible at the shelter. Therefore, the Upstairs will be only an aspect to be considered later through other groups’ reactions to it.

Relationships between the Team’s members varied according to their working schedules; the languages they spoke; and depending on their views on and affiliation to the organisation. First of all, the Team did not function daily with the same set of individuals; thus, its functioning varied largely from day to day. The Team met every Thursday morning to talk about recent events, current cases, and to check in on how everyone was doing. Besides from these meetings, the whole team was almost never present all at once; the EVS and Mark worked four days, the counsellors only two each, leaving Lotte as the only person working five days a week. Since there were only two small offices at the shelter for counselling and other private activities, space was very limited. Thus, there was just one counsellor present per day. Furthermore, Lotte the coordinator was often in the upstairs offices or outside the shelter in meetings, conferences or giving interviews. Despite having their set working days, the EVS often escorted visitors to other cities or organisations for appointments, which sometimes took up most of their working day. Therefore, the Team was not one constant and pre-determined unit that one could find at the shelter whenever; its composition changed from one day to the next, also depending on sickness and other unforeseen factors. From working some days a week together, and from their meetings on Thursdays, the Team members had formed of relationships with one another to varying degrees.

Secondly, another factor affecting the relations inside the Team was language; different language was spoken depending on persons present in each situation. The language used in each situation had the potential of including or excluding certain individuals, and thus of

creating subgroups. English was mostly used when the EVS were present, since their Dutch was suboptimal, although apart from them the Team was Dutch-speaking. Sometimes Dutch was spoken even when the EVS were around because the permanent Team members had their long-learned manner of working with one another, which occasionally resulted in the linguistic exclusion of the EVS volunteers. Besides from Dutch, another language with special position inside the Team was Spanish. The two EVS and Mark would converse in Spanish when alone, but also with other Team members around. All three seemed to prefer Spanish over English, and although the Team spoke English together, these three would change into Spanish when they had the chance. Once, I was observing a lunch hour at a table next to the offices, where the EVS were eating with Selma, and Mark walked by. The trio changed into Spanish to comment on a recent case, but once the professional exchange was over and Mark walked away, they still continued to converse in Spanish. After a minute they realised that Selma was eating in silence, not taking part in the discussion, and said: “sorry, we don’t even realise when we change the language!” Selma smiled and said it was fine, that she understood some of it since the Philippines had been a Spanish colony, but it was clear that she had been briefly excluded by language. Equally to Dutch being spoken even with Dutch speakers present, Spanish was also sometimes spoken regardless of the non-speakers in the situation. Thus, despite English being the shared working language, preference for Dutch or Spanish sometimes overruled the need for total inclusion of other Team members.

Thirdly, the Team members’ views on and relationship to the organisation they worked for influenced the manner in which they conducted themselves and related to each other. How deeply committed to their work the individuals were, and their responsibility and position in the organisation, affected their input and effort also inside the Team. Lotte and Mark, the two members with most responsibility and with most commitment to the field as a whole, undoubtedly also carried most of the weight. They also spent the least time criticising their superiors, at least in my presence and focused their efforts on working. Jan and Selma would speak a little more about the issues of the organisation, but still kept most of their opinions to themselves and focused on the cases and events of the day. The EVS volunteers, on the other hand, were much more prone to share their contentious thoughts on the organisation. They

discussed the problems they saw with the functioning of the shelter and compared its aspects to similar workplaces they had had. For example, Rebecca once commented on the functioning of the Globalvillage by saying that “even though there are some bad organisations there, all of the places I have worked for in Italy have been much better than this.” Although they expressed their views mostly with respect, and often in a constructive manner, they did bring up their opinions much more easily and with regularity. The temporary nature of the contracts given to the EVS gave them more freedom to speak openly and publicly about their opinions, whereas the more committed long-term employees, closer to the organisation and with more to lose, did not speak as openly about their thoughts. This caused a separation, and sometimes even tensions in between the Team members because the manner in which the EVS could speak about the shelter was not entirely reciprocated by the other Team members.

The SQT was the most homogenous group of all in the Globalvillage. All of the SQT members were women; except for few all were under 30, and a majority still under 25, and all except one were white Westerners. They were all but one living in a country not of their origin; most were studying in a local university, or not working; and all had the time and energy to volunteer their extra hours to help those in need. Possibly due to the group’s homogeneity, I witnessed little tension inside the group; relations consisted of subtle nuances of knowledge hierarchy. The main differentiating element inside the group was the extent of an individual’s experience in the field, which translated into knowledgeable or less-knowledgeable volunteering. Although mostly there was only one volunteer per day at the shelter, when multiple worked together volunteers with more experience and knowledge would guide the less experienced ones. Thus, the group of SQT volunteers can be roughly divided into two sections; volunteers with experience or more self-confidence about their proficiency in the field, and those not-so-knowledgeable, or in need of extra affirmation for their actions. The more knowledgeable volunteers would take charge of things that needed doing, delegating tasks to the less confident ones.

The undocumented volunteers was the most heterogeneous and complicated group considering its inner relations and tensions. The two most notable factors were the domination by the house masters over physical area, as well as over other subgroups, and the outstanding

majority of men in most positions. The housemasters were the most important of the subgroups, for they were the most in charge. They had the task of keeping everything running smoothly, and since their responsibility reached the furthest in terms of tasks and physical space, most of them had acquired a rather authoritative role compared with the rest of the undocumented volunteers. The housemasters were in charge of the entire floor of the shelter, as well as of the front of the building outside. In comparison with the rest of the undocumented volunteer subgroups, which were all confined to more narrow locations due to their specific tasks, the housemasters had power over all locations and thus held some level of power over other subgroups.

What linked all undocumented volunteers, apart from the receptionists, was that except for a few ladies cooking all were male. This was, of course, representational of the visitors of the shelter, most being in general men. Yet, in a meeting with the Team, the house masters themselves expressed their wish for more women to be included in the running of the shelter. Since the house masters, the most prominent subgroup of the undocumented volunteers, were all men, the scale of power amongst the undocumented volunteers was against gender equality during this research. On the other hand, the receptionists were almost exclusively women. Despite the women receptionists and cooks, in the overall balance female presence was nearly nonexistent. Thus, in conclusion on the undocumented volunteers, the house masters, cooks and cleaners formed a majority which was almost entirely male. This dominance marked the functioning of the shelter and the experience of those visiting. Besides from one highly active and hands-on receptionist, the female presence was marginal. Therefore, the most notable intragroup elements included the dominance of house masters over other subgroups due to their practically and physically far-reaching duties and the male preeminence inside the group.

The undocumented visitors’ intragroup relations included two major facets: the influx of new people mixed with the continuity of old visitors, which created a specific dynamic at the shelter, and people relating to one another according to their background. First of all, new people arrived in Amsterdam every week, whilst some individuals visited and depended on the shelter to different degrees even after years of living in Amsterdam. This constant influx of new people, and the existence of certain individuals throughout time, gave this group a

contradictory nature where constant change and enduring continuity clashed. It also created a power structure between the newcomers and the old guard. The veterans were more familiar with the life of an undocumented person in Amsterdam, could often cope with their situation better, and had already established a status amongst their peers at the shelter. Newcomers were timider when they arrived, and although there were many support systems at the Globalvillage, it generally took some time for them to get accustomed and comfortable with their new surroundings. The old guard thus yielded power by simply knowing more, but also by deciding which newcomers they shared their knowledge with.

Another facet that was central for the inclusion or exclusion of newcomers, and ultimately also defined the general power structures, was a person’s ethnic, native and/or linguistic background. Groups formed regularly according to homeland or language. For example, on the most general level, Eastern Africans usually spent time with each other, whilst Western Africans tended to have their own subgroups. For example, the Eritreans had their own group which sat together speaking Tigrinya. Also, a large part of the visitors came from Nigeria, frequently from Edo state, and were often inclined to spend their time together at the Globalvillage. Another trend amongst the Western Africans was that Gambians and Senegalese sometimes grouped together, or that a mix of Ghanaians, Nigerians and Senegalese sat together speaking English. Similarly, Northern Africans would often sit with each other speaking Arabic or French, whereas Latin Americans leaned towards grouping with one another or other Spanish-speaking people. Peace and calmness usually reigned between the subgroups; an example of intragroup unrest I witnessed arose when some individuals complained about the food, and people affiliated with the cook in question defended his hard work. When I spoke with the cook after the incident he said “I don’t care what they think, in the end it is free food so they should eat. But my friends feel bad for me; they defend my cooking." At times unpleasantries were exchanged, in a mix of languages and situations, most prominently due to general frustrations to do with night shelters, personal health or work. Still, heated feelings usually calmed down fast, and peace returned to the shelter.

1.3 Intergroup relations

The most important factor for the intergroup relations was the hierarchical nature of information, decisions and approval for actions; this hierarchy determined all of the intergroup relations at the Globalvillage. Information, decisions and approval for actions came from the Upstairs team, from whence it rippled down to the other groups gradually, sometimes in unpredictable ways. Lotte and Mark were the points of connection between Upstairs and the rest of the shelter; although they both had a working relationship with the individuals upstairs, Lotte was ultimately accountable for the happenings of the shelter in the eyes of the Upstairs. Despite the fact that I did not directly observe the Upstairs during my research, mostly due to the fact that they indeed remained upstairs and this research was conducted at the shelter, it became very clear that they wielded power in the organisational structure of the Globalvillage. I observed all of the Team members make at least one comment on the fact that the Upstairs was making authoritative decisions; once, Lotte and Jan were discussing the opening hours of the shelter and contemplating on the Upstair’s decision to cut them shorter. “Now we must do the same work, but in fewer hours. They really don’t know what it is like here sometimes,” contested Jan. The Team was in control of creating new initiatives for the shelter, classes and workshops for example, and of reviewing already existing elements. Nevertheless, all decision had to be approved by the Upstairs. It was the task of Lotte to communicate decisions and information from the Upstairs to the Team, whose job it was then to translate these to a plan of action at the shelter, and to transmit the message to the rest of the shelter.

The way in which information flowed down from the Team was relatively haphazard and chaotic. The Team got their weekly dose of information in their meetings on Thursday mornings, or whenever it happened to arrive at the shelter through Lotte or Mark. They were mostly well-informed about the wishes of the Upstairs, about the near-future of the shelter, and about the things happening in the society with possible effects on their work. After their meeting, each member transmitted the information forward during their routine activities. Although Lotte put updates to the various WhatsApp chats of different groups and subgroups, there was no coordinated circulation of information to other groups. Like Tobias G. Eule (2014) has written in the context of German immigration offices, the functioning of such