French Politics

, Volume 16, Issue 4, pp 400–418 | Cite as

“After Calais”: creating and managing (in)security for refugees in Europe

  • Jane FreedmanEmail author
Original Article


In October 2016, the dismantlement of the main refugee camp in the Calais region began. This camp, often known as the “Jungle” had become a symbol of the refugee “crisis” at the heart of Europe, at once a growing point of contention between the British and French Governments both claiming that they were attempting to secure their borders, and a visible reminder of the insalubrious and insanitary conditions in which refugees were living in European borderlands. Following the destruction of the camp refugees was dispatched to various reception centres across France, but these have proved largely unsuitable to their needs, and in some cases have facilitated deportation. Meanwhile, refugees have continued to come to Calais and remain subject to restrictive policing and “security” policies. This article will examine the “mismanagement” of the refugee camps in and around Calais, arguing that French government policy has been largely reactive, led by competing and often contradictory demands coming from various sources at local, international or European levels. This non-intervention can be seen as creating insecurity through inaction: leaving refugees to endure insalubrious and dangerous conditions as various political authorities seem to hope that the “problem” of Calais will disappear. Further, attempts to “secure” borders have led to increasingly insecure conditions for the refugees themselves, and have made it more difficult for those who are attempting to support them. Finally, the failure of the French and British governments to propose any suitable long-term solution to the issue of refugees in Calais can be seen as a reflection of the wider failure of EU policies, and of the ways in which inaction and mismanagement can in itself constitute a form of violence against these refugees.


Calais Refugees Security France Europe Borders 


  1. Agnew, J. 2008. Borders on the mind: Re-framing border thinking. Ethics and Global Politics 1(4): 175–191.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Allsopp, J. 2017. Aggressor, victim, soldier, dad: Intersecting masculinities in the European ‘refugee crisis’. In A gendered approach to the Syrian refugee crisis, ed. J. Freedman, Z. Kivilcim, and N. Ozgur Baklacioglu, 155–175. London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Andersen, D., and M. Sandberg. 2012. Introduction. In The border multiple: The practices of borders between public policy and everyday life, ed. D. Andersen, M. Klatt, and M. Sandberg, 1–19. Aldershot: Ashgate.Google Scholar
  4. Andersson, R. 2016. Europe’s failed “fight” against irregular migration: Ethnographic notes on a counterproductive industry. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies 42(7): 1055–1075.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Ansems de Vries, L. 2016. The transience and persistence of the “Jungle” in Calais”. Open Democracy, 27 Feb 2016.
  6. Balibar, E. 1998. The borders of Europe. In Cosmopolitics: Thinking and feeling beyond the nation, ed. P. Cheah and B. Robbins, 216–229. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
  7. Bassi, M., and S. Fine. 2013. La gouvernance des flux migratoires “indésirables”: Cas d’étude de Calais et Lampedusa. Hommes et Migrations 1304: 77–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bouagga, Y., and Pette, M. 2017. L’aide aux migrants à Calais. In La Cartographie 2017 des engagements volontaires et solidaires à l’international, ed. C. Leroux and O. Pissoat, 23–28. Observatoire de France Volontaires.Google Scholar
  9. Clochard, O. 2007. Le jeu des frontières dans l’accès au statut de réfugié - Une géographie des politiques européennes d’asile et d’immigration. Doctoral Thesis, Université de Poitiers.Google Scholar
  10. Clochard, O. 2016. Calais: The show of force continues. The conversation, 24 Oct 2016.
  11. Cooper, A. 2015. Where are Europe’s new borders? Ontology, methodology and framing. Journal of Contemporary European Studies 23(4): 447–458.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Crawley, H., and D. Skleparis. 2018. Refugees, migrants, neither, both: Categorical fetishism and the politics of bounding in Europe’s ‘migration crisis’. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies 44(1): 48–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Cuttitta, P. 2014. “Borderizing” the island: Setting and narratives of Lampedusa “border play”. ACME: An International Journal for Critical Geographies 13(2): 196–219.Google Scholar
  14. Davies, T., A. Isakjee, and S. Dhesi. 2017. Violent inaction: The necropolitical experience of refugees in Europe. Antipode. Scholar
  15. De Haas, H. 2007. Morocco’s migration experience: A transitional perspective. International Migration 45(4): 39–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Djigo, S. 2016. Les migrants de Calais: Enquête sur la vie en transit. Marseille: Agone.Google Scholar
  17. Edelman, M. 1977. Political language: Words that succeed and policies that fail. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  18. European Commission. 2003. Council Regulation EC No. 343/2003 of 18 February 2003 establishing the criteria and mechanisms for determining the Member State responsible for examining an asylum application lodged in one of the Member States by a third country national.Google Scholar
  19. FNARS. 2016. Enquête: Etat des lieux des centres d’accueil et d’orientation. Paris: FNARS.Google Scholar
  20. Freedman, J. 2004. Immigration and insecurity in France. Aldershot: Ashgate.Google Scholar
  21. Freedman, J. 2015. Gendering the international asylum and refugee debate. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Freedman, J. 2018a. Amateur humanitarianism, social solidarity and “volunteer tourism” in the EU refugee “crisis”. In Humanitarian action and ethics, ed. A. Ahmad and J. Smith. London: Zed Books.Google Scholar
  23. Freedman, J. 2018b. The uses and abuses of “vulnerability” in EU asylum and refugee protection: Protecting women or reducing autonomy?’ Papeles del CEIC; International Journal on Collective Identity Research (forthcoming).Google Scholar
  24. GISTI. 2017. Le camp humanitaire parisien: un piège pour les exiles. Paris: GISTI. Accessed 1 July 2018.
  25. Human Rights Watch. 2015. France: Les migrants et les demandeurs d’asile victimes de violence et démunis. Paris: Human Rights Watch. Accessed 31 May 2018.
  26. Huysmans, J. 2006. The politics of insecurity: Fear, migration and asylum in the EU. London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Jeandesboz, J., and P. Pallister-Wilkins. 2014. Crisis, enforcement and control at the EU borders. In Crisis and migration: Critical perspectives, ed. A. Lindley, 115–135. London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Kobelinsky, C. and C. Makaremi (eds.). 2009. Enfermés, dehors: Enquêtes sur le confinement des étrangers. Bellecombe-en-Bauges: Editions du Croquant.Google Scholar
  29. Kramsch, O. 2010. The rabelaisian border. Society and Space 28(6): 1000–1014.Google Scholar
  30. Laacher, S. 2002. Après Sangatte: Nouvelles immigrations, nouveaux enjeux. Paris: La Dispute.Google Scholar
  31. La Cimade. 2015. Petit aperçu de ce que raconte Calais. Paris: La Cimade.Google Scholar
  32. La Cimade. 2017. CAO: Premier bilan après le démantèlement. Paris: La Cimade.Google Scholar
  33. Long, K. 2013. When refugees stopped being migrants: Movement, labour and humanitarian protection. Migration Studies 1(1): 4–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Lutterbeck, D. 2006. Policing migration in the mediterranean. Mediterranean Politics 11(1): 59–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Mezzadra, S. 2006. Citizen and subject: A postcolonial constitution for the European Union. Situations 1(2): 31–42.Google Scholar
  36. Millner, N. 2011. From “refugee” to “migrant” in Calais solidarity activism: Re-staging undocumented migration for a future politics of asylum. Political Geography 30: 320–328.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Mould, O. 2017. The not so concrete Jungle: Material precarity in the Calais refugee camp. Cultural Geographies 25(3): 393–409.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Neal, A. 2009. Securitization and risk at the EU border: The origins of frontex. Journal of Common Market Studies 47(2): 333–356.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Newman, D., and A. Passi. 1998. Fences and neighbours in the post-modern world: Boundary narratives in political geography. Progress in Human Geography 22(2): 186–207.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Parker, N., N. Vaughan-Williams, L. Bialasiewicz, S. Bulmer, B. Carver, and R. Durie. 2009. Lines in the sand? Towards and agenda for critical border studies. Geopolitics 14(3): 582–587.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Pette, M. 2016. Venir en aide aux migrants dans le Calaisis: Entre action associative locale et crise migratoire internationale. Savoir/Agir 36: 47–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Ramadan, A. 2012. Spatialising the refugee camp. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers 38: 65–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Reinisch, J. 2015. “Forever temporary”: Migrants in Calais, then and now. The Political Quarterly 86(4): 515–522.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Rigby, J., and R. Schlembach. 2013. Impossible protest: Noborders in Calais. Citizenship Studies 7(2): 157–172.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Ryan, B. 2004. The European dimension to British border control. Journal of Immigration, Asylum and National Law 18(1): 6–16.Google Scholar
  46. Rygiel, K. 2011. Bordering solidarities: Migrant activism and the politics of movement and camps at Calais. Citizenship Studies 15(1): 1–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Sandri, E. 2018. “Volunteer humanitarianism”: Volunteers and humanitarian aid in the Jungle refugee camp of Calais. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies 44(1): 65–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Schuster, L. 2003. Asylum seekers: Sangatte and the tunnel. Parliamentary Affairs 56(3): 506–522.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Scott, J. 2012. European politics of borders, border symbolism and cross-border cooperation. In A companion to border studies, ed. T. Wilson and H. Donnan, 83–99. Chichester: Blackwell.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Sigona, N. 2015. Campzenship: Reimagining the camp as a social and political space. Citizenship Studies 19(1): 1–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Spoonley, P., and A. Butcher. 2009. Reporting superdiversity. The mass media and immigration in New Zealand. Journal of Intercultural Studies 30(4): 355–372.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Squire, V. 2011. The contested politics of mobility: Borderzones and irregularity. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  53. Vaughan-Williams, N. 2010. The UK border-security continuum. Virtual biopolitics and the simulation of the sovereign ban. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space 28(6): 1071–1083.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Vaughan Williams, N. 2015. “We are not animals!” Humanitarian border security and zoopolitical spaces in Europe. Political Geography 45: 1–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Vignon, J. 2017. Calais, Questions Françaises, Réponses Européennes. Etudes 2017/6: 33–44.Google Scholar
  56. Vila, P. 2003. Ethnography at the border. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
  57. Wright, M. 2006. Disposable women and other myths of global capitalism. London: Routledge.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Limited 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.CRESPPA-GTM, CNRSUniversité Paris 8ParisFrance

Personalised recommendations