Advertisement

Who Speaks for the Zambrano Families? Multi-level Abandonment in the UK and EU

  • Iyiola SolankeEmail author
Chapter
Part of the Gender and Politics book series (GAP)

Abstract

An intersectional analysis of Brexit suggests that Black British children are the forgotten victims of the decision to leave the EU. Due to the nationality of their primary carer, their rights as British and EU citizens have been pushed aside in the Brexit negotiations by both the European Commission and the UK government. In addition, their precarious position has been over-looked in the binary campaigns focusing on Union citizens in the UK and UK citizens in the EU. This contribution seeks to focus attention on the Zambrano children and incorporate their interests in the process of leaving the EU. If these infants are to continue to enjoy their full rights as British and Union citizens after Brexit, their parents must enjoy the full rights enjoyed by migrant EU citizens in the Withdrawal Agreement.

Bibliography

  1. Blome, A. (ed.). 2017. The Politics of Work-Family Policy Reforms in Germany and Italy. Abingdon, Oxon; New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
  2. Crenshaw, K. 1989. Demarginalising the Intersection of Race and Sex: A Black Feminist Critique of Antidiscrimination Doctrine, Feminist Theory and Antiracial Politics. University of Chicago Legal Forum 139.Google Scholar
  3. Crompton, R. (ed.). 1999. Restructuring Gender Relations and Employment: The Decline of the Male Breadwinner. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  4. EHRC ‘Is Britain Fair’? Online at https://www.equalityhumanrights.com/en/britain-fairer.
  5. Ferreira, N., and D. Kostakopoulou (eds.). 2016. The Human Face of The European Union. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  6. Hill Collins, P., and S. Bilge. 2016. Intersectionality—Key Concepts. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press. Google Scholar
  7. House of Commons Home Affairs Committee ‘Home Office Delivery of Brexit; Immigration’ 3rd Report of Session 2017–19. https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201719/cmselect/cmhaff/421/421.pdf.
  8. Kolvin, I., F.J. Muller, D. Scott, S.R.M. Gatzanis, and M. Fleeting. 1990. Continuities of Deprivation: The Newcastle 1000 Family Study. Avebury: Alderson.Google Scholar
  9. Marshall, T.H. 1950. Citizenship and Social Class: And Other Essays. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  10. Scales-Trent, J. 1989. Black Women and the Constitution: Finding Our Place, Asserting Our Rights. Harvard Civil Rights-Civil Liberties Law Review 24 (1): 9–44. Google Scholar
  11. Solanke, I. 2009. Putting Race and Gender Together: A New Approach to Intersectionality. Modern Law Review 72 (5): 723.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Solanke, I. 2011. Infusing the Silos in the Equality Act 2010 with Synergy. Industrial Law Journal 40 (4), 336.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Solanke, I. 2012. Using the Citizen to Bring the Refugee in: Gerardo Ruiz Zambrano v Office national de l’emploi (ONEM). Modern Law Review 75 (1) MLR 78–121, 108ff.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Solanke, I. 2017. Discrimination as Stigma. London: Hart. Google Scholar
  15. Stalford, H. 2012. Children and the European Union. London: Hart.Google Scholar
  16. Vaughne Miller. EU Legislation: Government Action on ‘goldplating’ (Standard Note SN/IA/5943).Google Scholar
  17. Wing, A. 2013. Critical Race Feminism: A Reader (Critical America). New York: New York University Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Law, The Liberty BuildingUniversity of LeedsLeedsUK

Personalised recommendations