Advertisement

Funding Precarity: Non-profit Organization and Refugee Negotiation of Italian and European Asylum Policies

  • Michele Manocchi
Chapter
Part of the Transnational Crime, Crime Control and Security book series (TCCCS)

Abstract

This chapter condenses some of the results that were collected from a long ethnographic study conducted in Piedmont, Italy, between late 2007 and early 2011. The main objective was to analyse one of the most common misrepresentations about refugees; that is, they are offered preferential support and opportunities by the institutional reception system that a ‘normal’ economic migrant does not receive. The main results challenge this assumption and demonstrate that refugees face huge difficulties in achieving a level of social recognition that would make them hearable by the host country’s citizens and by the reception system more broadly, and that, in this context, the practices of resistance undertaken by refugees turn into dramatic situations in which refugees’ physical and mental integrity is jeopardized. The result is a system that does not support refugees in achieving autonomy and, actually, increases their vulnerability, trapping them at a lower level of the Italian social ladder.

References

  1. Adler, P. (1990). Ethnographic research on hidden populations: Penetrating the drug world. In E.Y. Lambert (Ed.), The collection and interpretation of data from hidden populations (NIDA Research Monograph 98, pp. 96–112). Rockville: National Institute on Drug Abuse.Google Scholar
  2. Agamben, G. (1995). Homo Sacer: Il potere sovrano e la nuda vita, Torino: Einaudi. Trans. Daniel Heller-Roazen as Homo Sacer: Sovereign Power and Bare Life. (1998). Redwood City: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  3. Algostino, A. (2005). L’ambigua universalità dei diritti. Diritti occidentali o diritti della persona umana? Napoli: Jovene.Google Scholar
  4. Ambrosini, M., & Marchetti, C. (Eds.). (2008). Cittadini possibili: Un nuovo approccio all’accoglienza e all’integrazione dei rifugiati. Milano: Franco Angeli.Google Scholar
  5. Asylum Information Database [AIDA]. (2013). National country report – Italy. Available at: http://www.asylumineurope.org/reports/country/italy
  6. Asylum Information Database [AIDA]. Short overview of the Italian reception system. Available at http://www.asylumineurope.org/reports/country/italy/reception-conditions/short-overview-italian-reception-system
  7. Atak, I., & Crépeau, F. (2014). National security, terrorism and the securitization of migration. In V. Chetail (Ed.), Research handbook on migration and international law (pp. 93–112). Cheltenham/Northampton: Edward Elgar Publishing.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Atkinson, R., & Flint, J. (2001). Accessing hidden and hard-to-reach populations: Snowball research strategies. Social Research Update, 33, 1–4.Google Scholar
  9. Atkinson, P., Coffey, A., Delamont, S., Lofland, J., & Lofland, L. (2001). Handbook of ethnography. London/Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Bakewell, O. (2010, August). Some reflections on structure and agency in migration theory. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 36(10). doi: 10.1080/1369183X.2010.489382.
  11. Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: W.H. Freeman.Google Scholar
  12. Bandura, A. (1999). Social cognitive theory: An agentic perspective. Asian Journal of Social Psychology, 2, 21–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Bolzoni, M., Gargiulo, E., & Manocchi, M. (2015). The social consequences of denied access to housing for refugees in urban settings: The case of Turin, Italy. In International Journal of Housing Policy. Abingdon/Oxfordshire: Taylor & Francis.Google Scholar
  14. Borri, G. (2016). Mobilità’ intra-europea: il caso dei movimenti di ritorno a Torino di migranti titolari di protezione umanitaria. Mondi Migranti, Franco Angeli, 1/2016.Google Scholar
  15. Borri, G., & Fontanari, E. (2015). Lampedusa in Berlin: (Im)Mobilität innerhalb des europäischen Grenzregimes. In PERIPHERIE, Zeitschrift für Politik und Ökonomie in der Dritten Welt, 138/139, 35.Google Scholar
  16. Busso, S., Gargiulo, E., & Manocchi, M. (2013). Multiwelfare: Le trasformazioni dei welfare territoriali nella società dell’immigrazione, FIERI research report commissionato da Fondazione Compagnia di San Paolo e Fondazione Cassa di Risparmio di Cuneo. www.fieri.it.
  17. Butler, J. (2009). Frames of war: When is life grievable? London: Verso.Google Scholar
  18. Cardano, M. (2011). La ricerca qualitativa. Bologna: il Mulino.Google Scholar
  19. Cardano, M., Manocchi, M., & Venturini, G. L. (2011). Ricerche sociali: Un’introduzione alla metodologia delle scienze sociali. Roma: Carocci.Google Scholar
  20. Cooley, C. H. (1902). Human nature and the social order. New York: Scribner’s.Google Scholar
  21. Cooley, C. H. (1998). On self and social organization (S. Hans-Joachim, Ed.). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  22. Crépeau, F., Nakache, D., & Atak, I. (2007). International migration: Security concerns and human rights standards. Transcultural Psychiatry, 44(3), 311–337.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. European Asylum Support Office [EASO]. (2013). Annual report on the situation of asylum in the European Union 2012. Available at: http://www.statewatch.org/news/2013/jul/eu-easo-annual-report.pdf
  24. European Commission. (2016). FACTSHEET: Managing the refugee crisis – Italy: State of play report. Brussels, 10 February 2016. Available at: http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/home-affairs/what-we-do/policies/european-agenda-migration/background-information/docs/managing_the_refugee_crisis_-_italy_state_of_play_report_20160210_en.pdf
  25. European Council on Refugees and Exiles [ECRE]. (2016). Memorandum to the European Council Meeting 17–18 March 2016, Time to save the right to asylum. Brussels March 11, 2016. Available at: http://www.ecre.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/ecre-memorandum-time-to-save-the-right-to-asylum-11-march-2016.pdf
  26. European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights [FRA]. (2016). Asylum and migration into the EU in 2015. Available at: http://fra.europa.eu/sites/default/files/fra_uploads/fra-2016-fundamental-rights-report-2016-focus-0_en.pdf
  27. Feldman, A. (1994). On cultural anesthesia: From Desert Storm to Rodney King. American Ethnologist, 21(2), 404–418.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Fontanari, E. (2016). Soggettività en transit: (im)mobilità dei rifugiati in Europa tra sistemi di controllo e pratiche quotidiane di attraversamento dei confini. Mondi Migranti, Franco Angeli.Google Scholar
  29. Foucault, M. (1976). Histoire de la sexualité I : La volonté de savoir. Paris: Gallimard.Google Scholar
  30. Foucault, M. (1991). Governmentality, trans. R. Braidotti and revised by C. Gordon. In G. Burchell, C. Gordon & P. Miller (Eds.), The Foucault effect: Studies in governmentality (pp. 87–104). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  31. Goffman, E. (1961). Asylums: Essays on the social situation of mental patients and other inmates. New York: Anchor Books.Google Scholar
  32. Gold, R. (1958). Roles in sociological field observation. Social Forces, 36, 217–213.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Huysmans, J. (2000). The European Union and the securitization of migration. JCMS: Journal of Common Market Studies, 38(5), 751–777.Google Scholar
  34. Kirmayer, L. J., Lemelson, R., & Barad, M. (2007). Understanding trauma: Integrating biological, clinical, and cultural perspectives. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Kirmayer, L. J., Guzder, J., & Rousseau, C. (2014). Cultural consultation: Encountering the other in mental health care. New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Kleinman, A., & Kleinman, J. (1997). The appeal of experience: The dismay of images – cultural appropriations of suffering, in our times. In A. Kleinman, V. Das, & M. Lock (Eds.), Social suffering (pp. 1–23). Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  37. Malkki, L. H. (1992). National geographic: The rooting of peoples and the territorialization of national identity among scholars and refugees. Cultural Anthropology, 7(1), 24–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Malkki, L. H. (1996). Speechless emissaries: Refugees, humanitarianism, and dehistoricization. Cultural Anthropology, 11(3), 377–404.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Manocchi, M. (2011). “Questo sì che è un rifugiato”: La valutazione della domanda d’asilo e i processi di etichettamento. Interdipendenze, 4, 3–23.Google Scholar
  40. Manocchi, M. (2012). Richiedenti asilo e rifugiati politici: percorsi di ricostruzione identitaria – Il caso torinese. Milano: Franco Angeli.Google Scholar
  41. Marchetti, C. (2006). Un mondo di rifugiati: migrazioni forzate e campi profughi. Bologna: EMI.Google Scholar
  42. Marchetti, M. (Ed.). (2009). Rifugiati e richiedenti asilo. Mondi Migranti, 3. Milano: Franco Angeli.Google Scholar
  43. Marchetti, C., & Manocchi, M. (2016). Introduzione: Rifugiati in transito attraverso l’Europa. Mondi Migranti, Franco Angeli, 1/2016.Google Scholar
  44. Mead, G. H. (1934). Mind, self, and society: From the standpoint of a social behaviorist. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  45. Nawyn, S. J. (2011). “I have so many successful stories”: Framing social citizenship for refugees. Citizenship Studies, 15(6–7), 679–693.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Pizzorno, A. (2007). Il velo della diversità: Studi su razionalità e riconoscimento. Milano: Feltrinelli.Google Scholar
  47. Rajaram, P. K. (2002). Humanitarianism and representations of the refugee. Journal of Refugee Studies, 15(3), 247–264.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Rastello, L. (2010). La frontiera addosso: Così si deportano i diritti umani. Laterza: Roma-Bari.Google Scholar
  49. Reyneri, E. (2004). Education and the occupational pathways of migrants in Italy. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 30(6), 1145–1162.Google Scholar
  50. Rivetti, P. (2013). Empowerment without emancipation: Performativity and political activism among Iranian refugees in Italy and Turkey. Alternatives: Global, Local, Political, 38(4), 305–320.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Rodgers, G. (2004). Hanging out with forced migrants: Methodological and ethical challenges. Forced Migration Review, 21, 48–49.Google Scholar
  52. Sanyal, R. (2009). Contesting refugeehood: Squatting as survival in postpartition Calcutta. Social Identities: Journal for the Study of Race, Nation and Culture, 15(1), 67–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Sassen, S. (1999). Migranti, coloni, rifugiati: Dall’emigrazione di massa alla fortezza Europa. Milano: Feltrinelli.Google Scholar
  54. Schiavone, G. (2009). Il diritto d’asilo in Italia dopo il recepimento nell’ordinamento delle normative comunitarie: uno sguardo d’insieme tra il de iure e il de facto. Mondi Migranti, 3, 57–78.Google Scholar
  55. Schuster, L. (2009). Dublino II ed Eurodac: esame delle conseguenze (in)attese. Mondi Migranti, 3, 37–56.Google Scholar
  56. Sciolla, L. (2000). Riconoscimento e teoria dell’identità. In D. Della Porta, M. Greco, & A. Szakolczai (Eds.), Identità, riconoscimento, scambio. Laterza: Roma-Bari.Google Scholar
  57. Sewell, W. H. (1992). A theory of structure: Duality, agency and transformation. American Journal of Sociology, 98(1), 129.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Sigona, N. (2003). How can a “nomad” be a “refugee”? Kosovo Roma and labelling policy in Italy. Sociology, 37(1), 69–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Spradley, J. (1979). The ethnographic interview. Belmont: Wadsworth.Google Scholar
  60. Swiss Refugee Council, SFH-OSAR. (2013). Reception conditions in Italy: Report on the current situation of asylum seekers and beneficiaries of protection, in particular Dublin returnees. Berne, October 2013. Available at: https://www.refugeecouncil.ch/assets/news/english-website/reception-conditions-in-italy.pdf
  61. Thomas, W. I., & Znaniecki, F. (1927). The Polish peasant in Europe and America. New York: Alfred A. Knopf.Google Scholar
  62. Ticktin, M. (2005). Policing and humanitarianism in France: Immigration and the turn to law as state of exception. Interventions: International Journal of Postcolonial Studies, 7(3), 347–368.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees [UNHCR]. (2013). Raccomandazioni dell’UNHCR sugli aspetti rilevanti della protezione dei rifugiati in Italia, Luglio 2013. Available in the Italian language at: http://www.unhcr.it/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/raccomandazioni.pdf
  64. Van Aken, M. (2008). Rifugio Milano: vie di fuga e vita quotidiana dei richiedenti asilo. Torino: Carta Editore.Google Scholar
  65. Zetter, R. (1991). Labelling refugees: Forming and transforming a bureaucratic identity. Journal of Refugee Studies, 4(1), 39–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Zetter, R. (2007). More labels, fewer refugees: Remaking the refugee label in an era of globalization. Journal of Refugee Studies, 20(2), 172–192.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Zetter, R. (2009). La securitizzazione e le politiche europee in materia di asilo e rifugiati. Mondi Migranti, 3, 7–28.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Michele Manocchi
    • 1
  1. 1.Western Centre for Research on Migration and Ethnic RelationsWestern UniversityLondonCanada

Personalised recommendations