Enforcing precariousness: a comparative analysis of the limitations placed on the legal status of refugees

This thesis focuses on the manner in which the EU, the UK, and Canada respond to and engage with the refugee’s movement from a temporary to a more permanent legal status in the state. It is noted that this transition is increasingly problematized. A trend is noted in response to this among the jurisdictions examined, to exceptionalise refugee status through acts of legal categorisation and separation. These categorisations represent an attempt to re-assert control over refugees who arrived to the state in a spontaneous manner. I argue that this categorisation and fragmentation of refugee status is another means of managing life in the state and ultimately excluding refugees within the state. Refugees therefore experience a contradictory response to their presence. While they are continually reminded of the temporary nature of their legal status in the state, they are still required to demonstrate a willingness to integrate in to the host society. Their behaviour in the state is something that is once again recalled by the decision makers who determine whether they should ultimately be able to access citizenship status. In this thesis, I argue that in order to navigate a route to citizenship, the refugee must respond to the constant re-framing and re-contextualisation of her status in the state of asylum. As the thesis observes, this raises broader questions about the nature of citizenship and belonging

Accepted Version

Not peer reviewed