Migrations, Squatting and Radical Autonomy - Introduction

1 2 Migrations, Squatting and Radical Autonomy 3 Pierpaolo Mudu and Sutapa Chattopadhyay 4 Introduction 5 This book is a collective effort by a group of activists and researchers called Squatting Europe Kollective (SqEK).1 We have combined our knowledge and experience to represent current social trends from the point of view of those who occupy and squat in places in order to oppose oppression, injustice, and lack of autonomy enforced by dominant relations to ensure benefits to a few privileged groups. This book testifies to the level of conscious struggles here and now in Europe. The analyses, references and websites2 constitute a mine of information, otherwise scattered, for those who want to read the untold stories of migrants, Romas and refugees struggling through squatting, and take action. Organizing the knowledge of self-managed squats is a difficult task because the available information is oftentimes biased on the side of mainstream actors, as it is all too often produced by self-serving politicians, police reports, right-wing repressive campaigns, and mainstream academia and media. The information generated by squatter activists is often published in the form of zines, monographs and blogs, and published in native languages through local activist outlets. It is also a difficult task because keeping together a collective formed by individuals with very different origins and political practices is not simple (SqEK 2013). Summarizing research findings and praxis of scholars who are critical and engage in radical struggles is a challenging undertaking (Chatterton et al. 2010; Ruddick 2004; SqEK 2010). Added to this, we are aware of the role of language and the link between knowledge and power (Paasi 2015). Presenting this book in English or deducing every analysis in one language does not do justice to the rich diversity and the enormous wealth of knowledge presented in this manuscript that is related to hundreds of micro and macro social conflicts but still allows a wide circulation of stories that many readers could not be aware of. We think it is relevant to put together our experiences, thoughts and challenges for two vital reasons: firstly, to show the unique and long-term resistance to close borders and to repressive policies; and secondly, to document the active participation of migrants in the squatter movement and in our societies at large. 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 BK-DEP-MUDU-160170-Intro.indd 1 4/6/2016 5:24:07 PM 2 Mudu & Chattopadhyay 1 Objectives and Aims of this Book 2 In this book, we put forth a collective effort towards understanding migrations and squatting in Western Europe and North America. We do not focus on either migration or squatting exclusively. Consequently, there are two points to be noted. Firstly, we are fully aware that migrations and squatting are important phenomena outside Europe and North America. In Europe, Social Centers are spaces, usually originated in the squatting of an abandoned place, where people experiment with non-institutional action and association through self-management. They can be ascribed to the long-term fractured tradition of communism and anarchism, obviously filtered by the new radical trends, for example feminism or autonomism (Gaillard 2013; Mudu 2012). The history of Social Centers and squatting has been mainly documented as occurring in Western Europe, but this is changing and can also be traced in Eastern European countries (Piotrowski 2011). Social Centers are spaces originally squatted, and several are legalized for organizing social activities. The first examples can be traced back to the 1960s, first in Amsterdam and then France (Pechu 2010), Germany (Vasudevan 2011), Denmark (Mikkelsen and Karpantshof 2001), Italy (Mudu 2004) and Switzerland (Pattaroni 2007). The UK experienced a different pattern: for years, squatting was mainly linked to housing unavailability, but in the last century Social Centers were established (Common Place 2008). We aim to further more detailed discussions based on the analyses of European and North American studies, following the peculiar nature of repressive policies and mechanisms that prevent and control migrations from the most impoverished regions of the world. Secondly, although the book is focused on migrants and squatters, we must be aware of the fact that we are dealing with two heterogeneous groups, convenient for some general discourses but too vague when addressing, in particular, the trends that combine migration and squatting; therefore we explore their meanings in detail in many chapters. The book has two major objectives. First, we explore how the intersections between migrants and the radical squatter movements have evolved over the past decades and describe how the policies and discourses on the nexus of victimage (migrants as powerless victims) or security (migrants as dangerous security treats) and precarity (migrants occupying menial or illegal jobs) are resisted. Following up with the aforementioned aspects, we analyze how squatted spaces can be transformed by migrants in different European cities. We illustrate, for example, the different mechanisms of solidarity protests by migrant-squatters and Social Center activists, elaborating on: resurgence when discrimination comes from above or below; the productivities/arts of struggles against deep exclusion; and different kinds of collaborative strategies of struggle in context-specific and situated histories. This leads us to investigate how different spatialities are conceived and realized by radical practices, and to discuss the difficulties and critical issues that emerge when there is a real attempt to build and run selfmanaged, horizontal structures by heterogeneous subjects like migrants and radical activists. Eventually, we explore how the double repressive device of criminalizing migrants and squatting can be challenged. 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 BK-DEP-MUDU-160170-Intro.indd 2 4/6/2016 5:24:08 PM Introduction 3 1 Organization of this Book 2 In the following paragraphs, we introduce the reader to the main themes and questions raised by the authors of the book. The book is organized in five sections. In Part I, we introduce the global context of bordering and frontiering that constructs a very articulated topography of the denial for many humans to be “subjects of lives”; this happens through a range of violent tactics that aim to dehumanize, criminalize and victimize migrants instead as subjects that threaten undeniably genuine rights-holders. Borders and courtrooms are two of the main criminalization infrastructures. In the US, Operation Streamline is a fast-track programme, costing between US$7–10 million per month that removes judicial discretion and allows prosecution of individuals apprehended crossing the Mexico-US border. Andrew Burridge, in his chapter, describes the Operation Streamline dragnet and resistance to it. Across the ocean, Frontex is a European agency with a 114-million-euro budget, in 2015, to reinforce border control and surveillance at the European borders. Sara Casella Colombeau introduces readers to the expanding and invasive growth of Frontex. All the huge b/ordering apparatuses are part of the “strategies of spatializations” that create “Undocumented Territories” – territories that are created by and for human beings who are illegalized by states. Henk van Houtum and Aparna Kolar investigated these “Undocumented Territories”. When the border is concentrated in one place and crossing border movements are denied, we find people trapped, as is the case of Calais that “divides” France from the UK. The case of Calais represents one of the places of denial of the whole official rethoric on human rights circulating in Europe. But the solidarity squatting practices set up by the Calais Migrant Solidarity Group are one of the most interesting because illegalized migrants are able to resist extreme violent police tactics. The Calais Migrant Solidarity Group reflects on how different squatted spaces function in Calais. They introduce us to the issues of lack of shelter and housing faced by “non-citizen” migrants, similar to redlined minority “citizens”. Part II of the book focuses on struggles around housing and housing policies that prevent a large proportion of the population, migrants and squatters from occupying a place to live. Migrants are confined in low quality houses and to the lowest level of the housing market. They dwell in degraded private apartments and, sometimes, in subsidized social houses. What happens to those who have no access to any subsidized (social) housing? The cases of large cities such as Marseille in France, Rome in Italy and Berlin in Germany offer many examples of struggles where migrants have become active producers of their spaces of life. Florence Bouillon discusses the essential political questions that squats, used for housing purposes and mainly inhabited by migrants in France, pose to the societies in which they are located. She does so using her ten years of experience squatting in Marseille and Paris. Nadia Nur and Alejandro Sethman describe the participation of migrants within Rome’s “Right to Inhabit” movement and analyze its implications on the expansion of rights for non-native Italians. Their description provides us with a new viewpoint on the development of housing 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 BK-DEP-MUDU-160170-Intro.indd 3 4/6/2016 5:24:08 PM 4 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 Mudu & Chattopadhyay patterns for migrants, migrant participation in squats and the political dimension of migrant housing activism that configures an emergent urban citizenship. Also small cities present interesting cases, such as the one of Catania, described by Federica Frazzetta, where a collective mostly composed of students has supported the squatting of a building by Roma migrants. The shortage of housing also affects students, in particular migrant students, who become fundamental political players in many major cities. Cesare Di Feliciantonio describes this effectively through student narratives. The concluding chapter of this section illustrates squatting experiences of Turkish migrant women in the early 1980s in Berlin. Azozomox and Duygu Gürsel, in their intervention, raise several vital questions. How did the struggle of migrants get marginalized in the narrative of urban struggles? How does the squatting of migrant women reveal the limits and the possibilities of the squatting movement? How do the untold stories of migrant squatting change our understanding of migration and the squatting movement? Part III expands on diverse issues of exclusion, criminalization and precarity. The migrant-squatter combination is discussed in detail by Stephania Grohman. The migrant-squatter combination is of crucial importance, not only for the UK. In fact, while neither squatters nor migrants enjoy much support in public discourse, the convergence of the two groups, in the figure of the “migrantsquatter”, combines two distinct modes of exclusion into an unparalleled image of threat to the territorial control of citizens. Severe modes of exclusion experienced by the Roma introduce us to the “Roma question” and the creation of slums. The French case is analyzed by Thomas Aguilera, who starts his analysis with two questions: how informal settlements and their inhabitants have been racialized since the 1960s by state policies and the media, and how this process has impeded the disruptive use of squatting by these groups and their supporters. He next explores how slum dwellers are able to resist and exploit resources to survive. The resistance Aguilera refers to is subversive in the sense that it challenges the rules of housing as well as social and urban policies. The same subversive resistance can be traced in Italy. For almost three years between 2003 and 2005 in Bologna, Romanians (Roma, for the most part) took part in an occupation that represented a complex political experience, participated in and analyzed by Fulvia Antonelli and Domenico Perrotta. The Bologna occupation meant not only a place of shelter and organization for migrants in transit or intending to settle in Italy, but also an opportunity for migrants and activists to build common pathways towards making claims for the right to a home, free mobility of persons, and a decent job. The claims of these rights are part of the struggle of the refugee group “Lampedusa in Hamburg” in Germany and the solidarity campaign organized between 2013 and 2015. Simone Borgstede shows how the solidarity campaign successfully forged and involved various spaces of conflict, including the St. Pauli neighborhood, and questions who belongs to where and what it means for “a community” to host people living without recognized equal rights and access to its resources. After the first three sections that have analyzed examples of the harshest conflicts and difficult struggles we have in Europe, we expand BK-DEP-MUDU-160170-Intro.indd 4 4/6/2016 5:24:08 PM Introduction 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 5 our reflections on the tough situations in which migrants, squatters and migrantsquatters find themselves. Diverse strategies of squatting are encompassed in Part IV, exploring the asymmetry that exists between migrants and their supporters, and the issue of gender roles.3 The first case of asymmetry that we explore is related to the “right to sanctuary”. Serin Houston illuminates the processes whereby migrants seeking sanctuary are involved in squatted spaces provided by religious groups in the US. The right to seek refuge has opened new terrains of struggle that show the complexities of immigration policies, migrant experiences and strategies to support squatting. Based on his experience in Madrid in Spain, Miguel Martínez reflects on these complexities and the relationship between migrants and native political activists in their practices of squatting. This relationship took different forms in time, and different specific dynamics of autonomy, solidarity, engagement and empowerment are identifiable. These dynamics can be outlined when analyzing squatting experiences in detail. This is what azozomox and the International Women’s Group show. Migrant stories can be self-transformative through a process of collective and mutual learning. The reasons for squatting, the discussions on gender issues, paternalistic approaches by leftist parties an inherent lack of comprehension of “the migrant” women by native Germans are covered in an extensive manner from the personal narratives of four women activists from the International Women’s Space, interviewed by azozomox. Part V highlights several autonomous struggles, mainly carried out and adopted by Social Centers and migrants, to carve a niche in their neighborhoods and among native communities, while at the same time adopting often contradictory tactics to oppose state repression. Tina Steiger uses the case of Trampolinehuset, an autonomous Center for refugees in Copenhagen, to shed light on the diverse and broad set of actors involved to actively challenge repressive asylum policies. Romain Filhol, by analyzing the movement of migrants and refugees in Caserta (Southern Italy), introduces one of most contradictory issues at stake in these struggles involving migrants and radical squatters. The issue is the need to provide legal papers for migrants and, at the same time, refuse to negotiate with institutions that are responsible for the state of affairs, institutions that are often corrupt and even run in open support of mafia activities. Greece offers a case where negotiations with institutions have not represented a characteristic of the autonomous groups. Vasiliki Makrygianni describes and analyzes how several spaces of solidarity, resistance and struggles have recently emerged, and Athens has become a privileged field of struggle. She highlights how much squatting as praxis of struggle, resistance and re-appropriation of the deprived means of production and reproduction is gaining ground. The permanent state of economic crisis faced by many countries leads us to rethink economic models. Claudio Cattaneo does this by drawing our attention to how to sustain an economically efficient, ecologically effective and socially just strategy for degrowth to contrast the capitalist imperative of infinite growth. He adequately distinguishes left and right degrowth proposals. From a short case study in New York, in the 1980s, Hans Pruijt offers readers a different take on the migrant-squatter analysis. BK-DEP-MUDU-160170-Intro.indd 5 4/6/2016 5:24:08 PM 6 Mudu & Chattopadhyay 14 He unfolds potentially contradictory issues related to the “class”, “belonging”, “positionality”, “hierarchy” and “difference” among squatters. This chapter presents the difficulties of being accepted in deprived neighborhoods and the potential to export experiences from one country, the Netherlands, to another, the US. The Netherlands have had the longest tradition of squatting in Europe. Deanna Dadusc investigates a series of issues that are fundamental to the struggles in the Netherlands and globally. She documents how migrants use squatting as a tool of protest and to gain visibility, as well as to open collective spaces to organize their struggles in a systematic way. She also addresses the contradiction of struggling to get legal papers for migrants and activism to create a world of “no papers at all”. In the next sections we discuss some general implications of experiences and practices that are addressed in detail in the chapters that compose the five sections of this book. 15 Why Migrations, Squatting and Radical Autonomy? 16 The three components of the title of our book have no obvious sequence or single definition. “Migrant” is perceptibly the most difficult word to use, and we cannot ignore questions of language, definitions, theories, labels or controversies. For many years it has often been combined with adjectives to distinguish good integrated migrants from criminal, malevolent, irregular, illegal, bad migrants. The destabilization of the meta-narratives around the binary of “integrated” opposed to “criminals” finds materiality in that area which seems to be its own cornerstone: land (in particular social construction of space) and law (in particular citizenship) (Benjamin 2008). Migration comes from the Latin word migratio, i.e., “to move from one place to another”, probably related to the Greek verb ameibein, “to change”. We consider migration an individual and collective experience and we prefer to use migrants in the plural, not in the singular form, because of the insurmountable plurality that exists and must be accounted for. Is “migrant”, in the context of squatting, the right word to use? This question extends to all the other definitions attached to migrants, such as foreigners, newcomers, settlers, outsiders, expatriates, exiled and so on. Reconsidering all these definitions and adjectives, which basically can be applied to the entire population, for migrants, is not to deny their existence. Indeed it means taking into account the dynamics of the construction of space of migrants and squatters, the categories that are used and contain them, and the way they are disarticulated. What if unexpectedly migrants, the objects of rights, impossible citizens, take the risk to struggle? Who is the outsider or insider when people (mainly illegalized migrants) join to struggle against the securitization of citizenship? Yet, if migrants are global “external security threats” to the established order, then there are also “internal threats” that are represented by real ongoing practices such as racism, sexism, homophobia and fascism. Resisting these practices has been at the core of many squatting movements. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 BK-DEP-MUDU-160170-Intro.indd 6 4/6/2016 5:24:08 PM Introduction 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 7 Also the label “squat” is questionable in various countries; for example, in Spain and Italy, the term “occupy” is used in a broad way that includes the term “squatting”. Squatter is translated as kraaker in the Netherlands, besætter in Denmark and not used in Greece (van der Steen et al. 2014). Instead of naming these spaces “squats”, adjectives like “recuperated” and “liberated” for buildings or spaces are preferred (Martínez’s chapter). Squatting is usually recognized as an action of occupying a piece of land, a building or an apartment without legal property rights. This general definition is of no use if it is not put in the context of the different places where it happens and of the different struggles that are concomitant (SqEK 2013). In Europe, there is a long cycle of squatting for housing mainly related to migrations and to setting up intentional communities (Martínez 2012; SqEK, Cattaneo and Martinez 2014). Squatting has occurred mainly in big cities, but small urban cases also exist and are important in setting up forms of struggle (see Filhol’s chapter).4 Social Centers have also been related to innovative actions, such as critical mass bicycle rides in cities (Lorenzi 2012). At the core of these experiences, there is the self-management of many activities and direct action to reclaim spaces denied under the capitalist regimes. The direct actions performed in the occupied vacant properties and city spaces are a variety of creative and self-sustaining activities such as housing, guerrilla city greening projects, autonomy over food production, educational and artistic workshops, libraries, counter pedagogies, discussion forums, etc. (Moore and Smart 2015). In many cities, squatters have constituted some of the strongest opposition to urban renewal projects (Holm and Kuhn 2011). The Social Centers of Europe have vehemently protested the repressive state-capitalist trends of social exclusion that have multiplied in Europe over the past several decades (SqEK 2013; SqEK, Cattaneo and Martinez 2014). Nonetheless, these positive endeavours/initiatives to reclaim autonomy, self-liberation and self-determination by reusing/recycling resources that were previously left unused or squandered have been repeatedly contested and stopped by hideous surveillance and restrictive mechanisms by state police and judicial apparatuses, which is a matter of continual concern for squatters. Squatting is not a marginal social practice in Europe and has been linked to the shortage of housing after World War II and mass migration flows between and within European countries. But the historical and theoretical analyses or relationships between migration and squatting are omitted, ignored, or at best, overlooked. Sometimes the dialectics are placed in the discursive framework of illegality, precarity, unhealthy living conditions and empathy. One of the relationships that we want to highlight is with the concept, and its application, of autonomy. The concept of “autonomy” is at the base of a demand for a better life that originated in ancient Greece (Castoriadis 1991). Autonomy is at the core of any project of democracy that advocates participation, responsibility and critical engagement with the political life, the life of the polis. Is this the current pattern of western democracies? Several social movements have devoted their energies to addressing this “rhetorical” question and re-defining and affirming autonomous subjects for new models of democracy and international relations. BK-DEP-MUDU-160170-Intro.indd 7 4/6/2016 5:24:08 PM 8 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 Mudu & Chattopadhyay Autonomy can be defined as either a process of labour self-valorization, negation of state power, or the rejection of colonial domination (Böhm et al. 2010). Regarding the first definition it is worth citing the Italian autonomist tradition that configured autonomy (autonomia) as independence of the workers from the general interest of the capitalist class without political mediation of parties or trade unions (Katsiaficas 1997). Autonomia was carried out by a conscious violation of laws and rejection of rules (Berardi 2007). The second definition of autonomy is related to a struggle for negation, the ability to say ‘no’ to existing forms of power and domination (Böhm et al. 2010; Holloway 2010). A third discourse on autonomy is related to post-development theories, calling for selfdetermination and self-organization of people against the imaginary of development (Böhm et al. 2010; Escobar 1992). When we link it to migrations, the concept of autonomy acquires a fourth meaning. In fact, the process of becoming autonomous is related to a series of interventions, around which a distance from the country of origin, relatives and the known environment are laid, allowing the distanced person to problematize who and where they can be and how they can be political subjects. The reasons that underlie migrations vary greatly, and we know that in many cases migrations are forced or induced by circumstantial and political changes or other people’s activities, such as environmental disasters, poverty, sexual emancipation, war and persecution, and the like (Klein 2007). Most of the time different reasons to move create patterns that distance migrants from their place of origin or force them to “escape” their unsafe domicile. An analysis of these actions of autonomy is therefore fundamental in order to better understand migrations as a “social movement” and a necessity depending on individuals’ will. This analysis is also worth studying because autonomy is historically specific, highly contextual and contested, and variably used within various political traditions, and “such flexibility in usage and interpretation makes it a dangerously fuzzy concept” (Pickerill and Chatterton 2006: 4). Projects of autonomy are also attributable to diverse migration trajectories that see migrants running their private business (ethnic economies, for example) often celebrated for their autonomous entrepreneurial spirit, but autonomy in this sense obviously offers very limited room for critical engagement against injustice, segregation and racism (Mudu 2007). This leads us to not underestimate the incorporation of autonomy within oppressive projects characterized by discourses of creativity and independence, or development by autarkic local practices and self-determination that imply “closed and patrolled frontiers”. The authors of this book have been looking for a definition of autonomy that is collective, invented by different subjects, originated by different perspectives, placed at the intersection of the occupation of spaces and social radical struggles. Realistically, migrants are autonomous when they squat alone without the initial support of native radical squatters, although some cooperation may occur later on (detailed in Martínez’s chapter). At the same time, we delve into other expressions of autonomy which are radical and not built on the acceptance of injustices, but constitute a continuous intervention against the roots of power relations and a challenge to the functioning of corporate-driven capitalist societies. We can also conceive BK-DEP-MUDU-160170-Intro.indd 8 4/6/2016 5:24:08 PM Introduction 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 9 autonomy as a real non-hierarchical association among people (Katsiaficas 1997), or autonomy as the “right to self-government” (explained in Steiger’s chapter). Borgstede (in Chapter 13) simply defines radical autonomy as: “you do not ask for what you need, you know what you need and try to gain with others, you have the right to have rights”. Autonomy contains all these meanings together and it would be limiting to impose a narrow definition which would not do justice to the variety and variability of the different contexts and actors involved in practically defining it. At the same time these different claims around what autonomy might be open up spaces of tension and struggle around what autonomy might mean (Böhm et al. 2010). Eventually, autonomy means opening up frontiers of resistance and change towards radical practices, self-management and an equal society (Böhm et al. 2010). In our framework, we highlight the urgency to re-think the space of the “newcomers”, and this implies questioning the space between property regimes and citizenry. What is turned into a political contention is the fact that unequal function of the property regime and unequal access to national citizenship are in direct conflict with the right to decent and affordable housing, on the one hand, and the right to be granted a decent migrant or asylum status, on the other (Martínez and Grohman’s chapters and Anderson’s foreword). To outline the relationship between squatting, for housing or for Social Centers, and migrants, we have adopted a set of mixed theoretical and empirical frameworks. The real experiences that tie migrants to squatting and radical politics answer the methodological question on how to articulate these three enormous and cumbersome concepts chosen for the title. We explore how squatting offers an alternative to dominant and repressive anti-immigration regularization policies, and their implications on the social acceptance of migrants. This alternative is not a single successful pattern to be replicated and exported, but it is arranged around many attempts and failures to host, live and struggle with people that speak different languages, and have different social origins. The interaction between migrants and radical squatters is always full of surprises, frustrations, uncertainties, mistakes, passions, joy and fear. The relation between national and migrant squatters can even reproduce “colonial” relationships, backed by the “dream” behind the choice of the nationals to engage with migrants as part of an international proletariat that the activists must organize. Migrants are not usually anticapitalist or autonomous. The intersection of migrants, radical struggles and squatting reveal an incredible set of multiscalar mechanisms that call into question the manufactured consensus of “who belongs where”, as well as the prevailing configuration of housing and cultural rights. Questioning belonging mechanisms aims at building explicit politics of scale to contest and reconfigure the particular differentiations and hierarchies that shape citizenship and prevent the intersection of migrants and squatters (Smith 1996). This intersection is not invisible to authorities and, in fact, there is an invention of the “migrant-squatter” by police and the media, but it is related to the fear of the hybrid creature that results from their combination, a creature that is deemed an invader of space (see Grohman’s chapter). But the migrant-squatter has demonstrated a long-term ability to unsetttle the re-proposition of the old Athenian way to re-produce metics. BK-DEP-MUDU-160170-Intro.indd 9 4/6/2016 5:24:08 PM 10 Mudu & Chattopadhyay 36 In the fifth and fourth centuries BC, metics (freed slaves, artists and merchants) designed the status of foreigners, with a word originating from metá meaning change, and oîkos meaning house, but also eco is defined as economy or ecology. As often happens, one word that has several meanings makes us reflect on the condition of social change, related to where people settle and how resources are used, when privileges are enforced to create “inferior” status for metics, who in old Athens could not own property or marry a citizen. The inferior status and the “disturbance” brought by the migrant-squatter leads us to a different way of inventing cosmopolitanism, a fourth case other than the three identified by Harvey as “out of philosophical reflection”, “out of an assessment of practical requirements and basic human needs” and “out of the ferment of social movements” (Harvey 2009). The first two cases point to the idea of imagining and claiming rights, and to the idea of nations as the main counterpart. Although Harvey is skeptical on cosmopolitanism as the exclusive preserve of the elite, he envisions both worker cosmopolitanism and ecological cosmopolitanism (Gidwani 2006). The third case looks for cosmopolitanism built out of social movements that work on long-term perspectives; but migrants are not a social movement in the popular academic discourse but a movement for existence (Fominaya and Cox 2013) – a movement for existence with a spatio-temporal frame of “here and now” (see chapter by Dadusc). The cosmopolitanism invented by migrant-squatters and squatters building their politics of scale and steering to autonomous radical subjects is a fourth kind. As soon as a cosmopolitanism which protects the right to freedom of mobility comes into being, there arises a new social duty which is clearly different from the institutional one to regulate mobility. The latter is conditioned by and mined with repression and oppression. Migrants and squatters represent themselves as subjects who have a “duty” to take action against the lottery of citizenships, begging for rights, the “reason of state” and the new war against movement of people, we are reminded of the war against the marginalized, sexed and racialized people (Federici 2004, Nyers 2003). This duty comes from answering in practice several questions that are disseminated and brought forward in this introductory part. Migrants and squatters work out a duty out of a hypothesis of rights; that is, rights that must be socially justified and proved. This duty has to be connected to the existing and desired social obligations of solidarity and hospitality. This duty is exerted in the grey area of the almost uncodifiable right of resistance, of disobedience to oppression and illegal acts carried out in states of need. 37 The Right to be “Here and Now” 38 The short-term view of the migratory process that characterizes immigration policies and popular media constructions of migrants impress on people that migrants are, on the whole, security threats, undermining the cultural homogeneity of host societies (Castles 2004; Golash-Boza 2009). Current economic crises are blamed on the increase in numbers of illegalized migrants. These policies are formulated on models that construct divisionary borders between migrants from western 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 39 40 41 42 43 BK-DEP-MUDU-160170-Intro.indd 10 4/6/2016 5:24:08 PM Introduction 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 11 metropoles and those from southern nations, in particular Arab countries, who had colonial relations with Europe (Bigo 2006; van Houtum 2010). A “border” is not simply a line or a benign construct but a set of apparatuses that racializes and marginalizes, and a sheath that segregates large parts of the world (Walia 2013; see Part I of the book). Borders not only signal the direction in which money flows, billions of dollars or euros or other currencies, but also how the economy is shaped socially, for example with the need of reactionary and violent mobilization of people to patrol on land and maritime borders or a dragnet that eliminates outsiders (see Burridge’s and Casella Colombeau’s chapters). It is outside the scope of this book, but it is important to not forget migrants within risk construction patterns that offer a reduction of their spaces simply as spaces of flows organized by criminals. There is a widespread recognition of the uselessness of border controls to stop migrants or the justification of the existence or creation of borders – the maintenance and security for which have increased the toll of deaths and imprisoned vulnerable people. What should be done when the legal b/ordering strategies are illegal or justified on unjust racist principles? Why do such apparatuses continue to exist? How do migrants counter them? What if the law prohibits asylum seekers from working or pursuing education for an uncertain amount of time, marked by Kafkaesque bureaucratic procedures? If migration is analytically defined or perceived as mere movement of people across spaces and networks, the definition stays superficial and ignores many factors, reasons and contexts under which people move. Furthermore, following the histories of migration, colonialism, global trade, arms trade and militaristicneocolonialist interventions, the bourgeoisie’s over-consumption and overaccumulation (Luxemburg 1963; Chattopadhyay 2014), the pertinent question that becomes apparent is, where lies the legitimacy of the EU or North American governments in rejecting the environmental and war refugees and asylum seekers? Departing from the conventional discourses of migration that depict migrants as “victims” “trapped between state and capital” (see azozomox and Gürsel’s chapter), if migration is re-analyzed from more radical perspectives (e.g., feminist or autonomist), then it stands as a peculiar social movement. Migrants during their trajectories need to reconsider gender roles and when involved in squatting they have to tackle directly, without the filter of any institution, populist views of women and how patriarchy is taken for granted or how the manifestations of patriarchy are overlooked even in “advanced” democracies. In many cases, women squatter migrants want to make real the possibilities of lives that disarticulate patriarchal systems of capitalist exploitation. This disarticulation happens through the acceptance of a common gender condition, the refusal of difference between migrants and non-migrants, and eventually the rejection of the visions of the world that are imposed by privileged classes. However, because of prominent queer activism, the situation is often complicated by the fact that in many squats the political activities avoid the common fallacy of equating gender only with women. Consequently, simplified feminist approaches that insist on the primacy of gender, treating structures such as gender and race as mutually exclusive, thereby marginalizing racism and other structures BK-DEP-MUDU-160170-Intro.indd 11 4/6/2016 5:24:08 PM 12 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 Mudu & Chattopadhyay of oppression, are challenged. Succinctly, if migration is considered the mere movement of people, we miss the most vital point – that it significantly glosses over a set of bio-political devices that aim to subjugate and constrict migrant bodies and souls by controlling their social and economic aspects of life (Foucault 1979). Migrations encompass the social and subjective dimensions of movement, challenges and experiences in resisting violence at borders, precarious working conditions and racism in neighborhoods, and highlight the creativity of migrants as autonomous individual subjects in discovering and self-managing commons in solidarity with native radicals. Radical movements, in this sense, are largely trajectories of people that provoke direct changes that have implications for personal, social and environmental future revolutions. Nevertheless, migrations have always represented: 1) challenges while establishing social orders, 2) conditions of generation or re-generation of societies, and 3) subversive acts for those crossing national borders without legal documents (Papadopoulos et al. 2008; Bojadžijev and Karakayalı 2010; Mezzadra 2011). Although at a normative level the restrictions on migrations act as a fundamental factor to regulate the job market, migrants are treated as a dangerous social exception. Western economies have been and are dependent on a migrant workforce. Yet harsh, convoluted and expensive regularization processes keep the status of particular migrant workers illegitimate so their labour can be over-used and de-valued, and this is framed within a labour market that keeps the relevant workforce out. “In Europe, rights and resources that were formerly distributed on the basis of universalism – albeit the universalism of the white, male, able-bodied subject – are now distributed on the basis of work. It is the ‘worker citizen’ or the taxpayer who deserves these rights. The rise of the worker citizen has seen the development of two types of undeservingness: idleness (the unemployed citizen) and not belonging (the migrant)” (Anderson’s foreword in this volume). Over the past few decades, with the movements of people on-the-margin to the richest parts of the world, border controls and migration management have become pivotal in the capitalist discourse and for capitalist exploitation for profit generation (Balibar and Wallerstein 1991). Histories of migrations clearly show the failure of global capitalism and prolonged repression of those marginalized (see Makrygianni’s chapter) – an “apparent” failure because the real purpose of restrictive migration policies is not to prevent people from migrating, but rather to produce a disciplined (labour) army of people that accepts marginalization in the name of better chances for the future, amnesties and the like (Cornelius et al. 1994). The EU’s migration policy is an examplar in the circular way they facilitate labour migration and mobility while discouraging settlement (Feldman 2011). The increase in people crossing borders without legal documents also contests the existence of the nation-state, national boundaries, national identities and inherited privileges by citizenship status (Bauder 2003; Hayter 2000). Then citizenship and legality nexus, which are built upon a broad array of juridical categories, are challenged by migrations. Squatting adds other dimensions to this challenge because several key social aspects are put into question: 1) the neoliberal project of accumulation by dispossession; 2) the efficiency of privatization BK-DEP-MUDU-160170-Intro.indd 12 4/6/2016 5:24:08 PM Introduction 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 13 and “free” market as optimum service providers; 3) the idea of private property as the cornerstone of capitalist sovereignty and 4) the “bourgeois” rule of law characterized by the contradiction between universal rights and their actual implementation through national legislation (Aureli and Mudu 2015). Let us concentrate on the fourth point in the following paragraphs of this section. The tragic epilogues of policies against migrants are written time and again in global histories. There are famous universal principles, not legally binding, such as the ones stated by the United Nations General Assembly in 1948. Everyone has the right to freedom of movement and residence within the borders of each state… Everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country… (Universal Declaration of Human Rights 1948: Article 13) But mainstream ideologies also recognize these principles, and one does not need to be a radical to believe in them. So, a paradoxical issue would be that radical movements can merely be the critical consciousness of legal orders that regulate the movement of people. That is the reason why we need to describe a different cosmopolitanism instrumental in creating previously nonexistent subjectivities. But if these subjectivities are not able to modify other subjects and the institutions, freedom of movement becomes a mere statement of principle. Migration and legality controls are juxtaposed with racism, sexism and classism with a total exclusion of migrants and their families as “aliens”, putting a ban on their cross-border movements at times of crises and on their threadbare lives in host nations (Agamben 2003; Chattopadhyay 2013). Although an increasingly salient aspect of western nations lies in the recognition of the fundamental respect of human rights, in reality, none of the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights conventions are respected, as activists and scholars claim that racial discrimination, harassment, ghettoization, segregation and violence towards migrant populations persist across European Union (EU) member states (Balibar and Wallerstein 1991; Fekete 1997). It is established that the post-9/11 attacks in New York and Washington DC, post3/11 attacks in Madrid and post-7/7 attacks in London had no connection with migrants, refugees or asylum seekers. Still, the increasing global apartheid geopolitics are deceptively juxtaposed with a global war against illegalized migrants, the mystifying global ‘war on terror’. These events have resulted in repressive b/ordering mechanisms through stricter policies. This is why this book starts with a section dedicated to the b/ordering framework that creates the “migrants”. Without borders there are no migrants. The geopolitics of borders has inscribed the circulation of people within new juridical hierarchies (Rigo 2007) fueled by a “differentiating machine” of unequal spaces of citizenship rights (Isin 2002). Reflecting on migration and squatting in conjunction offers an opportunity to explore ways in which we can fight against the positioning of migrants and citizens as competitors for the increasingly poor privileges of membership (Anderson’s foreword in this volume) and against the regimes of permanent temporariness that are increasingly enforced (Picker and Pasquetti 2015). These fights are carried out through squatting and BK-DEP-MUDU-160170-Intro.indd 13 4/6/2016 5:24:08 PM 14 Mudu & Chattopadhyay 31 Social Center activities where citizenship is conceived ‘beyond the state’ or rejected as the constitutive ground of the political (Tyler and Marciniak 2013; Aureli and Mudu 2015). Squatting for Social Centers and housing has also meant an action, or a collective political tool/mechanism, to collaborate and build solidarity networks through mutual aid and horizontality to actively and directly resist detention, deportation, and unfair immigration policies, and to challenge the legitimacy of immigration law enforcement and profits made from the current enforcement regime. In reality, different spatialities have been conceived and realized by radical practices. Abandoned space is recuperated and named not by authorities but by squatters, territorial stigmatization is challenged, gentrification opposed and borders disarticulated. Readers will find themselves interpreting a range of spaces that include not only Social Centers or abandoned squatted buildings, but also churches (kirkeasyl), “jungles”, Kharabas, slums and sanctuaries. Multiple political scales are built, sometime clearly identifiable: transnational (see Borgstede’s chapter), international (Burridge’s and Casella Colombeau’s chapters), national (van Houtum and Kolar’s chapter) and local (Antonelli and Perrotta’s chapter). But, quite often, embedded scalarities are the norm (see the chapter by Calais Migrant Solidarity Group). A range of political issues, not usually discussed, emerge when relations and structures have to be built by heterogeneous subjects such as migrants and activists within all these “deviant” spaces. But it is an endless spatial struggle (Makrygianni’s chapter). This is not a book on a peculiar niche of social issues, on odd or rare events. On the contrary, we maintain that repressive policies that target migrants and squatters are likely to be extended to the rest of the population (having already extended to non-humans); we sincerely wish to address the difficulty in setting up forms of resistance and different paths oriented by/to self-management. Having described the defeats, misery and disillusionment of various struggles, nevertheless, still leads us to reaffirm the fact that these forms of resistance are the only routes to escape and to eke out a living for those committed to freedom of movement, social justice, redistribution of resources and alternative lifestyles. 32 Squatting for Housing and Migrants 33 In Europe, Social Centers and squatted houses have different national and social patterns. To give an example, squatting solely dedicated to art performances exists in France and the Netherlands but are negligible in Spain and Italy. Southern European countries lack a welfare state, so the discussion on forms of income related to the activities occurring in the Social Centers is a long-term one (Membretti 2007). In any case, squatting produces a different economy (SqEK, Cattaneo and Martinez 2014). The interactions of radical activists and migrants in struggles carried out through squatting, or from occupied spaces, deserve careful analysis regarding the contexts, political trends, and prevalent typologies (Pruijt 2012). As pointed out in the previous section, squatting, in particular for housing, entails key social aspects that are related to capital accumulation, privatization and 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 BK-DEP-MUDU-160170-Intro.indd 14 4/6/2016 5:24:09 PM Introduction 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 15 property regime. Current capitalism is oriented toward creating a huge lack of housing for the population. Public housing projects have been abandoned in favour of “free” market housing controlled by big private speculators. Lower- and even, in many cities, middle-class individuals and families do not have access to the renting market, not to mention buying a property. But the house is not a commodity like any other; it is not a simple object, and housing policies have become a tool to marginalize people who are already in a precarious position. Right to ownership is more important than the right to housing. Right to ownership is regulated by a property regime based on and fueling a sharp class division that offers no alternatives except for segregation in suburban derelict buildings if not homelessness to those who are in lower classes. Squatting is a way to proclaim one’s existence, directly, physically and materially (Bouillon and Nur and Sethman chapters). Although ignored or taken for granted in many migration studies, segregation that enforces social hierarchies and class divisions are problematic issues. Racialization and de-politicization are some of the devices used to deny the right to housing (see Frazzetta’s chapter), but this can create the conditions for disruptive practices and subversive resistance (detailed in Aguilera’s chapter). Many cases described in this book also offer the possibility of adding an element regarding the so-called “integration” of migrants because the possibility for poor people, in this case under-privileged migrants, to aspire to decent living conditions is negotiated with the working class, and this is clear when considering housing and education, for example (see chapters by Frazzetta, Bouillon and azozomox and IWS). Real solidarity, factual negotiation on the desires and needs of migrants, happens both in positive and negative terms at the bottom of the social hierarchies. Roma migrants have been and are undoubtedly at the bottom of European social hierarchies. Their condition is full of stories of migrations, squatting and evictions. Rarely have they been involved or perceived as part of radical struggles. When this happens, their struggles offer several points for reflection (see Aguilera, Frazzetta, and Antonelli and Perrotta’s chapters). In the case of Roma, nomadism is neither political nor romantic; it is related to evictions and movements from camp to camp. Nomadism does not match the idea of creating temporary autonomous zones nor provide a particular joy of homelessness (Bookchin 1995). Nomadism becomes a social condition that entraps those pushed to move within harsh and difficult environments, and nomads “may turn its meaning upside down and adopt the label in a positive sense to empower themselves, like the queer and hacker activists” (Martínez’s chapter). But the evident risk in the process of collective experimentation to build autonomous spaces is that the process is ultimately more transformative and empowering than the resulting structures (Brown 2007). Migrant Autonomy and Radical Squatting against Racist Trends In this section, we analyze the broad issue of contrasting current racist and xenophobic trends and the questions and contradictions that we cannot escape if a BK-DEP-MUDU-160170-Intro.indd 15 4/6/2016 5:24:09 PM 16 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 Mudu & Chattopadhyay successful intersection between migrants and radical squatters is expected. Patterns of migration to northern European countries have constituted the ‘new’ Europe after the destruction from World War II, while migration to southern European countries is a relatively new phenomenon as is the organization of repression against immigrants (Castles and Kosack 1973; Calavita 2005). For decades, to oppose the socialist bloc within the then European Community, the movement of people was presented with discourses on western open borders, freedom of movement and having a passport document denied in the Eastern bloc. With the collapse of the Soviet bloc, these discourses were soon superseded by a propaganda that sought to justify increasingly repressive measures against migrants and restrictions on the rights of asylum seekers for the sake of protecting the “purity” of western rich nations, thus transforming non-Europeans in an “underclass” to be exploited (Bhabha 1998; De Genova 2008; Chattopadhyay 2013). Repressive regularization processes, newspaper narratives, and state antiimmigrant, racist and sexist sentiments and discourses criminalized migrant subjectivities (see Dadusc’s chapter). In many countries, these new patterns of racism (re)presented an important ingredient for the neo-fascist discourses (Pred 2000; Merrill 2006). The way to describe racism, its construction, and its critique is no longer valid, and new analysis to take countermeasures is needed. There is no racism without some form of violence and segregation, and counter-struggles to such violence (see azozomox and IWS’s chapter). For instance, exclusion on the grounds of immigration restrictions can, and all too often does, cost lives (Düvell 2003). More than 20,000 people have died in the last twenty years trying to circumvent European entry restrictions (Harding 2012; Kingsley and Jones 2015). In confronting immigration (particularly its “illegal” construction) and racially discriminatory policies, many people have chosen to ignore or to violate laws in favour of assisting “out of status” migrants, refugees and asylum seekers in squatted religious spaces (see Borgstede, Houston, Steiger and Dadusc’s chapters). Sanctuaries exist to secure immunity or survival for refugees (Derrida 2005). In ancient Greek society and mythology, the right and duties related to hosting beggars and strangers were one of the tests to measure civilizations, and The Odyssey was based on it. Welcoming Phaeacians were the opposite of the Laestrygonians or the Cyclops, and any action that was disrespectful towards hospitality was punished by the gods. Not hosting people also meant an act of cannibalism, such as the case of Polyphemus in The Odyssey. The JudeoChristian tradition dictated the need to provide cities of refuge (see Houston’s chapter) and terrible punishments for those who did not respect hospitality duties. Interestingly, squatting of churches develops in different ways, according to the contexts. For example, in the occupation of the Caserta’s main church, squatting is used as an alternative to property speculation (Filhol’s chapter). In other cases, it is unclear how much autonomy migrants have acquired through their experiences of sanctuary in the US and how religious groups have supported “sacred squatting” (Houston’s chapter). Migrants pose a challenge to the credibility of the Church in countries where the political role of religion is BK-DEP-MUDU-160170-Intro.indd 16 4/6/2016 5:24:09 PM Introduction 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 17 still heavy, for example in the Italian case. The reputation of spaces of “universal welcome” is also challenged by state repression politics. This makes relevant the question of who offers asylum when the national authorities deny it. In fact, we face ambiguous and supplemental welfare functions by solidarity groups and NGOs (Lippert and Rehaag 2012). People participating in Social Center activities are not alone in directly and actively resisting state repression, but they are “unique” as they simultaneously and holistically address a set of other oppressive apparatuses that are operating not only against migrants but also against society at large (see Table I.1). The repertoire of collective actions is the set of means that are effectively available to a given set of people in order to make claims on individuals and groups (Tilly 1978). The repertoire of contention in resisting racist practices against migrants involves several actors and social movements and is very broad. In fact it encompasses a wide variety of actions, ranging from “conventional” political strategies to cultural expressions, from confrontational tactics to violent acts (see Table I.1). Direct action protests include self-immolation or hunger strikes or self-harm, neither to be considered acts of desperation or a willful heroic agential subject (Nyers 2015). The repertoire of actions adopted by migrants, as a social movement that anticipates, circumvents and fights oppressive and regulatory regimes of control, puts their agency capable of indeed transforming political space-time. Migrants have mostly the chance to engage in “unconventional” forms of political participation, analyzed in-depth in this book. The asymmetry of the meeting between migrants, squatters and different organizations is embedded in a complex interaction of solidarity, engagement and empowerment (Martínez’s chapter). Solidarity operates within strategies of juridical support and public campaigns, engagement within material support and direct actions, and empowerment in self-managed experiments. Different tactics, see the case of the lotta-vertenza (struggle-dispute) in Caserta (Filhol’s chapter) or the case of Calais (Calais Migrant Solidarity Group chapter) or the analysis of Lampedusa in Hamburg (Borgstede’s chapter), provide the impossibility of a single formula or recipe to lead this kind of struggle. Furthermore, tactics and strategies reveal the contradictions regarding the cooperation between squatters, activists and migrants. In fact, while squatters and activists fight against governments, politicians, and immigration laws, illegalized migrants need to negotiate and compromise to get a legal status (Tyler and Marciniak 2013). Illegalized migrants have a political objective of “Papers for all”, against “No papers at all” of squatters (Dadusc’s chapter). “No papers at all” risks being a perspective only for those who have the privilege to refuse documents and rights, leaving migrants with the feeling of being instrumentally “manipulated” by activists to fight, by a privileged position, their own struggles against the governments (Dadusc’s chapter). How do we work out the reproduction of these contradictions without provoking the deadlock of social movements and struggles? How do we exit the dynamics by which governments use squatters and squatters use migrants? How can BK-DEP-MUDU-160170-Intro.indd 17 4/6/2016 5:24:09 PM BK-DEP-MUDU-160170-Intro.indd 18 Table I.1 Repertoire of Contention in Resisting Racist Practices against Migrants Tools Actions Public campaigns Recognition and extension Press releases; publishing of rights and welfare reports; discussion forums; benefits; political demonstrations; petitions, civil empowerment; disobedience; canvassing; regularization, freedom marches against detention/ of movement, fight deportation; art, food and against abuses, domestic music festivals; workshops; violence, racism and revival of sancturay cities and xenophobia; awareness other right-based struggles. raising campaigns towards migration/ migrants; resisting racist regulations. Legal support Goal Participation Examples 4/6/2016 5:24:09 PM Migrant individuals and Campaigns against detention centres, No Borders families/communities; (Europe); We are here activists; journalists; to Stay (Netherlands and artists/graphic Germany); No one is Illegal designers; NGOs; (NOII), (Canada); Sans political parties; Papiers, Fondation Abbé squatters; virtual Pierre, ATD Quart Monde, involvement of Emmaüs, Médecins du Monde, aforementioned l’Armée du Salut, les Enfants activists. de Don Quichotte (France); Refugees Welcome campaign (Germany); Sin papeles, SOS Racismo (Spain); Info Immigranti (Italy); DRUM, New York (US), New Sanctuary Movement (NSM) (US and Canada). Specific services within Social Migrants, Immigrants Legal aid; advice and advocacy in Knowledge and exercise Centers. Services provided by lawyers, prefecture negotiating civic rights (such as of rights, access to legal civic organizations, churches, and the judicial resources; logistical marriages, divorce, separation progressive law firms, system, other support on immigration and alike); legal procedures radical non-governmental professionals, law and welfare system. towards abusive authorities, organizations. supportive community employers and traffickers; and activists. negotiating anti-deportation legal procedures and prison systems; legal action against rape, abuse and domestic violence. BK-DEP-MUDU-160170-Intro.indd 19 Sanctuary Providing clandestine or Combination of support to Individuals and families, provision and disruptive housing for individuals / families and church groups. personal support migrants. overt civil disobedience. Political Technical assistance in e.g. Development of migrant-led Migrants, NGOs, Social infrastructure setting up Internet presence organizations for mutual Centres, individual and capacityor registering associations, support and political volunteers. building for providing space for groups to expression. migrant-led meet or run offices. initiatives Material, Cultural Temporary or stable housing Migrants and migrant Provision of shelter and Functional communities, activists, material subsistence; (makeshift camps, squatted and Emotional neighbors, staff access to available buildings, legalized squats); support in public services, resources; local cultural decent and affordable housing; social workers/ assimilation;, social food; welfare services (child NGOs/Grassroots network, personal care, social health education); and philanthropic wellbeing. counseling; language training; organizations, housing spatial orientation; collective organizations and conversation; education and squatters; impromptu other provisions for children. networks and diaspora, solidarity groups. Direct action (aside Protests against the policing of Migrants and migrant Stop deportations and from Squatting) communities, activists, detentions, xenophobia borders, internment camps professionals, civic and racism; abolition of and forced confinements and organizations. internment camps for detentions, strikes, blockades, protest marches/demonstrations, migrants; fight police control, harassment occupation of vacant properties; and abuse, to get legal interference in deportations; documents of stay and interruption of anti-immigrant citizenship. official meeting; New Sanctuary Movement (US and Canada). Trampoline House, Copenaghen (Denmark); Metropoliz, Rome (Italy). COSTI Immigrant Services (Canada); Food No Bombs, Doctors without Borders (MSF), Partners of Health, Yo Sí Sanidad Universal, Brigadas Vecinales de Observación de Derechos Humanos (Watch the Cops); State Watch, Amnesty International (Global). Lasciate CIEntrare (Italy); Calais Migrant Solidarity, Calais (France); Borderlands Autonomous Collective, No More Deaths, Samaritans, Humane Borders (US). 4/6/2016 5:24:09 PM (Continued) BK-DEP-MUDU-160170-Intro.indd 20 Table I.1 Repertoire of Contention in Resisting Racist Practices against Migrants (Continued) Tools Squatting Actions Goal Participation Examples cultural events; open gates, fences and walls in deportation and detention centres and borders; protests against deportation of migrants (sea, land and air transits); selfimmolation/self-harm of detained migrants. Migrants and squatters, International Women’s Space, Development of selfPlanning and execution of the Berlin; Rote Flora, Hamburg participants and managed practices; occupation. Provide legal help; visitors of squats, local (Germany); Prosfigika, Athens satisfaction of housing language lessons; housing (Greece); ex Canapificio, native residents. needs; equality in daily needs; other inter-cultural/ Caserta (Italy); Scalo life; promotion of social material needs; migrantInternazionale Migranti, and cultural events; build squatter protest marches, Bologna (Italy). Seco and on social networks of demonstrations, blockades; Eskalera Karakola, Madrid mutual support, tackle publishing reports, Creation (Spain). gender issues. of spaces to live, recycle, grow fruits and vegetables, workshops (sewing, bike) self-management of the premises and activities; Selforganization - running their own activities inside squats, Collective/solidarity activities of domestic work; defense of the squat; Hosting cultural events. 4/6/2016 5:24:09 PM Introduction 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 21 becoming aware of privileges condition our struggles? Some genealogies are needed (van der Steen et al. 2014). Most studies ignore the relationships across various forms of protests and their connections with migrants within Social Centers or among Social Center activists. Immigration policies promote spatial segregation and political disconnection from demonstrations and protest actions. The moment in which migrants are treated within security and criminal legislation, an entire set of apparatuses is devoted to migrants’ classification and control; when public housing projects disappear and policies are just a ping-pong between neoliberal right and nationalistic right, then the possibility of participating in any democratic process vanishes. Urban degradation, privatization and gentrification provide the tools to segregate populations. Segregation is not only a physical pattern but also a mechanism that impedes building a critique of the living situation, a culture to oppose the colonization of everyday life by narratives, music, spectacles and symbols created by alien big corporations. Here, the involvement of migrants in squatted Social Center activities represents an important theme. The intersection between squatting and migration has a long history, as happened in the Netherlands in the 1970s or in Germany in the 1980s (Seibert 2008). Generally, in contrast to the UK where migrants from former colonies were enjoying citizenship rights, in France, Germany and Italy, the organizations of the working classes included migrant workers, mostly factory workers, in their projects and efforts to transform society. This inclusion had important limitations: assimilationism, paternalism, electoral instrumentalism, and economic reductionism (Però and Solomos 2010). As a matter of fact, the majority of migrants in Europe could only engage in alternative forms of political participation (Però and Solomos 2010). The involvement of migrants within the radical squatting projects is relatively new, although it can be traced back to the beginning of Social Centers’ existence (Mometti and Ricciardi 2011). This involvement and resulting relations can be documented (see Figure I.1, the case of Bologna in Italy). The intersections between migrants and radical squatters are driven by two disparate motivations. Firstly, the asymmetrical antagonistic-malicious discourse constructed on migrants within power relations of the host societies informs the justification of illegitimate policies and state repression through capital punishment, discipline and surveillance. Secondly, a general discourse on solidarity and “fraternité” is carried out in squatted spaces. In fact, solidarity with those in need and the oppressed, which include many migrants, is a founding principle of autonomists, anarchists and squatters. On the first issue, it has to be recognized that the radical left was the first and most serious collective actor in denouncing and opposing the instrumental creation of camps (Temporary Detention Centers) to “host” illegalized migrants, ironically called “hospitality Centers” or filoxenia in Greece (Makrygianni’s chapter). Their belief was that these detention Centers constituted a new form of concentration camps and, at some point, they would be extended to other “clandestine”/“illegal” actors. The emergence and increasing construction of BK-DEP-MUDU-160170-Intro.indd 21 4/6/2016 5:24:09 PM Figure I.1 Bologna: Senza Frontiere since 1990 from the Social Center “La Fabbrica” BK-DEP-MUDU-160170-Intro.indd 22 4/6/2016 5:24:12 PM Introduction 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 23 internment Centers has been identified as the realization of a continuous “state of exception” (Arendt 1973; Agamben 2003). If exception is the way neoliberal states function, it needs to be critically addressed to better understand its formation and the possibilities to deconstruct and tackle it. The state of exception cannot be considered as an absolute, total condition because struggles involving migrants and the ways in which they organize and act indicate how resistance is possible, despite their lack of access to the rights and protections of citizenship. Struggles through squatting allow us to move beyond the dichotomies of camp and city (Sanyal 2010). And even those under extreme conditions of subjugation are able to act in ways that allow them to constitute themselves, although problematically, as political subjects (Tyler and Marciniak 2013). The relationship between migrants and squatting is problematic because squatting involves a risk of confrontation with police that is higher than other political activities. Yet squatting, in particular, and Social Center activities towards selfliberation, self-determination and autonomy of migrants and their solidarity networks and alliances have developed into an autonomous anti-racist/sexist/ classist movement to support migrants’ rights-based struggles (in the EU and North America). In Europe, an important radical activity that has evolved, since 1999, is the “no border camp” held in different parts of Central and Southern Europe (Walters 2006).5 After the no border camp in 2009 in Calais, the Calais Migrant Solidarity Group was formed (see Calais Migrant Solidarity Group’s chapter). The Calais Migrant Solidarity Group decided to not campaign on behalf of the Calais migrants, but to take direct action in the struggles against borders with the migrants themselves. This has allowed disarticulating the implicit border (and hierarchy) between ‘protest’ and ‘movement’ and inventing a new politics beyond citizenship (Rigby and Schlembach 2013). In Germany, similar to other European Social Centers, direct support has been provided to immigrants and asylum seekers. In many Autonomous Zentrums, there are many collectives dedicated to migrant issues and foreigners.6 In 2012, several demonstrations for “freedom of movement for all” have been organized and went halfway through Germany; for example, on October 6 of that year, a “Refugee Strike Support” was organized in Cologne, a series of events against racism were also simultaneously held in Hamburg on October 12 through 14, 2012 (see Borgstede’s chapter), and the “Refugee Protest March” ended on October 13, 2012, in Berlin (see azozomox and IWS chapter).7 Migrants’ involvement in squatting struggles is also remarkable in France (Bouillon and Müller 2009). The Italian case is quite rich of chronicles and records of the meeting of migrants with the radical squatter movement. For example, in 1990 for eight months in Rome, the Pantanella, a former pasta factory close to the center, was squatted. The Pantanella was the first mass squatting by migrants since the heydays of squatting by southern Italian migrants that characterized and regulated the development of Rome and Northern Italian cities in the 1950s and 1960s. Ten years later in the 2000s, migrants represented the largest share of people squatting within the “Movimenti per il diritto all’abitare” (Right to Inhabit movement). The “right to the city” movement transformed the 1960s rhetoric towards a radical reconsideration of the urban life. This BK-DEP-MUDU-160170-Intro.indd 23 4/6/2016 5:24:12 PM 24 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 Mudu & Chattopadhyay capacity of the Right to Inhabit movements to plan a new urban model has produced an intersection, reversing a development almost in parallel for a couple of decades between housing movements and Social Centers. This intersection is difficult, and it has been played within a non-circumscribable area of reclamation of denied needs and the refusal of precarious labor exploitation. Rediscussing attitude toward working conditions could not be avoided, and new experiments, such as Officine Zero in Rome, RiMaflow in Milan, Fralib in Marseille, Kazova in Istambul or Vio.Me factory in Thessaloniki, arose in Europe to organize squatting around new working models. The refusal of work, as it is conceived by capitalists and countered by autonomists and anarchists, does not fit migration trajectories easily. People participating in squatting produce distinct economies in various ways, which include the fundamental practice of self-management. Participating in a self-managed experience means sharing responsibilities with other people and breaking the path of being “normalized” by and within the mainstream “hosting” society. This means also building a pattern that opposes the construction of the “model minority” or capitalist immigrant entrepreneurs’ patterns (see Cattaneo’s chapter on the practices of migrants who work as waste collectors, in the urban economy, in precarious forms of employment, often negotiated daily).8 In fact, spaces invented through the struggles of migrant-squatters and squatters are not the classic spaces of migrants: enclaves, ghettos, and suburban areas. Their actions materialize spaces and times autonomous from oppression and reveal the simultaneity of openended multiplicities of contested territories (Massey 2005). The Difficulties of Defining and Arranging Diversity among Heterogeneous Subjects As long as we think of social issues solely in terms of binary distinctions like “us and them”, there is no way towards social justice and no other way to read the conflicts produced by migrations if not through charitable practices, always very limited and ineffective, carried out by a front of anti-racist organizations, from secular to Catholic groups. Social Centers denounce the vision of a society based on the difference between “us” and “them” (Anderson 2013). In many contexts for many years, squatters have been composed of different kinds of people in terms of social background, roles and identifications. For example, in the US, squatters of diverse ages and genders have mostly been “white” people, such as in “Homes Not Jail” in San Francisco (Corr 1999). A counter-perception is not at all unproblematic, and, in fact, within Social Centers the positions of migrants have not always been linear. “[…] the literature on squatting in Amsterdam wholly ignores the consequences of the radically changing face of the city’s population. By only focusing on a particular profile of white squatter activist, the historical texts present a misleading and distorted view” (Kadir 2014: 32). Squatters have to build a good reputation in the neighborhood where they live, which is quite a difficult task in the face of racism, xenophobia and neo-fascism (Antonelli and Perrotta, Frazzetta chapters). Apart from this, within different BK-DEP-MUDU-160170-Intro.indd 24 4/6/2016 5:24:12 PM Introduction 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 25 contexts squatters have been accused of being white and privileged (see Pruijt’s chapter). The composition of squatters both for housing and Social Centers and its evolution in space and time is an important factor to consider. Many cases show that migrants have taken a central role in squatting, such as the housing movements in Italy (Nur and Sethman, and Antonelli and Perrotta chapters) and France (Bouillon chapter). The cases of Rome and Bologna show prominent involvement of migrants but also a misunderstood field of divergence between activists who see migrants as the “subject” of revolution and those who analyze things in a more complex way (Antonelli and Perrotta’s chapter). More recently, campaigns against the “precaritization of labor” built common interests between students, precarious workers and migrant labourers (see Di Feliciantonio in this volume), like the Mayday demonstrations (Euskirchen et al. 2009) and labor mobilizations (Pulido 2007). The heterogeneous experience of squatting also includes examples of great difficulties in self-managing and being able to repudiate mastery and rejection ideologies of rejection and practices between local activists and migrants. Cultural production in a broad sense has often opened the door to horizontal cooperation able to overcome “us and them” divisions. Classical artistic production, theatre, music, painting and new forms of art that allow people to express themselves are often features of squatted spaces. Culture relations have the power to bind people together in squatted spaces, but many other relations are difficult to orient. The decision to squat and build alternative spaces also has heavy gender implications that are complicated by the origins of migrants.9 For example, in 1981 in Kottbusser Straße in Berlin, migrant women had serious problems when squatting (see azozomox and IWS chapter). These difficulties are important issues to be raised and discussed if squatters want to deeply self-reflect on self-management and decision-making. Decision-making processes in horizontal collectives are various and challenging (Mudu 2012; Piazza 2011). To make decisions, communication is fundamental, and language barriers are still problematic (see Martínez’s chapter). The need for action, for direct action, cannot hide the confrontation of cultures, the asymmetry in organizing radical performances, the daily routine of running self-managed spaces, and the capacity for mobility and travel that activists have (Owens et al. 2013). In squatted spaces, migrants have to explain to their supporters that they are not victims that they do not need someone for help, but they need people who want to work together (see azozomox and IWS chapter). Working together means organizing activities, like who is going to clean the toilets and kitchens at the end of the day, and defining or forecasting what problems might arise and how to solve them. Briefly, this experiment attempts to set up a different economy. In the book, there is an interesting argument about using migration questions more than economic policy as the key explanatory variable to distinguish between left- and right-wing visions of economic models (chapter by Cattaneo). Proposals on selfsufficient economies and local and traditional productions are both present in radical left discourses as well as right-wing suggestions. De-growth narratives differing on the “self-sufficiency/open local economies” scenarios oppose the “closed and patrolled frontiers” and “national autarky” strategies of right-wing BK-DEP-MUDU-160170-Intro.indd 25 4/6/2016 5:24:12 PM 26 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Mudu & Chattopadhyay policies as well as differences based on “cultural mix” versus “national identity” approaches (detailed in Cattaneo’s chapter). For an understanding of collective autonomy it is then important to consider the possible social intersections due to the reclaiming of commons (Caffentzis and Federici 2014). We collectively see the radical struggles described in this book as one potential way to create social structures in which it is not possible to establish who is a foreigner and who is not, or at least de-link any “foreign” status from exclusion and oppression. Beyond Citizenship and Borders, Integration and Segregation, Rights and Illegality 37 Although it is difficult to sum up the situation in Europe (at least, in the western part) and North America, there is a common thread of action that links most of the radical movements (in particular, anarchists and post-autonomists) and migrants. This thread is represented by the refusal of the “status” of migrants and the manifestation of legality and illegality that has surfaced in North America and the EU around migrants coming from various marginalized countries affected by socio-economic, environmental and political crises (De Genova 2004). The intersection of radical groups that originate at many Social Centers is quite irregular, and in each country and in different cities there exist extremely heterogeneous situations. Today, citizenship, legality and rights are problematic concepts that envelop the discourses on migration and migrants, usually synthesized under the patterns of “integration”, “regularization”, and “normalization”. These three patterns converge often to “segregation”, which is a complex process within the colonization of people by neoliberal policies to hinder any form of subjective and collective autonomy. In each European country and city migrants and “minorities” are considered integrated just using a few statistical indicators when in reality different degrees of welfare policies affect them. In some countries, particularly in southern Europe, migrants are excluded from access to social housing, and, in the case of Roma people, they are segregated in camps. It has to be recognized that migrants participating in squatted Social Centers or in collective squatting are, although contradictorily, one of the few examples of de-colonizing colonized spaces and opening borders. It important to take into account all the struggles described in this book because they have always had an impact on policies and laws. Moreover, they help seize and shape the global agenda to redefine such matters as human rights, gender, poverty, and environment (Appadurai 2006). Such a global agenda can only emerge by connecting these struggles to other radical struggles beyond rhetoric on general human rights, gender equality and the fight to end poverty, and draw linkages to the current ecological crises. 38 Notes 39 40 41 1 Since 2009, SqEK has held informal meetings in Social Centers all over Europe, and also in the United States (USA); its research agenda is published in four languages (see SqEK 2010). 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 BK-DEP-MUDU-160170-Intro.indd 26 4/6/2016 5:24:12 PM Introduction 27 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 2 All the websites quoted in the book were accessed on the 23 of November 2015. 3 Gender and race transnationally generate problems of naming, since racial terms have different meanings depending on location, context and history. In this proposal, we use “black” as the common term for women or men of African, Caribbean and Asian origins in Britain only, since “black” in North America (USA and Canada) refers only to women and men of African descent. We use “non-white women” or “non-white persons” to refer to women and men of African, Asian, Latin American and indigenous communities transnationally. We also use the terms “women of the global south”, “men of the global south” or “people of the global south” since this is now widely used by activists to refer to women and men in what is often and problematically called “the Third World” (developed from Sudbury 2002). We also prefer to use terms such as “European”, “West”, “South”, “Arab” and “Greek” to designate (contested) cultural formations, not geographical locations, or “racial types” (Castoriadis 1991). 4 For instance, follow the activities of Can Piella a r-urban squat in Barcelona, Spain (http://www.canpiella.cat/). 5 http://noborder.antira.info/. 6 See the documentary on the Swiss case, ‘Zurich: learning german autonomously’ (2010): a-films. 7 See the posting by refugeetentaction.net (see also Euskirchen, Lebuhn and Ray 2009; http://www.kanak-attak.de/ka/about.html). 8 On specific situations of migrant struggles in Southern Europe since the 2008 crisis, and their relationship to anti-austerity struggles, there is some literature based on national cases (for example for Greece: Mantanika and Kouki 2011 and Pistikos 2012; for Italy: Oliveri 2012; for Spain: Varela 2009). 9 In Rome in the Pantanella nearly 20,000 migrants passed through the Pantanella during the occupation, all of whom were men with the sole exception of one woman (De Angelis 2005). 28 References 29 Agamben, G. (2003) State of Exception. Chicago: Chicago University Press. Anderson, B. (2013) Us and Them? The Dangerous Politics of Immigration Control. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Appadurai, A. (2006) Fear of Small Numbers. Durham, NC: Duke University Press. Arendt, H. (1973) [1951] The Origins of Totalitarianism. New York: Harcourt Publishers. Aureli, A. and Mudu, P. (2015) ‘The logic of squatting within and beyond legality’, Paper presented at the RC21 conference in Urbino 28 August 2015. Balibar, E. and Wallerstein, I. (1991) Race, Nation, Class. London: Verso. Bauder, H. (2003) Equality, justice and the problem of international borders. The case of Canadian immigration regulation. ACME 2(2): 167–182. Benjamin, S. (2008) ‘Occupancy urbanism: radicalizing politics and economy beyond policy and programs’, International Journal of Urban and Regional Research 32(3): 719–729. Berardi, F. (2007) Genesi e significato del termine “Autonomia”. In Bianchi S. and Caminiti L. (eds) Gli autonomi. Vol.II. Roma: Derive ed Approdi, pp. 40–54. Bhabha, J. (1998) ‘Get back to where you belonged: Identity, citizenship, and exclusion in Europe’, Human Rights Quarterly 20(3): 592–627. Bigo, D. (2006) Security, Exception, Ban, Surveillance. In Lyon, D. (ed.) Theorizing Surveillance: The Panopticon and Beyond. Cullompton: Willan Publishing, pp. 46–68. 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 BK-DEP-MUDU-160170-Intro.indd 27 4/6/2016 5:24:13 PM 28 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 Mudu & Chattopadhyay Böhm, S., Dinerstein, A. C. and Spicer, A. (2010) ‘(Im)possibilities of autonomy: Social movements in and beyond capital, the state and development’, Social Movement Studies 9(1): 17–32. Bojadžijev, M. and Karakayalı, S. (2010) ‘Recuperating the sideshows of capitalism: the autonomy of migration today’, e-flux 17(6): 1–9. Bookchin, M. (1995) Social Anarchism or Lifestyle Anarchism: An Unbridgeable Chasm. Edinburgh: AK Press. Bouillon, F. and Müller, F. (2009) Squats. Un autre point de vue sur les migrants. Paris: Editions Alternatives. Brown, G. (2007) ‘Mutinous eruptions: Autonomous spaces of radical queer activism’, Environment and Planning A 39(11): 2685–2698. Caffentzis, G. and Federici, S. (2014) ‘Commons against and beyond Capitalism’, Community Development Journal 49(suppl 1): i92–i105. Calavita, K. (2005) Immigrants at the Margins: Law, Race, and Exclusion in Southern Europe. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Casas-Cortes, M., Cobarrubias, S., and Pickles, J. (2015) ‘Riding routes and itinerant borders: Autonomy of migration and border externalization’, Antipode 47(4): 894–914. Castles, S. (2004) ‘Why migration policies fail’, Ethnic and racial studies 27(2): 205–227. Castles, S. and Kosack, G. (1973) Immigrant Workers and Class Structure in Western Europe. London: Oxford University Press. Castoriadis, C. (1991) Philosophy, Politics, Autonomy. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Chatterton, P., Hodkinson, S. and Pickerill, J. (2010) Beyond scholar activism: Making strategic interventions inside and outside the neoliberal university’, ACME (9)2: 245–275. Chattopadhyay, S. (2013) Commentary. Border choreography, penal states and bare bodies. Environment and Planning D, Pion. Available: http://societyandspace.com/ feed/. Chattopadhyay, S. (2014) ‘Post-colonial development state, primitive accumulation of Nature and social transformation of ousted Adivasis in the Narmada valley’, Capitalism Nature Socialism 25(4): 65–84. Cohen, S. (2003) No One is Illegal. Stoke on Trent: Trentham Books. Common Place (2008) What’s This Place? Stories from Radical Social Centers in the UK and Ireland. Leeds: University of Leeds. Cornelius, W., Martin, P., and Hollifield, J. (1994) Controlling Migration: A Global Perspective. Stanford: Stanford University Press. Corr, A. (1999) No Trespassing. Cambridge MA: South End Press. De Angelis, R. (ed.) (2005) Iperurbs-Roma. Visioni di conflitto e di mutamenti urbani. Roma: DeriveApprodi. De Genova, N. (2004) ‘The legal production of Mexican/migrant “illegality”’, Latino Studies 2(2): 160–185. De Genova, N. (2008) ‘Inclusion through exclusion or implosion’, Amsterdam Law Forum 1(1): 43–52. Derrida, J. (2005) On Cosmopolitanism and Forgiveness. London: Routledge. Düvell, F. (2003) ‘Some reasons and conditions for a world without immigration restrictions’, ACME 2(2): 201–209. Engel-Di Mauro, S. (2006) ‘Reflections on “The Struggle against the Rebel Body”’, Capitalism, Nature, Socialism 17: 66–73. Escobar, A. (1992) ‘Imagining a post-development era? Critical thought, development and social movements’, Social Text 31/32(10): 20–56 BK-DEP-MUDU-160170-Intro.indd 28 4/6/2016 5:24:13 PM Introduction 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 29 Euskirchen, M., Lebuhn, H. and Ray, G. (2009) ‘Big trouble in borderland: Immigration rights and no-border struggles in Europe’, Migration Struggles and Migratory Aesthetics, paper presented at the Radical Art Caucus panel. College Art Association Annual Conference in Los Angeles. Federici, S. (2004) Caliban and the Witch. New York: Autonomedia. Fekete, L. (1997) ‘Blackening the economy: the path to convergence’, Race and Class 39 (1): 1–17. Feldman, G. (2011) The Migration Apparatus: Security, Labor, and Policymaking in the European Union. Stanford: Stanford University Press Fominaya, C.F. and Cox, L. (eds) (2013) Understanding European Movements: New Social Movements, Global Justice Struggles, Anti-austerity Protest. London: Routledge. Foucault, M. (1979) The History of Sexuality (1). London: Allen Lane. Gaillard, É. (2013) ‘Habiter autrement: des squats féministes en France et en Allemagne. Une remise en question de l’ordre social’, Thèse École Doctorale Sciences de l’Homme et de la Société. Rabelais de Tours: Université François. Gidwani, V. K. (2006) ‘Subaltern cosmopolitanism as politics’, Antipode 38(1): 7–21. Golash-Boza, T. (2009) ‘The immigration industrial complex: Why we enforce immigration policies destined to fail’, Sociology Compass 3(2): 295–309. Goldman, E. (1917) Anarchism, and Other Essays. New York: Dover Publications. Harding, J. (2012) Border Vigils: Keeping Migrants Out of the Rich World. London: Verso Books. Harvey, D. (2009) Cosmopolitanism and the Geographies of Freedom. New York: Columbia University Press. Hayter, T. (2000) Open Borders: The Case against Immigration Control. London: Pluto Press. Holloway, J. (2010) Crack Capitalism. London: Pluto Press. Holm, A. and Kuhn, A. (2011) ‘Squatting and urban renewal: The interaction of squatter movements and strategies of urban restructuring in Berlin’, International Journal of Urban and Regional Research 35(3), 644–658. Isin, E. (2002) Being Political. Genealogies of Citizenship, Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. Kadir, N. (2014) Myth and reality in the Amsterdam Squatters’ Movement, 1975–2012. In van der Steen, B., Katzeff, A. and van Hoogenhuijze, L. (eds) (2014) The City Is Ours: Squatting and Autonomous Movements in Europe from the 1970s to the present. Oakland: PM Press: pp. 21–61. Katsiaficas, G. (1997) The Subversion of Politics: European Autonomous Social Movements and the Decolonization of Everyday Life. Atlantic Highlands: Humanities Press. Kingsley, P. and Jones, S. (2015) EU sidestep on migrants will do nothing to curb Mediterranean death toll. Available: http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jun/26/ eu-sidestep-migrants-mediterranean-death-toll. Klein, N. (2007) The Shock Doctrine: The Rise of Disaster Capitalism. New York: Picador. Lefebvre, H. (1996) Writings on Cities. Oxford: Blackwell. Lippert, R., and Rehaag, S. (eds) (2012) Sanctuary Practices in International Perspectives: Migration, Citizenship and Social Movements. London: Routledge. Lorenzi, E. (2012) ‘Alegría Entre Tus Piernas: To Conquer Madrid’s Streets’. In C.C.E.L.E.E.A.C. (ed) Shift Happens! Critical Mass at 20. San Francisco: Full Enjoyment Books: 59–70. BK-DEP-MUDU-160170-Intro.indd 29 4/6/2016 5:24:13 PM 30 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 Mudu & Chattopadhyay Luxemburg, R. ([1913] 1963) The Accumulation of Capital. London: Routledge. Mantanika, R. and Koukib, H. (2011) ‘The spatiality of a social struggle in Greece at the time of the IMF. Reflections on the 2011 mass migrant hunger strike in Athens’, City 15(3–4): 482–490. Martínez, M. (2012) ‘The Squatters’ Movement in Europe: A durable struggle for social autonomy in urban politics’, Antipode 45(4): 866–887. Membretti, A. (2007) ‘Centro Sociale Leoncavallo Building Citizenship as an Innovative Service’, European Urban and Regional Studies 14(3): 252–263. Merrill, H. (2006) An Alliance of Women: Immigration and the Politics of Race. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. Mezzadra, S. (2011) ‘The gaze of autonomy. Capitalism, migration and social struggles’, In Squire, V. (ed) The Contested Politics of Mobility: Border zones and Irregularity. London: Routledge: 121–143. Mikkelsen, F. and Karpantshof, R. (2001) ‘Youth as a political movement: Development o the Squatters’ and Autonomous Movement in Copenhagen, 1981–95’, International Journal of Urban and Regional Research 25(3): 609–628. Mometti, F. and Ricciardi, M. (eds) (2011) La normale eccezione. Lotte migranti in Italia. Roma: Alegre. Moore, A. and Smart, A. (eds) (2015) Making Room: Cultural Production in Occupied Spaces. Barcelona: Other Forms, the Journal of Aesthetics & Protest. Massey, D. (2005) For Space. London: Sage. Mudu, P. (2004) ‘Resisting and challenging neo-liberalism: the development of Italian Social Centers’, Antipode 36 (5): 917–941. Mudu, P. (2007) ‘The people’s food: The ingredients of “ethnic” hierarchies and the development of Chinese Restaurants in Rome’, Geojournal (68)2–3: 195–210. Mudu, P. (2012) ‘At the intersection of anarchists and autonomists: Autogestioni and Centri Sociali’, ACME, 11(3): 413–438. Nyers, P. (2003) ‘Abject cosmopolitanism: The politics of protection in the antideportation movement’, Third world quarterly 24(6): 1069–1093. Nyers, P. (2015) ‘Migrant citizenships and autonomous mobilities’, Migration, Mobility, & Displacement 1(1): 23–39. Oliveri, F. (2012) ‘Migrants as activist citizens in Italy: Understanding the new cycle of struggles’, Citizenship Studies 16(5–6): 793–806. Owens, L., Katzeffi, A., Lorenzi, E., and Colin B. (2013) ‘At home in the movement: Constructing an oppositional identity through activist travel across European squats’. In Fominaya, C. F. and Cox, L. (eds) Understanding European Movements. London: Routledge, pp. 172–185. Paasi, A. (2015) “Hot Spots, Dark-Side Dots, Tin Pots”: The Uneven Internationalism of the Global Academic Market. In Meusburger, P., Derek, G. and Suarsana, L. (eds) Geographies of Knowledge and Power. Springer Netherlands, pp. 247–262. Palidda, S. (2013) Racial Criminalization of Migrants in the 21st Century. Farnham: Ashgate. Papadopoulos, D., Stephenson, N., and Tsianos, V. (2008) Escape Routes. Control and Subversion in the 21st Century. Ann Arbor: Pluto Press. Pattaroni, L. (2007) ‘La ville plurielle. Quand les squatters ébranlent l’ordre urbain. Enjeux de la sociologie urbaine’ In Bassand, M., Kaufman, V and Joye, D. (eds) Enjeux de la sociologie urbain. Lausanne: PPUR, pp. 283–314. Però, D. and Solomos, J. (2010) Migrant Politics and Mobilisation: Exclusion, Engagements, Incorporation. London: Routledge BK-DEP-MUDU-160170-Intro.indd 30 4/6/2016 5:24:13 PM Introduction 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 31 Piazza, G. (2011) ‘Which models of democracy? Internal and external decision-making processes of Italian Social Centers in a comparative study’, Center of Studies on Politics and Society – Working Paper Series 1(1): 3–54. Picker, G. and Pasquetti, S. (2015) ‘Durable camps: The state, the urban, the everyday’, City (19)5: 681–688. Pickerill, J. and Chatterton, P. (2006) ‘Notes towards autonomous geographies: Creation, resistance and self management as survival tactics’, Progress in Human Geography 30(6): 1–17. Piotrowski, G. (2011) Squatted Social Centers in Central and Eastern Europe. Warsaw: ICRA. Pechu, C. (2010) Squat et squatters. Paris: Presses de Sciences Po. Pistikos, I. (2011) ‘About the relation between theory and action: Drawing on the movement solidarity to refugees in Greece’, ACME 11(2): 194–201. Pred, A. (2000) Even in Sweden: Racisms, Racialized Spaces, and the Popular Geographical Imagination. Berkeley: University of California Press. Pruijt, H. (2012) ‘The logic of urban squatting’, International Journal of Urban and Regional Research 37(1): 19–45. Pulido, L. (2007) ‘A day without immigrants: Racial and class politics of immigrant exclusion’, Antipode 39(1): 1–7. Rigby, J. and Schlembach R. (2013) ‘Impossible protest: Noborders in Calais’. Citizenship Studies 17(2): 157–172. Rigo, E. (2007) Europa di confine. Roma: Meltemi. Ruddick, S. (2004) Activist geographies: building possible worlds. In Cloke, P., Crang, P. and Goodwin, M. (eds) Envisioning Human Geographies. London: Arnold, pp. 229–241. Sanyal, R. (2010) ‘Squatting in Camps: Building and Insurgency in Spaces of Refuge’, Urban Studies 48(5): 877–890. Seibert, N. (2008) Vergessene Proteste. Internationalismus und Antirassismus 1964–1983. Münster: Unrast. Smith, N. (1996) ‘Spaces of vulnerability: The space of flows and the politics of scale’, Critique of anthropology 16(1): 63–77. SqEK (2010) ‘The SQEK: Squatting Europe Research Agenda - v. 1.0’, ACME 9(3): 377–381. SqEK (2013) Squatting in Europe. Radical Spaces, Urban Struggles. New York: Autonomedia. SqEK, Cattaneo, C., Martínez, M. (eds) (2014) The Squatters Movement in Europe. Everyday Communes and Alternatives to Capitalism. London: Pluto Press. Tilly, C. (1978) From Mobilization to Revolution. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. Tyler, I. (2013) Revolting Subjects: Social Abjection and Resistance in Neoliberal Britain. London: Zed Books. Tyler, I. and Marciniak, K. (2013) ‘Immigrant protest: An introduction’, Citizenship Studies (17)2: 143–156. van der Steen, B., Katzeff, A. and van Hoogenhuijze, L. (eds) (2014) The City Is Ours: Squatting and Autonomous Movements in Europe from the 1970s to the Present. Oakland: PM Press. van Houtum, H. (2010) ‘Human blacklisting: The global apartheid of the EU’s external border regime’, Environment and Planning D 28(6): 957–976. Varela, A. (2009) ‘Residency documents for all! Notes to understand the movement of migrants in Barcelona’, Refuge: Canada’s Journal on Refugees, 26(2): 121–132. BK-DEP-MUDU-160170-Intro.indd 31 4/6/2016 5:24:13 PM 32 Mudu & Chattopadhyay 4 Vasudevan, A. (2011) ‘Dramaturgies of dissent: The spatial politics of squatting in Berlin, 1968’, Social and Cultural Geography 12(3): 283–303. Walia, H. (2013) Undoing Border Imperialism. Oakland: AK Press. Walters, W. (2006) ‘No border: Games with (out) frontiers’, Social Justice 33(1): 21–39. 5 Websites 6 http://en.contrainfo.espiv.net/ 1 2 3 BK-DEP-MUDU-160170-Intro.indd 32 4/6/2016 5:24:13 PM