Outcomes of migration as adaptation: a conceptual framework for migration governance

ABSTRACT

Climate change – along with conflict, violence, and climate-related disasters – has the potential to accelerate many forms of human migration and mobility, and yet almost all of the key migration outcomes of interest (the decision to migrate, the timing of migration, the preferred destinations, the condition of migrants, outcomes of migration, etc.) are determined by governance decisions. While it is well documented that migration as adaptation can increase the adaptive capacity for both migrants and destination communities, policy decisions can lead to both barriers to or opportunities for desired outcomes within a governance landscape. Though the decision to leave a place of origin is frequently studied, less attention has been given to the outcomes for migrants within a chosen destination, and the often-opaque elements that contribute to destinations being preferred or avoided. Under current climate change scenarios, the demand for migration as adaptation is increasing and the conceptual framework presented here is guided by the need to understand how intended and unintended consequences of host-centred, migrant-centred, or mutual migration governance affect migrants in a destination regardless of the driver. The conceptual framework we present, comprised of four potential governance “quadrants”, is used for defining variability within a polycentric governance landscape in order to understand the formal and informal governance elements that produce outcomes for both migrant and host communities. We then apply the framework, making contact with three case studies within Oregon’s diverse governance landscape, and explore the degree to which variability in a governance landscape creates destinations that are favourable or unfavourable to migrants, elucidating the informal and formal governance elements that enable or limit preferred migration outcomes. In a future in which migration is likely to be influenced by a changing climate, a conceptual framework, such as this may aid in elucidating the structural conditions that shape livelihood outcomes for migrants and host communities.

KEYWORDS:

• polycentricity
• migration
• governance outcomes
• climate change

1. Introduction

Climate change – along with conflict, violence, and climate-related disasters – has the potential to accelerate many forms of human migration and mobility, contributing to a re-distribution of global populations as communities see to reduce vulnerability and mitigate risk. Simultaneously the key migration outcomes of interest are determined predominantly by governance decisions. This includes the timing of migration, the preferred destinations, the condition of migrants, potential for long-term integration, among others. While the decision to leave a place of origin is frequently studied, less attention has been given to the outcomes for migrants within a chosen destination, and the often-opaque elements that contribute to destinations being preferred or avoided. The aim of this research is to provide a conceptual structure for defining the role of governance in migrant and host community outcomes, explore the degree to which variability in a governance landscape creates destinations that are favourable or unfavourable to migrants, and elucidate the informal and formal governance elements that play a critical role in enabling or limiting preferred migration outcomes. To produce preferred outcomes of migration in under current and future climate scenarios, the governance structures that produce them must be understood.

Migration is a well-documented strategy for increasing resilience and adaptive capacity, and reducing exposure and vulnerability, and has long been a strategy to reduce household exposure to short term risks and to take advantage of new opportunities (Stark and Bloom 1985; Black et al. 2011; McLeman 2019). While forced displacement due to conflict, violence, and climate-related disasters have led to more people being displaced outside of and within their own countries than ever documented (United Nations 2022), recent conversation has also centred around planned relocation as a viable adaptation tool in response to climate-related impacts (McNamara et al. 2018; Ferris and Weerasinghe 2020). Just as migration can increase the adaptive capacity for both migrants and destination communities (McLeman and Hunter 2010; Black et al. 2011; McLeman 2019), limits to mobility, can greatly reduce adaptive capacity and resilience (Adams 2016; McLeman 2019). However, policy decisions can lead to both barriers to or opportunities for this increased adaptive capacity as a preferred outcome within a destination. For example, current border policies and nationalistic tendencies act as a barrier to adaptive capacity (Hall 2013; Donato and Massey 2016; McLeman 2019) and shared adaptive capacity for both migrants and destination communities hinges on the ability of migrants to support livelihoods and integrate within the community (Lindstrom and Massey 1994; Lindstrom 2019), which can be seen largely as an issue of governance.

In theory governance reflects the social values of a community, though more regularly the values of those in positions of decision-making power, and fundamentally aims to obtain specific patterns and outcomes among actors across a resource landscape through rules concerning access and expected benefits (Dietz et al. 2003). In terms of preferred adaptive outcomes of migration, the aim may also be ensuring that migration confers benefits to either host or migrant communities or both, for example, visa policies which aim to facilitate skilled migrant participation in foreign economies, urban planning policies that consider an in-migration component of city growth, or educational programmes that aim to build a skilled labour force through technical training as well as development of language proficiency. Where environmental change is cited as a driver of migration, the aim of “environmental migration governance” might be ensuring that migration is adaptive (McLeman and Smit 2006; Black et al. 2011), meaning migration increases the range of adaptation options available and the agency of migrants to access them within a destination.

Frequently, however, there is disagreement across the decision-making landscape with regards to the values that shape governance and what outcomes are considered favourable or desirable. While a favourable outcome from a migrant perspective may be long-term stability and integration in host communities, in a governance structure that emphasizes security or nativism as central values, the preferred outcome may be limiting incoming migration, and would emerge from a range of policies that emphasize border security and policing and/or limit availability or access to services. If the desire is to understand outcomes of migration in a changing climate, knowing the potential variability in a decision-making landscape, how then can a particular governance landscape be “mapped” in a manner that elucidates both the diverse outcomes of migration and the outcome-producing variables within said landscape?

The aim of this paper is to present a conceptual framework, comprised of four potential governance “quadrants”, used for defining variability within a governance landscape in order to understand the elements that produce outcomes for both migrants and host communities. In doing so it builds from research surrounding outcomes for migrants and host communities following migration (International Organization for Migration (IOM) 2019; Adger et al. 2021; Barnett and Adger 2007; Massey et al. 1999; De Haas 2007; Hass 2011; Freeman and Kessler 2008; Jaeger et al. 2010; among others), using integration as a central indicator of adaptation (Lindstrom 2019), and leans on polycentric governance literature (Ostrom et al. 1994; Ostrom 2010) to identify the ways in which diverse outcomes are produced through relationships between formal and informal components within a complex system.

Categorization of this variety allows for a diverse governance landscape to be conceptually mapped with regards to existing outcomes for migrants. In an diverse and often changing landscape, categorization of this variety allows for a bounding that, rather than limit complexity, exposes starting points for its exploration and creates a pathway for governance goals and actual outcomes to be analysed within a governance landscapeCategorization allows for variability to appear in even a seemingly homogenous governance environment and motivates a look beneath the surface to light on formal and informal elements of governance producing outcomes that may previously have remained invisible.

To that end, the research applies the conceptual framework to select case studies within Oregon’s diverse governance landscape to identify outcomes, elucidate the informal and formal governance elements that play a critical role in enabling or limiting preferred migration outcomes, and explore the degree to which variability in a governance landscape creates destinations that are favourable or unfavourable to migrants. It bounds landscapes as governance arenas (Ostrom et al. 1994) in which individuals or groups are involved or affected by the production of outcomes within governance landscape, but may vary in values and goals, stepping away from institutional boundaries that may imply uniformity. In the process of categorization across a governance landscape, the research also recognizes that the presence of a particular outcome category (e.g. “exclusion”) is equally as important as the absence of an outcome category (e.g. “inclusion”).

While this research is driven towards assisting researchers and decision makers in being prepared for (and proactive towards) the eventuality of environmentally-influenced migration in a future in which migration is likely to be influenced by a changing climate, it recognizes that the drivers of migration are complex and that the implications of this work are much broader reaching than solely within outcomes of environmental migration. As such while the environment and environmental change served as the impetus for this research, it is not necessarily fundamental to this conceptualization.

1.2. Polycentricity and migration governance

Outcomes of governance emerge both from agency and established structure, and frequently exist in a polycentric governance environment (Ostrom 2010), or one in which many centres of partial authority cover an array of governance tasks, and do so with some degree of autonomy (Ostrom 2005). Polycentric governance arrangements overlap at multiple jurisdictional level and can include for formal and informal actors and institutions. This is well-illustrated in international migration, which may be subject to agencies and institutions at international, national, and local levels, and involve for formal and informal governance components. For example, nations such as the United States, despite having formal policy on migration across multiple jurisdictional levels, may have no formal immigrant integration policies, but rather a mix of federal, state, and local policies and practices that influence migrant access to services and livelihood opportunities (Motomura 2006; Bloemraad and De Graauw 2012). In other words, within a system of polycentric governance, formal policy is just one of many formal and informal design elements that can determine outcomes of governance (Ostrom et al. 1994). From an Elinor Ostrom et al. (1994) perspective, design elements can include actors, both formal and informal institutions, established rules, sanctions, and decision-making processes. Fundamentally, design elements also include goals of governance, and the values and norms informing those goals. These elements can vary from one arena to the next and the elements that produce “potentials and pitfalls” in one location, will be different from those in another location (Ostrom et al. 1994), a notion of critical importance in understanding the production of migration outcomes.

If the fundamental aim of governance is to obtain specific patterns and outcomes among actors (Dietz et al. 2003), polycentricity highlights the ways in which goals of governance are often contested or unclear and routinely involve competing institutions and actors (Morrison et al. 2017; Kanie and Biermann 2017, Corrales, 2011; Argy 2004; Rasche and Gilbert, 20012; Gardner et al. 1990), leading to an array of possible outcomes. For example, while local policy may be favourable towards migrant livelihoods (e.g. allowing unauthorized migrants to obtain a state driver’s licence, providing unauthorized migrants in-state residency tuition benefits, etc.), federal increases in deportation rates influences access to resources, services, and the ability to navigate social, political, and economic institutions (Lindstrom 2019). While governance is always leading towards a particular goal or outcome, these can be contested even within institutions that position themselves as proponents of the same goal (Corrales 2011; Tosun and Leininger 2017).

Similarly, goals of governance are often informed by values, and variability in preferred outcomes stems largely from contrasting aims and values (Morrison et al. 2017; Kanie and Biermann 2017, Corrales, 2017; Argy 2004; Rasche and Gilbert, 20012; Gardner et al. 1990). In other words, a preferred migration governance outcome based on values could just as easily be national security as it could be regularization of migrants and inclusion within the same landscape. Understanding governance outcomes goes beyond simply understanding the determinants, but rather the particular actions that institutions and actors pursue to achieve specific goals that produce an outcome, and the relationships between decision-makers across multiple levels.

So, while it is well documented that migrants improve adaptive capacity both for migrants and host communities (Adger et al. 2021, Massey et al. 1999; De Haas 2007, 2010; Freeman and Kessler 2008; Jaeger et al. 2010; among others), a mismatch in values and preferred outcomes can translate to a governance landscape that is in conflict and creates barriers to adaptation. Negative exernalities of governance could include further social and economic marginality (Bernhardt et al. 2008, 2009; Bobo 2009; Fussell 2018), legal liminality (Hall 2013; Donato and Massey 2016; McLeman 2019) or harmful, a perpetuation of inaccurate or xenophobic narratives and perceptions of migrants (McLeman, 2019; Lawlor and Tolley 2017; Hodwitz and Massingale 2021). This marginality may contribute to liminal existences, or the extent to which migrants live in “legal shadows” (Donato and Massey 2016; Gregson and Crang 2017), having to depend on informal institutions, economies, networks, sources of income, or misrepresentation (Poros 2011; Lindstrom 2019, de Haas and Fokkema 2011; Gomberg-Muñoz 2010; Gomberg-Muñoz et al. 2017; Velazquez and Kempf-Leonard 2010; McLeman, 2019). Liminality significantly reduces adaptive capacity (McLeman 2019) while increasing marginalization, and while it is generally considered institutional or legal, liminality is also economic and social (Gregson and Crang 2017; Galaz et al. 2018). Liminality might also encourage nationalist, xenophobic or racist values and compound the marginalization of migrants themselves (Peters 2015; McLeman 2019).

Preferred outcomes for migrants may include long-term integration, political and civic participation, and opportunities for educational and economic attainment. In all of these cases, the benefits experienced by migrants are translated to host communities (IOM, 2019, Adger, 2021; Bernhardt et al. 2009, Massey et al., 1999; De Haas 2007, 2011; Freeman and Kessler 2008; Jaeger et al. 2010; among others). For migrants, integration allows for increased language skills which is linked to successful incorporation into a formal labour market and upward economic mobility (Chiswick 1991; Lindstrom and Massey 1994; Borjas 1999), as well as social integration which improves a sense of belonging within host communities (Lindstrom 2019). The improved ability to support a family through integration increases interactions with host communities through institutions such as schools, medical services, financial institutions, and social resources (Lindstrom 2019), which, in turn increases social ties and community investment. The ability to access formal financial institutions allows for credit to be established (Newberger et al. 2004; Rhine and Greene 2006) which potentially leads to increased assets, such as owning a home or business, both of which are considered an indicator of successful integration and commitment to the destination (Constant and Zimmermann 2011; Lindstrom 2019). However, this potential positive outcome is significantly limited by a mismatch in governance aims.

Though it is often assumed that collective action and an external authority is required in the creation of enforceable roles, incentives, and outcomes, polycentricity includes the governance role of informal actors, agencies and authorities, recognizing that especially in instances in which formal mechanisms fail to produce preferred outcomes, action is often taken without waiting for an external authority (Ostrom 2010). While some of the outcomes of migration are generated through formal policy – for example policies surrounding health services or education opportunities – others are influenced by informal policies, narratives, and associations. Simultaneously, formal policies can both directly and indirectly influence migrant livelihoods. For example, policy can explicitly provide access to health insurance directly impacting migrants, and in doing so highlight boundaries between foreign-born and native-born residents and influence the perception of migrants within a community (Schneider and Ingram 2005; Viruell-Fuentes et al. 2012; Perreira and Pedroza 2019).

Given the significant variability of design elements within and between governance arenas, the elements that produce preferred outcomes with regards to migrant livelihoods in one arena, may be distinctly different from those of another. To understand the relationships and mechanisms through which outcomes are produced, the outcome-determining design elements within a complex polycentric governance arena must be elucidated.

Currently much of migration literature centres on drivers of migration, migrant decision-making, and limits to migration as adaptation to changing conditions in a place of origin. Simultaneously, much of the literature surrounding migration governance centres on border policy, rather than policies within a destination that influence factors such as migrant access to resources, protections afforded to migrants, or avenues of integration.

Under current climate change scenarios, the demand for migration as adaptation is increasing (Piguet et al. 2011; McLeman 2019; Kaczan and Orgill-Meyer 2020). The conceptual framework presented here is guided by the need to understand how intended and unintended consequences of host-centred, migrant-centred, or mutual migration governance affect migrants in a destination regardless of the driver. Our framework is intended to allow for the analysis of diverse governance landscapes, encompassing formal and informal actors and institutions, in an effort to identify outcomes, and their drivers, that affect both migrants and host communities. We argue here that an analytical description of governance landscapes is critical in order to understand mechanisms enabling preferred outcomes of mutual advantage to hosts and migrants. Given that migration is often occurring regardless of hostile migration governance (Cornelius 2006; Andersson 2016; Donato and Massey 2016; McAuliffe and Ruhs 2017), that hostile migration outcomes may increase negative externalities or unintended outcomes for both migrants and host communities (Fussell, 2016; Bernhardt et al. 2008, 2009; Bobo 2009; Gleeson 2010, Gomberg-Munoz, 2010, 2011; Velazquez and Kempf-Leonard 2010), and migration is expected to rise under future climate scenarios (;McLeman 2019; Perch-Nielsen et al. 2008; Piguet et al. 2011, among others), it is vital to understand and enable the production of adaptive outcomes.

2. Framework

With the recognition that design elements vary significantly between arenas, categorization allows for a diverse governance landscape to be mapped with regards to existing outcomes for migrants. This creates a pathway for formal policy goals and actual outcomes to be analysed within a given arena, particularly where mismatches may exist, and can also provide a method of site selection for empirical research seeking to explore drivers, outcomes, within a governance landscape. Rather than being a simplification, categorization may allow for the elucidation of structural conditions that shape migrant lives in a destination.

Figure 1 depicts a conceptual framework built of four quadrants, providing a typology of environmental migration governance: 1) Inclusion, 2) Practical Exclusion, 3) Conditional Exclusion, 4) Explicit Exclusion. A governance landscape (e.g. a city, state, or region) could be made up of any number of these four quadrants, from exclusively representing one, to a combination of all four. Analysis of an arena that includes both formal and informal design elements and their relationships, can highlight outcome-determining design elements within a governance landscape and results in a quadrant designation that defines a dynamic with regards to long term integration and adaptation impacting both migrant and host communities.

Figure 1. Four-quadrant conception framework for environmental migration governance typology. The x-axis represents the degree to which a host-community employs a narrative that is outwardly supportive of migrant livelihoods. The y-axis represents the degree to which a host-community provides for the livelihood needs of migrants and does so in a manner that is safely accessible.

2.1. Inclusion

A quadrant identified as “inclusion” is one in which migrants are outwardly welcomed, both in expressed local values (e.g. sanctuary cities, pro-migrants movements, etc.) as well as in practical accessibility that allows for long-term integration (e.g. affordable housing, access to migrant resources, representation in local government, etc.). A migration arena characterized by inclusion is likely to be one in which those who are directly affected by governance can play a role in the decision-making process, or one in which values and norms informing governance align with values and norms supporting migrant livelihoods, to create rules that are effective in accomplishing intended outcomes. Importantly, an inclusion arena provides preferred, adaptive outcomes through integration that benefit both migrant and host communities.

Research on migrant integration in the US emphasizes education as a key predictor of better jobs, improved language skills, continuous overlap with native residents, increased confidence navigating institutions, and increased levels of host community acceptance (Espinosa and Massey 1997; Baum et al. 2010; Baum and Flores 2011; De Haas and Fokkema 2011; Lindstrom 2019). Policies that increase migrant access to education can lead to successful labour market experiences as well as the ability for migrants to take part in social, political and civic affairs (Baum and Flores 2011; Lindstrom 2019). Conversely, policies that inhibit or inadequately address educational opportunities for migrants potentially reduce preferred outcomes for both migrants and host communities (Kobach 2007; Baum and Flores 2011).

Linguistic ability is frequently considered an indicator of integration (Bijl et al., 2008; Entzinger and Biezeveld 2003; Kurthen and Heisler 2009; Huddleston et al. 2013; Di Bartolomeo and Kalantaryan 2017) and language skills are critical to labour market access, occupational mobility, wage growth, and social interaction (Chiswick 1991; Lindstrom and Massey 1994; Lindstrom 2019; Borjas, 1999). In the U.S., English fluency is highly correlated with annual income (Lindstrom 2019). Arenas in which opportunities to improve language skills through employer sponsored training or ESL courses can bolster integration and access. Access is also improved through provisions for bilingual services, such as New York’s Executive Order 120, which directs all city agencies to provide language assistance in Spanish as well as the city’s other five most spoken languages (Bloemraad and De Graauw 2012).

By becoming an integrated part of a host community, migrants may fill labour and demographic gaps (Taylor 1999), contribute to economic growth (Kerr and Kerr 2011; Sherman et al. 2019; Abramitzky and Boustan 2017; Becerra et al. 2012; among others), contribute to civil discourse and social change (Figure 2) in a manner that improves issues of equity and inclusivity (Massey et al., 1999; De Haas 2007, 2011), and transfer intellectual, social, and cultural knowledge (Freeman and Kessler 2008; de Haas, 2007). Counter to the narrative that migrant networks insulate migrants from the host society, robust networks aid rather than inhibit integration (Lindstrom 2019). By way of example, in Oregon, Pineros y Campesinos Unidos del Noroeste (PCUN) plays a significant role in enabling all of above benefits and simultaneously provides a voice for migrants in legislative settings (see Figure 2).

Figure 2. Pineros y Campesinos Unidos del Noroeste (PCUN) mural (author Photo).

2.2. Practical exclusion

Practical exclusion, on the other hand, is an arena in which the welcoming of migrants is outwardly expressed in local values (e.g. sanctuary cities), however accessibility for migrants is severely limited (e.g. high cost of living, limited work opportunities, limited migrant resources, etc.), making integration practically unfeasible despite being ideologically supported by a host community. A migration arena characterized by practical exclusion is one that, for example, holds pro-migrant marches, however, a high local cost of living excludes the vast majority of migrants from living within the community. This dynamic appears in places such as San Francisco, California where, in 2019, mayor London Breed stated, “Here in San Francisco, we will always demonstrate our values of diversity and inclusiveness by being a sanctuary city that stands up for all our residents and neighbours” in response to proposed immigration enforcement actions throughout the city (City of San Francisco 2019). However, median household income amongst Latinos in San Francisco County was $62,200 (US Census, 2020) and a 2018 report calculated that the household income required to afford a home of median value was $250,000 (San Francisco Planning 2018). Similarly, the median rent across the same time period was $3,500, which would require a household income of $180,000 (assuming no more than 30% of income would be spent on rent) (San Francisco Planning 2018).

Alternatively, practical exclusion could be characterized by a community with sanctuary laws protecting unauthorized migrants, while at the same time lacking employment opportunities or resources that support migrant well-being. In other words, local values may be emphasized through voter-passed formal policies such as allowing unauthorized migrants to obtain a driver’s licence or state-issued ID, providing access to in-state residency tuition benefits, or sanctuary city status (Newberger et al. 2004; Rhine and Greene 2006; Baum and Flores 2011; Cho 2019; Amuedo-Dorantes et al. 2020). However, practical access may prevent migrants from taking advantage of the policies that are designed to assist them (Amuedo-Dorantes et al. 2020).

2.3 Explicit exclusion

Explicit exclusion is characterized by migration arenas in which long-term integration is neither desired nor supported, and these values are enacted across formal and informal governance. These may include communities that both outwardly express anti-immigrant values in the form of rhetoric as well as representation of anti-immigrant organizations within local civil society, such as the presence of white supremacist organizations and the promotion of nativism narratives. In this arena, these values inform policies that limit access and opportunities for migrants through formal and informal structures (e.g. high arrest rates within migrant communities, labour laws limiting migrant employment, etc.).

Similar to conditional exclusion, broad sweeping formal policies passed by large percentages of the voting population can reflect community values and goals of governance. By way of example, Arizona Senate Bill 1070, passed in 2010, allowed an undocumented person found to not be carrying a certificate of alien registration to be charged with a state misdemeanour crime, and obligated police to determine a person’s immigration status during a “lawful stop, detention or arrest” (American Civil Liberties Union ACLU 2010). Similarly, Alabama House Bill 56, passed in 2011, contained provisions ranging from requiring law enforcement to attempt to determine legal status, prohibiting unauthorized migrants from receiving public benefits, and requiring public schools to determine the legal status of students (Mohl 2016). Additional provisions include prohibiting landlords from renting to unauthorized migrants, prohibiting employment, and requiring the use of the E-Verify program to assess legal status (Mohl 2016). In total, these policies encourage racial profiling, anti-migrant policing, and build upon values of mistrust for migrants (Bloemraad and De Graauw 2012; Perreira and Pedroza 2019), creating a hostile environment that also provides limited access to livelihood resources.

Formal policy may be bolstered by informal practices and narratives that aim to achieve the same goals. Hate groups such as Californians for Population Stabilization or Federation for American Immigration Reform contribute to local anti-immigrant narratives, xenophobia, and fear, which is frequently echoed in the rhetoric of local government representatives (Arrocha 2019), such as Virginian 2018 candidate for US Senate, Corey Stewart, who ran on an anti-immigration platform driven by a desire “to stop our great nation from being overrun by illegal aliens and the crime, drugs, human trafficking, poverty and misery they bring with them” (Flynn 2018).

Policies such as these, act to highlight racial difference and impose distinct boundaries between native-born and foreign-born populations which can lead to racialization, contributing to significant stress amongst migrants (Zhong et al. 2016; Perreira and Pedroza 2019) and anti-immigrant sentiment amongst host communities (Ybarra et al. 2016; Perreira and Pedroza 2019).

2.4. Conditional exclusion

Finally, conditional exclusion is characterized by a community in which anti-migrant values are outwardly expressed (e.g. presence of white supremacist organizations, anti-migrant rhetoric, etc.), however a structure of support or resources exist for migrants (e.g. affordable housing, access to migrant resources, sanctuary state protections, etc.). An arena characterized by conditional exclusion could be one in which even while formal policies may contribute to negative outcomes for migrants and echo local anti-immigrant sentiment, the availability of employment opportunities, affordable housing, and access to services still support migrant livelihoods within the same space. For instance, as of 2019, 27.6% of Umatilla County, Oregon residents identify as Latino (US Census 2020), the majority of whom are employed within agriculture drawn to the region for employment opportunity. Neighbouring Morrow County is home to one of the few majority Latino communities within the state of Oregon (US Census 2020). However, despite being major employers of Latino workers, in 2018 both counties had sheriffs who signed a letter of support for the Repeal Sanctuary State Law Initiative (OR Measure 105, 2018), with 55% of Umatilla County and 57% of Morrow County voting in agreement (OR Measure 105, 2018). In addition to sheriff support for OR Measure 105, both Grant County and Columbia County have incarceration rates that over-represent respective Latino populations by over 4 and 6 times (US Census 2020).

Simultaneously, Morrow County is home to numerous large employers, including Lamb Weston and Amazon, as well as Oregon’s second-largest port and two gas-fired power plants. Amazon currently has two data centres within Morrow County and one in Umatilla County, with four more proposed in the region (Banse, 2019). Housing purchase costs remain low at 44% of the statewide median in 2019 (US Census 2020). The influx of employers prompted the 2017 addition of the Workforce Training Center at Blue Mountain Community College, which provides job skills training, ESL courses, and college preparatory classes (Waldroupe 2019).

Formal policies within a conditional exclusion landscape may directly or indirectly legitimize discrimination and foster xenophobia. For example, policies that emphasize the divide between foreign- and native-born populations can limit access to services, educational opportunities, and employment, which in turn builds upon values including a “fear of other” and sense of mistrust for migrants (Bloemraad and De Graauw 2012; Perreira and Pedroza 2019). States enacting policies that highlight boundaries between foreign-born and native-born residents or stigmatized unauthorized migrants contribute to the avoidance of use of public assistance benefits amongst unauthorized migrants as well as mixed-status households, regardless of eligibility (Fussell, 2016; Vargas Bustamante and Van der Wees 2012; Martinez-Donate et al. 2014; Amuedo-Dorantes et al. 2020).

3. Case study application

Although the expression of each quadrant may vary, outcome-determining design elements result in a quadrant designation that helps to elucidate the structural conditions that shape outcomes with regards to both migrant and host communities. For this conceptual framework, and as previously mentioned, a preferred migration governance outcome is one that is considered adaptive and of mutual advantage to hosts and migrants, as supported by the existing migration literature (McLeman and Hunter 2010; Black et al. 2011; McLeman 2019).

While governance dynamics consistently evolve and change, influencing outcomes to varying degrees, particular events or moments in time can highlight not only structures of both formal and informal governance, but also outcome-determining relationships within a polycentric system. While elements in a system predispose outcomes, frequently those design elements lack transparency without an event as a catalyst. In other words, the interaction of design elements, though consistently present, is often not immediately apparent in the absence of an inflection point. To that end, we present a series of case studies centred on events in specific governance arenas to situate these arenas within the conceptual framework.

Case studies were selected following the application of the conceptual framework across all 36 Oregon counties (Figure 3). For each county, a particular event was identified that elucidated the outcome-producing design elements. While numerous case studies could have been used, the case studies below were selected for the recent nature of the events described. Though evidence of explicit exclusion, conditional exclusion, and practical exclusion was found, inclusion as a quadrant was notably absent across all 36 counties.

Figure 3. Locations of case studies 1–3 within Oregon.

3.1. Case study 1 - conditional exclusion: Jackson county wildfire recovery

The September 2020 Almeda Fire travelled rapidly through Jackson County, Oregon, displacing 42,000 people and destroying over 2,600 homes and businesses primarily within the communities of Phoenix and Talent (Gardiner 2021). Three quarters of the structures were manufactured homes within mobile home parks, with post-fire estimates exceeding 1,748 mobile homes and 18 mobile parks lost. In the aftermath, with as many as 8,500 residents homeless (Gardiner 2021), a federal disaster declaration allowed FEMA to begin assisting in cleanup and housing recovery (Jefferson Public Radio JPR 2021).

Jackson County (see Figure 3), which has a poverty rate of 19.0% (US Census 2020), and more than 4 out of 5 low-income renters paying more than 50% of that income in rent, had struggled with an affordable housing shortage prior to the 2020 fire with a 5,380 housing unit shortage as of 2018 (Oregon Housing and Community Services 2018; Sickinger 2020). Many residents, unable to afford nearby housing, opt instead for low-cost manufactured housing in the communities of Talent and Phoenix (Crombie 2020) and commute to employment in more affluent parts of the county.

Many of the households displaced by the Almeda Fire were made up of members of the Hispanic community (Crombie 2020), of whom many identify as immigrants, following an increase in migrants during 1990’s seeking employment in nearby orchards. Since 1990’s Latino migrants have increasingly been employed beyond agriculture, taking on roles in food processing plants, local businesses, and the service industry. The 2008 economic crisis prompted many to move into multi-generational homes within manufactured home parks where housing costs were less expensive than surrounding areas, but still provided access to employment in neighbouring, more affluent, communities (Crombie 2020). As of 2020, nearly half of the Phoenix-Talent School District identified as Hispanic (NCES, 20212).

While park landlords are required to maintain business insurance, insurance on the part of residents is rare due to high cost and low availability (Sickinger 2020) resulting in the majority of displaced residents lacking homeowner’s insurance (Sickinger 2020). At the same time, though ownership of manufactured homes within a park is not uncommon, ownership of the land upon which homes sit is rare, making it difficult for homeowners and renters to acquire insurance policies (Sickinger 2020). While federal disaster benefits were available for the uninsured or underinsured, implementation of housing recovery efforts within Jackson County have been fraught (Ehrlich 2021a; McMinn and Ehrlich 2021).

FEMA’s role was to provide transitional housing units, ideally in locations where residents could maintain access local schools, employment, and services (Neumann 2021; Ehrlich, 2021b). In February of 2021, FEMA and the City of Talent proposed the use of Chuck Roberts Park (McNamara 2021; Mills 2021), a park used by the Phoenix-Talent Little League, as a site for transitional housing for a portion of 130 families in need (Mills 2021). The proposed use of the field met resistance from the neighbouring, predominantly white community, who expressed the importance of keeping the fields available for baseball (Mills 2021; Shelton 2021; Rodriguez 2021). Following the Talent City Council’s approval of the fields to be considered as a contingent location (Rodriguez 2021), the Phoenix-Talent Little League board sought legal counsel and began a petition (gathering 900 signatures) (Rodriguez 2021; Change, 2021).

Opponents of the proposal suggested that displaced families eligible for transitional housing would be “displacing” children from their community by limiting their ability to play baseball, and to do so close to their homes (Mills 2021; Shelton 2021; Rodriguez 2021). In response to local objection, the mayor of Talent confirmed that the fields would only be used only in the event other options remained unsatisfactory, and even then only two of four baseball fields would be used for temporary housing (Rodriguez 2021). By March 2021, more than 100 families remained displaced (McNamara 2021). As of July 2021, the baseball fields had not been used for temporary housing, and displaced families await additional FEMA approved housing by the end of August (McNamara 2021). To date, hundreds of families remain in trailers, temporary housing, and hotels, though a new park recently opened 53 trailers in an attempt to address the families that remain displaced and have students registered in the school district (Neumann 2021).

Within the governance arena, actors included displaced members of the community, many who whom identify as migrants, and the Phoenix-Talent Little League, as well as actors within formal governance (FEMA and the Talent City Council). While the broad goal of post-disaster governance was to provide housing for families displaced due to fire, particularly uninsured community members, difference in values and preferred outcomes amongst actors created a landscape in which the outcome that would have been generated from formal rules, was overwhelmed by host community agendas.

The fire as an inflection point highlighted the manner in which long-standing rules within the governance landscape then influenced outcomes for both migrants and the host community. The same dynamics that have long caused migrants to live outside of larger, more affluent towns, within more affordable but uninsured mobile and manufactured home parks, appear in the on-going separation between migrants and the host community. Within their opposition to temporary housing within Chuck Roberts Park, the host community expressed values that prioritize local, middle-class children, over temporary housing for displaced migrant families still seen as community outsiders, despite many of these families having lived within a quarter-mile of the baseball park.

These values translated into an informal governance opposition force that was enough to ensure transitional housing would not be built on the baseball fields, translating in a scattering of the migrant community and extending displacement until alternative suitable locations could be established. In such a manner, the outcome-determining design element was decision-making power held by middle class host community members and informed by their values, highlighting the manner in which informal community decision making may challenge or even supersede formal policy.

The design-elements in Jackson County operate in tandem to define a conditional exclusion environment, or one in which migrants may potentially have access to affordable housing, resources, and labour opportunities, and reside in a state with sanctuary protections, but still face a host community that maintains values and authority the produce outcomes that are unfavourable and prevent integration.

3.2. Case study 2 - practical exclusion: metro SW corridor transportation project

Metro, a governing body unique to Oregon (see Figure 3), is a regional agency that serves the three urban counties making up the Portland metropolitan area (Metro 2021). Though it addresses an array of regional services, its primary focus is within land use and transportation planning (Metro 2021). The Metro-proposed Southwest Corridor Light Rail Project was a rail line anticipated to connect downtown Portland with neighbouring suburban communities. The project was designed to include 13 light rail stations over an 11-mile route (see Figure 4), and provide an estimated 37,500 daily trips, in an aim to support the estimated 400,000 new residents expected by 2040 (Trimet 2020; SWEDS, 2019).

Figure 4. Southwest Corridor proposal map. (SWEDS, 2019).

Within its 2017 Southwest Corridor Equitable Development Strategy (SWEDS), Metro explored how the proposed light rail expansions could support local development in the southwestern reaches of Portland and neighbouring communities, minimize impacts of expansion and gentrification. The strategy specifically targeted issues of equity for low income and minority residents and listed within its goals, the desire to “preserve and expand affordable housing” as well as “develop healthy and safe communities” (SWEDS, 2019). The initial plan cited 2011–2015 data identifying 45% of Hispanic and Latino in the corridor as renters, and 37% of homeowners as cost-burdened (ACS 2016; SWEDS, 2019), and emphasized the exponential growth within the Portland/Metro area as contributing to increased home values, pushing renters farther from job centres and community services. The plan was to be funded based on voter approval of Metro Measure 26–218 which sought funding for transportation focused programmes and projects in the region over a 15- to 20-year period through a 0.75% payroll tax on businesses with greater than 25 employees (SWEDS, 2019). In addition to supporting the light rail expansion through the Southwest Corridor, funds generated through the tax were planned to support free youth transit passes, as well as programmes targeting improved access to work and educational opportunities (SWEDS 2019).

While the SWEDS was supported by over 35 entities (including the City of Portland as well as agencies supporting migrant communities such as UNITE Oregon and the Immigrant and Refugee Community Organization) (SWEDS, 2019), the funding mechanism within Measure 26–218 generated significant resistance (Ballotpedia 2020b). The campaign against the measure, called Stop the Metro Wage Tax, argued the measure would harm families through paycheck decreases, and unfairly burden businesses. A former state representative argued that light rail ridership was in fact declining, and a spokesperson for Intel, the state’s largest private employer, stated that while the company was committed to the local communities, the bill would “damage local businesses and deter future investment in the region” (Ballotpedia 2020a). The November 2020 vote resulted in a failure to pass by a 15.5% margin (Ballotpedia 2020b).

This failure ran counter to the outwardly presented rhetoric regarding acceptance of migrant communities, particularly within Multnomah County (Gerike 2019; KGW; Gerike 2019). In the lead up to the 2020 election, Multnomah County was home to numerous protests, many of which centred on the intertwined nature of federal immigration policy and local policing (Padilla-Rodriguez 2020). Portland has been particularly vocal with regards to protections for unauthorized migration, and was the initial home to the “Occupy ICE” movement in response to President Trump’s April 2018 “zero tolerance” policy regarding unauthorized migration (Gerike 2019). Portland’s Mayor, Ted Wheeler, had responded to anti-migrant rhetoric with “If [migrants] do come here, we’ll do what we always do. We’ll welcome them with open arms” (KGW News 2019). The outward support ran against data regarding Latinx livelihoods with a 2016 report on Multnomah County stating that of the county’s total foreign-born population, 25% lived in poverty and poverty levels amongst Latinx families were 152% higher than white families (Ruffenach et al. 2016). 21.4% of Latinx community members were experiencing food insecurity (Ruffenach et al. 2016).

In a county where pro-immigrant signs dot front lawns, and schools often provide materials in both English and Spanish, very rarely are those lawns owned by immigrant families, and only 16.6% of K-12 desks are occupied by Latinx community members (PPS, 2020). Neighbouring Washington County, the county designed to be most directly served by the Southwest Corridor Project, has a Hispanic population of 17.1% (US Census 2020; SWEDS, 2019). Tigard-Tualatin, Beaverton, Hillsboro and Forest Grove – all Washington County school districts with closest proximity to the proposed line as well as an existing line – each marked a 14%, 25%, 40%, 55% Hispanic enrolment respectively, in 2020; percentages that increase with distance from downtown Portland (US Census 2020).

Within the governance arena, actors included the voting public within Metro’s purveyance, the tri-county transportation district, local businesses, and numerous agencies providing resources and services to migrant communities. The broad goal of the proposed line was increase equity, affordable housing, and increased access, particularly for immigrant households and households of colour, in the face of an expanding population, fitting the dominate outward narrative surrounding the values of inclusion and integration. However, when it came to allocating funds through a formal governance structure (Measure 26–218), the values of voters emerged as prioritizing economic stability and growth.

In this arena at this inflection point, the outcome-determining design principle was the voters, the vast majority of whom are middle class and white, and whose votes produced an outcome that was potentially unfavourable to migrants. The design elements within the Southwest Corridor project and subsequent ballot measure define a practical exclusion environment, or one in which migrants may be welcome in terms of public narrative or even political rhetoric, but face impracticalities in terms of supporting livelihoods, and a host community that may prioritize other values in the process of decision-making.

3.3. Case study 3 - explicit exclusion: measure 105

Oregon has the oldest sanctuary law within the United states, passed after a unanimous vote in the state Legislature in 1987 (VanderHart 2021). The law limits both local and state police from enforcing federal immigration policies across all 36 counties and, at its core, is intended to limit racial profiling. In 2017, the Trump administration signed an executive order making any sanctuary jurisdiction ineligible for federal grants (Domonoske 2017). Three months later, in April 2017, three members of the Oregon House of Representatives representing portions of Jackson, Benton, Marion, Polk, Yamhill, Umatilla, and all of Wallowa and Union counties, filed a proposal to repeal Oregon’s sanctuary law, resulting in State Measure 105 (Ballotpedia, 2020a; KVAL 2018). The conservative-liberal divide was a distinct departure from the unanimous 1987 passing that transcended party lines (VanderHart 2021).

Measure 105 mirrored legislation such as Arizona’s 2010 Senate Bill 1070, which empowered law enforcement to act as immigration officials and provided leeway for targeting suspected undocumented immigrants (American Civil Liberties Union ACLU 2010). Economic consequences of the enactment of this legislation included significant decline in tax revenue and faltering industries within the state due to an estimated 10% of undocumented migrants leaving Arizona in response (Godles 2016; New American Economy 2018). Models projected similar consequences for Oregon should Measure 105 pass and it was estimated that if 10% of Oregon’s undocumented immigrants were to leave following passage, the state could stand to lose 10.4 million dollars in federal taxes, 6.2 million in state and local taxes, and 329.8 million in GDP (New American Economy 2018). Job vacancies were likely to be on-going due to the overrepresentation of undocumented migrants in labour-intensive jobs (Ottaviano and Peri 2012).

However, half of Oregon’s sheriffs, predominantly those from rural, conservative counties within Oregon, supported Measure 105 (Wilson 2018a; Bergin 2018). Their argument centred around the national narrative that immigrants cause crime and that the state’s sanctuary law undermined the ability of law enforcement to investigate crimes or make arrests. They requested the ability to work with ICE and other federal partners to expand policing (Wilson 2018b; Bergin 2018). The Clatsop County Sheriff, noting concerns about the restrictions imposed by sanctuary laws, was quoted as saying, “If I get an MS-13 or somebody that’s a bad guy, ISIS or whatever is there, then I’m screwed” (Wilson 2018a). Another representative behind the proposal for the measure claimed that Measure 105 would “protect local city resources” (Wilson 2018a), aligning with the notion that immigrants disproportionately use resources allocated to residents. The Federation for American Immigration Reform, which helped in funding the campaign for Measure 105, ran ads claiming “politicians have protected illegal aliens with dangerous sanctuary policies that put Oregon citizens at risk” and that “it’s time to stand up for safe communities” (Wilson 2018a).

This narrative, while false, strongly echoed the national narrative coming from the White House at the time. In his campaign announcement, President Trump is quoted as saying, “When Mexico sends its people, they’re not sending their best… . They’re sending people that have lots of problems, and their bringing those problems with us. They’re bringing drugs, they’re bringing crime. They’re rapists. And some, I assume, are good people” (Hughey 2017). During a speech in Portland in the Fall of 2017, US Attorney General Jeff Sessions claimed, “Whatever the crime rate is in the city, you can be sure it would be higher and will be higher if these policies are followed. Sanctuary policies endanger us all”. (Wilson, 2018a).

Though Measure 105 failed to pass by a 27% margin (Ballotpedia 2020b), its support across numerous rural counties conveyed a strong anti-immigrant sentiment across wide swaths of the state. In Lake County (see Figure 3), where outward narrative of exclusion is frequently bolstered by practical exclusion, 64% of voters voted in favour of the measure (Ballotpedia 2020b).

Of Lake County residents, one of the most sparsely populated counties in Oregon, 8.6% are Hispanic or Latino, and 0% of the households speak a non-English language as a primary language (US Census 2020). As of 2019, the county had 205 employer establishments and most of the county’s economy exists within agriculture, in the form of large cattle ranches and hay farms, and natural resource extraction (US Census 2020). Though the timber industry once supported the county, operations now have been reduced to a single mill, and the poverty rate is at 17%, 6% higher than the state average (US Census 2020). With a significant lack of high paying jobs and a propensity for seasonal employment mirroring agricultural calendars, the county provides few, stable employment opportunities for incoming residents and seasonal workers are often left without resources during winter months (Harcourt 2016).

Opportunities for educational attainment, a critical component of integration (Lindstrom 2019), are equally limited, with only 16.4% of the county having obtained a bachelor’s degree or higher, roughly half of the state average (US Census 2020). Access to higher education comes predominantly from Klamath County through distance learning however, Lake County residents petitioned to remove the region from Central Oregon Community College’s district, citing inadequate services and high tax costs (Bulletin 2021). Residents also cite little need to hold a bachelor’s degree, as job opportunities within the county rarely surpass minimum wage (Harcourt 2016).

Though design elements in a governance arena consistently produce outcomes, frequently those design elements lack transparency without an event as a catalyst. While this may have been true for the previous two case studies, in the case of the explicit exclusion in Lake County, it may be that the status quo is the most telling outcome. Actors within this arena are predominately white and employed within agriculture and the declining timber industry. The presence of migrants, while not absent, is minimal, and work is limited to solely seasonal opportunities.

The goal of governance largely reflects conservative values that oppose perceived government overreach and centre around supporting rural livelihoods that are in decline. These values manifest in a prioritizing of rural economic opportunities over educational ones and the perceived preservation of resources in the face of rising poverty rates and the decline of a once vibrant timber industry. With the narrative of exclusion of migrants as demonstrated through the results of Measure 105 at the county-level, combined with the impracticalities of employment, educational attainment, or other forms of integration opportunity, Lake County lands squarely within a governance arena of explicit exclusion, an arena in which preferred outcomes for migrants are not produced.

4. Discussion

Three themes emerge in the application of the conceptual framework to case studies. First, status quo across all three case studies is one of exclusion. Though the form varies, exclusion is the predominant outcome in the examined governance landscape. Second, in understanding outcomes it is critical to also consider issues of temporal and spatial scale and acknowledge the complexity that remains as the conceptual framework is applied. Lastly, in developing and applying this framework both limitations and possibilities for future work come to light.

In all case studies, regardless of the values or goals of governance or the diversity of design elements, the outcome is one in which migrants are subject to exclusion. The mismatch between outward narrative (whether supportive of, or hostile to migrants) and governance outcomes, as is characteristic of both practical and conditional exclusion, leads to outcomes for migrants that are both surprising, in the sense that narrative does not necessarily translate to expected outcomes, and also exclusive. This mismatch can be nuanced, crossing between aim of formal governance (e.g. providing transitional housing or a ballot measure to fund public transportation) and informal decision-makers (e.g. a little league association or local business owners), to produce an outcome that is counter to formal governance goals. The framework not only sheds light on where mismatches between stated goals of governance and outcomes occur but also allows for identification of how that mismatch transpires both through formal and informal means. Importantly, the recognition of informal design elements and relationships that produce these outcomes helps to articulate how various groups create conditions that limit adaptive outcomes for both migrants and host communities.

While this work chose to focus on inflection points within governance arenas, these inflection points often served to highlight a consistent status quo and existing cultural and structural conditions that pre-dated the chosen event. Despite the expected significant variability across case studies, application of the framework highlighted a status quo largely indicative of longer term systemic and structural conditions. For example, in both Jackson County and Metro’s jurisdiction, the status quo had been one of the separation between migrants and host communities through distance from urban hubs. The status quo of exclusion is then maintained through the inflection points of fire recovery (Jackson County) and failed attempts to improve access to urban areas (Metro). Perhaps nowhere is the status quo more visible than within the Lake County case study, where the absence of migrants as a norm in and of itself may serve as an indicator of governance outcomes even in the absence of a specific inflection point. The consistency of exclusion as a status quo, despite variability in its manifestation, may reflection local and national cultural and political agendas, such as those demonstrated during the Trump administration surrounding “Zero Tolerance” policies and xenophobic narratives, encouraging explicit exclusion through both formal policies and rhetoric.

Despite the consistency of the status quo through inflection points, the use of events allowed a governance arena to be constrained not solely geographically but temporally. Given the profound level of complexity within polycentric governance systems, migration systems, and migration decision-making, events allowed for the application of the framework to target design elements and their interactions in a decision-making event. We recognize that change is constant within governance arenas of any scale and simultaneously they and their design elements are influenced by other governance arenas at similar and different jurisdictional levels, historical context, shifting political narratives, changes in demographics, and evolving social-, cultural- and political context.

The county-level scale used in the application of this conceptual framework captures only one level of polycentric governance, and it is anticipated that within counties are embedded other scales of both formal and informal governance that also limit or enable preferred outcomes for migrants.

The decision to both highlight particular events and constrain to a county level of resolution, allowed for a degree of consistency across arenas and aligned with county-level governance structures and both census data and migration data. It is possible that application of the conceptual framework produces different results when used at a household level or a regional level which could further highlight the groups produce conditions that enable or limit outcomes for migrants and host communities. Similarly, it is possible that results vary when applied to the same arena across multiple instances in time, allowing for exploration of, for example, generational change, the role of integration over time, and circumstances that enable or limit preferred outcomes that change with both.

The absence of inclusion in the case study applications presented may also be related to scale. While practical exclusion, conditional exclusion, and explicit exclusion, are readily found within the environmental governance of Oregon, inclusion is notably absent when observed through a broad lens and it may be that instances of inclusion exist on a more granular level. For example, for an individual living in liminal space due to unauthorized migration, governance outcomes are often generated primarily by informal structures, and livelihood outcomes are often more granular in nature and based in social networks (Amuedo-Dorantes and Mundra 2007; Poros 2011; Lindstrom 2019). Particularly where exclusion is the status quo, there may be more reliance on informal institutions and social networks in determining livelihood outcomes.

Important to the framework are the value-informed goals of a governance. The framework’s application requires being explicit about what migration governance aims to accomplish beyond the rhetoric or narratives that are presented. For example, while the aim of governance could be to create an integrated citizenry, it could also be to establish a liminal workforce that assists the local economy. Within the previously identified case studies, it appears more often the case that the aim of governance is to enhance local economies in the near term through employment of migrant workers, rather than develop a longer-term pathway to integration, regardless of outward rhetoric. If we know that migration that results in integration is adaptive (Lindstrom 2019) and leads to benefits for both migrants and host communities (McLeman and Hunter 2010; Black et al. 2011; McLeman 2019), this potential preferred outcome may be limited by governance aims.

A successful conceptual framework allows for examination of complex polycentric governance landscapes and highlights areas in which mismatches between governance aims and outcomes occur, or where outcomes are unanticipated. This then allows for a range of pathways of inquiry, including the manner in which outcomes are produced, the relationships that enable preferred outcomes, the consistency or fluidity of structural conditions, and the degree to which variability in these landscapes creates destinations that are favourable or unfavourable to an array of desired migration outcomes. Although a singular framework may not be able to incorporate the immense complexity of a given context, its application may result in an elucidation of the broader structural and cultural conditions that shape livelihood outcomes for migrants and host communities.

5. Conclusion

The conceptual framework presented here builds from research surrounding outcomes for migrants and host communities following migration and leans on theories of polycentric governance and political ecology to identify the ways in which outcomes are produced through the relationships between formal and informal components within a complex governance system. It develops a method of analysis for understanding and defining a migration governance landscape and applies this method within three broad case studies within Oregon’s diverse governance landscape.

While migration can increase the adaptive capacity of both migrants and destination communities (McLeman and Hunter 2010; Black et al. 2011; McLeman 2019), the current governance landscape within Oregon leads to barriers for both and prevents preferred adaptive outcomes of migration. The important part, however, is how. This framework, rather than simply categorizing outcomes, provides a systematic and intentional foundation from which the elements that enable or limit adaptive outcomes of migration for both migrants and host communities can be explored. It also highlights the power of status quo across diverse arenas even as the UN Secretary-General challenges us to seek durable solutions and rebuke that status quo (United Nations 2022) in an effort to respond effectively to displacement.

Given current debates in our society that centre around racial inequality and how it remains present within governance, civil, and social structures (Bonilla-Silva 2006; Tourse et al. 2018; Sewell 2020), this work points at the structural basis in terms of the polycentric structures that enable xenophobic practices, particularly with regard to migrant livelihoods. Future work is needed in the application of this framework across an array of scales, with the anticipation that such work will shed additional light on both structural conditions and outcome-producing polycentric governance relationships that have implications for migrants and host communities. Future work of particular relevance could also consider the diversity in migrant places of origin and drivers of migration, and how both contribute to the social perception of migrants in a destination in a manner than influences governance outcomes.

As climate change accelerates many forms of migration, high-resolution understanding of polycentric governance systems and the elements that produce outcomes that are either favourable or unfavourable to migrants (as well as host communities), is critical, especially if the aim is not only to prepared for outcomes but to anticipate and enable them. Given that migration is often occurring regardless of hostile migration governance (Cornelius 2006; Andersson 2016; Donato and Massey 2016; McAuliffe and Ruhs 2017), that hostile migration outcomes may increase negative externalities or unintended outcomes for both migrants and host communities (Fussell, 2016, 2011; Bernhardt et al. 2008, 2009; Bobo 2009; Gleeson 2010; Gomberg-Muñoz 2010; Velazquez and Kempf-Leonard 2010; Gomberg-Muñoz and Wences 2021), and migration is expected to rise under future climate scenarios (McLeman etal., 2021; McLeman 2019; Perch-Nielsen et al. 2008; Piguet et al. 2011, among others), our future as a pluralistic, multicultural democracy depends on understanding these outcomes.

Disclosure statement

The authors declare that they have no known competing or conflicting interests that could have influenced the work reported in this paper.

Data availability statement

All data and analysis can be made available by contacting the corresponding author (KA).