Differentiation, Affected Temporalities and the Politics of Inclusion and Exclusion of the Border Regime

ABSTRACT

This article addresses the question of how differentiation functions as a fundamental criterion for the global border regime. Drawing on qualitative fieldwork in Finland and Mexico, we show how differentiation is instrumentalized by states and enables a complicated process of inclusion and exclusion that in some cases continues even after migration ends. We argue that differentiation is a precondition of the border regime, influencing the entire temporal experience of migration and its consequences and creating a persistent hierarchization of different social groups. As such, it sustains a variety of practices of border control and has a direct impact on the experiences and temporalities in the context of human mobility. In the analysis, attention is paid to how criteria such as racialization and country of origin are enforced and impact temporalities. In the case of our participants, differentiation relates to personal and social uncertainty at different stages and a contradictory sense of belonging.

KEYWORDS:

• Differentiation
• affected temporality
• border regime
• racialization
• Mexico-US border
• Finland

The ways in which states instrumentalize difference in the enforcement of the border regime can be contrasted in various places and times through the following examples. The first incident happened in 2004 when Cap Anamur, a German humanitarian group, rescued a sinking boat in international waters carrying thirty-seven people from sub-Saharan countries who were trying to cross the border to seek asylum. After the rescue, the boat reached Italy from Malta. However, Italian officials did not want the asylum cases to be processed in Italy, claiming that they should be processed in Malta because the boat had passed through that country shortly after the rescue. The German authorities argued that these asylum cases could not be opened in Germany because the applicants had not reached that country. During this process, the boat crew was temporarily arrested and accused of illegal “smuggling.” The migrants eventually applied for asylum in Italy, but their applications were rejected (Mezzadra and Neilson 2013, 170–171).

Following the invasion of Ukraine in 2022, a group of Finnish activists took the initiative to transport Ukrainians fleeing the violence to Finland by bus. They were able to continue the initiative without being accused of human trafficking (House of Helsinki 2023), and the Ukrainian asylum seekers received permission to stay in Finland within a few weeks (Finnish Immigration Service 2022). These two examples show similar civic engagement, but contrasting experiences and consequences for both the activists and the asylum seekers. In the Finnish context, differentiation reveals contradictory practices and outcomes that differentiate between asylum cases, especially when bureaucratic procedures are embedded in such a way that some have to wait years for a decision on their asylum application (e.g. Syrian refugees, see Yle 2019), while others have to wait days for a decision on temporary protection in Finland (e.g. Ukrainian refugees, see Finnish Immigration Service 2022). A similar situation occurred at the Mexico-US border when the US government, citing health concerns, introduced stricter controls for asylum or other entry permits in March 2020, prompted by COVID-19. Since the implementation of this policy, thousands of people from Central and South American countries fleeing violence (Armijo Canto and Benítez Manaut 2017) have spent months waiting for their asylum decisions in cities along Mexico's northern border (Women’s Refugee Commission 2023. See also Blue et al. 2021). In contrast, Ukrainian refugees displaced by the invasion arrived at the Mexico-US border in March 2022 and were granted access to the US through a facilitated process by US and Mexican migration authorities (Department of Homeland Security 2022).

These cases illustrate the contradictory outcomes and experiences resulting from the politics of inclusion and exclusion of the border regime. Using the contexts of Finland and the Mexico-US border, we critically rework the relationship between differentiation and temporality to foreground the tensions and implications of this relationship in the experiences of human mobility. In line with previous research on differentiation and border regimes (Andrijasevic 2009; Casaglia 2020; De Genova 2002; El-Enany 2013; Fauser, Friedrichs, and Harders 2019; Mezzadra and Neilson 2013; Olivas Osuna 2022), we assume that differentiation is a central criterion that sustains a wide range of border control practices such as physical detention, deterrence, expulsion, deportation, and the various administrative processes related to travel, entry, residency, and asylum claims. We argue that differentiation is a precondition of the border regime that affects the entire temporal experience of migration and its consequences, creating a persistent hierarchization of different social groups. It is based on the social, economic, and political requirements that a state places on a person in order to obtain permission to enter its territory and is thus deeply intertwined with the temporal aspects of human mobility.

The temporal dimension in the context of migration is a key concern that emphasizes the way time is experienced (Baas and Yeoh 2019; Bhatia and Canning 2021; Griffiths, Rogers, and Anderson 2013; Mavroudi, Page, and Christou 2017; Tazzioli 2018; Tsagarousianou 2022), including specific characteristics such as waiting (Bendixsen and Hylland Eriksen 2018; Fontanari 2017; Jacobsen and Karlsen 2021; Mountz 2011). Previous research has shown that time in migrants’ lives¹ is shaped by the legal, bureaucratic, financial and political governance of states, which distinguishes them from citizens (Cwerner 2004; Griffiths 2021). In this context, temporality should not be seen as a smooth and linear process. In migration, asymmetrical temporalities clash with the linear time management of nation states. While nation-states rely on a homogeneous perception of time, migration experiences are characterized by heterogeneous temporalities (Mezzadra and Neilson 2013, 134). Migrants experience difficulties at different stages of their journey that can last for many years and thus prevent them from fulfilling legal and bureaucratic regulations (Griffiths, Rogers, and Anderson 2013; Hiitola, Karimi, and Leinonen 2023). This article aims to contribute to the discussion on how differentiation enables a complex process of inclusion and exclusion that affects migrants’ experiences and temporalities. We focus on the ways in which forms of differentiation, such as racialization and country of origin, are experienced and how they impact temporality. We navigate through our research participants’ experiences of temporality as they wait at the border and as they are forced into waiting. We also include the experiences of participants who were accepted by the host country, but for whom differentiation and temporality persisted even after receiving a residence permit. Conceptually, we follow Mezzadra and Neilson’s understanding of differential inclusion to capture the tensions and encounters associated with migration and to highlight different degrees of subordination, domination, discrimination, and segmentation (2013, 159).

The article proceeds as follows. First, we situate our empirical contexts, the participants and the aspects of our positions in the fieldwork. We draw on our fieldwork in Finland and on the Mexico-US border during the conjuncture of COVID19 controls and the displacement of the Ukrainian population.² We then discuss differentiation as part of border regime practices and its interrelation with the temporal dimension. The differential treatment applied by different states in similar cases and the consequences of the waiting period are a key concern in this issue. Finally, we discuss the asymmetries, uncertainties and rhythms that affect temporalities and the sense of belonging by navigating through our participants’ experiences of differential inclusion.

Contextualization of the Cases and Methodological Frame

The two cases considered in the analysis have a point of connection in the way differentiation affects temporality and how the logic of inclusion and exclusion reinforces social segmentation. The aim is not to compare the contexts of our fieldwork, but to highlight the processes of inclusion and exclusion and their impact on the lives of the participants in this study. The conjunction of the COVID19 controls and the simultaneous displacement of the Ukrainian population brought the issues of racialization and affected temporalities back to the fore. The analysis in this paper comes from two research projects that obtained the data from Finland, with 26 migrant stories of people who had residency permits at the time of the interviews, and from the Mexico-US border, with 32 stories, many of whom had their asylum decisions delayed. However, both fieldwork studies dealt with the inclusion and exclusion of racialized minorities. The fieldwork in Finland was aimed at understanding how minorities with different residence permits experience lived citizenship and belonging. The fieldwork in Mexico investigated border regimes and forms of violence and exclusion. Data collection in both areas coincided with the Covid-19 pandemic and the war in Ukraine. During the analysis phase, the authors discovered that their data reflected analytical references to the dynamics of inclusion and exclusion and the temporal dimension of migration. This overlap became the basis for the analytical considerations in this article.

The common denominator among the participants in both fields is that they have been subjected to border controls, especially with regard to border policies for asylum seekers. The two crises (the war in Ukraine and the Covid-19 pandemic) and the border control policies of the two states (Finland and the US) triggered certain emotions during the interviews, especially among the participants who had asylum-seeking experiences. As a result, part of the data contains information about the experiences of differential inclusion and its consequences on the temporality of the participants’ lives. The aim of analyzing their accounts is not to draw generalized conclusions or to compare these two contexts. Rather, it is to show how certain aspects of differentiation and temporality persist in the lives of the research participants through the practices of the border regime. This means that the data gathered in these two fields reflect the ubiquity of differentiation and temporality.

The interviews in Finland are mainly from people who had residence status in Finland at the time of data collection the survey. Research participants had migrated from Syria, Iran, Turkey, Afghanistan, Lebanon, Palestine and Pakistan. During the period of data collection (which spanned 6 months between late 2021 and early 2022), participants were either Finnish citizens or residents of Finland, including one participant who was classified as an asylum seeker but did not have access to a residence status. All study participants had experienced border controls, mainly in connection with their asylum procedure (15 out of 26). The duration of the participants’ stay in Finland varied greatly. While some moved to Finland more than a decade ago, others arrived a few years before the time of data collection. Participants were asked to share their experiences of citizenship. Despite having residency status in Finland, it became clear that temporality remains a predominant factor in their life experience due to social differentiation. In the Mexican border city of Tijuana, research participants were awaiting their asylum decision in the US, after been expelled or deported on their first attempt at asylum. The fieldwork in Tijuana took place over four months in early 2022. Tijuana has 38 shelters, the highest number of shelters along the border. Shelters have become the place where most people deported or expelled from the US end up living (Iglesias Ortiz, Valenzuela Barreras, and Cappelletti Forthcoming). All the interviews took place in eight shelters and most of the participants had been expelled because of the COVID-19 health emergency. This means that they were denied the right to asylum at the moment they claimed it. In practice, the application of this policy means that people attempting to enter the US are immediately deported to the last country of transit or, in other cases, returned to their home country. The participants in the analysis are from Cuba, Honduras, Mexico, and El Salvador. Violence is currently the main reason for displaced people from El Salvador and Honduras to migrate to other countries (Armijo Canto and Benítez Manaut 2017). The interviews in the migrant shelters confirmed the motives of these people to flee their countries of origin. In this sense, the temporary suspension and delay of the US asylum process has completely changed the temporality of the Mexico-US border by delaying decisions for months. During the fieldwork, it was observed that the delay saturated the shelters and negatively affected the daily conditions in these places.

The authors’ positionalities were not fixed and were situational (Bourke 2014; Ryan 2015). Neither of them has personal experience of seeking asylum, but both have migrated to Finland. Due to their personal backgrounds and previous research work with people who have experience of asylum procedures, they felt and were seen as “insiders” among the participants. This enabled a relationship of trust with the research participants that allowed them to share more personal experiences. The relationship between researchers and research participants is not fixed and is influenced by intersecting social identities such as gender, class, and race (Baser and Toivanen 2018). At times, the authors had a privileged position in terms of legal residency status compared to participants who were at risk of “illegality.” As the researchers were aware of this dynamic, they attempted to convey a sense of safety in their interactions with the research participants. In accordance with the ethical guidelines for research, participants were informed about the subject of the research as well as the methods of data processing and the policy of protecting the anonymity of their participation throughout the study procedure (Finnish National Advisory Board on Research Ethics 2012). In addition to anonymizing the names of the informants, we also took care to protect the identity of the research participants with the quotes presented.

The interviews in Finland and Mexico were conducted in English and Spanish respectively. The in-depth interview technique was used to collect data in both fields, allowing for a deeper understanding of the topics of the study (Brounéus 2011). This type of interviews allowed participants to express concerns about the topics of the study that the researchers had not anticipated, such as respondents’ experiences with border controls and the situation of the displaced Ukrainian population. The data were analyzed thematically (Gibbs 2007), and similar patterns emerged that involved differentiation and temporality. By switching back and forth between the data and theory, we arrived at two main analytical themes (Braun and Clarke 2012). The first theme explains the uncertainty and rhythm of our research participants’ experiences. Uncertainty is a constant aspect that characterizes migration and the bureaucratic processes involved. The second theme addresses how differentiation maintains the hierarchical arrangement of groups and individuals in migration and in broader social contexts. Moreover, the analytical part of this study is seen as an ethical endeavor, and not just a scholarly contribution, to reflect the struggles of our research participants that have been shaped by border control regimes.

Differentiation and Temporality within the Border Regime

Differentiation is a central pillar of the global border regime, which is reflected in the requirements imposed by states. The requirements imply an a priori categorization and further hierarchization of individuals or groups confronted with the same administrative procedure. In the case of migrants, differentiation is expressed in a binary way, as some are considered “legitimate” persons worthy of protection and others “illegitimate” refugees facing deportation or expulsion (Haas 2017). Differentiation thus creates categories and hierarchies on the basis of which the migration experience will lead to different outcomes. The concept of differential inclusion, previously considered in issues of territorial and internal symbolic borders (De Genova 2002) and in anti-racist and feminist approaches (Andrijasevic 2009, 2010), shows how the experience of migration is actualized through the division, discrimination and subordination of the subject (Mezzadra and Neilson 2013). The concept also implies that states use exclusionary practices as part of their migration controls. The categorization and consequent hierarchization of individuals and groups leads to an extended practice of social sorting. For example, gender, ethnicity, country of origin and religion influence experiences in the asylum process (Bohmer and Shuman 2008).

The consequences of bordering through categories and hierarchies can be seen in the temporalities experienced by migrants. In this sense, temporality is controlled (Tazzioli 2018) and experienced through the prior consideration of origin, ethnicity, gender, age or any other marker or requirement imposed on the individual. Thus, the consequence of differential inclusion at border control reshapes the temporality experienced by racialized subjects. Rutvica Andrijasevic argues that the purpose of border control is not only to restrict the movement of people across borders, but also to regulate the time and rhythm of migration. The common experience of seeking asylum involves months of passing through transit states, evading security checks and waiting in detention centers (Andrijasevic 2010). Time is thus a “power chronography” and a site of struggle and social difference. This kind of chronography highlights the uneven and multiple temporalities involved in migration (Sharma 2014). Current practices of the global border regime include the externalization of controls (Williams and Mountz 2018), with the participation of certain countries and the habilitation of detention systems. Externalization implies that a third party is interposed between the person applying for a residence permit or asylum and the desired state. For example, in our two fields, the EU has used mechanisms called “hotspot islands” and “detention and buffer zones” in the Aegean, Macedonia and Serbia (Hess and Kasparek 2019), and the US has included Mexico as a “third country” that takes people in during the asylum process (Ortega Velázquez 2020) and has called for stricter border controls at the Guatemala-Mexico border (Hiemstra 2019). Such controls directly affect transit times and increase the risks of migrants’ journeys. The discretionary power of states to set criteria for migration controls leads to a complex dynamic of differentiation based on inclusion and exclusion. As some studies on migration controls in the EU have shown, the EU border regime relies on distinguishing between countries of origin as a criterion for allowing people to enter the EU (van Houtum 2010). In this way, inclusion is managed by distinguishing those who are eligible for citizenship (Andrijasevic 2010; van Houtum 2010). This differentiation affects human rights because they are compromised and even denied as part of the checks carried out to enforce the border regime (Cuttitta 2017). The criteria used to access or deny certain rights have a direct impact on the experience of temporality. The asylum process reveals the complicated relationship of differentiation, the dynamics of inclusion and exclusion and the different temporalities associated with the process. Waiting contributes to a precarious context for the migrant because it is associated with the production of “illegality” or “irregularity” (Jacobsen and Karlsen 2021).

For instance, a temporary residence permit may expire while the asylum procedure is still ongoing. This situation leads to a change in a person’s “legal status” and thus to insecurity and uncertainty in daily life. In the case of long waiting times and immobility, people's insecurity increases due to different forms of risk (Blue et al. 2021; Iglesias Ortiz and Hiitola 2023; Kynsilehto and Iglesias Ortiz 2023). The bureaucratic process of asylum shows how the decisions to grant or reject asylum have arbitrary and unclear outcomes that reinforce the logic of inclusion and exclusion. While waiting for a decision, asylum seekers are simultaneously citizens in waiting and deportees in waiting (Haas 2017, 76). Control over time is a tool that has been used to regain control over the movement of migrants, as demonstrated by the EU border regime and asylum controls (Tazzioli 2018). The asylum procedure and waiting times are intrinsic issues. In the case of rejected asylum seekers whose procedure has taken a long time, temporality appears embedded in the everyday living conditions of the process and the hopes for the desired future (Karlsen 2021). Refugees are entitled to certain rights and benefits under international refugee law. However, in the case of the EU, the inconsistent and irregular application of asylum directives by member states leads to exclusionary dynamics among asylum seekers (El-Enany 2013). Furthermore, at the end of 2015, European asylum policy increased controls to contain and deter asylum seekers. This policy resulted in fewer claims, shortened the duration of residence permits and re-examined the requirements for family reunification or permanent residence (Schultz 2021, 171).

The mobility of non-European people seeking humanitarian protection is often hampered by long transit journeys, which can put them in precarious and life-threatening situations when trying to reach European borders. When the war in Ukraine began, Ukrainian passport holders were granted temporary protection under the EU Solidarity with Ukraine program, which also guarantees them the right to travel within the European Union (European Commission 2022a). The Temporary Protection Directive was adopted by the European Council in March 2022 to accommodate Ukrainian refugees. The rights considered in the directive include residence permits (which can last from one to three years), access to the asylum procedure, employment, housing, social assistance, medical care, education for those under 18, family reunification and freedom of movement in EU countries (European Commission 2022b). The Ukraine program has therefore been incorporated into Finnish migration policy and offers “rapid assistance to those fleeing the war in Ukraine” and entering Finland (Finnish Immigration Service 2022). The approximate waiting time for applications for temporary protection is one week, and migrants have the right to apply for asylum at the same time, which is only decided after a longer period of time. The discretionary nature of the application of these measures is reflected in recent media reports by the Finnish Broadcasting Company, which illustrate the different treatment of asylum seekers who arrived in 2015 and those from Ukraine (Yle 2019, 2022). The first example includes cases where families waited up to four years for permits and decisions, while in the second case residence permits and access to all social services were arranged within weeks. Other cases in Finland have shown that it can take several years for asylum seekers to receive a decision on their application, which is complicated by intensive interviews and documentation (Jauhiainen and Tedeschi 2021).

The measures taken during the Covid-19 pandemic had a serious impact on the situation of migrants applying for asylum or other types of permits. The so-called “Covid excuse” (Stierl and Dadusc 2022) allowed for new controls in different areas of the border regime. These controls were justified and enforced by presenting migration as a threat to public health. In the case of Covid-19, the differentiation was evident in the establishment of exclusion controls targeting illegalized migrants from the Global South. These controls resembled “sanitary apartheid” (Heller 2021). In the cases of the EU and the US, differentiation showed a racist dimension when border controls were used to enforce public health criteria. The examples of Italy and Malta show how the expulsion and containment of migrants were justified on the grounds that migrants posed a threat to public health (Stierl and Dadusc 2022). The US government applied a national health policy in March 2020 which banned migrants from entering the country and prevented them from seeking asylum directly in the US. This policy is part of Title 42, a section of the US Code that authorizes federal health authorities to dictate border regulations (Gramlich 2022). The only asylum applications that have been accepted since this policy were implemented have been reviewed on “humanitarian grounds.” With the temporary suspension of the normal asylum process in the US since the enforcement of Title 42, thousands of people have been affected by new forms of differentiation and time limits.

As we consider in this article, such differentiation has continuous effects on temporality, both during the migration process and after its completion (in terms of bureaucratic paperwork). What characterizes this process is a lack of security and certainty. Temporalities also shape everyday life by creating uncertainties in the lives of “migrants,” for example when bureaucratic administration affects temporality and the prospects of stability for those trying to reunite with family members across the border (Hiitola, Karimi, and Leinonen 2023). Temporality is also related to the creation of illegality when expired permits become a reason for insecurity and deportability. Insecurity is often linked to the issue of waiting and immobility. Differential inclusion also crosses the path of temporality when the so-called “integration process” is based on binding timeframes and all kinds of requirements that individuals are expected to fulfill. The experience of “integration” into a new social context is strongly influenced by the temporal threshold imposed by states. Integration policies enforce temporality, the migrant's current situation is evaluated, and integration is projected as an ongoing becoming (Çağlar 2016, 958). The common understanding of the migration journey is that obtaining citizenship or other permanent permits is the end of the process. However, we consider that the temporality of the migration journey does not end once the migrant has obtained a legal residence permit and settled down. Instead, it continues through racialization and the mechanisms of differential inclusion after they have gained access to the host state.

We understand temporality not only in relation to the legal process of resettlement, but it continues through the process of racialization that questions the belonging of those affected (Christou and King 2011). Examples of such forms of differentiation can be found in the case of “Latinos” in the US, in their racialization and permanent classification as “illegals” (Menjívar 2021). Another example is Sweden, where Somalis had a longer waiting time for a residence permit compared to other nationalities due to ethnic differentiation (Behtoui and Olsson 2014). The continuation of the migration journey and waiting brings to the fore the question raised by Shahram Khosravi: “When does a migrant’s narrative of waiting end?” Waiting has multiple and relational temporalities and its consequences are experienced by individuals and those close to them (Khosravi 2021, 203). Waiting seems to be a never-ending phase, as explained by the post migrant perspective, which deals with the subjectivities of migrants without cultural and ethnic particularization. This perspective has uncovered the exclusionary practices experienced by people of different generations with migrant backgrounds (Çağlar 2016). Exclusionary practices and differential inclusion were experienced by our participants in the ways already mentioned. Despite the different geographical contexts, they were subjected to differential treatment by being racialized, considered “illegal” because of their country of origin, and experienced exclusionary practices even after obtaining citizenship.

Affected Temporalities and Uncertainty

Border controls and lengthy bureaucratic processes related to migration are experienced through constant uncertainty. The embeddedness of waiting for a decision, the possibility of negative outcomes such as expulsion or deportation, and the related insecurities are constant features in our participants’ stories. Hesam's case shows how his long term disability has affected him. He came to Finland from Iran over 6 years ago to seek asylum. A few weeks before the interview, his asylum application was rejected for the last time, and he was threatened with deportation.

No one invited us here. They do not like us here. If young children, 10 and 15 years old, come here, it might be beneficial for them, but I am of no use to them. This is rational, but of course, they may look at us as individuals. Another thing is that they do not believe in us as they did not invite us. […] The fact is that they crushed me through my asylum process, but it is not fair to blame it all on them. They could make this process easier and make the time shorter.

The bureaucratic processes of Hesam’s refugee status have taken up several years of his life, during which time he has been separated from his family. Unpredictability and long waiting times are central to Hesam’s experience of the asylum process (Biehl 2015). His assumptions about who benefits society are inseparable from the public discourse that revolves around those categorized as “asylum seekers” by the state bureaucracy (Greussing and Boomgaarden 2017). Another element of Hesam's testimony is that the authorities do not believe his asylum claim. The majority of people deported from the US to Mexico under Title 42 have had experiences similar to Hesam's.

Regarding the current situation on the Mexico-US border, it is necessary to take into account the temporalities of migrants from Central America. This implies many stages, starting from the moment they leave their home countries, the journey through Mexico, the time spent crossing the border, the time spent in detention and the uncertain period of waiting for the asylum decision after being expelled or deported to Mexico. The entire chain of events of leaving one's country of origin and gaining access to the US or remaining in Mexican border cities involves many temporal stages and disruptions. Enforcement of Title 42 has varied in terms of immediate removal or detention based on country of origin and gender. This policy allowed U.S. border authorities to dismiss or put on hold asylum claims because they were considered unprecedented under health emergency controls. Most people crossing from Mexico to the US and claiming asylum were immediately expelled, which initiated a permanent state of uncertainty while waiting. The case of migrants from Cuba exemplifies how differentiation was applied with consideration to one’s country of origin and health concerns related to COVID-19. One of the interviewees reflects on his experience of living in a shelter in Tijuana after being expelled from the US.

In here, one gets crazy thinking about what can happen, the uncertainty. I cannot go out freely, [I] cannot work, my family is in Cuba and need[s] money. And this place [Tijuana] is one of the most violent cities in the world. No one can feel fine, I cannot sleep well, it is uncertain all the time.

The normal procedure for this person would have been for the US government to return him to his country of origin. However, due to the political relations between Cuba and the US, he received a different treatment and was expelled to Mexico to await possible approval under the so-called “Migrant Protection Protocol.” Due to the large number of expulsion and asylum cases waiting in Mexico, the timeframe for approval and a decision has been delayed for months. This example illustrates the embeddedness of uncertainty and temporality. Waiting and uncertainty are also linked to different forms of insecurity experienced by deportees living in Mexican border cities who have left close family members in the US (Iglesias Ortiz and Hiitola 2023).

Uncertainty is also experienced in terms of otherness. Despite living in a country for a long time, the feeling of being an “outsider” remains. Maryam came to Finland more than two decades ago as a “refugee.” Despite such a long stay in the country and the acquisition of Finnish citizenship, her Iranian background seems to be an obstacle to her sense of belonging.

I am a dark-haired woman from the east, and my situation is very different from a woman coming from Germany or the US, or maybe a woman who comes from the UK. This may not be 100 percent the case, but it is usually like this. A person of African origin who comes to Finland will have a harder situation because of dark skin. My situation has been difficult because I am a woman, I have dark hair, I have a background in Iran, and I speak neither a European language nor English as my mother tongue. These were all important for my living situation in Finland.

Maryam understands her challenge of not feeling at home in the context of her intersecting positionalities of race and gender. Maryam makes a distinction between someone who migrates to Finland from Western countries (such as Europe or the US) and someone who comes from non-Western countries. Such an experience is linked to the different way people like Maryam are treated, even after they have obtained a residence permit. This has shaped Maryam’s experience of temporality, which includes her unsuccessful attempt to leave Finland a few years ago. For years, she has suffered from a constant feeling of insecurity caused by exclusion. Obtaining Finnish citizenship has not prevented the feeling of exclusion. Despite the long time she has lived in the country, she is still looking for a destination outside the EU. She is trying to find a new country in the hope of escaping the differential treatment based on ethnicity.

The search for a new country due to violence and insecurity is the current motivation for the vast majority of migrants from Central America. After fleeing their countries of origin and reaching the border between Mexico and the US, they found a closed border and their right to asylum was compromised. The stricter controls introduced due to the pandemic changed the migrants’ experiences and temporalities at this border. A complex interweaving of forms of inclusion and exclusion can be observed in everyday life at this border (Iglesias Ortiz 2022). The closure of the border has increased the insecurity of thousands of people who have been trying to enter the USA since March 2020. The experience of crossing the border shows the first example of differential treatment at border control: the case of single men from Mexico and Central America, most of whom were deported immediately after being intercepted by the US Border Patrol. In other cases, families or women with children were detained for an average of 4–10 days before being deported to Mexico. In most of these cases, the migrants crossed the border through unpopulated natural areas rather than through ports of entry. During the days in detention, the migrants received no explanation or information about their situation in the US or what would happen next. This case is an example of how uncertainty can be instrumentalized as part of border controls.

In cases where migrants have been detained, their experience of time has been disrupted, as most have lost track of how long they have been in the custody of the US Border Patrol. This disruption was caused by the fact that the migrants were kept in a detention room, commonly referred to by them as “the freezer” because of the constant cold temperature, without windows and with the lights on 24 h a day. The testimonies of the informants repeatedly refer to this confusing experience of time in detention and the systematic mistreatment. This is a clear example of institutional violence in the sense that it is a systematic abuse exerted by the authorities involved at this stage. The experience of a male informant (42 years old, from Honduras), who was detained with his 3 years old son, clarifies the conditions during detention.

We arrived one day almost at midnight, and we were there for some days, I think eight days … The food that we got was bad, only an apple and one sandwich. My son only ate the apple, and he got sick there.

In this example, the man and his child had lived in two different shelters for eight months and their permits to stay in Mexico were not renewed. The Mexican government issues permits to enter the country for varying lengths of time. Permits range from a few weeks to up to three months, with very limited renewal options. This case shows how the waiting period intersects with everyday situations, limited access to certain services and prolonged periods of uncertainty and existential stress. Accessibility or inaccessibility is a consequence of the hierarchies that differentiation creates, not only from a political structure but also from a social perspective.

Differentiation and Sustained Hierarchization

Our analysis links differentiation to the resulting hierarchies and dynamics of inclusion and exclusion. The displacement and arrival of the Ukrainian population has again raised questions about the granting or denial of certain welfare entitlements (El-Enany 2013) in different contexts. The testimony of Sara, an Afghan woman who lived under the border regime as an asylum-seeking migrant, illustrates this.

There are many people who think that we are not deserving because we do not have blue eyes, or our skin is like this, or because we come from the Middle East. I have another Finnish friend to whom I can never tell these things because I think that they have never experienced any bad thing in their life. We are treated as if we aren't humans. When this happened [the war in Ukraine], the first thing I was horrified by was the ways in which the world treated Ukrainians completely differently than others, for example the ones coming from the Middle East.

Sara went through the rhythm of temporality, first being categorized as a refugee, then as an asylum seeker, and finally being granted permanent residence status by the Finnish government. Despite all the challenges she faced with the border control bureaucracy and the experience of being labeled an “illegal migrant,” obtaining Finnish residency gave Sara a sense of relief that at last her child would not have the same experience of being categorized as “illegal.” However, the suspension of some border control legislation in relation to Ukrainian refugees exposed differential inclusion and its racial underpinnings, which ultimately destabilized her sense of protection.

Opening borders only for Ukrainians made me really sad. It made me think about the Afghans, Iraqis, Syrians, and many other people who are still at war. The whole world reacted to such an incident in Ukraine, but not in other places. There were many Afghans in Ukraine who were not permitted to board the train to cross the border. Hearing these things, I feel I will not be a priority if something happens in Finland. They will be the priority. […] This has caused me to think that it's better to leave Finland.

Sara's statement reflects two overlapping points. One is Sara's sense of sadness that comes from distinguishing differential exclusion in solidarity with many other people who face strict border controls while seeking protection from wars. The second point concerns Afghans who had sought asylum in Ukraine. Shortly before the war in Ukraine, the US evacuated its troops from Afghanistan after two decades of invasion. This put many Afghans at risk of persecution. Sara claims that despite the similarity between the situations of people in Afghanistan and Ukraine in terms of their need for protection, Afghans seeking asylum not only received different general treatment from European border regimes (Mammone 2021). In addition, Afghan refugees in Ukraine were excluded from the 2021 Temporary Protection Directive for Ukrainians. The temporary protection legislation for Ukrainians did not take into account people seeking asylum in Ukraine, thus preventing Afghans from fleeing the war zone (see also Jackson Sow 2022). Such exclusion may not directly affect Sara's residence status, but it shapes her social positioning in the Finnish context. When the war broke out, many people in Finland experienced fear of a possible invasion by the Russian military. For Sara, this fear was heightened by the news of Afghans seeking refuge in Ukraine who were unable to cross the EU border. Clearly, the border controls prevented them from receiving the same level of protection as those who had Ukrainian passports. Sara has experienced temporality through the differentiation mechanism after her resettlement, as she fears a possible war scenario in Finland. Thus, temporality persists in her experience, leading her to wonder whether she should leave Finland. Jackson Sow (2022) analyzes the limitation of the Temporary Protection Directive of 2021, arguing that international refugee law is negotiated to construct a racially hegemonic geopolitical order. Sara's experience shows how such an order frames the temporality of everyday life.

The process of differentiating between migrants according to their country of origin is a way of actualizing hierarchies and forms of exclusion. During the exceptional border controls implemented by the US government during COVID-19, the right to asylum of nationals from Haiti, Honduras and El Salvador was particularly affected. The cases of people from Cuba, Nicaragua and Venezuela were also treated differently due to the US's political relations with the governments of these countries. Instead of sending them back to their countries of origin, migrants from these countries remain in Mexican border cities waiting to cross the border on their own or to submit new asylum applications. The controls have suspended and delayed most asylum applications, which has a particular impact on the waiting time for people from these countries. The informants who participated in this study live in the Tijuana shelters and had an average stay of four months, but there are cases of migrants who have waited as long as nine months. While health concerns related to the pandemic justified the suspension and delay of entry of asylum seekers from these countries to the US, the Ukrainian population was facilitated access to the US in about a week after their arrival in the Mexican border cities. This situation demonstrates the logic of differential inclusion and the way in which temporality is experienced asymmetrically. The arrival of the Ukrainian population and their differential treatment was clearly perceived by the people working in the shelters and by the migrants living there. During the fieldwork, complaints about the dynamics of inclusion and exclusion were common in the informal conversations in the shelters. Furthermore, there were similar patterns of differentiation not only from the government's perspective, but also among the migrants living in the shelters. Some Mexican nationals living in the shelters pointed to the residents’ country of origin and demanded better treatment from the Mexican government. They argued that people from Central America received more help from the government than they did. Haitians also face particular discrimination and differentiation because they are seen by other migrants as having a “different culture” and because they speak French and Haitian Creole.

The awareness of differentiation and hierarchization between migrant groups was clearly highlighted by the experience of one of our participants. Sina is a young man from Afghanistan who has been living under the temporal control of asylum procedures in several European countries since his childhood. After years of living in precarious conditions as an asylum seeker, Sina was finally granted refugee status in Finland a few years ago. After the start of the war in Ukraine, Sina became aware of the differentiation of the border regime in Finnish policies and the activism that took shape around the war:

When the crisis in Afghanistan happened, there was not much solidarity in their [the Finns] action with the Afghans. There was always a social gathering after the war in Ukraine, and one person was expressing more solidarity for Ukrainians as s/he was saying “they are not used to war.” It felt that [Afghan people] should now have a normal life since they are used to war. S/he said that “they [Ukrainians] are European and their lifestyle is similar to ours.” S/he was saying: “it [seeing Ukrainians as asylum seekers] is personal and it’s hurtful.” From their view, Europeans experience and sense war differently from us.

“The crisis in Afghanistan” refers to the power shift in 2021 that put many people from Afghanistan at risk. During her volunteer work, Sina was surprised by the differential inclusion that both Finnish civil society and the state's migration policy have made in relation to asylum seekers. The differentiation instilled by the state is inseparable from public and political discourses around migration (Mezzadra and Neilson 2013). The contemporary category of “refugee” was not associated with whiteness before the war in Ukraine. Thus, the situation in Ukraine feels more “personal” and “hurtful” to some members of Sina's Finnish community. These events have led Sina to feel that his community does not see non-European people seeking asylum, including himself, as deserving of protection because they are “used to war.” Such a distinction challenges Sina's sense of belonging, since he identifies as a non-European who has the legal status of a refugee. This situation led him to “lose this community,” as he described it later in the interview. The racial framing of migrants manifests itself in exclusionary practices (see also Jackson Sow 2022). This shapes temporality not only for those who attempt to cross borders, but also for those, like Sina, who attempt to settle in their new environment while being excluded from respectable citizenship through differential inclusion.

Conclusions

The politics of inclusion and exclusion of the border regime have been experienced in different ways at the intersection of the global pandemic and the war-induced displacement of the Ukrainian population. Both events are recent examples of the differential treatment of migrant populations at different parts of the border regime. In these cases, the discretion to grant and deny access to rights and services constitutes an arbitrary process of inclusion and exclusion of populations with substantial reasons to migrate.

Differential inclusion does not only concern the categorization of people in legal terms, which consequently denies or accepts their rights (Andrijasevic 2010; Mezzadra and Neilson 2013). Even within the categories of “asylum seekers” of the same state, there is further differentiation between migrants, as this paper has shown. Moreover, differential inclusion is experienced by migrants over sustained periods of time, suggesting how differentiation occurs in broader social settings. Differential treatment conveys a degree of exclusion by defining some displaced populations as less deserving of care and protection. The politics of differential inclusion can be better understood in relation to broader discourses that categorize countries of origin and racialize individuals to justify inclusion and exclusion. The analysis presented reveals how differentiation affects temporality, the experience of waiting, and the sense of belonging. In the cases of our participants, this experience is subject to constant uncertainty throughout the different stages. This means that racialization is reproduced through practices of differentiation in which the border remains the dominant feature in the lives of racialized individuals.

As we have argued, differentiation affects temporality even after what some might consider the end of the “migration process.” The conflicted sense of belonging that emerges in our participants’ experiences is embedded in disrupted temporalities and hierarchies. The persistence of differential treatment permeates social interaction, preventing the inclusion of some groups in the host context. As a result, a degree of settlement and belonging is not achieved, and some consider re-migration. Given the urgency and the need to protect all displaced populations, the distinctions made by States only reinforce the exclusionary aspects and raise the question of the normalization of social sorting and exclusion.

Disclosure Statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Additional information

Funding

This work was supported by Academy of Finland.

Notes

1 Following Mezzadra and Neilson (2013, 142), we refer to migrants as those who are in a context of mobility despite the categories by which they are classified in terms of their status vis-à-vis a state or governmental structure. We acknowledge that categories such as “illegal,” “asylum seeker” and “refugee” are instrumentalized by state legislation and imply a degree of differentiation. Such categorization can contribute to the same policies and practices that regulate the lives of people who (attempt to) cross borders. The use of these terminologies in this paper is intended to show the positionality of people in contexts of mobility within state bureaucracies and the ways in which the terminologies affect their experiences of temporality.

2 It is crucial to note that this paper does not claim that Ukrainian refugees have received all possible benefits and have not faced problems or discrimination. Our intention is to show how others have experienced differentiation and how the current conjuncture has made the negative entanglement of differentiation and temporality more apparent through the experiences of our participants.