https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9916-5910
![Sample our Politics & International Relations journals, sign in here to start your FREE access for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/5947/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Politics-International-Relations.jpg"})
ABSTRACT
This paper explores the ambivalent positioning of separated child migrants in the UK with a focus on the care that they provide for each other. Drawing on interview data with state and non-state adult stakeholders involved in the immigration-welfare nexus, we consider how children’s care practices are viewed and represented. We argue that separated children’s caring practices assume an absent presence in the discourses mobilised by these actors: either difficult to articulate or represented in negative and morally-laden terms, reflective of the UK’s ‘hostile environment’ towards migrants and advanced capitalist constructions of childhood. Such an examination sheds light on the complex state attempts to manage the care and migration regimes, and the way that care can serve as a way of making and marking inclusions and exclusions. Here we emphasise the political consequences for separated child migrants in an age of neoliberal state retrenchment from public provision of care and rising xenophobic nationalism.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.
Notes
1 People under 18-years-old, who are migrating without primary parents/care givers are referred to in legal and policy contexts with the dehumanising term: ‘unaccompanied minors’. In contrast, we use the term ‘separated child migrants’ to highlight that many children maintain transnational relationships or reunite with parents/primary carers at various points in the migration process, and are often accompanied by other kin and non-kin adults and children (Rosen Citationforthcoming).
2 Public imaginaries are not homogenous, however. Separated children are also vilified or treated with suspicion, including as adult imposters intent on duping nation states to access social benefits (Rosen and Crafter Citation2018).
4 These figures are unlikely to be an accurate reflection of the real numbers of separated children, however, as some Local Authorities struggle to record accurate data and some children avoid entering the asylum system (Simon, Setter, and Holmes Citation2016).
7 There has been a 40% cut in central government funding for local authorities since 2010, with many local authorities facing financial crisis or bankruptcy (as happened with Northamptonshire). Despite raising council taxes, local authorities state they will £5billion short of funds for social care provision by 2020. https://www.theguardian.com/society/2018/feb/26/council-tax-hikes-will-not-stop-cuts-to-local-services-authorities-warn?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other.
8 It is worth noting here that the feminist ethics of care literature offer an alternative formulation based on recognition of the interdependence of social being. Rather than a right of citizenship, care is offered as a basis for political decisions cognizant of people’s needs.necessary ‘so that we may live in [the world] as well as possible’ (Tronto Citation1995, 143).
9 Although immigration is a reserved power in the UK, e.g not devolved to member countries, there are significant national variations. For instance, since 2015, it is a statutory duty in Scotland to provide formal guardianship for unaccompanied minors https://beta.gov.scot/policies/refugees-and-asylum-seekers/unaccompanied-children/.
10 A significant partiality here is evident given the absence of the perspectives of separated children. This is the focus of our ongoing research.
11 https://www.gov.uk/government/news/government-launches-national-transfer-scheme-for-migrant-children.
12 This refers to the contradiction for capitalist states between a demand for workers who are ready and able to work for capital and the costs of feeding, clothing, housing, educating, and caring for said workers.