ABSTRACT
Firewalls separate rights provision for undocumented migrants from the border policing of migration authorities. In this article, we compare how firewalls have been negotiated during recent years in Sweden and the UK. Firewalls have been partly strengthened in the UK as a result of the ‘Windrush scandal’. Simultaneously, firewalls have been increasingly contested in Sweden after the 2015 ‘long summer of migration’ as a result of continuously more repressive migration policies. On the basis of this detailed comparison, we argue that firewalls are a useful conceptual lens to understand migrant struggles and the development of migration policies. Moreover, we suggest that firewalls can be a useful resource for social service providers using their discretion to resist repressive migration governing at different levels and scales and for organizing political work by and for people at risk of deportation.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.
Notes
3. See for example the preparatory work on the right to education in Sweden (SOU Citation2007:34 2007) and the obligation for the Home Office to safeguard and promote child welfare under section 55 of the Borders, Citizenship and Immigration Act 2009 in the UK.
4. https://vardgivare.skane.se/patientadministration/vard-av-personer-fran-andra-lander/migration-asyl/sekretesshantering/https://vardgivare.skane.se/patientadministration/vard-av-personer-fran-andra-lander/migration-asyl/sekretesshantering/
5. See for instance, the work of Project 17 in London: http://www.project17.org.uk
6. The no recourse to public funds (NRPF) rule is a provision in the UK immigration rules which prevents certain categories of migrants from accessing a list of social security benefits and public housing.