Deserving Shelter: Conditional Access to Accommodation for Rejected Asylum Seekers in Austria, the Netherlands, and Sweden

References

• Ambrosini, M. (2013). We are against a multi-ethnic society. Policies of exclusion at the urban level in Italy. Ethnic and Racial Studies, 36(1), 136–155.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ataç, I., & Rosenberger, S. (2013). Inklusion/Exklusion: Ein relationales Konzept der Migrationsforschung In I. Ataç & S. Rosenberger (Ed.), Politik der Inklusion und Exklusion (pp. 35–52). Göttingen: V&R unipress.
   Google Scholar
• Cantor, D. J., Wijk, J., Singer, S., & Bolhuis, M. P. (2017). The emperor’s new clothing: National responses to “undesirable and unreturnable” aliens under asylum and immigration law. Refugee Survey Quarterly, 36(1), 1–8.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chauvin, S., & Garcés-Mascareñas, B. (2012). Beyond informal citizenship: The new moral economy of migrant illegality. International Political Sociology, 6(3), 241–259.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chauvin, S., & Garcés-Mascareñas, B. (2014). Becoming less illegal: Deservingness frames and undocumented migrant incorporation. Sociology Compass, 8(4), 422–432.
   Google Scholar
• Dwyer, P. (2005). Governance, forced migration and welfare. Social Policy and Administration, 39(6), 622–639.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dwyer, P., & Brown, D. (2005). Meeting basic needs? The survival strategies of forced migrants. Social Policy and Society, 4(4), 1–12.
   Google Scholar
• EMN. (2016). Returning Rejected Asylum Seekers: Challenges and good practices. Common Template of EMN Focussed Study 2016.
   Google Scholar
• EMN (2017). The effectiveness of return in EU Member States. Synthesis Report for the EMN Focussed Study. Available at https://www.emn.at/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/EMN-Synthesis-Report-2017-The-effectiveness-of-return-in-EU-Member-States.pdf Accessed 15 Aug 2018.
   Google Scholar
• Fassin, D. (2005). Compassion and repression: the moral economy of immigration policies in France. Cultural Anthropology, 20 (3), 362–387.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gibney, M. (2008). Asylum and the expansion of deportation in the United Kingdom. Government and Opposition, 43(2), 146–167.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Goldring, L., & Landolt, P. (2015). Assembling non-citizenship through the work of conditionality. Citizenship Studies, 19(8), 853–869.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Heegaard Bausager, M., Köpfli Møller, J., & Ardittis, S. (2013). Study on the situation of third-country nationals pending return/removal in the EU Member States and the Schengen Associated Countries. European Commission, Home/2010/RFXX/PR/1001.
   Google Scholar
• Helbling, M., Bjerre, L., Römer, F., & Zobel, M. (2017). Measuring immigration policies: the IMPIC database. European Political Science, 16(1), 79–98. doi: 10.1057/eps.2016.4
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hinterberger, K. F., & Klammer, S. (2015). Das Rechtsinstitut der fremdenpolizeilichen Duldung. migraLex – Zeitschrift für Fremden- und Minderheitenrecht, 3/2015, 73-83.
   Google Scholar
• Hsieh, H., & Shannon, S. E. (2005). Three approaches to qualitative content analysis. Qualitative Health Research, 15(9), 1277–1288.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Könönen, J. (2018). Differential inclusion of non-citizens in a universalistic welfare state. Citizenship Studies, 22(1), 53–69. doi: 10.1080/13621025.2017.1380602
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kos, S., Maussen, M., & Doomernik, J. (2015). Policies of Exclusion and Practices of Inclusion: How Municipal Governments Negotiate Asylum Policies in the Netherlands. Territory, Politics, Governance, 4(3), 1–21.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kotkas, T., & Veitch, K. (2017). Social rights in the welfare state. Origins and transformations. London/New York: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Lagrådsremiss (2016). Ändring av bestämmelserna om rätt till bistånd i lagen om mottagande av asylsökande m.fl (Change of the regulations on the right to support in the law on the reception of asylum seekers), Stockholm, 3 March 2016.
   Google Scholar
• LMA (1994). Lagen om mottagande av asylsökande (Swedish Reception of Asylum Seekers and Others Act), Swedish Statute Book.
   Google Scholar
• Lipsky, M. (1980). Street-level bureaucracy; Dilemmas of the individual in public services. New York: Russel Sage Foundation.
   Google Scholar
• Lundberg, A., & Spång, M. (2017). Deportability status as basis for human rights claims: Irregularised migrants' right to health care in Sweden. Nordic Journal of Human Rights, 35(1), 35–54.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lutz, F. (2018). Non-removable returnees under union law: Status quo and possible developments. European Journal of Migration and Law, 20 (1), 28–52.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Morris, L. (2003). Managing contradiction: Civic stratification and Migrants’ Rights. International Migration Review, 37(1), 74–100.
   Google Scholar
• Morris, L. (2016). Squaring the circle: Domestic welfare, migrants rights, and human rights. Citizenship Studies, 20(6–7), 693–709.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Oomen, B., & Baumgärtel, M. (2018). Frontier cities: The rise of local authorities as an opportunity for international human rights law. European Journal of International Law, 29(1).
   Google Scholar
• Rosenberger, S., & Koppes, S. (2018). Claiming control: Cooperation with return as a condition for social benefits in Austria and the Netherlands. Comparative Migration Studies. doi: 10.1186/s40878-018-0085-3.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Rosenberger, S., & Küffner, C. (2016). After the deportation gap: Non-removed persons and their pathways to social rights. In R. Hsu & C. H. Reinprecht, (Eds.), Migration and Integration (pp.137–152). Vienna: Vienna University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Schoukens, P., & Buttiens, S. (2017). Social protection of non-removable rejected asylum-seekers in the EU: A legal assessment. European Journal of Social Security, 19(4), 313–334.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Slominski, P., & Trauner, F. (2017). How do member states return unwanted migrants? The Strategic (non-)use of ‘Europe’ during the migration crisis. Journal of Common Market Studies, 56(1), 101–118. doi: 10.1111/jcms.12621
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Spencer, S. (2016). Postcode Lottery for Europe’s Undocumented Children. Unravelling an Uneven Geography of Entitlements in the European Union. American Behavioral Scientist, 60(13), 1613–1628.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Spencer, S. (2017). Multi-level governance of an intractable policy problem: migrants with irregular status in Europe. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies. doi: 10.1080/1369183X.2017.1341708
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• van der Leun, J. (2003). Looking for loopholes: Processes of incorporation of illegal immigrants in the Netherlands. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.
   Google Scholar
• van der Leun, J. (2006). Excluding illegal migrants in The Netherlands: Between national policies and local implementation. West European Politics, 29(2), 310–326, doi: 10.1080/01402380500512650
   Google Scholar
• van Meeteren, M. (2014). Irregular migrants in Belgium and the Netherlands. Aspirations and incorporation. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.
   Google Scholar
• van Oorschot, W. (2000). Who should get what, and why? On deservingness criteria and the conditionality of solidarity among the public. Policy & Politics, 28(1), 33–48.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• van Oorschot, W. (2008). Solidarity towards immigrants in European welfare states. International Journal of Social Welfare, 17(1), 3–14.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vogel, D. (2015). The challenge of irregular migration In: Triandafyllidou, Anna (Ed.), Routledge Handbook of Immigration and Refugee studies (pp. 333–339). London und New York: Routledge.
   Google Scholar