Social Inclusion (ISSN: 2183–2803) 2019, Volume 7, Issue 4, Pages 141–151 DOI: 10.17645/si.v7i4.2353 Article Hostile Immigration Policy and the Limits of Sanctuary as Resistance: Counter-Conduct as Constructive Critique Cathy A. Wilcock International Institute of Social Studies, Erasmus University Rotterdam, 2518 AX The Hague, The Netherlands; E-Mail: [email protected] Submitted: 12 July 2019 | Accepted: 29 August 2019 | Published: 28 November 2019 Abstract This article addresses the tense relationship between national and municipal approaches to the inclusion and exclusion of irregular immigrant ‘non-citizens.’ While national policies in the UK have created hostility for irregular migrants, municipal- level cities of sanctuary offer a ‘warm welcome’ which has been extolled as immanently progressive in the face of hostility. This article assesses the extent to which city-based sanctuary movements in the UK provide effective resistance to the na- tional policies of hostility. Building on critiques of the City of Sanctuary (CoS) movement, effective resistance is redefined using a Foucauldian counter-conduct approach. Through applying a counter-conduct lens to a document analysis of the CoS newsletter archive and online resources, the article shows it is not easy to dismiss sanctuary as ineffective resistance, as some earlier critiques have argued. Rather, CoS is demonstrated as both effective and ineffective counter-conduct due to its uneven approach to the various discourses within the hostile environment. Keywords cities of sanctuary; counter-conduct; hostile environment; UK immigration policy Issue This article is part of the issue “Inclusion through Enacted Citizenship in Urban Spaces” edited by Rachel Kurian (Erasmus University Rotterdam, The Netherlands) and Helen Hintjens (Erasmus University Rotterdam, The Netherlands) © 2019 by the author; licensee Cogitatio (Lisbon, Portugal). This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribu- tion 4.0 International License (CC BY). 1. Introduction the city and its inhabitants. This article addresses how municipal-level actors resist the conditions for exclusion This article addresses the relationship between national and inclusion which they inherit from the state. It does so and municipal approaches to the inclusion and exclusion through a document analysis of the UK’s national immi- of irregular immigrant ‘non-citizens.’ It speaks to concep- gration policy—termed the ‘hostile environment’—and tualisations of citizenship which see beyond formalised the City of Sanctuary (CoS) movement which is embed- citizenship ‘status’ and describe instead a tacit ‘right to ded within local council infrastructure. As will be shown, presence’: the conditions for which are collectively in- the UK national immigration policy promotes substantive stantiated―or enacted―by a political community (Isin, citizenship whereby the ‘right of presence’ is reserved 2013). Using this conceptualisation of citizenship, mul- for some and denied to others based on the false dis- tiple conditions for inclusion are performed and com- tinction between morally corrupt irregular migrants and peted for by various actors. Inspired by Lefebvre’s Right morally pure regular migrants. Against this, urban actors to the City (1968), several scholars have focused on ur- in CoS enact competing conditions for inclusion based ban space as a site where national modes of exclusivity on hospitality. can be ‘ruptured’ or ‘threatened’ (Bauder, 2016; Harvey, First, the article outlines the details of ‘hostile en- 2003; Purcell, 2002). While the state dictates who is en- vironment’ policy-making and the responses from the titled to legal ‘rights,’ the ‘right of presence’ for belong- CoS movement. It then demonstrates that critiques of ing to the urban political community is the province of CoS have concluded that, overall, it fails to resist hostil- Social Inclusion, 2019, Volume 7, Issue 4, Pages 141–151 141 ity. Seeking to offer a more constructive critique, I argue the ‘four Ds of deterrence’ on irregular migrants: dis- for the reimagining of resistance as Foucauldian counter- persal, detention, destitution, and deportation (Webber, conduct. Drawing on the heuristic model developed by 2004). According to May, this introduced a push factor Death (2010, 2016) and examples of successful counter- which would overwrite the pull of previous excessively conduct from various contexts, the article then discusses lenient immigration regimes (House of Commons, 2015). to what extent CoS is successful counter-conduct to the Ironically, the justification for these Acts, described in the hostile environment. It draws evidence from an archive Conservative manifesto, was to meet the arbitrary target of CoS documentation and media reports. Specifically, of reducing net immigration to the tens not hundreds of the article engages with CoS newsletters from the pe- thousands (The Conservative Party, 2015, p. 29). Since riod August 2018–August 2019 as well as handbooks, irregular immigrants are—by definition—absent from of- charters, annual reports and online resources available ficial statistics, the justification is entirely spurious. This on cityofsanctuary.com. In addition, media reports be- marks the hostile environment as an example of ‘sym- tween 2010–2019 and secondary academic sources con- bolic policy making’ (Weisz, 2018, p. 12) which is de- tribute to illustrative exemplification. I also write with signed to appease agitated voters and has no basis in ra- ten years’ experience of participating in the UK migrant tional analysis. The policing of those with irregular status and refugee rights sector in a voluntary capacity, engag- can therefore be seen, not as a means to meet immigra- ing with―but not formally a member of―CoS. tion targets, but as an assertion of state control over sub- stantive citizenship, or the ‘right of presence.’ 2. The Hostile Environment The 2014 and 2016 Acts were characterised by two main contributions: first, ‘everyday bordering’ (Yuval- The ‘hostile environment’ has come to describe the UK’s Davis et al., 2018) or the expansion and internalisation of policy approach to immigration (Webber, 2019). In its border checking into ‘quotidian life’ (Lewis et al., 2017, broadest sense, it refers to the gradual introduction of se- p. 190) and second, the removal of rights for asylum- lectively restrictive policies most significantly under New seekers. The ‘insourcing’ of border control (Menjívar, Labour in the late 1990s (Lewis, Waite, & Hodkinson, 2014) involves serving fines or imprisonment to em- 2017, p. 189; Mulvey, 2011) but it can also be traced ployers who hire irregular immigrants and to landlords, back to the 1970s (Bowling & Westenra, 2018, p. 2; Yuval- banks, and the Driver Vehicle Licensing Agency when Davis, Wemyss, & Cassidy, 2018, p. 233). In its narrow it has been found that they have provided their goods sense, the hostile environment describes the rhetorical and services to irregular migrants (Immigration Act, 2014, and legislative platform of the Conservative/Liberal coali- c. 3, s. 33–47; Immigration Act, 2016, c. 2). The Acts tion and Conservative government (2010–current). Two also removed rights for asylum-seekers, specifically to Immigration Acts (2014 and 2016) were introduced by appeal decisions on their cases (Immigration Act, 2014, then home secretary Theresa May who stated that they c.2; Immigration Act, 2016, c. 4) and empowered immi- should create a ‘hostile environment’ for migrants (Kirkup, gration officers to detain and electronically tag asylum- 2012). While often credited with coining the phrase, May seekers in the appeals process (Immigration Act, 2014, borrowed the term from Labour Home Secretary Alan c. 1, s. 4; Immigration Act, 2016, c. 3). These measures Johnson who first used it in relation to immigration pol- built on previous Acts legally requiring public servants icy in 2009 (Taylor, 2018, p. 2). Much of the content such as doctors, teachers, social workers, marriage reg- of the Acts was devised by the “Hostile Environment istrars and university professors to check and report the Working Group” established to concoct policies which status of their patients, clients, students, etc. or face would ‘make immigrants’ lives more difficult’ (Aitkenhead, fines and imprisonment (Immigration and Asylum Act, 2013; Webber, 2019, p. 77). While the hostile environ- 1999; Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act, 2002, ment was disowned following the 2018 Windrush scandal c. 6, s. 129–133). Asylum-seekers already had their right by then home secretary Sajid Javid, no legislative changes to work denied in 2002 (Nationality, Immigration and have been implemented (Grierson, Farrer, & Sparrow, Asylum Act, 2002, c. 6) and their right to non-emergency 2018). Critics maintain that the UK still pursues a modus health care and free English language classes withdrawn operandi of fervent hostility (Webber, 2018). in 2006 (Yuval-Davis et al., 2018, p. 233). The 2014 and The 2014 and 2016 Acts enshrined specific efforts 2016 Acts extended these hostilities through creating in- to police irregular migrants, of which there were an es- formation sharing pathways between the Home Office timated 800,000 living in the UK (York, 2015, p. 228). and social and health services (Immigration Act, 2016, Migration status can become irregularised in a number c. 3, s. 55) and ensured the enforcement of penalties en- of ways: People can enter the UK clandestinely or fraud- shrined in earlier Acts. ulently, they can overstay