“惩罚那些做错事的人”:通过英国的家庭移民规则强制执行贫困和债务

IF 2.3 2区 社会学 Q1 SOCIAL ISSUES Critical Social Policy Pub Date : 2021-11-01 DOI:10.1177/0261018320980634
E. Dickson, R. Rosen
{"title":"“惩罚那些做错事的人”:通过英国的家庭移民规则强制执行贫困和债务","authors":"E. Dickson, R. Rosen","doi":"10.1177/0261018320980634","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In 2012, the ‘no recourse to public funds’ (NRPF) condition was extended to long-standing migrant families in the UK who had previously achieved rights to residence and welfare through human rights mechanisms. Through close examination of policy, political statements, and media coverage, we make the case that the NRPF extension was – and continues to be – intentionally subjugating and punitive, most aptly understood as a policy of enforced destitution and debt imposed on negatively-racialised post-colonial subjects. In drawing out the implications of our argument, we point to time, destitution, and debt as core technologies of the UK’s migration regime, alongside everyday bordering, detention, and deportability. Denying support through NRPF serves to exclude putatively included migrants while normalising conditional approaches to social support. Our article reveals why moral arguments against NRPF based on destitution fail and suggests that challenging welfare bordering requires a more systemic appraisal of policy frames, intentions and effects.","PeriodicalId":47685,"journal":{"name":"Critical Social Policy","volume":"41 1","pages":"545 - 565"},"PeriodicalIF":2.3000,"publicationDate":"2021-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1177/0261018320980634","citationCount":"14","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"‘Punishing those who do the wrong thing’: Enforcing destitution and debt through the UK’s family migration rules\",\"authors\":\"E. Dickson, R. Rosen\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/0261018320980634\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"In 2012, the ‘no recourse to public funds’ (NRPF) condition was extended to long-standing migrant families in the UK who had previously achieved rights to residence and welfare through human rights mechanisms. Through close examination of policy, political statements, and media coverage, we make the case that the NRPF extension was – and continues to be – intentionally subjugating and punitive, most aptly understood as a policy of enforced destitution and debt imposed on negatively-racialised post-colonial subjects. In drawing out the implications of our argument, we point to time, destitution, and debt as core technologies of the UK’s migration regime, alongside everyday bordering, detention, and deportability. Denying support through NRPF serves to exclude putatively included migrants while normalising conditional approaches to social support. Our article reveals why moral arguments against NRPF based on destitution fail and suggests that challenging welfare bordering requires a more systemic appraisal of policy frames, intentions and effects.\",\"PeriodicalId\":47685,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Critical Social Policy\",\"volume\":\"41 1\",\"pages\":\"545 - 565\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-11-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1177/0261018320980634\",\"citationCount\":\"14\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Critical Social Policy\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"90\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/0261018320980634\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"SOCIAL ISSUES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Critical Social Policy","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/0261018320980634","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"SOCIAL ISSUES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 14

摘要

2012年,“不得动用公共资金”(NRPF)的条件扩大到英国的长期移民家庭,这些家庭以前通过人权机制获得了居住权和福利权。通过仔细研究政策、政治声明和媒体报道,我们证明,NRPF的延期过去是——并将继续是——故意的征服和惩罚,最恰当的理解是一种强加给负面种族化的后殖民主体的强制贫困和债务政策。在阐述我们论点的含义时,我们指出时间、贫困和债务是英国移民制度的核心技术,以及日常边界、拘留和驱逐。拒绝通过NRPF提供支持有助于排除假定的移民,同时使有条件的社会支持方法正常化。我们的文章揭示了为什么基于贫困的反对NRPF的道德论点失败了,并表明挑战福利边界需要对政策框架、意图和效果进行更系统的评估。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
‘Punishing those who do the wrong thing’: Enforcing destitution and debt through the UK’s family migration rules
In 2012, the ‘no recourse to public funds’ (NRPF) condition was extended to long-standing migrant families in the UK who had previously achieved rights to residence and welfare through human rights mechanisms. Through close examination of policy, political statements, and media coverage, we make the case that the NRPF extension was – and continues to be – intentionally subjugating and punitive, most aptly understood as a policy of enforced destitution and debt imposed on negatively-racialised post-colonial subjects. In drawing out the implications of our argument, we point to time, destitution, and debt as core technologies of the UK’s migration regime, alongside everyday bordering, detention, and deportability. Denying support through NRPF serves to exclude putatively included migrants while normalising conditional approaches to social support. Our article reveals why moral arguments against NRPF based on destitution fail and suggests that challenging welfare bordering requires a more systemic appraisal of policy frames, intentions and effects.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.70
自引率
8.70%
发文量
49
期刊介绍: Critical Social Policy provides a forum for advocacy, analysis and debate on social policy issues. We publish critical perspectives which: ·acknowledge and reflect upon differences in political, economic, social and cultural power and upon the diversity of cultures and movements shaping social policy; ·re-think conventional approaches to securing rights, meeting needs and challenging inequalities and injustices; ·include perspectives, analyses and concerns of people and groups whose voices are unheard or underrepresented in policy-making; ·reflect lived experiences of users of existing benefits and services;
期刊最新文献
Distanciation as a technology of control in the UK hostile environment. Pregnant racialised migrants and the ubiquitous border: The hostile environment as a technology of stratified reproduction. Bordering social reproduction: The welfare/immigration regimes of Quebec and Ontario in Canada Diminishing returns of growth? Economic performance, needs satisfaction and ecological impacts of OECD welfare states A cure-all for energy poverty? Thinking critically about energy advice
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1