Sanctuary, firewalls, regularisation: three inclusive responses to the presence of irregular migrants

Abstract

Liberal democratic states can respond to the presence of irregular migrants in three basic ways: by attempting to deport all migrants without legal status, by ignoring their irregular presence without providing them with rights or legal status, or by attempting to include them in the host society. This epilogue to a special issue on sanctuary discusses three inclusive responses to unauthorised immigration: sanctuaries, firewalls and regularizations. We describe their characteristic features by examining their specific benefits for migrants (protection from deportation, access to public services, and pathways to membership), the types of actors promoting or providing these responses (subnational or national governments, civil society actors), and the challenges to national immigration control they raise (contestations over jurisdiction, division of competencies, and determination of legal status). We acknowledge overlaps and ambiguities between the three responses and discuss whether asylum can be considered as sanctuary within the international state system and whether not only regularizations, but also sanctuaries and firewalls can promote inclusive membership. Finally, we lay the ground for empirical and normative analyses of justifications for each of the three responses by showing that these invoke specific claims about contestation rights, benefits for migrants, and benefits for the wider society.