Acts, ambiguities, and the labour of contesting citizenship

Jonathan Darling (University of Manchester)

Citizenship is, as the editors of this special issue assert, intrinsically spatial. In its connections

to ‘the material and discursive dimensions of different geographical places and scales’

(Maestri and Hughes 2017), citizenship has long been central to political geography. From

debates over the relationship between territory and citizenship as a marker of belonging and

status (Painter and Philo 1995; Sassen 2006), to considerations of the everyday manifestation

of citizenship in various forms of social and political practice (Staeheli et al. 2012),

geography has retained a concern to explore the limits, boundaries, and possibilities of

citizenship. It is in the spirit of these discussions, that this special issue has brought together a

rich vein of work exploring the spatial contests, possibilities, and politics of citizenship. In

this afterword, I draw on the five papers collected together here, to discuss some of the

intersections between space and citizenship. I want to open by briefing touching on the

account of citizenship developed in this issue, centred around two common perspectives.

In their introduction to this issue, Maestri and Hughes (2017), argue that citizenship

represents a process of ‘marginalisation’, yet one that is ‘constantly open to renegotiation’.

As such, they highlight how citizenship is shaped by political struggles, suggesting both the

production of new forms of political subjectivity, and the governmental reproduction of

normative distinctions of citizen and non-citizen. This account of citizenship as a ‘Janus-

faced’ concept at once both inclusive and exclusive (Wiebe 2016), is the first reading of

citizenship I want to reflect upon here. For if we look to the multiple spaces and often

ambiguous claims made throughout this special issue, we see a more complex picture

1

emerging. In exploring struggles for rights by Roma populations in Rome and Turin (Maestri

2017; Canepari and Rosa 2017), and undocumented migrants in Brussels and Malmo

(Depraetere and Oosterlynck 2017; Nordling et al 2017), these papers illustrate how a ‘Janus-

faced’ image masks both the complexity of each of these ‘faces’, and the interactions

between them. In each of these papers, forms of political contestation respond to, exceed, and

are often re-appropriated within, an exclusionary image of citizenship based on the normative

categories of the nation-state. And at the same time, these claims are always multiple. They

are tied to concerns around care, hospitality, empathy and support, as much as they are

singular demands for citizenship. Exploring these claims is therefore to reflect on the

complexities of citizenship and to unsettle this ‘Janus-faced’ image.

The second account of citizenship orientating this issue is in understanding citizenship

beyond the boundaries of the nation-state. The papers collected here illustrate Nyers’

(2015:32) claim that citizenship ‘has not been completely captured by the state, or by state

philosophy. It, too, escapes from border control’. Nyers (2015), argues that citizenship may

‘escape’ the dominance of the state through the emergence of forms of ‘migrant citizenship’

that are ‘generative of new modes of being in the world’ (ibid:29). These new modes of being

may themselves trouble a ‘Janus-faced’ account of citizenship, but they also rely upon varied

tactics and spaces for their production and performance. In the remainder of this afterword I

want to highlight four areas that illustrate the potentials, limitations, and tensions of thinking

citizenship in ways not immediately ‘captured by the state’ or by a ‘Janus-faced’ image of

inclusive exclusion. To begin, I explore two avenues through which citizenship may ‘escape’

the state.

Citizenship’s ‘escape’

2

On the one hand, citizenship has not been captured by the state due to a growing concern with

citizenship ‘from below’ (Nyers and Rygiel 2012), a framing of citizenship from ‘the

margins’ that attempts to either reframe dominant citizenship trends (Turner 2016), or refuse

the categories of citizenship altogether (McNevin 2012, 2013). We might see this vein of

work in Nordling et al’s (2017) paper, where an autonomy of migration approach is taken

forward by exploring how undocumented migrants in Malmo seek to both exceed the limits

of citizenship as a category of political status, whilst also strategically employing citizenship

as a social practice that enables migrants to gain respite from exclusionary forces. The

importance of such activism is in the ability to break down barriers of classification and

division between citizen and non-citizens, such that common claims to rights are articulated

between otherwise distinct groups (Nyers and Rygiel 2012). This question of enrolling others

into a political struggle is shown to be central to the claims made by undocumented migrants

in Brussels (Depraetere and Oosterlynck 2017), Roma groups in Rome (Maestri 2017), and

immigration detainees in the UK (Hughes and Forman 2017). The papers in this issue thus

show how attempts to ‘escape’ are both facilitated and constrained by the spaces through

which they emerge – from the routing of migrants through certain channels and assumptions,

to the possibilities of social practice and presence seen in the informal dimensions of urban

life.

The second point through which citizenship has been argued to ‘escape’ the state, comes

from an identification of citizenship with spatial forms beyond the nation-state. The potential

for transnational and transversal forms of citizenship that express different relational

connectivity have contested the association of citizenship with the territorially bound state

(Sassen 2006). Yet perhaps the most readily discussed challenge comes from work on urban

3

citizenship that positions the city as both a context for struggles over citizenship, and a

political actor to whom, and for whom, claims are made (Isin 2012; Nyers 2011). We see

consideration of these urban dynamics of citizenship in this range of papers (Canepari and

Rosa 2017; Depraetere and Oosterlynck 2017; Nordling et al. 2017). Notably, Canepari and

Rosa (2017) illustrate how, both historically and in contemporary Turin, social presence

provides opportunities for the development and expression of rights to the city based upon

‘local forms of anchorage for unsettled individuals’. In this context, they argue that ‘social

practice was what made a city-dweller, someone who was part of the city and has access to its

resources’ (Canepari and Rosa 2017), and this argument resonates with an emergent body of

work concerned with examining how the politics of urban presence may offer openings for

alternative forms of belonging (Bauder 2016; Darling 2017; Squire and Darling 2013).

Similarly, in examining the acts of solidarity that support undocumented migrants in Malmo,

Nordling et al. (2017) illustrate the role that urban environments play in offering

opportunities for activist organising, networking, and identification through claims to urban

identity and rights. In this way, the diversity, density, and political visibility often attached to

cities foster conditions for contesting citizenship (Uitermark and Nicholls 2014). Just as

important though, and illustrated by Depraetere and Oosterlynck’s (2017) account of the

closure of informal support services for refugees in Brussels, is the recognition that cities also

represent sites through which practices of everyday bordering are maintained. In this way, as

I have argued elsewhere (Darling 2017), cities are critical sites for the policing of dissent and,

as such, are often stages on which the risks of political visibility are amplified.

Taken together, this focus on exploring citizenship ‘from below’, and understanding

citizenship through a wider range of spatial and institutional forms, has pushed critical

discussions to expand the practices, sites, and subjects associated with contesting citizenship.

4

In taking forward these discussions, I now turn to consider how a concern with ‘acts of

citizenship’ may offer insights into citizenship ‘from below’ (Isin and Nielsen 2008).

Acts and interventions

The concept of ‘acts of citizenship’ has gained considerable attention in recent years, with a

range of work drawing on Isin’s (2008) theorisation of practices that rewrite established

‘scripts’ of citizenship among those formally excluded from such status (see, for example,

Aradau et al. 2010; Darling 2014a; Isin 2012). It is thus unsurprising to see this framing being

employed across the papers in this special issue.

The most explicit use of this literature comes in Hughes and Forman’s (2017) discussion of

how an appreciation of materiality may enliven work on acts of citizenship. Through their

account of how an array of materials are assembled in immigration removal centres to

produce music with detainees, and how such music is transported beyond the walls of the

detention centre through diverse circuits of materiality, Hughes and Forman force us to

consider the very nature of the ‘act’ in ‘acts of citizenship’. Foregrounding the role of

materiality in constituting acts of citizenship, their work opens the question of where an ‘act’

emerges from and how we might trace the politics of the ‘act’ as it resonates through different

personal, social, and affective relationships. In this vein, Hughes and Forman’s (2017)

discussion illustrates how the material-discursive assemblage of music can circulate through

multiple publics with effects and resonances that can never be fully predicted or tied back to

an intentional or wholly coherent ‘author’. An attention to the material constitution of the act,

does not prioritise particular subjects, spaces, or actors as the primary or rightful authors of

such acts. Instead, it is the combinatory capacity and distributed agency of materials brought

5

into contact that produce and reproduce acts in different contexts. The upshot of which is that

an act is an assembled socio-political effect of material-discursive relations. These are

relations that can be directed in varying ways, including governmental attempts to produce

certain conducts through material circulations (Darling 2014b), but they are never wholly

circumscribed or controlled.

This line of thought opens up some interesting questions. Most significant of these is in how

an act is recognised. Through denying any singular author to an act, Squire (2016) has

recently argued that acts can only be known by their effects, as acts ‘can be more or less

purposive and are conceptualised as such in terms of their political implications or effects,

rather than in terms of the choices, strategies or wilful actions of those involved’ (Squire

2016:12-13, original emphasis). In this sense, acts ‘do not in any sense rely on a particular

conception of what an actor is or does’ (ibid), but rather are recognised by the production of

new subjects. Acts are thus disruptive practices of subjectification, but unlike political

interventions, they actualise their disruptive potential and constitute new political subjects

(Squire 2016:14-15). Taking such thought forward suggests two possible paths for

discussions of citizenship.

One is to draw on a more expansive account of ‘acts’ than that often provided through

literature in this field. For example, Fortier (2016:1039) proposes a wider account of ‘acts of

citizenship’ as ‘both institutional and individual practices of making citizens or citizenship,

including practices that seek to redefine, decentre or even refuse citizenship. For even in

refusing it, citizenship is the object of the act’. This extends beyond the disruptive acts that

Isin and Nielsen (2008) refer to, and encompasses the wider ‘technologies of governmentality

deployed by states, corporation or other sites of disciplinary power that prescribe what it

6

means to be a good citizen’ (Fortier 2016:1040). This wider account of acts of citizenship,

opens analysis to a broader set of processes involved in constituting citizens, not solely ‘from

below’ or in ways that are inherently disruptive, but also in ways that shape and maintain

normative accounts of the ‘good’ citizen ‘worthy’ of inclusion and rights. It is these processes

of ‘making citizens’, through normative acts as well as disruptive ones, that continue to shape

everyday life for many citizens and non-citizens alike (Byrne 2014). The implication of this

argument for the papers in this issue, is to question how the disruptive acts of claims-making

and subjectification discussed, come into contact with technologies of governmentality that

themselves ‘make’ citizens and mould understandings of citizenship.

The second option is to follow Squire’s (2016) distinction of the act from the intervention,

and to consider in greater depth the political relation of the two. In a number of cases across

these papers, the forms of political contestation discussed does not become an ‘act’ when

interpreted through its effects. If the basis of the act is its ability to disrupt the political

present and to instantiate a new political subject, then this is witnessed only fleetingly in

these contributions. Depraetere and Oosterlynck’s (2017) account of undocumented migrants

in Brussels suggests a brief articulation of a new identification for those on the margins of the

city, but one all too quickly subsumed within the reassertion of normative categories of

citizenship. Similarly, Maestri’s (2017) work on the rights claims of the Roma, shows how

new forms of political subject may have arisen in response to austerity, but that these were

equally fragile and subject to co-option by technologies of governance that seek to ‘make

citizens’ in a particular image. This leads to two interpretive challenges. On the one hand, we

can assert that these are acts of citizenship in their articulation of an alternative account of

who has the right to have rights, and that looking to the effects of such acts illustrates as

much. Yet the question of temporality comes to the fore in doing so – for how long should we

7

trace the effects of such acts in order to know them as acts? Does it matter if these effects are

fleeting and temporary? On the other hand, we might argue that what we see are interventions

that have the potential to produce new subjects, but that fall short of the realisation of that

potential. This is not to dismiss the political significance of such interventions, but to add

nuance to an understanding of what might be articulated as an act of citizenship. Indeed, as

Squire (2016:15) argues, interventions may be significant in creating ‘multiple openings for

new subjects and scripts to emerge’, as the ‘development of resources, skills and networks by

people on the move…can be important in the formation of a political act. Focusing on the

effects of interventions…sheds light on the ambiguities and messiness of acts’ (ibid).

Exploring the politics of the intervention, might thus offer a way to consider the labour of

constituting acts themselves – in terms of the multiple people, skills, and materials that are

brought together in organising, campaigning, and claims making (Darling 2014a). It might

also offer insight into how acts of citizenship are always already positioned in relation to

other ways of ‘making citizens’, be that through technologies of governance or through

differently positioned acts of ‘violence, hospitality, hostility, indifference, love, friendship,

and so on’ (Isin 2008:19). It is to this issue of intertwined relations that I now turn.

Ambiguities and alliances

Ambiguity plays a central role in many of the papers collected together here, not least

because, as Maestri and Hughes (2017) argue, ambiguity is often at the core of citizenship.

The role of ambiguity in shaping understandings of struggles for citizenship comes to the fore

in a number of ways. On a spatial level, Nordling et al. (2017) highlight how in the city of

Malmo, spaces of social support for undocumented migrants might be understood as spaces

8

‘in between’ normative categories and claims to status and rights. These spaces are argued to

hold shifting and uncertain positions, and operate ‘in between’ assumptions of citizenship,

charity and identity in two ways. On the one hand, they are positioned between categories of

inclusion and exclusion, as they enable social space for migrants who have no formal right to

stay in the city, and the on the other, they are sites positioned between migrant and non-

migrant subjectivities, spaces shared and produced through relations across categories of

status. The connections forged here between differentially positioned individuals and groups,

help to form political campaigns, social support structures, and offer a context in which the

sorts of interventions noted above may be emergent. These are not spaces of clear cut

political activism or insurgency, but neither are they spaces only of care, hospitality, or

compassion. Rather, like interventions and acts, these spaces may become political, but often

in unpredictable and partial ways. Exploring the different political and moral logics behind

such spaces, once again adds depth to the image of citizenship as a ‘Janus-faced’ concept.

Beyond this spatial point, ambiguity is present in the strategic use of citizenship. In one such

instance, Canepari and Rosa (2017) show how claims to citizenship can be mobilised to

further other forms of political marginality. In their account of the informal settlement of

marginal parts of Turin by Roma groups, they suggest that urban authorities allowed these

claims to space so as to encourage landowners to negotiate with them over the future use, and

value, of such land. In this context, claims to a right to the city, articulated through practices

of occupation, are co-opted to support the interests and authority of the local state. Alongside

this co-option of claims to citizenship, we should also recognise that, as McNevin (2012)

argues, in some contexts citizenship is not sought as a goal for political struggles. Rather,

citizenship may offer a strategically useful staging post in seeking to challenge and reject the

basis on which rights are defined. This issue of what Cook (2010) terms the ‘advocates

9

dilemma’ in which marginal subjects appeal for rights whilst also critiquing and challenging

the basis on which such rights are assumed, is central to discussions of the ambiguous nature

of citizenship claims. This is evident in Nordling et al’s (2017) paper, where they suggest that

informal urban rights secured through social practice offer ‘room for manoeuvre to activists

(citizens as well as non-citizens) to focus on issues beyond everyday survival’. The ambiguity

of such political claims is not simply in what is sought, but also in how claims are used to

enable the development of other political strategies. Ambiguity is not a stable position, but

one that can be used temporarily to make space for other claims, and is, of course, open to

challenge and co-option as we have seen. In this way, the informal rights claimed across a

number of these papers might be argued to be minor interventions that give respite, but do not

necessarily alter a positon on the margins (Bagelman 2015). Yet, as Wilson (2014) argues of

tolerance, the gap that such respite may produce, whilst fragile, still holds the potential to be

transformative in opening opportunities for new political claims and strategies to emerge.

The contestation of citizenship may also demand the formation of multiple alliances. In this

vein, Maestri (2017) highlights how acts of citizenship by Roma are ‘supported through acts

of solidarity developed by actors who are not subject to the same marginalisation of the

Roma’. In articulating claims to the right to the city alongside urban squatting movements,

Roma groups are able to enact forms of solidarity based on a ‘shared socio-economic status

of being denied access to housing in times of crisis’ (ibid). Such forms of solidarity and

alliance building across difference are critical in examining how citizenship is contested, both

from those on the margins and through connections forged by shared experiences. The

importance of such strategies is that in a context of continued austerity, and rising

nationalism and populism across much of Europe, we are seeing the prioritisation of

citizenship narratives that focus on a competition for resources between groups, and that deny

10

forms of international and intersectional solidarity (Darling 2016; Featherstone 2012). As

such, the papers collected together here pose the question of how moments of solidarity

between citizen and non-citizen groups may be both facilitated and maintained.

Learning and labour

The final thread I want to draw from this issue, is in the role of learning in shaping the

politics of citizenship. Of course, there are established bodies of work on how citizenship is

learned through forms of citizenship education (Crick 1999), and on how citizens are ‘made’

through expectations of conduct, culture, and identity (Byrne 2014). But what I want to draw

out here is a less strictly institutional form of learning. Rather, it is notable across these

papers that whilst a range of spaces are produced, maintained, and co-opted in different ways,

in doing so a series of pedagogic practices are also enacted. In short, exploring how spaces of

citizenship are contested, and how cities in particular offer opportunities to assert claims to

rights beyond the nation-state, exposes how such environments are learned through everyday

practices and how that knowledge plays a part in the articulation of political claims

(McFarlane 2011). Such practices of learning are also about the labour of making connections

and return us again to a need to reflect on how the work of contesting citizenship is just this,

work. We might see this in two examples.

First, Canepari and Rosa (2017) highlight how the urban environment is learned by the Roma

in Turin. From the knowledge of the public water geography of the city required to have a

shower, to the recovery, sorting and selling of waste as a means to get by, the Roma are

shown to develop an adept understanding of the city based on where one can, and cannot,

gain access to water supplies, waste, and other resources. In this way, Canepari and Rosa

11

(2017) show not just how an intimate geography of the city is learned through doing, but how

this intimate knowledge of the city enables ‘Rome people [to] practice in the city far beyond

their marginal living spaces’. This offers a form of ‘mobile anchoring’ through which a group

that is otherwise placed on the margins, can establish forms of ‘presence and belonging in the

city’ that offer footholds for both survival and the politicisation of other rights claims. In this

way, learning the city is intimately tied to the informal networks of opportunity that have

been argued to make cities sites of contested citizenship (Bauder 2016; Uitermark and

Nicholls 2014).

Second, in the contexts of Brussels (Depraetere and Oosterlynck 2017), and Malmo

(Nordling et al. 2017), these papers illustrate the significance of information sharing in the

politics of undocumented migration. In both of these cases, undocumented groups engage and

share information with each other, and with other groups of refugees, citizens, and in some

cases third sector and support organisations. Whilst of course, such knowledge is open to

control and co-option, it is nevertheless important to recognise the central role that sharing

knowledge of campaigning, local political opportunity structures, and the basics of survival in

new surroundings, may play in constituting the grounds for political interventions and acts. In

their paper, Nordling et al. (2017) refer to this as a ‘mobile commons’ of shared information,

knowledge and skills. This conceptualisation views the mobile commons as a ‘world of

knowledge, of information, of tricks for survival, of mutual care, of social relations, of

service exchange, of solidarity and sociability that can be shared, used and where people

contribute to sustain and expand it’ (Papadopoulos and Tsianos 2013:190). Crucially, this

notion of the mobile commons is one that prioritises learning, as a commons is always open

to new information, yet not one that attempts to define or restrict who is able to learn or to

contribute. In the account we see from Malmo, this knowledge is not divorced from the

12

politics of citizenship but rather is, as Nyers (2015:32) puts it, ‘immanent to…citizenship’.

The undocumented migrants that Nordling et al. (2017) worked with, point to shared

practices of learning, the tactical exchange of information, and the coordination of political

claims, as ways in which a ‘mobile commons’ is mobilised to support everyday survival in

the city and strategies for claiming the right to have rights.

Citizenships in flux

Furthering an understanding of the contested nature and spatial politics of citizenship requires

exploring all of these varied avenues of critical engagement. Crucially, as these papers

illustrate, exploring questions of urban contestation and belonging, acts and interventions,

and the materialities and labours of political struggles, are not mutually exclusive endeavours.

Rather, they are intertwined through the production of spaces that both facilitate, and are

changed by, claims to the right to have rights. In advancing such discussions there is a need

to also remain cognisant of two issues that endure with addressing citizenship ‘from below’.

The first is how such work, can account for, and engage with, acts and interventions that are

not merely ambiguous, but that are actively destructive of other ways of being. Consider here

the affective politics of hate, the saliency of desires to retain and protect privilege, and the

rejection of forms of solidarity that seek to extend concern to others. It is thus important to

recognise that political contestations of citizenship must also involve the insurgent claims and

acts of those who stake their account of citizenship precisely on the desire, and even the

presumed right, to deny the right to have rights to others. This presumption is a long-held

aspect of a normative vision of citizenship tied to the nation-state (Hage 1998), yet it is also

one that has often been viewed as under threat and in need of ever more repressive political

protection. In unpacking these contested spaces of citizenship, there is a need to keep in mind

13

those spaces formed around exclusionary acts of citizenship that form particular political

subjects.

Finally, and perhaps inevitably, there is scope and value in returning to the nation-state when

considering the contested spaces of citizenship and asking critically, what a view of

citizenship ‘from below’ may mean for the state? This is particularly important at present

because the status and experience of citizenship for many different groups is being remade.

From the changing relations to the state being produced through the Brexit process in the UK,

and its impacts on both EU nationals within the UK and UK nationals living in the EU,

through to the ongoing repression of mobility rights for a range of citizens across the world,

how citizenship is defined, and what implications it carries for the subjects it creates, is in

considerable flux. In many ways this has always been the case, citizenship is by definition a

mutable and contingent political category and process. Yet, the value of exploring how

spaces of contestation may challenge, confront, and remake understandings of citizenship

may be in illustrating not just how citizenship is being practiced at the margins, but in

reflecting on how the nature of citizenship is being continually revised and remade in relation

to those on the margins.

References

Aradau, C. Huysmans, J. and Squire, V. (2010) Acts of European citizenship: a political

sociology of mobility Journal of Common Market Studies 48(4): 945-965.

Bagelman, J. (2013) Sanctuary: a politics of ease? Alternatives 38(1): 49-62.

14

Bauder, H. (2016) Possibilities of urban belonging Antipode 48(2): 252-271.

Byrne, B. (2014) Making Citizens: Public Rituals and Personal Journeys to Citizenship

Basingstoke, Palgrave Macmillan.

Canepari, E. and Rosa, E. (2017) Being part of the city: mobility, urban spaces and city

practices over time Citizenship Studies

Cook, M.L. (2010) The advocate’s dilemma: framing migrant rights in national settings

Studies in Social Justice 4(2): 145-164.

Crick, B. (1999) The presuppositions of citizenship education Journal of Philosophy of

Education 33(3): 337-352.

Darling, J. (2014a) Asylum and the post-political: domopolitics, depoliticisation and acts of

citizenship Antipode 46(1): 72-91.

Darling, J. (2014b) Another letter from the Home Office: reading the material politics of

asylum Environment and Planning D: Society and Space 32: 484-500.

Darling, J. (2016) Asylum in austere times: instability, privatization and experimentation

within the UK asylum dispersal system Journal of Refugee Studies 29(4): 483-505.

15

Darling, J. (2017) Forced migration and the city: irregularity, informality, and the politics of

presence Progress in Human Geography 41(2): 178-198.

Depraetere, A. and Oosterlynck, S. (2017) “I finally found my place”: a political ethnography

of the Maximiliaan refugee camp in Brussels Citizenship Studies

Featherstone, D. (2012) Solidarity: Hidden Histories and Geographies of Internationalism

London, Zed Books.

Fortier, A-M. (2016) Afterword: acts of affective citizenship? Possibilities and limitations

Citizenship Studies 20(8): 1038-1044.

Hage, G. (1998) White Nation: Fantasies of White Supremacy in a Multicultural Society

Annadale, Pluto Press.

Hughes, S. and Forman, P. (2017) A material politics of citizenship: the potential of

circulating materials from UK Immigration Removal Centres Citizenship Studies

Isin, E.F. (2008) Theorizing acts of citizenship in Isin, E.F. and Nielsen, G.M. (eds) Acts of

Citizenship London, Zed Books, 15-43.

Isin, E.F. (2012) Citizens without Frontiers Bloomsbury, London.

Isin, E.F. and Nielson, G. (2008) (eds) Acts of Citizenship London, Zed Books.

16

Maestri, G. (2017) Struggles and ambiguities over political subjectivities in the camp: Roma

camp dwellers between neoliberal and urban citizenship in Italy Citizenship Studies

Maestri, G. and Hughes, S. (2017) Contested spaces of citizenship: camps, borders and urban

encounters Citizenship Studies

McFarlane, C. (2011) Learning the City: Knowledge and Translocal Assemblage Oxford,

Wiley-Blackwell.

McNevin, A. (2012) Undocumented citizens? Shifting grounds of citizenship in Los Angeles

in Nyers, P. and Rygiel, K. (eds) Citizenship, Migrant Activism and the Politics of Movement

London, Routledge, 165-183.

McNevin, A. (2013) Ambivalence and citizenship: theorising the political claims of

unauthorised migrants Millennium: Journal of International Studies 41(2): 182-200.

Nordling et al. (2017) From citizenship to mobile commons: reflections on the local struggles

of undocumented migrants in the city of Malmö, Sweden Citizenship Studies

Nyers, P. (2011) No one is illegal between city and nation Studies in Social Justice 4(2): 127-

143.

Nyers, P. (2015) Migrant citizenships and autonomous mobilities Migration, Mobility, &

Displacement 1(1): 23-39.

17

Nyers, P. and Rygiel, K. (2012) Introduction: citizenship, migrant activism and the politics of

movement in Nyers, P. and Rygiel, K. (eds) Citizenship, Migrant Activism and the Politics of

Movement London, Routledge, 1-19.

Painter, J. and Philo, C. (1995) Spaces of citizenship: an introduction Political Geography

14(2): 107-120.

Papadopoulos, D. and Tsianos, V.S. (2013) After citizenship: autonomy of migration,

organisational ontology and mobile commons Citizenship Studies 17(2): 178-196.

Sassen, S. (2006) Territory, Authority, Rights: From Medieval to Global Assemblages

Princeton, Princeton University Press.

Squire, V. (2016) Unauthorised migration beyond structure/agency? Acts, interventions,

effects Politics online earlyview.

Squire, V. and Darling, J. (2013) The “minor” politics of rightful presence: justice and

relationality in City of Sanctuary International Political Sociology 7(1): 59-74.

Staeheli, L.A. Ehrkamp, P. Leitner, H. and Nagel, C.R. (2012) Dreaming the ordinary: daily

life and the complex geographies of citizenship Progress in Human Geography 36(5): 628-

644.

Turner, J. (2016) (En)gendering the political: citizenship from marginal spaces Citizenship

Studies 20(2): 141-155.

18

Uitermark, J. and Nicholls, W. (2014) From politicization to policing: the rise and decline of

new social movements in Amsterdam and Paris Antipode 46(4): 970-991.

Wiebe, S.M. (2016) Guardians of the environment in Canada’s Chemical Valley Citizenship

Studies 20(1): 18-33.

Wilson, H.F. (2014) The possibilities of tolerance: intercultural dialogue in a multicultural

Europe Environment and Planning D: Society and Space 32(5): 852-868.

19