The Benevolent Border - Humanitarianism and Absurdity in European Migration Law

Abstract

In recent years, a number of humanitarian measures have been implemented within European migration law. Under the prevailing securitizing discourse surrounding migrants, they are often portrayed as young, healthy men seeking to dominate the ‘weak’ within their own communities (e.g., women, children, LGBT individuals, and the elderly). This dissertation examines how European states treat those depicted as victimized or vulnerable in such narratives. It analyzes three case studies in which humanitarian concern for these groups has influenced migration management. The first case explores the categorization of ‘vulnerable’ asylum seekers at EU hotspots, which creates certain exceptions to the externalized border regime. The second investigates the credibility assessment of sexual orientation in LGB asylum cases, focusing on the DSSH model and the increasing emphasis on shame and internalized homophobia. The third examines the situation of undocumented domestic workers and how their exploitation is systematically overlooked by state authorities. In all three case studies, efforts to humanize migration procedures are ultimately cancelled or distorted. This dissertation applies absurdity as a theoretical lens to analyze the tensions that emerge and to show how humanitarian measures become incompatible with the underlying border rationality that defines this area of law. It further explores how the practices described reflect both postcolonial and conservative understandings of care. As demonstrated, attempts to implement humanitarian care in European migration law often end up privileging the 'exceptional' migrant at the expense of others. Moreover, power and accountability are rendered invisible, as European states are cast in the role of benevolent helpers under this narrative.