Environment and Planning C: Politics and Space, 2020
Amidst a rise in hate crimes, hate group organizing, and anti-Muslim and anti-refugee policy maki... more Amidst a rise in hate crimes, hate group organizing, and anti-Muslim and anti-refugee policy making in the United States, this paper examines efforts by a national hate group to organize opposition to the resettlement of Syrian Muslim refugees in West Virginia, a non-traditional refugee destination. Through analysis of materials disseminated at a public seminar titled the “Invasion and Colonization of West Virginia,” we identify four unique social-spatial themes this group is using to make alarmist and conspiratorial claims about Muslim refugees invading and colonizing the state and nation. These themes include the language of smallness, which affixes a white and Christian identity to certain spaces and suggests that these spaces are threatened. Spatial themes of ‘fresh territory’ and ‘sowing seeds’ are used to frame refugee resettlement as an assertion of social-spatial control to change ‘small spaces’ and ultimately change America. Claims of invasion and colonization function powe...
Alarmism has enabled the extension and reconfiguration of sovereign power at thresholds of human ... more Alarmism has enabled the extension and reconfiguration of sovereign power at thresholds of human mobility in ways that exemplify the shifting and polymorphic nature of borders. Extending critical geopolitical scholarship on alarmism and the geographies of bordering, this paper examines how alarmism is used to exert control over legal-discursive thresholds that people must cross to gain political asylum in the US. By analysing the most ambiguous area of asylum protection: proving that persecution is motivated by one’s “membership in a particular social group”, I demonstrate how refugee definitions are often contested and changed in response to “floodgate fears”, a type of alarmist legal argumentation. Rather than addressing the merits of an individual asylum case, the floodgate argument invites speculation about the effects a particular juridical decision will have on future cases, and therein translates wider racist, nationalist fears of being overwhelmed by alien “others” into otherwise banal legal codes. In precedent-setting asylum law, these fear-laden speculations can shape legal-discursive thresholds for years to come, enacting targeted exclusion and widening the pool of “legitimate” targets of evolving border enforcement tactics. This analysis of legal alarmism and the formation of asylum case law focuses on the unique relationship between the particular social group threshold and the history and contemporary struggles of Central American asylum seekers.
Amidst a rise in hate crimes, hate group organizing, and anti-Muslim and anti-refugee policy maki... more Amidst a rise in hate crimes, hate group organizing, and anti-Muslim and anti-refugee policy making in the United States, this paper examines efforts by a national hate group to organize opposition to the resettlement of Syrian Muslim refugees in West Virginia, a non-traditional refugee destination. Through analysis of materials disseminated at a public seminar titled the "Invasion and Colonization of West Virginia," we identify four unique social-spatial themes this group is using to make alarmist and conspiratorial claims about Muslim refugees invading and colonizing the state and nation. These themes include the language of smallness, which affixes a white and Christian identity to certain spaces and suggests that these spaces are threatened. Spatial themes of 'fresh territory' and 'sowing seeds' are used to frame refugee resettlement as an assertion of social-spatial control to change 'small spaces' and ultimately change America. Claims of invasion and colonization function powerfully through the fourth theme of the "Other Islamic Bomb," which frames Muslim women's fertility as the vehicle of the invasion and colonization. This paper adds to emerging literature on the geographies of Islamophobia by examining not only the convergence of anti-Muslim and anti-refugee sentiment but its mobilization in regionally and locally specific contexts. The analysis demonstrates the dynamic interplay between spatial and social claims on which these alarmist narratives rely to vilify Muslims and refugees and to foment opposition in places not historically associated with immigration or refugee resettlement.
While the geopolitical legacies of the World War I peace negotiations are widely recognized, this... more While the geopolitical legacies of the World War I peace negotiations are widely recognized, this article examines the often overlooked connection between the WWI Paris Peace Conference's spatial and geopolitical logics and contemporary refugee-border dynamics. We argue that the spatial and geopolitical logics that framed the WWI Paris Peace Conference-the creation of new states, the propagation of the Western ideal of bounded sovereign states, the nationalist goals of self-determination and homogeneous ethnic nations, and the establishment of a system of international governance-continue to impact refugee-border dynamics and "crises" today. The categories, ideals, and practices of the international refugee regime that emerged over the last one-hundred years stem in great part from these logics. In this paper, we urge critical contemplation about how these foundations-including the establishment of the post of High Commissioner for Refugees in 1921, the resultant Nansen Passports, the post-WWI minority treaties , and lastly the 1933 Convention Relating to the International Status of Refugees-connect to contemporary human (im)mobility and border violence. We also introduce the articles in this special issue and highlight key themes and future directions for research in critical migration studies.
Alarmism has enabled the extension and reconfiguration of
sovereign power at thresholds of human ... more Alarmism has enabled the extension and reconfiguration of sovereign power at thresholds of human mobility in ways that exemplify the shifting and polymorphic nature of borders. Extending critical geopolitical scholarship on alarmism and the geographies of bordering, this paper examines how alarmism is used to exert control over legal-discursive thresholds that people must cross to gain political asylum in the US. By analysing the most ambiguous area of asylum protection: proving that persecution is motivated by one’s “membership in a particular social group”, I demonstrate how refugee definitions are often contested and changed in response to “floodgate fears”, a type of alarmist legal argumentation. Rather than addressing the merits of an individual asylum case, the floodgate argument invites speculation about the effects a particular juridical decision will have on future cases, and therein translates wider racist, nationalist fears of being overwhelmed by alien “others” into otherwise banal legal codes. In precedent-setting asylum law, these fear-laden speculations can shape legal-discursive thresholds for years to come, enacting targeted exclusion and widening the pool of “legitimate” targets of evolving border enforcement tactics. This analysis of legal alarmism and the formation of asylum case law focuses on the unique relationship between the particular social group threshold and the history and contemporary struggles of Central American asylum seekers.
Through legal interpretation of immigration categories, such as the refugee definition, signatori... more Through legal interpretation of immigration categories, such as the refugee definition, signatories to the UN Refugee Convention restrict access to political asylum. This paper examines how scalar logics are used in legal interpretation to filter out particular people from national space and control the number legally entitled to enter and remain in the U.S. Scalar logics shape access by requiring asylum seekers to prove they have been ‘singled out’ for persecution and by steering the meaning of the ‘particular social group’ provision of the refugee definition. The restrictive effects of these scalar logics are analyzed in relation to case law involving Central American asylum seekers fleeing gang‐related violence. These cases are often rejected on the basis that the asylum seekers possess identities and experiences exceeding the limited protection offered by asylum. Through analysis of these scalar logics, the paper highlights how interpretations of the refugee definition are an ongoing site of struggle over the scope of asylum protection.
Environment and Planning A: Economy and Space, 2018
In 1996, a Guatemalan woman named Rody Alvarado was granted asylum in the United States but the d... more In 1996, a Guatemalan woman named Rody Alvarado was granted asylum in the United States but the decision was revoked three years later, triggering a controversy over border control, domestic violence and the standards of refugee protection. Through an intersectional, geographical and historical excavation of Alvarado's case, I illustrate how adjudicators justified revoking asylum by initially framing her as a victim of unfortunate domestic abuse and then as a " scalar threat " to the spatial and legal order. By tracing the gendered and racialized discursive tactics and legal maneuvers deployed to prevent her from winning asylum, I demonstrate the raced, classed and gen-dered logics that structured legal decision-making and the pivotal role of intimate violence in processes of legal border control. Through a deep contextualization of Alvarado's case, the paper advances critical and feminist geopolitical scholarship on the mutual constitution of the global and the intimate. In particular, I seek to advance feminist legal archeology as a methodology in political geography to make visible the discursive tactics and legal maneuvers involved in the struggle to delineate juridical and territorial borders, specifically as they relate to gender violence. I conclude by discussing how Alvarado's case demonstrates the transcalar quality of the intimate in legal reasoning and the ways in which scale is differently constructed through the legal process to retain control over which bodies have access to political asylum.
States engage in a variety of border enforcement practices to reassert control over migration and... more States engage in a variety of border enforcement practices to reassert control over migration and territory in spite of international human rights obligations. State responses to asylum seeking are illustrative of the subsequent movement and proliferation of borders far from the territorial borderline. While the refugee category delineates to whom states have obligations to protect, less research has examined the bordering work achieved through legal interpretations of the refugee category. Based on an analysis of asylum case law, specifically two foundational cases involving Salvadoran asylum seekers to the U.S. in the 1980s, Matter of Acosta (1985) and Sanchez-Trujillo vs. INS (1986), this paper argues that legal interpretations of the refugee definition are acts of interpretive control, or discursive tactics designed to contain human mobility and circumscribe the human rights of those with access to U.S. territory. The case studies illustrate how defining and redefining the refugee category was critical to constructing Central American " feet people " as illegally present in the U.S. and thus legitimate targets of spatialized tactics of exclusion including deportation and detention. Through analysis of these cases, the paper illustrates that legal definitions are not a static backdrop against which other forms of bordering work occurs, but dynamic sites in which legal discourse both responds to and produces socio-spatial relations, delineating the threshold of humanitarian categories and thus the meaning and consequences of cross border movement for specific groups of people.
In 1996, the United States issued a landmark decision to grant political asylum to a young woman,... more In 1996, the United States issued a landmark decision to grant political asylum to a young woman, Fauziya Kassindja, due to the threat of forced genital circumcision. The case, Matter of Kasinga, is now a cornerstone in the area of law known as ‘gender-based asylum.’ While the legal victory occurred during a watershed moment for women’s human rights, it also spawned considerable critique for reproducing colonial tropes of third world women, cultural backwardness and narratives of rescue. This article offers another perspective by examining key phases of the case that predate the final decision. I demonstrate how logics of containment shaped the case trajectory and outcome. Initially, the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) sought to contain Kassindja as a bogus asylum seeker through detention. However, once a powerful advocacy campaign exposed the violence of detention, the INS shifted their containment strategies to safeguarding the legal paradigm and circumscribing its legacy as a precedent-setting case. By focusing on the role of detention and the logics of containment, this article supplements cultural critiques of the case and provides an example of how gender and gender violence can be leveraged by state agencies and actors to reinforce border control and manage refugee/asylee populations.
Environment and Planning C: Politics and Space, 2020
Amidst a rise in hate crimes, hate group organizing, and anti-Muslim and anti-refugee policy maki... more Amidst a rise in hate crimes, hate group organizing, and anti-Muslim and anti-refugee policy making in the United States, this paper examines efforts by a national hate group to organize opposition to the resettlement of Syrian Muslim refugees in West Virginia, a non-traditional refugee destination. Through analysis of materials disseminated at a public seminar titled the “Invasion and Colonization of West Virginia,” we identify four unique social-spatial themes this group is using to make alarmist and conspiratorial claims about Muslim refugees invading and colonizing the state and nation. These themes include the language of smallness, which affixes a white and Christian identity to certain spaces and suggests that these spaces are threatened. Spatial themes of ‘fresh territory’ and ‘sowing seeds’ are used to frame refugee resettlement as an assertion of social-spatial control to change ‘small spaces’ and ultimately change America. Claims of invasion and colonization function powe...
Alarmism has enabled the extension and reconfiguration of sovereign power at thresholds of human ... more Alarmism has enabled the extension and reconfiguration of sovereign power at thresholds of human mobility in ways that exemplify the shifting and polymorphic nature of borders. Extending critical geopolitical scholarship on alarmism and the geographies of bordering, this paper examines how alarmism is used to exert control over legal-discursive thresholds that people must cross to gain political asylum in the US. By analysing the most ambiguous area of asylum protection: proving that persecution is motivated by one’s “membership in a particular social group”, I demonstrate how refugee definitions are often contested and changed in response to “floodgate fears”, a type of alarmist legal argumentation. Rather than addressing the merits of an individual asylum case, the floodgate argument invites speculation about the effects a particular juridical decision will have on future cases, and therein translates wider racist, nationalist fears of being overwhelmed by alien “others” into otherwise banal legal codes. In precedent-setting asylum law, these fear-laden speculations can shape legal-discursive thresholds for years to come, enacting targeted exclusion and widening the pool of “legitimate” targets of evolving border enforcement tactics. This analysis of legal alarmism and the formation of asylum case law focuses on the unique relationship between the particular social group threshold and the history and contemporary struggles of Central American asylum seekers.
Amidst a rise in hate crimes, hate group organizing, and anti-Muslim and anti-refugee policy maki... more Amidst a rise in hate crimes, hate group organizing, and anti-Muslim and anti-refugee policy making in the United States, this paper examines efforts by a national hate group to organize opposition to the resettlement of Syrian Muslim refugees in West Virginia, a non-traditional refugee destination. Through analysis of materials disseminated at a public seminar titled the "Invasion and Colonization of West Virginia," we identify four unique social-spatial themes this group is using to make alarmist and conspiratorial claims about Muslim refugees invading and colonizing the state and nation. These themes include the language of smallness, which affixes a white and Christian identity to certain spaces and suggests that these spaces are threatened. Spatial themes of 'fresh territory' and 'sowing seeds' are used to frame refugee resettlement as an assertion of social-spatial control to change 'small spaces' and ultimately change America. Claims of invasion and colonization function powerfully through the fourth theme of the "Other Islamic Bomb," which frames Muslim women's fertility as the vehicle of the invasion and colonization. This paper adds to emerging literature on the geographies of Islamophobia by examining not only the convergence of anti-Muslim and anti-refugee sentiment but its mobilization in regionally and locally specific contexts. The analysis demonstrates the dynamic interplay between spatial and social claims on which these alarmist narratives rely to vilify Muslims and refugees and to foment opposition in places not historically associated with immigration or refugee resettlement.
While the geopolitical legacies of the World War I peace negotiations are widely recognized, this... more While the geopolitical legacies of the World War I peace negotiations are widely recognized, this article examines the often overlooked connection between the WWI Paris Peace Conference's spatial and geopolitical logics and contemporary refugee-border dynamics. We argue that the spatial and geopolitical logics that framed the WWI Paris Peace Conference-the creation of new states, the propagation of the Western ideal of bounded sovereign states, the nationalist goals of self-determination and homogeneous ethnic nations, and the establishment of a system of international governance-continue to impact refugee-border dynamics and "crises" today. The categories, ideals, and practices of the international refugee regime that emerged over the last one-hundred years stem in great part from these logics. In this paper, we urge critical contemplation about how these foundations-including the establishment of the post of High Commissioner for Refugees in 1921, the resultant Nansen Passports, the post-WWI minority treaties , and lastly the 1933 Convention Relating to the International Status of Refugees-connect to contemporary human (im)mobility and border violence. We also introduce the articles in this special issue and highlight key themes and future directions for research in critical migration studies.
Alarmism has enabled the extension and reconfiguration of
sovereign power at thresholds of human ... more Alarmism has enabled the extension and reconfiguration of sovereign power at thresholds of human mobility in ways that exemplify the shifting and polymorphic nature of borders. Extending critical geopolitical scholarship on alarmism and the geographies of bordering, this paper examines how alarmism is used to exert control over legal-discursive thresholds that people must cross to gain political asylum in the US. By analysing the most ambiguous area of asylum protection: proving that persecution is motivated by one’s “membership in a particular social group”, I demonstrate how refugee definitions are often contested and changed in response to “floodgate fears”, a type of alarmist legal argumentation. Rather than addressing the merits of an individual asylum case, the floodgate argument invites speculation about the effects a particular juridical decision will have on future cases, and therein translates wider racist, nationalist fears of being overwhelmed by alien “others” into otherwise banal legal codes. In precedent-setting asylum law, these fear-laden speculations can shape legal-discursive thresholds for years to come, enacting targeted exclusion and widening the pool of “legitimate” targets of evolving border enforcement tactics. This analysis of legal alarmism and the formation of asylum case law focuses on the unique relationship between the particular social group threshold and the history and contemporary struggles of Central American asylum seekers.
Through legal interpretation of immigration categories, such as the refugee definition, signatori... more Through legal interpretation of immigration categories, such as the refugee definition, signatories to the UN Refugee Convention restrict access to political asylum. This paper examines how scalar logics are used in legal interpretation to filter out particular people from national space and control the number legally entitled to enter and remain in the U.S. Scalar logics shape access by requiring asylum seekers to prove they have been ‘singled out’ for persecution and by steering the meaning of the ‘particular social group’ provision of the refugee definition. The restrictive effects of these scalar logics are analyzed in relation to case law involving Central American asylum seekers fleeing gang‐related violence. These cases are often rejected on the basis that the asylum seekers possess identities and experiences exceeding the limited protection offered by asylum. Through analysis of these scalar logics, the paper highlights how interpretations of the refugee definition are an ongoing site of struggle over the scope of asylum protection.
Environment and Planning A: Economy and Space, 2018
In 1996, a Guatemalan woman named Rody Alvarado was granted asylum in the United States but the d... more In 1996, a Guatemalan woman named Rody Alvarado was granted asylum in the United States but the decision was revoked three years later, triggering a controversy over border control, domestic violence and the standards of refugee protection. Through an intersectional, geographical and historical excavation of Alvarado's case, I illustrate how adjudicators justified revoking asylum by initially framing her as a victim of unfortunate domestic abuse and then as a " scalar threat " to the spatial and legal order. By tracing the gendered and racialized discursive tactics and legal maneuvers deployed to prevent her from winning asylum, I demonstrate the raced, classed and gen-dered logics that structured legal decision-making and the pivotal role of intimate violence in processes of legal border control. Through a deep contextualization of Alvarado's case, the paper advances critical and feminist geopolitical scholarship on the mutual constitution of the global and the intimate. In particular, I seek to advance feminist legal archeology as a methodology in political geography to make visible the discursive tactics and legal maneuvers involved in the struggle to delineate juridical and territorial borders, specifically as they relate to gender violence. I conclude by discussing how Alvarado's case demonstrates the transcalar quality of the intimate in legal reasoning and the ways in which scale is differently constructed through the legal process to retain control over which bodies have access to political asylum.
States engage in a variety of border enforcement practices to reassert control over migration and... more States engage in a variety of border enforcement practices to reassert control over migration and territory in spite of international human rights obligations. State responses to asylum seeking are illustrative of the subsequent movement and proliferation of borders far from the territorial borderline. While the refugee category delineates to whom states have obligations to protect, less research has examined the bordering work achieved through legal interpretations of the refugee category. Based on an analysis of asylum case law, specifically two foundational cases involving Salvadoran asylum seekers to the U.S. in the 1980s, Matter of Acosta (1985) and Sanchez-Trujillo vs. INS (1986), this paper argues that legal interpretations of the refugee definition are acts of interpretive control, or discursive tactics designed to contain human mobility and circumscribe the human rights of those with access to U.S. territory. The case studies illustrate how defining and redefining the refugee category was critical to constructing Central American " feet people " as illegally present in the U.S. and thus legitimate targets of spatialized tactics of exclusion including deportation and detention. Through analysis of these cases, the paper illustrates that legal definitions are not a static backdrop against which other forms of bordering work occurs, but dynamic sites in which legal discourse both responds to and produces socio-spatial relations, delineating the threshold of humanitarian categories and thus the meaning and consequences of cross border movement for specific groups of people.
In 1996, the United States issued a landmark decision to grant political asylum to a young woman,... more In 1996, the United States issued a landmark decision to grant political asylum to a young woman, Fauziya Kassindja, due to the threat of forced genital circumcision. The case, Matter of Kasinga, is now a cornerstone in the area of law known as ‘gender-based asylum.’ While the legal victory occurred during a watershed moment for women’s human rights, it also spawned considerable critique for reproducing colonial tropes of third world women, cultural backwardness and narratives of rescue. This article offers another perspective by examining key phases of the case that predate the final decision. I demonstrate how logics of containment shaped the case trajectory and outcome. Initially, the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) sought to contain Kassindja as a bogus asylum seeker through detention. However, once a powerful advocacy campaign exposed the violence of detention, the INS shifted their containment strategies to safeguarding the legal paradigm and circumscribing its legacy as a precedent-setting case. By focusing on the role of detention and the logics of containment, this article supplements cultural critiques of the case and provides an example of how gender and gender violence can be leveraged by state agencies and actors to reinforce border control and manage refugee/asylee populations.
Uploads
Papers by Cynthia Gorman
sovereign power at thresholds of human mobility in ways
that exemplify the shifting and polymorphic nature of borders.
Extending critical geopolitical scholarship on alarmism and the
geographies of bordering, this paper examines how alarmism
is used to exert control over legal-discursive thresholds that
people must cross to gain political asylum in the US. By analysing
the most ambiguous area of asylum protection: proving
that persecution is motivated by one’s “membership in
a particular social group”, I demonstrate how refugee definitions
are often contested and changed in response to “floodgate
fears”, a type of alarmist legal argumentation. Rather than
addressing the merits of an individual asylum case, the floodgate
argument invites speculation about the effects
a particular juridical decision will have on future cases, and
therein translates wider racist, nationalist fears of being overwhelmed
by alien “others” into otherwise banal legal codes. In
precedent-setting asylum law, these fear-laden speculations
can shape legal-discursive thresholds for years to come, enacting
targeted exclusion and widening the pool of “legitimate”
targets of evolving border enforcement tactics. This analysis of
legal alarmism and the formation of asylum case law focuses
on the unique relationship between the particular social group
threshold and the history and contemporary struggles of
Central American asylum seekers.
sought to contain Kassindja as a bogus asylum seeker through detention. However, once a powerful advocacy campaign exposed the violence of detention, the INS shifted their containment strategies to safeguarding the legal paradigm and circumscribing its legacy as a precedent-setting case. By focusing on the role of detention and the logics of containment, this article supplements cultural critiques of the case and provides an example of how
gender and gender violence can be leveraged by state agencies and actors to reinforce border control and manage refugee/asylee populations.
Book Reviews by Cynthia Gorman
sovereign power at thresholds of human mobility in ways
that exemplify the shifting and polymorphic nature of borders.
Extending critical geopolitical scholarship on alarmism and the
geographies of bordering, this paper examines how alarmism
is used to exert control over legal-discursive thresholds that
people must cross to gain political asylum in the US. By analysing
the most ambiguous area of asylum protection: proving
that persecution is motivated by one’s “membership in
a particular social group”, I demonstrate how refugee definitions
are often contested and changed in response to “floodgate
fears”, a type of alarmist legal argumentation. Rather than
addressing the merits of an individual asylum case, the floodgate
argument invites speculation about the effects
a particular juridical decision will have on future cases, and
therein translates wider racist, nationalist fears of being overwhelmed
by alien “others” into otherwise banal legal codes. In
precedent-setting asylum law, these fear-laden speculations
can shape legal-discursive thresholds for years to come, enacting
targeted exclusion and widening the pool of “legitimate”
targets of evolving border enforcement tactics. This analysis of
legal alarmism and the formation of asylum case law focuses
on the unique relationship between the particular social group
threshold and the history and contemporary struggles of
Central American asylum seekers.
sought to contain Kassindja as a bogus asylum seeker through detention. However, once a powerful advocacy campaign exposed the violence of detention, the INS shifted their containment strategies to safeguarding the legal paradigm and circumscribing its legacy as a precedent-setting case. By focusing on the role of detention and the logics of containment, this article supplements cultural critiques of the case and provides an example of how
gender and gender violence can be leveraged by state agencies and actors to reinforce border control and manage refugee/asylee populations.