Edited volume on practices of (im)mobilization

This article is based on findings of empirical research and focuses on restrictive access practices in a Bavarian transit centre (now: Anker centre). Transit centres were opened in 2017 as a form of accommodation for so-called asylum seekers with few prospects of staying in Germany and were converted into Anker centresin 2018. The official goals are to speed up procedures and to enable prompt deportations. Results of the research project show mechanisms of exclusion, isolation, regulation and control that are put in relation to theoretical approaches of traditional camp research. It becomes apparent how particular spatial conditions, access restrictions and prohibitions for supporter groups and (other) civic engagement as well as diverse (communication) control practices are characteristic of the transit centre. These contribute to the isolation and distancing of the residents, an effect that is intensified by the ›fixation‹, the immobilisation of the residents in the accommodation. Access to the outside world is also restricted due to legal and organisational barriers. Despite some common features, the characteristics of the Bavarian transit centre also deviate from ›total‹ forms of barracking or camps. The permeability of (camp) borders should in particular be emphasised in view of the many actors involved and their ongoing (political) battles and negotiations. The camp and the borders and demarcations associated with it are not total, but permeable and changeable, which is particularly evident in the diverging interests and scope for action of the actors in municipalities, welfare associations and civil society that is used in different ways. Thus, the exclusive and restrictive practices described are not ›total‹ exclusionary practices, but dynamic and changeable processes of bordering that affect different fields of action (and negotiation) in daily life, and that are produced on a continuous basis and are always contested.

The building structure of military barracks is in many ways very suitable for accommodating so-called Anker centres, arrival centres for asylum seekers in Germany. A look at Anker centres in Bavaria shows that most of them are located in former barracks. In my article, I will start by systematically investigating the Anker centres regarding their architecture. Based on James C. Scott’s concept of the legibility of social dynamics (1999), Foucault’s concept of disciplinary space, which he presents in Discipline and Punish (1994), and Henri Lefebvre’s La production de l’espace (2000), I will be supplementing my investigation by a documentary analysis of the sections of the coalition agreement and the BAMF concerning Anker centres. This has the aim of highlighting the extent to which the Federal Government’s intention to make the procedures more efficient is reflected in the architecture of the accommodation, thus allowing continued functionality of the social space for which it was originally created

This article focuses on the perspectives of five refugees who have experienced lifein camps. In an attempt to make their voices h eard, it supports their struggles for better living conditions and against the repressive asylum regime. The debate takes place around the references to everyday life that have been highlighted by the refugees as being particularly significant, such as nutrition, health, rights and fear of deportation. The refugeesʼ resistant practices or agency were analytically divided into three levels. This identified practices on an individual level, on a communal level within camp boundaries, and on a communal level going beyond camp boundaries. In the context of the latter, this article discusses public articulations and debates with media representatives. It became clear that the immobility of refugees, as intended by the camp, is counteracted in many ways by self-mobilisations. The camp turns into a setting for migration fights for rights, for recognition, for dignity and against racism and dehumanisation.

Access to formal education is regulated differently for different target groups in the context of flight and migration and is sometimes challenging. Especially under the conditions of (im-)mobility, brought about by the central accommodation of refugees in Anker centres, the educational and learning situations of refugee children, adolescents and adults are complex. The question of how the educational situation in Anker centres presents itself has not been answered systematically in research to date. This article is dedicated to this desideratum and aims to use the example of the Bavarian Anker centre in Manching-Ingolstadt to provide insights into the design of education and educational opportunities in central accommodations for refugees and to analyse forms of mobility and immobility. First of all, the article will focus on school education of children and adolescents, which is considered a particularly vulnerable group. Furthermore, the article gives an insight into the adult education offers for refugees in the Anker centre. Based on theoretical approaches to the forms of (im-)mobility as well as to the construct of a learning location, qualitative research (problem-centred interviews based on Witzel) will give insights into the design of educational offers in the Anker centre Manching-Ingolstadt as well as the conceptualisation of this centre as a special learning location. Numerous educational offers and educational opportunities with a clear focus on the teaching and development of German language skills are revealed. Education is often normatively defined and associated with specific ideas of integration. The Anker centre can be characterised as a special place of learning. Special is that educational and learning processes always take place, but at the same time, sustainable learning and education is made difficult due to the (im-)mobilising conditions.

About five million Venezuelans have left their home country in recent years and fled to surrounding states. These countries face institutional, social and economic challenges in view of this new form of mobility on the continent. Colombia is particularly affected by this development, being one of the countries that took in most Venezuelans with the number exceeding 1.8 million. In the past, Colombia had already experienced the mobilisation of its own population, especially in the form of internal displacement during the armed conflict. This article first
addresses the question of what experiences have been made with mobility in Colombia in the past and how the Colombian government deals with Venezuelan refugees against this backdrop. Special attention will be paid to the introduction of special residence permits for Venezuelans and the rights and restrictions associated with them. In this context, it is striking that Colombia’s migration policy – which is only consolidated to a limited degree – was not prepared for the massive
entry of foreign citizens and could therefore only take short-term measures without considering the longer-term integration of Venezuelans. Finally, this article focuses on the types of accommodation for Venezuelan refugees in Colombia. Most of them live in precarious housing conditions in the Colombian-Venezuelan border area or on the outskirts of large cities. In this context, it is argued that the refugees in Colombia are not subject to any residence or movement restrictions and therefore have a high degree of spatial mobility. Nevertheless, they are
limited in their self-determination by structural circumstances such as a lack of access to formal employment, to the health care and education system and are immobilised due to a lack of opportunities for action

Media content analyses used to depict (forced) migration have a long tradition in communication science. However, the analysis rarely focuses on accommodation concepts for refugees and the associated discourses in local public spheres. This article seeks to counteract this research desideratum by investigating the topics, actors, evaluations and demands in the mass media discourse on Anker centres in Bavaria and Saxony within the framework of a quantitative content analysis of regional newspapers. In a theoretical discussion, it also attempts to conceptualise journalistic reporting itself as a factor of (im-)mobilisation and public communication as an own, separate dimension of mobility. With regard
to such communicative mobility, journalistic media should serve as a forum and integrative platform for as many different voices as possible and moderate social negotiation processes in line with their social mission. As a result, this political public sphere constructed by the media in turn develops its own potential for mobilisation, which can influence both the opinion-forming processes of citizens and political action. The discourse on Anker centres in local public spheres within the mass media is critical overall, but still less differentiated than polarised. Thus, the articles that were analysed in the project generally serve a narrow canon of narratives, which also predominantly take a problem-oriented perspective, and hardly give refugees the opportunity to actively participate in shaping the public opinion with regard to Anker centres