Children’s rights are a blessing and a curse for undocumented migrant children. They are one of few available resources in migrant struggles, but at the same time they are also extensively mobilized to govern children’s mobility. In this article, I first analyze the limitations of children’s rights as rooted in understandings of children as ‘innocent’ human ‘becomings’ and the colonial legacy and paradoxical character of rights. I then connect this discussion to a postcolonial analysis of who counts as ‘human’ enough for human rights. Building on these reflections, I construct a framework for how these limitations can be approached and utilized through perpetual and antagonistic struggles to give children’s rights renewed political meaning, always focusing on the rights of all children—an approach I call ‘child-righting’. I apply this concept to concrete examples from Sweden and the USA to identify strategies and tactics that have been utilized to both limit and extend the rights of undocumented migrant children. Through these discussions, I aim to contribute with a deepened understanding of the ambivalent role of children’s rights. I sketch an outline for a framework that can ensure that children’s rights are effectively utilized in contemporary struggles by and for undocumented migrant children—and potentially marginalized groups of children overall.

This article examines how local stakeholders in Scania, the southernmost county of Sweden, talk about integration. Drawing on 28 qualitative interviews, we use the theoretical concept of interpretative repertoires to analyze perceptions and conceptualizations among those who work closely with migrant integration. We identify two interpretative repertoires that stakeholders draw upon to make sense of the concept on the ground: the separation and de-migranticization repertoires. The repertoires display a shared understanding among the stakeholders of integration as a failure, although they do not agree on the extent or cause of the perceived failures of integration, or even how the problems should be defined or tackled locally. Within the separation repertoire, integration is failing in terms of processes where primarily migrants are seen as accountable and responsible for their (in)ability to adapt to the Swedish society. Within the de-migranticization repertoire, integration is differently perceived as something that is plagued with misdirected or even false boundaries between groups (in this case “migrants” and “non-migrants”), and authorities are held accountable for problems beyond migrants and migration, such as inequality, racism, and discrimination. The findings reflect the contested field of integration on the ground and contribute to ongoing critical debates on the concept of integration within migration research, by providing snapshots from a bottom-up perspective of local stakeholders’ acceptance of, or resistance to, present-day integration discourses. 

Drawing on interviews with young refugees, 20–30 years old, mainly from Syria and Afghanistan, we discuss the effects that temporary residence permits have on their ability to build a life in Sweden. The article includes both unaccompanied and accompanied youth that at some point had been given temporary residence permits. These permits could later be renewed or turned into permanent permits if the youth fulfilled certain tough requirements. Through rich empirical data, we show how these temporal techniques of border control keep young refugees in a state where they fear deportation, which have detrimental effects for their ability to build a life in Sweden. They are not able to plan ahead and they feel forced to work although they would have preferred to study, which puts them out of sync with other young people around them, challenges their sense of agency and increases their vulnerability. Temporary residence permits severely limit the life opportunities of young refugees in Sweden, and thus hamper their ability to achieve the “migrant integration” that is expected of them.

Firewalls are clear divisions between border policing and the provision of basic social rights. They have a dual character: to ensure that no information collected with the purpose of safeguarding basic social rights should be shared for immigration control purposes; and that migrants should not be subject to immigration control when being present at, or in the vicinity, of religious, private and public institutions upholding and providing social rights. This article suggests a normative argument for ‘firewalls’ in the context of social work and develops the concept theoretically as a principle practised and negotiated at different scales.

Following the 2015-peak of asylum-seeking migrants in Europe, asylum-policies have become increasingly restrictive. As bordering has become a prioritized issue among many European national governments, including in the Nordic countries, practices of bordering have also become more decentralised, diffuse and dispersed. This special issue set focus on such bordering practices as these are manifest in the social service sector. It draws on research conducted in Norway and Sweden and consists, besides this introduction, of seven original articles.Of particular focus is how social work, in its regulations and practices, are involved in the bordering of both the nation and the welfare state. Connecting insights from border studies – and related critical research – with social work research, the articles present empirical analyses of the dynamics of bordering practices among varying practitioners and in varying organizations, including legislators, courts, municipalities, street-level social workers and civil society organizations. The special issue as a whole also raises questions about the ethical and political challenges that emerge at the nexus of bordering and social service provision. In this introductory article, we provide an overview of the field of border studies and discuss how it relates to social work research. This serves as a conceptual foundation which we hope will enable critical reflections on the relationships between social service provision and bordering practices in Norway, Sweden and beyond.

Firewalls separate rights provision for undocumented migrants from the border policing of migration authorities. In this article, we compare how firewalls have been negotiated during recent years in Sweden and the UK. Firewalls have been partly strengthened in the UK as a result of the ‘Windrush scandal’. Simultaneously, firewalls have been increasingly contested in Sweden after the 2015 ‘long summer of migration’ as a result of continuously more repressive migration policies. On the basis of this detailed comparison, we argue that firewalls are a useful conceptual lens to understand migrant struggles and the development of migration policies. Moreover, we suggest that firewalls can be a useful resource for social service providers using their discretion to resist repressive migration governing at different levels and scales and for organizing political work by and for people at risk of deportation.