This article examines the long term effects of extended and extreme housing insecurity on young adults who spent their childhoods with their families under a threat of deportation in Denmark and Sweden. Drawing on retrospective, biographical interviews with 23 participants, it explores how prolonged precarious housing – whether in Danish deportation camps or as undocumented migrants in Sweden – shaped participants’ sense of home, social relationships and overall wellbeing. The analysis is framed through and develops the concept of displaceability, defined as the general experience of spatial vulnerability through potentially being at risk of displacement. In Denmark, frequent relocations and restrictive camp conditions disrupted children’s social lives and sense of safety. In Sweden, the absence of institutional support left families vulnerable to exploitative housing conditions and constant mobility. The article argues that displaceability is not only a condition of migration governance but often a life-long trajectory – starting already in the country of origin – that continues to shape young people’s futures even after regularisation. Through this approach, the study contributes with novel and much needed long term retroactive perspectives on state violence expressed through expansively repressive migration policies. 

Participatory research methods are particularly appropriate when working with marginalised groups in vulnerable conditions, including migrant youth who are widely seen as confronting a range of vulnerabilities. This article draws on research undertaken with migrant youth as peer-researchers, between 2020 and 2023 in England and Sweden, to explore how young people can learn from earlier generations in navigating vulnerabilities and to build knowledge across migration and ‘integration’ experiences over time. The reflections presented in this article are based on eight intergenerational focus groups, four in each country, involving five peer researchers, three in England and two in Sweden. By reflecting on our mutual experiences of conducting intergenerational focus groups facilitated by young peer researchers we contribute to debates around peer research and community-based participatory research methods more broadly. We suggest that our approach has potential for creating space for reflection over power and agency within the research process. By connecting the past, present and future in an intergenerational setting, possibilities to build knowledge in support of inclusive social change are enabled. The article contributes with reflections within a specific research context of vulnerabilities related to experiences of migration, but we believe that these reflections have potential to support the design of future research that aims to employ intergenerational focus groups for their specific research topic.

 I denna artikel analyseras det pågående paradigmskiftet i svensk migrationspolitik genom en studie av hur den nuvarande regeringen i sina direktiv till statliga utredningar i ökad utsträckning kräver utredare på lagförslag oavsett vilka sakliga ställningstaganden de gör. En granskning av samtliga kommittédirektiv som innehåller formuleringen ”oavsett ställningstagande i sak” visar på den förskjutning som skett från expertbaserad lagstiftning till en mer politiskt styrd rättsutveckling, där evidens och rättssäkerhet får stå tillbaka för politiska mål. Exempel från aktuella utredningar illustrerar hur rättigheter för särskilt migranter, såsom papperslösa och asylsökande, riskerar att urholkas i denna process då en saklig grund inte längre alltid är nödvändig när nya lagar tar form kring frågor som främst rör dessa grupper. 

“Vulnerability” is a word that is typically understood as a neutral description of the state of being at risk of harm in some way. Humanitarian efforts to support people exposed to an ongoing, increased risk of different kinds of distress generally use the label “vulnerable groups” to instil reactions by the general population or people in powerful positions aiming to ameliorate the defined vulnerability. This is not the least prevalent in relation to migrant children, who are also the focus of my recent research where I have studied the everyday lives of undocumented migrant children and families in Malmö, Sweden, and Birmingham, UK (Lind 2020). Drawing on this research, in this entry, I define my application of the concept of vulnerabilisation and how it can be understood in relation to the food insecurity of undocumented migrant families.

This article examines the complexities of integrating young adult migrants from non-EU countries into European contexts, advocating for a shift toward inclusive, locally informed, and reciprocal integration processes. It critiques state-centric, assimilationist frameworks that emphasize an imagined national identity and Western norms of youth transitions, neglecting local nuances and diverse migrant experiences. Through findings from a European Delphi study engaging 114 stakeholders from seven European countries, including migrant youth organisations, also represented by stakeholders with a migration background, the study highlights the need for a dynamic, process-oriented approach to integration. This approach prioritizes mutual adjustments between migrants and host communities, emphasizing flexibility, responsiveness, and local relevance. The study underscores the role of local actors and contexts in shaping integration policies, contrasting inclusivity at the local level with exclusionary national frameworks. Stakeholders emphasized the harmful impact of state-imposed policies and the importance of youth groups and migrant organizations as active contributors to policy development. The research proposes tailored solutions to address vulnerabilities and calls for long-term, multi-level governance that values the lived experiences of young migrants. Utilizing a two-stage Delphi methodology, the study facilitated anonymous stakeholder dialogue across seven European countries, yielding consensus on key integration challenges and innovative policy recommendations. By integrating diverse perspectives and recognizing young migrants as co-creators of their futures, this article advances debates on migration and integration, advocating for policies that are equitable, inclusive, and grounded in local realities.

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.