The article addresses the issue of unaccompanied migrant children seeking international protection in Slovenia and their perceptions of four different life transitions they experience through their journey: a transition across geographical spaces, institutional transition, transition over time and psychological transition. The implementation of the existing international protection system in Slovenia is seen through their narratives and perceptions of their own best interest, various gaps, constraints and weak points in the procedures. There are no durable solutions for unaccompanied minors in Slovenia who are in search of a better everyday life.
KEY WORDS: unaccompanied migrant children, life transitions, best interest of a child, subjective views

The article addresses the issue of unaccompanied migrant children seeking international protection in Slovenia and their perceptions of four different life transitions they experience through their journey: a transition across geographical spaces, institutional transition, transition over time and psychological transition. The implementation of the existing international protection system in Slovenia is seen through their narratives and perceptions of their own best interest, various gaps, constraints and weak points in the procedures. There are no durable solutions for unaccompanied minors in Slovenia who are in search of a better everyday life.
KEY WORDS: unaccompanied migrant children, life transitions, best interest of a child, subjective views

Collection centres and hot spots, asylum and detention centres for refugees are forms of institutiona­lisation and spatial segregation of people. The well-known processes of the “big confinement”, bio­politics and the creation of “populations” are today pervaded with the ideologies of eurocentrism, culturalisation and cultural racism produced by the media. Compared with the processes of spatial segregation of the disabled in the past, one can conclude that while the deinstitutionalisation was achieved in the west and is in some countries on its way (in Slovenia for example), the institutionali­sation of migrants and refugees takes place across Europe. Instead of the construction of the refugees as the national threat, health risk and the cultural Other, the measures of deinstitutionalisation and depathologisation of the refugees’ lives are needed.
KEY WORDS: refugees, eurocentrism, biopolitics, “Balkan refugee route”, deinstitutionalisation

Collection centres and hot spots, asylum and detention centres for refugees are forms of institutiona­lisation and spatial segregation of people. The well-known processes of the “big confinement”, bio­politics and the creation of “populations” are today pervaded with the ideologies of eurocentrism, culturalisation and cultural racism produced by the media. Compared with the processes of spatial segregation of the disabled in the past, one can conclude that while the deinstitutionalisation was achieved in the west and is in some countries on its way (in Slovenia for example), the institutionali­sation of migrants and refugees takes place across Europe. Instead of the construction of the refugees as the national threat, health risk and the cultural Other, the measures of deinstitutionalisation and depathologisation of the refugees’ lives are needed.
KEY WORDS: refugees, eurocentrism, biopolitics, “Balkan refugee route”, deinstitutionalisation

Irregular migration is a growing phenomenon in Europe and elsewhere. In Norway, as in other European countries, there has been a process of heavy restrictions and limited liberalisation in asylum and immigration policies. Drawing on research on irregular migration and my own fieldwork with irregular migrants in Norway, this article discusses four areas of government action that explain how irregular migration is produced, namely 1) the de- and reestablishing of borders, 2) categorization as a management strategy, 3) the production of a deportable subject and, finally, 4) the criminalization of people who are in the territory “illegally”. These are complexly interrelated techniques used by governments in their efforts to exercise authority over people who are in the nation-state “illegally”. I focus on how the nation-state configures and produces irregular migrants in their own back yard. The governmentality of irregular migrants is simultaneously the production of such a category of people. 
KEY WORDS: irregular migration, governmentality, social borders, deportation, criminalization

Irregular migration is a growing phenomenon in Europe and elsewhere. In Norway, as in other European countries, there has been a process of heavy restrictions and limited liberalisation in asylum and immigration policies. Drawing on research on irregular migration and my own fieldwork with irregular migrants in Norway, this article discusses four areas of government action that explain how irregular migration is produced, namely 1) the de- and reestablishing of borders, 2) categorization as a management strategy, 3) the production of a deportable subject and, finally, 4) the criminalization of people who are in the territory “illegally”. These are complexly interrelated techniques used by governments in their efforts to exercise authority over people who are in the nation-state “illegally”. I focus on how the nation-state configures and produces irregular migrants in their own back yard. The governmentality of irregular migrants is simultaneously the production of such a category of people. 
KEY WORDS: irregular migration, governmentality, social borders, deportation, criminalization

Germany’s asylum policy and the debate surrounding it underwent a significant shift in 2015 when asylum applications increased considerably over previous years. Rather than moving towards more restriction, as was the case in the past when asylum applications saw a substantial rise, the German government responded towards refugees in an open and welcoming manner. This article will analyse the developments which led to the German government’s “we can manage it” response, using a conceptual framework which considers structural and agency concerns and the interconnection between the two. The framework centres on processes within the party political system and the way they were or were not influenced by developments and structures in the wider socio-political and economic environment and by politicians’ perceptions, beliefs and goals. The findings show that a new alliance was formed between the conservative CDU party and the social democratic SPD party, reflecting a political debate on asylum seekers and refugees which combined an explicit humanitarianism within Germany with a hierarchical classification of migrants who were “more or less needy” of protection, limiting the explicit humanitarianism within Germany to specific groups of migrants and refugees.
KEY WORDS: asylum seekers, far right, refugees, structure-agency, political debate

Germany’s asylum policy and the debate surrounding it underwent a significant shift in 2015 when asylum applications increased considerably over previous years. Rather than moving towards more restriction, as was the case in the past when asylum applications saw a substantial rise, the German government responded towards refugees in an open and welcoming manner. This article will analyse the developments which led to the German government’s “we can manage it” response, using a conceptual framework which considers structural and agency concerns and the interconnection between the two. The framework centres on processes within the party political system and the way they were or were not influenced by developments and structures in the wider socio-political and economic environment and by politicians’ perceptions, beliefs and goals. The findings show that a new alliance was formed between the conservative CDU party and the social democratic SPD party, reflecting a political debate on asylum seekers and refugees which combined an explicit humanitarianism within Germany with a hierarchical classification of migrants who were “more or less needy” of protection, limiting the explicit humanitarianism within Germany to specific groups of migrants and refugees.
KEY WORDS: asylum seekers, far right, refugees, structure-agency, political debate

The predominant response to recent refugee arrivals to Europe has been one of paranoia and fear of depersonalised masses of people disrupting Europe’s cultural and social welfare landscape, triggering (further) political crises, violence and the rise of nationalistic movements. It therefore came as no surprise that the mainstream political focus has been on tightening external European Union borders in a desperate attempt to keep them out.

The predominant response to recent refugee arrivals to Europe has been one of paranoia and fear of depersonalised masses of people disrupting Europe’s cultural and social welfare landscape, triggering (further) political crises, violence and the rise of nationalistic movements. It therefore came as no surprise that the mainstream political focus has been on tightening external European Union borders in a desperate attempt to keep them out.