# Transformation of Solidarities, Transformation of Statehood: A Migration Perspective

Amandine Desille, Thomas Lacroix

<figure><img src="image_1.png" /></figure>

## To cite this version:

Amandine Desille, Thomas Lacroix. Transformation of Solidarities, Transformation of Statehood: A Migration Perspective. Journal of International Migration and Integration, 2025, 17 p. 10.1007/s12134-025-01258-w. hal-05116540

HAL Id: hal-05116540

https://sciencespo.hal.science/hal-05116540v1

Submitted on 17 Jun 2025

HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access archive for the deposit and dissemination of scientific research documents, whether they are published or not. The documents may come from teaching and research institutions in France or abroad, or from public or private research centers.

L'archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non, émanant des établissements d'enseignement et de recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires publics ou privés.

<figure><img src="image_2.png" /></figure>

Distributed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License
# Transformation of Solidarities, Transformation of Statehood: A Migration Perspective

Amandine Desille<fnref n="1" /> ID · Thomas Lacroix<fnref n="2" />

Accepted: 4 April 2025

© The Author(s) 2025

## Abstract

This closing article of a special issue on pro-migrant solidarities reflects on the evolution of literature surrounding international migrations and solidarities over the past decade. Central to our analysis is the observation that the transformation of solidarities corresponds intricately with the rescaling of statehood, marked by its increasingly transnational nature. As states undergo processes of reconfiguration and disengagement, a simultaneous reallocation of public funds towards entities engaged in the solidarity “industry” emerges. This phenomenon stands in contrast to spontaneous solidarity movements and acts of resistance, which collectively represent a spectrum of responses. The Special Issue’s five articles explore diverse facets of this complex landscape, drawing on local and regional cases from Europe, Asia, and the Americas. By delving into spatial and temporal considerations, we illuminate how the where and when of solidarities transcend traditional categorisations based on actors’ types or motives. This approach helps elucidate the proliferation of solidarity forms, offering insights into the dynamic interplay between statehood, transnationalism, solidarity, and migration. As we navigate the intricate tapestry of pro-migrant solidarities, our analysis underscores the need for nuanced perspectives that account for the multifaceted dimensions of solidarity in an ever-evolving global context.

**Keywords** Scale · Migration · Solidarity · Governance

<figure><img src="image_3.png" /></figure>

<footnote>Amandine Desille
amandine.desille@campus.ul.pt</footnote>

<footnote>Thomas Lacroix
thomas.lacroix@sciencespo.fr</footnote>

<footnote n="1">¹ Institute of Geography and Spatial Planning, University of Lisbon, Lisbon, Portugal</footnote>

<footnote n="2">² Sciences Po, Paris, France</footnote>
Introduction

The variety of empirical case studies published within the Special Issue “Mak-
ing Solidarity in migration context: from the self, the local to the transnational”
is indicative of the many transformations at play in the domain of pro-migrant
“solidarities”. From established church organisations and international NGOs to
informal groups of neighbours supporting migrants in their streets, they point to
the diversity of actors and involvement. Scholars have sought to map this array of
mobilisations by addressing not only the categories of actors but also the motives
of their involvement (Agustín & Jørgensen, 2021; Bauder, 2021; Bauder & Juffs,
2020; Della Porta & Steinhilper, 2021). While we find these typologies extremely
helpful in their acknowledgement of the variety of actors, strategies, and relations
(or absence thereof) with public authorities at the local, national, or transnational
levels, little is said as to why actors of solidarity have multiplied. The transforma-
tion of contemporary solidarities and activism has, so far, been addressed against
the background of the rise of individualism and the demise of the welfare state
(Ion, 1997; Paugam, 2011). Welfare assistance, like citizenship, is a principle of
integration of the state, an instrument delineating the contours of intra-societal
solidarity, delimiting an inside and an outside through the definition of who is
entitled to what (and who is not). Arguably, it is also the case in the domain of
migration and integration. As stressed by the 2018 Global Compact for Migration,
assistance to migrants is a duty of the state. National authorities are responsible
for the provision of medical services, justice and education, access to allowance
and benefits, etc. And yet, as the papers in this Special Issue show, multiple forms
of non-state solidarity flourish at the fringes of society, in supra or infra-national
spaces where the welfare state has little obligation to be solidary. But they also
flourish in global cities, at the core of national spaces. This surge of pro-migrant
activism cannot simply be explained by the shrinking state and the demise of pub-
lic welfare systems. Solidarity practices, whether in far-flung border zones or in
the centre of western cities, are situated at specific times and in particular places.
To get a better grasp of the dynamics at stake, we suggest expanding the analy-
sis of pro-migrant organisations from *what* they do to *where and when* they act.
In other words, this paper seeks to address pro-migrant mobilisations through the
transformation of their space–time. In order to do so, we opt for a structure agency
approach, arguing that the spatial and temporal framing of this engagement is both
an outcome of the so-called “acts of solidarity” as well as of the political structures
in which they are embedded. As claimed elsewhere (Magazzini & Desille, 2023),
we propose to leave behind the methodological nationalism and localism that too
often characterise this domain of research and locate the transformations of soli-
darities within a larger shift transforming statehood. It is our contention that the
mutation of pro-migrant activism is an outcome of the transformation of the state
and its policies in the domain of migration. The new forms of border control, the
externalisation of migration policies and the intensification of internal surveillance
apparatus have changed the time–space of state action and inaction, opening, in
turn, a new field of involvement for the actors of solidarity.
Taking stock of the works published in the Special Issue and on the existent liter-
ature at large, the aim of this paper is to frame the time–space of pro-migrant activ-
ism. Drawing on the state of the art, the second section defines and maps the fields
of assistance to migrants. Section three sets out the conceptual framework. It comes
back to the geographical concept of scales, understood as spaces targeted for specific
actions. We relate the “rescaling of statehood” (Brenner, 2004) first to that of soli-
darity and second to that of migration governance. Henceforth, the last section of
this paper outlines a framework for understanding the spatiality and temporality of
the so-called acts of solidarity.

Defining and Mapping the Field of Assistance to Migrants

There are many ways of characterising pro-migrant solidarity. The first manner is to focus on the types of actors involved. The contributions in this volume (Allegrini, 2024; Mallet-Garcia & Garcia, 2025; Ng, 2024; Trucco, 2025; Zakariás et al., 2023)) shed light on the multitude of actors acting in solidarity with people of the move. One can distinguish between institutional formations on the one hand and informal groups of people on the other. By institutions, we mean the state, its central administration, and its different tiers of government (local administrations and/or municipalities), as well as formal organisations such as churches and other religious bodies, local NGOs, and migrant-led organisations. Individuals and their networks are active outside of institutions. They can be neighbours living in the vicinity of migrants in want of help—proximity often being an important condition of solidary engagements; volunteers with different degrees of professionalisation and different lengths of experience; co-ethnics; philanthropists; other established migrants; artists; and even the researchers themselves. These individuals may be grouped into informal collectives of different types and scales that differ from established institutions. These proteiform groups have no centralised form of governance; they may coalesce after a given event before disbanding immediately afterwards and reappearing elsewhere. Taken together, these institutions and actors assume various degrees of engagement with the state, yet we argue that all of them are, to some extent, political in the sense that they participate in maintaining, transforming or resisting the way solidarity unfolds.

Others have focused on the motives driving their involvement. Bauder and Juffs (2020) have conducted a bibliographic search combining the search term “solidarity” with “migrant” or “refugee”, uncarving an annual production of roughly 2000 articles. Focusing on a smaller sample, they propose a typology of the concept of solidarity, which draws on modern philosophical thought. The majority of the scientific publications they analysed consider two types of solidarity: solidarity underpinned by universal moral obligation towards vulnerable groups and by the search for reciprocity translating into struggles against different forms of domination/oppression. In a subsequent paper (Bauder, 2021), Bauder moved away from broad philosophical considerations and examined the categories of practice embraced by actors engaged in diverse urban settings. He showed that in the cases of Berlin, Freiburg, and Zurich, the perspectives are more variegated
and “include self- and common interests, human compassion, access to univer-
sal rights, and political participation and democratisation”. The variety of actors
and the diversity of perspectives driving their involvement, which are unveiled in
Bauder’s work, explain the sheer difficulty of delimiting the boundaries of soli-
darity. Della Porta and Steinhilper (2021) draw a line between humanitarianism
and solidarity. The former is understood as mobilisation undertaken by profes-
sionalised organisations in response to emergency situations. By contrast, solidar-
ity is conceived as “a transformative practice, aiming at social justice” undertaken
by grassroots organisations and networks of volunteers. While humanitarians
endorse a principle of neutrality vis-a-vis public authorities, solidarians tend to
oppose prevailing power structures (Agustín & Jørgensen, 2021). These authors
restrict the meaning of solidarity by associating this practice with activism and
social change. Solidarians tend to be more sensitive to power relations between
助pers and those receiving support. In that sense, pro-migrant solidarity refers
more directly to Agustín and Jørgensen’s “civic solidarity” (2021), which trans-
gresses “the construction of in-group and out-groups by emphasising common-
alities”. Their understanding of solidarity—may it be “civic”, “autonomous” in
the case of self-organised “anti-governmental modes of transnational politics”, or
“institutional”, including sanctuary cities or new municipalism—all build on Nira
Yuval-Davis’s (1999)’s “transversal politics”, which consists of “the encompass-
ment of difference through equality”.

Despite opposite stances and forms of mobilisation, these different actors do not
evolve on separate levels. While they relate to one another, either through coopera-
tion or through competition, they generate hybrid forms of politicisation or profes-
sionalisation. In fact, Della Porta and Steinhilper advocate for an understanding of
solidarities “in motion” and “hybrid” (2021). Their attempt to create a typology of
migrant support practices mobilises studies on civil society, volunteering, and social
movements from a humanitarian to a solidarity perspective.

The literature therefore points to two overarching types of actors (institutional and informal) and two overarching modes of support of migrants (solidarity and humanitarian). Building on these distinctions, one can map the field of pro-migrant support by distinguishing four categories (Fig. 1).

This model brings to the fore the entanglement between the forms of mobilisa-
tion. We insist that this model does not mean creating hermetic categories but rather
proposing some points on a continuum. For instance, grassroots networks are not
necessarily geared towards social change. One may think of local collectives of peo-
ple involved in the creation of food banks and other forms of basic support for the
benefit of migrants living in squats in their locality. Camille Gourdeau and Evange-
line Masson Diez have documented such engagement in the small town of Ouistre-
ham, near Calais, where activists were inspired more by a humanitarian ethos than
by the will to change policies (2023). The Charity, located in an urbanised village
in the vicinity of Hong Kong, described by Ng (2024, this issue), focuses on this
neighbourhood relation too, through childcare, donation of hygiene items, food,
or furniture, and developing activities aiming at fostering mutual support. Yet this
neighbourhood approach to solidarity ultimately aims to create inter-group cohesion
through a politics of care.

<figure><img src="image_4.png" /></figure>
<figure><img src="image_5.png" /><figcaption>Fig. 1 Model of pro-migrant solidarities</figcaption></figure>

Conversely, established organisations such as the Red Cross may intervene in sanctuary cities to provide services to migrants, sometimes in contradiction with national policy orientations. Likewise, the CIMADE, a France-based organisation created during the Second World War to support Jewish exiles, regularly publishes reports showing the detrimental effects of the French migration policy. In that sense, they may contest the decisions of the bodies that fund them. Donors can have a role in the oscillation of formal institutions between humanitarian and solidarity actions, as Allegrini (2024, this issue) points out in the case of Lebanese municipalities. Although he borrows from the tradition of “hospitality”, he shows the extent to which the field of solidarity is redefined by the shift of the national legal framework to international interventions.

To better capture the dynamics of pro-migrant solidarities, we suggest thinking of their spatiotemporal changes, such as the thought of in geography, and particularly in the literature of “rescaling”.

# Conceptual Background: Scales of Solidarity, Scales of Migration

## Spaces, Acts and Scales of Solidarity

The various actors, be they formal or informal, individual or collective, public or private, whose role and impact we have mentioned above produce dynamic “scalar” spaces of solidarity. What do we mean by scalar and scale in general? Why is it an efficient approach to acknowledge that the actors mentioned above form a relational/ embedded space of action?
The concept of “scale”, inherited from cartography and geomorphology, primar-
ily indicates a reduction or enlargement of a spatial unit. It became a shorthand to
describe the width of the frame used for research projects. Scales were reified ‘space
envelopes’ (Lefebvre in Herod, 2011, p. 6), boxes, or containers, ranging from the
global/international scale to the national, regional, urban, neighbourhood and indi-
vidual scale. In this sense, scales corresponded to the Kantian approach, where
space and time were “subjective constructs through which humans make sense of
the world” (Herod, 2011, p. 6). At the end of the 1990 s, the concept of scale eman-
cipated itself from its initial cartographic meaning: Erik Swyngedouw (1997) and
Roland Robertson (1997) both coined the concept of “glocalisation”, while Kevin
Cox (1998) adopted a “networked—rather than areal—vision of scales” (Herod,
2011, p. 23). Both theoretical contributions partially abolished the bounded charac-
ter of scales as envisaged until the 1980 s. Neil Brenner’s seminal work *New State
Spaces, Urban Governance and the Rescaling of Statehood* (2004) eventually ena-
bled a shift to scales as “socially produced, and therefore malleable, dimensions
of particular social processes- such as capitalist production, social reproduction,
state regulation, and sociopolitical struggle” (Brenner, 2004, p. 9). Contributing to
the volume *Locating Migrations, Rescaling Cities and Migrants* (Glick Schiller &
Çağlar 2010, p. 33), Brenner reaffirmed the chaotic results of processes affecting the
scalar architecture of capitalism, which he defined as “a mosaic of superimposed,
tangled, crosscutting, and unevenly overlapping interscalar hierarchies whose units
are rarely coextensive or isomorphic”. This new geography led to a pattern which,
for the case of the old continent, he called ‘Archipelago Europe’ (Ibid., p. 178),
linking those subnational strategic sites through a transnational urban network and
therefore creating new — or reinforcing existing — zones of marginalisation and
exclusion. Lacroix’s recent work on the transformation of statehood (2023) pushes
the boundaries of archipelago Europe way beyond to include a much wider array of
bounds Europe and its residents maintain worldwide.

The rescaling of statehood has provoked a renewed interest in the local as strategic sites where solidarity can unfold. In their introduction to the Special Issue “Spheres of Sanctuary”, Julia Mourão Permoser and Rainer Bauböck (2023) asserted that “sanctuary” movements and networks (as one channel of solidarity in practice) often take place at the subnational level: “Because this physical space is a space of protection from state power, it is normally located beneath the level of the nation-state” (p. 3554); and also because “the physical space where sanctuary is granted will generally not be that of the whole state territory, but will be found somewhere within or at the margins of a sovereign state’s territory” (ibid.).

In this Special Issue, the contributions of Ng (who looks at acts of solidarity in
the peri-urban area of Hong Kong), Trucco (on the French-Italian border town of
Ventimiglia), and Allegrini (in the province of Bakaa, at the Lebanon-Syrian bor-
der), all dedicate an important section of their papers to the description of the local
context, and the specificity of the border zone. It is the spatial proximity of the resi-
dents with the newcomers that first triggers solidarity acts. As Gourdeau and Mas-
son Diez showed in their work on non-professional volunteers in France (2023), sol-
idarity actions are linked to familiar spaces and immediate places (“lieux du proche”
in French). Volunteers can reach out to the neighbourhood community but also

<figure><img src="image_6.png" /></figure>
mobilise connections with people they got to know in their former places of resi-
dence or work (Lelévrier et al., 2023). The “network capital” (ibid.) of volunteers
is a spatially inherited resource they use to more efficiently engage with institutions
and gain support locally. The importance of their local embedding has led Berthom-
ière and Imbert (2020) to coin the concept of “autochthonous capital”. As Mallet
Garcia and Garcia show in this SI, spatial proximity and the work of local NGOs,
able supersede diasporic and national linkages to create pan-ethnic solidarity. But
the contributors also shed light on the relations of these volunteers with the out-
side, may it be the originating communities of the persons benefiting from solidarity
acts (Ng, 2024), the social networks the volunteers belong to (Trucco, 2025), or the
international organisations and national institutions intervening (Allegrini, 2024).
Agustín and Jørgensen (2021) have indeed suggested that “transversal solidarities”
generate “multi-scalar connections between the local and the transnational”.

In that sense, solidarity acts with people on the move, disrupts former (national) scales of mobilisation, and produces new scalar arrangements at the subnational and trans-local levels. Indeed, a main contribution of the scale literature is the emphasis on a processual dimension of the (re)production or contestation of existing spaces and scales (here of solidarities). Following Mourão Permoser and Bauböck (2023), it is argued that this production of new scales stands at the intersection of space and enactment. In that sense, even though these two authors do not directly refer to Brenner’s conceptual framework, we see that the production of scale requires a particular space where actors converge (even if virtually) and enactments or “acts” (here of solidarity). In a similar vein, Cantat’s work on solidarity in border zones in Hungary and Greece invites us to look at “the complexities and contradictions that unfold ‘on the ground’ as solidarity is practiced”, which enables us to interpret them “as theoretically, methodologically and epistemologically productive spaces” (Cantat et al., 2019, pp. 15–16). Looking at solidarity/ies as a productive space, therefore, allows us to capture the “mosaic of superimposed, tangled, crosscutting, and unevenly overlapping interscalar hierarchies” (Brenner, op. cit.).

New Solidarities and the Scales of Migration Governance

Solidarians, through their engagement, produce new scales of local and trans-local
solidarity. But these actors do not operate in a vacuum. The opportunity structures
in which civil society activism is embedded hinge on the availability of resources,
priorities and connections provided by state authorities. However, public manage-
ment has considerably changed over the last decades. Under a neoliberal impetus,
the state administration outsourced its function to the private sector, civil society
organisations, and semi-public agencies, as well as to local authorities or interna-
tional organisations. Public–private partnerships and other contractual arrangements
between multiscalar actors have become the norm in policy implementation. Against
this background, we hypothesise that solidarity is being affected by the transforma-
tion of the authoritative structures of the state.

This is particularly true in the domain of migration and integration. As shown
elsewhere (Lacroix 2023), state apparatuses have been transformed by the effort
made by governments to control migration and its related flows. Western states externalise border control out of their boundaries or strive to track undocumented workers within their boundaries. Sending states to reach out to their expatriate nationals in their place of settlement either to enhance remittances or to tame dissidence. External state action requires specific arrangements with non-state actors, including NGOs and civil society organisations. Research on border control documents the mix of organisations present in the so-called “hot spots” in the Mediterranean. Agencies in charge of the security management of immigrant populations (fingerprinting, deportation, etc.) are seconded by humanitarian organisations such as the Red Cross (Cuttitta, 2018), catering to their daily needs. In arrival countries, reception and housing are the responsibility of the state, but this duty is de facto or de jure delegated to voluntary organisations. The latter may be subcontracted to the management of housing for asylum seekers or serve as intermediaries between migrants and authorities in detention centres and police stations. Allegrini’s article in this Special Issue shows how the Lebanese state delegated the management of Syrian refugees to a constellation of actors such as local authorities, volunteer organisations and international “professional” organisations in competition for scarce financial resources.

Some have argued that, in Europe, integration policies have undergone a local turn (Zapata Barrero, Caponio, and Scholten 2017). With the support of the European Union, local authorities have endorsed a greater role in the design and implementation of policies targeting immigrants living in their constituency. Local integration policies have reshaped the relations between municipalities and local civil society organisations. Rescaling occurs outside of Europe, in North America (Good, 2009; Varsanyi, 2008; Walker & Leitner, 2011), in South America (Filomeno, 2016), but also in the Middle East (Khalaf, 2016; Desille, 2022; Allegrini, 2024 this issue), in African countries (Gazzotti, 2018; Landau, 2018) or in Asia (Lan, 2015; Tarumoto, 2018). Research shows a range of attitudes between confrontation and cooperation. Transnational policies for “tackling the root causes of migration” also rely on local associations to undertake information campaigns on the danger of illegal migration (Pagogna & Sakdapolrak, 2021) and support income-generating activities for refugees (Betts, 2021). Likewise, the co-development policies making use of diasporic linkages to support homeland development have generated a complex field of voluntary organisations (Vincent-Mory, 2018; Tabar, 2016).

What we argue for here is that migration management policies have spurred the creation of a “humanitarian industry”. We use the term “industry” to emphasise the fact that, aside from solidarity of the welfare State and voluntary and spontaneous movements, pro-migrant engagement has become a source of income for a range of actors (including incomes coming from State funding). Public authorities have not only generated new sources of funding but also introduced new cognitive frames of justification linking border control and the protection of vulnerable migrants. Concepts such as vulnerability, co-development, empowerment, etc., are common frames driving the activities in this solidarity industry. This is apparent in the rhetoric of IOM information campaigns as well as in the public speeches of policymakers (Acherman 2021, Bartel 2017).
However, migration and integration policies are selective and leave aside many migrants because they do not fall into the legal framework delineated by state policies. Migrants who overstay their residence permit, youngsters whose minority status has been denied, rejected asylum seekers, migrants who are entitled to receive support and housing from the state but fail to for lack of available accommodation... In these spaces of state inaction, a voluntary sector has emerged over the years to cater to the needs of this population and fill the void left by migration policies. This is true in receiving countries where a wealth of organisations as well as informal collectives of inhabitants have formed in large cities of destinations or smaller towns receiving migrants due to the dispersal policies of asylum seekers (See Darling (2022) in the UK, for instance). This is also true in sending countries where voluntary organisations take charge expelled undocumented migrants (Lecadet, 2018) or mobilise around the death of those who died on the routes of migration (Kobelinsky & Furri, 2024). Unlike the civil society sector, which collaborates with and is funded by public authorities for the implementation of migration policies, the latter field includes a variety of informal groupings and collectives of volunteers gathered either at a neighbourhood level or via internet forums of activists. Together with formal associations, they form a multiscalar field of solidarity. Some of these actors claim to be apolitical and are motivated by the sheer impossibility of being passive towards migrants’ dire situations.

The evolution of state policies, both in sending and receiving states, has partitioned migration solidarity into two broad sectors. A solidarity industry is formed of formal organisations participating in the implementation of public policies at different scales, within and beyond borders. By contradistinction, a solidarity field of formal and informal organisations has emerged to fill the void left by migration policies. While the first one makes the implementation of migration (and diaspora) policies possible, the other one may appear more subversive. As mentioned in the previous section, the division between both sectors may not be clear-cut, and we observe a continuum of public and private, as well as informal and institutional actors. As mentioned above, established organisations may be involved in both humanitarian and solidarity actions. Likewise, grassroots collectives may collaborate with social workers for the reception of asylum seekers in areas of reception. These assemblies speaks of informal “bricolages” between social workers”) of actors, experiences, and practices characterise the production of a social continuum of solidarity. But, through what it does and what it does not, states have structuring effects on solidarity towards migrants.

## Mobile “Acts” of Solidarity

### Space, Mobility, and Solidarity

In 2016, Ataç, Rygiel, and Stierl co-edited a collection of articles on Refugee and Migrant Protest and Solidarity Movements. In the last sentences of their introduction, they stated: “In drawing our attention to the importance of sites, locations, and spaces for migration struggles, the contributions in this issue ultimately ask and
reflect on the idea of whether, through political contention, and the role that differ-
ent spaces play, alternative forms of political community might emerge” (p. 540).
We have also pinned it out at the beginning of this paper: *where* solidarity actions
take place can help us understand how solidarities and the state have transformed in
relation to each other. Maestri and Hughes (2017) have looked at “contested spaces
of citizenship: camps, borders and urban encounters”. For them, those spaces are
“critical sites through which exclusionary logics materialise”. Already on the radar
of critical human geography, critical citizenship studies, social movements, and the
migration scholarship from the 1990s on, scholars have looked at segregated spaces
and ghettos, camps and prisons, and border technologies to define “a conception of
space as not existing as a passive backdrop for human action, but as being actively
embedded and strategically involved in the performance of (de)politicised subjects”
(Maestri & Hughes, 2017). As Maestri and Hughes, we foresee at least three places
where solidarity towards migrants is more intensely practised: the urban, the camp,
and the border zone.

Cities are conducive to mobilisation and pro-migrant solidarities, as they provide
several dimensions of “structure opportunities”: “favourable alliances, split elites
and the presence of prominent allies” (Lacomba, 2021). The density of cities, in
terms of the presence of people from diverse backgrounds, resources and oppor-
tunities, facilitates the formation of strong as well as weak ties that themselves
facilitate organisation. These characteristics lead Nicholls to conceive the city as a
‘relational incubator’, which facilitates ‘complex relational exchanges’ (2008: 842)
useful in generating resources conducive to the growth of urban social movements”
(Lacomba, 2021). Looking at Ecuadorians’ “social capital in New York and Madrid,
Joan Lacomba (2021) argues: “The participants in this research were able to take
advantage of the political opportunities in New York City and Madrid as they devel-
oped bridging ties with unknown others who take part in the social movement indus-
try for the economically disadvantaged”. The city even offers a platform to generate
solidarities beyond ethnic bonds, as shown by the work of Gnes (2018) in Los Ange-
les and the sustainability of class-based solidarities across various ethnic groups.
Mallet-Garcia and Garcia’s paper on San Francisco Bay (2025) comes to similar
conclusions: the work of local NGOs in the particular city context has provided the
base for pan-ethnic solidarity among precarious immigrants in the bay. But this soli-
darity is also reactive to violence and struggles experienced in the USA: they draw
on the concept of “reactive ethnicity” lived as a “countermeasure to external pres-
sures”. Nevertheless, despite alliances between movements, Mallet-Garcia and Gar-
cia find “that legal status, along with ethno-racial factors, still serves as a divide that
hinders NGOs’ coalition-building endeavours”.

The success of city networks in Europe and beyond (Caponio, 2018; Lacroix &
Spencer, 2022; Oomen, 2020) can also support the mobility of solidarity practices in
a trans-local dynamic (see Desille & Lacroix, 2024). Specific urban conditions can
be conducive both to the formation of these networks and to the mobility of prac-
tices within them, as is the case for harbour cities and their advocacy work to build
“corridors” to the mainland (Lacroix et al., 2022).

Aside from the urban, enquiring solidarity in marginal places is essential for
understanding and addressing the complex dynamics of migrant activism and

<figure><img src="image_7.png" /></figure>
citizenship. Rygiel’s work (2011) in the “Jungle” of Calais shed light on how migrant struggles within the confines of detention sites and camps challenged conventional notions of citizenship and mobility control. By focusing on the agency of migrants in navigating and resisting border controls, he underscores the importance of recognising the social dimensions of these spaces. If we were to stop the analysis with the idea of the camp as a space of exception, he argues, we would reproduce the logic of the state. A few years later, Turner (2016) introduced the special issue (En)gendering political Citizenship from marginal spaces, further emphasising the need to move beyond simplistic categorisations of citizen and non-citizen, instead delving into the multifaceted experiences of marginality across various groups (intergenerational migrant youth, black minorities, ‘Problem Families’, Traveller groups, the ‘workless’) adding the need “to explore the (un)familiar processes which constitute the spatiality of the marginal”.

Ataç, Rygiel, and Stierl’s introduction of another special issue published the same year focuses on spaces where border control operates, such as camps but also border zones. They highlight the transnational nature of political struggles and how contentious politics impact spaces of mobilisations. The authors urge us to consider the diverse spatialities that shape citizenship enactments beyond national borders (2016). In this collection too, Trucco (2025) analyses the deployment of volunteers in a catholic church located in a working-class neighbourhood of Ventimiglia at the French-Italian border. For her, the border is not only the territorial one between France and Italy but also the border of the church and that of the Law that volunteers at times comply with or disobey. In a previous article, Trucco (2023) looks at the same border town of Ventimiglia (Italy) and shows how: “a glocal space of solidarity has developed, encompassing more formalised and professionalised areas, generally cooperating with institutions at different scales or calling them to action, alongside a less formalised area loosely connecting local, national and transnational activists” (Trucco, 2023, p. 473). In the same vein, and working on the other side of the Italian border, in Trieste, Fortarezza argues: “the widespread and compelling need to express empathy and support towards [people on the move]has generated new subjectivities and alliances among otherwise independent actors, in turn fostering the elaboration of innovative praxes along and across nation-state borders” (Fortarezza, 2023, p. 492).

Cities, camps and border zones are three instances of locales favouring the development of pro-migrant solidarities. But these places are not self-contained spaces. They can also be considered nodes as part of a wider canvas of trans-local relations. Actors of solidarity carry with them the tools, such as know-how and network capital, necessary to enact solidarity. And these tools are as mobile as the actors themselves. Work on city networks by the authors and other scholarship on networks show the importance of personal relations (Caponio, 2018) but also of external experts and the “manuals” and training they prepare (see Desille and Lacroix (2024) based on policy mobility as defined by McCann and Ward (2013). This is even more acute when the persons leading solidarity movements withdraw, and solidarity collapses, as shown by Fourot et al. (2021).
Time, Enactments, and Solidarity

The temporal dimension of pro-migrant engagement is the outcome of a complex entanglement of different temporalities. Migration temporalities first. The so-called migration crises, surges of arrivals caused by conflicts or natural hazards, are privi- leged times of expression of this form of solidarity. The Syrian civil war and conse- quent population displacements in the region (Ataç et al., 2016; Maestri & Hughes, 2017; Allegrini, 2024, this issue) and in Europe (Cantat, Sevenin, Maczynska, and Birey 2019; Mourão Permoser & Bauböck, 2023), as well as political instability in other Middle Eastern countries, have triggered most solidarity movements studied and cited here. The invasion of Ukraine by its neighbour Russia is yet another crisis leading to a high flux of forced displacements and new forms of solidarities (Bol- zoni et al., 2023; Zakariás et al., 2023, this issue).

Another important marker of the temporality of solidarity is the agenda of poli- cymakers. The reform, cancellation, and/or implementation of policies trigger mobi- lisations, either fuelled by the sudden provision of financial resources or by the will to contest measures that are likely to further deteriorate the living conditions of migrants. As we mentioned before, Mallet Garcia and Garcia (2025, this issue) hence propose to understand mobilisations in a hostile urban context through “react- ive ethnicity”. Trucco (2025, this issue) also looks at the way volunteers navigate policy and law changes, at times complying and at times disobeying.

Finally, pro-migrant engagement produces its own temporal frame. Past engage-
ments underpin present ones. The contribution of Zakariás et al., (2023, this issue)
makes a case for comparing the acts of solidarity observed in Hungary in 2015
and in 2022. Yet the authors also point out the differences between the responses
of Hungarians towards Middle Eastern and African refugees and Ukrainian ones.
Similar results were found between the reception of 2015 refugees and the one of
Ukrainians in Italy in 2022 (Bolzoni et al., 2023): the response was conditioned by
the experience acquired previously, although not in continuity: the scales of soli-
darity varied immensely from a nation-wide bureaucratic approach to a multiscalar
dynamic approach to reception.

Outside of Europe, the same influx of Middle-Eastern refugees in the region has led to a similar redefinition of solidarity over time, at the national level (Allegrini shows the changes in the Lebanese governance), at the international level with the shift from a humanitarian to a development approach, and, at the municipal level. In the case of Allegrini (2024, this issue), time enabled municipal actors on the ground to capitalise on their past (and sometimes bitter) experiences, to conduct negotiations with in-coming actors, and in general, to gain control over the solidarity industry, and the monies it brings with it.

What is “activated”? Our conception of “acts” of solidarity is very much inspired by Engin Isin’s (2008) “acts of citizenship”. Isin contrasts the relatively enduring institutions and dispositions of habitus with the immediate temporality of “acts” of citizenship reacting to present circumstances. He proposes that investigating acts of citizenship involves a “focus on those moments when, regardless of status and substance, subjects constitute themselves as citizens—or, better still, as those to whom the right to have rights is due” (Isin 2008, p. 18). Isin’s work has already
been adapted to migration and refugee studies. For instance, Nyers looked at Can-
ada-based self-organised “action committees” of non-status migrants and refugees.
Those action committees “have emerged and asserted themselves as political by
organising against detentions and deportations, as well as pressuring the government
to regularise their status” (Nyers, 2010, p. 129). But, over time, these forms of col-
lectives may institutionalise their involvement and professionalise their mobilisa-
tion. This evolution transforms the very nature of their mobilisation. The analysis
of a squat in Southern France, opened to respond to an emergency situation but also
to attract public attention to homeless asylum seekers, has shown how the absence
of a durable solution has confronted activists with a dilemma: shall they extend and
institutionalise their engagement (and thereby compromising with public authori-
ties), or shall they close the squat even at the cost of depriving migrants still there
of a refuge (Baudier et al., 2023)? Institutionalisation and experience may lead to a
decrease in contention. The study of Ng (2024, this issue) in Hong Kong’s periphery
describes the formation of a charity whose head was already active in pro-refugee
civil society in Hong Kong and, therefore, learnt from previous experiences to set
up his current work. After leading and participating in social movements, including
sit-ins, the risk and drain of these movements made him seek solidarities through
community building and neighbourhood-based support.

Acts exist at certain moments and spaces. They can then get diluted or can get
institutionalised (see Peruzzi Castellani, 2023). Turner (2016) also drew upon Isin's
work as well as a wider turn in politics, political and economic geography (Dar-
ling, 2014; Harvey, 2008; Ong, 2006; Scott, 2009) and International Relations (IR)
(Death, 2010) towards a focus on resistance. He asserted: "I read these studies as
seeking to (re)politicise the analysis of citizenship by bringing into focus those acts
which 'protest' exclusionary regimes but, in doing so, also help delineate the con-
tingency of citizenship itself" (Turner, 2016, p. 143). Acts of solidarity can be seen
as denouncing the void. Pointing out that the State did not do its job at a certain
moment in time. We can also wonder to what extent the repetition of these acts by
the same people, albeit in different fora, enables a continuity, a quasi-institution-
alisation of new providers of solidarity. A large group of solidarity actors actually
receive (often public) funding to fill this void. In other words, the fact that solidarity
acts are performed regularly in spaces left void by the State signals a permanence in
the outsourcing of solidarity towards new actors. As for more informal and conten-
tious groupings, they, too, participate in delineating what solidarity is.

Conclusions

In conclusion, an understanding of the shifts in solidarity practices necessitates an
examination of concurrent changes within the state and in its relations to the outside.
The state undergoes a process of reconfiguration and disengagement yet simultane-
ously reallocates public funds towards actors and institutions involved in what can
be termed as the solidarity “industry”. This phenomenon contrasts with more spon-
taneous solidarity movements or even acts of resistance, which themselves represent
a spectrum of responses.
The concept of solidarity within the context of migration acts as a multifaceted
prism, intersecting with the broader field of international migrations and transnation-
alism. Solidarity manifests across various dimensions, but with this paper, we have
particularly delved into their spatial and temporal considerations. Spatially, certain
 locales, particularly urban centres, emerge as fertile grounds for solidarity due to
 the presence of resources and networks that facilitate the creation of “structures of
 opportunities”. Spaces of detention, exclusion, and control, such as camps or border
 zones, are also places where solidarity converges. However, solidarity is not confined
 solely to the local sphere but extends transnationally, with mobile acts of solidarity
 involving the circulation of individuals, practices, financial resources, and discourses.

Temporally, solidarity encompasses both historical continuities of past solidari-
ties and the activation or mobilisation of solidarity during periods of crisis. This
temporal dimension underscores the dynamic nature of solidarity, which can either
dissipate over time or become institutionalised within societal frameworks. Under-
standing the conjuncture of space and time is crucial for those engaged in acts of
solidarity, as it provides insights into the contextual nuances that shape the efficacy
and sustainability of solidarity efforts.

**Author Contribution** In accordance with the guidelines of the *Journal of International Migration and Integration*, we hereby declare the individual contributions of each author to the conception, design, execution, and interpretation of the research study entitled “Transformation of solidarities, transformation of statehood: a migration perspective.”

Amandine Desille:

conceptualization, spearheaded the conceptual development of the study, including the formulation of research questions and hypotheses; 1

iterature review, conducted an extensive literature review relevant to the study's objectives;

writing—original draft preparation, took the lead in drafting the initial manuscript;

writing—review and editing, provided critical feedback and revisions to enhance the manuscript's
quality and coherence.

Thomas Lacroix:

conceptualisation, played a pivotal role in refining the study's conceptual framework and hypotheses;

literature review, contributed significantly to the literature review process, synthesising relevant literature;

writing—original draft preparation, collaborated in drafting the initial manuscript, ensuring clarity and accuracy;

writing—review and editing, engaged in comprehensive review and editing, enhancing the manu-
script's clarity and coherence.

Both authors equally contributed to the intellectual development, writing, review, and editing pro-
cesses of the manuscript.

Each author has reviewed and approved the final version of the manuscript and agrees to be account-
able for all aspects of the work.

**Funding** Open access funding provided by FCTIFCCN (b-on). This research was funded by Institut Con-
vergences Migrations (Aubervilliers, France), programme Localacc.

Declarations

**Competing Interests** The authors of this manuscript, Amandine Desille and Thomas Lacroix, declare the following competing interests. 10. Both authors serve as Guest Editors for the special issue to which this manuscript is submitted. As Guest Editors, they have been involved in the editorial oversight and coordination of the special issue, ensuring adherence to the journal's standards and objectives. 11. The authors affirm that the peer review process for this manuscript will be conducted in accordance with the rigorous
editorial standards established by the Journal of International Migration and Integration's Editorial team. As Guest Editors, they are committed to ensuring a fair, impartial, and thorough peer review process consistent with the journal's policies and guidelines. The authors acknowledge that their roles as Guest Editors may potentially influence the handling of this manuscript. However, they affirm their commitment to upholding the integrity of the peer review process and maintaining objectivity in the evaluation of the manuscript's scientific merit.

**Open Access** This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.

## References

Achermann, C. (2021). Shaping migration at the border: The entangled rationalities of border control practices. *Comparative Migration Studies, 9*(1), 5.

Agustín, Ó. G., & Jørgensen, M. B. (2021). On transversal solidarity: An approach to migration and multi-scalar solidarities. *Critical Sociology, 47*(6), 857-873.

Allegrini, J. (2024). “Hospitality” Delegitimised by International Humanitarianism: When Mayors “Take Back Control” of the Political Economy of Solidarity in Lebanese Municipalities Receiving Displaced Syrians. *International Migration and Integration*. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12134-024-01165-6

Ataç, I., Rygiel, K., & Stierl, M. (2016). Introduction: The contentious politics of refugee and migrant protest and solidarity movements: Remaking citizenship from the margins. *Citizenship Studies, 20*(5), 527-544.

Bartels, I. (2017). ‘We must do it gently.’ The contested implementation of the IOM’s migration management in Morocco. *Migration Studies, 5*(3), 315-336.

Bauder, H. (2021). Urban solidarity: Perspectives of migration and refugee accommodation and inclusion. *Critical Sociology, 47*(6), 875-889.

Bauder, H., & Juffs, L. (2020). ‘Solidarity’ in the migration and refugee literature: Analysis of a concept. *Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 46*(1), 46-65.

Baudier, J., Masson-Diez, É., & Spire, A. (2023). S’opposer, collaborer, concéder. À Avignon, une association d’accueil des migrants aux prises avec les acteurs institutionnels. *Migrations Sociétés, 4*, 103-118.

Berthomière, W., & Imbert, C. (2020). Quand s’engager ancre et s’ancrer «engage»: Les voies plurielles de l’autochtonie au sein des réseaux d’aide aux exilés en Ariège. *L’Espace Politique. Revue en ligne de géographie politique et de géopolitique*, (38).

Betts, A. (2021). *The wealth of refugees: How displaced people can build economies*. Oxford University Press.

Bolzoni, M., Donatiello, D., & Giannetto, L. (2023). The dark side of solidarity: Ambivalences and double standards in the Ukrainian refugee crisis in Italy. *Partecipazione e Conflitto, 16*, 451-469.

Brenner, N. (2004). *New state spaces: Urban governance and the rescaling of statehood*. OUP Oxford.

Cantat, C., Sevinin, E., Maczynska, E., & Birey, T. (2019). *Challenging the political across borders: Migrants' and solidarity struggles*. Central European University.

Caponio, T. (2018). Immigrant integration beyond national policies? Italian cities’ participation in European city networks. *Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 44*(12), 2053-2069.

Cox, K. (1998). Spaces of dependence, spaces of engagement and the politics of scale, or: looking for local politics. *Political Geography, 17*(1), 1-23.

Cuttitta, P. (2018). Delocalization, humanitarianism, and human rights: The Mediterranean border between exclusion and inclusion. *Antipode* 50, n 3, pp. 783-803. https://doi.org/10.1111/anti.12337.

Darling, J. (2014). Asylum and the post-political: Domopolitics, depoliticisation and acts of citizenship. *Antipode, 46*(1), 72-91.
Darling, J. (2022). The politics of discretion: Authority and influence in asylum dispersal. *Political Geography*, 94, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.polgeo.2021.102560

Death, C. (2010). Counter-conducts: A Foucauldian Analytics of Protest. *Social Movement Studies*, 9(3), 235–235.

Della Porta, D., & Steinhilper, E. (2021). Introduction: Solidarities in motion: Hybridity and change in migrant support practices. *Critical Sociology*, 47(2), 175–185.

Desille, A. (2022). Local immigrant policies in Israel: The paradox of autonomy. *Territory, Politics, Governance*, 1–21.

Desille, A., & Lacroix, T. (2024). City diplomacy of ordinary cities: Harnessing migrant inclusion policies for international engagement in Amadora, Portugal. *Governance*, 38(1), e12864.

Filomeno, F. A. (2016). *Theories of local immigration policy*. Springer.

Fortarezza, F. (2023). ‘They do what institutions should do’: Border solidarity in the light of an institutional crisis. *Partecipazione e Conflitto*, 16(3), 490–509.

Fourot, A. C., Healy, A., & Flamant, A. (2021). French participation in transnational migration networks: Understanding city (dis) involvement and “passivism.” *Local Government Studies*, 48(6), 1152–1174.

Gazzotti, L. (2018). Local governance, civil society and migrants’ support to local development: Perspectives from Morocco. In T. Lacroix, & A. Desille (Eds.), *International Migrations and Local Governance: A Global Perspective*, (pp. 79–96). Palgrave McMillan.

Glick Schiller, N., & Caglar, A. (Eds.). (2010). *Locating migration: Rescaling cities and migrants*. Cornell University Press.

Gnes, D. (2018). *Beyond immigrant ethnic politics?: Organizational innovation, collaboration and competition in the Los Angeles immigrant rights movement (1980–2015)*. PhD thesis, Amsterdam.

Good, K. (2009). *Municipalities and multiculturalism: The politics of immigration in Toronto and Vancouver* (Vol. 34). University of Toronto Press.

Gourdeau, C., & Diez, E. M. (2023). De Paris à Ouistreham. Les effets de la dimension locale sur les pratiques d'engagement, Localacc Working Papers series n°11, Institut Convergences Migrations. https://www.icmigrations.cnrs.fr/recherche/les-projets/localacc-working-papers/

Harvey, D. (2008). The right to the city. *New Left Review*, 53, 23–40.

Herod, A. (2011). *Scale*. Routledge.

Ion, J. (1997). *La fin des militants ? Enjeux de société*. Editions de l'Atelier.

Isin, E. F., & Nielsen, G. M. (Eds.). (2008). *Acts of citizenship*. Bloomsbury Publishing.

Khalaf, R. M. (2016). Governing Rojava: Layers of Legitimacy in Syria. Url: https://policycommons.net/artifacts/613664/governing-rojava/1593710/

Kobelinsky, C., & Furri, F. (2024). Towards a new kinship? Affective engagements with migrants dead in the Mediterranean. *Interventions*, 26(1), 91–107.

Lacomba, C. (2021). Bridging city environments: A contextual approach to the mobilisation of immigrant groups. *Urban Studies*, 58(9), 1940–1956.

Lacroix, T. (2023). *The Transnational Society: A Social Theory of Cross Border Linkages*. Springer Link.

Lacroix, T., Furri, F., & Hombert, L. (2022). International migration and the rise of urban militant networks in the Mediterranean. *Frontiers in Political Science*, 4. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpos.2022.887519

Lacroix, T., & Spencer, S. (2022). City networks and the multi-level governance of migration. *Global Networks*, 22(3), 349–362.

Lan, S. (2015). State regulation of undocumented African migrants in China: A multi-scalar analysis. *Journal of Asian and African Studies*, 50(3), 289–304.

Landau, L. B. (2018). Conclusion: Archipelagos and estuaries: Mobility, local authorities and the governance of multiple elsewheres. In T. Lacroix, & A. Desille (Eds.), *International Migrations and Local Governance: A Global Perspective*, (pp. 215–231). Palgrave McMillan.

Lecadet, C. (2018). Post-deportation movements: Forms and conditions of the struggle amongst self-organising expelled migrants in Mali and Togo. In S. Khosravi (Ed.), *After deportation: Ethnographic perspectives* (pp. 187–204). Springer International Publishing.

Lelévrier, C., Arfaoui, R., Thiéblemont-Dollet, S., Flamant, A., & Fouraut, A. C. (2023). Les réseaux locaux de l'accueil: Trajectoires et capital réticulaire des soutiens de la cause des personnes exilées. L'accueil des migrants dans les localités de France et d'ailleurs.

Maestri, G., & Hughes, S. M. (2017). Contested spaces of citizenship: Camps, borders and urban encounters. *Citizenship Studies*, 21(6), 625–639. https://doi.org/10.1080/13621025.2017.1341657

Magazzini, T., & Desille, A. (2023). In Solidarity: Ma (r) king and rescaling solidarity boundaries towards migrants. *Partecipazione e Conflitto*, 3(16), 402–413.
Mallet-Garcia, M. L., & Garcia, E. (2025). Building bridges in a sanctuary city: Pan-ethnic identity among precarious latino immigrants. *International Migration and Integration*. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12134-024-01216-y

McCann, E., & Ward, K. (2013). A multi-disciplinary approach to policy transfer research: Geographies, assemblages, mobilities and mutations. *Policy Studies, 34*(1), 2–18.

Mourão Permoser, J., & Bauböck, R. (2023). Spheres of sanctuary: Introduction to special issue. *Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 49*(14), 3549–3565.

Ng, I. (2024). Just around the corner: How Cross-ethnic Solidarity is established between locals and the Asylum-seekers and refugees in a local NGO. *Journal of International Migration and Integration*. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12134-024-01166-5

Nyers, P. (2010). No One is Illegal Between City and Nation. *Studies in Social Justice, 4*(2), 127–143.

Ong, A. (2006). *Neoliberalism as exception*. Duke University Press.

Oomen, B. (2020). Decoupling and teaming up: The rise and proliferation of transnational municipal networks in the field of migration. *International Migration Review, 54*(3), 913–939.

Pagogna, R., & Sakdapolrak, P. (2021). Disciplining migration aspirations through migration-information campaigns: A systematic review of the literature. *Geography Compass, 15*(7). https://doi.org/10.1111/gec3.12585

Paugam, S. (2011). *Repenser la solidarité: Les apports des sciences sociales*. Presses universitaires de France.

Peruzzi Castellani, B. (2023). From disaster solidarity to “multicultural conviviality”. Risks and opportunities for migrants in Japan after the Great Hanshin Earthquake. *Partecipazione e Conflitto, 16*(3), 531–546.

Robertson, R. (1997). Glocalization: Time-space and homogeneity-heterogeneity. *Global Modernities, 2*(1), 25–44.

Rygiel, K. (2011). Bordering solidarities: Migrant activism and the politics of movement and camps at Calais. *Citizenship Studies, 15*(01), 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1080/13621025.2011.534911

Scott, J. C. (2009). *The art of not being governed: An anarchist history of upland Southeast Asia*. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

Swyngedouw, E. (1997). Glocalization and the politics of scale. In K. Cox (Ed) *Globalization: Reasserting the Power of the Local*, (pp.137–166). New York: Guilford.

Tabar, P. (2016). The Lebanese diasporic field: the impact of sending and receiving states. *Immigrants and Minorities, 34*(3), 256–275. https://doi.org/10.1080/02619288.2016.1191358

Tarumoto, H. (2018). The limits of local citizenship policies in Japan. In T. Lacroix, & A. Desille (Eds.), *International Migrations and Local Governance: A Global Perspective*, (pp. 191–213). Palgrave McMillan.

Trucco, D. (2023). The criminalization of border solidarity and the law as a double-edged weapon. *Partecipazione e Conflitto, 16*(3), 470–489.

Trucco, D. (2025). “Good must be done well”: Solidarity, (dis)obedience and (de)politicization within a church-based sheltering experience at the French-Italian Border. *Journal of International Migration and Integration*.

Turner, J. (2016). (En)gendering the political: Citizenship from marginal spaces. *Citizenship Studies, 20*(2), 141–155. https://doi.org/10.1080/13621025.2015.1132569

Varsanyi, M. W. (2008). Rescaling the “alien,” rescaling personhood: Neoliberalism, immigration, and the state. *Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 98*(4), 877–896.

Vincent-Mory, C. (2018). Migrant organizations and local government cooperation for development programmes: A comparative analysis of two competing local authorities in Lyon, France. In T. Lacroix, & A. Desille (Eds.), *International Migrations and Local Governance*, (pp. 111–129). London; New York: Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-65996-1_7.

Walker, K. E., & Leitner, H. (2011). The variegated landscape of local immigration policies in the United States. *Urban Geography, 32*(2), 156–178.

Yuval-Davis, N. (1999). The ‘multi-layered citizen.’ *International Feminist Journal of Politics, 1*(1), 119–136.

Zakariás, I., Feischmidt, M., Gerő, M. et al. (2023). Solidarity with displaced people from Ukraine in Hungary: Attitudes and practices. *International Migration and Integration*. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12134-023-01096-8

Zapata-Barrero, R., Caponio, T., & Scholten, P. (2017). Theorizing the ‘local turn’ in a multi-level governance framework of analysis: A case study in immigrant policies. *International Review of Administrative Sciences, 83*(2), 241–246.