Why do some people gain access to rights, mobility, or full membership in a country—while others are excluded? And how do labels like ‘migrant’ or ‘citizen’ affect real lives in practice?
These are just some of the pressing questions explored at the recent annual conference ‘Contested boundaries: migration and citizenship regimes in comparative perspective’, jointly convened by the EUI’s Migration Policy Centre and the Global Citizenship Observatory (GLOBALCIT) of the Global Governance Programme. To unpack the themes of this year’s conference and their broader implications, we spoke with two participating scholars: Ashley Mantha-Hollands, a Max Weber Fellow at the Global Governance Programme , and Lorenzo Piccoli, Research Fellow at the Migration Policy Centre.
What do we gain by bringing together migration and citizenship studies—and how can this help shape more coherent regimes and better policy?
Ashley: Each discipline comes with its own set of advantages and disadvantages. A lot of citizenship and migration research is inherently interconnected, so a dialogue between these two fields is somewhat necessary. It allows us to ask bigger, bolder questions using a variety of theories and methods. All of this helps to broaden our understanding and gives us a more holistic picture of how these regimes operate, which can lead to better insights.
When we talk about categories and labels in migration and citizenship—what do we really mean, and why do they matter?
Lorenzo: Considering a person as a citizen or as a migrant would be a form of categorisation at the very basic level, but in practice, there are many in-between statuses—like asylum seekers, refugees, temporary workers, or EU citizens living outside their country of origin. Each label comes with different rights, restrictions, and pathways. Research in both fields looks at how these statuses are created, what they mean in law and practice, and how they shape individual experiences.
The conference explored the ‘uneasy relationship’ between openness and closure in migration and citizenship regimes. What does that look like in reality?
Ashley: On a theoretical level, the concept of openness implies a greater degree of inclusivity, while closure suggests stricter policies, but I believe that most countries do not easily fit within this binary framework. States often adopt inclusive policies in one area and exclusionary ones in another. Citizenship and migration regimes aren’t monolithic.
Take Austria and Spain, for example. These countries are known for strict naturalisation processes (such as long residency requirements and tough language exams) yet their reparative citizenship policies—targeted at descendants of historically displaced communities—are surprisingly open. That divergence challenges the open/closed binary.
Lorenzo: Italy is another good example. While refugee protection has become more restrictive under the current government, there’s been an increase in labour migration permits—indicating greater openness in that sphere. These inconsistencies generate political controversy because they highlight the selective nature of inclusion.
Why is the selective nature of migration and citizenship policy so controversial—and what are the consequences?
Lorenzo: Because migration and citizenship policies are about choosing who gets in—and who doesn’t. These decisions always carry political weight. Exclusion is often more visible than inclusion, precisely because it sparks resistance. One example would be the process of visa liberalisation, which has occurred quite rapidly in recent years.
Ashley: I think sometimes controversy is seen as a bad thing, but political controversy can also be positive because in a way it can also help check over exclusionary policies. In the US, for example, restrictive immigration policies have triggered grassroots movements pushing for more inclusive reforms.
The conference also discussed ‘boundary mechanisms’. Can you break down what that term means?
Lorenzo: Boundary mechanisms are the way in which selectivity works, the practical tools and policies that define access—to territory, welfare, voting rights, or services. Some boundaries are legal and clear, like eligibility for a visa. Others are more subtle, like bureaucratic hurdles that make it hard to access rights even when someone qualifies.
For instance, someone might be legally eligible to vote in the US, but voter ID laws or registration barriers can prevent them from doing so. Similarly, someone may meet the criteria for a visa, but opaque and arbitrary practices in visa offices can still block their path.
Ashley: There are also new boundary mechanisms emerging—which was one of the most interesting insights I gained from this conference For example, Maxine Both, a EUI researcher, discussed immigration detention centres and shared how citizens interact with these spaces and how these interactions influence their sense of belonging and inclusion, acting as a boundary itself, and affecting their perceived experience of citizenship.
New technologies are also creating novel boundary mechanisms—like the use of AI in visa and asylum decisions.
One of the major concerns here is the opacity of this technology, there is very little transparency about how it is being used, which creates ethical issues and makes it difficult to fully understand its impact. Yet, these tools are increasingly shaping outcomes in both citizenship and migration processes.
The conference ‘Contested boundaries: migration and citizenship regimes in comparative perspective’ took place on 8-9 May 2025 and gathered 25 participants in Florence.
Learn more about the Migration Policy Centre and the Global Citizenship Observatory (GLOBALCIT).