In this special issue concept of ‘Governing through crime’, is applied to current developments in migration control, and approached through the lens of ‘governing through migration control’. Building on insights from crimmigration and the emerging field of ‘border criminology’ authors discuss and analyze the way migrants’ mobility and daily lives are restricted and hindered through measures taken in areas of law other than migration law or criminal law. As such they underline the importance of interaction between criminologists, lawyers and scholars from other disciplines.

This article examines Dutch political discourse in response to the first wave of the global Covid-19 pandemic. In so doing it analyses to what extent the development and tone of this discourse is following the logic of ‘governing through migration control’. Following this logic, migration is put forward as a problem or a cause of various problematic societal developments even when there is no evidence to suggest such a thing. As a result, a harsher tone in the discourse around migration should be observed, as well as concrete measures to (further) curb the mobility of people. The article finds that, at least in this first wave of the pandemic, these specific dynamics are not obviously present in Dutch political discourse, nor in the media discourse.

In 2021, the District Court of The Hague ruled that the use of ethnicity by the Dutch Royal Police (KMar) in the context of Mobile Security Surveillance (MTV) did not violate the right to non-discrimination as protected in Article 14 of the European Convention on Human Rights. Two months after the ruling, the KMar announced that it no longer would use ethnicity as a selection criterion. Although this decision is to be welcomed, existing questions about ethnic profiling in border and migration policies have not been resolved. This contribution examines whether the use of ethnicity as a selection criterion should not always be regarded as discriminatory. In addition, it will be examined what the KMar's announcement to stop ethnic profiling means in practice in view of the increasing use of automated risk assessments at the border. This contribution, which also addresses relevant case law from the European courts, offers non-lawyers an insight into the scope of the right to non-discrimination, especially with regard to the increasing use of border technologies in Europe.

This article examines the governance of migration through the use of ‘overt interventionism’, illustrating the bordering practices that operate in everyday housing and welfare services. It argues that such interventions are manifested through two main mechanisms: the exercise of force (such as the deportation of homeless migrants) and coercion (including restricting eligibility and advocating voluntary repatriation). Using the thesis of crimmigration, it is being demonstrated how border controls are implicated in systems claiming to offer welfare support. The article explains why housing and welfare is implicated in immigration control, through a study of two seemingly disparate national contexts – the United Kingdom and the Netherlands. The main argument is that the securitization strategies used to govern migration and bordering practices more broadly are both ineffective and counter-productive, entrenching social exclusion and marginalization of migrant groups. In contrast, the article advocates a more equitable, inclusionary approach that can facilitate the emancipatory potential of services, based on the principles of citizenship rather than conditionality.