Paper short abstract:

This paper engages “mobility” and its positioning along the normal-aberrant, harmful-beneficial, and rightful-criminal conceptual spectra using data from the 2009-'10 public debate on Greece's first-ever jus soli legislative initiative.

Paper long abstract:

This paper engages "mobility" and its positioning along the normal-aberrant, harmful-beneficial, and rightful-criminal conceptual spectra using data from the 2009-'10 public debate on Greece's first-ever jus soli legislative initiative. The conversation on the country's political boundaries focused also on the issue of people crossing its physical borders-political membership was evaluated as an incentive for more arrivals; conversely, the possibility of more arrivals factored in the decision to grant political membership. I argue that conversations on seemingly technical topics, such as entry requirements or how many people Greece or Europe can "fit", reflect underlying ideological views on territory, belonging, and the crossing of national and supranational borders (evident in the differential value placed on security versus rights, for example, and with Islam emerging as a strongly invoked boundary). I place this analysis in the context of the power relation between Greece and Europe (as economic and political entity, and symbolic concept), and how this relation is re-negotiated at the advent of third-country nationals, but also shapes the latter's mobility and life chances. The debate I examine occurred a few years before the refugee "crisis", but issues such as the Dublin Regulation and the role of Frontex in guarding Greece's borders are still central. Further, the core assumptions of the 2009-'10 discourses shape and inform present discourses as well. The paper draws on parliamentary proceedings, news items, and conversations in online fora, examining the views of social actors situated along the ideological spectrum, as well as along several power-knowledge continua.