Law, Culture, and Global Mobility: Migrant Legal Precarity and Institutional Response
Keywords:
migrant legal precarity, global mobility, legal culture, institutional response, semi-legality, qualitative research, Tehran, legal consciousness, migration law, cultural mediationAbstract
This study explored how migrant legal precarity is culturally experienced, institutionally produced, and practically negotiated in everyday encounters with legal and administrative systems in Tehran. This qualitative study used an interpretive design based on semi-structured interviews with 24 participants in Tehran, including migrant residents, legal practitioners, NGO workers, social-service staff, and cultural mediators who had direct experience with migrant legal problems. Participants were selected through purposive and snowball sampling. Interviews focused on legal status, documentation, access to institutions, cultural interpretation of law, and strategies used to manage uncertainty. Data collection continued until theoretical saturation was achieved. Interviews were audio-recorded with consent, transcribed verbatim, anonymized, and analyzed using thematic analysis. NVivo software was used to organize codes, develop categories, compare participant groups, and document analytic memos. The analysis generated four main categories: legal status as lived uncertainty, institutional fragmentation and administrative gatekeeping, cultural translation and mistrust of law, and everyday coping and informal legal mobilization. Participants described legal precarity not only as lack of secure documentation but also as an unstable social condition affecting employment, housing, education, health care, police encounters, and family decision-making. Institutional actors emphasized procedural ambiguity, limited inter-agency coordination, and lack of culturally responsive service mechanisms. Migrants frequently relied on informal networks, community intermediaries, and selective institutional engagement to reduce exposure to legal risk. Migrant legal precarity is produced through the interaction of law, institutional practice, cultural interpretation, and unequal access to legal knowledge. Effective institutional response requires clearer procedures, culturally competent communication, accessible legal aid, and coordinated service pathways that recognize migrants as rights-bearing social actors rather than merely administrative cases.
Downloads
References
Ager, A., & Strang, A. (2008). Understanding integration: A conceptual framework. Journal of Refugee Studies, 21(2), 166–191. doi:10.1093/jrs/fen016
Bosniak, L. (2006). The citizen and the alien: Dilemmas of contemporary membership. Princeton University Press.
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101. doi:10.1191/1478088706qp063oa
Castles, S., de Haas, H., & Miller, M. J. (2014). The age of migration: International population movements in the modern world (5th ed.). Palgrave Macmillan.
Coutin, S. B. (2000). Legalizing moves: Salvadoran immigrants’ struggle for U.S. residency. University of Michigan Press.
Crawley, H., & Skleparis, D. (2018). Refugees, migrants, neither, both: Categorical fetishism and the politics of bounding in Europe’s “migration crisis.” Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 44(1), 48–64. doi:10.1080/1369183X.2017.1348224
De Genova, N. P. (2002). Migrant “illegality” and deportability in everyday life. Annual Review of Anthropology, 31, 419–447. doi:10.1146/annurev.anthro.31.040402.085432
Ewick, P., & Silbey, S. S. (1998). The common place of law: Stories from everyday life. University of Chicago Press.
Goldring, L., Berinstein, C., & Bernhard, J. K. (2009). Institutionalizing precarious migratory status in Canada. Citizenship Studies, 13(3), 239–265. doi:10.1080/13621020902850643
Guest, G., Bunce, A., & Johnson, L. (2006). How many interviews are enough? An experiment with data saturation and variability. Field Methods, 18(1), 59–82. doi:10.1177/1525822X05279903
Hennink, M. M., Kaiser, B. N., & Marconi, V. C. (2017). Code saturation versus meaning saturation: How many interviews are enough? Qualitative Health Research, 27(4), 591–608. doi:10.1177/1049732316665344
International Organization for Migration. (2024). World migration report 2024. International Organization for Migration.
Kubal, A. (2013). Conceptualizing semi-legality in migration research. Law & Society Review, 47(3), 555–587. doi:10.1111/lasr.12031
Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Sage.
Menjívar, C. (2006). Liminal legality: Salvadoran and Guatemalan immigrants’ lives in the United States. American Journal of Sociology, 111(4), 999–1037. doi:10.1086/499509
Merry, S. E. (2006). Transnational human rights and local activism: Mapping the middle. American Anthropologist, 108(1), 38–51. doi:10.1525/aa.2006.108.1.38
Mountz, A. (2010). Seeking asylum: Human smuggling and bureaucracy at the border. University of Minnesota Press.
Sassen, S. (1996). Losing control? Sovereignty in an age of globalization. Columbia University Press.
United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Population Division. (2025). International migrant stock 2024. United Nations.
United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees. (2025). Global trends: Forced displacement in 2024. UNHCR.
Vertovec, S. (2007). Super-diversity and its implications. Ethnic and Racial Studies, 30(6), 1024–1054. doi:10.1080/01419870701599465
Zetter, R. (2007). More labels, fewer refugees: Remaking the refugee label in an era of globalization. Journal of Refugee Studies, 20(2), 172–192. doi:10.1093/jrs/fem011
Downloads
Published
Submitted
Revised
Accepted
Issue
Section
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
