Networking and Place-based Resistance against the Deportation Centre at the International Airport of Berlin through a Civil Society Lens

Networking and Place-based Resistance against the Deportation Centre at the International Airport of Berlin through a Civil Society Lens Authors: Per Jannis Spix & Matthias Cano Urbanke A chapter from: Schmiz, A., & Lehmann, S. (Eds.) (2025). Geographies of the European Border Regime. How borders shape the everyday lives of refugees and asylum-seekers. Berlin Geographical Papers, 56. https://doi.org/10.17169/refubium-48773 Institute of Geographical Sciences Freie Universität Berlin 2025 Contact Freie Universität Berlin Department of Earth Sciences Working Group 'Society, Space and Gender' Malteserstr. 74-100 D-12249 Berlin https://www.geo.fu-berlin.de/geog/fachrichtungen/anthrogeog/index.html This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License. DOI: hUps://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.17466456 Citation suggestion: Spix, P. J., & Urbanke, M. C. (2025). Networking and Place-based Resistance against the Deportation Centre at the International Airport of Berlin through a Civil Society Lens. Berlin Geographical Papers, 56, 45–61. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.17466456 Published in: Schmiz, A., & Lehmann, S. (Eds.) (2025). Geographies of the European Border Regime. How borders shape the everyday lives of refugees and asylum-seekers. Berlin Geographical Papers, 56. https://doi.org/10.17169/refubium-48773 45 Per Jannis Spix & Matthias Cano Urbanke Networking and Place-based Resistance against the Deportation Centre at the International Airport of Berlin through a Civil Society Lens Abstract: This paper contributes to migration studies and social movement research by highlighting the tensions between grassroots resistance and the institutionalised border regime. It examines the resistance movement against the planned Berlin Brandenburg Airport (BER) Deportation Centre with a particular focus on the Abschiebezentrum BER verhindern! protest camp, which was held in 2023, and which represents a crystallisation point of activist groups, NGOs and local stakeholders. The BER Deportation Centre is a key site within the evolving German (and European) border regime as it embodies a broader political shift towards increasingly restrictive migration policies. Drawing on semi-structured interviews, participatory observation and document analysis, we investigate the interventions of the camp, its central aims, its role as a temporary resistance movement and its discursive positioning within the contemporary debate on migration and related struggles in this context. Our findings suggest that while the initiative effectively mobilised public attention and facilitated a safe-space for exchange, skill sharing and reflection, it struggled to maintain long-term cohesion as a movement as well as consistent or long-term political influence. Applying a theoretical framework grounded in social movement research, place-based resistance and abolitionist perspectives, we argue that the initiative meets key criteria of a social movement but remains limited in sustaining its efforts due to the increasing criminalisation of activism and the shifting political discourse on migration. This study further contextualises such resistance within the post-2015 transformation of German asylum policies, emphasising the securitisation of migration and the retreat from the so-called ‘Welcome Culture’. While the initiative’s impact remains significant in terms of raising awareness and exposing systemic injustices, its inability to prevent the construction of the BER Deportation Centre underscores the structural challenges facing contemporary migration activism in Germany. 1 Introduction The planned Berlin-Brandenburg Airport (BER) Deportation Centre (Gemeinsames Ein-und Ausreisezentrum am BER) is intended to serve as an integral focus facility for the contemporary policies of the German and European border regime. This centre represents a contested space in migration politics in the wider context of a continuous shift toward rightwing narratives of migration and asylum as well as emerging resistance against this development. Since its conceptualisation in 2018 and subsequent execution of the BER Deportation Centre (BER DC), it has received increasingly negative public attention, in part due to growing opposition from diverse social actors. The initiative Abschiebezentrum BER verhindern! (Engl.: Prevent the BER Deportation Centre) was founded in December 2021, shortly after the announcement of the DC’s planning process in the federal parliament of 46 Brandenburg. The initiative has since been a main actor of opposition against deportation practices and infrastructure in the Berlin/Brandenburg region. As a conglomerate of a wide variety of different stakeholders, local activist groups and (inter)national non-profit organisations (NGOs), the initiative has facilitated a loose network of actors whose activities of resistance culminated in a week-long protest camp in June 2023, which took place near the BER International Airport in Schönefeld, Brandenburg. We consider this physical manifestation of resistance to be a central moment of cohesion between the diverse members of the initiative, which resulted in a variety of collaborations and direct actions against the ‘Fortress Europe’. Nevertheless, the development of the deportation centre has not been obstructed, and the initiative appears to have lost momentum. In conceptualising our research project, we identify the following knowledge gaps in this context: What was achieved over the course of this initiative’s protest efforts, and what are resulting perspectives for more just and human rights-based migration policies in Germany? Furthermore, especially with regard to the ‘Welcome Culture’ often cited as emerging from the ‘long summer of migration’ in 2015 (Hess et al. 2016): What does the inside perspective of activists show us about the development of public discourse on this subject? Adopting an initial orientation around these research questions, we seek to establish a more complete understanding of how democratic and critical spaces for migrant activists and solidarity activism are affected by these and similar protests. These questions guide us throughout the preparation of this study, during the interviews as well as when writing and analysing our results. The following paper summarises our conclusions regarding the formation and long-term collaboration of the resistance against the BER DC, drawing on semi-structured interviews, participatory observation during field visits as well as the initiatives’ online presence and a variety of relevant theoretical concepts. When beginning this project, we were especially interested in the exact innerworkings, best-practices and successes of the initiative. However, during our process we realised that ethical considerations regarding the impact of such publication on the work of the initiative prevented us from publishing our findings in full length. Consequently, we decided to focus our research on those aspects that didn’t risk impeding the initiative’s work while still adding to the body of knowledge of migration studies, social movement research and research on the European and German border regime. From the many insights we gained during our research project, the present paper will narrow the two previously introduced research questions to focus specifically on two aspects: First, we pose the question whether the initiative, as a temporal conglomerate of several individual activist groups, NGOs and other actors, can be defined as a social movement. Second, the paper aims to elucidate how the shift in attitudes over the past decade has affected the work of such solidarity or resistance initiatives, especially in the face of growing hostility towards asylum seekers, migrants and their allies. Given the limited scope of the paper as well as ethical considerations, the present work will focus on these aspects, although we emphasise that this contested field of potential research topics offers many more insights that could be explored in future studies. 47 In this paper, we will first explore relevant theoretical concepts, as well as introduce the general context of the case. We then present the findings of our own research in relation to relevant theory in order to derive case-specific insights. Finally, we reflect on the limitations of the present study and suggest prospects for future research. 2 Theoretical framework The given topic is embedded in a wider academic discourse on restrictive migration policy and deportation facilities, centring first around the connected themes of infrastructure, discourse and political influence (Borelli 2023). A second theoretical consideration is on what constitutes a contemporary social movement (Nicholls 2007) and its place-based manifestations of resistance (Dirlik 1999). We decided to flank this with perspectives on the contemporary development towards more fluid, adaptable forms of activism in response to above mentioned repression (Rosenberger et al. 2018) as well as abolitionist frameworks in the face of increasingly restrictive state policies (Gilmore 2020). Borelli (2023, 458) proposes the perspective of three different types of contemporary deportation infrastructure, of which one is the airport. This is especially relevant for our case study, as the BER Deportation Centre will be located inside the logistic infrastructure of an international airport. This overlap of deportation and transportation infrastructure creates a unique legal and logistical situation that allows for fast-tracking the denial of asylum and connects these systems to exceptional transit practices, as observed also in Austria (Küffner 2022, 104). Placing the detainees’ cases away from more publicly accessible infrastructure can serve to inhibit potential public scrutiny as well as prevent easier access to legal support that subjects of detention and deportation might be eligible to, according to Borelli’s analysis (Borelli 2023). This distinct strategy reinforces migration deterrence policies and drastically restricts migrants’ access to much-needed resources. While the contributions presented above provide a better understanding of the infrastructure involved in deportation practices, Nicholls (2007) provides the foundation for our analysis of ‘resistance movements’. The author generally defines a resistance movement as a collective form of contentious politics with the goal of achieving political goals through non-traditional means. More precisely, such a movement is collective in how it combines and channels the abilities of its constituent parts towards a shared goal; it is contentious in how it conflicts with other, usually mainstream, beliefs and practices, and finally; it is political in how its goal involves a political change and involves a political entity of governance in one form or another (Nicholls 2007, 31). This definition is relevant for our work as it extends the framework of analysis beyond central actors like political parties or individuals and clarifies the interplay between media, public opinion and protest. Moreover, classifying an initiative as a movement explains its persistence beyond elections and how mobilisation evolves through networks, counter-movements and shifting contexts (Rucht 2018, pp. 225). Additionally, we adopt the definition of Rosenberger et al. (2018) of a social movement which consists of two elements, as movements emerge ‘in reaction to particular issues’, as emphasised by Tazreiter (2010, 204) and encompass ‘sustained and intentional efforts’ to 48 achieve legal or social change, as highlighted by Jasper (2014, 5). Rosenberger et al. (2018, pp. 91) distinguish between (1) ‘Self-Interest Versus Solidarity Protest’, (2) ‘Aspiring Political Claims Versus Individual Enforcement Solutions’ and (3) ‘Local, National or Transnational Protest’, a distinction which guides our interview structures. This means that in order to classify protests, it is important to identify 1. whether a person protests against their own deportation or whether a group of people protests for an affected person or group, 2. whether the protest is intended to change political policies and practices or to prohibit the actual deportation of one person, 3. which perspective is brought into place. Centemeri (2017) elaborates on a more specific account on the place-based resistance movements in her case study of the civil opposition against the Malpensa Airport extension in Milano. In her example, she shows how local initiatives that resist distinct infrastructure projects can widen their perspective on global trends and issues to include, for instance, climate crisis and racism as manifested in border regimes or global exploitation along the value chain. In the case of the resistance against the BER DC, the critique on the construction and the whereabouts of the centre as a specific local phenomenon is linked to a critique of the ‘Fortress Europe’, of global exploitation and of racist practices within EU internal politics. In this line of thinking, we emphasise that no matter how local the protest, it is linked to a global phenomenon, and no matter how abstract the issue, it manifests locally. Furthermore, this understanding of resistance challenges material manifestations of state power and sees space not only as a physical location, but rather as a contested sphere of the political (Dirlik 1999). Our understanding of the relevance of local, and often marginalised, place-based resistance is extended by Gilmore’s (2020) concept of ‘pop-up universities’ in their function as spaces of political education and skill-sharing, and in their contextualisation as local struggles that are embedded within wider, globally relevant discourses such as colonialism and the ‘Fortress Europe’. From this perspective, we view the protest camp as an intervention through the lens of a pop-up university. Furthermore, Gilmore’s (2020) abolitionist framework serves to understand how resistance movements might not only oppose a specific project, such as the construction of a singular deportation centre, but rather may question the overall system of restrictive border regimes beyond their physical manifestations, challenging the notion of deportation in general. In the long term or as overall objective, abolitionist theories question an understanding of the current criminal justice system as given and eternal, focusing instead on community-based approaches of justice under humane and just conditions. The ambivalence that lies in a more progressive approach grounded in community-based justice can be grasped through Bimji’s (2020, 247) observations on the internal contradictions of migrant solidarity networks, as eventually certain hierarchies and divisions emerge even within solidarity networks that advocate for an explicitly anti-discriminatory position. 49 Resistance movements might struggle with internal tensions around questions like ‘Who speaks for whom?’ or whether migrants themselves are in charge or the local activists that advocate for them. These chosen theoretical concepts facilitate a differentiated engagement with the complex research topic of resistance against state violence and allow for a representation of a variety of perspectives of different actors involved. These include individual activists, organisations as well as media collectives who publish (write, film, etc.) anonymously. This promotes an understanding of resistance as very local and at the same time highly influenced by global conditions and events. To account for the diversity of protest and resistance moments, we draw on impressions from a wide range of theory in order to engage with our research topic. 3 Context The 2015 ‘long summer of migration’ (LSM) marked a culmination point in pro-refugee sentiments in Germany. Following the widespread acknowledgement of the inhumane living conditions of people on the move along the ‘Balkan Route’, Syrians were allowed to move towards Austria and Germany. Beyond that, a popular movement consisting of individuals, civil advocacy groups and organisations welcomed people arriving at train stations, helped by housing people on the move, formed networks and created a social, grass-roots response to the challenge of state failure. All this is commonly summarised as a so-called ‘Welcome Culture’. German society was mobilised in grassroots initiatives, volunteer networks and NGO efforts to such an extent that this was termed a temporary ‘refugee solidarity movement’ (Merhaut et al. 2018). While civil society proceeded with outstanding engagement, this political openness was only short lived. Political and discursive pressure from so-called conservative or especially rightwing parties soon dominated media discourse, a standpoint that was underpinned by an unequal coverage of legal violations by refugees (Mediendienst Integration 2021, 4; 2023). Politically relevant actors, for instance from the conservative party (Christian Democratic Union/Christian Social Union, CDU/CSU) instrumentalised public perception to further establish law and order practices, thus rewinding the then so short LSM. Generally, this shift can be summarised as a movement away from humanitarian and human rights concerns towards an increased securitisation of migration management (Weima/Hyndman 2019). In Germany, this shift was solidified by the Minister of the Interior at the time, Horst Seehofer (CSU), in his ‘Masterplan Migration’ (Bundesministerium für Inneres, Bau und Heimat [BMI] 2018), which institutionalised such restrictive policies and paved the way for physical manifestations of this new border regime. Among these manifestations was also the so-called ‘European lighthouse project’ of the BER DC. Besides this conservative call for repression, it was Chancellor Scholz’ (Social Democratic Party, SPD) claim ‘to finally deport on a large scale’ (Hickmann/Kurbjuweit 2023) that further promoted the social rejection of people on the move. 50 The BER DC which from the very beginning was conceived of as a pilot project to gain experience in the emerging field of anti-migration infrastructure, was considered a central, systemic component of such anti-solidarity or anti-migration governance (Frag den Staat 2018). Like other European projects, the centre was justified by state representatives to ‘streamline deportation procedures’ and ‘increase efficiency’, as the new facility would triple the number of detainees that could be processed at the same time (Bundesministerium für Inneres, für Bau und Heimat [BMI] 2021). Shortly after the national and local states’ Ministers of the Interior announced the project in October 2021, the counter-initiative Abschiebezentrum BER verhindern! (Engl.: Prevent the BER Deportation Centre!) was founded in December 2021, consisting of a variety of stakeholders with diverse backgrounds, such as local activist groups, refugee organisations and both national and international NGOs. The initiative's actions include independent researching on the investors and the obscure procurement of contracts, publishing about stakeholder misconduct, generating petitions, organising (online-)protests and cultivating an increased visibility of the project in general. Through these multiple resistance strategies, the formerly loosely affiliated members of the initiative increasingly collaborated more closely. This cohesion culminated in the 2023 ‘Prevent the Deportation Centre’ protest camp (Initiative Abschiebezentrum BER verhindern! 2024). The weeklong camp has been portrayed by its participants as a great success, as it further increased the visibility of the issue by wide media coverage, attracted a variety of relevant actors, such as politicians, and served as a ground for networking, skill-sharing and awareness-raising among the camp participants (I#1; I#2). 4 Methodology and positionality Our study builds on semi-structured interviews (Hay/Cope 2021, 158), balancing a structured approach with enough flexibility for conversations to evolve naturally. This allowed interviewees to steer discussions toward their own experiences and highlight their own perspectives. We considered this to be a balance between accommodating our own research interests and the interests of our interview partners. The general interview guideline was adapted to the interviewee’s positionality, if known or communicated ahead of time. The creation of this guideline was inspired by Zapata-Barrero and Yalaz’s (2018) considerations on qualitative research in migration studies and the relevance of tailor-made interviews in order ‘to unravel the “multi-layered links of global connectivity”’ (Zapata-Barrero/Yalaz 2018, 171). Alongside this process of data collection, we engaged with a range of literature to establish a theoretical foundation and compare our findings with related case studies. We also supplemented our research with media coverage and the initiative’s own publications, including flyers, online articles, social media material for sharing and social media accounts. These included the material available through the initiative’s website as well as from Instagram accounts like @abolish.deportation.prison.ber, @stopdeportationcentreber and @ihrseidkeinesicherheit. Additionally, we conducted participatory observations at community events, demonstrations as well as the actual location at the BER international 57 though decentral protest was carried out afterwards on the same topic in Potsdam (Süddeutsche Zeitung 2024) and Heidelberg (Kommunalinfo Mannheim 2024) and different modes of online publishing were being used (Kontrapolis 2024; Frag den Staat 2024), the scope of collaboration never matched that of the protest camp again. Despite its initial impact, the absence of continued large-scale mobilisation underscores a common challenge in contemporary resistance, suggesting a relevant difficulty in maintaining momentum under increasingly restrictive political conditions, for example, when facing the increased criminalisation of activists. One of the key takeaways from this research is the importance of specifically place-based resistance in shaping protest dynamics. The movement analysed here was not only ideologically grounded but also deeply tied to the specific geographical and infrastructural realities of the BER DC. This can be connected with Dirlik’s (1999) assertion that place-based movements contest global power structures from specific localities, which is explored and further expanded upon in Centemeri’s (2017) study. The protest camp in particular functioned as a temporary site of resistance, similarly to Gilmore’s (2020) concept of pop-up universities, where activists engaged in knowledge-sharing, strategic planning and abolitionist discourse in local settings. However, while this approach at the BER DC facilitated short-term mobilisation and solidarity-building in this context, such efforts did not translate into lasting structural opposition, nor prevent the further planning and physical manifestation of the DC infrastructure. In this vein, the resistance initiatives’ lack of lasting potential runs parallel to a shift in current political climate away from solidarity practices, which includes a decline both in public support and in the capacities of individual involved actors to establish and uphold a consistent movement. Nevertheless, we emphasise that the initiative succeeded in influencing popular and media discourse, especially at the time of the protest camp and on a local scale as pertaining to the specific site of the DC, which in turn widened the protests’ scope of visibility. Shifting political and public discourse on migration is identified as playing a crucial role in shaping not only the protest’s longevity but also its effectiveness. Over the past decade, the public debate on migration has transitioned from a discourse of humanitarianism to securitisation, fuelled by populist rhetoric and right-wing policy shifts (I#2). This has forced activists to adapt their mobilisation strategies, as direct solidarity efforts were perceived as no longer sufficient in generating public attention and support. Instead, activist efforts felt they had to frame their resistance around exposing corruption and systemic injustices (I#1). Despite these adaptations, mobilisations struggled to maintain their scale and urgency beyond the protest camp event itself. In conclusion, the BER DC resistance initiative highlights both key strengths and limitations of contemporary resistance movements. While place-based activism can generate strong temporary and spatially focused mobilisation and collaboration, its longevity depends on sustained collaboration, strategic adaptability and broader institutional alliances. Future research could examine how decentralised and fluid activist models can be transformed into lasting movements and seek to explore ways to counteract the increasing political and legal 58 pressures that hinder long-term resistance efforts. While the present research enables an insight into the contemporary condition of the resistance against the BER DC, our inhibited access to interview partners due to a growing hostility against activists and therefore their growing perception of threat, as well as the limited timeframe of a student research project, have restricted a more elaborate and profound engagement with the field in relation to our theoretical framework and its wider sphere of relevant perspectives. Future research could make use of a longer or more sustainable temporal engagement to build dedicated and deeper relationships, in order to gain further trust and thus access a wider range of perspectives and experiences. Furthermore, the scope of study could be widened to include a wider variety of theoretical perspectives or even engage in a comparative analysis with similar cases within the European border regime. 59 References Bhimji, F. (2020). Border Regimes, Racialisation Processes and Resistance in Germany: An Ethnographic Study of Protest and Solidarity (1st ed.). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-49320-2 Borrelli, L. M. (2023). Situated sites of migration control: Swiss deportation practices and their relational materiality in prisons, hospitals, and airports. Geographica Helvetica, 78(3), 453–465. https://doi.org/10.5194/gh-78-453-2023 Bundesministerium für Inneres, für Bau und Heimat [BMI] (2018). Masterplan Migration - Maßnahmen zur Ordnung, Steuerung und Begrenzung der Zuwanderung. https://www.bmi.bund.de/SharedDocs/downloads/DE/veroeffentlichungen/theme n/migration/masterplan-migration.pdf?__blob=publicationFile&v=5 Bundesministerium für Inneres, für Bau und Heimat [BMI] (2021). Meldung - Migration. Gemeinsames Einund Ausreisezentrum am Flughafen Berlin Brandenburg. https://www.bmi.bund.de/SharedDocs/kurzmeldungen/DE/2021/09/ber-einausreise.html Centemeri, L. (2017). From Public Participation to Place-Based Resistance. Environmental Critique and Modes of Valuation in the Struggles against the Expansion of the Malpensa Airport. Historical Social Research / Historische Sozialforschung, 42(3 (161)), 97–122. http://www.jstor.org/stable/44425364 Dirlik, A. (1999). Place-Based Imagination: Globalism and the Politics of Place. Review (Fernand Braudel Center), 22(2), 151–187. http://www.jstor.org/stable/40241454 Frag den Staat (2018). Der sogenannte Masterplan Migration des Innenministeriums. https://fragdenstaat.de/artikel/exklusiv/2018/07/sog-masterplan-bmi/#rueckkehr Frag den Staat (2022). Abschiebezentrum am Flughafen BER - Ein vorbestrafter Investor für Seehofers Vermächtnis. https://fragdenstaat.de/artikel/exklusiv/2022/08/berabschiebezentrum/ Frag den Staat (2024). BER Abschiebezentrum - Der Flughafen aller Probleme. https://fragdenstaat.de/artikel/exklusiv/2024/07/der-flughafen-aller-probleme/ Gilmore, R. W. (2020). Geographies of Racial Capitalism with Ruth Wilson Gilmore – An Antipode Foundation film. [VIDEO] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2CS627aKrJI Hadj Abdou, L., & Rosenberger, S. (2019). Contesting the deportation state? Political change aspirations in protests against forced returns. Ethnic and Racial Studies, 42(16), 102–119. https://doi.org/10.1080/01419870.2018.1562194 Häußler, Maria (2023). Protestcamp am BER will Abschiebezentrum verhindern: „Migration ist brutal“. Berliner Zeitung. https://www.berliner-zeitung.de/menschmetropole/protestcamp-am-ber-will-abschiebezentrum-verhindern-migration-istbrutal-li.355326 Hay, I., & Cope, M. (2021). Qualitative research methods in human geography (5th ed.). Oxford University Press. Hess, S., Kasparek, B., Kron, S., Rodatz, M., Schwertl, M., & Sontowski, S. (2016). Grenzregime III. Der lange Sommer der Migration. Assoziation A. Hickmann, C. and Kurbjuweit, D. (2023). Scholz und die Flüchtlingspolitik: Wir müssen endlich im großen Stile abschieben. Der Spiegel. https://www.spiegel.de/politik/deutschland/olaf-scholz-ueber-migration-eskommen-zu-viele-a-2d86d2ac-e55a-4b8f-9766-c7060c2dc38a?context=issue 60 Kommunalinfo Mannheim (2024). Protest gegen Rassismus – Aktion der Interventionistischen Linken am Wohnhaus eines „Profiteurs der Abschiebeindustrie“. https://kommunalinfo-mannheim.de/2024/06/28/protestgegen-rassismus-aktion-der-interventionistischen-linken-am-wohnhaus-einesprofiteurs-der-abschiebeindustrie/ Kontrapolis (2024). Heidelberg/Brandenburg: Outing des Abschiebeinvestors Jürgen B. Harder. https://kontrapolis.info/13429/ Küffner, C. (2022). Un/doing Deportation - Die Arbeit an der Ausreisepflicht (1st ed.). Springer Verlag. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-38107-3 Initiative Abschiebezentrum BER verhindern! (2024). Rechercheergebnisse zum geplanten Abschiebezentrum (Stand 04/24). NoBlogs. https://abschiebezentrumverhindern.noblogs.org/post/2024/04/01/rechercheerge bnisse-zum-geplanten-abschiebezentrum-stand-04-24 Leftvision (2022). BER - Bald größter Abschiebeknast Europas? [VIDEO] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qng1kldbOg4 Mediendienst Integration (2023). Wie oft nennen Medien die Herkunft von Tatverdächtigen? https://mediendienst-integration.de/desintegration/kriminalitaet.html Memarnia, S. (2023). Protestcamp gegen Abschiebungen am BER. Gegen Haft für Geflüchtete. taz, die tageszeitung. https://taz.de/Protestcamp-gegenAbschiebungen-am-BER/!5935109/ Nicholls, W. J. (2007). The Geographies of Social Movements. Geography Compass, 1(3), 607–622. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1749-8198.2007.00014.x Perspektive Online. “Wir fordern Bleiberecht für alle!“ – Interview mit der Initiative „Abschiebezentrum BER verhindern“. https://perspektive-online.net/2023/06/wirfordern-bleiberecht-fuer-alle-interview-mit-der-initiative-abschiebzentrum-berverhindern/ Rosenberger, S., Stern, V., & Merhaut, N. (2018). Protest Movements in Asylum and Deportation. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-74696-8 Rucht, D. (2018). Mobilization against refugees and asylum seekers in Germany: A social movement perspective. In S. Rosenberger, V. Stern, & N. Merhaut (Eds.), Protest movements in asylum and deportation (pp. 225–245). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-74696-8_11 Schwenken, H. (2006). Selbstorganisation und Repräsentation: MigrantInnen als politisch Handelnde. In Rechtlos, aber nicht ohne Stimme (pp. 143–172). transcript Verlag. Singelnstein, T. & Walburg C. (2021). Sollten Medien die Herkunft von Tatverdächtigen nennen? Hintergrundwissen aus der kriminologischen Forschung. Mediendienst Integration. https://mediendienstintegration.de/fileadmin/Dateien/MEDIENDIENST_Herkunftsnennung_Expertise_W alburg_Singelnstein_final.pdf Süddeutsche Zeitung (2024). Erste Landtagssitzung: Initiative protestiert am Landtag gegen Abschiebezentren. https://www.sueddeutsche.de/politik/erste-landtagssitzunginitiative-protestiert-am-landtag-gegen-abschiebezentren-dpa.urn-newsml-dpacom-20090101-241017-930-262725 Tazreiter, C. (2010). Local to Global Activism: The Movement to Protect the Rights of Refugees and Asylum Seekers. Social Movement Studies, 9(2), 201–214. https://doi.org/10.1080/14742831003603349 Weima, Y., Hyndman, J. (2019). Managing displacement: negotiating transnationalism, encampment and return. In K. Mitchell, R. Jones, & J. L. Fluri (Eds.), Handbook on 61 Critical Geographies of Migration (1st ed., pp. 30–44). Edward Elgar Publishing. https://doi.org/10.4337/9781786436030.00009 Zapata-Barrero, R. & Yalaz, E. (2018). Qualitative Research in European Migration Studies. Springer Nature. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-76861-8 Zeit Online (2023). Widerstand gegen Bau von Ausreisezentrum formiert sich. https://www.zeit.de/news/2023-06/01/protest-am-ber-abschiebepraxis-erzeugtleid