**4. Conclusions**

Despite differences in ideology, emphasis, institutional support and administrative approaches, the article highlights the similarities and differences in approaches to border control in the UK and The Netherlands. Whilst the UK adopts many features of a classic coercive state (dominated by central- and local-level state institutions and governed by technologies of surveillance), the Dutch approach is characterised by indirect coercion (administered increasingly by 'humanitarian' organisations), although underpinned by technologies of attrition. However, the underlying pressures—to reduce resources, limit immigration, control the behaviour of migrant groups, criminalise certain activities and use the agencies of state and civil society to reinforce stigma and social exclusion—are increasingly dominant in the design of welfare systems reflecting a hierarchy of human worth. Indirect coercion has become more apparent in times of crisis, with the effect of increasing dependency and vulnerability simultaneously; technologies of attrition that systematically deny noncitizens access to housing and welfare have therefore become an effective mechanism of exclusion from everyday services, and by extension, quotidian life.

The process of crimmigration implicates housing, welfare systems and other facets of civil society (including educational and healthcare settings) in everyday policing of migration. The use of crimmigration as explicit coercion (in the UK) and as a 'sensitising concept' (in The Netherlands) has potentially severe consequences for noncitizen groups (particularly for those unable to document legal status). The retrenchment of civil and social rights accompanying the extension of crimmigration control across multiple domains of social life (namely, with the introduction of accessorial liability in welfare provision and creating civil exclusions across a range of institutional contexts) has directly contributed to the growing economic and social precarity of migrant groups. For some migrants, the interaction of several systems, such as immigration, labour, welfare and housing markets, creates a reinforcing cycle of poverty that, once trapped, is difficult to escape (Dwyer et al. 2018). Found in a 'Catch-22' situation, socially excluded migrants become unable to afford housing due to low pay or no income, which in itself is a barrier to securing employment (for example, due to costs of travel) necessary to pay for accommodation (Maycock and Sheridan 2012). Migrants facing work and welfare restrictions due to their immigration status have few housing options and in extreme cases can result in homelessness and destitution (Dwyer et al. 2018; Edgar et al. 2004; Fitzpatrick et al. 2013). Engagement in 'survival crime' enhances a post-crimmigration nexus, a process that can legitimate further coercive measures. The COVID-19 pandemic has added to the desperate situation many migrant groups face, as many western democracies respond to an increase in asylum claims by (temporarily) suspending asylum protections, closing emergency relief and shelter provision and, in some instances, extending detention periods leading to the overcrowding of vulnerable adults and children in unsafe and inhumane conditions (Migration Data Portal 2021; Aal et al. 2021). The consequence of these processes is that a strategy of attrition has become more profound, leading to hierarchies of human worth as migrant groups are denied access to core services.

As a mode of social control in the welfare state context, contemporary bordering practices have served to reinforce marginalisation, dependency and destitution—processes that have intensified under a protracted state of exception which has resulted in increased use of indirect strategies of attrition, rather than direct controls through surveillance and explicit coercion. Notwithstanding these processes that render welfare providers complicit in crimmigration control through policy, the case studies presented here also demonstrate a measure of resistance reflected in the legal challenges brought against the UK Government's 'Everyone In' policy and the refusal of relief organisations and municipalities to deny essential services to unauthorised migrants in The Netherlands. Similarly, other research studies have signalled the potential of local-level, multiple, small-scale, temporary but

significant strategies to facilitate the emancipatory potential of services through resistance (Weber 2019; King 2016), representing opportunities to create inclusive settlements from within.

**Funding:** This research was funded by the ESRC, gran<sup>t</sup> number ES/V01210X/1.

**Acknowledgments:** I want to acknowledge Kim McKee of the University of Stirling, Maartje van der Woude of Leiden University, and the three anonymous referees for their invaluable feedback on this research.

**Conflicts of Interest:** The author declares no conflict of interest.
