-

word throughout the collection, is interpreted from a dynamic and two- way rather than a static and one-way perspective. On one hand, having observed ‘(…), there are no irregular (or illegal) migrants, but only indi- viduals who have—in a specific space and for a specific time—an irregular (or illegal) status’ (p.216), editors advocate treating irregularity as a set of statuses that vary depending on contexts rather than an clear-cut condi- tion. In this sense, defining an individual as irregular in a country, a means of social exclusion, implicitly captures a process featured by increased or decreased vulnerability to marginalization, rather than describes a current circumstance in sharp contrast to social inclusion (Gallie, 2004; cited in Wang, 2012, p. 46). Besides, considering the process relates to ‘character of the social system’ and ‘the dynamic development of social structures’ (Byrne, 2005, p. 2; cited in Wang, 2012, p. 47), this dynamic interpretation provides an insight into the changing social institutional mechanisms in Europe, through which migrants negotiate their identities. On the other hand, irregularity is deemed as a legal status that features an interac- tive relationship between migrants and each destination country rather than characteristics of migrants per se. This interaction is embedded in Foucault’s claim that ‘irregular migrants’ is ‘an outcome of governmental practices’ (p. 69) in Chapter 4. An emphasis on two agents allows a better understanding of the nature of domination-subordination involved in the interaction