Abstract Asylum seekers arriving in Belgium are confronted with increasing legal restrictions and criminalizing discourse. As a result, many individuals must rethink their migration projects. How do asylum seekers rationalize intrusive regulations and maintain faith in the legitimacy of the law despite experiencing setbacks? Drawing on qualitative data from interviews with 17 asylum seekers in Belgium and participant observation in a reception centre, this article demonstrates how, despite negative experiences with the law, asylum seekers continue to associate legality with promises of protection, fair treatment, and recognition. Even when the law falls short of these ideals, they employ cognitive frameworks to uphold the legitimacy of the legal system. By shedding light on the cognitive strategies that asylum seekers use to reconcile negative experiences with their normative expectations regarding legality, the article demonstrates how legal hegemony is reinforced by the perspective of the group that it disadvantages the most.
LAURA VICTORIA RAKOTOMALALA (Mon,) studied this question.