Introduction

This paper sets out a history of lusophone migration to the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg. It seeks to explore to what extent this lusophone migration pattern overlaps with colonialism, institutionally and from the perspectives of everyday interactions between lusophone migrants, at the intersection of struggles related to citizenship, race, and language. It builds on data collected between December 2021 and June 2023 within the scope of the Disentangling Postcolonial Encounters in Globalization (DisPOSEG)¹ project. DisPOSEG was a three-year ethnographic-sociolinguistic project funded by the Fonds National de la Recherche Luxembourg (FNR) at the University of Luxembourg. The project investigated lusophone postcolonial work and social interactions in Luxembourg. Because it was an ethnographic study, most of the data consists of narrative interviews, field notes, observations, and spontaneous conversations with research participants during intensive fieldwork at four sites in four employment sectors: service and retail, cleaning, construction, and lifelong learning. In those sites, most of the workers, clients, and learners were migrants from Portuguese-speaking countries (Portugal and its former colonies).

The paper fosters a critical understanding of this migration pattern in a country that is positioned in the “colonial margins” (Purtschert & Fischer-Tiné 2015) and views itself as a “colonial outsider,” claiming an outsider status or exceptionalism in what concerns colonial involvements (Purtschert, Falk & Lüthi 2016). Nonetheless, it is important to note that even though they were not seen as colonial centers, all colonial outsiders and their cities gained economic and political advantages from their connections and collaborations with the more prominent European colonial powers. In the case of Luxembourg, this was evident from military and missionary activities, trade, and efforts to establish colonial associations and careers (Moes 2012 and in this volume; Bosma & Kolnberger 2017; Tavares & Vieira 2023).

Before historicizing lusophone presences in the Grand Duchy, we need to go back to the transformation of Luxembourg’s position in the global system of mobility. Before the mid-twentieth century, Luxembourg was characterized mainly as a country of emigration. During the nineteenth century and up to World War I, many Luxembourgish emigrants set their sights on the American continent, heading in particular to the United States, Brazil, and Argentina to escape poverty and war. In addition, many in the agricultural sector moved to neighboring France due to poor living conditions locally (Wey 2003; Kollwelter 2007; Scuto 2010; Perrin 2020). Perrin (2020, 322) highlights that “more than 72,000 Luxembourgers are estimated to have left the country from 1841 to 1891 (out of a total population of 212,800 in 1891).”² Later, in the first half of the twentieth century, the Luxembourgers who migrated to the American continent, especially to Brazil, included engineers who were involved in the development of the steel industry (Hadžalić 2019). In return, that migration from Luxembourg to Brazil helped to form the most recent “route” of migration from Brazil to Luxembourg (as shown below), which today is mainly considered to be a migrant-receiving country and, with migrants making up almost half of the population, has one of the highest proportions of migrants in the world (Statec 2020).

Indeed, Luxembourg started to become a country of immigration at the end of nineteenth century, when migrants initially arrived from Germany, France, and Belgium, soon followed by those from Italy, to work in the expanding steel industry after iron mineral deposits were discovered in the country’s south (Kollwelter 2007, 2). Portuguese people constitute the largest group of the more recent migrant population in Luxembourg, which also includes migrants from other European countries and other continents. Official Statec data (from 2020) indicates that about 16% of the resident population in the Grand Duchy has a Portuguese passport. Indeed, this small state at the heart of Europe has the highest proportion of migrants with a Portuguese nationality of all European countries. However, these so-called Portuguese/lusophone migrants come not only from Portugal but also from several other Portuguese-speaking countries. This creates an interesting luso-Afro-Brazilian colonial matrix of (re)encounters between individuals who are historically linked by Portuguese colonialism.

Yet, despite a considerable body of research on different aspects of migrants’ presence in Luxembourg (such as education and entrepreneurship), there is still a dearth of studies aimed at elucidating the reality of the so-called lusophone migrant group(s). There has been little in-depth examination of relationships between groups or individuals from Portugal, as a former colonizing country, and from its former colonies of Africa, Brazil, and Asia. This is especially true in terms of the relationships developed in a “third space” (Bhabha 1994), that is, a place where ex-colonizer and ex-colonized subjects meet, sometimes with both groups finding themselves in the subaltern position of migrant. In this case, Luxembourg is a third and new space for them, where they are all in the position of migrants. To some extent, this third space is constituted by colonialism inasmuch as that the arrival of the Portuguese in the 1960s shows that colonialism was one of the origins of Portuguese-speaking migration to Luxembourg (see below).

In the following section, I explore the link between colonialism, migration, and lusofonia and discuss the terms lusofonia and lusophone. Then, in Section 3, I give a more detailed background and present some important historical moments of lusophone migration to the Grand Duchy by mapping, in time and space, the enduring tensions, entanglements, and shiftings among race/ethnicity, citizenship, and language. I conclude by discussing to what extent lusophone migration to Luxembourg has been mediated by these entanglements, tensions, and shiftings from Portuguese colonial times to the current era of globalization.

Colonialism, lusofonia, and migration entanglements

To get a grasp of the extent to which interactions and encounters in “third space” (Bhabha 1994) migration contexts can produce effects of inclusion or exclusion or perpetuate postcolonial hierarchies, this paper takes a look at “entanglement” (Nuttall 2009; Kerfoot & Hyltenstam 2017). As Nuttall (2009, 2) posits, the notion of entanglement indicates “a set of relationships that is complicated, ensnaring, in a tangle, but which also implies a human foldedness. […] It works with difference and sameness but also with their limits, their predicaments, their moments of complication.” By examining the entanglements between colonialism, mobility/migration, and “imagined communities” (Anderson 1983) that are rooted in colonial languages, we can shed light on how the past is present in what concerns rearrangements at macro state levels and between their individuals in this era of globalization marked by political turbulence and incisive “imperial nostalgia” (Faraco 2011; Cahen 2012; Stoler 2016).

Thus, it would be an oversimplification to discuss “imagined communities” such as a lusofonia, la hispanofonia, la francophonie, or the commonwealth without acknowledging colonialism, because colonialism is fundamental to these transnational imagined communities (Vigouroux 2013; Del Valle 2011; Severo 2016). These types of “x-phonies” (i.e., language-based communities and related international associations) (Tavares 2025b) reflect the persistence of linguistic ideologies tied to nationalism and imperialism. They are discursive spaces where various economic, political, and social arrangements are negotiated (Del Valle 2011, 388). They represent reconfigurations based on the shared use of European (colonial) languages —Portuguese, Spanish, French, and English—among (former) colonized and colonizer nations and peoples. These reconfigurations extend beyond mere linguistic boundaries and the confines of former colonial administrations and structures (Maldonado-Torres 2007). They also signify new conceptualizations of political, economic, cultural, and social organization since the end of formal colonization, from former colonial and colonized countries to their “diasporas” in the postcolonial period.

To some extent, these x-phonies constitute a space for the reproduction of old hierarchies in interactions between former colonizing and formerly colonized countries. This is reflected in the interactions between their subjects: in their countries of origin, and beyond when they are both migrants, as in the case of “lusophones” in Luxembourg, for example. They are reminiscent of “coloniality” (Mignolo 2005), which “refers to longstanding patterns of power that emerged as a result of colonialism, but that define culture, labor, intersubjective relations, and knowledge production well beyond the strict limits of colonial administrations” (Moldonado-Torres 2007, 243). These x-phonies often reflect colonial modes of interaction and ways of seeing or perceiving the other as superior or inferior. Several researchers consider these language-based communities to be neo-colonial projects because, at least to some extent, they are by-products of colonialism and continue to reproduce colonial power relations in the postcolonial period (Vigouroux 2013; Heller & McElhiny 2017). Concurring with these scholars, I stress here that the “semantic fuzziness” of lusofonia or lusophone “appears to have been skillfully exploited by those engaged in [its] endeavour—be they individual, states, or nations—to advance their own agendas” (Vigouroux 2013, 382).

The meaning of lusofonia or lusophone is not always agreed on, either in the academic world or in everyday life. Depending on the situation or context, it triggers different interpretations and mixed feelings when uttered. In general, the word lusophone is used in institutions to refer to Portuguese-speaking countries (where Portuguese is the official language) and their inhabitants. However, at the same time, many people who are considered to be lusophones or grouped into this broad category do not speak Portuguese and do not consider themselves to be lusophones. Certain questions can be raised from here: for example, can we say that lusofonia is mainly a construction of authoritative institutions or stakeholders and their imaginations that draws on the idea of “imagined communities,” as Anderson (1983) puts it?

From the point of view of some people who are considered to be Portuguese speakers or lusophones in Luxembourg, lusofonia or lusophone is, to quote a participant in the DisPOSEG project, “just a word for me! A word to characterize us, nothing more.” They relate the word lusofonia to festive events, because it is hard to see its relevance in their everyday life. In the context of their day-to-day difficulties, lusofonia is largely abstract. Thus, can we deduce from this that there is a certain denial of lusofonia among the population? Has lusophone culture been somewhat romanticized? At the same time, others understand that this imagined group of Portuguese speakers can be instrumentalized for administrative purposes and for getting by (for example, for networking in the context of migration). This is especially true in the sense of the value of Portuguese, which nowadays functions as an icebreaker for entering the labor market in industry sectors such as construction, cleaning, and retail, where a significant number of lusophone migrants make a living (Tavares 2025). However, it is paramount to stress that the prefix luso is problematic, because it denotes Portuguese possessions and origins, especially to colonial subjects who think critically and have more awareness and experience of the persistence of historical impacts in the present. The same goes for the suffix -phone, because not all Portuguese speakers use Portuguese in their daily life, consider it to be a big part of their identity or identify strongly with it (Lança 2008). Furthermore, one should not forget that within the assumed “community of lusophones,” there are unequal citizenships. On the one hand, there are those who hold a citizenship that gives them a worldwide “ease of movement” (Carling 2002), namely, European lusophones. On the other hand, there are those with more limited mobility, that is, non-European lusophones (Tavares 2025a).

In this paper, to frame the research, I use the adjectives lusophone or Portuguese-speaking as an “artificial model” (Abadia et al. 2018) to refer to migrants in the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg who come from countries where Portuguese is the official language—Portugal and its former colonies.

Lusophone migration to Luxembourg: its ethno-racial, citizenship, and language entanglements

Several researchers posit that lusophone migratory flow to Luxembourg began with Portuguese people trying to improve their lives by escaping the dictatorial regime of Salazar—the Estado Novo. This regime lasted from 1933 to 1974, including the period of the wars of independence of the Portuguese colonies in Africa from 1961 to 1974 (Laplanche & Vanderkam 1991; Hinger 2014). Lusophone migration is estimated to have gained ground toward the end of the 1960s. The Portuguese came to Luxembourg in the 1960s and early 1970s under labor agreements signed by Luxembourg and the (then fascist) Portuguese government to fill the vacancies left by Italian migrants who had returned to Italy or re-migrated to other European countries where they could get better salaries (Laplanche & Vanderkam 1991; Scuto 2010). Those labor agreements between the Luxembourg government and Portugal allowed the reunification of migrants with their families from the 1960s onward.

It is interesting to clarify the diversity and heterogeneity of this group of individuals originating from not only Portugal but also the former Portuguese colonies in Africa and Brazil. By applying multiple temporal lenses (albeit that some practices are more permanent/transversal than others in time and space, and sometimes overlap), we can distinguish different “routes” and temporalities related to complex (re)migration strategies and motives, from colonial Portugal and (post)colonial lusophone countries to Luxembourg. Note that here I refer to “routes” in both time and space and in terms of pursuing not only geographic mobility to Luxembourg but also social/work mobility after that.

However, before delving into the different temporalities of lusophone migration/mobility to Luxembourg as a whole, it is essential to give an overview of the different paths to accessing Luxembourgish citizenship nowadays. If one looks at the official website of the government of Luxembourg (Guichet.lu³), one reads that there are at least ten specific cases for acquiring Luxembourgish “citizenship by option.” These cases encompass three main pathways to, and principles of, Luxembourgish citizenship: (1) jus sanguinis (by descent), (2) jus solis (by birth in a territory), and (3) jus domicile (by right of residence in a territory) (cf. Bauder 2012; Vink & Bauböck 2013; Rhoads 2023). These pathways are typical across countries and continents. In Luxembourg and elsewhere, they have been loosely forefronted or combined with language competence and demands according to the political, economic, and nations-branding conveniences of time and polities, as will be shown later in this section.​

Concluding reflections: a presence rooted at the entanglements of citizenship, language and race

This paper demonstrates how luso-Afro-Brazilian presences in Luxembourg were and are mediated, both institutionally and individually, at the entanglements, tensions and shiftings between ideologies of race/ethnicity, citizenship and language, from formal Portuguese colonialism to contemporary Portuguese-speaking (re)migration to Luxembourg, including the late mobility of Brazilian Luxembourgers. For instance, from the institutional perspective, the paper shows how the idea of race and ethnicity was overtly used to determine what kind of lusophone migrants were desirable according to the Luxembourgish migration policies, without language requirements, at the early stage of lusophone migration to Luxembourg. The question of race was very incisive, to the point that Cape Verdean migration to Luxembourg was instrumentalized and racialized as part of rearrangements between the then fascist colonial Portuguese government and Luxembourg, with the latter even politically supporting the former despite the strong criticism from the UN on the former’s maintenance of its colonies in Africa. The justification of that official attempt to bar Cape Verdeans from Luxembourg suggested that black lusophone migrants would bear characteristics that were negative for good integration and social order in Luxembourg (Schiltz 2013).

In the context of colonial Portugal and its African colonies, the differentiation was not solely between the Portuguese colonizers and the African colonized. Individuals in African Portuguese colonies had varied racializing citizenship statuses. Cape Verdean elites often served as administrators and were perceived as proxy colonizers for the Portuguese in Guinea-Bissau, Angola, and Mozambique (Meintel 1984). The privileged status of Cape Verdeans was based on the racial hierarchy of the colonial empire, which categorized them as “mixed race” (mestiço) due to their mixed African and European origin, resulting in lighter skin than that of individuals from other Portuguese colonies in mainland Africa. Consequently, Cape Verdeans were considered Citizens, while Angolans, Mozambicans, and Bissau-Guineans were deemed Indigenas, who were thought of as less intelligent and less civilized (Mattos 2013). The lighter skin color of Cape Verdeans, along with the selective formal education the elites received and their ability to speak Portuguese, were factors that favored their racialized Portuguese citizenship and facilitated their mobility to Portugal under colonial rule. However, when (re)migrating to Luxembourg, their racialized Portuguese citizenship became a hindrance to Cape Verdeans. The same skin color then hampered their migration. This illustrates the complex interplay of race/ethnicity ideologies, language, and citizenship and lusophone mobility. Furthermore, as described above, the incisiveness of race ideologies manifested in the case of retornados. That produced exclusion and social discrimination against white Portuguese (and their descendants) in Portugal, due to the assumption that these retornados had been corrupted culturally by African customs (Eldridge, Kalter & Taylor, 2023).

More recently, when the law of 8 March 2017 was amended on the basis of ancestry, the rule of jus sanguinis (which is closely related to ideologies of race and ethnicity) outweighed the importance of linguistic competence and the other citizenship pathways, such as the jus domicilis (duration of residence) and the jus solis (place of birth) to a certain extent. This shows how unequal access to citizenship is conveniently mediated by nation-states according to their political and economic needs in time and space. It is important to note that despite the relative ease of gaining official inclusion from the nation-state through jus sanguinis citizenship, the tension between language and race/ancestry persists at the individual level. This is especially true when one holds this citizenship but lacks one of the languages of authority (in this case, Luxembourgish) which is declared “the national language” (Hawkey & Horner 2022). Thus, access to (accelerated) citizenship does not necessarily result in social mobility, as Rodney’s case shows. Neither does it trigger feelings of fully belonging in the individuals themselves or influence the extent to which they are perceived as Luxembourgers by others. Place of birth, language competences, and ancestry form complex and, in part, fragile elements of Luxembourgish citizenship. Therefore, there is a need to disentangle what it means to be a Luxembourger, especially the questions of how, when, why, and to what extent having competence in the language of Luxembourgish fosters and defines (or does not define) belonging to the Grand Duchy on both individual and state levels.

This paper has demonstrated that from the beginning, the question of race has been present in lusophone mobility to Luxembourg—either overtly or covertly, and for the purpose of exclusion or inclusion. Let us remember the racialized Portuguese citizenship of Cape Verdeans that led to the revision of the labor agreement between the fascist Portuguese government and Luxembourg, and the mobility/acquisition of Luxembourgish citizenship that was attained by Brazilians under the jus sanguinis logic. For a long time, the logic of inclusion and belonging has unequally excluded and included people from the boundaries of nation-states. This has created enduring inequalities and injustices, given that nation-states privilege their citizens and nationals over human beings or humanity.

The paper has also demonstrated that, both at the state level and the individual level, the way in which individuals from formerly colonized countries and the former colonizing country perceive themselves in the so-called era of globalization is still influenced by colonial outlooks and differentiations. This commonly occurs in administrative, social, professional, and linguistic interactions and encounters. Furthermore, the colonial differentiations have produced complex interactional effects between diversified Portuguese speakers from Africa, Portugal, and Brazil. To a certain extent, these differentiations are still present in their encounters in Portuguese-speaking countries and beyond in diasporic contexts, including in the countries of migration that they all share, such as Luxembourg, as Rodney’s and Maria José’s cases illustrate.

In conclusion, I would like to stress that the data collected within the framework of the DisPOSEG project has provided insights into how historical divisions and complicities are still influencing interactions between Portuguese speakers. In terms of hierarchies at work, there is a tendency to reproduce colonial models in their third space migration context of Luxembourg, as seen in Rodney’s case. Our results reveal the existence of what Maldonado-Torres (2007) calls “coloniality of being” in the relationships between different Portuguese speakers in social and work contexts. That is to say, their interactions are often marked by friction and tension resulting from the internalization of superiority and inferiority that arises in colonialist racial relations. Considering the diversity and complexity of the migration processes in question, understanding the history and the colonial past will help us to develop an understanding of Portuguese-speaking interactions and of the specificities, trajectories, and important sociolinguistic challenges of lusophone migrants in Luxembourg.

References

1. Abadia, Lília Rolim., Rosa Cabecinhas, Isabelle Moreira Macedo, and Luís Cunha. Interwoven Migration Narratives: Identity and Social Representations in the Lusophone World. Identities 25, no. 3 (2018): 339–357.
2. Åkesson, Lisa, Anette Hellman, Inês Raimundo, and Cesaltina Matsinhe. “Civilising the Ex-Colonisers? Counter-Hegemonic Discourses at Workplaces in Maputo.” Journal of Southern African Studies 48, no. 3 (2022): 473–488.
3. Anderson, Benedict. Imagined Communities. Reflections on the Origin and Spread of Nationalism. London: Verso, 1983.
4. Bauder, Harald. “Jus Domicile: In Pursuit of a Citizenship of Equality and Social Justice.” Journal of International Political Theory 8, no. 1-2 (2012): 184–196.
5. Bhabha, Homi K. The Location of Culture. London: Routledge, 1994.
6. Bosma, Ulbe, and Thomas Kolnberger. “Military Migrants: Luxembourgers in the Colonial Army of the Dutch East Indies.” Itinerario 41, no. 3 (2017): 568
7. Bourdieu, Pierre. Language and Symbolic Power. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1991.
8. Cahen, Michel. “‘Portugal is in the Sky’: Conceptual Considerations on Communities, Lusitanity, and Lusophony.” In Imperial Migrations, edited by Eric Morier-Genoud, and Michel Cahen, 297–315. London: Palgrave Macmillan, 2012.
9. Carling, Jørgen. “Migration in the Age of Involuntary Immobility: Theoretical Reflections and Cape Verdean Experiences.” Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies 27, no.1 (2002): 5–42.
10. Curington, Celeste Vaughan. “‘WE SPEAK BACK!’: Challenging Belonging and Anti-Blackness in Portugal.” Du Bois Review: Social Science Research on Race 17, no. 2 (2020): 337–362.
11. Decamps, Philippe, and Xavier Monthéard. “Le laboratoire luxembourgeois: Comment s’invente une langue.” Le Monde Diplomatique N° 790, January 2, 2020.
12. Del Valle, José. “Transnational Languages: Beyond Nation and Empire? An Introduction.” Sociolinguistic Studies 5, no. 3 (2011): 387–397.
13. Eldridge, Claire, Christoph Kalter, and Becky Taylor. “Migrations of Decolonization, Welfare, and the Unevenness of Citizenship in the UK, France and Portugal.” Past & Present 259, no. 1 (2023): 155–193.
14. Faraco, Carlos Alberto. “A lusofonia: Impasses e perspectives.” Sociolinguistic Studies 5, no. 3 (2011): 399–421.
15. Hinger, Thierry Pierre. “La Révolution des Œillets et l’immigration portugaise au Luxembourg: Analyse de la presse écrite immigrée lusophone du Luxembourg (25 avril 1974 – 25 avril 1975).” Migrance 43 (2014): 57–70.
16. Hadžalić, Irma. “Transatlantic Iron Connections: Education, Emotion, and the Making of a Productive Workforce in Minas Gerais, Brazil (ca. 1910–1960).” In Fabricating Modern Societies: Education, Bodies, and Minds in the Age of Steel, edited by Karin Priem, and Frederik Herman, 193–218. Leiden: Brill, 2019.
17. Hawkey, James, and Kristine Horner. “Officiality and Strategic Ambiguity in Language Policy: Exploring Migrant Experiences in Andorra and Luxembourg.” Language Policy 21, no. 2 (2022): 195–215.
18. Heller, Monica, and Bonnie McElhinny. Language, Capitalism, Colonialism: Toward a Critical History. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2017.
19. Jacobs, Annick, Altey Manço, and Frédéric Mertz. Diaspora capverdienne au Luxembourg : panorama socio-économique, roles dans les mouvements migratoires et solidarité avec le pays d’origine. CEFIS RED 21. Luxembourg: CEFIS Centre d'étude et de formation interculturelles et sociales, 2017.
20. Kerfoot, Caroline, and Kenneth Hyltenstam. Entangled Discourses: South-North Orders of Visibility. London: Routledge, 2017.
21. Kingsley, Leilarna. “Explicit and Implicit Dimensions of Language Policy in Multilingual Banks in Luxembourg: An Analysis of Top-down and Bottom-up Pressures on Practices.” Language Problems & Language Planning 33, no. 2 (2009): 153–173.
22. Kollwelter, Serge (2007, March 1). Immigration in Luxembourg: New Challenges for an Old Country. Migration Information Source. (March 2007).
23. Lança, Marta (2008). “Lusophere is a Bubble.” Buala (2008).
24. Laplanche, Charles, and Michel Vanderkam. Di nos...: nous, des Capverdiens au Luxembourg... Dudelange: Centre National de L’Audiovisuel, 1991.
25. Lubkemann, Stephen C. “Race, Class, and Kin in the Negotiation of ‘Internal Strangerhood’ among Portuguese Retornados, 1975–2000.” In Europe’s Invisible Migrants, edited by Andrea L. Smith, 75–93. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press, 2003.
26. Maldonado-Torres, Nelson. “On the Coloniality of Being.” Cultural Studies 21, no. 2–3 (2007): 240–270.
27. Marques, José Carlos. “Entrepreneurship Among Portuguese Nationals in Luxembourg.” In New and old routes of Portuguese emigration: Uncertain futures at the periphery of Europe, edited by Cláudia Pereira, and Joana Azevedo, 171-189. Cham: Springer International Publishing, 2019.
28. Márquez Reiter, Rosina, and Luisa Martín Rojo. “Introduction: Language and Speakerhood in Migratory Contexts.” International Journal of the Sociology of Language 257 (2019): 1–16.
29. Matos, Patrica Ferraz De. The Colours of the Empire: Racialized Representations during Portuguese Colonialism. New York: Berghahn Books, 2013.
30. Meintel, Deirdre. Race, Culture and Portuguese Colonialism in Cabo Verde. Syracuse: Syracuse University, 1984.
31. Mignolo, Walter. The Idea of Latin America. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing, 2005.
32. Moes, Régis. Cette colonie qui nous appartient un peu. La communauté luxembourgeoise au Congo Belge, 1883–1960. Luxembourg: Fondation Robert Krieps and Éditions l’Lëtzeburger Land, 2012.
33. Murdock, Elke. Multiculturalism, Identity and Difference: Experience of Culture Contact. London: Palgrave Macmillan, 2016.
34. Nuttall, Sarah. Entanglement: Literary and Cultural Reflections on Post-Apartheid. Johannesburg: Wits University Press, 2009.
35. Pereira, Sónia. “Immigrant Workers’ (Im)Mobilities and their Re-Migration Strategies.” Employee Relations 34, no. 6 (2012): 642–657.
36. Pereira, Sónia. “Replacement Migration and Changing Preferences: Immigrant Workers in Cleaning and Domestic Service in Portugal.” Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies 39, no.7 (2013), 1141–1158.
37. Perrin, Nathalie. “Diaspora Policies, Consular Services and Social Protection for Luxembourgish Citizens Abroad.” In Migration and Social Protection in Europe and Beyond (Volume 2), edited by Jean-Michel Lafleur, and Daniela Vintila, 321–335. Cham: Springer, 2020.
38. Purtschert, Patricia, and Harald Fischer-Tiné. “The End of Innocence: Debating Colonialism in Switzerland.” In Colonial Switzerland: Rethinking Switzerland from the Margins, edited by Patricia Purtschert, 1–26. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2015.
39. Purtschert, Patricia, Falk, Francesca, and Barbara Lüthi. “Switzerland and ‘Colonialism without Colonies’: Reflections on the Status of Colonial Outsiders.” Interventions 18, no.2 (2016): 286–302.
40. Queirós, Madalena. “Veterinária do Brasil espera há oito meses autorização para trabalhar no Luxemburgo.” Contacto, August 13, 2022.
41. Rhoads, Elizabeth L. “Citizenship Denied, Deferred and Assumed: A Legal History of Racialized Citizenship in Myanmar.” Citizenship Studies 27, no.1 (2023): 38–58.
42. Saada, Emmanuelle. “Entre ‘assimilation’ et ‘décivilisation’: l’imitation et le projet colonial républicain.” Terrain 44 (2005): 19–38.
43. Schiltz, Aline. Migrations et développement dans un espace politique changeant. Analyse de la mobilité intra-européenne entre le Portugal et le Luxembourg. PhD diss., University of Luxembourg, 2013.
44. Scuto, Denis. “Histoire des immigrations au Luxembourg (XIXe–XXIe siècles).” In 25 ans d’action pour l’immigration, 1985–2010, edited by OGBL, Département des immigrés, 12–38. Luxembourg: OGBL, 2010.
45. Severo, Cristine Gorski. “Lusofonia, colonialismo e globalização.” Forum Linguistico 13, no. 3 (2016), 1321–1333.
46. Sharma, Abhimanyu. “Migration, Language Policies, and Language Rights in Luxembourg.” Acta Universitatis Sapientiae, European and Regional Studies 13, no.1 (2018): 87–104.
47. Smith, Andrea L. Europe’s Invisible Migrants. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press, 2003.
48. Sommarribas, Adolfo, Ralph Petry, and Birte Nienaber. Pathways to Citizenship for Third-Country Nationals in Luxembourg. Luxembourg: European Migration Network – EMN/University of Luxembourg, 2019
49. Statec. Population par nationalités détaillées 2011–2021. Luxembourg: Statec, 2020.
50. Statec. Le portail des statistiques: Grand-Duché du Luxembourg. Luxembourg: Statec, 2021.
51. Stoler, Ann Laura. Imperial Debris: On Ruin and Ruination. Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 2013.
52. Stoler, Ann Laura. Duress: Imperial Durabilities in Our Times. Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 2016.
53. Tavares, Bernardino.Cape Verdean Migration Trajectories into Luxembourg: A Multisited Sociolinguistic Investigation. PhD diss., University of Luxembourg, 2018.
54. Tavares, Bernardino. “Multilingualism in Luxembourg: (Dis)empowering Cape Verdean Migrants at Work.” In “Negotiating Sociolinguistic Justice: Turning Spaces of Inequality into Spaces of Conscientization,” Special Issue edited by Luisa Martín Rojo, Joan Pujolar, and Estibaliz Amorrortu, International Journal for the Sociology of Language, no. 264 (2020): 95–114.
55. Tavares, Bernardino. “Between Values and Limitations: Migrants’ Ambivalent Perceptions of the ‘Lusophone Market’ in Luxembourg.” In HAL Handbook of Language and Mobility, edited by Alfonso Del Percio, and Li Wei, 311–334. New York: De Gruyter Mouton, 2025a.
56. Tavares, Bernardino. “Narratives of Refusal Towards ‘Lusofonia’: Postcolonial Orders of (Im)Possibilities and (Im)Mobilities in Lusophone Terrains.” In Re-imagining Language and Communication in Collaborative Projects: Ethnographic Perspectives on the Future, edited by Maria Rosa Garrido Sardà, and Miguel Pérez-Milans, 191–221. New York: Routledge, 2025b.
57. Tavares, Bernardino, and Aleida Vieira. “Lived Experiences of Coloniality in Third Space: From Colonial to Contemporary Lusophone Migration into Luxembourg.” Language, Culture and Society 5, no. 1 (2023): 121–155.
58. Ulus, Eda. “Workplace Emotions in Postcolonial Spaces: Enduring Legacies, Ambivalence, and Subversion.” Organization 22, no. 6 (2015): 890–908.
59. Veronelli, Gabriela Alejandra. “The Coloniality of Language: Race, Expressivity, Power, and the Darker Side of Modernity.” Wagadu 13, no.1 (2015): 108–134.
60. Vigouroux, Cecile B. “Francophonie.” Annual Review of Anthropology 42 (2013): 379–397.
61. Vink, Maarten P., and Rainer Bauböck. “Citizenship Configurations: Analysing the Multiple Purposes of Citizenship Regimes in Europe.” Comparative European Politics 11, no. 5 (2013): 621–648.
62. Wey, Claude. “Luxembourgers in Latin America and the Permanent Threat of Failure. Return Migration in the Social Context of a European Micro-society.” AEMI Journal 1 (2003): 94–105.