Liza Schuster

At the extremes of exclusion: Deportation, detention and dispersal

Deportation, detention and dispersal have formed an occasional part of Britains migration regime throughout the twentieth century, though they tended to be used in response to particular events or “crises”. By the end of the twentieth century, however, deportation, detention and, most recently, dispersal have become “normalized”, “essential” instruments in the ongoing attempt to control or manage immigration to Britain. This article outlines the use of detention, deportation and dispersal in the twentieth century exploring how they have evolved and then become an integral part of the migration regime into the twenty-first century. Where appropriate, British practices are compared with those of its European neighbours, where to differing degrees, deportation, detention and dispersal have also become everyday practices. In examining these practices in Britain, we consider the rationale and stated aims of their employment, as well as describing some of the consequences, where known, of detention, deportation and dispersal.

The Continuing Mobility of Migrants in Italy: Shifting between Places and Statuses

In this paper, which is based on fieldwork carried out in Italy in 2001–02, I consider migrants as mobile actors, people who make choices about where they go and under what title, but people whose choices are limited by a range of factors including migration regimes, social networks and social and economic capital. The key questions considered relate to ‘status’ mobility—how and why migrants move across categories such as documented/undocumented migrant, labour migrant, family member, asylum-seeker or refugee; and geographic mobility—which factors cause some migrants to move and move again, from one country to another and within countries. Finally, the manner in which these two questions are related and how they affect ongoing processes of migration, settlement and community formation are considered.

Asylum and welfare: contemporary debates:

This article provides the context for the Special Issue. It outlines the differential eligibility for welfare rights experienced by people with varying citizenship statuses and notes the increasing exclusion and marginalization of asylum seekers in European countries of asylum. In this article, we also examine the robustness of the arguments that have been used to justify the curtailment of welfare in some European countries; namely, that welfare acts as a magnet for asylum seekers. Linked to this is the use of asylum seekers as a political tool. We also explore the consequences of this which include racism and xenophobia. Finally, the article outlines the themes arising from the contributions in the Special Issue.

Detention of asylum seekers in the US, UK, France, Germany, and Italy: A critical view of the globalizing culture of control

Although criminologists in the US and Europe continue to explore issues of immigration, race, and ethnicity in the context of crime, they have yet to examine the detention of asylum seekers. Still, this is a social phenomenon that requires serious consideration since in many instances such policies and practices violate international standards for the protection of refugees. This work takes a critical look at the detention of persons fleeing persecution by situating it an expanding culture of control stoked by the criminology of the other. The article offers evidence of a steady increase in the reliance on detention of asylum seekers in the US, UK, France, Germany, and Italy. Indications of a conservative shift in criminological thought affecting crime—and asylum—policy are addressed alongside concerns for human rights in a post-September 11 world.

Detention of asylum seekers in the UK and USA Deciphering noisy and quiet constructions

Moral panic theory continues to be applied to a range of phenomena, allowing sociologists to refine our understanding of negative societal reaction aimed at people who are easy to identify and easy to dislike. Whereas the prevailing notion of moral panic rests on its noisy features, there are constructions that occur under the public radar. In such instances, government officials quietly institute policies and practices that adversely affect a targeted group. Moral panic over so-called bogus asylum seekers in the UK represents a noisy construction whereby claims making is loud and public. In the USA, however, that construction is remarkably quiet and does not resonate openly; still, much like their British counterparts, American officials have resorted to the use of confinement. This work explores the differences between the UK and the USA in the realm of moral panic over asylum seekers while remaining attentive to their shared consequences, the unjust detention of those fleeing persecution. Implications to social control and human rights in a post-11 September world are discussed throughout.

Common sense or racism? The treatment of asylum seekers in Europe

In her introductory essay to this special issue on refugees and xenophobia--in which the articles focus primarily on asylum-seekers,2 mostly in the United Kingdom, but also in France and Ireland--guest editor Liza Schuster draws on the work of the contributors and on her own research in Britain, France, Germany and Italy to address the treatment of asylum-seekers by European states. European liberal democracies share a common commitment to granting asylum to those in need of protection, a commitment made legally binding by signing the 1951 Geneva Convention relating to the Status of Refugees. They also share a commitment to principles of equality and non-discrimination. However, in recent years European states have embraced practices that permit discrimination against and unequal treatment of asylum-seekers, and recent British government proposals threaten the 1951 Convention itself. Schuster interrogates some of the underlying assumptions of asylum policies in the United Kingdom in particular, but also with reference to other European states, arguing that common-sense assertions of the ‘need for control’, which underlie the differential treatment of asylum-seekers in particular, are expressions of a racism at the heart of European states. She further argues that, at the border, racism intersects in a complex and shifting way with class and gender, creating a hierarchy of the excluded. Following a discussion of racism and these other modalities of exclusion, Schuster examines practices through which this racism is articulated.

Turning refugees into ‘illegal migrants’: Afghan asylum seekers in Europe

Abstract Each year refugees transit southern EU Member States where in theory they should claim asylum but where in reality they have little chance of being able to make a claim, and almost no chance of having it examined properly, much less being actually granted asylum. This paper argues that the current EU regime turns some refugees into undocumented migrants – ‘illegal migrants’ in political and public discourse – and shields EU Member States from their international legal obligations. The article illustrates the effect of EU asylum policy through a case study of a group of young Afghan men in Paris.

Rights and Wrongs across European Borders: Migrants, Minorities and Citizenship

Among the key issues in contemporary political debates across Europe are questions relating to migration, to the social and political rights of migrants and minorities and how these questions relate to new forms of citizenship in specific national contexts as well as across Europe as a whole. In this paper we want to explore the changing dynamics of debates about citizenship, migration, inclusion and exclusion in four European countries--Britain, France, Germany and Italy. Drawing on recent research we have carried out in each of these countries we analyse some of the key dimensions of recent debates and their impact on policy agendas, arguing for an analysis that reflects the various types of migration and movements of people that are shaping the current situation in many societies.

Deportation Stigma and Re-migration

Many, if not most, of those who are forcibly expelled from the country to which they have migrated will not settle in the country to which they have been returned but will leave again. A recent article examined some of the reasons why this should be so. It was argued that in addition to the factors that had caused the original migration, such as fear of persecution, continuing conflict, insecurity, poverty and lack of opportunity, deportation creates at least three additional reasons that make re-migration the most likely outcome. These were debt, family commitments and the shame of failure and or ‘contamination’ leading to stigmatisation. In this article, we explore the stigma of failure and of contamination attached to those deported, and the ways in which they respond to and manage this stigmatisation, including by re-migrating. We use Goffmans concept of stigma and the refinement offered by to further nuance understanding of the impact of deportation.

The politics of refugee and asylum policies in Britain: historical patterns and contemporary realities

It has been the traditional policy of successive British governments to give shelter to persons who are compelled to leave their own countries by reason of persecution for their political or religious belief or of their racial origin, but the Government are bound to have regard to their domestic situation and to the fact that for economic and demographic reasons this policy can only be applied within narrow limits (Home Office Memorandum 1938, cited in Dummett and Nicol, 1990: 158).