Criminology Notes

Basic Concepts

• Criminology

• Crime, criminalization

• Social control

• Harm

Criminology

• Criminology is the body of knowledge regarding crime as a social phenomenon. This includes the process of making laws, breaking laws, and reacting to the breaking of laws (Edwin Sutherland).

• Criminology lacks a distinct theoretical object and method of inquiry, acting more as a rendezvous discipline (Garland).

Definition of Crime

The definition of crime is subject to debate, with legal and sociological perspectives offering different approaches.

Legal-Oriented Definition (Criminal Law)

• Crime is a violation of the law subject to prosecution and punishment.

• Criminal lawyers focus on conceptual structure, doctrinal content, and judicial interpretation.

• This approach is prescriptive.

Sociological-Oriented Definition (Criminology)

• Crime is historically changeable and relative.

• It results from a legal, cultural, and social construction (criminalization).

• Criminologists focus on the development and scope of criminal law.

• This approach is descriptive.

• Crime is not an objective entity but a product of social construction.

• Social, cultural, and historical circumstances influence the definition of crime.

• The conventional concept of crime may not include new situations or consider harm caused by certain behaviors (e.g., private security personnel on the battlefield, white-collar crimes, environmental crimes).

• Crimes of globalization (Friedrichs 2011) are relevant.

• The relativity of crime means legal definitions cannot adequately recognize historical development, social relationships, practices, ideologies, and interests that determine what is designated as criminal (Lucia Zedner, 2004).

• The role of the State in defining crime is changing due to globalization.

• The relativity of crime is evident in transnational issues like terrorism, smuggling, border control, and personal spheres like moral, religion, and ethics.

• Crime as a political category is used as an ideological weapon rather than an analytical tool (Ruggiero, 2003).

Crime and Relativity

• Definitions of crime are historically changeable and relative.

• Some behaviors are legally criminal but not always considered criminal in public opinion and common sense (and vice versa).

Criminalization

The Criminalization Process

• The criminalization process is selective because not all deviant behaviors are treated equally.

• It is relative because what is considered criminal varies based on social, cultural, and historical factors.

• Power relations, societal values, and political contexts determine what becomes criminalized and how laws are enforced.

• The same reasoning applies to de-criminalization.

• Criminalization as an outcome refers to the result of the legislative, prosecutorial, and judicial processes.

• Criminalization as a practice refers to the activities performed by legislators, police officers, judges, and the public, which may lead to criminalization as an outcome.

Smoking: A Worldwide Process of Criminalization

• Smoking has been highly criminalized across the US and Europe, with a different timeline, and is now the dominant approach.

• This does not affect all areas of the world, but there are international campaigns against smoking.

• The discovery that smoking was dangerous for health created a medical issue.

• Smoking becomes an unhealthy habit.

• Dangerousness for other people (secondary smoke) was a further relevant step.

• Smoking is less socially tolerated and associated with other negative social characteristics unlike in the past.

• Smoking is forbidden in some areas with increasingly higher penalties, and the range of areas where smoking is forbidden increases, gradually shifting from public to private spaces.

• The criminalization process expands in other countries.

Gender-Related Crime: Steps of a Worldwide Process of Criminalization

• Female genital cutting and other cultural practices involving women (forced marriage, widow killings, female infanticide, etc.) are considered crimes by international agencies.

• There is a campaign for criminalization at the national level, based on the idea of the violation of human physical integrity and dignity.

• The UN considers this a form of human rights violation.

• A problem arises due to cultural conflict: states that allow these practices do not see them as crimes and do not accept international campaigns to prohibit them.

Social Control

• Social control refers to all the processes by which social order is maintained.

• Formal and informal social control are distinguished.

Formal Social Control

• Organized responses to crime, delinquency, and other forms of deviant and/or socially problematic behavior.

• These responses can be reactive (after the putative act has taken place or the actor has been identified) or proactive (aimed at avoiding deviant/criminal action).

• Formal social control refers to means of controlling people’s behaviors based on formal mechanisms and actions taken by agencies of the criminal justice system.

• Deterrence, through the threat of punishment by criminal law, is a fundamental mechanism of exercising formal social control.

Informal Social Control

• Based on different instruments:

  • Early socialization of children at home and school.

  • Community control, peer groups control, etc.

• Such forms of control focus on the reinforcement of socially accepted norms of behavior in various social environments.

Disasters or Crimes?

• Chernobyl, April 26, 1986: The world’s worst nuclear disaster, where a radioactive cloud spread from the nuclear power plant into part of the USSR and Western Europe.

  • Contained on May 4.

  • 134 people injured during the operations to contain the disaster, 28 died.

  • The number of victims as a consequence of the contamination of the ground and the air is unknown.

  • Estimates of death rate for the exposure to contamination (for some types of cancer) range from 9,000 to 16,000.

• Fukushima, March 11, 2011: A nuclear accident at the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant in Japan.

  • The direct cause of the disaster was the 2011 Tōhoku earthquake and tsunami.

• So, crime…. What we consider crime is not static but changes across time and place.

• Crime is a social construction.

• Crime is not a natural phenomenon but it is the result of a complex process of law making and criminalisation.

• Some behaviours are not defined as such by the law but they cause harm. Examples?

• Trafigura’s Probo Koala
  *Hurricane Katrina

• Not all crimes produce harm, and there is harm without crimes.

• Pollution may be the result of perfectly legal activity.

• Harm is also provoked by «legal behaviours»

• These cases radically challenge the conventional idea of “crime” as a well-defined behavior that occurs in a definite context, with a victim and an offender.

Criticism of the Concept of Crime and Criminology

1. Crime has no ontological reality.

2. Criminology perpetuates the myth of crime.

3. Crime consists of many petty events.

4. Crime excludes many serious harms.

5. Constructing crime.

6. Criminalization and Punishment.

7. Crime Control is ineffective.

8. Crime legitimizes the expansion of the criminal control industry.

9. Crime’ serves to maintain power relations.

• Extend the definition of crime beyond the legal definition

• Crime includes violation of law other than criminal law.

• Crime includes behaviours which are punishable even though not punished Edwin Suterland

• Crime includes those harms provoked by the criminal justice system (which do not prosecute some people).

• Crime includes invisible crimes that we make visible by name them (and then advocate for the introduction of new crimes)

• Change the category

• Struggle to analyse harmful laws/policies/behaviours difficult to conceptualise as crime

• Social harm had never seriously been incorporated into criminology (Muncie, 2000)

• “Social harm” as an alternative to “crime”

• “Zemiology” as an alternative to “Criminology”

Global Mobility

• Global movement of people and goods is one of the distinguished features of globalisation

• Mobility is an interesting proxy of what can be pictured as good and bad about globalisation.

Global Mobility

• Mobility of people represents the source of survival for national economies

  • Remittances

  • Tourism

  • Labour migration (think about Brexit)

• A smaller world but a more unequal world…

• Mobility also brings hybridity that can be seen as a threat to the integrity of the local communities.

• Patterns of mobility mirror pattens of inequality.

• Mobility is a stratified phenomenon

Metaphors of Tourists and Vagabonds (Bauman)

1. The Tourists and the vagabonds

2. Tourists move with no effort. They want to move (globalised elite)

3. Movement for the vagabond it is burdensome and forced (precarious poor)

4. Tourist subverts the notion of other à they are outsiders in term of membership but enjoy the full protection of the State.

• And indeed, perhaps nothing more graphically illustrates the monstrous relapse the world suffered after the First World War than the restrictions on personal freedom of movement and civil rights. Before 1914 the earth belonged to the entire human race. Everyone could go where he wanted and stay there as long as he liked. No permits or visas were necessary, and I am always enchanted by the amazement of young people when I tell them that before 1914 I travelled to India and America without a passport. Indeed, I had never set eyes on a passport. You boarded your means of transport and got off it again, without asking or being asked any questions; you didn’t have to fill in a single one of the hundred forms required today. No permits, no visas, nothing to give you trouble; the borders that today, thanks to the pathological distrust felt by everyone for everyone else, are a tangled fence of red tape, were then nothing but symbolic lines on the map, and you crossed them as unthinkingly as you can cross the meridian in Greenwich. It was not until after the war that National Socialism began destroying the world, and the first visible symptom of that intellectual epidemic of the present century was xenophobia – hatred or at least fear of foreigners. People were defending themselves against foreigners everywhere; they were kept out of everywhere. All the humiliations previously devised solely for criminals were now inflicted on every traveller before and during a journey. (Zweig The world of yesterday, 1964).

Global Mobility

• What this quotation helps us to single out?

  • The legal aspect (laws change across time)

  • The building of borders and the distrust towards someone

  • The otherness and the fear

  • The parallel with criminals

• Try to think about

  • An Italian citizen going to America in 1915

  • An EU Citizen moving to another EU country today

  • A Moroccan citizen moving to Italy to visit Venice

  • An Albanian citizen going to Italy in 2006 and in 2017: what is the difference?

  • A Chinese citizen moving from Henan to Zhejiang province or from the countryside of Zhejiang to Hangzhou. What is the issue?

  • A Romanian going to Italy in 2005 and 2008: what is the difference?

  • In 2014, a Syrian citizen left Syria for Italy or Sweden. What’s the difference?

  • A woman who left Afghanistan before and after 15 August 2021. What’s the difference?

• Mobility becomes migration because of the law.

• The law creates and shapes concepts and classifications.

• Law is integral to migration: without law applicable within and across national State boundaries, what we call immigration would only be the movements of people with no legal consequences (Countin, 2000)

Global Mobility and Control

• Today we can say that the optimistic view’ that the globalizing process would eventually lead to a borderless world was a mistake.

• US 9/11 can be identified as the turning point (but the changes started before)

• Contemporary mobilities represent an enormous challenge for the state apparatuses trying to control them and also a measure of symbolic laws and politics.

Global Mobility and Control

• The size of the world is relative…

• The world is smaller for some individuals and bigger for other individuals

• Globalisation brought more stringent border control.

• The current preoccupation with the protection of borders is an intrinsic aspect of the present, deeply stratified global condition.

• Borders establish the limits of the community by selecting those who are allowed to enter (and under which conditions) and those who are to remain outside.

Criminology of Mobility / Border Criminology / Criminology of the Borders

• Mobilities turn in the social sciences and impact of globalisation.

• This subfield is relatively recent.

• It focuses attention on the processes of inclusion and exclusion at the borders of and within states.

• It is interested in membership and belonging, identity and power.

• It is based upon previous studies on race and ethnicity (e.g. policing the crisis by Stuart Hall) and feminism.

What is Migration?

• IOM define migration as: “The movement of a person or a group of persons, either across an international border, or within a State. It is a population movement, encompassing any kind of movement of people, whatever its length, composition and causes; it includes migration of refugees, displaced persons, economic migrants, and persons moving for other purposes, including family reunification. ”

• Migration began with industrialization when people migrated from farms to cities in search of work.

• Effect of living in a globalized world: one may seek work in Dubai, Australia or else may study in different countries, etc.

Words

• Highly skilled worker

• Seasonal worker

• Long-term resident

• Overstayers

• Foreigner

• Refugee

• International protection holder

• Immigrant

• Migrant

• Emigrant

• Stateless person

• Asylum seeker

• Applicant for international protection

• Illegal immigrant

• Non-EU national

• Environmental migrant

• Economic migrant

• Is all migration the same?

• Often these categories are used interchangeably and are blurred.

• Their use is connected to issues of race, ethnicity and the idea of being “a foreigner” somewhere.

Understanding Mobility à Control of Mobility

• Contemporary mobilities challenge the state apparatus of control

• Borders are central sites of management and control

• Bordering practices now dispersed throughout society

• Stratification of population (Bauman): the immobile underclass/mobile upper class. Some require to move freely and fast everywhere, others cannot move.

• Classification of mobilities

  • Desirable/Undesirable

  • Skilled/Unskilled

  • Reasons

    • Ease of integration?

    • Relationship to Class ?

    • Or Citizenship?

Migration Control as a Criminological Problem

• Border as a location of punishment.

• Objections:

  1. Border crossing is not a crime

  2. Immigration law enforcement is not a form of punishment .

Migration Control as a Criminological Problem

1. Criminalisation of migration

2. The emergence of the industry of border control

3. Which pains are inflicted or rights withdrawn as a penality for infraction and which are the justifications .

Criminalisation of Migration

• Nothing new. But modalities change.

• Increased criminalization of migration (also related to terrorism threat) And more recently also ‘criminalization of solidarity’ –

• Criminalization of migration – means the criminalization of mobility of people.

Crimmigration Thesis

• ST U MPF, J . P. ( 2 0 0 6 ) « T H E C R I MMI G R AT I O N C R I S I S : C R I ME , I MMI G R AT I MMI G R AT S , PO WE R » , I N L AW R E V I E W, 5 6

Crimmigration Law: How and Why

• CRIMMIGRATION LAW à Merging of immigration law (administrative law) and criminal law.

• Focus: originally US, then, also Europe

• What happened? What are the theoretical foundations of the merging? )

• How did the merging happen?

Crimmigration WHAT?

• Analysis of the impact of legal and policy reforms implemented in the US in the 1990s and 2000s.

• Although immigration law and criminal law were traditionally two distinct and unrelated legal branches, they have been recently merged into a new legal order, which differs from its two components.

Crimmigration - Merger

• Crimmigration merger is the outcome of two processes:

  • The criminalisation of immigration law and,

  • The ‘immigrationization’ of criminal law

• It pursues both border control + crime prevention agendas.

• Crime is being governed through migration laws and human mobility through criminal law.

Crimmigration WHAT?

• Stumpf identifies three fronts of criminal policy :

  1. criminal law consequences for immigration law violations;

  2. immigration law consequences to criminal convictions;

  3. criminal-type tools and procedures for immigration law violations

Description of the Merging of Criminal and Migration Law (HOW)

• The substance of immigration law and criminal law increasingly overlaps;

• Deportation for criminal conducts

• Immigration-related criminal offences

• Detention and deportation for people perceived at risk (terrorism)

• Immigration enforcement has come to resemble criminal law enforcement (but with important differences)

• The procedural aspects of prosecuting immigration violations have taken on many of the characteristics of criminal procedures.

Some Examples

• Criminalisation of immigration law breaches (immigration crimes) à migrants become criminals for not having right documents. What harm? What level of culpability?

• Deportation added to sentences in criminal cases

• Penalties for employers, airliners, house owners, etc

• Similar law enforcement agencies and instruments (police, FRONTEX, immigration detention)

• Both criminal law and immigration law expand the exercise of social control over people seen as outsiders

• «Using exclusion or deportation to punish criminal offenses and prevent recidivism may be efficient, but it circumvents criminal constitutional protections and fails to account for serious costs to the noncitizen, family members, employers and the community» (p. 396)

Why Crimmigration Law?

• Core function played by criminal law and migration law in our societies

• «Both systems act as gatekeepers of membership in our society» (Stumpf, 2006, p. 396)

• Both immigration law and criminal law are tools for defining membership (inclusion/exclusion) à Migrant à Offender

The Convergence of Immigration Control and Crime Control

• The convergence of immigration enforcement and criminal justice systems had been facilitated also by fundamental shifts in governamental thinking that are common to both systems:

  1. New penology «pre-emptive approach» à risk management

  2. Populist punitiveness (law and order policy to gain consensus)

The Industry of Border Control: Technology

• The rising of the Computational turn (Hildebrandt et al, 2013).

• Technology provides new ‘physical’ means of control (drones, radar, X-ray, lie detection technologies, etc.) and tools for targeted governance (Valverde e Mopas, 2004), such as large-scale biometric databases.

• More recently, AI technologies are proliferating in the migration domain to forecast movements, trends, and levels of risk.

A MASSIVE DATA COLLECTION

• Technology driven borderscape

• In recent years, the EU established multi-purpose large scale databases, IT system or information exchange system in the areas of asylum, borders and visa. The instruments require the collection and the processing of personal data on third-country nationals.

• Three centralised databases in place since several years (SIS VIS EURODAC) and two are under implementation (EES and ETIAS), all under the management of EU-LISA.

  • SIS – Schengen Information System

  • EURODAC – European Dactyloscopy

  • VIS – Visa Information System

  • EES – Entry-Exit System

  • ETIAS – European Travel information system

• The systems will be interoperable due to the recent adopted Interoperability initiative.

• Also the European criminal records information system (ECRIS-TCN) is part of the interoperability initiative.

The Industry of Border Control: Border Police

• Police beyond the border (eg Frontex) & within the border

• Police as border enforcers, but also humanitarian actors

• Border police work is similar to other police work

• Who are the police & who do they work with in policing migration? (eg public, landlords, universities, immigration enforcement)

The Industry of Border Control: Immcarceration

• The emergence of immigration detention

• Deportation

The Pains Deaths

• Does the infliction of these harm amount to punishment ?

• Contemporary research shows that there is punitive intent and a deterrent function.

Immigrant Detention Taxonomy – Principles

• Principles in Europe

  • Detention is prima facie contrary to the principle of liberty of the person and must be justified on the basis of Article 5(1) ECHR à

  • Secondly, the conditions of detention must not constitute torture, inhuman or degrading treatment as prohibited by Article 3 ECHR and interpreted by the ECtHR.

Immigrant Detention Taxonomy – Key Questions

1. Detention is carried out on the basis of criminal law and within the criminal law structures or administrative law?

2. Detention centres are open (à reception centres) or closed?

3. Oversight: what are the control mechanisms in respect of places of detention?

Immigrant Detention Taxonomy – Who Can and Cannot Be Detained

WHO CAN

1. Third-country nationals seeking unauthorised entry into the territory of a Member State;

2. Third-country nationals against whom action is being taken with a view to deportation or extradition.

WHO CANNOT

1. Foreigners with valid residence and work permits cannot lawfully be placed in detention unless a decision to expel them has been taken.

2. Citizens of the Union

3. Third country nationals who are protected by ‘strong’ agreements with the EU

Immigrant Detention Taxonomy

• Detention and Arrival à Pre-admittance Detention or Detention Upon Arrival

• Detention and Asylum à Detention of asylum seekers

• Detention and Irregular Stay Pre-removal detention

• Detention and Expulsion

Reference: Guild E (2005) A Typology of Different Types of Centres for Third Country Nationals in Europe. Strasbourg: European Parliament Briefing Paper

UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention

• 4 Main categories of people detained (UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention, 1998: para 32).

  • (a) people who have been denied access to the territory (people to be refused- people subjected to a refusal of entry);

  • (b) people who have illegally entered the territory and have subsequently been intercepted by local authorities (irregular migrants);

  • (c) people whose authorization to stay has expired (overstayers);

  • (d) asylum seekers whose detention is deemed necessary by local authorities

• 8 different types of facilities where migrants may be taken into custody (UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention, 1998: para 33):

  • (a) custody areas near borders,

  • (b) police stations,

  • (c) facilities managed by penitentiary administrations,

  • (d) ad hoc facilities,

  • (e) house arrest,

  • (f) international areas and so-called ‘transit zones’,

  • (g) gathering centres

  • (h) hospitals

Mapping Immigration Detention

GLOBAL DETENTION PROJECT

https://www.globaldetentionproject.org/detention-centres/map-view

ALTRAECONOMIA – Confinement camps of migrants

https://altreconomia.it/locked-in-from-above/

The Theoretical Debate on Immigration Detention

1. Administrative law

2. Detention without crime (different from prison)

3. Experienced as more punitive

   • Unpredefined time

   • Living conditions inside

   • Confusing motivation of detention

   • Fewer Rights

4. Where immigration detention can occur

   • Not just detention facilities ad hoc (police stations; airports; etc.)

5. Lack of transparency of the institution

The Problem of Legitimacy

• Penal power in its application and its effect is constrained by the need to be legitimate.

• Legitimacy is a necessary quality of the State and a concept used to interrogate, critique and understand power.

• Legitimacy assumes a congruence between a given system of power and the beliefs, values, and expectations that provide its justification’

What are the Characteristics of Criminal Detention (Prison)

• Why people are in criminal detention?

• Which is the law ?

• Which is the purpose?

• Where they are?

• For how long?

• How is the prison regulated?

  • Punishment because of a crime

  • Criminal law

  • Mainly the rethoric of rehabilitation

  • Defined facilities

  • Clarity about time to serve

  • Internal regulations, Inmates’ rights

Functions of Criminal Detention

• The four main functions of criminal detention are:

  • a) deterrence: to prevent crime by frightening with punishment ot the threat of punishment;

  • b) rehabilitation: to prevent crime by re-socializing offenders, prepare them to re-enter into society;

  • c) incapacitation: to prevent crime by removing criminals from society.

  • d) retribution: to prevent crime by giving victims and society a feeling of avengement.

Legitimacy in Prison

• Purpose: the functions of detention in connection with the purpose of punishment (deterrence, retribution, rehabilitation, incapacitation).

• Functioning: how things work and fail to work. The gap between things as they are and as they might be.

• The coercive nature of the State and the rights of the detainees. Prison rules.

Legitimacy of Immigration Detention

• What is legitimacy? How do you understand legitimacy in prison vs. immigration detention?

  • Legitimacy in prison

    • Relate to the how of detention à due to rhetoric of rehabilitation as justification

  • Legitimacy in detention

    • Not need to look at the how of detention à due to the aim being deportation à The discourse over immigration detention should be focused to why people on the move are detained in the first place and about immigration policies (Bosworth 2013)

What are the Characteristics of Immigration Detention

• Why people are in immigration detention?

• Which is the law ?

• Which is the purpose?

• Where they are?

• For how long?

• How is the detention centre regulated?

  • Detained because of «illegality»

  • Administrative law /Civil law

  • Exclusion (banopticon)?

  • Multiplication of facilities

  • Lack of clarity about the time

  • Not clear internal regulation. Human rights?

Justifying Pre-Removal Detention

• Which is the official purpose of immigration detention ?

• In case of pre-removal detention centres à

  • 1) Deterrence?

  • 2) Deportation?

• Problems:

  • not each illegalised migrant is detained

  • not each illegalised migrant is deported

• Poor living conditions often cause harms and detainees are also critical of removal centres. It is highly contested space

Comparative Perspective in Deportation

• The State alone cannot put into practice the aim of detention (other States, IOM). Lack of access to basic rights.

The Undeported and Functions of Detention

• What are the functions of deportation when people are detained but not deported?

Co-Existing and Mixed Motives (Leekers and Broeders, 2010)

1. Deterring illegalised migrants

2. Incapacitation and management of migrants’ pauperism (à repeated detentions)

3. Symbolic use from the State to show the ability to control borders/urban order

Deterring Illegalised Migrants

• Detention is experienced as punishment. It aims to increase the pressure on detainees to leave the country and cooperate with the expulsion procedure (special deterrence)

• It aims to deter unwanted migrants from violation migration and residence laws

• But migrants are not supposed to be re-integrate in the society. The level of deprivation suggests more the intention to inflict pain or revenge…

Incapacitation and Management of Migrants’ Pauperism

• Detention is a form of ”relief of last resort” for strongly marginalised migrants --> repeated detention

Managing People Anxiety and Affirming Capacity of the State to Control

• Physical and symbolic exclusion zone to show the power of the State in maintaining control and symbolically addressing citizens' demands for safety. It communicates the message that the State is still in control over the geographical and social borders that citizens want to maintain.

Deportation Machines?

• There is a wrong assumption that assumes that global north countries have ‘deportation machines’

• Migration enforcement practices have gained significant momentum in recent decades → Detention, deportation measures are overshadowing prison system in quantitative terms (with some exception)

Deportation Machines?

• Certain jurisdictions have managed to set up particularly wide- ranging, effective deportation systems → US, UK, Mexico

• Deportations soared in European countries such as Bulgaria, Germany, Poland, and apparently Norway from late 2000s-late 2010s

• Cyprus, Germany, Poland, Romania, UK, and 3 Baltic nations manage to enforce >3/4 issued removal orders

Deportation Machines?

• Various Eastern European jurisdictions (Croatia, Lithuania, Poland, Romania, Slovakia), Finland, the Netherlands have very high deportation rates (>2,000 deportees per 100,000 3rd country national residents per year) à Diverse crimmigration landscape → Deportation machines are rare phenomenon

  • State Liberal democracies) capacity and interest to deport

  • Thick enforcement regimes (Netherlands, Norway)

  • Hampered enforcement regime (Belgium, Denmark)

  • Targeted enforcement regimes (German, Sweden)

  • Thin enforcement regimes (Italy and Spain)

• Not just deportation, but also non-deportation.

Key Words: Undeportability and Deportability

• Deportability refers to the situation of permanent risk of being deported

• Undeportability as a contingent and possibly changing condition of a structurally extreme unlikelihood of deportation.

Detention Upon Arrival: The HOTSPOTS

Images of Detention: CPR Torino

• Living conditions in immigration detention

  • LACK OF HEALTCARE

  • STRESS AND PTSD

  • ISOLATION and UNCERTAINTY

  • DETENTION CREATES ILLNESS (PATHOGENIC)

  • POOR LIVING CONDITIONS

  • MEDICALISATION OF DISSENSE

• Living conditions in immigration detention

  • Physical and

  • verbal violence of the police «maintenance of the order»

  • Everyday violence escalating during protests

  • Beatings, punishments, humiliations

• Living conditions in immigration detention

  • Very common practice: most of the deteinees are under drugs

  • Often given coercively and without communicating to the inmates what they are given (no informed consent)

  • “While they are asleep or stunned [because of the use of sedatives], their demands decrease: thus, the people detained in the Centre for Permanence for Repatriation (CPR) do not eat, do not cause troubles. They get repatriated and do not claim their rights. And above all, the management saves money, because psychopharmaceuticals are cheap. Food and an 'active' person, on the other hand, cost much more. ” (former employee of a CPR)

Externalisation

• Externalization refers to a practice where countries manage migration by shifting border control responsibilities beyond their own national territories.

• It avoids direct involvement within the national territory by distancing countries from humanitarian crises at their borders without necessarily solving the underlying issues.

• Problems are not solved but are moved elsewhere, creating new challenges for partner countries.

Types of Externalisation

• Interception and Return: Some countries establish agreements to intercept and return migrants before they reach national borders (Italy and Lybia)

• Offshore Processing Centers: Centers located in foreign countries where migrants are screened outside of the main destination country.

• Containment Zones: Partnerships with other countries to prevent migrants from moving further.

Effects

1. Effect on Accountability and Public Perception:

   • Externalization policies shift the migration issue away from public view and national accountability.

2. Reduced Visibility of Human Impact:

   • Migration management becomes more of a logistical task than a humanitarian issue.

   • The human impact on migrants is less visible to the public and institutions of the receiving country

Core Concept: “Safe” Third Countries & Safe Countries of Origin

• “Safe” Third Countries: Countries deemed capable of providing adequate protection and security for asylum seekers, allowing other countries to transfer migrants there for processing or resettlement.

• Safe Countries of Origin: Nations where individuals are presumed not at risk of persecution. Asylum claims from nationals of these countries are often fast-tracked or outright rejected.

Problems with “Safe” Classifications

• Safety is not universal—it varies widely depending on personal background, social status, and vulnerabilities.

• This simplified classification prioritizes bureaucratic efficiency over genuine individual safety.

• Sociologist Cecilia Menjívar highlights that safety designations often fail to consider individual circumstances, such as systemic discrimination that certain groups, like LGBTQ+ asylum seekers, might face in “safe” countries.

Non-Refoulement and Externalization

• Non-refoulement is a cornerstone of international refugee law, originating from the 1951 Refugee Convention.

• It prevents states from returning individuals to countries where they could face persecution, torture, or severe harm.

• Externalization policies, which involve states managing migration through third countries, are increasingly undermining non-refoulement.

Tension Between Non-Refoulement and Externalization Policies

• Outsourcing asylum processing involves transferring asylum seekers to third countries.

• Destination states claim compliance with non-refoulement, but migrants may face less secure protections in these third countries.

State Sovereignty vs. Humanitarian Obligations

• State Perspective: Prioritizes border security and control.

• Human Rights Perspective: States have a duty to uphold humanitarian commitments for those fleeing persecution.

• Rise of Securitization: Framing migration as a security issue often leads to prioritizing state control over humanitarian considerations.

Legal Basis for Externalization

• The legal basis for externalization is complex and lacks a unified framework.

• It can be described as a patchwork of precedents, agreements, and selective interpretations of international law.

• Externalization emerged from European states’ desire to manage increasing migration flows since the early 2000s.

Legal Ambiguities

• European states use orchestration strategies to delegate migration control to third countries.

• This allows them to "break the legal link" without explicitly violating international law.

• By selectively interpreting non-refoulement and safe third-country principles, states avoid direct violations.

• Practices create a grey area where states technically operate within the law while sidestepping humanitarian responsibilities.

Role of International Organizations

• International bodies like the UNHCR and IOM collaborate with states on externalization policies, aiming to uphold human rights standards.

• Despite cooperation, legal ambiguities persist, and ethical concerns remain.

Justifications for Externalization

• National Sovereignty: Countries have the right to control their borders.

  • Example: Italy-Albania and UK-Rwanda agreements rely on loopholes in international law rather than robust legal principles.

  • Selective interpretations can weaken global asylum protections.

• Safe Country: Countries deemed safe for processing asylum claims.

  • Allows destination countries to transfer asylum seekers while claiming compliance with non-refoulement.

  • Criticism: Raises concerns about relative safety and the risk of indirect refoulement.

Financial Incentives and Ethical Concerns

• Financial incentives and policy orchestration encourage third countries to act as migration gatekeepers.

  • Example: Italy's cooperation with Libya using EU funds for "pull-back" strategies.

• Consequences:

  • Bypasses direct responsibility and creates legal loopholes.

  • Migrants face abusive conditions in transit countries.

  • Raises ethical and legal concerns about the morality and durability of such practices.

Prioritizing «Border Rights» over Human Rights

• Securitization and political convenience weaken human rights standards.

• Asylum transforms from a right to a privilege, contingent on geographic factors.

UK-Rwanda Agreement

• Aim: To relocate asylum seekers from the UK to Rwanda for processing and resettlement.

• The UK Secretary of State could transfer asylum seekers to Rwanda without affording them legal rights in UK or international courts.

• Rwanda received an initial payment of £140 million (reached £240 million by the end of 2023).

• First flight stopped by the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) due to potential refoulement risks.

• UK Court of Appeal ruled the policy unlawful, citing concerns about Rwanda's asylum system and refoulement risks.

• UK Supreme Court upheld the Court of Appeal’s decision, declaring the Rwanda policy illegal due to insufficient safeguards against refoulement.

• The Supreme Court referenced similar issues in past Rwanda-Israel asylum agreements.

UK-Rwanda Agreement – HR Issues

• Human Rights concerns by HR groups, and international criticisms by UNHCR:

  • Rwanda’s high rejection rates of asylum claims (sometimes 100%).

  • Inadequate legal protections for applicants.

  • No written, appealable decisions.

  • Risk of refoulement.

  • Insufficient/non-existent independent monitoring.

UK-Rwanda Agreement - the Bill

• December 2023: the UK government introduced the "Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Bill”, declaring Rwanda a “safe country” by law.

• The legislation was passed in April 2024, to ensure flights to Rwanda could resume as early as mid-2024

• The new Bill:

  • restricts judicial reviews on Rwanda's status as a “safe” country: UK courts cannot challenge the assumption of safety for deported asylum seekers

  • It also limits the application of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) interventions, allowing the UK government to ignore ECtHR’s urgent orders to halt flights if deemed necessary

UK-Rwanda – the Bill controversy

• Public and political debate, with concerns about the law overstepping the UK’s international obligations

• Bill created a “legal fiction” by legislating Rwanda’s safety, despite documented concerns and potential human rights abuses

• Civil Servants’ resistance: British civil servants, filed a legal challenge against the policy, as it could force civil servants to violate the Civil Service Code by preparing flights in potential breach of international law

• Logistical issues: Rwanda kept defending its record on refugee care, noting that it remained ready to accept migrants from the UK under favourable conditions. But properties in Kigali initially marked for migrants were all sold to residents, leaving in a limbo the initially planned accommodations

• Public opinion in the UK remained divided both about the plan and the Bill.

UK-Rwanda – the non-existent results

• As of today:

  • No migrants have left the UK towards Rwanda

  • The UK Government switched to offering money (£3,000) to anyone who wanted to “relocate” there (as of July 2024, 4 people had accepted)

  • Sunak’s Government lost the elections in June 2024, and the new ruling party vowed to never apply the Safety of Rwanda Bill

  • Rwanda has refused to refund UK

Italy Albania agreement

• The deal was announced on November 6, 2023, AIM-> externalize migration management by transferring migrants, intercepted by Italian authorities, to Albania for processing

• Parliaments approved the deal.

Italy Albania agreement – Legal pitfalls

• Democratic and transparency deficits

• People rescued at sea will not be disembarked at the nearest Italian ports but may instead be transported over 700 km to Albania.

• The agreement lacks clear legal protections for asylum- seekers in Albanian centers, with concerns about limited judicial recourse and language barriers

Italy Albania agreement – The costs

• Total Projected Cost: The Italian government estimated the agreement would cost around €650 million over five years

• Italy will cover expenses for deploying Italian law enforcement officers and legal personnel to manage and support operations.

*AIM-> *The government's new genius anti-migrant plan: Welcome back to Italy!

Externalisation, summarised

• More Than Just Border Control -> Externalization goes beyond logistics; it has far-reaching economic, ethical, and political implications

• Shift from Protection to Security -> Europe's focus is moving from humanitarian obligations to controlling who enters and stays

Control over Compassion – a hidden Agenda

• Externalization deals often focus on limiting migration rather than providing genuine protection for those fleeing danger

• Agreements like the UK-Rwanda deal are designed to deter future migrants, signalling that Europe’s doors are closing

• Containment policies crafted to keep the reality of migration struggles out of the public eye, reducing domestic pressures

A Colonial Legacy in Modern Policies

• Modern externalization reflects colonial-era practices of managing migration by sending people to distant locations.

• reflects racial and geopolitical biases

• Agreements with countries like Albania or Libya reveal continues to exert influence over regions seen as less powerful

Hidden Agreements and Risks

• Opaque Decision-Making: many externalization deals rely on informal agreements like Memorandums of Understanding (MoUs) that avoid public and parliamentary scrutiny.

• the lack of transparency raises concerns about compliance

Costly Policies, Empty Promises

• Billions of euros are funnelled into externalization projects, but evidence suggests these measures often don’t achieve long-term results

Political gain over People

• Externalization policies often serve political narratives, reinforcing the idea of “Fortress Europe” rather than addressing existing migration needs

• Right-wing and populist rhetoric push for tighter controls, appealing to fears of an “invasion” rather than focusing on real economic or humanitarian needs

Multi- faceted bordered penality in Italy

• Seen as lenient with low deportation enforcement.

Key Concepts

• Bordered Penality: Management of migrants through various control mechanisms, not necessarily deportation but punitive

• Continuum of Confinement: Multiple overlapping forms of detention

• Banoptical: A surveillance approach targeting specific groups (e.g., migrants) for exclusion and control.

Italy as Migration Gateway

• Frequently used as a political tool to gain electoral support

• Treating migration as a temporary crisis rather than a structural challenge (-> stricter border controls and heavier reliance on detention centres)

Migration Control Mechanisms

• Low Deportation Rates: 0.6% of undocumented migrants deported in 2022

• Confinement Beyond Deportation: Governance through continuous cycles of containment

Structure of Confinement in Italy

• Three-Tier Facility System:

  1. Pre-Removal Detention Centers (CPRs):Holding illegalized migrants pending deportation

  2. Hotspots:Screening centers with de facto detention conditions

  3. Emergency Reception Centres (CAS):Temporary accommodation for asylum seekers

Challenges

• Site-specific practices and inconsistencies

• Arbitrary categorization of migrants as “economic” vs. “asylum seekers”
  *Economic migrants àorder to leave àdeportation /release to the community
  *Asylum seekers àemergency reception centres (CAS) à accelerated procedure and detention in hotspots and CPR

Humanitarian control – containment oriented

• Consequences for Migrants:

  • Disempowerment: Limited autonomy and control over their circumstances.

  • Social Exclusion: Marginalized and precarious living conditions.

  • Differential Inclusion: Migrants included in the labor market under subordinate conditions.

Key Findings and Analysis

• Border Control Effectiveness:

  • Italian system does not prioritize deportation

  • Focuses on maintaining a controlled yet un- deportable migrant population

• Political leverage in domestic debates

Conclusions

• Italian Migration System’s Dual Nature

  • Simultaneously punitive and integrative

Eastern Europe – Adrift between the North ad the South

• The East is too rich to be a proper part of the South, but too poor to be a part of the North.

The East as analytical perspective

• Being part of the EU stratified the belonging

*How do these considerations about the East help us to conceptualize migration?
Citizens of Eastern EU countries face processes akin to those in the GS: Deportation practices disproportionately target citizens of post-2004 EU member

In-Between region Poland

• emigration country (more than million of Poles live abroad

• immigration country (1.5 million of Ukrainians only in January 2022

• transit country

Returns of Polish citizens

• Forced: deportation of EU nationals but also criminals and prisoners returned

Forced returns of Polish citizens – after return

• Many Poles resist deportation, as they no longer view Poland as home after years abroad.

Deporting borders

• All control instruments are in place: detention (and its alternatives), deportation/return policy, strict and unwelcoming asylum policy

*Violence
Racialised Practices creates a divide between the approach
Green border directed by Agniezska Holland
Ping-pong between Belarusian and Polish officials

INTERNATIONAL CROSSROAD

• TRANSIT and a DESTINATION country

OPEN DOOR POLICY & T.P.R

• Syrians were given immediate refuge, and all their biometric data were stored by the Turkish authorities.

• The program offered free healthcare services, and access to public schools.
  Syrians were always designated as “guests”, not refugees, limiting their legal rights

RISING XENOPHOBIA AND SOCIAL TENSIONS

• amplified by political campaigns and social media, has led to widespread discrimination and violence

CRIMINALISATION OF MIGRATION

• The 2016 EU-Turkey deal further escalated this trend, focusing on detaining irregular migrants and returning them to Turkey from Greece.

ERDOGAN’S ‘SAFE ZONE’ FOR SYRIANS

• The zone serves as a bargaining chip in negotiations with the European Union and other international actors, potentially securing financial and logistical support for Turkey’s efforts.

The ‘Safe Zone’ Problems

• There have been reports of forced displacements and human rights abuses within the proposed safe zone, raising ethical and legal issues.

HUMAN RIGHTS CONCERNS Forced Displacements

• reports indicate that some Syrians have been coerced or pressured into signing forms indicating their voluntary return.

LEGAL IMPUNITY AND VIOLENCE AGAINST MIGRANTS

• A troubling Turkish feature is the culture of IMPUNITY surrounding violence against migrants.

Kayseri 2024

• many syrians houses, businesses and cars were targeted.

• Thousands of Turks took to the streets demanding Erdogan to resign and send Syrians out of the country

What?

• Nationalism

• US agreements and funding.

EU-TURKEY DEAL AND MIGRATION CONTROL

• While intended to curb irregular migration, this policy led to overcrowded detention centres and increased deportations.

POST-EARTHQUAKE MIGRATION CHALLENGES

• The February 2023 earthquake strained refugee communities

Refugee Reception in Indonesia

*Geography matters

Key Concepts

• Humanitarianism without obligations

• Containment Strategy

Galang Island Camp (1979-1996)

• Symbolizing Indonesia’s humanitarian response

Transition Phase to detention (mid-1990 – early 2000)

• Shift from camps to detention centres centres

Australia set the scene (2004-2012)

• Pressure from Australia to make Indonesia a containment country, funded by Australia

Immigration detention centres (2012-

• Dramatic living conditions and violence

Alternatives to Detention (2011-)

*Emergence of ATDs in the early 2010s due to the insufficient capacity in the detention centres
Refugees would have to be detained then assigned to IOM

Autonomous Living and Urban Refugees (2013-)

*Legal and bureaucratic barriers limit access to healthcare, education, and employment.

The Rohingya Case in Aceh

• Local communities welcomed these refugees.

Current Issues and International Involvement

*Much of the funding for refugee management comes from international donors, such as Australia and the European Union

## Australia has a vested interest in Indonesia's containment policies

Key Takeaways

• Containment

• Humanitarianism

• International pressure

After reading: Mexico’s Air Deportation

*From 2001 to 2021, Mexican authorities expelled 2,588,009 migrants, 90% of whom were from Guatemala, Honduras, and El Salvador. (p.21)

US pressure

• National Guard
  *
  Nancy Hiemstra (2019) calls this process the “the elasticisation of the US southern border”
  However, this new approach to migration was not well received by the US administration
  Mexico has a human rhetoric about migrants
  AMLO’s administration is already marked by three major elements:
  *in the history of Mexico
  Covid excuse:The perfect excuse to increase the number of deportation was
  In the first month of 2020, in the context of the Migrant Caravans that arrived at the southern border of Mexico on 18 and 20 January.
  Grupo Aéreo Monterrey (Magnicharters)

Mexico's Air Deportation

Overview

• Mexico has a significant deportation apparatus, potentially due to US pressure.

• Mexico's deportation system is extensive and harsh.

• On average, Mexico deports 90% of migrants apprehended by migration authorities.

• Detainees are typically held for about 5 days before deportation (CNDH, 2019, p.93).

• From 2001 to 2021, Mexican authorities deported 2,588,009 migrants, with 90% originating from Guatemala, Honduras, and El Salvador (p.21).

Factors Influencing Deportation

• US Pressure: The United States exerts considerable influence on Mexico's migration policies.

• Human Rhetoric: Mexico employs a rhetoric of humanitarianism regarding migrants.

• COVID-19 Excuse: The COVID-19 pandemic has been used as a justification for increased deportations.

• Payments: Financial incentives or reimbursements may play a role in deportation agreements.

• National Guard: Deployment of the National Guard is involved in border control.

US Influence and Border Control

• US Extension: The US extends its border control through migration policing practices in Mexico.

• Agreement: There are agreements between Mexico and the US regarding migration control.

• Tax Increase: Threats of tax increases from the US have influenced Mexico's migration policies.

• Nancy Hiemstra (2019) describes this as the "elasticisation of the US southern border," where the US extends its power via extra-territorial migration policing practices (p.22).

• Terms like "border-country" (Yrizar Barbosa 2011), "vertical border" (Yee Quintero and Torre Cantalapiedra 2016), and "arterial border" (Vogt 2017) describe increasing securitization of migration in Mexico due to its partnership with the US (p.22).

Migrant Caravans and Policy Shifts

• In late 2018 and early 2019, Central American migrants organized into caravans for safety (Varela Huerta and McLean, 2019).

• The AMLO administration initially promised an "open arms" policy in response.

• However, the US administration, under President Donald Trump, pressured Mexico to curb irregular migration, threatening tariffs on Mexican products in June 2019 (p.24).

• 2019: "US-Mexico joint declaration on migration and refugees" was established (p.12).

AMLO Administration's Approach

• Mexico presents a human rhetoric regarding migrants, including an "Open Arms" policy, but this is contrasted by the reality of increased control and deportations.

• AMLO's administration is marked by:

  • Repressive control of migrant caravans in 2019 and 2020.

  • A record number of apprehensions (444,439) in 2022.

  • A total of 3,448,412 irregular migrants intercepted from 2001 to 2022.

  • A fire in a Ciudad Juarez detention center in March 2023, resulting in 40 migrant deaths (p.24).

COVID-19 and Deportation Protocols

• The COVID-19 pandemic was used to justify increased deportations.

• The INM (National Institute of Migration) announced a "Protocol for the prevention and care of suspected and confirmed cases of COVID 19 in the Migration Stations and Temporary Stays of the National Institute of Migration" on April 20 (INM 2020).

• The protocol aimed to:

  • Identify cases.

  • Prevent transmission.

  • Establish specific care processes.

  • Maintain order and safeguard facilities to minimize COVID-19 transmission (p.16).

Changes in Deportation Methods

• Before COVID (2009-2019), migrants were deported via non-stop buses (p.17).

• Reports indicate poor conditions on these buses, including lack of toilets, inadequate ventilation, long journeys (12-36 hours), poor food, and lack of medical certification (p.18).

• Bus drivers acted as de facto migration officers.

• During COVID, deportation methods shifted from buses to airplanes (p.19).

Aerial Deportations

• In January 2020, the INM deported 1,064 migrants by air to Honduras using Guardia Nacional aircraft and charter flights (INM 029/2020) (p.20).

• In 2020, the INM deported 2,934 Central American migrants by air: 2,461 to Honduras, 406 to El Salvador, and 67 to Nicaragua (INM 171/2020) (p.20).

• In 2021, aerial deportations nearly tripled to 17,002, with 140 flights made (p.20).

• Honduras, Guatemala, and El Salvador were the primary destinations.

  • Charter flights accounted for a relatively small percentage of total expulsions to these nations (15% for Honduras, 8% for Guatemala, and 19% for El Salvador).

• Charter flights were more significant for deportations to Cuba (32%), Haiti (42%), and Ecuador (37%) (p.20).

Concerns and Controversies

• The death of a Salvadoran woman in INM custody in April 2020 due to COVID-19 complications was omitted from official statements (p.21).

• Aerial transfers have become the primary method for deporting migrants, raising concerns about the private companies involved (p.22).

• Grupo Aéreo Monterrey (Magnicharters) was contracted without competitive bidding for air transport services for migrants and public servants in 2020 and 2021 (p.23).

Militarization of Mexico's Southern Border

• There is a clear militarization of expulsion processes, with National Guard involvement (p.24).

• Flights were heavily secured by migration agents and National Guard agents (p.25).

• For charter flights to Haiti:

  • An average of 80 migrants were expelled per flight with about 38 custodial agents.

  • The ratio of migration agents to National Guard agents was generally 50–50.

• For charter flights to Cuba, the ratio was also generally 50–50, but in one case, National Guard agents outnumbered migration agents by five to 15 (p.25).

• The transfer of the body of Victoria Esperanza Salazar, a refugee from El Salvador killed by police brutality in March 2021, highlights human rights concerns (p.25).

Rhetoric vs. Reality

• The INM uses euphemistic rhetoric, emphasizes human rights compliance, and stresses collaboration with destination countries (p.26).

• Visual materials show staff and migrants wearing masks, but health provisions are not emphasized in official communications.

• The current Mexican administration (2018–2024) broke its promise of an "open arms" policy.

• Stronger interception measures and militarized migration control, combined with structural violence, have made Mexico increasingly dangerous for irregular migrants (p.26).