Comparing Immigration Detention in Britain and France: A Matter of Time?
In: European Journal of Migration and LawCentre for Criminology, Faculty of Law, University of Oxford Manor Road Building, Manor Road, Oxford OX1 3UQ UK Department of Criminology, Faculty of Arts, School of Social Sciences, Monash University Melbourne, vic 3800 Australia
Search for other papers by Mary Bosworth in
Current site
Google Scholar
Search for other papers by Marion Vannier in
Current site
Google Scholar
In this article, we explore the human rights implications of immigration detention in Britain and France by focusing on duration. In so doing, we show how practices in both systems fail to meet basic human rights protections, raising urgent questions about the legitimacy and justification of these sites of confinement. Whereas in the uk problems arise from the absence of a statutory upper time limit to detention, in France it is the brevity for which foreign nationals may be held that raises humanitarian concerns. In the uk, the uncertain duration of detention makes it difficult for detainees to obtain or retain legal advice. Those who are held for long periods of time struggle to maintain their right to family life, while most find the lack of clarity about the period of their confinement hard to endure. In France, where most detainees are released or deported within a matter of days, it is often difficult to access due process and legal protections in time. This brief period of confinement before expulsion contrasts with its enduring effect on their family ties and future. Drawing on policy documents, law, and the limited body of empirical material available on these carceral sites, we map the similarities and differences between them in order to identify the limits as well as some prospects of human rights in immigration detention.
Purchase
Buy instant access (PDF download and unlimited online access):
Institutional Login
Log in with Open Athens, Shibboleth, or your institutional credentials
Personal login
Log in with your brill.com account
-
1
S. Shaw (2016), Review into the Welfare in Detention of Vulnerable Persons, London: hmso, Cm 9186; D. Wilsher (2012), Immigration Detention: Law, History, Politics, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; M. Bosworth (2014), Inside Immigration Detention: Foreigners in a Carceral Age, Oxford: Oxford University Press; C. Costello, ‘Immigration Detention: The Grounds Beneath Our Feet’, Current Legal Problems (2015) 1–35. Costello argues that immigration detention is groundless.
-
2
N. Fischer and M. Darley (2010), ‘Le Traitement de l’Immigration, entre Logique Administrative et Logique Pénale,’ viiChamp Pénal/Penal Field.
-
4
J. Phelps (2009), Detained Lives, London: London Detainee Support Group; hmip and icibi (2012), The Effectiveness and Impact of Immigration Detention Casework: A Joint Thematic Review, London: Crown Copyright/Her Majesty Inspectorate of Prisons and the Independent Chief Inspector of Borders and Immigration; All Party Parliamentary Group on Refugees and the All Party Parliamentary Group on Migration (appg) (2015), Report of the Inquiry into the Use of Immigration Detention in the United Kingdom, A Joint Inquiry by the All Party Parliamentary Group on Refugees and the All Party Parliamentary Group on Migration; Shaw (2016), n. 1; cimade, assfam, Forum Réfugiés, France Terre d’Asile and l’Ordre de Malte (2015), Rapport 2014 Sur les Centres et Locaux de Rétention Administrative; N. Fischer, ‘Bodies at the Border: The medical protection of immigrants in a French Immigration Detention Centre’, 7 Ethnic and Racial Studies (2013) 1162–1179.
-
5
Bosworth (2014), n. 1; Wilsher (2010), n. 1.
-
6
R. Cohen (1994), Frontiers of Identity: The British and Others, London: Longman; C. Holmes (1988), John Bull’s Island: Immigration and British Society, 1871–1971, Basingstoke: Macmillan; P. Panayi (1994), Immigration, Ethnicity and Racism in Britain: 1815–1945, Manchester: Manchester University Press; R. Hansen (2000), Citizenship and Immigration in Post-War Britain: The Institutional Origins of Multicultural Nation, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
-
7
Home Office (2014), Immigration Statistics July-September 2014, London.
-
10
G. Dreyfus-Armand and E. Temime (1995), Les Camps Sur la Plage. Un Exil Espagnol, Paris: Autrement.
-
11
A. Grynberg (1991), Les Camps de la Honte, les Internés Juifs dans les Camps Français (1939–44), Paris: La Découverte; R. Schor (1996), Histoire de l’Immigration en France de la fin du XIXème siècle à Nos Jours, Paris: Armand Colin.
-
13
Alex Panzani (1975), Une prison clandestine de la police française: Arenc, Paris: F. Maspero; E. Naylor, ‘Arenc : le premier centre de rétention était clandestin’, 1 Plein Droit (2015) 32–36.
-
15
A. Panzani (1975), n. 13; A. Battegay, S. Chabani, E. Naylor, M-T Tetu (2013), Lieux à mémoires multiples et enjeux d’interculturalité: le cas de deux lieux en cours de patrimonialisation—La prison Montluc (Lyon) et le centre de retention d’Arenc (Marseille), Lyon, available online at: http://centre-max-weber.fr/img/pdf/Lieux_a_memoires_multiples.pdf (accessed 10 December 2015).
-
19
Migration Observatory (2015), Briefing: Immigration Detention in the UK, Oxford, p. 4.
-
20
J. Brokenshire (2015), Response to the Report of the Inquiry into the Use of Immigration Detention in the United Kingdom, A Joint Inquiry by the All Party Parliamentary Group on Refugees and the All Party Parliamentary Group on Migration, available online at: https://detentioninquiry.files.wordpress.com/2015/03/james-brokenshire-letter-to-sarah-teather.pdf.
-
25
A. Cooke (2013), National Report: United Kingdom—Immigration detention and the rule of law, London: Bingham Centre for the Rule of Law; Migration Observatory (2015), Briefing: Immigration Detention in the UK, Oxford: Oxford |Univeristy Press.
-
28
Home Office (2014), n. 7.
-
30
E. Kaufman (2015), ‘Punish and Expel—Border Control, Nationalism, and the New Purpose of the Prison’, Clarendon Studies in Criminology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
-
31
Bosworth (2014), n. 1.
-
32
Shaw (2016), n. 1, Appendix 4.
-
36
Basilien et al. (2013), n. 24.
-
38
M. Bosworth (2011), ‘Human Rights and Immigration Detention’, in: Marie-Bénédicte Dembour and Toby Kelly (eds.), Are Human Rights for Migrants? Critical Reflections on the Status of Irregular Migrants in Europe and the United States, Abingdon: Routledge, pp. 165–183.
-
39
B. Nicholas and R. Husain (2003), Immigration, Asylum and Human Rights, Blackstone’s Human Rights, p. 125.
-
40
On these see, for example R. Thomas (2011), Administrative Justice and Asylum Appeals: A Study of Tribunal Adjudication, Oxford: Hart Publishing; G. Cornelisse (2010), Immigration Detention and Human Rights: Rethinking Territorial Sovereignty, Leiden: Martinus Nijhoff; A. Aliverti (2013) Crimes of Mobility, Abingdon: Routledge.
-
44
T. Hammarberg (2008), Memorandum by Thomas Hammarberg Commissioner for Human Rights of the Council of Europe, Strasbourg.
-
46
See, for example, Detention Action (2012), ‘Submission to the un Special Rapporteur on the Human Rights of Migrants: Immigration Detention in the UK’; Phelps (2009), n. 4; J. Phelps (2010), No Return, No Release, No Reason: Challenging Indefinite Detention, London: London Detainee Support Group.
-
53
Costello, n. 1, p. 11.
-
64
Detention Action, n. 46, p. 7.
-
68
Basilien et al. (2013), n. 24, p. 28, 29.
-
72
Between 2008 and 2011, the management of cras was progressively transferred from the French gendarmerie officers to the paf (see E. Assassi and F.-N. Buffet (2014), Rapport d’Information n°773 ‘La Rétention Administrative: Eviter la Banalisation, Garantir la Dignité des Personnes’, Paris: Sénat, p. 30).
-
73
Assassi and Buffet (2014), n. 72, pp. 30–31.
-
74
Assassi and Buffet (2014), n. 72, p. 66.
-
80
Bosworth (2014), n. 1.
-
82
Asylum In Europe (2014) National Country Report: France.
-
85
Assassi and Buffet (2014), n. 72, p. 54.
-
86
Detention Action, n. 46; Shaw (2016), n. 1, Appendix 5.
-
88
Bosworth (2014), n. 1; M. Bosworth (2015), ‘Immigration Detention, Ambivalence and the Colonial Other’, in: A. Eriksson (ed.), Punishing the Other, Abingdon: Routledge, pp. 145–164 M. Bosworth and G. Slade, ‘In Search of Recognition: Gender and Staff-Detainee Relations in a British Immigration Detention Centre’, 2 Punishment and Society (2014) 169–186.
-
91
A. Huraux (2010), ‘Signez Ici Monsieur’, in: La Cimade (ed.) Chroniques de rétention (2008–2010), Arles: Actes Sud.
-
92
G. Agamben (2005), State of Exception, London: University of Chicago Press.
-
93
N. Fischer and M. Darley (2010), ‘Le Traitement de l’Immigration, entre Logique Administrative et Logique Pénale,’ viiChamp Pénal/Penal Field.
-
94
Fischer (2013), n. 4; N. Fischer, ‘Une Frontière ‘Négociée’. L’Assistance Juridique Associative aux Etrangers Placés en Rétention Administrative’, 87 Politix (2009) 71–92. Until 2009, the cimade was the only organisation authorised by the government to provide assistance to illegal migrants held in cras. In April 2009, the government announced that Cimade would no longer have exclusive access to detention sites (O. Lecucq (2011), La retention administrative des étrangers en France. Entre efficacité et protection, Paris: L’Harmattan).
-
95
Décret du 24 juin 2014, modifiant les articles R.553-14-4 à R.553-14-8 du ceseda.
-
97
In 2014, the British government refused to allow the un Special rapporteur on women’s rights to enter Yarl’s Wood, as the visit had not been prearranged.
-
98
Fischer and Darley (2010), n. 93.
-
99
Assassi and Buffet (2014), n. 72, p. 60.
| All Time | Past Year | Past 30 Days | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Abstract Views | 790 | 71 | 6 |
| Full Text Views | 368 | 18 | 2 |
| PDF Views & Downloads | 207 | 33 | 6 |
Comparing Immigration Detention in Britain and France: A Matter of Time?
In: European Journal of Migration and LawCentre for Criminology, Faculty of Law, University of Oxford Manor Road Building, Manor Road, Oxford OX1 3UQ UK Department of Criminology, Faculty of Arts, School of Social Sciences, Monash University Melbourne, vic 3800 Australia
Search for other papers by Mary Bosworth in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Marion Vannier in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
In this article, we explore the human rights implications of immigration detention in Britain and France by focusing on duration. In so doing, we show how practices in both systems fail to meet basic human rights protections, raising urgent questions about the legitimacy and justification of these sites of confinement. Whereas in the uk problems arise from the absence of a statutory upper time limit to detention, in France it is the brevity for which foreign nationals may be held that raises humanitarian concerns. In the uk, the uncertain duration of detention makes it difficult for detainees to obtain or retain legal advice. Those who are held for long periods of time struggle to maintain their right to family life, while most find the lack of clarity about the period of their confinement hard to endure. In France, where most detainees are released or deported within a matter of days, it is often difficult to access due process and legal protections in time. This brief period of confinement before expulsion contrasts with its enduring effect on their family ties and future. Drawing on policy documents, law, and the limited body of empirical material available on these carceral sites, we map the similarities and differences between them in order to identify the limits as well as some prospects of human rights in immigration detention.
| All Time | Past Year | Past 30 Days | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Abstract Views | 790 | 71 | 6 |
| Full Text Views | 368 | 18 | 2 |
| PDF Views & Downloads | 207 | 33 | 6 |