2019
DOI: 10.1111/lasr.12413
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Abstract: In many countries, the law permits state authorities to detain noncitizens before deportation. Typically judicial decisions about preremoval detention must be made within a short period of time during which deportable noncitizens are held in police premises, and depending on the country detention may last just one month (e.g., France) or up to 18 months (the Netherlands). While previous research has explored various dimensions of noncitizen detention including the legal procedure, health consequences, the cond… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1
1

Citation Types

0
11
0

Year Published

2019
2019
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
5

Relationship

1
4

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 6 publications
(11 citation statements)
references
References 38 publications
0
11
0
Order By: Relevance
“…As detention practices may serve several different objectives depending on the targeted noncitizens, it is important to pay attention to which noncitizens are detained, on what grounds and with what outcomes in order to better understand the operation of immigration detention. Notwithstanding well-grounded concerns surrounding the detention of vulnerable groups such as asylum seekers, immigration detention as a preemptive security measure might be intertwined with crime control in a more extensive manner than assumed in Europe, as indicated also in research conducted in Italy (Campesi & Fabini, 2020) and Spain (Vallbé et al, 2019). While only some European countries-for example, Germany, Norway, Sweden, and the United Kingdom-have introduced a legal ground for detention related to "Reasonable grounds to believe that the person will commit a crime/offence" (European Migration Network, 2014, p. 15), other legal grounds can be used for the detention of deportable foreign offenders as well.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…As detention practices may serve several different objectives depending on the targeted noncitizens, it is important to pay attention to which noncitizens are detained, on what grounds and with what outcomes in order to better understand the operation of immigration detention. Notwithstanding well-grounded concerns surrounding the detention of vulnerable groups such as asylum seekers, immigration detention as a preemptive security measure might be intertwined with crime control in a more extensive manner than assumed in Europe, as indicated also in research conducted in Italy (Campesi & Fabini, 2020) and Spain (Vallbé et al, 2019). While only some European countries-for example, Germany, Norway, Sweden, and the United Kingdom-have introduced a legal ground for detention related to "Reasonable grounds to believe that the person will commit a crime/offence" (European Migration Network, 2014, p. 15), other legal grounds can be used for the detention of deportable foreign offenders as well.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Even if immigration detention has acquired increased attention since the turn of the century (Bosworth & Turnbull, 2015), very few studies have analyzed how judges and bureaucrats use their discretion and how they make detention decisions. Notable exceptions (Campesi & Fabini, 2019; Ryo, 2016; Vallbé et al, 2019; Weber, 2003) provided interesting insights into immigration detention decision-making processes in Italy, the United States, Spain and the United Kingdom. They highlighted that the person’s criminal past, the perceived risk of absconding or of the social dangerousness of “undesirable” migrants (Campesi & Fabini, 2019), and the time since a deportation order was issued all constitute decisive elements that decision-makers consider “cues” to order detention (Vallbé et al, 2019).…”
Section: Theoretical Frameworkmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Notable exceptions (Campesi & Fabini, 2019; Ryo, 2016; Vallbé et al, 2019; Weber, 2003) provided interesting insights into immigration detention decision-making processes in Italy, the United States, Spain and the United Kingdom. They highlighted that the person’s criminal past, the perceived risk of absconding or of the social dangerousness of “undesirable” migrants (Campesi & Fabini, 2019), and the time since a deportation order was issued all constitute decisive elements that decision-makers consider “cues” to order detention (Vallbé et al, 2019). These studies also show that detention decisions involve a certain degree of uncertainty (Vallbé et al, 2019) and discretion (Weber, 2003).…”
Section: Theoretical Frameworkmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 2 more Smart Citations