Conceptualizing detention

Abstract

The full-text may be used and/or reproduced, and given to third parties in any format or medium, without prior permission or charge, for personal research or study, educational, or not-for-prot purposes provided that:• a full bibliographic reference is made to the original source • a link is made to the metadata record in DRO • the full-text is not changed in any way The full-text must not be sold in any format or medium without the formal permission of the copyright holders.Please consult the full DRO policy for further details.

Polymorphic borders

“…In the United States, scholars have analysed the intermingling of criminal justice and immigration policing (Coleman, 2007;Martin, 2015); interior immigration enforcement resulting in detention and deportation (Coleman, 2009;Hiemstra, 2013;Mountz, Coddington, Catania, & Loyd, 2013); devolution of immigration inspections to local agencies (Varsanyi, Lewis, Provine, & Decker, 2012) and risk-based profiling and financial surveillance (Amoore, 2013;De Goede, 2012). In the European Union, migration and border policies have produced complex spatial dynamics: the bounding of Europe's Schengen Area (Prokkola, 2013;van Houtum, 2010); simultaneous freeing of internal mobility for EU citizens and 'hardening' of external boundaries (Huysmans, 2000;Vaughan-Williams, 2008); the harmonization of border and immigration controls as a condition of EU admission; Good Neighbor Agreements with non-EU members tying aid to immigration and border policing requirements (Casas-Cortes, Cobarrubias, & Pickles, 2013); and the expansion of long-term detention as a mobility control practice (Gill, 2009;Schuster, 2005).…”

Beyond intentionality: exploring creativity and resistance within a UK Immigration Removal Centre

“…The control of time, as a strategic political act, is reflected in the institutional rhythms of IRCs and other institutions in the wider regime of border security, detention and deportation (see Gill 2009;Griffiths 2013;Mountz 2013;Mountz et al 2013). …”

“…Indeed the IRC can be seen to represent a temporal juxtaposition between containment and mobility, as the apparatus of detention serves to render migrant bodies immobile, with the objective of moving them elsewhere (Mountz et al 2013). Thus little can be anticipated, as the deportability of the migrant's body means that they cannot plan for the near future and live in a period of perceived temporal stasis.…”

The political mobilities of reporting: tethering, slickness and asylum control

“…First, with respect to slickness, there has been little attention paid to the mobilities associated with the process of becoming detained. While there has been much exemplary work on the debilitating effects of detention on the physical and mental wellbeing of detainees (see Bosworth 2014;Conlon and Hiemstra 2014) and the transportation and confinement of asylum seekers to island detention centres and 'hotspots' such that they can be spatially, temporally and legally 'fixed' (Mountz 2011;Mountz et al 2012;Tazzioli 2018), the movements, speeds, forces, affective intensities and governmental intents of detaining have rarely been placed at the forefront of analysis. In this paper we introduce the concept of 'slickness' in order to understand the mobilities that accompany the transformation of an asylum seeker into a 'detained asylum seeker'.…”