Immigration Detention vs Imprisonment

Groves, Matthew

doi:10.1177/1037969x0402900505

Cited by 6 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 1 publication

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…called “faggot” by a number of officers’ (Russell, 2015, p. 123). While the raid became the subject of a successful class action and was widely denounced as a symbol of police violence against LGBTIQ lives in Victoria, the official investigation conducted by Victoria’s Deputy Ombudsman found the ‘raid was discriminatory but was not, in so far as can be ascertained, based on prejudice against homosexuals’ (cited in Russell, 2015, p. 124; see Groves, 1995). The pretextual protections that the rhetoric of drug enforcement affords police against allegations of prejudice became apparent in this discourse, providing something of a legalistic template that NSW police would go on to take up and make fulsome use of in the intervening decades, as has been evident in the regular staging of drug dog operations at hallmark gay events such as the annual Sydney Mardi Gras party and gay/queer nightlife precincts in Sydney (Gay and Lesbian Rights Lobby et al, 2013; Race, 2014, 2018).…”

Section: ‘This Room Is So White!’: Technologies Of Abjectionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Technologies of abjection: The possessive logics and performative sovereignty of drug dog operations in New South Wales, Australia

Race

2023

The Sociological Review

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article considers the alarming escalation in the use of strip-searching on the part of the New South Wales police over the past decade and its connection with street-level drug policing including drug dog operations. These strategies mobilise a technology of detection which draws police ever more intently into the orbit of the sexual and sexual violation and in ever-closer proximity to the genital, the vaginal and the anal cavities of those it forcibly produces as suspects. I am especially interested in the symbolic, spectacular, gendered and performative dimensions of these ‘devices of sexual saturation’; their opportunistic deployment to patrol minoritarian populations (Aboriginal people, young people/minors, sexual and racial minorities) and cast aspersions on their self-sovereign capacities. Framed by the law as technologies of drug detection, these operations are better conceptualised as technologies of abjection devoted to the production of violable subjects as part of brutal ongoing efforts to shore up the authority of self-asserted, stolen sovereignty. A narcofeminist lens brings these gendered dimensions of drug policing into better view. Here, the ‘possessive logics’ that Aileen Moreton-Robinson implicates in the performativity of patriarchal white sovereignty on the part of the ‘postcolonising’ Australian state find their pretext and source of legitimation in the rhetoric of drugs and the fantasised sovereign subject it maintains as a requirement for the general functioning of the law: the ‘master of her intentions and desires’, in Derrida’s words. This mobilisation of technologies of abjection under the guise of drug enforcement is part of a longer story about the racialisation of sexuality and the sexualisation of race as biopolitical trajectories that naturalise and maintain settler-colonialism and its worlds. Countering their violence entails forging new solidarities among minoritarian constituencies that articulate, affirm and reactivate the non-sovereign potentials/performatives that inhere in our mutual vulnerability and relationally-constituted capacity for endurance.

show abstract

Section: ‘This Room Is So White!’: Technologies Of Abjectionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Technologies of abjection: The possessive logics and performative sovereignty of drug dog operations in New South Wales, Australia

Race

2023

The Sociological Review

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…However, despite being characterized as civil confinement, a closer look at the immigration detention regimes around the world reveals that this form of forced enclosure and confinement carried out against undocumented migrants is often many degrees harsher than criminal detention. In addition, people facing immigration detention lack access to the same constitutional protections as those facing criminal incarceration (Groves 2004). Australia and the United States also follow this trend of considering their immigration detention policies as being 'administrative.'…”

Section: Children In Immigration Detentionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Processes of Sub-Citizenship: Neoliberal Statecrafting ‘Citizens,’ ‘Non-Citizens,’ and Detainable ‘Others’

Rung

2020

Social Sciences

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Increasingly, scholars are exploring the politics of migration and the shifting terrain of citizenship from a critical mobilities perspective. To contribute to these discussions, in this paper, I explore how processes of sub-citizenship occur as nation-states craft immigration, citizenship, and border securitization policies and practices. I argue that complex and shifting processes of sub-citizenship largely occur through the nation-state’s production of ‘insiders’ (‘citizens’) and ‘outsiders’ (‘non-citizens’). As a nascent attempt to introduce sub-citizenship, I draw upon recent high-profile cases of family separation, abuse, and neglect experienced by children with ‘illegal migrant’ status in the United States and Australia. Under the international nation-state system and the neoliberal globalization paradigm, the border policing powers of nation-states are primed to expand and intensify processes of sub-citizenship. Those at lower levels of the sub-citizen hierarchy are at risk of experiencing various forms of state-led violence, including deportation, detention, and torture.

show abstract

“…Even in immigration detention centers, migrants and asylum seekers are routinely subjected to lengthy detention periods in prison-like conditions that are designed to punish and deter, in contravention of international standards. Indeed, 'there is little practical difference between many of the features of immigration detention and imprisonment…' (Groves 2004). Moreover, administrative detention does not carry the legal safeguards found in criminal law (Stumpf 2006;Parkin 2013).…”

Section: Criminalizing the Detainee: Private Security Actors And The mentioning

confidence: 99%

Immigration detention: An Anglo model

Mainwaring

Cook

2018

Migration Studies

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Over the last twenty-five years, immigration detention policies and practices have proliferated around the globe. We look at four liberal democratic countries with the largest immigration detention systems-Australia, Canada, the United Kingdom, and the United States-and identify components of an immigration detention policy 'package' as well as historical parallels in the early adoption of detention in these countries. This 'Anglo model' of detention is based on three main features: (1) the existence of indefinite and/or mandatory immigration detention policies; (2) the use of private security actors and infrastructure; and (3) the use of creative legal geographies in order to interdict and detain people offshore. Past scholarship on detention has focused on single national case studies or assumed the leadership of the US as the primary innovator in the field. Our paper establishes the empirical and theoretical grounds for considering these countries as a group and suggests a more complex process of policy adoption among them. Identifying an Anglo model of detention lays the critical groundwork for understanding the expansion of immigration detention and the transnational diffusion of detention policies among these countries, as well as where and how countervailing pressures to detention might form.

show abstract

Immigration Detention vs Imprisonment

Cited by 6 publications

References 1 publication

Technologies of abjection: The possessive logics and performative sovereignty of drug dog operations in New South Wales, Australia

Technologies of abjection: The possessive logics and performative sovereignty of drug dog operations in New South Wales, Australia

Processes of Sub-Citizenship: Neoliberal Statecrafting ‘Citizens,’ ‘Non-Citizens,’ and Detainable ‘Others’

Immigration detention: An Anglo model

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About