Integration and reintegration: Comparing pathways to citizenship through asylum and criminal justice

Abstract

The development of scholarship related to particular categories of people who are subject to different forms of social control often results in subfields that become or remain isolated from each other. As an example, theory and research relating to the reintegration of ex-offenders and the integration of asylum seekers have developed almost completely independently. However, both processes involve people who are marginalized and stigmatized through legal and social processes, and policies and practices in the two fields share somewhat similar concepts and goals. This article therefore seeks to identify insights through a critical comparison of these two areas of research, theory and practice, with the intention of enriching our understanding of both. This comparison highlights that the frameworks reviewed here enable us to move beyond a narrow focus on service user's behaviours, needs or risks, and into an examination of questions of identity, belonging and justice.

Restorative justice informed criminal justice social work and probation services

“…As argued by Duff (2003), such reconciliation is not oneway; it may also involve the community or wider society taking some responsibility for harms the individual has suffered and taking steps to address these. RJ may be a springboard for engaging in generative activities, such paid or voluntary work, which helps them to be contributing citizens and cement a commitment to a pro-social life (Kirkwood and McNeill, 2015).…”

Is this the Dawning of the Age of Surveillance? - Monitoring Offenders in New Zealand

“…Otherwise they will continue to dehumanise the recipients of their services as "bearers of risks or needs, rather than as citizens who may need some support to enjoy their rights and fulfil their obligations." 60…”

‘I want to participate.’ transition experiences of new refugees in Glasgow

“…This failure to deliver statutory rights creates severe instability that undermines settlement. As Kirkwood and McNeill (2015) have observed in the case of ex-offenders, using homelessness services should be unnecessary for predictable homelessness and puts pressure on an already overstretched system.…”