Loughnan, Claire --- "Inside Immigration Detention by Mary Bosworth" [2015] CICrimJust 6; (2015) 26(3) Current Issues in Criminal Justice 341

• Introduction
• Chapter structure
• The salience of identity
• Institutional incoherence and the management of denial
• Sites of estrangement
• Conclusion
• References

---

Review

Inside Immigration Detention by Mary Bosworth, Oxford University Press, 2014, 223 pp (ISBN 978-019-8722-571)

Claire Loughnan^[*]

Introduction

Criminological analyses of immigration detention have proliferated in recent years, with much of the literature addressing such detention as a breach of human rights, as well as highlighting the punitive characteristics of immigration detention, and the impact of border control on ‘illegal’ migration more generally (Aas and Bosworth 2013; Weber and Pickering 2011). However, immigration detention also demands closer examination at the institutional level, including among migration officers, as some commentators have indicated (Weber 2003; Grewcock 2005). Mary Bosworth’s research does precisely this and more: it builds on an emerging body of published work addressing concrete experiences and practices within the day-to-day institutional ‘life’ of immigration detention and border control (see Bosworth 2012; Fleay and Briskman 2013; Hall 2010, 2012; Weber 2003, 2005). By more closely examining the institutional practices and actuality of immigration detention we are better able to appreciate its complexities.

Inside Immigration Detention presents a detailed and carefully presented account of life inside Immigration Removal Centres (‘IRCs’) in the United Kingdom (‘UK’). In research conducted between 2009 and 2012 across six centres, Bosworth and her research team draw on interviews, surveys, field notes and observations, providing an ethnographic study of detention. This research makes a significant contribution towards understanding day-to-day life in the centres. Most importantly, it also shows that life in detention for those charged with the custody or ‘care’ of those being detained is often confusing, unsettling and highly differentiated. The three central governing pillars of these centres in the UK — ‘Detain, Protect, Remove’ — are emblematic of the institutional uncertainty repeatedly conveyed in Bosworth’s discussions with the migration officers interviewed. This uncertainty manifests in the divergent ways that staff in the centres regard their roles, with conflicting views expressed by them as to whether they considered their work to be welfare based (‘Protect’) or punitive and policing (‘Detain’, ‘Remove’).

Bosworth also uncovers the ethical challenges of witnessing life in detention. This throws some doubt on the view that the intensification of specialised functions and task division in modern institutions inevitably amounts to the displacement of ethical responsibility with technical responsibility (Bauman 1989; Veitch 2007). For Bauman, the role fragmentation that characterises modernity creates a distance between our actions and their effects, which then diminishes our sense of ethical responsibility for any suffering this might entail.^[1] While this is evident in some quarters and is facilitated by the system of ‘split governance’, which Bosworth identifies in IRCs, her research also reveals migration officers to be disturbed and unsettled by the trauma and suffering they witnessed. The experience of feeling ethically implicated is powerfully conveyed by one officer who commented: ‘I will never forget the face of the Afghani boy who is being deported today. ... somehow I feel responsible’ (p 52, emphasis added).

Chapter structure

Chapter 1 begins with an account of the history of immigration detention in Britain. Chapter 2 provides a detailed description of the six centres in which the research was conducted, including the design, history and operation of the centres, and describes how the research was undertaken. The challenges of trying to gain access to institutions that might prefer to guard their processes and avoid coming under academic scrutiny is addressed by Bosworth in some detail. How she managed this difficult terrain is worthy of reflection. It required that Bosworth carefully balance her desire to conduct qualitative research that did justice to those she interviewed and delivered a concrete appreciation of immigration detention with the gatekeeping role of the institutions. As she notes:

Detention centres are ... deeply troubling. They cause considerable suffering, notwithstanding attempts at all levels to avoid it. These places urgently need sustained critique. Yet any such critical account must be responsive to the political horizons and framework within which these places operate. The challenge, in short, is immense: how to make sense of what I found and how to do so in such a way that is useful and persuasive (p 60).

The diversity of the populations within the centres is examined in Chapter 3, showing that this intensifies the challenges of working in a custodial environment, especially where there are language barriers. This chapter explores stories of those held in detention, their struggles against their ‘detainee’^[2] identity, and their resistance to racialised and other forms of labelling. Chapter 4 describes everyday life in the centres, with Chapter 5 building on this description to reveal that a community of sorts emerges, in which relationships and friendships are formed with other ‘detainees’ as well as with Centre staff. In Chapter 6, Bosworth examines the institutional ‘uncertainty’ of immigration detention, split between the conflicting purposes of control and care. She concludes in Chapter 7 by considering the techniques of denial upon which staff rely to cope with their roles and the harms they witness in IRCs.

The salience of identity

Those subject to detention in the UK include asylum seekers (pending processing of their claim for refugee status) and those whose applications were rejected and are awaiting deportation, as well as people who have been discovered in the community without a visa, or who have been living lawfully in the UK for a number of years but were arrested either for a criminal offence or for breaching the conditions of their visa or residency permit (Bosworth 2014:22, 49; Home Office 2013). Any of these situations may give rise to the possibility of deportation. Detention for many individuals is deeply upsetting, given that they may have been living as British residents for a prolonged period, may regard the UK as their home, and may have families, employment and a settled life in the UK. Being taken into immigration custody understandably leads to a crisis of identity, not to mention the despair and depression that immigration detention and separation from family and community produces; these effects can be pronounced and long-term (Commonwealth and Immigration Ombudsman 2013; Sultan and O’Sullivan 2001; Steel and Silove 2001). This is especially distressing given that the Centres typically function as a prison-like environment, with individuals asking: ‘What have I done wrong?’ Bosworth’s intention is to bring to light a crisis of identity for ‘detainees’, together with the complexities of experience among those held in detention, and the detention centres’ staff.

While much of the literature on immigration detention draws upon a rich theoretical foundation in the work of Foucault (on governmentality and biopolitics) and Agamben (on the state of exception), Bosworth deploys her research to contest the wholesale and unproblematic application of these theories to a study of detention: privileging these interpretations precludes us from appreciating the ‘texture of the institutions’ (p 7). Based on extensive interviews with staff and those held in detention, she asserts that relying solely on Foucault and Agamben limits us from adequately grasping the actuality of life inside detention. Observing that people’s stories illustrate the ‘messiness’ of detention, she argues that her research reveals the ‘salience of identity rather than regime, estrangement rather than enforcement, inconsistencies, uncertainties, and ambivalence’ (p 53). Citing Mountz, she notes that ‘“the intimacy of exclusion requires analytical tools beyond those available on Agamben’s writing”’ (p 53). Bosworth’s research is a forthright demonstration that, rather than being constituted solely as ‘bare life’, many individuals actively resisted and protested against their detention, expressing a crisis of selfhood. For Bosworth, this illustrates the significance of identity over regime.

For some, being in detention affected their sense of self and identity in quite extreme ways, with one person reflecting: ‘I don’t know who I am!’ (p 87). This was especially pronounced for those who had been residents of the UK for prolonged periods — in some cases, for over 15 years. Detention and pending deportation (removal) undercut their sense of self and left many individuals without hope and uncertain about their identity. Some resisted the label ‘detainee’, asserting that they were in reality prisoners, treated as little more than animals. Others were bewildered, noting that they were educated, from a ‘respectable family’ and consequently confused about their current ‘status’ (p 89). The pain of separation from families was often unbearable, with some going to great lengths to disguise the reality of their situation:

One woman, who had told her daughter that she was working away, arranged for her mother to buy toys for her child and leave them on the table, saying ‘mummy visited while you were at school’ (unknown nationality, YW). In each case, through such everyday actions, they reminded themselves and others that they were more than just detainees. Although bound by the walls of the institution, their sense of self extended far beyond (p 96).

While all those interviewed in detention suffered from anguish, the experience was not always dehumanising. Even though some officers were described as being inhumane, and exercising excessive control, other officers saw themselves as carers and conducted themselves in a way that communicated respect:

Much of what I witnessed and was told about detention was negative. Some of it was shocking. Detainees and staff spoke frequently of depression, frustration, sorrow, fear and anger. They were, for the most part, unhappy; and detention centres were, without exception, vexing places. At the same time, however, many staff members sought to alleviate the anxieties of those whom they hold. Detainees also found some relief in these places (p 61).

Bosworth’s research exposes a number of ways in which the identity of migration officers intertwines with that of the women and men in detention, and the way that relationships were forged between those held in detention. Her detailed examination of life and practices in detention enriches our understanding of how they function as responses to global mobility. She notes that, ‘however contingent’, recognition of the other can emerge in interactions between ‘detainees’ and officers, with some staff attempting to make life as bearable as possible for those detained, showing ‘respect and fairness’ in recognition of their uncertain immigration status, rather than their criminality (pp 149, 182). For others, the custodial setting of the Centres clearly communicated a punitive message that demanded a policing role (p 97).

Institutional incoherence and the management of denial

This dissonance among staff, with some identifying themselves as inhabiting custodial, policing roles, and others regarding themselves as carers, demonstrates the institutional uncertainty or incoherence of the IRCs. This is something that Bosworth argues is also exacerbated by the distance between who makes the decisions and who enforces the decisions, referring to this as the ‘split governance of immigration detention’ (p 181). Those who are face to face with the consequences of decision-making made at a distance often profess discomfort in their roles, especially when tasked with having to arrange and witness the deportation of someone with whom they have built a close, respectful relationship. How they manage this is given careful attention by Bosworth, shedding important light on the ethical implications of institutions marked by a tension between the conflicting purposes of care and control. In such a setting, a number of staff reported that witnessing suffering in detention required an element of detachment and denial for them to keep turning up for work on a daily basis.

Thus Bosworth’s research shows that immigration detention not only affects those held in detention in profound ways, but also impacts upon those enforcing it. Interestingly, Bosworth notes that her distress became unbearable to the point where conducting research in this environment revealed limits to her:

capacity to soak up other people’s misery. While the research was going on and for months after it ended, I suffered from insomnia, bad dreams, palpitations, breathlessness, tears, and dizziness. It took about one year to be able to read the field-notes and transcripts without a sense of rising anxiety, sick to my stomach (p 84).

This book is an important reminder that immigration detention centres do not just diminish those being detained; they diminish us all in some way. The use of detention under conditions of global mobility requires denial of the harm it produces in order for detention as a policy to persist. However, effective denial is undermined by the institutional incoherence of immigration detention: as neither prisons nor places of protection, the harm they produce is difficult to defend.

Sites of estrangement

Bosworth’s research confirms that conventional analyses fail to capture the affective dimension of detention, as well as its racial, class-based and gendered divisions. As she notes, ‘academic scholarship is sometimes difficult to square with life in detention’ (p 7). Importantly, Bosworth argues that the functions of the Centres are not reducible to explanations based on coercion or control. They neither fit neatly into the category of camps under Agamben’s analysis, nor are they adequately explained by governmentality. This book proposes instead that they are sites of estrangement where those who are cast as strangers are cast out (p 216). This latter point, for Bosworth, illustrates the racialised foundations of detention, which she argues is missing from conventional analyses. This book testifies to the differentiated experiences of immigration detention, the way it impacts on identity, and how identities are contested and yet reasserted through the process. Viewing immigration detention centres as sites of estrangement enables an appreciation of ‘the relational and affective nature of power and offers another explanation of why women and men find it hard to forge bonds with one another in custody, fearful of long-term stigmatization whether or not they are deported’ (p 175). Everyone, including staff and ‘detainees’, ends up becoming alienated (p 183).

Conclusion

Inside Immigration Detention is a timely exposition of the concrete experience of immigration detention which begins the process of developing a conceptual frame for appreciating the complexity of what is at stake and how it is managed or negotiated. However, Bosworth’s research also shows us that the sphere of office in immigration and border control is more complex than contemporary analyses of ‘role fragmentation’ in modernity; there are considerable divergences in how people see their roles. Bosworth’s illustration of this deserved more attention as a critique of Bauman. Despite this, the book is a most valuable contribution, providing an account of the tension embedded in immigration detention as a policy response: while charged with an obligation of care, these institutions communicate a message of criminality, and exact experiences of punishment and suffering that affect and diminish us all. Bosworth’s book is an important resource for scholars in criminology and in the social sciences more broadly, but may also be of interest to anyone keen to know more about the impact and complexity of immigration detention, given its salience as a policy response among Western nations.

References

Aas KF and Bosworth MA (eds) (2013) The Borders of Punishment: Migration, Citizenship, and Social Exclusion, Oxford University Press

Bauman Z (1989) Modernity and the Holocaust, Polity Press

Bosworth M (2012) ‘Subjectivity and Identity in Detention: Punishment and Society in a Global Age’, Theoretical Criminology 16(2), 123–40

Commonwealth and Immigration Ombudsman (2013) Suicide and Self-Harm in the Immigration Detention Network, Report 02/2013, Commonwealth Ombudsman

Fleay C and Briskman L (2013) ‘Hidden Men: Bearing Witness to Mandatory Detention in Australia’ Refugee Survey Quarterly 32(3), 112–29

Grewcock M (2005) ‘Slipping through the Net? Some Thoughts on the Cornelia Rau and Vivien Alvarez Solon Inquiry’, Current Issues in Criminal Justice 17(2), 284–90

Hall A (2010) ‘These People Could Be Anyone: Fear, Contempt (and Empathy) in a British Immigration Removal Centre’, Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies 36(6), 881–98

Hall A (2012) Border Watch: Cultures of Immigration, Detention and Control, Pluto Press

Home Office (2013) ‘Chapter 55: Detention and Temporary Release’, Enforcement Instructions and Guidance (2 March 2015) gov.uk <https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/

attachment_data/file/400022/Chapter55_external_v19.pdf>

Steel Z and Silove DM (2001) ‘The Mental Health Implications of Detaining Asylum Seekers’, Medical Journal of Australia 175(11–12), 596–99

Sultan A and O’Sullivan K (2001) ‘Psychological Disturbances in Asylum Seekers Held in Long Term Detention: A Participant-Observer Account’, Medical Journal of Australia 175(11), 593–96

Veitch S (2007) Law and Irresponsibility: On the Legitimation of Human Suffering, Routledge-Cavendish

Weber L (2003) ‘Down that Wrong Road: Discretion in Decisions to Detain Asylum Seekers Arriving at UK Ports’, The Howard Journal of Criminal Justice 42(3), 248–62

Weber L (2005) ‘The Detention of Asylum Seekers as Crimes of Obedience’, Critical Criminology 13(1), 89–109

Weber L and Pickering S (2011) Globalisation and Borders: Death at the Global Frontier, Palgrave Macmillan

---

^[*] Lecturer and Doctoral Candidate, Criminology, School of Social and Political Sciences, 420 John Medley Building, University of Melbourne, Parkville Vic 3010 Australia. Email: [e-mail].

^[1] Obedience as a bureaucratic trait of modernity has also been critically examined in the research of Weber (2005).

^[2] I prefer the term ‘those held in detention’ in order to avoid denoting individual subjectivity on the basis of detention ‘status’, and only use the term ‘detainee’ where it is either actively deployed for this purpose, or to point to it as a term that invites resistance.