Advertisement

“Immigrants as Detainees”: Some Reflections Based on Abyssal Thinking and Other Critical Approaches

  • Katia CardosoEmail author
Chapter

Abstract

Immigration is increasingly considered a security issue. Particularly after 9/11, it became a prominent part of the national and international security agendas. Within this context, in the last years, immigration detention facilities have proliferated in receiving countries.

The main purpose of this chapter is to analyse immigration detention centres in light of the “abyssal thinking” proposal, theorised by the Portuguese sociologist Boaventura de Sousa Santos and other critical approaches on the subject developed by authors such as Giorgio Agamben and Loïc Wacquant, among others.

I argue that immigration detention centres are spaces conducive to human rights violations and places, as Santos states, where “non-citizens” can be treated as “dangerous colonial savages” (Santos, Revista Crítica de Ciências Sociais 78:62, 2007).

Keywords

Abyssal thinking Detention centres Human rights Immigration Prison industrial complex 

References

  1. Agamben G (1998) O poder soberano e a vida nua. Homo Sacer (trans: Guerreiro A). Editorial Presença, LisboaGoogle Scholar
  2. Águas C (2011) Pensamento abissal e o contexto quilombola. O Cabo dos Trabalhos: Revista Electrónica dos Programas de Doutoramento do CES/FEUC/FLUC/III 5. http://cabodostrabalhos.ces.uc.pt/n5/ensaios.php. Accessed 5 Aug 2014
  3. American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) (nd) www.aclu.org/immigrants-rights/immigration-detention. Accessed 5 Aug 2014
  4. Arendt H (2008) As origens do totalitarismo (trans: Raposo R; 3rd edn). Dom Quixote, LisboaGoogle Scholar
  5. Biswas S, Nair S (2010) Introduction: international relations and “states of exception”. In: Biswas S, Nair S (eds) International relations and states of exception. Margins, peripheries, and excluded bodies. Routledge, London/New York, pp 1–30Google Scholar
  6. Cornelisse G (2010) Immigration detention and the territoriality of universal rights. In: Genova ND, Peutz N (eds) The deportation regime. Sovereignty, space, and the freedom of movement. Duke University Press, Durham/London, pp 101–122CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Duffield M (2007) Development, security and unending war. Governing the world of peoples. Polity Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  8. Duffield M (2008) Global civil war: the non-insured, international containment and post-interventionary society. J Refug Stud 21(2):145–165CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Fassin D (2011) Policing borders, producing boundaries. The governmentality of immigration in dark times. Annu Rev Anthropol 40:213–226CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Gjergji I (2006) Espulsione, trattenimento, disciplinamento Il ruolo dei CPT nella gestione della forza lavoro clandestina. DEP 5–6:97–119Google Scholar
  11. Global Migration Group (GMC) (2010) International migration and human rights challenges and opportunities on the threshold of the 60th anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. http://www.unfpa.org/public/home/publications/pid/5776. Accessed 5 Aug 2014
  12. Hernández DM (2008) Pursuant to deportation: Latinos and immigrant detention. Latino Stud 6:35–63CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Human Rights First (HRF) (2011) Jails and jumpsuits – transforming the U.S. immigration detention system—a two-year review. www.humanrightsfirst.org. Accessed 5 Aug 2014
  14. International Detention Coalition (IDC) (2011) The issue of immigration detention at the UN level: Recent developments relevant to the work of the International Detention Coalition (IDC). http://idcoalition.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/idc-report_id-un-level-24jan2011-1.pdf. Accessed 5 Aug 2014
  15. Jesuit Refugee Service-Europe (JRS) (2010) Becoming vulnerable in detention. Civil society report on the detention of vulnerable asylum seekers and irregular migrants in the European Union (The DEVAS Project). www.detention-in-europe.org. Accessed 5 Aug 2014
  16. Kalhan A (2010) Rethinking immigration detention, 110 COLUM. L. REV SIDEBAR 24:42–58 http://columbialawreview.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/42_Anil_Kalhan.pdf. Accessed 5 Aug 2014
  17. Loyd J, Burridge A, Mitchelson (2009–2010) Thinking (and moving) beyond walls and cages: bridging immigrant justice and anti-prison organizing in the United States. Soc Justice 36(2):85–103Google Scholar
  18. McDowell MG, Wonders NA (2009–2010) Keeping migrants in their place: technologies of control and racialized public space in Arizona. Soc Justice 36(2):54–72Google Scholar
  19. Nair S (2010) Sovereignty, security, and migrants: making bare life. In: Biswas S, Nair S (eds) International relations and states of exception. Margins, peripheries, and excluded bodies. Routledge, London/New York, pp 95–115Google Scholar
  20. National Immigration Forum (NIF) (2012) The math of immigration detention: runaway costs for immigration detention do not add up to sensible policies. http://www.immigrationforum.org/images/uploads/mathofimmigrationdetention.pdf. Accessed 5 Aug 2014
  21. One America (2008) Voices from detention: a report on human rights violations at the Northwest Detention Center in Tacoma, Washington. Seattle University School of Law International Human Rights Clinic in collaboration with One America (formerly Hate Free Zone). http://www.weareoneamerica.org/sites/default/files/OneAmerica_Detention_Report.pdf. Accessed 5 Aug 2014
  22. ONHCR (1999) Revised guidelines on applicable criteria and standards relating to the detention of asylum seekers. Geneva. http://www.unhcr.org.au/pdfs/detentionguidelines.pdf. Accessed 5 Aug 2014
  23. Peutz N (2006) Embarking on anthropology of removal. Curr Anthropol 47(2):217–241CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Provedor da Justiça (2011) A instalação temporária de cidadãos estrangeiros não admitidos em Portugal ou em processo de afastamento do território nacional. Relatório, LisboaGoogle Scholar
  25. Santos BS (2007) Para além do pensamento abissal: das linhas globais a uma ecologia de saberes. Revista Crítica de Ciências Sociais 78:3–46CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Schriro DB (2009) Immigration detention overview and recommendations. US Department of Homeland Security, Immigration and Customs EnforcementGoogle Scholar
  27. SEF (2012) Relatório de imigração, fronteiras e asilo. http://sefstat.sef.pt/Docs/Rifa_2011.pdf. Accessed 5 Aug 2014
  28. Sharpe J (2000) Is the United States postcolonial? Transnationalism, immigration, and race. In: King RC (ed) Post-colonial America. University of Illinois Press, Urban and ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  29. Stumpf J (2006) The crimmigration crisis: immigrants, crime & sovereign power. Am Univ Law Rev 56:367–419Google Scholar
  30. Torpey J (2000) The invention of the passport: surveillance, citizenship and the state. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  31. Wacquant L (1999) As prisões da miséria (trans: Telles A). Jorge Zahar Editor, Rio de JaneiroGoogle Scholar

Statutes and Legislative Materials Cited

  1. 18 USC § 3142.Google Scholar
  2. Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1988, Pub. L. No. 100–690, § 7342, 102 Stat. 4469.Google Scholar
  3. Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1988, Pub. L. No. 100–690, § 7343, 102 Stat. 4181, 4470.Google Scholar
  4. Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA), Pub. L. 104–132, 110 Stat. 1214.Google Scholar
  5. Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act (IIRIRA), Pub. L. 104–208, 110 Stat. 3009.Google Scholar
  6. Immigration Act of 1990, P.L. 101–649, Nov. 29, 1990, 104 Stat. 4978.Google Scholar
  7. Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”) § 212(d)(5); 8 USC. §1182(d)(5).Google Scholar
  8. Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”) § 231 (b)(1)(B)(iii)(IV), (b)(2)(A); 8 USC. §1225(b)(1)(B)(iii)(IV), (b)(2)(A).Google Scholar
  9. Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”) § 235 (b)(2)(c); 8 USC. §§1225(b)(2)(c)Google Scholar
  10. Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”) § 236(c); 8 USC. § 1226(c).Google Scholar
  11. Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”) § 236A; 8 USC. § 1226A.Google Scholar
  12. Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”) § 241(a)(1)-(3); 8 USC.§ 1231(a)(1)-(3).Google Scholar
  13. Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”) § 240a; 8 USC. § 1229a.Google Scholar
  14. Hearing on H.R. 3333 before the Subcommittee on Immigration, Refugees, and International Law of the House Committee on the Judiciary, 101st Cong., 1st Sess., 54, 52 (1989)Google Scholar
  15. George H.W. Bush, Statement on Signing the Immigration Act of 1990 (Nov. 29, 1990), P.L. No. 101–649, http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=19117#axzz1OsUYZ1gw.
  16. S. 744, “Border Security, Economic Opportunity, and Immigration Modernization Act.” (2013) http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-113s744es/pdf/BILLS-113s744es.pdf.

Cases Cited

  1. Moncrieffe v. Holder, No. 11–702 (Apr. 23, 2013)Google Scholar
  2. Padilla v. Kentucky, 130 S. Ct. 1473, 1490 (2010)Google Scholar
  3. Demore v. Kim, 538 U.S. 510 (2003)Google Scholar
  4. Zadvydas v. United States, 533 U.S. 678 (2001)Google Scholar
  5. Matter of Joseph, 22 I. & N. Dec. 799 (B.I.A. 1999)Google Scholar
  6. Kansas v. Hendricks, 521 U.S. 346 (1997)Google Scholar
  7. Reno v. Koray, 515 U.S. 50 (1995)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Centre for Social StudiesUniversity of CoimbraCoimbraPortugal

Personalised recommendations