Abstract
This paper holds the view that the burgeoning phenomenon of immigration control sits uncomfortably on the fault line separating the prerogatives of State sovereignty from the rights of non-citizens regardless of the broad discretion of States to control immigration. Using liberal democratic ideologies, the paper expresses that, there is in existence, a tension between the right to liberty of migrants against the broadly unfettered rights of States to control the admission and expulsion of migrants conferred on States by national and international law. Drawing from law and policy, this paper considers in perspectives, immigration practices in selected liberal democratic states-the United States of America, Australia and France whose deportation reality offers significant similarities with the UK in immigration control and detention pending expulsion. Finding as it did, the paper illustrates that crimmigration in particular and immigration enforcement and control in general, serve as vehicles for enhancing and sustaining expulsion of migrants. This practice, it is argued, queries the liberal democratic ideals of fairness in particular and compliance to international human rights standards in general.
Highlights
As it has been expressed by Flynn [1], ‘the burgeoning phenomenon of immigration control sits uncomfortably on the fault line separating the prerogatives of State sovereignty from the rights of non-citizens regardless of the broad discretion of States to control immigration’
Drawing from anecdotal evidence, law and policy, this paper considers in perspectives, immigration practices in selected liberal democratic states-the United States of America, Australia and France whose deportation reality offers significant similarities with the UK in immigration control, detention pending expulsion
By way of convergence and trends, the research has shown that while the UK’s 1971 Immigration Act later became the cornerstone of all immigration laws in the UK, about the period between 1971-1999, similar immigration patterns were in operation in the US and France that relieves the argument whether such practices were co-incidental, a trend amongst liberal democratic states or mere convergence
Summary
As it has been expressed by Flynn [1], ‘the burgeoning phenomenon of immigration control sits uncomfortably on the fault line separating the prerogatives of State sovereignty from the rights of non-citizens regardless of the broad discretion of States to control immigration’. Drawing from anecdotal evidence, law and policy, this paper considers in perspectives, immigration practices in selected liberal democratic states-the United States of America, Australia and France whose deportation reality offers significant similarities with the UK in immigration control, detention pending expulsion. The UK’s 1971 Immigration Act on the other hand became the cornerstone of all immigration laws in the UK with the interplay and introduction of partiality, discretions, unpublished guidelines, rules and policies [8] As it will be seen, about the period between 1971-1999 similar immigration revolutions were in operation in the US and France that relieves the argument whether such practices were co-incidental, a trend amongst liberal democratic states or mere convergence. In France, Schuster [23] had reported that there are those (Afghanistan nationals or residents) whose ‘asylum applications had been refused by the French government, so are ‘rejected asylum seekers’ but as France finds it difficult to deport to Afghanistan, they are stuck in France without status as illegal migrants’, these remain in a legal limbo with no chance of regularizing their stay in the country
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
