Abstract
Although migration-related detention has proliferated around the world, little is known about life inside these sites of confinement for illegalized non-citizens. Building on 34 months of fieldwork, this article examines the lived experiences of center staff and external civil-society actors engaged within Rome’s detention center. We discuss the emotional, ethical, and political challenges faced by these professional actors in their everyday work and their relationship with detainees. Our aim is to shed light on psychosocial life in detention and the intersections between humanitarian and security logics in this setting. In doing so, we problematize the idea that “humanizing detention” can be a solution for change.
Highlights
In response to global movements of people, commonly portrayed as a threat to homeland security (Huysmans 2000), European countries and states of the Global North, in recent years, have drawn a complex geography of proliferating borders and strategies to contain, sort, and discipline “unruly” mobility (Tazzioli 2018)
In Italy, the practice of confining people who fail to comply with immigration rules dates back to the late 1990s, when three emergency centers opened along the coast of Puglia to respond to the so-called “Albanian emergency.”1 These centers were precursors to the contemporary Italian detention estate that was officially established in 1998 (Turco-Napolitano Law)
Contrary to the United States and United Kingdom detention systems, whose management model is inspired by the national prison service (Bosworth and Turnbull 2015), in Italy the intertwining of police surveillance and humanitarian concerns has represented a key feature of this border control measure
Summary
In response to global movements of people, commonly portrayed as a threat to homeland security (Huysmans 2000), European countries and states of the Global North, in recent years, have drawn a complex geography of proliferating borders and strategies to contain, sort, and discipline “unruly” mobility (Tazzioli 2018). As Mezzadra and Neilson (2013) argue, such states have defined a regime of differential inclusion that, by rearticulating echoes of colonialism and empire, sustains a racialized segmentation of society and differentiated access to labor markets and citizenship rights. Strengthening this argument, Golash-Boza (2015) asserts that the mobility management apparatus described earlier is part of a global cycle of neoliberal capitalism and that immigration law enforcement techniques like detention and deportation are part of a system of racialized and gendered social control that exposes particular groups of people to enhanced vulnerability and exploitation. Contrary to the United States and United Kingdom detention systems, whose management model is inspired by the national prison service (Bosworth and Turnbull 2015), in Italy the intertwining of police surveillance and humanitarian concerns has represented a key feature of this border control measure. Not surprisingly, any International Migration Review 55(1)
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary 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.
