Policy Of Mandatory Detention Research Articles

‘Authoritarian neoliberalism’ and the Australian border-industrial complex

What functions do the securitization and the militarization of the border serve under ‘authoritarian neoliberalism’ in Australia? Having pursued the policy of mandatory detention of all undocumented migrants since 1992, the Australian government has also increasingly sought to outsource, privatize, and offshore the construction and operation of its immigration detention facilities, whilst simultaneously engaging in increasingly authoritarian interventions via the militarization of border control. This article seeks to problematize these developments by constructing an emergent cartography of the various links between the ongoing processes of neoliberal structural adjustment, and the intensification of the policing and punitive apparatuses of the Australian border-industrial complex. Accordingly, using theoretical insights gleaned from emergent work on ‘authoritarian neoliberalism’ and from race critical theory as a cue, I outline in this article three functions of the border within punitive approaches to immigration control under neoliberal structural adjustment in Australia: first, as an apparatus of ongoing colonial power; second, as a technology of racial differentiation through its functioning as a ‘filter’ that privileges certain migrant bodies over others, and as an ‘insulator’ against popular dissent; third, as a site of profit and accumulation for transnational capital.

On Refuge

Artist Naomi Hamer explores complex questions surrounding ideas of response and responsibility in her artwork Mandatory/Monument. Hamer’s large-scale installation draws attention to the Australian government’s policy of mandatory detention of asylum seekers and refugees – largely in offshore sites away from the public eye. Each of her five large orange crocheted banners has the name of a detention centre woven into it. They sit boldly in the performance space and draw the attention of spectators to that which is largely hidden or made invisible by distance, isolation and governmental refusal. Whilst these banners are in themselves arresting, Hamer further complicates things by actively completing the banners during the installation and then inviting spectators to unravel these on the final day. The questions asked here surround the act and politics of unravelling or of abstaining.

The European Dispositif of Border Control in Malta. Migrants’ Experiences of a Securitized Borderland

ABSTRACTWith its accession to the European Union (EU) in 2004, Malta became a part of a European dispositif of border control. Maltese policy-makers are now charged with preventing migrants from reaching the EU mainland. Malta has thus implemented a mandatory detention policy towards people rescued at sea. When migrants arrive on the island, they are detained in military barracks for a period of up to 18 months. Subsequently, they are released from detention. Some settle in Malta, while others manage to leave the island. This paper combines critical security studies with borderlands studies to examine the construction and reinforcement of a border through social practices and government apparatuses. It explores migrants’ own experiences of what is conceptualized as a securitized borderland. The securitized borderland concept, which simultaneously refers to a space of control, a zone of transit and a place of living, is ambivalent enough to capture the ambiguous situation of migrants in Malta. Empirical data is based on fieldwork carried out in Malta and Brussels, which included observations and interactions with migrants, and interviews with national and European policy-makers, as well as with representatives from international and non-governmental organizations. Finally, this paper offers an ethnography of the social construction of an island-border which epitomizes the concept of a securitized borderland.

What is it like living in detention? Insights from asylum seeker children’s drawings

ABSTRACTDespite considerable research on the impact of Australia’s mandatory detention policy on children, there is sparse focus on asylum seeker children’s own perspectives of how they conceptualise their experiences of living in detention. We were curious to understand how children in detention would convey their views on their circumstances through the medium of drawing. This paper uses secondary data analysis to explore children’s perspectives by considering key themes from two drawings created by asylum seeker children in Australian immigration detention centres: one from the Australian Human Rights Commissions’ Forgotten Children: National Inquiry into Children in Immigration Detention 2014 report, and another published in prominent Australian newspaper, The Sydney Morning Herald. The focus on children’s first-hand experiences of mandatory detention through a non-invasive method conveyed a strong sense of isolation and ostracism, and revealed the mental health impacts on children and their families. These examples show that children were clearly able to convey how their rights were violated in the context of detention. Emerging themes highlight how children’s insightful perspectives of their own experiences are neglected in broader discourses, and provide a rationale for further visual research to provide nuanced understandings of asylum seeker wellbeing and children’s rights in particular.

The limitations of monitoring immigration detention in Australia

Australia's mandatory detention policy allows for non-citizens without a valid visa to be held in sites of immigration detention on an indefinite basis. This means that asylum seekers who arrive without a valid visa can be detained from their time of arrival to Australia until their protection claim is finalised, unless ministerial discretion is exercised to enable their release into the community. Thousands of asylum seekers who arrived by boat have consequently endured long periods of indefinite detention in prison-like conditions in facilities established by the Australian government, both within Australia and in offshore locations. Many of these sites are in remote locations and there is limited monitoring provided by formal state and non-state bodies across this detention network that is systematic, transparent and independent. There are also few civil society groups and individuals with the capacity to assume a monitoring role. This article explores the inhibiting factors of monitoring immigration detention in Australia and offshore locations, and the prospects for securing systematic and transparent independent scrutiny should Australia ratify the Optional Protocol to the Convention against Torture (OPCAT). It also highlights the limits of an OPCAT-consistent monitoring system in the promotion and protection of the rights of asylum seekers.

Human Rights, Dual Loyalties, and Clinical Independence

Although Australia has comparatively few individuals seeking asylum, it has had a mandatory detention policy in place since 1992. This policy has been maintained by successive governments despite the overwhelmingly negative impact mandatory detention has on mental health. For mental health professionals working in this environment, a number of moral, ethical, and human rights issues are raised. These issues are discussed here, with a focus on dual loyalty conflicts and drawing on personal experience, the bioethics and human rights literature, and recent parliamentary inquiries. For those who continue to work in this environment, future directions are also discussed.

Constructing a Crisis: the Role of Immigration Detention in Malta

ABSTRACTMalta remains the only country in the European Union that maintains an 18‐month, mandatory detention policy for all irregular migrants upon arrival. This paper examines the role that detention has played in the Maltese government's response to the flows of irregular immigration to the island in the 21st century. It argues that detention is symbolic of the crisis narrative that the Maltese government has constructed as a response to these immigration flows in order to gain more practical and financial support from the European Union. The detention policy also serves to reinforce this interpretation of irregular immigration. Such a portrayal, combined with the use of detention as a deterrent, produces detrimental consequences for the migrant population, as well as the wider Maltese society. The paper draws on over 50 interviews, conducted by the author, with government officials, non‐governmental organisations, and migrants and refugees on the island. Copyright © 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Offshoring and outsourcing the ‘unauthorised’: The annual reports of an anxious state

Since the inception of Australia's mandatory immigration detention policy for ‘unauthorised’ arrivals, border issues have generated significant public discussion. The policy is controversial and has been made more complicated by the outsourcing and offshoring of detention centre management and processing. Despite the diversity of actors involved in the government's mandatory detention policy (such as private security firms and intergovernmental organisations), we argue that the management of ‘unauthorised’ migration has been framed as a matter controlled by the state that is beholden to no other interests except its own. In order to explore the role of state and non-state actors in Australia's detention policy, this paper offers a reading of departmental annual reports over a 14-year period from 1996 to 2010. Using the theoretical work of Wendy Brown, we explore the representation of non-state actors in border management and the impact this has on the identity of the state as revealed in the annual reporting process. In line with Brown, we argue that the department's annual reports demonstrate the tension that exist between the apparent “opening and barricading”, the “fusion and partition” that underpins globalisation (2010, p. 7). In addition, we argue that emergent forms of border fortification provide an opportunity for the nation-state to reassert its sovereignty whilst at the same time these reflect deep anxieties over the role of the state in a globalised and privatised future. We contend that the annual reporting process provides a performative opportunity for the nation-state to demonstrate its strength and relevance. At the same time it is dependent on multinational security firms and inter-governmental authorities to execute the policy.

The Political Inherency of Evaluation: The Impact of Politics on the Outcome of 10 Years of Evaluative Scrutiny of Australia's Mandatory Detention Policy

The primary objective of evaluation is to provide information that can provide a basis for developing or revising policies and programs, and is an inherently political activity. This article reflects on 10 years of scrutiny by evaluators of a contested policy in Australia—that of the mandatory detention of asylum seekers—and explores how evaluation informs political decisions, and how politics shapes the use of evaluation results. The evidence presented shows that evaluators need to be aware of, and manage, the political forces that shape the scope and outcomes of evaluations. Otherwise, evaluation may be little more than a tool for reinforcing existing power relations rather than a neutral and objective means of improving social policies or programs. Some strategies are suggested to help evaluators safeguard their neutrality and maximise the effectiveness of their contributions to political debates.

Strategy, Rupture, Rights: Reflections on Law and Resistance in Immigration Detention

On 22 October 1999 Ali Bakhtiyari arrived in Australia. He had fled from religious and ethnic persecution at the hands of the Taliban in Afghanistan to Pakistan with his wife Roqia and their five children. Ali then left his family in Pakistan while he went ahead to Germany, planning to seek asylum and then arrange for them to join him. However the boat he boarded ended up in Australia. On 3 August 2000, Ali was granted a protection visa on the basis of his Afghan nationality and his Hazara ethnicity and released from Port Hedland Immigration Detention Centre into the Australian community. At that time the Australian government had a policy of mandatory detention of asylum seekers during assessment of their visa claims. The detention centres were often located in extremely remote locations in the middle of the desert. The conditions inside were extremely harsh and drew comparisons with Nazi concentration camps and Russian gulags from mainstream figures such as former Australian Prime Minister Malcolm Fraser. Some detainees were held for as long as seven years. Amongst anti-detention activists and campaigners they became known simply as 'the camps'. Some time after his release, Ali Bakhtiyari discovered that Roqia and their five children had also fled Pakistan with Roqia's brother, Mahzer Ali. They had arrived in Australia on 1 January 2001 and were detained in Woomera Immigration Reception and Processing Centre. On 21 February 2001 their applications for refugee status were rejected on the basis of language analysis and their failure to recognise Afghan currency or describe key features of Afghan geography. Immigration authorities claimed they had determined that Roqia was from Pakistan.

A System of Penal Abuse: Australia’s Immigration Detention Experience

The Australian government has recently announced changes to its policy of mandatory detention for all unauthorised non-citizens. This paper provides a criminological analysis of that policy by providing an overview of the development of the immigration detention complex; the culture of containment that developed as a result of the policy; and the systemic criminalisation and abuse of detainees within the detention system. The article highlights the similarities between the prison and immigration detention systems and argues that immigration detention ought to be an ongoing focus for criminology.

Political disagreement in intergroup terms: Contextual variation and the influence of power

In two studies we examined justified attributions made in the face of political disagreement. Study 1 showed that Australian supporters and opponents of Australian involvement in the 2003 invasion of Iraq made stereotypical attributions that justified the superiority of the in-group over the out-group. Stereotypical attributions were consistent with the justification that the supporters of the war had been misled by dishonest political leaders. Study 2 replicated this pattern with supporters and opponents of Australia's policy of mandatory detention of asylum seekers. It also identified pragmatism as a dimension that dominant, government-aligned, groups may use to justify the superiority of the in-group over the out-group. In both studies political leaders were seen as more competent than members of the public. The results show the influence of intergroup power and within-group leader/supporter distinctions on people's attributions about political disagreement. They point to the power of social psychological theory to help analyse important contemporary political concerns.

Inside truths: ‘Truth’ and mental illness in the Australian asylum seeker and detention debates

This article examines some of the key debates and interactions between the Australian government and medical profession in relation to the mental health consequences of the policy of mandatory detention of asylum seekers. It explores how, in a series of episodes between 2001 and 2005, each side claimed to represent accurately the 'true' nature of the detention system through asserting superior 'objectivity' and commitment to 'scientific truth' in their representations of the mental health of asylum seekers. Placing these debates within the particular political objectives of the Liberal Party during John Howard's term as Prime Minister, the article explores how science and medical advocacy have been characterized and made to signify larger conflicts within the Australian political arena. It shows how populist political ideas of 'elitism' have been used by the government to represent as 'elitist untruths' psychiatric research which has demonstrated a direct causal links between government border control policies and mental ill-health.

Mobility and Displacement

Mobility and Displacement

The Deterritorializing Language of Child Detainees

The policy of mandatory detention for all asylum seekers who arrive in Australia without a valid visa regardless of age, religion, physical or mental health is uncompromising to say the least. The detention centres are harsh and alienating environments, where free and open communication is severely restricted, and in this context, children, in particular, suffer from a double silencing - unable to speak English, traumatized and often too young to speak for themselves. This article is concerned with how this silencing could be connected to a broader problem of representation. In order to understand how Australia, in the name of sovereignty, transcends its own colonial subjectivity through the systematic colonization of the experiences, bodies and histories of asylum seekers, the article draws on Spivak and Deleuze’s understanding of representation to examine the material and immaterial exploitation of child detainees.

Protecting refugees: alternatives to a policy of mandatory detention

The right to liberty is a fundamental right, recognised in all major human rights instruments, both at global and regional levels. The right to seek asylum is, equally, recognised as a basic human right. The act of seeking asylum can therefore not be considered an offence or a crime. Consideration should be given to the fact that asylum seekers may already have suffered some form of persecution or other hardship in their country of origin and should be protected against any form of harsh treatment. As a general rule, asylum seekers should not be detained (UNHCR 1996: 3).

“Between a Rock and a Hard Place”: Australia’s Mandatory Detention of Asylum Seekers

For fourteen years Australia has detained asylum seekers arriving unlawfully in its territory. It also intercepts asylum seekers arriving in the territorial waters, detaining them in third countries and preventing them from seeking refugee status in Australia (the “Pacific Solution”). This paper traces the development of the policy, its current implementation, the justification employed by the government for maintaining it, and its legality under international law. On examination of these issues, it is evident that the justification for the mandatory policy is flawed; that the costs of the policy – in terms of the physical and mental well-being of asylum seekers themselves, and the social and financial impact on the Australian community – are too great, and it puts Australia in breach of its obligations under international law. However, the government has not canvassed alternatives to the mandatory detention policy and has no intention of changing it. This leaves asylum seekers who enter Australian territory unlawfully literally and figuratively between a “rock and hard place.”