TableofContentsCoverTitlePageSeriesEditors’PrefaceListofFiguresAcronymsAcknowledgmentsChapterOne:Introduction

MigrantDeathsMoralDistanceandEncountersEnrichingAccountsofMoralDistanceAsylumSeekersintheUnitedKingdomApproachingImmigrationControl:SpacesandSettingsPlanoftheBook

ChapterTwo:MoralDistanceandBureaucracyTheStatusofProximityinMoralTheoryandPracticeKeepingPeopleApartRereadingtheModernStateinTermsofMoralDistanceMoralDistanceandImmigrationControlsConclusion

ChapterThree:DistantBureaucratsTheNationalAsylumSupportServiceInsulationBufferingCompetition’FindYourLocalAsylumSupportTeam’Conclusion

ChapterFour:DistanceatCloseQuartersTheConditionsofContactInsideLunarHouseAsylumInterviewsAppeals

Conclusion:OntheArtsofAvertingEncountersChapterFive:IndifferenceTowardsSufferingOthersDuringSustainedContact

ImmigrationDetentionintheUnitedKingdomEmpathyinImmigrationDetentionMakingInsensitivityImperativeMakingInsensitivityEasierTheCruelConsequencesofInsensitivityConclusion

ChapterSix:IndifferenceandEmotionsEmotionsVersusIndifference?TheInterplayofEmotionsinImmigrationControlTheSofterSideofBritishImmigrationControlConclusion

ChapterSeven:ExaminingCompassionClosingMoralDistanceThroughtheMediaNurturingPositiveInteractionTheDistinctivenessofSeekingCompassionAgainstCompassionMitigatingConsiderationsConclusion:TheRecoursetoCompassion

ChapterEight:ConclusionEncounter-AversionRemainingOppositionalGeneralisedIndifference

MethodologicalAppendixSamplingandAccessEthicsAnalysis

ReferencesIndexEndUserLicenseAgreement

ListofIllustrationsChapter03

Figure3.1NumberofasylumapplicantstotheUnitedKingdom,1996–2005.

Figure3.2NationalAsylumSupportService(NASS)supportedasylumseekersbyregion,2004.

Figure3.3End-to-endNationalAsylumSupportService(NASS)process.

Figure3.4GraphicillustratingthestructureandtoneoftheApplicationFormforNASSsupport,basedonpages1and7.AdaptedfromtheNationalAsylumSupportServiceApplicationFormusedbytheHomeOfficein2012.

Figure3.5MapofPortisheadandBristol.

Figure3.6ExtractfromtheRegionalisationNewsletteroftheNationalAsylumSupportService(NASS).

Chapter04

Figure4.1Anti-fascistprotestoutsideLunarHouse.

Figure4.2ForecourtoutsideLunarHouseandsiteoftheEnglishVolunteerForce(EVF)protestandcounter-protest.

Figure4.3LunarHousewithsignandUnionJack.

Figure4.4First-tierImmigrationandAsylumTribunalHearingCentre,ColumbusHouse,Newport,Wales.PhotographbyMelanieGriffiths,2013.

Figure4.5LayoutofaTribunalhearingroom.Credit:DrMelanieGriffithsfortheoriginalsketchandDrRebeccaRotterforthecomputer-generatedversion.

Chapter08

Figure8.1FacingtheEnglishVolunteerForce(EVF)outsideLunarHouse.

Figure8.2NoBorders,NoOneisIllegalandothergroupsstageademonstrationagainsttheEnglishVolunteerForce(EVF).Note:LunarHouseisafewhundredmetrestotheleftofthepicture.

RGS-IBGBookSeriesForfurtherinformationabouttheseriesandafulllistofpublishedandforthcomingtitlespleasevisitwww.rgsbookseries.com

PublishedNothingPersonal?GeographiesofGoverningandActivismintheBritishAsylumSystemNickGill

ArticulationsofCapital:GlobalProductionNetworksandRegionalTransformationsJohnPicklesandAdrianSmith,withRobertBegg,MilanBuček,PoliRoukovaandRudolfPástor

MetropolitanPreoccupations:TheSpatialPoliticsofSquattinginBerlinAlexanderVasudevan

EverydayPeace?Politics,CitizenshipandMuslimLivesinIndiaPhilippaWilliams

AssemblingExportMarkets:TheMakingandUnmakingofGlobalFoodConnectionsinWestAfricaStefanOuma

Africa’sInformationRevolution:TechnicalRegimesandProductionNetworksinSouthAfricaandTanzaniaJamesT.MurphyandPádraigCarmody

Origination:TheGeographiesofBrandsandBrandingAndyPike

IntheNatureofLandscape:CulturalGeographyontheNorfolkBroadsDavidMatless

GeopoliticsandExpertise:KnowledgeandAuthorityinEuropeanDiplomacyMerjeKuus

EverydayMoralEconomies:Food,PoliticsandScaleinCubaMarisaWilson

MaterialPolitics:DisputesAlongthePipelineAndrewBarry

FashioningGlobalisation:NewZealandDesign,WorkingWomenandtheCulturalEconomyMaureenMolloyandWendyLarner

WorkingLives–Gender,MigrationandEmploymentinBritain,1945–2007LindaMcDowell

Dunes:Dynamics,MorphologyandGeologicalHistoryAndrewWarren

SpatialPolitics:EssaysforDoreenMasseyEditedbyDavidFeatherstoneandJoePainter

TheImprovisedState:Sovereignty,PerformanceandAgencyinDaytonBosniaAlexJeffrey

LearningtheCity:KnowledgeandTranslocalAssemblageColinMcFarlane

GlobalizingResponsibility:ThePoliticalRationalitiesofEthicalConsumptionCliveBarnett,PaulCloke,NickClarkeandAliceMalpass

DomesticatingNeo-Liberalism:SpacesofEconomicPracticeandSocialReproductioninPost-SocialistCitiesAlisonStenning,AdrianSmith,AlenaRochovskáandDariuszŚwiątek

SweptUpLives?Re-envisioningtheHomelessCityPaulCloke,JonMayandSarahJohnsen

AerialLife:Spaces,Mobilities,AffectsPeterAdey

MillionaireMigrants:Trans-PacificLifeLinesDavidLey

State,ScienceandtheSkies:GovernmentalitiesoftheBritishAtmosphereMarkWhitehead

ComplexLocations:Women’sGeographicalWorkintheUK1850–1970AvrilMaddrell

ValueChainStruggles:InstitutionsandGovernanceinthePlantationDistrictsofSouthIndiaJeffNeilsonandBillPritchard

QueerVisibilities:Space,IdentityandInteractioninCapeTownAndrewTucker

ArsenicPollution:AGlobalSynthesisPeterRavenscroft,HughBrammerandKeithRichards

Resistance,SpaceandPoliticalIdentities:TheMakingofCounter-GlobalNetworksDavidFeatherstone

MentalHealthandSocialSpace:TowardsInclusionaryGeographies?HesterParr

ClimateandSocietyinColonialMexico:AStudyinVulnerabilityGeorginaH.Endfield

GeochemicalSedimentsandLandscapesEditedbyDavidJ.NashandSueJ.McLaren

DrivingSpaces:ACultural-HistoricalGeographyofEngland’sM1MotorwayPeterMerriman

BadlandsoftheRepublic:Space,PoliticsandUrbanPolicyMustafaDikeç

GeomorphologyofUplandPeat:Erosion,FormandLandscapeChangeMartinEvansandJeffWarburton

SpacesofColonialism:Delhi’sUrbanGovernmentalitiesStephenLegg

People/States/TerritoriesRhysJones

PublicsandtheCityKurtIveson

AftertheThreeItalies:Wealth,InequalityandIndustrialChangeMickDunfordandLidiaGreco

PuttingWorkfareinPlacePeterSunley,RonMartinandCorinneNativel

DomicileandDiasporaAlisonBlunt

GeographiesandMoralitiesEditedbyRogerLeeandDavidM.Smith

MilitaryGeographiesRachelWoodward

ANewDealforTransport?EditedbyIainDochertyandJonShaw

GeographiesofBritishModernityEditedbyDavidGilbert,DavidMatlessandBrianShort

LostGeographiesofPowerJohnAllen

GlobalizingSouthChinaCarolynL.Cartier

GeomorphologicalProcessesandLandscapeChange:BritainintheLast1000YearsEditedbyDavidL.HiggittandE.MarkLee

NothingPersonal?

GeographiesofGoverningandActivismintheBritishAsylumSystem

NickGill

Thiseditionfirstpublished2016©2016JohnWileyandSons,Ltd.RegisteredOfficeJohnWiley&Sons,Ltd,TheAtrium,SouthernGate,Chichester,WestSussex,PO198SQ,UK

EditorialOffices350MainStreet,Malden,MA02148-5020,USA9600GarsingtonRoad,Oxford,OX42DQ,UKTheAtrium,SouthernGate,Chichester,WestSussex,PO198SQ,UKFordetailsofourglobaleditorialoffices,forcustomerservices,andforinformationabouthowtoapplyforpermissiontoreusethecopyrightmaterialinthisbookpleaseseeourwebsiteatwww.wiley.com/wiley-blackwell.

TherightofNickGilltobeidentifiedastheauthorofthisworkhasbeenassertedinaccordancewiththeUKCopyright,DesignsandPatentsAct1988.Allrightsreserved.Nopartofthispublicationmaybereproduced,storedinaretrievalsystem,ortransmitted,inanyformorbyanymeans,electronic,mechanical,photocopying,recordingorotherwise,exceptaspermittedbytheUKCopyright,DesignsandPatentsAct1988,withoutthepriorpermissionofthepublisher.

Wileyalsopublishesitsbooksinavarietyofelectronicformats.Somecontentthatappearsinprintmaynotbeavailableinelectronicbooks.Designationsusedbycompaniestodistinguishtheirproductsareoftenclaimedastrademarks.Allbrandnamesandproductnamesusedinthisbookaretradenames,servicemarks,trademarksorregisteredtrademarksoftheirrespectiveowners.Thepublisherisnotassociatedwithanyproductorvendormentionedinthisbook.

LimitofLiability/DisclaimerofWarranty:Whilethepublisherandauthorhaveusedtheirbesteffortsinpreparingthisbook,theymakenorepresentationsorwarrantieswithrespecttotheaccuracyorcompletenessofthecontentsofthisbookandspecificallydisclaimanyimpliedwarrantiesofmerchantabilityorfitnessforaparticularpurpose.Itissoldontheunderstandingthatthepublisherisnotengagedinrenderingprofessionalservicesandneitherthepublishernortheauthorshallbeliablefordamagesarisingherefrom.Ifprofessionaladviceorotherexpertassistanceisrequired,theservicesofacompetentprofessionalshouldbesought.LibraryofCongressCataloging-in-Publicationdataappliedfor

9781444367065[hardback]9781444367058[paperback]AcataloguerecordforthisbookisavailablefromtheBritishLibrary.

Coverimage:FrontCoverimage©NickGill

ForJulia

SeriesEditors’Preface

TheRGS-IBGBookSeriesonlypublishesworkofthehighestinternationalstanding.Itsemphasisisondistinctivenewdevelopmentsinhumanandphysicalgeography,althoughitisalsoopentocontributionsfromcognatedisciplineswhoseinterestsoverlapwiththoseofgeographers.TheSeriesplacesstrongemphasisontheoretically-informedandempirically-strongtexts.Reflectingthevibrantanddiversetheoreticalandempiricalagendasthatcharacterizethecontemporarydiscipline,contributionsareexpectedtoinform,challengeandstimulatethereader.Overall,theRGS-IBGBookSeriesseekstopromotescholarlypublicationsthatleaveanintellectualmarkandchangethewayreadersthinkaboutparticularissues,methodsortheories.

Fordetailsonhowtosubmitaproposalpleasevisit:www.rgsbookseries.com

DavidFeatherstoneUniversityofGlasgow,UK

TimAllottUniversityofManchester,UK

RGS-IBGBookSeriesEditors

ListofFigures

Figure3.1

NumberofasylumapplicantstotheUnitedKingdom,1996–2005.AdaptedfromTheMigrationObservatoryattheUniversityofOxford(2014).

Figure3.2

NationalAsylumSupportService(NASS)supportedasylumseekersbyregion,2004.AdaptedfromNorthEastConsortiumforAsylumSupportServicesandNorthofEnglandRefugeeService(2004).

Figure3.3

End-to-endNationalAsylumSupportService(NASS)process.AdaptedfromNationalAsylumSupportService(2007).

Figure3.4

GraphicillustratingthestructureandtoneoftheApplicationFormforNASSsupport,basedonpages1and7.AdaptedfromtheNationalAsylumSupportServiceApplicationFormusedbytheHomeOfficein2012.

Figure3.5

MapofPortisheadandBristol.Source:ExeterUniversityGeographyDepartmentMapandPrintRoom.PopulationfigurescorrectJuly2014.

Figure3.6

ExtractfromtheRegionalisationNewsletteroftheNationalAsylumSupportService(NASS).Source:Author’sfigureadaptedfromtheNationalAsylumSupportServiceRegionalisationProjectNewsletter,August2005issue,p.4.

Figure4.1

Anti-fascistprotestoutsideLunarHouse.Author’sphotograph,2013.

Figure4.2

ForecourtoutsideLunarHouseandsiteoftheEnglishVolunteerForce(EVF)protestandcounter-protest.Author’sphotograph,2013.

Figure4.3

LunarHousewithsignandUnionJack.Author’sphotograph,2013.

Figure4.4

First-tierImmigrationandAsylumTribunalHearingCentre,ColumbusHouse,Newport,Wales.PhotographbyMelanieGriffiths,2013.

Figure4.5

LayoutofaTribunalhearingroom.Credit:DrMelanieGriffithsfortheoriginalsketchandDrRebeccaRotterforthecomputer-generatedversion.

Figure8.1

FacingtheEnglishVolunteerForce(EVF)outsideLunarHouse.Author’sphotograph,2013.

Figure8.2

NoBorders,NoOneisIllegalandothergroupsstageademonstrationagainsttheEnglishVolunteerForce(EVF).Note:LunarHouseisafewhundredmetrestotheleftofthepicture.Author’sphotograph,2013.

Acronyms

BBCBritishBroadcastingCorporation

BMEBritishMinorityEthnic

BNPBritishNationalParty

BRIAFBristolRefugeeInterAgencyForum

CAB,CABxCitizensAdviceBureaux

CedarsCompassion,Empathy,Dignity,Approachability,RespectandSupport

DCODetentionCustodyOfficer

DFTDetainedFastTrack

DHSSDepartmentofHealthandSocialSecurity

ESRCEconomicandSocialResearchCouncil

EVFEnglishVolunteerForce

FASFailedAsylumSeeker

G4SGroup4Securicor

INDImmigrationandNationalityDirectorate

NASSNationalAsylumSupportService

NHSNationalHealthService

PCSPublicandCommercialServices(union)

POPresentingOfficer

RATsRegionalAsylumTeams

SLCSouthLondonCitizens

UAFUniteAgainstFascism

UKBAUnitedKingdomBorderAgency

UNHCRUnitedNationsHighCommissionforRefugees

Acknowledgments

IamgratefultolotsofpeoplewhohavehelpedinthewritingofNothingPersonal?IthanktheactivistsofBristolfortheirinspiration.Theparticipantsintheresearch,whohavebeengenerousenoughtogivetheirtimetotheproject,alsodeserveaspecialmention.Othersinclude,inparticular,theco-investigatorsandresearcherswhoIhavehadthepleasureofworkingalongside:JenniferAllsopp,MaryBosworth,AndrewBurridge,DeirdreConlon,AbigailGrace,MelanieGriffiths,AlexandraHall,DominiqueMoran,CeriOeppen,NataliaPaszkiewicz,RebeccaRotterandImogenTyler.Ihavealsoderivedgreatbenefitfromconversationswithmystudentsworkinginthisarea,includingShokerAbobeker,EmmaMarshall,PatrycjaPinkowskaandAmandaSchmid-Scott.OtherswhohaveprovidedencouragementandsuggestionsincludeJohnAllen,CliveBarnett,KeithBassett,SeanCarter,PaulCloke,MattFinn,WendyLarner,KrithikaSrinivasan,AdamTickell,GordonWalkerandAndrewWilliams.IamgratefulinparticulartoJonathanDarlingandthereviewersforconstructive,patientandsupportivecommentsthroughthewritingprocessandtoNeilCoeforfantasticeditorialsupport.Therearecertainlyothers,toonumeroustomention,whohavebeenaninvaluablesupport,includingnotleastthestaffatWiley-BlackwellandTerryHallidayforworkontheindex.IacknowledgethefinancialsupportoftheEconomicandSocialResearchCouncil(grantnumbersPTA-030-2003-01643,RES-000-22-3928-A,ES/J023426/1andES/J021814/1).Finally,ahugethankyoutomybrotherMatforlotsofadviceandencouragement,myparents,andtomywonderfulfamily.

ChapterOneIntroduction

Nothingpersonal,it’sjustbusiness:thisisthenewSatanofliquidmodernity.BaumanandDonskis(2013,p.10)

MigrantDeathsIn2013anunannouncedinspectionofHarmondsworthImmigrationRemovalCentrerevealedworryinginstancesofneglect.HarmondsworthisaBritishsecurefacilitynearLondonthatincarceratesrefusedasylumseekerspriortotheirdeportation.Theinspection,undertakenbyHerMajesty’sChiefInspectorofPrisons,reportedthat‘onatleasttwooccasions,elderly,vulnerableandincapacitateddetainees,oneofwhomwasterminallyill,wereneedlesslyhandcuffedinanexcessiveandunacceptablemanner…Thesemenweresoillthatonediedshortlyafterhishandcuffswereremovedandtheother,an84year-old-man,diedwhilestillinrestraints’(HMChiefInspectorofPrisons,2014,p.5).Staffhadignoredadoctor'sreportdeclaringthe84-year-old,AloisDvorzac,unfitfordetentionandinneedofmedicalcare.‘Theseareshockingcaseswhereasenseofhumanitywaslost’thereportcontinued,‘[n]eitherhadbeeninanywayresistantorposedanycurrentspecificindividualrisk’(HMChiefInspectorofPrisons2014,p.13).Harmondsworthhasthecapacitytohold615detainees,makingitthelargestdetentioncentreinEurope.Itholdsmenonlyandthesecurityinvariouswingsiscomparabletoahighsecurityprison.Thereportconcludedthatthecentredisplayed,‘inadequatefocusontheneedsofthemostvulnerabledetainees,includingelderlyandsickmen,thoseatriskofselfharmthroughfoodrefusal,andotherpeoplewhosephysicalormentalhealthconditionsmadethempotentiallyunfitfordetention’(HMChiefInspectorofPrisons,2014,p.5).

MrDvorzac’sspecificcaseisnotanisolatedphenomenon.Deathsinimmigrationdetentionarepartofaglobalpatternofmigrantdeathsthatoccurasaresultofthecombinationofbureaucraticineptitude,thedesperationofmigrantsandthestrengtheningofbordercontrols.Whatismore,isnotjustasylumseekerswhofacerisks.1Forexample,58ChinesestowawayswhohadsuffocatedinacontainerenroutetotheUKtoworkwerediscoveredinDoverin2001,togetherwithjusttwosurvivors,almostsuffocatedamidsttheputridsmellofrottingcorpses(Hyland,2000).ThemigrantshadtravelledfromthesouthernChineseprovinceofFujianontheTaiwanStraitandwouldhavepaidaround£15,000togettoBritain,mostlikelytravellingonthestrengthofadepositandfacingtherestofthedebtupontheirarrival.2Althoughwidespreadconsternationwasexpressedatthetime,nofundamentalalterationsweremadetotheborderpoliciesandcontrolpracticesthatareatleastpartlyresponsibleforthehighriskstheytook.Another23ChinesemigrantsdiedpickingcocklesonthesandsofMorecambeBayinLancashire,UnitedKingdom,in2004.Theywereemployedillegally,paid

wellbelowtheminimumwage,andweresenttoworkindangerousconditionswithoutsafetyequipmentortheabilitytocallforhelp.Whenthetidesuddenlycameintheyweresweptouttoseaandsuffered‘deathinacold,strangeland’(BBC,2006a).AlthoughtheirdeathspromptedtheadoptionoftheGangmaster(Licensing)Act(GLA)2004,there‘islittledirectevidencetosuggestthattheGLAhasreducedworkerexploitation,includinglonghours,lackofholidayand/orsickpay,unfairdeductions,poor-qualitytiedhousing,andrestrictivecontracts’(Strauss,2013,p.190).Morerecently,onemandiedandanother34otherswerefoundsufferingfromdehydrationandhypothermia,inashippingcontainerinTilburyDocks,Essex,inAugust2014.InthiscasethegroupwereAfghanSikhswhowereintendingtoclaimasylum,andincluded13children;theyhadbeentrappedinsidethecontainerforatleast12hours.

Themoralclaimmadebyasylumseekersisseenasdifferentfromthatmadebyeconomicmigrantseventhoughbothoftenexperiencehardship,uncertaintyanddiscomfort.Asylumseekersareinvokingtheirrighttosafetyfrompersecutionratherthantheirrighttowork.Assuchtheydonotoffendthesensibilitiesofthosewhoareconcernedabout‘BritishjobsforBritishworkers’inquitethesamewayaseconomicmigrants,althoughoverstatedsuspicionabout‘bogus’asylumseekers–i.e.asylumseekerswhoarereallyinpursuitofemploymentorotherfinancialgains–isneverfarfromviewintheBritishcontext(seeZimmermann,2014,foranexpositionofthepovertyofthenotionofbogusasylumseeking).ForthemostpartinthisbookIexaminethesituationofasylumseekersandnoteconomicmigrants,althoughIrecognisethattherearedifficultiesandsensitivitiesindistinguishingbetweenthetwo.3

TheBritishpublic’sattitudetowardsmigrantdeathshasbeenlargelyinsensitivesinceatleasttheearly2000s.Occasionally,themagnitudeofadisasterorthehorrificcircumstancesthatsurrounditwillmakethenewsandprovokeapopular,althoughusuallyshort-lived,senseofguilt,asinthecaseofthetragicdrowningofthetoddlerAylanKurdi,washeduponaTurkishbeachin2015,whichpromptedasocialmediaoutcryandaflurryofgrassrootsactivism,obligingthePrimeMinisterDavidCamerontoacceptmoreSyrianrefugeestoBritain.Butmostmigrantdeathsmakelittleimpactonpublicconsciousness.UNITED4haskepta‘ListofDeaths’since1993,whichincludesallreporteddeathsthathaveoccurredasaconsequenceofEuropeanbordermilitarisation,asylumlaws,pooraccommodationconditions,detention,deportationsandcarriersanctions.Thefatalitycountstoodat22,394bymid-June2015,althoughtheactualfigureislikelytobemuchhigherasaresultofthenumberofunreporteddeaths(UNITED,2015).TheUnitedNationalHighCommissionforRefugees(UNHCR)(2014)reportedthat3,419peoplelosttheirlivestryingtocrosstheMediterraneanin2014alone,makingitthedeadliestseacrossingrouteintheworld.Yetbecausethesenumbersaccruesteadilytheyhavelittleimpact.Untilrecently,therehadbeennosustainedoutcryfromtheBritishpublicagainstthelethalconsequencesofthecurrentmanagementofbordercontrolsbeyondtheprotestationsofasmallnumberofinterestgroups.

Althoughthislacklustreattitudemightbeuncomfortabletoacknowledge,itispossibletounderstandhowitoriginates.Reportsofmigrantdeathsrefertomigrantstrugglesandlivesthatseemaliento,anddistantfrom,thelivesofmostcitizensinWesterndevelopedcountries.Itisdifficulttoappreciatetheirexperiencesoflossandsuffering,especiallywhentheaccounts

referencefar-flungplacesthatareunfamiliarandcarrylittleresonanceforthemajorityofmiddle-classWesterners.Whilethisshouldnotbetakenasanexcuseforthepersistenceofhighlysecuritisedbordercontrolsthatposeathreattothelivesofmigrants,itdoesrenderintelligiblepublicapathyinthefaceofthecalamitiesthatbefallmigrants.

Thedegreeofneglectexhibitedbytheguards,medicalpersonnelandcentremanagersresponsibleforMrDvorzacatthetimeofhisdeath,however,goesbeyondthemoregenerallistlessnessoftheBritishpublictowardsmigrantdeaths.Itdisplaysalevelofunconcernandadisregardforsufferingthatisqualitativelydistinctfrompublicindifference.Disconcertingly,MrDvorzacwaswellknowntotheauthorities:guardsdidnot‘discover’himinthesamewaythatbordercontrolofficerscameacrossthemigrantsinshippingcontainers.RatherMrDvorzacdiedasaresultofneglectbyindividualswhocouldseehisdiscomfort,wereacquaintedwithhim,andhadthepowertoalleviatehisdistress.Tragically,otherdeathsinBritishdetentiondisplaysimilarsymptoms.TheInstituteofRaceRelationsdocumentsaseriesofdeathsofdetaineesinBritishdetentionbetween1989and2014,pointingtowardtheslownessofauthoritiestoreacttocriesforhelp,theaggravatingroleofneglectwhenmedicalconditionsarealreadybeingsuffered,misplacedmedicalrecords,allegationsofpoortreatmentandassaultsbystaff,referralsbymedicalstaffthatwereneverfollowedup,andinsufficientcaretakentopreventsuicides(Athwal,20145).

Itisagruesomefeattobeabletoengender,withinemployees,levelsofindifferencethatallowthemtooverlookthesufferingofsubjectsrightbeforetheireyes.Icallthisafeatbecauseitmusthavebeenachieveddespiteourtendencytofeelweakerempathyforpeoplewhoarefarawayfromusandstrongerempathyforthoseclosetous.TheBritishpublic’sgenerallylacklustreresponsetomigrants’sufferingcanbeexplainedbythistendency:thefactthatmostmigrantstrugglesoccurinsettings,countriesandsituationsunfamiliartomostWesterncitizens,includingtheports,docksandvesselsthatformthebackdropofthedeathsinshippingcontainersandatsea,meansthatnewsofmigrantdeathsseemsdecidedlyremovedfromtheireverydaylives.MrDvorzac,however,diedinfullviewoftheauthoritiesthatweresupposedlycaringandresponsibleforhimandhewasnot,atthetime,attemptingtododgetheseauthoritiesbutwasratherrelyingonthemforhiswelfare.Hisdeath,andthedeathsofotherswhohavediedinsimilarconditionsindetentionintheUnitedKingdom,providesastartingpointformyexplorationoftherelationshipbetweenindifference,moraldistanceandproximityinthisbook.Whatinterpersonal,institutionalandpoliticalfactors,Iask,areproducinglevelsofindifferencethatareprovinglethaltomigrantsaroundtheworld?Andwhatcananti-borderactivistsdoinresponsetothem?

MoralDistanceandEncountersTherelationbetweendistanceandindifferencehasbeenformallyconceptualisedintermsof‘moraldistance’.Moraldistanceisaconceptthatenjoysconsiderablecurrencyamongmoralphilosophers,sociologistsandpsychologists,andrepresentsaprominentexampleofgeographicallanguagethathasbeentakenupoutsidethedisciplineofgeography.Myintentioninadoptingitisnottoengageinsubjectivemoralising,buttouseittorefertoanempirical

phenomenon.Itreferstothe‘distancedecay’thatmoralconcernsexhibit,resemblinggravitytotheextentthatpeoplefurtherfromusexertaweakermoralclaimuponus(Tronto,1987,citingHutcheson,1971;seealsoSmith,2000).6Putsimply,itreferstothehumantendencytocaremoreforpeopleclosetousthantothosefaraway.

Ofcoursenotalldistanceisthesame.ZygmuntBauman(1989)helpstodisentanglevariousformsofdistanceandinsodoingaugmentsthe‘moraldistance’argument.Inhismuch-discussedstudyoftheHolocaust7hedistinguishesthephysicalfromthepsychologicaldistancingeffectofbureaucraticorganisationalforms,althoughbothareabletoquash‘themoralsignificanceoftheactandtherebypre-emptallconflictbetweenpersonalstandardsofmoraldecencyandimmoralityofthesocialconsequencesoftheact’(Bauman,1989,p.25).Healsodiscussestheimportanceofmediation–thatisthedensityofmiddlemenandwomen,ortechnologicaldevices,thatstandbetweentheissuingofanorderorthemakingofabureaucraticdecisionanditsconsequence.Wherethisdensityincreases,moralestrangementalsoincreases,bringingwithittheriskthatindividualswillbelicensedtoactimmorallyintheabsenceofanyclearviewofthesufferingthattheiractionsmaycause.AlthoughBaumanpointstodifferentformsofdistancethough,inessencethemoraldistanceargumentinvolvesaconsistentclaim:thatwheredistanceofonesortoranotherseparatesindividuals,anymoralsentimentstheymightfeelforthoseinfluencedbytheiractionsaresuppressedroughlyinproportiontothedistanceitself.

Consistentwiththenotionofmoraldistance,itseemstofollowthatwhendistanceisovercomethiscanactasacatalysttomoralconcern.Inrecentyearsmuchhasbeenwrittenabout‘theencounter’.ForthephilosopherEmmanuelLevinas(1979,1981),encountersmeanthatI8comefacetofacewithsufferingothers9suchasasylumseekersfleeingpersecution,andatthispointIbecomeresponsibleforthemandaccountabletothem,experiencingtheirbearingoftheirvulnerabilitytomeasbothapleaandacommandtorespond.Itisthefaceofthesufferingotherthatgeneratesthismoraleffect.Levinasiscarefulnottoreducebeingfacetofacewithsomeonetomerelysightingthem:heunderstandsproximityinaspecificwaythathasanethicalratherthananempiricalorliteralmeaning.Nevertheless,hemakesclearthatthereissomethingmorallydemandingaboutbeinginproximitywithsomeonewhoissuffering,andauthorssuchasBauman(1993)andHamblet(2011)haveextrapolatedfromthisobservationtomakemorepracticalclaimsaboutdistance,moralityandbureaucracy(seealsoHamblet,2003).ForHamblet(2011,p.717)‘Levinasframesethicsasaproblemofdistance;themoralchallengeisachallengeofgeography.’ForBauman(1993,p.83)‘[p]roximityistherealmofintimacyandmorality’whereas‘distanceistherealmofestrangementandtheLaw’.BasinghisargumentonLevinas,Baumanopposesthemoralpotentialofthefacetofaceencounterwithimpersonalsystemsofbureaucraticrulethatdistanceofficialsfromsubjects.

Borderscholarshavebeenlargelysilentofthetopicofmoraldistanceandindifference.InthenextchapterIbeginbymakingthecasethatourunderstandingofthespatialorganisationofborders,bordercontrolandborderworkcouldbeenrichedbytakingintoaccounttheirimportance.Accordingtothisargumenttheopeningofmoraldistance–thatisthephenomenonofmoraldistancing–isanimportantconsequenceofthebroadshapeofrecentchangesto

both‘thestate’ingeneralandtomodernimmigrationcontrolsystems.Thepursuitofefficiencyandthesmoothoperationofsystems,theturntogovernance,theinternationalisationandoutsourcingofimmigrationcontrols,andtheprivatisationoflargeswathesofthebusinessofcontrol,havemoralconsequencesthathavebeengenerallyoverlooked.InthecaseofBritishbordercontrol,theytendtokeepdecisionmakersandasylumseekersapartthroughvariousformsofdistanceandmediatemoredenselybetweenthem,withtheeffectthatthemoralcheckaffordedbyencountersand‘rightsofpresence’(Amin,2002a,p.972)isextinguished.Theabilityof‘thesufferer[to]findherwayintothedirectperceptualrangeofthemoralagentinordertoawakenthemoralsensibilitythatwillelicitacompassionateresponsetohersuffering’(Hamblet,2011,p.717)isseriouslyunderminedbymodernbordercontrols.

Thiskeeping-apartmakesexcludingmigrantsbyforceamorallylessdemandingtask.Individualfunctionariesandmanagersarenotconfrontedbytheworstconsequencesoftheirworkbyhavingtolooktheirsubjectsintheeye.ByfunctionariesImeanthefrontlinepersonnelwhomakedailydecisionsaboutasylumseekersandwhohaveresponsibilityforasylumseekers’day-to-daywelfare,andbymanagersImeanthedesignersandorchestratorsofthesystemofasylumgovernancethatiscurrentlyinplace.10Theinternationalobscuringofasylumseekersalsoensuresthatpublicsindestinationcountriesareinsulatedfromthemoralclaimsofwould-beimmigrantsandthedisturbingmoralconsequencesofpre-emptive,remoteandforcefulbordercontrols.

Itwouldbeinaccuratetoclaimthattherestructuringofthestateandofbordercontrolsinrecentyearshasbeenexplicitlyundertakenwiththisaimofmoraldistancinginmind.Tomakethisclaimwouldbetocreditthemanagersofstateinstitutionsandbordercontrolswithmoreorganisationalcompetencethantheyhaveeverdemonstrated,atleastinaBritishcontext.Itwouldalso,morebroadly,riskfeedingthe‘state-phobia’thatFoucault(2008,p.76)hasidentified,whichhasthepotentialtodisseminateamisleadingimageofanunassailable,monstrous,calculatingandcoherentstatebehemoth,possessing‘asortofgenericcontinuity’(Foucault,2008,p.187),thatisdifficulttoresist.Rather,whilethedriversofthistrendtowardsmoraldistancingmightoccasionallybepremeditativeandcalculative,theyaremoreoftenmundaneandbanal,associatedwiththeachievementofimmediatetargets,theminimisationofcostsandtheadoptionofefficientorganisationalmodelsandbusinesspractices.Moraldistancingarises,then,asaresultofthedispassionateorganisationofpracticesinaccordancewithbureaucraticconcerns.Inthislightwemightsaythatmoraldistancingisanemergentpropertyofacomplexsystemthatgovernshumanmobility–apropertyofthesystemthatisnotreducibleortraceabletotheactionsofanyindividualorpartswithinit(seeUrry,2007).

Calculatedornot,however,separationbetweendecisionmakersandasylumseekersnonethelessleadstotheformerbecomingdetachedfromthereal-worldexperiencesofthelatter,totheextentthattheyareoftenunabletoappreciatethegravityoftheirownwork.Thisdetachmentisparticularlydamaginggiventhatthosefleeingthethreatofpersecutionhaveusuallyalreadyexperiencedfearfulandtraumaticevents.Theemotional,psychologicalandeconomicbuffetingthatslow,impersonalanddetachedbureaucratictreatmentdeliversoftenactstocompoundthesedifficultexperiences.

EnrichingAccountsofMoralDistanceMoraldistancedescribesabasic,fundamentalconsequenceofthestrengtheningandproliferationofnationalbordersincontemporarysocietyand,usingthisconcept,NothingPersonal?offersanempiricalexaminationofindifferenceandimmigrationcontrol.TheprimarythrustofthebookistounderstandtheempiricallyevidentindifferencetosufferingothersinBritain’simmigrationsystem,andtheconceptofmoraldistanceprovidesausefultoolfordoingso.BeforegoingfurtherthoughIwanttocriticallyenrichtheperspectiveofmoraldistanceinordertohelptoformulateafullpictureoftheindifferencetowardssufferingothersgeneratedbybordercontrolsandtolaythefoundationsfortheinvestigationthatfollows.Iwilldosoinfourways:(i)byaddressingthedistancingofofficialsfrommigrantsandnotsimplyviceversa;(ii)byquestioningtheethicalpotentialofcloseness;(iii)byexploringformsofindifferencethatarenotgeneratedbydistance;and(iv)bythinkingcriticallyabouttherelationshipbetweenindifferenceandemotions.

Weshouldnotassume,firstly,thatmoraldistancingisprimarilyamatterofdistancingsubjectsontheonehandfrompublics,managersandfunctionariesontheother,andnotviceversa.Thewaytherestructuringofbordercontrolhasbeendiscussedbyscholarsrecently,withreferencetotheexportofborders(Clayton,2010)andthe‘pushback’ofmigrants(Bialasiewicz,2012,p.856),forexample,emphasisesmigrants’experiencesofremoteness.Butthereareotherwaysinwhichmoraldistancingcanoccur–notsimplybyalienatingAfromB,butalsoBfromA.Distanceisarelationalconceptandsoitmakessensetoconsidertheexperienceofdistancefromtheperspectiveofbothparties.

Asecondimportantnuanceofthemoraldistanceargumentistorecognisethatliteralclosenesswillnotnecessarilyleadtoamorallydemandingencounter.Itwouldbeeasy,butover-simplistic,toassertthatwheredistanceiseradicatedencountersoccur.Onthecontrary,modernbordercontrolsystemsarealsocapableofentertainingclosenesswhilstsuspendingmoralproximityandencounter.Itisthereforecentrallyimportant,Iargue,tothinkaboutwaysinwhichencountersareavoided,avertedandsuspendedevenwhendecisionmakersareclosetotheirsubjects.Thisrequiresthinkingaboutthedifferentformsoforganisationalandinstitutionaldistancethatpermit,andoftenguarantee,moralestrangementatclosequarters.

Athirdnecessaryelaborationofthinkingintermsofmoraldistanceistorecognisethatmoraldistancenurturesonlyonespecifictypeofindifference.Inparticular,whereasmoraldistanceoperatesthroughtheremovalofsubjectsfrommoralpurview,itispossibleforindifferencetoalsoarisethroughover-familiaritywithsufferingothers.InmakingthisargumentIturntoSimmel(1903/2002)inordertodevelopavocabularyaroundtheblaséfunctionary,whoseindifferencetowardsothersisofaqualitativelydifferentnaturetotheindifferencethatmoraldistancenurtures.Beingalivetothedifferentsourcesofinsensitivityandindifferencethatcombinewithincomplexsystemsofcontrolisessentialtofullyunderstandingthem.

Afourthdevelopmentofthethemeofmoraldistanceistobewaryofassociatingmoraldistance,andtheindifferent,impersonaldispositionofthebureaucrat,withalackofemotion.AccordingtoBauman(1989)bureaucraciestendtoproducemoraldistancethroughvarious

mechanisms,whichallowtheirfunctionariestotreattheirsubjectsdispassionately,indifferentlyandunemotionally.Weber(1948)alsoassociatesbureaucracieswithemotionalcoolness.IncontradictionofBaumanandWeber,however,thebureaucraticprocessesinevidenceinBritain’sasylumsystemdonotrelyupontheevacuationofemotionthattheysetout.Rather,bureaucracyandsensitivityarewoventogetherinsubtleandinsipidwaysintheareaofasylumseekermanagement,whichultimatelyleadstothestrengtheningofbureaucraticmodesofrule.Themanagementofasylumseekersisabletopresenta‘softerside’thatactivelyencouragesandenrolsemotionssuchascareandempathyamongitsfunctionariesandmanagersandthroughoutitsstructure.

Thislastassertionrequiresattentionnotonlytothewaybureaucracymightco-optemotion,butalsotothewayactivistsmightpositionthemselvesinrelationtothestrugglesofasylumseekers.Inparticular,intheclosingsectionsofthebook,IconsidertheimplicationsforprogressiveborderactivismofthefactthatdiscoursesofcareandcompassionhavebeenadoptedbythesystemsgoverningasylumseekerandrefugeeissuesintheUnitedKingdom.Thismeldingofsubjugationandcare,repressionandcompassion,rendersanyactivistattitudetowardsasylumseekerscouchedintermsof‘caring-for’,‘supporting’,‘helping’or‘caring-about’alsoatriskofco-optation.Thisbringsmeultimatelytoadvocateforactivisttacticsthatareinsolidarity-withasylumseekersandrefugeesintheUnitedKingdom,becauseitisthroughthistypeoflanguageandpositioningthatactivistscanensurethattheyremainoppositionalto,ratherthanfacilitativeoforcomplicitin(howeverunwittingly),thegovernanceofasylumseekersintheUnitedKingdomandthepassivitywithwhichtheyareoftenportrayed.

AsylumSeekersintheUnitedKingdomInthisbookIdelveintotheworkinglivesofimmigrationpersonnelinordertoinvestigateaseriesofquestions.FirstandmostimportantlyIaskhowindifferencetowardsmigrantsisproducedinbordercontrolsystems.Thisleadstonumerousfurtherquestionssuchas:Whatarethemoraleffectsofrecentchangestobordercontrolsystems?Howareimmigrationpersonnelnurturedinsuchawayastomakethemcapableof,andwillingto,deliveranincreasinglyexclusionaryandbrutalsystemofcontrol?Towhatextent,andhow,aretheconsequencesoftheirworkprecludedfromthem?Howarethey‘keptapart’fromtheirsubjectsandthroughwhatformsofdistance?InexploringthesequestionsNothingPersonal?offersacomprehensivestudyoftherelationshipbetweenBritishimmigrationcontrol,distanceandindifferencetowardssufferingothers.

BeforeIcandescribemymethodologyindetailitisnecessarytosetoutthesocialandpoliticalcontextoftheasylumsystemintheUnitedKingdom.WiththisbackgroundIcanexplainhowIapproachedthestudyofimmigrationcontrol.InthissectionIbrieflydescriberecenttrendsinBritain’sasylumsystem,themediaclimatesurroundingasylumintheUnitedKingdom,thelegalinnovationsthathaveimpactedupontheasylumsectorinrecentyears,andtherecenttechnicalandpracticalpolicyinitiativesthathavecomeintoforce.

TheUnitedKingdomiswitnessingasustainedintensificationinthewaysystemsofgoverningasylumseekersacttoexcludethem,governthemthroughdiscomfort,criminalisethemandexposethemtouncertaintyandrisk(seeVickers,2012;alsoDarling,2011a).In2002,theUnitedKingdomreceived84,132applicationsforasylum.By2014thisnumberhadfallento24,914representinga70.4%reduction.Incontrast,althoughthenumberofasylumapplicantstotheEU-27fellfrom421,470in2002tojustbelow200,000in2006,11numberssubsequentlyroseto626,710in2014(a48.7%increaseon2002levels)largelyduetosignificantincreasesinnumbersofapplicantsfromSyria,Eritrea,Kosovo,AfghanistanandUkraine.Thesechangesoccurredinthecontextofmanymorepeoplefleeingpersecution,conflict,generalisedviolence,andhumanrightsviolationsglobally.In2002around40millionpeoplewereforciblydisplacedworldwide,butbytheendof2014nearly60millionwere,constitutinglevelsofdisplacementthatare‘unprecedentedinrecenthistory’(UNHCR,2015:5).

AsaresultofBritain’sapparenthospitalitycrisis,theshareofforciblydisplacedpeoplegloballywhoapplyforasylumintheUnitedKingdomhasdroppedprecipitously.TakingtheratioofthenumberofasylumclaimsreceivedbytheUnitedKingdomtotheglobalpopulationofconcerntotheUNHCRasacrudemeasure,thisratiofellfrom4.1/1000in2002tojust0.5/1000in2014.12ThisreductioninasylumclaimsreceivedbytheUnitedKingdomistheresultofthenation’sincreasinglyharshandexclusionarydiscoursearoundasylummigration.

ThemediaclimatesurroundingasylumseekersintheUnitedKingdomiscentraltounderstandingtheirtreatment.Sinceatleasttheearly2000sthepopularprintedtabloidpress(henceforth‘thepress’)hasdisseminatedaperceptionthatBritainoffersgeneroussocialsecuritybenefitstoasylumseekers.Thepresshasalsoattainednotorietyforitsheavy-handed,subjectiveandderogatorytreatmentofasylumseekersoverthisperiod13(Mollard,2001,Leveson2012).Britainisnowroutinelyperceivedasa‘soft-touch’formigrantswhosupposedlyseekoutthemostattractivereceptionconditionsamongEuropeancountries.Althoughasylumseekers’abilitytodothishasbeendiscredited(DayandWhite,2001;RobinsonandSegrott,2002)theseconcernsenduredforoveradecade(Kelly,2012),attainingthestatusofafull-blown‘invasioncomplex’(Tyler,2013,p.87).

Spuriousconnectionsbetweenasylumseekersandavarietyofsocialillshavesimultaneouslybecomecommonplace.Forexample,concernhasbeenexpressedthatasylumseekingislinkedtoterrorism–‘Bombersareallspongingasylumseekers’theDailyExpressprinted(DailyExpress,2005).14OthertabloidsourceshaveexaggeratedtheculturalmismatchbetweenasylumseekersandBritishcommunitieswithstoriesthatdepictedasylumseekersasstrangeandoutlandish.‘SwanBaked…Asylumseekersarestealingandeatingswans’TheSunreported(TheSun,2003),whereastheDailyStarpublishedtheclaimthat‘Asylumseekersateourdonkeys’(DailyStar,2005).15OthershavebeenconcernedthatasylumseekersmightcommitcrimesinBritishhostcommunities:‘Ourtown’stooniceforrefugees…theywilltrytoescape,rapistsandthieveswillterroriseus’theDailyExpressquotedinaheadline(DailyExpress,23March2002,p.1)whileothersareoutspokenaboutsupposedlybogusasylumseekersarrivinginBritaininordertobenefitfromthewelfareentitlementsavailabletoasylumseekers:‘weresentthescroungers,beggarsandcrookswhoarepreparedtocrossevery

countryinEuropetoreachourgenerousbenefitssystem’TheSunhasprinted(TheSun,2001).

Althoughunfounded,concernsthatasylumseekerswere‘sponging’,orterrorthreats,orculturallymismatched,orrepresentedcriminalrisks,putpressureonsuccessivegovernmentstocontrolwhatwasquicklyconceptualisedastheasylum‘problem’andtheasylum‘threat’duringthe2000s(seeSquire,2009),providingthegroundsforgreatlytoughenedpolicies.Thebudgetallocatedtotheenforcementofimmigrationlawhasincreasedmarkedlysincethelate1990s,forexample.In1996–7theImmigrationandNationalityDirectoratehad5,868staffandabudgetof£218million.By2004–5,therewere15,002staffandthebudgethadincreasedto£1.7billion.16ThisincreaseindetectionandenforcementcapacityhasbeencombinedwithaseriesoflegalinnovationsdesignedtomakeBritainamoreinaccessibleplaceinternationallyandamorehostileplaceonceithasbeenreached.Forexample,asylumseekers’accesstolegalappealsagainstnegativedecisionsontheirclaimsforasylumhasbeensignificantlycurtailedviaaseriesofexclusionsfromaccesstotheappealsystem,andcutsandrestrictionstolegalaid(seeWebber,2012).

Alongsidelegalmeasures,anumberoftechnologicalandpracticalinnovationshavealsobeenintroduced.In2005thegovernmentannouncedafive-yearstrategy,thekeyproposalsofwhichincludedheavyinvestmentintechnologicalcapacity,suchaslargeX-rayscannerscapableofdetectinghumanstowawaysinmovingvehicles,electronicfingerprinting,digitalscanningoftheiris,andtheelectronictaggingofasylumseekersalreadyintheUnitedKingdom(HomeOffice,2006).Thestrategyproposedthegrantingoftemporaryleavetoremainratherthanpermanentrefugeestatuswhereverpossible,andfast-trackingofasylumclaims17sothatthetimeandresourcesspentonthelegalsystemarereduced.Theproposalsalsointroducedtherolloutofe-borders,whereallinternationalpassengersareelectronicallycheckedbeforetheyreachtheUnitedKingdom,astheyenterandastheyleave,andaredoublingofeffortstoremoveunsuccessfulasylumapplicantsinordertoachieveparitybetweenthenumberofthoserefusedandthoseremoved.

Theconsequencesfortheasylumseekerswhoarerefusedandwhomight,underdifferentconditions,havebeengrantedasylumareoftendire.Therearereportsthatsomearetorturedandkilleduponreturntotheirorigincountries,althoughsystematicresearchintothefatalityrateofdeporteesissorelylackingintheBritishcontext.18Thereare,nevertheless,aseriesofobservedconsequencesthatdeportedasylumseekersexperience.InthecaseofAfghandeportees,forexample,theseinclude‘theimpossibilityofrepayingdebtsincurredbymigration…theshameoffailure,andtheperceptionsof“contamination”’(SchusterandMajidi,2013,p.221).ForthosethatremainintheUnitedKingdomwithoutstatus,theycanexpecttoendureexploitation(Vickers,2012),destitution(BritishRedCross,2010),ostracisationandmarginalisationamongBritain’sworking-classcommunities(Hynes,2009)anddefamationinBritain’spress(FinneyandSimpson,2009).

Thentherearethosemigrants,likeMrDvorzac,wholosetheirlibertyinimmigrationdetentionfacilitiesasaresultoftheirjourneys.When19-year-oldBereketYohanneswasfoundhangedinashowerblockatHarmondsworthremovalcentreinJanuary2006,61detaineesatthecentreissuedacatalogueofcomplaintsandindictmentsoftheconditionsinremovalcentresin

theUnitedKingdom.Theyreferredto‘dehumanisinganddepressingconditions’(Garciaetal.,2006,p.15),thewayinwhichstaff‘makeusfeelthatweareaninconvenience’(Garciaetal.,2006,p.15),thefoodthat‘wouldberejectedbysomedogsintheUnitedKingdom’(Garciaetal.,2006,p.16)and‘[t]hewayandmannerofficersdisrespectdetainees[which]isquitedisgustingandveryhumiliating’(Garciaetal.,2006,p.16).Nearlytenyearslatersimilarissuespersisted.Atelevisionnewsinvestigationairedin2015(ChannelFour,2015)includedundercoverfootageofguardsattheYarl’sWoodcentreforfemalesshowingcontemptfordetainees,suchasbyreferringtothemas‘animals’,‘beasties’and‘bitches’.

Regardingdisrespectforasylumseekersamongbordercontrolofficials,LouisePerrett,aformeremployeeofUKBA,blewthewhistleonthetacticsusedbystaffatamajorcentreforprocessingasylumseekers’claimsintheUnitedKingdomin2009.Sheidentifiedpracticesofmistreatment,trickery,humiliation,generalisedhostility,indifferenceandrudenessamongstaff.Accordingtoheraccount,whenclaimswerecomplicatedshewasadvisedsimplytorefusethem,andwhenimmigrationstaffgranted‘toomany’claimsthenahumiliating‘grantmonkey’(asofttoy)wasplacedonthedeskoftheculprit(TaylorandMuir,2010).

TheBritishgovernmentalsoroutinelysuffersembarrassingpublicrelationsdisastersthathaveoccurredbecauseindividualsworkingwithinimmigrationcontroleithermakemistakesorstepoutofline.Scandalshaveincludedthemistakenreleaseofhundredsofconvictedcriminalmigrantswhoshould19havebeenconsideredfordeportationunderBritishlaw(BBC,2006b);theemploymentofasylumseekers,whowerenotsupposedtoundertakepaidemploymentaccordingtoBritishlaw,inImmigrationandNationalityDirectorate(IND)offices(BBC,2006c);andevidencethatseniorofficershavetriedtoexchangeimmigrationstatusforsexualfavours(DowardandTownsend,2006).

Substandardtreatmentofmigrantsbystaffandpoorpublicrelationshavebeenlinkedtodeep-seatedculturaldeficienciesattheheartofthegovernmentinstitutionsthatoverseebordercontrol.Commentatorshavedetectedwidespreaddenialthatasylumseekersmightbepositinglegitimateclaims.Denialrefersto‘anadvancedecisiontoavoidsituationsinwhich…factsmightrevealthemselves’(Cohen,2001,p.23).TheUNHCR,forexample,hasdiagnoseda‘refusalmindset’amongdecisionmakers(UNHCR,2005,p.17).Asylumclaimshavebeenrefusedwithoutproperlyconsideringthefactsofindividualcasesorthecountryoforigininformationthatismadeavailabletodecisionmakers,andbyusingspeculativeargumentsandcitingasmallnumberofperipheralinconsistenciesasgroundstodismissentireapplications(AmnestyInternational,2004;AmnestyInternationalandStillHumanStillHere,2013).Asaresultfully25%ofinitialdecisionsareeventuallyoverturnedonappeal,indicatingthewastefulnessoftheinitialdecisionmakingprocessevenonitsownterms.Newmembersofstaffareplungedintothissystemwithlittletrainingandeitherhavetoacculturaterapidlyorfacethepsychologicalandprofessionalconsequencesofswimmingagainstthetide.

ApproachingImmigrationControl:SpacesandSettingsResearchingthewaybordercontroldecisionmakers,includingfrontlineofficers,elite

managersandcontractedagents,relatetomigrantsisnoeasymatterbecauseaccessisoftenhighlyconstrained,especiallyaroundsecuresitessuchasImmigrationRemovalCentres.Thisisdue,inlargepart,toanxietyamongmanagersandgatekeepersthatresearchwilleithernotbeintheirinterest,willleadtosomesortofpublicembarrassmentorthatitcouldcompromisethesecurityofsuchcentres.Manyfunctionaries,forexample,arecontractuallyforbiddenfromdiscussingtheirworkbecausedoingsomightinvolvesecuritybreaches.Arelatedmethodologicalchallengeisobtainingaclearoverallviewofthesystemofcontrols.Functionariestendtobepositionedinspecificrolesandoftendonothaveaviewoftheentiresystem.Managers,ontheotherhand,canbelessknowledgeableabouttheeveryday,ontheground,happeningsatparticularsitesofborderwork.

Anotherchallengeconcernstherelentless‘policychurn’meaningthe‘endlessstreamofnewinitiatives’(Hess,1998,p.52)thatcharacterisesBritishimmigrationcontrol.Intermsoflegislation,amajornewpieceoflegislationhasbeenintroducedintheUnitedKingdomeverycoupleofyearsoverthepast20years,whichoftensignificantlyrewritesimmigrationrules,causingconfusionformigrantsandsupportgroupsandprovidingachallengingresearchenvironment.20IncomparingtheimmigrationcontrolsystemsoftheUnitedStatesandUnitedKingdom,BohmerandShuman(2008)pointoutthatwhereastheUSsystemhasbeenslowtoadapttochangesininternationalrelations,theUKsystemhasbeen,‘ifanything,tooquicktochange’asaresultofthefactthat‘rulesandlaws,unlikeintheUS,arenotsubjecttoconstitutionaloversight’(BohmerandShuman,2008,p.22).Maiman(2005,p.244)issimilarlydisconcertedby‘theBritishgovernment’s…unchallengeablecapacitytomake,unmake,andremakeitsownrules’.Thishasbeenreflectednotonlylegislatively,butalsointhefrequentcreationanddisbandingofinstitutionsthatoverseebordercontrolintheUnitedKingdom.In2007theImmigrationandNationalityDirectoratewasreplacedbytheBorderandImmigrationAgency,whichwasreplacedin2008bytheUKBorderAgency(UKBA),whichwasitselfabolishedin2013inordertoreturntheworkofimmigrationcontroltotheHomeOffice.

Iapproachthesechallengesusingthreegeneralprinciplesthathaveunderpinnedaprogrammeofresearchthatbeganin2003(methodologicaldetailsrelatingtotimescaleofresearchactivities,access,sampling,analysisandethicalconsiderationsareprovidedintheAppendix).Firstly,Ihaveemployedarangeofqualitativemethodsonthepremisethatdifferentmethodologiesgivedifferentinsightsintothecomplexphenomenaunderstudy.NothingPersonal?thereforedrawsuponinterviews,focusgroupsandethnographicworkaswellasdocumentandpolicyanalysisinanattempttoformanuancedpictureoftheobjectsoftheresearch.Idrawmostfrequentlyuponinterviews,whichhavebeenconductedatvariouspointsthroughtheresearchperiod.InterviewsweregenerallyrecordedunlesstheintervieweeexplicitlyrequestedthatIdidnotuseavoicerecorder,whichwassometimesthecaseamonganxiousimmigrationpersonnel(IdiscussanxietyamongimmigrationpersonnelingreaterdetailinChapterSix).Theinterviewwasthentranscribedinfullifithadbeenrecorded,orelsewrittenoutasextensivelyaspossibleonthebasisofscratchnotestakenduringandimmediatelyaftertheunrecordedinterviews.Transcriptswerethensometimessharedwiththeintervieweeforapproval,correctionorelaboration.Theywerethencodedaccordingtoaset

ofresearchthemesthatIhaddistilledinadvancefromexistingacademicliteratureandmyownresearchquestions,andthatguidedmyapproachtothevariedempiricalmaterialthatmultiplemethodologiesgenerate.FocusgroupswereheldinLondonin2012andbroughttogetheractivists,charityworkersandvolunteersforaseriesofcompellingconversations(seeTyleretal.,2014).Theethnographieswereconductedin2013and2014bymyresearchersDrsMelanieGriffithsandAndrewBurridge,whospentconsiderabletimeobservingasylumappealproceduresinthefirsttierimmigrationandasylumtribunalsinvarioustribunalsaroundtheUK.

Secondly,Ihaveavoidedconfiningtheanalysistoanysinglesiteofimmigrationcontrol.Althoughtherearevariousexcellentstudiesthatfocusuponindividualsitesofborderworksuchasdetentioncentresortheinterviewprocess,NothingPersonal?providesanoverviewoftheBritishimmigrationsystembyexaminingaseriesofrelevantsettings.Thesespankeysitesintheexecutionofthedifferentstagesofanasylumapplication,includingthemainsiteofinitialclaimsprocessingintheUnitedKingdomatLunarHouseinCroydon,London,thelocationofback-officeworkrelatingtoasylumclaimsforwelfaresupportinPortisheadnearBristol,andCampsfieldHouseImmigrationRemovalCentrenearOxford,whereindividualsaredetainedunderimmigrationpowers,ostensiblypendingtheirremovalfromtheUnitedKingdom.Thesesitesdiffernotonlyaccordingtotheirformalfunctioninasylumclaimdeterminationandimmigrationenforcementprocesses,butalsoaccordingtotheirpoliticalsensitivityandmediaprofile.LunarHousewasthetargetofsustainedmediascrutinythroughmuchofthe2000s,forexample,andassuchfindingwillingintervieweesthereandgainingaccesstothesitewasmorechallengingeventhanaccessingCampsfieldDetentionCentre.BycontrastIoccasionallyfoundstaffemployedinotherareasandsitesofimmigrationcontrolsurprisinglywillingandeagertoparticipateinmyresearch,sometimesinordertoventtheirfrustrationabouttheirworkingconditions.Morebroadly,bytakinganapproachthatspannedmultipleresearchsites,thebookisabletoidentifygeneral,system-levelpatternsinthewayofficialsaregovernedandthewaythatindifferenceisnurtured.

Thirdly,giventhechallengesofgainingaclearoverviewofthesystem,avarietyofgroupshaveparticipatedinthestudy.SoalthoughIdodrawonresearchwithfrontlinedecisionmakers,contractedsecuritystaff,policeofficers,back-officeemployeesandeliteimmigrationmanagers,Ialsodrawuponevidencefrommigrantsthemselveswhohaveexperiencedindifferenceandinsensitivityfirsthand,aswellasactivists,charityworkersandcommunityleaders.Onenoticeablephenomenoninthisrespectisthedegreetowhichsomeindividualsoccupymorethanonesubjectposition.Forexample,Ihaveinterviewedpoliceofficerswhoarealsoactivists,refugeeswhoarealsogovernmentworkers,andsolicitorsandgovernmentworkerswhoareinvolvedinmultipleinitiativesthatareoftenverydifferentandsometimesintension.Oftenthesedifferentsubjectpositionswouldonlycometolightpartwaythroughinterviews,buttheyservetohighlightthedifficultyoffirmlycategorisingindividuals,andoftengavemepauseforthoughtaboutmyownpreconceptions.

PlanoftheBook

NothingPersonal?proceedsoversevenfurtherchapters.InChapterTwoIsetoutthecasefortakingaccountofthemorallydistancingconsequencesofborderwork.Ioutlinethemoralpotentialofproximityfromavarietyofdisciplinaryviewpoints,andexaminehowrecentroundsofstateandborderrescalingandrestructuringhavemadeproximitybetweendecisionmakersandasylumseekerslesslikely.Thechapterconsequentlycallsforarereadingofmodernstaterescalingthroughthelensofitsinterpersonaleffectsandmakesthecasethatmoraldistancing,andtheindifferencetosufferingthatitpromotes,isaprimaryconsequenceofrecentchangesinbordercontrolpractices.

Identifyingthemoraldistancingeffectthatchangestothebureaucraticmanagementofbordershasintheinternationalcontextisimportant,butneedstobeapproachedcarefully.ThisaccountofmoraldistancingdoesnothelptoaccountforMrDvorzac’sdeath,forexample.ChaptersThree,Four,FiveandSixthereforedrawonvariedempiricalmaterialtodevelopcriticalreflectionsonsomeoftheassumptionsofthebroadpicturepresentedinChapterTwo.Thesechaptersofferimportantembellishmentstotheaccountofmoraldistance,especiallywithregardtotheabilityofsystemsofcontroltonurturemoralindifferenceofdecisionmakerstowardssubjectsevenwhentheycomeclosetoeachother,whentheyareincontactforconsiderableperiodsoftimeandwhentheyfeelsignificantemotionalattachmenttoeachother.Togethertheyhighlightthedifferentformsofdistancethatkeepdecisionmakersandasylumseekersapart,andthedifferentformsofindifferenceoperatingthroughoutbordercontrolwork.

ChapterThreeexaminestheimportanceofthinkingaboutmoraldistancefromtheperspectiveofbothpartnersinarelationshipofdistance.Thechapterexaminestheremarkableextractionofasylumdecisionmakersfromtheenvironmentsinwhichasylumseekerswerepresentthroughthe2000sintheUnitedKingdom,aspartofadrivetoregionaliseandmoderniseasylumsupportanddecision-makingsystems.Officesandemployeeswerelocatedwellawayfromtheurbanconcentrationsofmigrantstherebyinsulatingthemfromcontactwiththeirsubjects.Contractedagencieswerepositionedbetweenthemandtheyweresetintocompetitionwitheachotheroverabstractmetricsthatgavenoclueastothehumangravityoftheactivitiestheyundertook.Inthiswaydistancebetweenfunctionariesandsubjectswasopenednotbyexcludingsubjectsbutbyremovingfunctionariesfromcontactwithmigrants.

ChapterFourexaminesthesituationinwhichphysicaldistancehasbeenovercomebyconsideringthecasesofasyluminterviewsandasylumappeals.21Thesearecontacteventsthatarebothlegallyrequiredandthatrepresentthemosteffectivewaytoexchangethesortofcomplexinformationthatitisnecessarytoexchangeinthedeterminationofindividualasylumcases.Herefunctionariesandasylumapplicantscomeclosetoeachother,butwhatisstrikingaboutthesemeetingsishowrarelytheyentailmorallydemandingencounters.Somehow,theethicalepiphanythatLevinasdescribesinproximityissuspended.Thechapterdrawsonthepsychologicalliteratureoncontacttoidentifytheintricatewaysinwhichindifferenceisnurtured,andencounterssuspendedandaverted,evenatclosequarters.

Inthecaseofimmigrationdetention,whichisthesubjectofChapterFive,theindifferenceoffunctionariestowardstheirsubjectsissustainedevenduringprolongedcontact.Anynotionthatphysicalproximityalonemightprovokemoralsentimentsisconsequentlythrownintoquestion.

Indetention,overstimulationoftheempatheticinstinctsofpersonneliscommonplace,causedbytheiroverexposuretoharrowingaccountsoftraumaandpromptingthemtoadopttacticsofpsychologicalavoidanceasaformofself-care.Theincessantchurningofdetaineesexacerbatesthisexposure,whereastheirtrivialisation,infantilisationandrepeatedlyassertedstrangenessmakealoofnesstowardsthemeasierstill.Avoidancethusmorphsfromaspatiotemporalphenomenontoapsychologicalone.Perversely,itistheveryclosenessofstafftodetaineesthatachievesthiseffect(Simmel,1903/2002,p.14).

ChapterSixrefutesanimportantassumptionthatbeleaguerstheoristsofindifferenceandinsensitivity:thatindifferencetowardsotherscanbeassociatedwithalackofemotion.FromBaumanandSimmeltoGloverandWeber,theChapterbeginsbysettingoutevidenceofthiswidespreadconjecture.Yetthereareatleasttwoemotionsthatfunctionariescommonlyexperiencethatservetoactuallyfacilitateratherthanfrustratethedevelopmentofindifference.Thefirstisanxiety,whichnaggedalmosteveryfunctionaryIcameacrossorheardaboutduringthecourseofmyfieldwork.Withoutanxiety–overdisciplinefrommanagersorembarrassmentinthepress–manymorefunctionariesmighthavetheimaginativecouragetoovercometheirowninsensitivity.Andthesecond,perhapsmoredisconcertinglystill,iscare.Theabilityofimmoralsystemstointerweavecareandindifferenceinincreasinglycomplexways,allowingfunctionariestomorallyquestiontheirinvolvementandfindthemselvesblameless,signalsahigherlevelofsophisticationinthedevelopmentofinsensitivitythanthesetheoristscanaccommodate.

ChapterSeventurnstoactivistattemptstocounteractindifferenceandinsensitivityamongimmigrationpersonnel.Drawingontheexperiencesandtacticsofasubsetofmigrantsupportorganizations,thechapterdescribesmobilizationsthatseekspecificallytonurturecompassionamongfunctionariesanddecisionmakers.Suchactivitiesaimtodirectlyconfronttheimpersonalityandindifferenceofbureaucraticbordercontrolbyrepersonalisingelementsofthesystem–anapproachthat,Iargue,entailsaseriesofrisks.Nurturingcompassionrequiresclosenesstoinstitutionalcentresofcontrol,andthespectreofco-optationisneverfarfromviewinthesesituations.Thepursuitofcompassionamongfunctionaries,whichentailsmetaphoricandsometimesliteralpleadingwiththem,alsosignalsacapitulationtothestructureofthesystemthatbestowsthesefunctionarieswithpowerandauthorityinthefirstplace.Mostfundamentallythough,giventhatcompassionandsensitivityareperfectlycompatiblewithbrutalsystemsofcontrol(asIdemonstrateinChapterSix),makingthenurturingofcompassionamongfunctionariesanactivistobjectiverisksstrengtheningthesystemitself.Thechapterprovidessomeillustrationsofthisand,althoughitlistsaseriesofmitigatingconsiderationsandextenuatingcircumstancesthatmightrendercompassion-seekinglessriskyandmoreworthwhile,itconcludesbyquestioningtheconditionsthathavereducedsomeactiviststopity-seekersandsettingoutthedemandingconditionsunderwhichactivisminpursuitofcompassionisdesirable.

Theconclusionprovidesasummaryoftheargumentofthepreviouschaptersandsynthesisesthekeyinsightsthatthebookdevelopsregardingthegenerationofindifferencetowardsasylumseekersamongstborderofficials.Beginningfromthisempiricalstartingpoint,thebookshedslightonthevariousformsofindifferenceoperatinginBritishimmigrationcontrol,the

opportunitiesandlimitationsofthinkingaboutchangestoimmigrationcontrolsystemsintermsofmoraldistance,thetechniquesbywhichencountersaresuspendedoravertedeveninsituationsoffacetofaceandsustainedcontact,andtheco-optationofsofterandgentlerdiscoursesinthebrutalbusinessofbordercontrolmanagement.

Notes1AlthoughmostpeopleinBritishimmigrationdetentionhavesoughtasylumintheUKatsome

point(TheMigrationObservatoryattheUniversityofOxford,2015a),MrDvorzachimselfwasnotseekingasylum,hehadjustbecomeconfusedwhenaskedbyborderofficialswherehewastravellingto,resultinginhisdetention.Histreatmentisindicative,though,ofthesortoftreatmentthatitispossibletoreceiveinimmigrationdetention.

2ThetragedywasthesubjectofaHongKong,Cantoneselanguagefilm,Stowaway(2001),shotinFuzhou,Vietnam,Moscow,UkraineandEngland.

3Itisworthnotingthattheterm‘asylumseeker’hasbecomeassociatedwitharangeofnegativeconnotationsandtendstopasteoverdifferentnationalexperiencesinanunhelpfulway.Alternativetermsarethereforearguablymoreappropriate,suchas‘sanctuaryseeker’,‘refugee’orsimply‘migrant’,thelatterofwhichrejectsthenotionthatdistinctionsneedtobemadebetweenmigrantsonthebasisoftheirreasonsformigrating.AlthoughIretainthetermasylumseekerinthisbookbecauseitwasinsuchwideusageamongbothmyparticipantsandthelegalandpolicysourcesIdrawfrom,thedeficiencieswiththeterm‘asylumseeker’shouldconsequentlybeborneinmindthroughout.

4TheEuropeannetworkagainstnationalism,racism,fascismandinsupportofmigrantsandrefugees.

5http://www.irr.org.uk/news/deaths-in-immigration-detention-1989-2014/

6ThroughoutthebookIfollowProctor(1999)inunderstandingmoralitytobeconcernedwith‘thenormativesphereofhumanexistenceandpractice’(Proctor,1999,p.3,italicsinoriginal)asopposedtoethics,whichrefersto‘systematicintellectualreflectiononmoralityingeneral,orspecificmoralconcernsinparticular’(Proctor,1999,p.3).

7IacceptthattheHolocaustwasanhistoricaleventofunparalleledatrocityandmagnitudeintherecenthistoryofWesterndevelopedcountriesandIamnotsuggestingthatimmigrationdetentioninWesterncountriesiscomparabletotheNazideathcamps.

8Levinassometimeswritesinthefirstperson,whichhastheeffectofincreasingtheimpactofhisprose.

9Iusethisterm‘Other’todescribethoseconsidereddifferentandunfamiliar.Thetermisageneraloneandneednotimplysufferingorneediness,althoughforthemostpartinthisbookIusethetermtorefertoOtherswhoarealsoinsomeformofneed.

10Iusetheterm‘decisionmakers’torefertomanagersandfunctionariescollectively.

11Non-EU-27applicantsonly.

12FiguresquotedinthisparagraphandthepreviousonearetakenfromUNHCR(2002),TheMigrationObservatoryattheUniversityofOxford(2015b),Eurostat(2015)andUNHCR(2015).

13InfacttheDailyMail,Britain’sbest-sellingtabloidnewspaper,hasexhibitedastaunchlyanti-immigrationstanceforover70years.In1938itpublishedthefollowing:‘“ThewaystatelessJewsfromGermanyarepouringinfromeveryportofthiscountryisbecominganoutrage….”Inthesewords,MrHerbertMetcalfe,theOldStreetmagistrate,yesterdayreferredtothenumberofaliensenteringthecountrythroughthe“backdoor”–aproblemtowhichtheDailyMailhasrepeatedlypointed’(DailyMail,20August1938;seeKarpf,2002,forafullerdiscussion).

14Thearticleaboutthe7Julybomberswasinaccurate–theidentityofthebomberswasunknownwhenthestorywaswrittenandneitherofthemenmentionedinthestorywasanasylumseekeranyway.

15Bothofthesestoriesweresimplyuntrue.Theyaremadeup,butwerefrontpagenews.TheSunpublishedthefollowingclarificationoverfivemonthslaterwithoutforewarningonpage41ofitsnewspaper(seeMedic,2004):‘AreportinTheSunonthe4thJulyaboutthedisappearanceofswansinsouthernEnglandstatedthatasylumseekerswereresponsibleforpoachingthem.WhilenumerousmembersofthepublicallegedthattheswanswerebeingkilledandeatenbypeopletheybelievedtobeEasternEuropean,nobodyhasbeenarrestedinrelationtotheseoffencesandweacceptthatitisnotthereforepossibletoconcludeyetwhetherornotthesuspectswereindeedasylumseekers’.AndtheLevesonInquiryintomediapracticesfoundthatthestoryaboutthedonkeyswas‘totalspeculation’andthatthepolicehad‘noideawhathadhappenedtothedonkeys’(Leveson,2012,Vol.2,Sect.8.47).

16Thebudgetremainsataroundthisleveldespitethenumberofasylumseekersrequiringsupportreducingsignificantlysincethemid-2000s,implyingthatmoreresourceshavebeendirectedtowardsdetection,deterrenceandpreventionmechanisms.Dataonexpenditureonbordercontrolandenforcementtakenfromhttp://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2012/dec/04/government-spending-department-2011-12,  http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200506/cmselect/cmhaff/775/775i.pdfandBacketal.(2005).

17Fast-trackingprovedparticularlycontroversial.TheDetainedFastTrack(DFT)wasasystemdesignedtoexpeditethedeterminationofasylumclaims.Fromtheearly2000stomid-2015theUnitedKingdomoperatedafast-trackasylumprocessaccordingtowhichindividualscouldbetakenstraightfromtheportofentrytodetentiontohavetheirclaim

decidedquickly.Evenifarefusedclaimwasappealed,deniedandappealedagaintoeithertheHighCourtortheCourtofAppeal,theentireprocesswasscheduledtotakejust21–22days(althoughinrealityitoftentooklonger).Seriousquestionsovertheimpartialityandthoroughnessoftheseprocedureswereraised(AsylumAid,2013).TheUNHCR,forexample,recorded‘concernsregardingthequalityofdecisionsmadewithintheDFT,includingtheconcernthatthespeedoftheDFTprocessmayhindertheability…toproducequalitydecisions’(UNHCR,2008,p.24).ItnotedtheuseofstandardwordingtorefuseclaimswithoutengagingwiththespecificcircumstancesofparticularcasesaswellasfrequentlyinaccurateapplicationofkeyrefugeelawconceptsintheDFTsetting.TheDFTwasfoundtobeunlawfulbyaHighCourtjudgeinJune2015andwassuspendedsoonafterwards,adecisionthatwasupheldbytheCourtofAppealinJuly2015.

18Thissaidseewww.lifeafterdeportation.comforanattempttocollatedeportees’experiences.

19TheBritishgovernmentaimstoremoveforeignnationaloffendersasquicklyaspossibletotheirhomecountries,ostensiblytoprotectthepublic,toreducecostsandtofreeupspacesinprison.Itshouldbenoted,however,thatremovaloftenoccursattheendofaprisonsentence,therebyconstitutingdoublepunishmentforasingleoffence.Itisalsoveryeasyforforeignnationalstoinfringecompleximmigrationlawsandbecomebrandedascriminalswhilstposingnothreattothepublic.

20Majorpiecesoflegislationintroducedinthepast20yearsinclude:theAsylumandImmigrationAct1996;theSpecialImmigrationAppealsCommissionAct1997;theImmigrationandAsylumAct1999;theNationality,ImmigrationandAsylumAct2002;theAsylumandImmigration(TreatmentofClaimants,etc.)Act2004;theImmigration,AsylumandNationalityAct2006;theUKBordersAct2007;theBorders,CitizenshipandImmigrationAct2009;andtheImmigrationAct2014(GreatBritain1996;1997;1999;2002;2004;2006;2007;2009;2014).

21ByasyluminterviewsImeanboththescreeninginterviewsandsubstantiveinterviewsthatformpartsofthedeterminationprocessintheBritishsystem.IexplainthedistinctionbetweenthesetwotypesofinterviewinChapterFour.Asylumappealsarelegalevents,heldintribunals,atwhichimmigrantsputtheircasetoanimmigrationjudge.

ChapterTwoMoralDistanceandBureaucracy

Thegreatestevilisnotnowdoneinthosesordid‘densofcrime’thatDickenslovedtopaint.Itisnotdoneeveninconcentrationcampsandlabourcamps.Inthoseweseeitsfinalresult.Butitisconceivedandordered(moved,seconded,carried,andminuted)inclean,carpeted,warmedandwell-lightedoffices,byquietmenwithwhitecollarsandcutfingernailsandsmooth-shavencheekswhodonotneedtoraisetheirvoices.

C.S.Lewis,TheScrewtapeLetters[preface]

On19June1945aSovietwomannamedNataliya1kneltontheflooroftheForeignOfficeinLondonatthefeetofacivilservantand,throughdesperatetears,pleadedforherlife,thelifeofherinfantandthelifeofherhusband.ThebewilderedForeignOfficeofficial,MrBrimelow,wasresponsibleforoverseeingthedeportationofSovietsbacktotheSovietUnionwhohadbeencapturedasprisonersofwarduringthefinalphasesofWorldWarIIbyBritishandalliedforces.IntheSovietUniontheywereconsideredtraitors.Nataliya’sSoviethusband,Ivan,hadbeencapturedbyNaziforcesin1942andforcedtofightfortheGermansagainsttheSoviets.Despitehisreluctancetofight,thetermsoftheYaltaagreementbetweenBritainandtheSovietUniondictatedthatheandhiswifemustbereturned,notwithstandingthefactthatitwascommonknowledgethatSoviet‘traitors’wouldalmostcertainlybeexecutedorsenttoworkinalabourcampwhentheyarrived.ManySovietshadalreadybeendeportedinthisway,butNataliya’scasewascontestedbecauseshehada6-month-oldchildwhohadbeenborninEngland.ShehadalsobeenfortunatebecauseEthelChristie,anactivistandagitatoronbehalfoftheSoviets,hadtakenuphercaseandarrangedthemeetingattheForeignOffice.Inhisbook,whichdetailshowtheordertoforcedesperateSovietsontotrainscarryingthemtotheirdeathstookawrenchingtollonBritishsoldiersinthe1940s,NicholasBethelloutlinestheextraordinaryeffectthatNataliya’semotionalpleahaduponMrBrimelowandhiscolleagues.‘ForeignOfficeofficialsarenotusedtosuchscenes…NataliyahadtouchedtheirheartsduringherdistressingvisittotheForeignOffice,andforthefirsttimetheywereallowingconsiderationsofhumanityandmoralitytoentertheargument’(Bethel,1974,p.50).MrBrimelowpetitionedhissuperiorsintheHomeOfficetomakeanexceptioninNataliyaandIvan’scasesand,despitestrongpoliticalpressuretocomplywiththeYaltaagreementinordertoensurethatallBritishprisonersofwarweresimilarlyreturnedtoBritainbytheSovietUnion,theForeignOfficeyieldedandthefamilybuiltalifeforthemselvesinEngland.AsBethellnotes,‘theirstorywasoneofveryfewwithahappyending’(Bethel,1974,p.52).

Whatisitaboutproximitythatcanprovokeempathyorcompassionandemboldenbureaucratstobendtherules?Andwhatisitaboutdistancethatiscapableofsuspendingmoralengagementandnurturingindifferencetotheplightofothers?Thenotionthatwecarelessforpeoplewhoarefarawayfromus,eitherliterallyorowingtosomeformofsocialorculturaldistance,isdeeplyingrainedinWesternthought.Aristotle,forexample,observedthat‘the

nearnessoftheterriblemakesmenpity…sufferingsarepitiablewhentheyappearcloseathand,whilethosethatarepastorfuture,tenthousandyearsbackwardsorforwards,eitherdonotexcitepityatalloronlyinalessdegree’(Aristotle,1926trans.,RhetoricII.8,1386a).Similarly,Humefamouslystatedthat‘Thebreakingofamirrorgivesusmoreconcernwhenathome,thantheburningofahouse,whenabroad,andsomehundredleaguesdistant’(Hume,1739/1896,2.3.7).AndAdamSmith,inreflectinguponselfishnessandhumanreason,opinedthat,shouldthewholeofChinabe‘suddenlyswallowedupbyanearthquake’(Smith,1790,III.I.46),amanofhumanityintheWestmightreflectsorrowfullyonthesituationandmightreasonaboutitscauses,but‘whenallthisfinephilosophywasover,whenallthesehumanesentimentshadbeenoncefairlyexpressed,hewouldpursuehisbusinessorhispleasure,takehisreposeorhisdiversion,withthesameeaseandtranquility,asifnosuchaccidenthadhappened’(Smith,1790,III.I.46).

Glover(1977)conceptualisesthenaturalhumantendencytocompartmentaliseourperceivedethicalresponsibilitiesandtolimitthemtoproximateissuesintermsofmoraldistance.‘Moraldistancing’,hewrites,‘canbeplausiblyexplainedasdefencemechanismsthatserveavaluablepurpose.Thereisapsychologicalneedforclearcategories…anyonewithasteadyimaginativegraspoftheavoidableevilintheworldwouldsuffersomekindofpsychologicalcollapse’(Glover,1977,p.290).Tuanconcurs,arguingthat‘peopleneed…mentalboundariesbetweenselfandothersoasnottobeoverwhelmed’(Tuan,1999,p.115).Fromthisperspective,partoftheexplanationforMrBrimelow’spetitiononbehalfofNataliyalieswiththefactthatNataliyapuncturedtheboundarybetweenMrBrimelow’s‘compartments’duringheremotionalvisittotheForeignOffice,andpassedfrombeingafacelessmemberofacategoricalgrouptobeingaparticularandveryrealpersonrightbeforehiseyes,whothereforehadamoralclaimuponhimthroughherverypresence.

InthischapterIexploretheissueofmoraldistanceasitrelatestoadministeringthequintessentialformofmodernrule–bureaucracy–andbordercontrolsinparticular.Philosophers,sociologistsandpsychologistshave,indifferentways,recognisedtheinfluencethatproximitycanhaveovermoraldecisionmaking,aconsequenceofwhichisthepotentiallydisruptivenatureofmoralencounterstobureaucraticprocedures.Whenthearrangementofbordercontrolmechanismsreducesproximityandthelikelihoodofencountersbetweendecisionmakersandsubjectsitthereforeaffectsthemoralityofthesemechanisms.Thisisexactlywhatrecentrescalingandchangesinthegovernancearrangementsofstatesandbordercontrolshasachieved.

Iestablishthemoralpotentialofproximityinthefirstsection,andinthesecondsection,drawingonZygmuntBauman’swork,Iexplorethenotionthatthereisatendencywithinadministrativebureaucraciestoprecludemoralproximitybetweenbureaucratsandsubjects.InthethirdsectionIinterpretavarietyofrecentdevelopmentsofthemodernstateintermsofthistendency.Ihighlightthemoralimplicationsofthestate’s‘upward’,‘downward’and‘outward’rescaling(Brenner,2004)intermsoftheopeningofmoraldistanceandtheavoidanceofdisruptiveencountersbetweendecisionmakersandsubjects,andinthepenultimatesectionIhighlightthesameimplicationwithrespecttothespecificareaofstateactivityconcernedwithimmigrationcontrol.BysettingoutthisbroadaccountIcallattentiontotheinterpersonal

implicationsofcontemporarystaterescalingandbordercontrolpractices,andpreparethegroundforaseriesofcriticalreflectionsonthisaccountthatdrawonmyempiricalevidenceinthechaptersthatfollow.

TheStatusofProximityinMoralTheoryandPracticePeterSinger(1972)urgesustoresistthenaturalspatialmoralmyopiathatfacilitatesmoraldistance.ForSingerphysicalproximityanddistanceshouldnotfigureincalculationsofmoralresponsibility,andweshouldrespondjustassensitivelytothesufferingofdistantothersastothosewhoareclosetous.YetmostphilosophersdisagreewithSingerowingtothehugelyimpracticaldemandsthatmoralitywithoutsomeformofdistancedecaywouldmakeonindividuals.Indeed,insomecasestheoverlookingofdistancemayitselfhaveanimmoraleffect.InBleakHouseDickenshumorouslyillustratesthispointthroughhiscomedicfigureMrsJellyby,anEnglishsocialphilanthropistsowrappedupinwritinglettersinsupportoforphanagesinAfricathatsheabandonsherownchildrenandignoresthemevenwhentheyhurtthemselvesandcryoutforherhelp(Dickens,1852–1853/1993).Friedman(1991,p.818)makesthepointmoreseriously:‘Hardlyanymoralphilosopher…woulddenythatweareentitledtofavourourlovedones.Somewouldsay,evenmorestrongly,thatweshouldfavourthem,thatitisnotsimplyamoral“option”’.Ifwerecognisethenecessityofpartialism2

though,achallengeimmediatelyarisesbecauseitisnecessarytochoosehowtorestrictourobligationstoothersinsomeway.Moraltheoristshavesearchedforrulesandprinciplestohelpguideindividualsthroughthisdilemma(foranaccessiblereview,seeSandel,2009).Shouldwedirectourattentionandourenergiestowardsthoseinworstneed,forexample?Ortothosewithwhomwesharesomesortofrelationship?Ortothosewhoareleastabletocareforthemselvesandthosearoundthem?3

Oneansweristogivethosemostproximatetousgreatermoralweight.Somemoraltheorists,forinstance,havedrawnonChristianphilosophy,andspecificallythestoryoftheGoodSamaritan,tomakethepointthatthereissomethingmorallydemandingaboutneedsthatconfrontusnow,withimmediacyandpresence(Waldron,2003;seealsoGarber,2004).Jesus’sparableabouttheGoodSamaritancautionsagainstdiscriminatoryformsofpartialityonthebasisofethnictiesorpre-existingrelationships(seeBox2.1fortheparable).BytheendoftheparableboththepriestandtheLevitearecondemnedbecausetheydidnotstoptohelpthesufferingman.Bycontrast,theGoodSamaritaniscondonedbecauseherecogniseshismoraldutytostopandhelpdespitethefactthathesharesnoparticularaffinitywiththesufferer.WearenottoldthattheSamaritanisauniversaldo-goodernorareweledtobelievethatheissomeonewhohasdevotedhislifetocaringaboutdistantothersorpursuinguniversalhumanrightsinanabstractsense.Heis,inthissense,partial.Butwhathedoesrespondtoiswhathehappensupon.Jesususestheprinciplesofchanceencountersandproximitytodeterminewhoshouldshowcompassionandgenerosity,andwhen.

Box2.1TheGoodSamaritanAnd,behold,acertainlawyer(Nomikos)stoodup,andtemptedhim,saying,Master,whatshallIdotoinheriteternallife?hesaiduntohim,Whatiswritteninthelaw?howreadestthou?Andheansweringsaid,ThoushaltlovetheLordthyGodwithallthyheart,andwithallthysoul,andwithallthystrength,andwithallthymind;andthyneighbourasthyself.Andhesaiduntohim,Thouhastansweredright:thisdo,andthoushaltlive.Buthe,willingtojustifyhimself,saiduntoJesus,Andwhoismyneighbour?AndJesusansweringsaid,AcertainmanwentdownfromJerusalemtoJericho,andfellamongthieves,whichstrippedhimofhisraiment,andwoundedhim,anddeparted,leavinghimhalfdead.Andbychancetherecamedownacertainpriestthatway:andwhenhesawhim,hepassedbyontheotherside.AndlikewiseaLevite,whenhewasattheplace,cameandlookedonhim,andpassedbyontheotherside.ButacertainSamaritan,ashejourneyed,camewherehewas:andwhenhesawhim,hehadcompassiononhim,[a]ndwenttohim,andbounduphiswounds,pouringinoilandwine,andsethimonhisownbeast,andbroughthimtoaninn,andtookcareofhim.Andonthemorrowwhenhedeparted,hetookouttwopence,andgavethemtothehost,andsaiduntohim,Takecareofhim;andwhatsoeverthouspendestmore,whenIcomeagain,Iwillrepaythee.Whichnowofthesethree,thinkestthou,wasneighbouruntohimthatfellamongthethieves?Andhesaid,Hethatshewedmercyonhim.ThensaidJesusuntohim,Go,anddothoulikewise.

Luke10:27–37,KingJamesversion

InJesus’sparableitisthecorporalityoftheencounterthatdoesworkinestablishingmoralmomentum:theseeing,theup-close,‘inyourface’-nessinthewordsofJeremyWaldron(2003,p.350).Levinashassimilarlyunderscoredthemoralsignificanceofthefacetofaceencounter.InhisbookTotalityandInfinity,Levinas(1979)developsaconceptionoftheselfthat,initspresocialstate,isself-centredandconcernedonlywithself-gratificationinitsrelationswiththeworld.‘Intheordinaryworldofeverydaylifethingsandpeoplearethereforme,theI,touse,consume,enjoyandtherebytobecomenourished’(Morgan,2011,p.63).Yettheone-to-oneencounterwithanotherchallengesthisself-centredness.Encounteringtheotherforcestheself,atafundamentallevel,totakeaccountofothers.

Thisencounter,forLevinas,istheactivationofan‘originaryimpulse’(Dikeçetal.,2009,p.6)thatprecedesanyformofcalculationofthecostsandbenefitsofinteraction.Itoccursbeforeknowingtheindividualconcerned,and,inthecontextofimmigrationcontrol,before‘check[ing]toseeifeachothers’papersareinorder’(Dikeçetal.,2009,p.6).Thisisnottosaythatitisbasedonsimilaritywiththeother.Infact,Levinaswasatpainstopointouttherupturethatanencountercauses,whicharisesasaresultoftheprofounddifferencebetweenselfandotherthatproximitylaysbare.Barnett(2005)hasconsequentlyunderscoredtheasymmetryoftheself’srelationtotheotherinafacetofaceencounter,referringtothe

‘traumaticexposuretoalterity’(Barnett,2005,p.9)thatisinvolvedinthis‘mostintenseandsingularexperienceofdifference’(Barnett,2005,p.10).

Often,however,theotherisoverlookedineverydaylifesothatthistypeofencounteriseitheravoidedorprevented.‘Whatisoccluded,hidden,forgotteninourordinarylivesis…thispresenceoftheother’sfacetome–andmyresponsibilitytoandforthisperson’(Barnett,2005,p.59).Thisiswhythefacetofaceencounter,andproximity,aresoimportanttoLevinas(1979,1981).Theyactassharpreminderstoensurethattheselfis‘putinquestionbythealterityoftheother’resultinginaspecificformof‘exposedness’(Levinas,1981,p.75)oftheselftothepleaanddemandoftheotherthatLevinascalls‘nudity’(Levinas,1981,p.89).Exposuretoanother’sneedandsuffering,forLevinas,prohibitsmyturningaway.Aptlyforourpurposes,Levinasusesthemetaphorofthehomelessrefugeetoillustratetheobligatorynatureofthissortoffacetofaceencounter:

Hehasnootherplace,isnotautochthonous,isuprooted,withoutacountry,notaninhabitant,exposedtothecoldandheatoftheseasons.Tobereducedtohavingrecoursetomeisthehomelessnessorthestrangenessoftheneighbour.Itisincumbentonme.

Levinas,1981,p.91

Hence,‘mynonindifferencetotheneighbour’(Levinas,1981,p.91)ismandatorywhereverthefaceoftheotherbreachesintentionaleverydayconsciousnessandconfrontsmewithitsdestitution.Breachesliketheserenderme‘obedientasthoughtoanorderaddressedtome.Suchanorderthrowsa“seedoffolly”intotheuniversalityoftheego’(Levinas,1981,p.91).

Anythinglessthanafacetofaceencounterisnotsufficienttothistask.‘Thereisnowaytocorrectlyandpreciselyseverthatappealandcommandfromthewayshelooksatme;thatappealanddemandisinthelook,sotospeak’(Morgan,2011,p.66,italicsintheoriginal).Thisisbecause,aboveall,thefacetofaceencounteris‘utterlyparticular’(Morgan,2011,p.59):itdoesnotresideintheoreticalorabstractrelations.Rather,‘Whenonepersonfacesanother,shedoessoasadependentperson…Itisatargeteddependence,mydependencyuponyou’(Morgan,2011,p.71).The‘face’forLevinasisthusmorethanjustthepresenceorappearanceoftheother.Itistheother’sbearingoftheirownvulnerabilityanddestitutiontomethatcarrieswithitacommandnotnecessarilytoreciprocate,helporevenrecognisetheother,butentailsanexperienceofdifferencethatsubjectstheself(Barnett,2005).Theface,consistingofexposuretothesufferingofanother,actsasasolemnsummonsoftheselftorespondthatcutsthrougheverydayrhythmsandroutines.InhislaterworkLevinas(1981)alsowritesaboutthedisruptivenessoftheface,likeninganencounterwiththefaceoftheothertoanassaultonourcomplacencythatiscapableofdisturbingourdistractedmusingsandawakeningourmorality.

ItisimportanttonotesomedisagreementoverhowtointerprettheencounterinLevinas’sthought.Forsomeitisanethicalevent,anddoesnotnecessarilyrefertoasituationofspatialcontiguity.The‘receptionoftheother’Dikeçetal.(2009,p.8)warn,‘isnotasimplespatialopeningorinclusiveness’.Barnett(2005)concludesthat‘itmightnotbebesttotakeLevinas’worktooliterallyasanaccountofpracticalconduct’(Barnett,2005,p.8).Others,however,

interpretLevinas’sthoughtmoreliterally,andinparticularwithreferencetothepracticalimplicationsitmighthave.Giventhatspatialmetaphorsandconceptslikeproximityandthe‘facetoface’pervadehiswriting,itispossibletounderstandwhy,forexample,WendyHamblet(2011,pp.717–8)declaresthat‘[f]orLevinasgeographicalimmediacyistheonlyfactorthathasaclaimuponconscience’(seealsoHamblet,2003).BaumanalsodrawsassociationsbetweenLevinas’sconceptsofproximityandthefacetofaceontheonehand,andphysicalclosenessontheother(Bauman,1989).

Ifitisthecasethatproximityhasamoralorethicaldimension,thispositioniscertainlyinkeepingwithourpsychologicalimpulses.Twotraditionsofthoughtinpsychology,onobedienceandoncontact,underscorethewayinwhichliteralproximityfiguresnotonlyinourmoralreasoningbutalsoinourmoralpractice.Regardingobedience,StanleyMilgram’s(1974/2005)experimentsinvolvedaskingsubjectstoadministerelectricshocksofrisingintensitytoapupilwhotheythoughtwasanotherrecruittotheexperimentbutwasactuallyanactor.Thesubjectwastoldthattheywouldhavetoadministerastrongershockforeachmistakethatthepupilmadeinaword-pairingexerciseinordertoallowscientiststodeterminehowlearningwasaffectedbypunishments.Infactthefrequencyof‘mistakes’waspreordained(andnoshockswereactuallygiven).Ofthe40participantsintheoriginalstudy,26proceededtothehighestvoltagelevel(450volts).Sometimestheyexpressedconcern,butsomeverbalproddingfromtheexperimenterwassufficienttoconvincethemthatthiswasindeedintheinterestsofscienceandthattheexperimentrequiredthemtocontinue.Milgramthenvariedtheexperimentby‘bringingthevictimcloser’(Milgram,1974/2005,p.34).First,whilethevictimstayedinanadjacentroom,voice-protestswereaudibletothesubject.Furtheriterationsoftheexperimentbroughtthevictimcloserstill;theyenteredthesameroomasthesubjectandintheclosestiterationthesubjecthadtoliterallyforcethehandofthevictimontoametalshockplate.Theproportionofsubjectsthatdefiedtheexperimenterandrefusedtotakepartintheexperimentanylongeronthebasisoftheirconcernsforthe‘victim’rosefrom35%fortheinitialexperiment,to37.5%inthevoice-feedbacksituation,60%intheproximitysituationand70%fortouch-proximity.AsMilgramnotes,themostdisturbingthingaboutthesefindingsaretheproportionsofpeoplewhopersistedrighttotheendoftheexperimentineachcase.Wecanconclude,though,thatourmoralsentimentsareatleastpartlyconditionedbyacertainformofdistance.Thecloserwearetosomeonethemorelikelywearetoobjecttotheircrueltreatment.

Regardingcontact,GordonAllport’s(1954)seminalstudysuggestedthatcontactbetweendifferentgroupsmayleadtoreducedprejudiceifcertainconditionsweremet.Thisisbecausecognitivebiascanbereducedthroughproximityto,andincreasedcontactwith,peoplewhomyouconsiderdifferentfromyourself.Althoughpsychologistssincehavestressedthestrenuousnessoftheseconditions,Allport’shypothesisthatcontactcanreduceprejudicehasendured(Torreetal.,2008;AskinsandPain,2011.WereturntoAllport'scontacthypothesisinChapterFour).

Arangeoffiguresinmoralpsychologyandphilosophy,then,haverecognisedthesignificanceofproximitytomoralmatters.Itisinteresting,however,thatmanygeographershavebeenmorecautiousinapproachingtherelationshipbetweenproximityandmorality.Dikeçetal.(2009)

observe,forinstance,howeasyitistobeclosetoothersintoday’scitieswithoutevermorallyencounteringthem:tobe‘eyetoeyebutworldsapart’(Dikeçetal.,2009,p.2)fromthelivesofsubjugatedothersinourmidst.Theythereforeoutlinetheneed‘toengagemorecarefullywiththe“proximities”thatpromptactsofhospitalityandinhospitality’(Dikeçetal.,2009,p.1).Valentine(2008),andothers,takeananalogousapproachbyinterrogatingtheconditionsunderwhichmeetingsandco-presenceconstitute‘meaningful’contact–aconceptIexploreingreaterdetailinChapterFour.Inasimilarvein,Barnett(2005,p.11)challengesustodisruptthe‘homologiesoftendrawnbetweenspatialproximity,partialityandcareontheoneside,andspatialdistance,impartialityandjusticeontheother’.

OnewayinwhichthischallengehasbeentakenupisintheworkofDoreenMassey(2005)andAshAmin,whohavechartedtherelationalnetworksthatlinklocalplacessuchascitiestofar-flungsites.‘[S]oextensivehavethecity’sconnectionsbecome’writeAminandThrift(2002,p.26)‘asaresultofthegrowthoffastcommunications,globalflows,andlinkageintonationalandinternationalinstitutionallife,thatthecityneedstheorizationasasiteoflocal-globalconnectivity,notaplaceofmeaningfulproximatelinks’.Theirrelationalapproacheshaveemphasisedthevaryinggeographicalreachofinterpersonalconnections,releasingsuchconnectionsfromliterallocalityandco-presence.Indeed,theyarecriticalofthe‘nostalgia’thattheydetectinmuchgeographicalworkthatiscriticalofthedistancesthatsupposedlyproducealienation,dysfunctionandanomie,andinsteadarguethatvariouskindsof‘distanciatedcommunities’(AminandThrift,2002,p.41)comeintoview‘[o]ncewemoveawayfromthenotionsofface-to-faceorheavilylocalisedinteractionsastheonlykindofauthority’(AminandThrift,2002,p.43).Suchanawarenessoftheconnectionsbetweenlocalitiesandfar-flungothersisallthemoreimportantintheinternetage,inwhich‘thereisnologicalreasontosupposethatmoralboundariesshouldcoincidewiththeboundariesofoureverydaycommunity:notleastbecausetheselaterboundariesarethemselvesnotclosed,butratheraredefinedinpartbyanincreasingsetofexchangeswithdistantstrangers’(Corbridge,1993,p.463).Evenfacetofacecommunicationneednotinvolveliteralproximity,AminandThrift(2002)argue,since‘thefaceisincreasinglymobile’(AminandThrift,2002,p.38)viascreensandfast,masscommunications.

Therearealsoacknowledgementsofthecontinuingmoralpotentialofliteralphysicalproximityandencounteramonggeographers,however.ForDavidSmith(1998),careisalocalandsituatedaffair.Theincreasingacademicprominenceofthefeministethicofcareissymptomaticofwhatheseesasa‘resurgentpartiality’(Smith,1998,p.27)inthefaceoftheimpossibilityofthesortofuniversalismprescribedbyPeterSinger.‘Careethicsraisescaring,nurturing,andthemaintenanceofinterpersonalrelationshipstothestatusoffoundationalmoralimportance’,itsproponentsargue(Friedman,1993,p.147).Understandingcareasaspecific,embodiedrelationshipwithsomeonewhoisknowntothecarer,Smithdrawsassociationsbetweenthefeministethicofcareandcommunitarianism(Smith,2000).‘[B]othimplypartiality’heargues,‘favouringmembersofourownfamily,grouporcommunity.Whatismore,theybothappeartorelyheavilyontheproximityofthepersonsconcerned,tomaketheirmoralitywork’(Smith,2000,p.83).Popke(2006,p.507)reiteratesthisobservation,reasoningthatif‘relationsofcareareaffective,embodiedandrelationalthenanethicsarising

outofthiswouldseemtobenecessarilypartialandsituational,holdingonlyforthosewithwhomwehavesomeimmediatecontactandfamiliarity’.ThisviewisimplicitlymorescepticalthanAminandThrift(2002)abouttheabilityofnewtelecommunicationstechnologiestoextendtheambitoffacetoface,intimateinteraction.

Whatismore,evenamongproponentsofrelationalapproachestounderstandingspatialrelations,thereisalsoevidenceofthepersistentinfluenceofthelocalandtheimportanceofthefacetofacethatrunsalongsidetheinterconnectionsbetweentheglobalandthelocalthattheyhighlight.Inlightoftheincreasingheterogeneityanddiversityofmanyoftheworld’scities,alongsidethetensionsthatthiscanproduce,Aminhasarguedthattoleranceatthelevelofeveryday,prosaicnegotiationsofdifferencewithinlocalmicro-publicscanbeanantidotetoethnictension(Amin,2002a).Whereastheoristsofcitizenship,raceandethnicityhavetendedtofocusuponthenationalandinternationallevelswhendiscussingrightsandobligations,Aminarguesthatlocalnegotiationsofdifferencemeanmoretothepeoplethatexperiencethemthanabstracttheorising.Thisiswhysegregationinthecityissodamaging:because,fromthebeginning,‘theverypossibilityofeverydaycontactwithdifferenceiscutout’(Amin,2002a,p.969).Althougheverydaycontactwithdifferenceisnotapanacea,itcanoffertheopportunityfordifferentandsupposedlyopposedgroupsto‘stepoutoftheirdailyenvironmentsintootherspacesactingassitesof“banaltransgression”’(Amin,2002b,p.12).Thishasimplicationsforthedesignofcities,whichcanbecalibratedtoensurethatthepathsofdifferentgroupsintersectmorefrequently.Thepotentialofaneverydayencounteristhatitcanchallengethepreconceived,abstractandcategoricalunderstandingofanothergroupthroughinteractionwiththisparticularpersoninthisplaceandtimewhohappenstobedifferentfromme.Itis‘thepracticeofnegotiatingdiversityanddifference’(Amin,2002a,p.971)thatanencounteroffers.InparallelwithLevinas’snotionofthecommandthatthefaceissues,Aminurgesustowardsavocabularyofthe‘rightsofpresence’(Amin,2002a,p.972)thaturbanencountersinvoke.

ForMasseyalso,theglobalcitythrowsupexcitingpossibilitieswithrespecttothe‘happenstancejuxtapositionofpreviouslyunrelatedtrajectories’(Massey,2005,p.94)suchas‘thebusinessofwalkingaroundthecornerandbumpingintoalterity’(Massey,2005,p.94).4Shearguesthatthemoderndiversityofurbanspaceisdistinctivelychaotic,andthatthischaospresentsbothariskandachanceforthingstochange.LikeAmin,this‘throwntogetherness’ofthecity(Massey,2005,p.151),assheputsit,necessitates‘thepractisingofspace…wherenegotiationisforceduponus’(Massey,2005,p.154).Althoughsheiscareful,likeAmin,toemphasisethatchanceurbanencountersarenot,inthemselves,likelytosolvetheproblemofethnictensioninmoderncitiesontheirown,sinceanypoliticsofplacealsoinvolvesa‘wider…politicsofconnectivity…ofopennessandclosure’(Massey,2005,p.181),herapproachinvokesexcitementoverthepotentialofthesheerbeing-together-nessofthecity,whichcan‘enable“somethingnew”tohappen’(Massey,2005,p.94).‘Oneanswertothequestionofcrisis’,writesAitken(2010,p.58)indiscussingherwork,‘isafundamentalandemotiveacknowledgementofdiversespacesofencounterinachaoticthrowntogetherness’.

KeepingPeopleApartIfweacceptthemoralpotentialofliteralproximity,whatimplicationsdoesthishaveforthewayweunderstandbureaucraticformsoforganization?Itseemsclearthatthebureaucraticmodeoforganisation,whichrequiresdispassion,impersonalismanddetachment,canonlybeexpectedtoaccommodateacertainmeasureofproximitybeforethesetraitsareeroded.Afterall,fromtheperspectiveofabureaucraticadministration,someoftheside-effectsofproximitysoundparticularlyirksome.Whywouldsystemmanagersembracethe‘dislocation’and‘surprise’thatAitken(2010,p.64)associateswiththrowntogetherness?WhywouldtheyriskdisobedienceorthegenerationoffondnessforsubjectsthatthepsychologistslikeMilgrampositasaby-productofproximitywhenabureaucracyrequiresdispassionateness?Whywouldtheyexposetheiremployeestoadditionalobligationsinthelightofthe‘rightsofpresence’(Amin,2002a,p.972)thatproximatesubjectspossess?Whywouldtheyseekouttheconditionsinwhichsomethingnewandunpredictablemighthappenwhenabureaucracyreliesuponsmoothandpredictableflowsofinformationandresources?Rather,wouldtheynotbaulkatthethoughtofLevinas’s(1981)‘commands’beingissuedtotheirownfunctionariesduringafacetofaceencounter,lestthesedemandsruncountertothebureaucracy’sowninstructionstoitsbureaucrats?Encountersofthiskindevidentlyrepresentavarietyofrisksofdisruptingadministrativeprocedures.Thelastthingbureaucraciesneedtohavetomanageisthesortofspontaneous,instinctualreactionstosituationsthatMrBrimelowdisplayedwhenexposedtoNataliya.RatherthanpursuingthepotentialofMassey’sthrowntogethernessinthemoderncitythen,bureaucraciesarefarmorelikelytodisplayanaversiontoproximitypreciselybecauseofitsdisorderlyandunsettlingcharacter(Levinas,1981).Wheredecisionmakersandsubjectsarekeptapartthisrepresentsanexpedientreleasefromtheunwelcomedisruptionthattheirproximitymightbring.

Thequestionthatthenbecomesimportantconcernshowmoraldistancehasbeenmanipulatedbyinstitutionalarrangements:thereisaneedtodeveloparicherunderstandingofthemoralgrammarofbureaucraticinstitutionsincludingbordercontrols.How,forexample,havethe‘compartments’thatGlover(1977)andTuan(1999)discussbeenexpandedorcondensed?Whatinstitutionalfactorsinfluencewhetherornotanindividualincludesaparticularpleawithintheirmoralframeofreference?ThesociologistMaxWeberidentifiedbureaucracyasoneofthedefiningfeaturesofmodernlife,andassociatedtheeschewingofpersonalstandardsofethicswiththebureaucraticform.Industrialization,heargued,hasledtoafixationwiththerationalplanningofmodernlife,aidedbyaseparationof‘theoffice’andtheattendantfigureoftheofficialfromthehome.Aspartofthistransformation,Webernotedaseparationofthemeansandendsofbureaucraticsystems,whichareconcernedwiththepursuitofefficient,rationalcriteria,fromthoseofmoralandethicalsystemsofjudgement.Withinabureaucracy,‘atechnicalorientationtomeansandendsalwaysrulesoutdecisionmakingintermsofethicalstandards’(Morrison,2006,p.379).Instead,theobjectivesofthebureaucraticinstitution,andtheconditionsthatallowthoseobjectivestobepursued,areofparamountimportance.

Precision,speed,unambiguity,knowledgeoffiles,continuity,discretion,unity,strictsubordination,reductionoffrictionandofmaterialandpersonalcosts–theseareraisedtotheoptimumpointinthestrictlybureaucraticadministration

Weber,1948,p.214

Aconsequenceoftheprimacyoftheobjectivesoftheinstitutionoverindividualmores,therefore,isthatpersonalethicaljudgementsareevacuatedfromaproperbureaucraticsystem.Comparedtoothertypesofdecisionmaking,Weberarguedthatbureaucracywastechnicallysuperiorpreciselybecauseitachievedthisevacuation.‘Administrationbynotablesandcollegiatebodies’,explainsMorrison(2006,p.381)inreviewingWeber’swork,‘isalwayslessefficientbecausetheirinterestsinevitablyconflictandbringaboutcompromisesbetweenviews.Thiscreatesdelayswhichslowdownprogressandmakedecisionmakinglesspreciseandlessreliable.’Inordertoavoiddifferencesofopinion,then,bureaucraciesaregovernedbynormsofimpersonality.Employeesactaccordingtotheirrolesofofficeratherthanintermsoftheirpersonalties,andofficialstreatpeopleonlyascasesratherthanasindividuals.AsWeberwrites:

Thehonourofthecivilservantisvestedinhis[sic]abilitytoexecuteconscientiouslytheorderofsuperiorauthorities,exactlyasiftheorderagreedwithhisownconviction.Thisholdseveniftheorderseemswrongtohim…[D]enialoftheauthorityofprivateconscience,become[s]nowthehighestmoralvirtue

Weber,1948,p.95

Thisisnottosaythatfrontlinestaffalwayscapitulatetothisbureaucraticcodeofhonour.Oneofthemajorpracticalchallengesforbureaucraciesishowtoinculcatetheethicofsubordinationofself-interesttoorganisationalobjectivesamongbureaucrats.Despitethoroughtraining,thishashistoricallyproventroublesome.Inhiswidelyreferencedstudy,MichaelLipsky(1980)distinguishesbetweensystemmanagersandwhathecalls‘street-levelbureaucrats’whohavedecidedlydifferentobjectives.Theytendto‘haveaninterestinminimizingthedangeranddiscomfortsofthejobandmaximisingincomeandpersonalgratification’(Lipsky,1980,p.18).‘Thesepriorities’,Lipskycontinued,‘areofinteresttomanagementforthemostpartonlyastheyrelatetoproductivityandeffectiveness’(Lipsky,1980,p.18).Weber’sdescriptionofbureaucraciesthereforerarelymanifestsitselffullybecausefrontlineworkershavemindsoftheirown.Moreover,althoughitiscertainlynottheirpriority(thatbeingtheirowninterests),street-levelbureaucratsenjoy‘considerablediscretion’(Lipsky,1980,p.23)andcan‘interveneonbehalfofclients’(Lipsky,1980,p.23)accordingto‘personalstandardsofwhetherornotsomeoneisdeserving’(Lipsky,1980,p.23).

Nevertheless,forLipsky,the‘intrinsicallyconflictual’(Lipsky,1980,p.25)natureofbureaucraciesarisesprimarilyasaresultofthestrugglebetweenworkers’andbureaucraticinterests.Theparametersofthisstrugglearesetlargelybythedesignofinstitutionalincentivesanddisincentives,theperceivedlegitimacyofmanagement’sdemandsuponworkers,andtheorganisationandroomformanoeuvreofstreetlevelbureaucratsthemselves,ratherthanbyanyconsiderationofmoralresponsibilitytowardssubjectsorclients.Lipskylocatespersonal

moralstandardsoffairnessbeneaththedemandsofself-interestandthedemandsofmanagementinamodernbureaucracy.ForbothWeberandLipsky,then,thenatureofthequintessentialmodernorganisationalformofthebureaucracyseeksandtendstoextendmoraldetachment.Thevolumeofconcernsthatfallwithinthemoralpurviewoftheindividualdecisionmakerissystematicallyreducedthroughbureaucracy.Itcouldbearguedthatthisispreciselywhatisrequiredfromabureaucracy.DuGay(2000),forinstance,understandsWeber’sdescriptionofadetachedandimpersonalbureaucratisanidealtyperatherthanacritique.Yetitisalsoclearthattheimpersonalityofbureaucracycansometimesbecomepathological.ZygmuntBauman(1989)hasexploredthedehumanisationandmoralinvisibilityoftheJewsandotherpersecutedgroupstotheperpetratorsofatrocitiesinGermanyduringtheHolocaust,emphasisingtheconfluenceofthreefactorsthatfacilitatedsuchspine-chillingresults.Firstheidentifiesdistanceitself.Oncedefinedasdifferentandundesirable,muchoftheactivityoftheThirdReichconsistedinseparating,cordoningandconcentratingtheJewsintoneighbourhoods,thenghettos,thencamps.Thisdistancing,forBauman,achievedwhathecallsestrangementasthe‘offendingcategory’is‘removedbeyondtheterritoryoccupiedbythegroupitoffends’(Bauman,1989,p.65).Initsturnthisestrangementachievesasinisterresult.Ratherthanhavingtostrugglemorallyovertherightwaytotreatanundesirablegroup,distancealleviatesthenecessitytomorallyscrutiniseactionsbecausetheyareconceivedofabstractlyandtheirconsequencesareobscuredfromview.

Thesecondfactorheemphasisesismediation.DrawingonJohnLachs’s(1981)work,Baumanarguesthatacentralaspectofdistanciationisthedegreetowhichone’sownactionsareseparatedfromtheirfinalconsequencesbyeithermiddlemenorwomen,orthroughtechnologiesthatdistortaclearviewofthecausallinkfromonetotheother.Inthecaseoftheseparationofactionsfromconsequencesviamiddlemenorwomen,wheretherearelongchainsofcommandfromtheorderingofanactiontoitsactualisation,thoseatthetopofthechainhavenothingbutanabstractnotionofthesortsofresultstheirordersandauthorisationarelikelytoachieve,whereasthoseatthebottomofthechaincantellthemselvesthattheyaresimplyfollowingorders.Takentogether,thismeansthatalmostnoonetakesresponsibilityfortheorganisationasawhole.Handinhandwithalongchainofcommandgoesanincreasinglyfinefunctionaldivisionoflabour.Whereindividualsareengagedmerelyinsmall,technicalandrepetitivetasksthatbearverylittleresemblancetotheoveralloutcome(perhapstheyaremakingthecanisterstocarrythegas,orproducingtheaxlesthatsupportthetrains),theyaremoreabletoassuageanypassingguilttheymayhavebyjuxtaposingtheirseeminglyinconsequentialactionstothelargerwhole.

Inthecaseofthemediatingeffectoftechnology,Baumanequatesmoderntechnologiesthatareabletoreducehumansto‘graphs,datasets[and]printouts’(Bauman,1989,p.116)to‘moralsleepingpills’(Bauman,1989,p.26).Technology’sabilitytodistancecauseandeffectreachesitszenithincontemporaryweaponrythatkillsacrossvastdistances.Butthesameresultoccurswhendecisionmakerswhoholdthelivesofothersintheirhandsmeetthemmerelyas‘statistics’(Bauman,1989,p.99)suchas‘variables,percentages,processesandsoon’(Bauman,1989,p.116),whichsucceedin‘obliteratingthehumanityof[their]human

object’(Bauman,1989,p.115).5

Insuchsituations,thedecisionmaker,freedfromanydirectencounterwiththeirsubjectthatisnotheavilyabstracted,isthusmadeavailabletopursuetechnicalobjectivesandmeasuretheresults‘withoutpassinganyjudgement,andcertainlynotmoralones’(Bauman,1989,p.99).‘Thankstorapidlyadvancingnewinformationtechnology’Bauman(1989,p.115–6)concludes,‘psychologicaldistancegrowsunstoppablyandonanunprecedentedpace’.KeytothedistanciationoftheJewswastheremovalofspecific,individualJewsfromGermansocietysothat,bydegrees,realJewsthatGermansknewwerereplacedbyanabstractcategoryofJew,whatBaumancallsthe‘metaphysicalJew’(Bauman,1989,p.189).Intheend,‘theJewwasonlya“museum-piece”…somethingonehadtojourneyfartosee’(Bauman,1989,pp.189–90).

Whilstitisimportantnottoviewalltechnologiesasequivalent,somegeographershaveexploredsimilargroundintermsoftheabilityoftechnologyto‘distance’theconsequencesofcontemporaryviolencefromitscauses.LouiseAmoorediscussesthemodernuseofpre-emptivealgorithmicsurveillancetechnologiestoidentifysuspiciousmovementsandactivitybeforeacrimeiscommitted,aswellasX-rayscanners,whichhavebecomeacommonsightatbordercontrolcrossingpoints.Thesetechnologiescanbeunderstoodto‘minethebodyforcertainties’(AmooreandHall,2009)bydissectingthehumanpersonintoitsconstituentparts,embodyinganinsipidtypeofviolencethatis‘concealedintheglossytechno-science’(Amoore,2009)ofbordercontrol.DerekGregory(2013),indiscussingtheuseofmilitarydronesbytheUSarmy,offersfurtherinsightsintothedistancingcapabilitiesoftechnology.HenotesaseriesoffeaturesofdronewarfarethatbearanunsettlingresemblancetotheeffectsthatBaumanandothersassociatewithmoralatrocities,including‘thedispersionofresponsibilityacrossthenetwork’(Gregory,2013)andtheimportanceofdroneoperators’abilitiestopsychologically‘setaside’(Gregory,2013)theconsequencesoftheiractionsand‘partition’(Gregory,2013)themoralimplicationsoftheirwork.6

AthirdfactorBaumanoutlinesistheabilityoftheThirdReichtoequaterationalityandimmorality.OneofthemostsinisterachievementsoftheThirdReichforBaumanwasitsabilitytoharness‘[i]ndividualrationalityintheserviceofcollectivedestruction’(Bauman,1989,p.135).Henotesincredulously‘howfewmenwithgunswereneededtomurdermillions’(Bauman,1989,p.202)andtracesthisfeattotheorchestrationofrationalactioninthepursuitofdestructiveobjectives.Hegivesexamplesofthemeagre,butvital,benefitsaccruingtoJewswhooccupiedsocialpositionsthatgreasedthewheelsoftheJewishexterminationitself.HeconcludesthatunderthehorrificconditionsoftheHolocaust‘rationalityofself-preservationwasrevealedastheenemyofmoralduty’(Bauman,1989,p.143).

Overall,Baumanalertsustoavarietyoftendencies,whichheseesasinherenttobureaucracies,thatcandehumanisesubjectstothepointofobscuringtheirmoralworth.WhatwelearnfromWeberandBaumanisthatbureaucraticmodernadministrationsseekneitherimmoralnormoralbureaucrats,butamoralones,drivenbytechnicalconsiderationsthatsystematicallyevacuatepersonalethicalconsiderationsfromthebusinessofcarryingout

bureaucraticwork.Inordertoachieveefficiencyofrule,governmentsrenderandevaluateactionsasadiaphoric,thatis‘neithergoodnorevil,measurableagainsttechnical(purpose-orientatedorprocedural)butnotmoralvalues’(Bauman,1989,p.215;seealsoBaumanandDonskis,2013).ForBauman,thisisatendencyofallbureaucracies,notjustdictatorships.Althoughtherearechecksandbalancesinliberalsociety,thesecontainandlimitbutdonoteradicatethetendenciesofbureaucracy.

RereadingtheModernStateinTermsofMoralDistanceWemustbealivetothespecificinterpretationsofkeythinkersthatBaumanemploys.HeusesWebertopaintadystopianpictureofbureaucracy,whichmaynothavebeenhisintentionandmaynotbeaccurategiventhevarietyofusestowhichbureaucracycanbeput(DuGay,2000).HealsointerpretsLevinasmoreliterallythansomescholarswouldpermit(Barnett,2005;Dikeçetal.,2009),whichallowshimtoplaceanalmostnaïvefaithinphysicalproximityandco-presencetoprovokemorallydemandingencounters.InthefollowingchaptersIwillmountacritiqueoftheassumptionsthatBaumanemploysbydrawingonempiricalevidence,butbeforedoingsoIwanttouseBauman’sperspectivetoexplorethemodernorganisationofbordercontrols.Ittranspiresthatpartsofhisanalysisholdsignificantresonancewiththecontemporaryorganisationofborderpractices.

Geographersandanthropologistsemphasisehowdisunified,chaoticandincoherent‘thestate’isinpractice,implyingthatahighdegreeofcriticalreflectionisrequiredinrelationtohowtheconceptofthestateisdeployed(Trouillot,2001;Painter,2006;SharmaandGupta,2006).Takingananthropologicalapproach,authorshavedemonstrateditsfragility(Gupta,2006),theextenttowhichitdependsuponpeopleforitsenactment(Jones,2007)anditsimprovisedandprovisionalnature(Jeffrey,2013).Theirargumentsconstituteanantidotetovisionsofamonstrous,methodologicalbehemoththatcoldlyandcoherentlysuppressesandcontrolspopulationsatleastinfunctioningliberaldemocracies(Nietzsche,1892/1961).

Itisforthisreasonthatweneedtoapproachtheconceptof‘thestate’itselfcautiously.Forthepurposesofunderstandingbordercontrol,IpreferJudithAllen’sviewthattheconceptofthestateis‘tooaggregative,toounitaryandtoounspecifictobeofmuchuseinaddressingthedisaggregated,diverseandspecific(orlocal)sitesthatmustbeofmostpressingconcern’(Allen,1990,p.22).MypreferenceistoframethediscussionofBritishbordercontrolprimarilyaroundthetendenciesinherenttobureaucraticadministration.Framingthediscussioninthiswayholdsaseriesofadvantagesoverdiscussing‘thestate’.First,thefactthatbureaucraticorganisationiscommonlytobefoundinbothpublicandprivatesectorsettingsallowstheconcepttoaccommodatetheprivatisationandcontractingoutthattypifiescontemporarybordercontrolpractices(discussedbelow).Second,becausebureaucracyhasinherenttendenciestowardsdepersonalisation,asWeberandBaumanhavedemonstrated,thereisnoparticularneedtoaccuse‘thestate’ofpremeditatedorcalculativemalice,which–whiletemptingwhenwritingaboutmigrants’experiences–isoftenverydifficulttosubstantiatewithoutslippingintotherealmofconspiracytheories.Itisthenatureratherthanthedesignofbureaucracythatleadstothetreatmentofindividualsasunitsandspecimens

(arguably,thisisultimatelymoredisturbingbecausethereisnoobvioustargetforresistance).Andthird,Iamdrawntothinkingintermsofbureaucracybecauseitdescribesbotharelationshipbetweenruledandruler(s)andaninstitution,affordingitconsiderableagilitywithwhichtotransgresssettleddistinctionsbetweenstructureandagencyinmuchsocialscientificthinkingaboutthestate.Inquestioningtheusefulnessoftheconceptofthestate,Allenurgesustoattendto‘othermoresignificantcategoriesandprocesses’(Allen,1990,p.34)suchas‘bureaucraticculture’(Allen,1990,p.22)thatmaynotbelumpedneatlyintothespecificlistoforganisationsandinstitutionsthattheliberalandMarxistaggregationofthestaterefersto,andIconcurwiththesesentiments.7

Nevertheless,inthissectionIengagemorecloselywiththeconceptofthestatethanIdointherestofthebookinordertoassessasetofideasthathavebeendevelopedinrelationtoit.Thisrequirestheadoptionofadifferentvocabulary,aroundgovernanceandstaterescaling,andasetofdifferentgeographicalmetaphorstothoseofdistanceandproximity,intheformof‘upward’,‘downward’and‘outward’reorganisation.Thechallengesoftakingonthesedifferentspatialvocabularies,however,areworththegainsintermsofbringingthinkingonmoraldistance,whichisaninterpersonalphenomenon,tobearonasetofdebatesthatusuallyoverlookstheinterpersonaldimension.

ItmightbearguedthatthesortofmoraldistancethatWeberandBaumandescribeisdependentuponanoutmodedformofdecisionmaking–aparticularformofbureaucracythatistop-downandhierarchical.Mypointinthissectionthoughisthatitisbynomeansclearthattherecentshiftfromgovernmenttogovernance,whichasetofstatetheoristshaveidentified,shouldbeaccompaniedbyareductioninmoraldistance,andinfacttherearevariousreasonstosuspectthatitmightactuallyaidtheopeningofmoraldistance.Statetheoriststellusthatthestatehaschangedinnatureoverthelast40years.Jessop(2002)characterisesthechangeintermsofashiftfromaKeynesiannational-scalestatethatisconcernedwithguaranteeingthewelfareofitscitizenstoastatemoreconcernedwithgettingaheadintheinternational,long-runracetosecurecompetitivenessthroughinnovation.Thissortofstateplacesgreateremphasisontheincentivisationthanonthewelfareofitsworkforce.Accompanyingthisshifthasbeena‘dramaticintensificationinsocietalcomplexity’(Jessop,2002,p.229)thathasgivenrisetothe‘resorttoheterarchy…mostevidentintheexplosionofreferencestonetworking…andinthegrowinginterestinnegotiation,multiagencycooperation,partnership,stakeholdingandsoon’(Jessop,2002,p.229).

Thestateisnotnecessarilyweakenedunderthesenewarrangements.‘[N]ationalstateinstitutionscontinuetoplaykeyrolesinformulating,implementing,coordinating,andsupervising…policyinitiatives,evenastheprimacyofthenationalscaleofpolitical-economiclifeisdecentred’Brenner(2004,p.3)observes.Thus,‘thestate…canindirectlyandimperfectlysteernetworks’(Rhodes,1996,p.660).‘[T]heidealofthe“socialstate”’Rose(1999,p.142)explains,

giveswaytothatofthe“enablingstate”.Thestateisnolongertoberequiredtoanswerallofsociety’sneedsfororder,security,healthandproductivity.Individuals,firms,organizations,localities,schools,parents,hospitals,housingestatesmusttakeonthemselves–as“partners”–aportionoftheresponsibilityfortheirownwell-being.

NikolasRose,1999,p.142

Undergovernancearrangementsthen,theproblemfacingthestatealterstooneofhowmosteffectivelytonurturetheconditionsunderwhichagreementsandsolutionscanbereachedthroughself-organisation.Thecorestatefunctionbecomesoneofsteeringandconductingratherthanoneofcarryingout.Thestatebusiesitselfwithsettingthemeta-coordinatesofactionanddesigningthearchitecturefornegotiationandengagementbetweendifferentlypositionedpartnersingoverning.Thisnew,meta-governmentalroleofthestatehas‘extensivescope’(Jessop,2002,pp.52–3)includingactionsto‘stabilizethecognitiveandnormativeexpectationsofactors’(Jessop,2002,p.230),‘promot[e]acommon“world-view”’(Jessop,2002,p.230)andengagein‘boundary-spanningrolesandfunctions,creatinglinkagedevices,sponsoringneworganizations,identifyingappropriateleadorganisationstocoordinateotherpartners,designinginstitutionsandgeneratingvisionstofacilitateself-organizationindifferentfields’(Jessop,2002,p.242).Farfromobsolescence,Jessopargues,throughtheserolesandfunctions‘[s]tatesplayamajorandincreasingrole’(Jessop,2002,p.242).

Thewaythesemutationsofthestateinfluencetherelationshipbetweenstatemanagers,frontlinebureaucrats,non-statestakeholdersandsubjectsiskeytounderstandingthemoralgrammarofcontemporarystates.Atthemostfundamentallevel,theintroductionofameta-levelofstateaction,focuseduponthesteeringofself-organisingsystems‘atadistance’(Rose,1999,p.120),isonlylikelytoalienatesystemmanagersstillfurtherfromtheeventualconsequencesoftheiractions.Ifanythingthe‘meta-position’thatthestateassumesundergovernanceintroducesamoredistant,morehighlyabstracted,moreadiaphorisedviewthroughwhichtosettheparametersofnegotiationandexchangethanunderevenatop-downsystem.Underatop-downsystematleaststatemanagersareconnectedtotheeverydayworkofcarryingoutstateprojectsthroughalineofcommunicationthatrelayscommandsandnoticesrelativelyfrequently.Undergovernancenosuchlineexists–onlysporadicreappraisaloftheperformanceofautonomousself-governingcommunitiesofstakeholders.

Intermsofthespecificallyspatialimplicationsofthereorientationofstatestowardsmeta-governmentalfunctions,Brenner(2004,p.67)writesthat‘[c]ontemporarystateinstitutionsarebeingsignificantlyre-scaledatonceupwards,downwardsandoutwardstocreatequalitativelynew,polymorphic,plurilateralinstitutionalgeographiesthatnolongeroverlapevenlywithoneanother,convergeuponasingle,dominantgeographicalscaleorconstituteasingle,nestedorganizationalhierarchy’.Itmightbearguedthataspectsofthis‘hollowingout’(Rhodes,1994)couldreducemoralestrangementandbringdecisionmakersclosertotheirsubjects.Thiscaseisstrongestwithregardtothe‘downward’transferofpowers.Onecouldpositthatthisreducesthedistancebetweenthesiteofdecisionsandthesiteofactivity,thereforeclosingthemoraldistancethatBaumanidentifiedbycuttingoutmiddlemenandwomenandtherebyreducingmediation.‘Thisdownscalingofregulatorytasksshouldnotbeviewedasa

contractionorabdicationofnationalstatepower,however’,Brenner(2004,p.62)warns,‘forithasfrequentlyservedasacentrallyorchestratedstrategy’.Typically,localauthoritieshavealimiteddegreeofdevolveddiscretionoverhowtoachievethisorthatend,butverylittlediscretionovertheendsthemselves(Rodríguez-PoseandGill,2003).Atworst,devolutionoffersnationalgovernmentstheopportunitytodivestthemselvesoftroublesomedutiesbyenrollinglocalagentsasalliesindispatchingthem.Henceprogrammesofpublicserviceendupbeingconceivedatthenationallevelbutimplementedbylocalgovernmentagents,consequentlyactuallystretchinglinesofcommandandincreasingthedegreeofmediationbetweencauseandeffectthatBaumanwarnsagainst.Itisthereforenotatallclearthatthetrendtowardsdevolutionpromisesclosureofmoraldistance:infacttherearereasonstosuspecttheopposite.Theinternationalisationofstatepower–Brenner’s‘upward’shift–looksevenlesslikelytoreducemoralestrangementbetweendecisionmakersandsubjects.Ifmeta-governancecanbeassociatedwithincreasedfunctionaldistancebetweenthesteeringactivitiesofstateelitesandtheconsequencesofthisinfluenceontheground,internationalisationachievesmoreliteralphysicaldistanciationbetweensupranationalstateelitesandthesitesatwhichtheconsequencesoftheirdecisionsareexperienced.AstheEuropeanUnionexpands,forexample,itscoreconcentratesandinsulatesdiscretionarypowerfromanincreasinglyfar-flungandculturallydiversehinterland.Althoughclosenessonitsownbynomeansensuresmoralaction(asweshallseeinlaterchapters),unfamiliarityandculturaldistancecertainlypavethewayforadiaphorism.

Andwhenitcomestothe‘outward’transferofpowersthegeographicalrescalingofthestateunderconditionsofgovernancebeginstolooklikeamasterclassinthereorganisationofstateinstitutionalspacessoastocreatedesensitised,rationalisticdecision-makingenvironments.Wherepossible,largepartsofthestatewereprivatisedaspartoftheshifttogovernanceinmostWesterndevelopedeconomies.Typicallythisdidnotinvolvetotalindependencefromthestate,however.Eitherthestatewasthemainpurchaserofservicesfromthenewlyformedprivateorganisations,inwhichcaseitwasabletodictatethetermsofproductionviacontractsthathadtobewonfromthestateitself.Throughthisdevelopmentstatesretainedtheabilitytopursuetheirownagendas,butdistancedthemselvesfromthemessybusinessofimplementation.Oralternatively,thestateretainedaroleinregulatingthenewprivateorganisations,oftenvianewlyformedorempoweredregulatorybodiesthatconcernedthemselveswithdesigningtheparameterswithinwhichprivateorganisationswereatlibertytooperate(PeckandTickell,2002).

Whereprivatisationwasnotpossible,oneparticulardevelopmentboundupwithgoverningatadistancehasbeentheestablishmentofentrepreneurialwaysofrelatingbetweenbureaucrats,departments,officesandquasi-statestakeholdersasnewformsofgovernmenthaveevolved(Rose,1999).Aspartofthisevolutionthecultivationofabureaucraticethicofself-subordinationtotheauthorityoftheinstitution,whichwasalwayssoproblematic,isnolongernecessary.Itisreplacedbyanethosofbusinesswithinthestateitself.Accordingtothisethos‘thefocusisuponaccountability,explicitstandardsandmeasuresofperformance,emphasisonoutputs…desegregationoffunctionsintocorporatizedunitsoperatingwiththeirownbudgets

andtradingwithoneanother,contractsandcompetition’(Rose,1999,p.150).Thekeyfeaturesofthisnewwayofgoverningthestateinclude‘contracts,targets,performancemeasures,monitoringandaudit’(Rose,1999,p.151).Thenon-inclusionofmoralcriteriaintothesetargetslicensesbureaucratsandquasi-statepartnerstoalsoexcludesuchconsiderationsandplacethemoutsidetheirframeofreference.

Itcouldbearguedthattheincreaseddistanceofstateelitesfromtheactivitiesofpartnersundergovernancecreatessomeroomformanoeuvre‘ontheground’.Withmoreresponsibilityandfreedom,localgovernancepartnershavemoreleewaytoactonthebasisofmoralconcerns.Butnotethatthestateretainstherightto‘recentralizecontroliftheoperationsand/orresultsofnetworksdonotfulfiltheexpectationsofstatemanagers’(Jessop,2002,p.237).Specifically‘states…reservetothemselvestherighttoopen,close,juggleandrearticulategovernancefromtheviewpointnotonlyofitstechnicalfunctionsbutalsofromtheviewpointofpartisanandoverallpoliticaladvantage’(Jessop,2002,p.239).Withtheconstantpotentialofthissortofrearticulationinmind,overtimethemodernstatedisciplinesits‘partners’ingoverningtoautonomouslypursuetheobjectivesthatitvaluesbycombiningthethreatofwithdrawalwithrewardingperformancethatiscommensuratewithmeta-governmentalpriorities.

Hence,ifundertop-downbureaucracyitwasnotconsideredgoodpractice,orprofessional,tointroducepersonalconsiderationsintothemanagementofpublicaffairs,undertheconditionsofgovernancepartnersbothwithinandoutsidethestatewillfindthatitsimplydoesnotpaytobemoral.Sowhereasonceitdidnotparticularlycostindividualbureaucratstoactmorally,undermodernconditionsindividualinterestsandamoralityarealigned,makingitrationalfordecisionmakerstoexcludemoralconcernsonthebasisoftheirownself-interest.Contractswillbelost,budgetsslashed,bonusesforfeited,deadlinesandtargetsmissed,andreputationserodeduntilitwillbecomeobvioustoallofthegoverningpartnerswhohavebeengiven‘freedom’and‘autonomy’topursueaparticulargovernmentalobjectivethatstoicallymaintainingsensitive,moralwaysofactingisnotthemostappropriate‘solution’andtherearemoreefficientmeansonoffer.Anauditwillbeundertakeninordertoidentifythebehaviourthatdoesnotcontributetowards,orevenactivelyundermines,thesuccessofthecommunityofstakeholdersinpursuingtheirobjectives.Cost-savinginitiativesandperformance-enhancingreformswillberecommendedthatwillsqueezethelasttracesofhumanityoutoftheiractivities.Thetruthabouttheshiftfromgovernmenttogovernanceisthatitequatesadiaphoricactionwiththeself-interestofbureaucratsandotherpartnersingoverning.

AlthoughJessopadmitsthathe‘ignore[s]issuesofinterpersonalrelations’(Jessop,2002,p.217),thisomissionisasignificantone.Theeffectofthespatialrescalingofthestateupwards,downwardsandoutwardsinexemptingmoralconsiderationsfromtherelationsbetweendecisionmakersandsubjectsshouldnotbeoverlooked.Suchrescalinghasprofoundpsychologicalconsequencesforbureaucratsandotherenforcersintermsofestrangingthemfromthesubjectsoftheirdecisions.If,asRosehasargued,animportantdilemmaformodern,governmentalstatesis‘how[are]…bureaucratsandcivilservantstobegoverned?’(Rose,1999,p.149),thespatialrescalingofthestateconstitutesanimportantpartoftheanswer.Itdrawsuponthesimpleprincipleofkeepingthesubjectsofstatepoweroutofthesight,and

henceoutoftheminds,ofitspurveyors.

MoralDistanceandImmigrationControlsTheevolutionofdevelopedcountries’immigrationcontrolsoverthepastthreedecadesepitomisestheprincipleofkeepingdecisionmakersandsubjectsapart.MirroringBrenner’s(2004)characterisationoftherescalingofthemodernstateingeneralterms,theevictionofnational-levelresponsibilitiesforasylumseekersandotherirregularmigrantshasbeendescribedasacoordinated‘remotecontrol’(Guiraudon,2003)strategythatrendersmigrantsstatelessbygeographicaldesign(Mountz,2010).The‘push-back’ofresponsibilityforbordercontrol(Bialasiewicz,2012,p.856)involvesremotedetentionbothwithinandoutsidesovereignterritory,innovativenewformsofinterdictiononairplanesandinairports,andpre-emptivebordercontrolmeasuresthatseektodeterandcontainmigrantseitherenrouteoratsource(Mountz,2010).AswithBrenner’sanalysisofthestateingeneral,wecandiscernupward,downwardandoutwardtendenciesintherescalingofmigrationcontrol8(Lavenex,2006).

Theupwardrescalingofbordercontrolhasseencoordinatedeffortstoholdmigrantsinlegallyambiguousoffshoreorotherwiseremotesitesbeforeeverreachingsovereignterritorytoclaimprotection.Would-beEuropeanimmigrantsareheldincreasinglyfrequentlyinoffshoreblackholesofindecipherablelegalstatus,fromwhichtheyhavenorighttocontinuetheirjourneyortoreturnhome(Vaughan-Williams,2009;Mountz,2010).SuchinternationalcooperationonmigrationcontrolhasbeenunderwayattheEuropeanlevelforatleastthelastthreedecades,drivenbyadesiretoavoidthelegal,socialandfinancialcostsofdealingwithin-countryasylumclaimsandhousing,incarceratinganddeportingclaimants(AndersonandDenBoer,1994;Guild,2000).Thisbeganwithaprocessofconsultationandinformationsharingthroughintergovernmentalnegotiatingforums,internationalpolicecooperation,shareddatabasesandthedeterminationofmultilateralcriteriaforentryand‘burdensharing’(Guiraudon,2000;Lavenex,2001).FormalintergovernmentalpartnershipbeganwithonlyasubsetofEuropeancountriesin1985,butby1992theEuropeanCommunity(EC)wasmakingpolicyfortheregion,andby1999Europeantoolssuchasdirectivesandregulationswereratifiedforuseintheareaofbordercontrol(Koslowski,2006).Today,theEuropeanUnion’s(EU’s)commonborderpolicies,includingtheCommonEuropeanAsylumPolicy,havegivenriseto‘anew…landscapethathasbeenbuiltattheexternalbordersoftheEUthatconsistsofwaitingzones,camps,newfences,andnewbiometricmethodsofpatrol’(vanHoutum,2010,pp.958–9).Aformidableinformation-sharingandrapid-responsesecuritytaskforce,FRONTEX,patrolsthisnewlandscape,effectivelyfieldingirregularmigrantsfromthelegalandmoralpurviewofindividualmembercountries.

Aspartofthisup-scalingofcontrol,theintroductionof‘safethirdcountry’rulestotheEuropeanUnionthroughthe1992LondonResolutionsmeantthatasylumapplicantslosttherighttochoosetheircountryofasylum(Good,2007).Thisconceptwasamilestoneintheinsulationofcore,powerfulcountriesfromthemessybusinessofcontactwithasylum-seekingpopulations.Itmeantthatasylumclaimantswhohadpassedthroughsupposedlysafecountries

ontheirwaytocountriessuchastheUnitedKingdom,GermanyandFrancecouldbereturnedtothemautomaticallywithoutbeingconsideredforasyluminthesecorecountries.ThisinnovationsubsequentlybecameEuropeanpolicy,aswellasapopulartoolglobally(Mountz,2010),meaningthatthefringesofEuropeweretoactasabuffer,protectingthecorecountriesfromproximitytoasylumseekers.Cooperationwithsourcecountriestoreducethenumberofasylumseekerswholeaveandexpeditethereturnofthosewhohavelefthasalsobeenarecurrentfeatureoftheup-scalingofcontrol,formalisedthroughso-called‘readmissiontreaties’.Between2004and2008theEUdedicated€250milliontofundingreadmissionagreementswithdevelopingcountries(Lavenex,2006).Theirclearlogicistoeschew,evictandejectasylumseekersasquicklyaspossibleandasfaraspossiblefromtheirintendeddestinations.

InthisveinvariousEuropeancountrieshaveexploredthepossibilityofthewholesaleoutsourcingoftheprocessingoftheirasylumapplicationstocentresinnorthernAfrica(Schuster,2005;seealsothediscussioninNetheryetal.,2013,ofAustralia'smeasuresto‘export'immigrationdetentionintoIndonesia).BeforeGaddafi’sousting,forexample,Italyhadawell-developedpartnershipwithLibya,whichincludeda‘readmissionagreement,trainingforLibyanpoliceofficersandborderguards,andItalian-fundeddetentionandrepatriationprogrammesforirregularmigrantsinLibya’(Andrijasevic,2010,p.150).Thispartnershiphadtheknock-oneffectofcausingLibyatostrengthenitsownborderswithNiger,inadevelopmentthatRigolikenedtoatransnationalcorridorofexpulsion(Rigo,2007,citedinBialasiewicz,2012,p.855).AlthoughthedetailsofItaly’srelationshipwiththenewLibyaarestillunclearatthetimeofwriting,Italy’sdesiretocontinuetocontributeairplanesandothermilitaryequipmenttoguaranteebordersecurity,aswellastotrainborderpoliceinLibya,isunmistakable(ANSAmed,2013).

Such‘upward’relinquishingofresponsibilitiesforasylumpreventswould-beasylumseekersfromevermakingaclaim.Therequirement,procurementandverificationofvisas,asetofpracticesGuildreferstoas‘theborderabroad’(Guild,2002,p.89)similarlyresultsintheenrolmentofforeignagenciesintotheprojectofpreventingmigrationatsource.Visaimpositionstendtofollowanincreaseinasylumapplicationsfromacountry;forexample,inthecaseofBritain,SriLankain1985;India,Bangladesh,Ghana,NigeriaandPakistansoonafterwards;Turkeyin1989;SierraLeoneandIvoryCoastin1994;andColumbiain1997.Thevisasystemmobilisesdistantbureaucratsintheoperationoffunctionallyspecifictaskslocatedattheadministrativeoffices,portsandairportsofsendingcountries(WeberandBowling,2002;Neumayer,2006).AttheEuropeanlevel,thedevelopmentofalongblacklistofcountriesrequiringvisasoffersanexpeditiouswayto‘grant(ordeny)admissionbeforeleavingacountryand…controlwhensomeoneentersandleavestheEU’(vanHoutum,2010,p.963).

ThissystemfreesitsfunctionariesfrommoralconsiderationsthroughafinefunctionaldifferentiationofrolesandtasksthatlooksdisturbinglysimilartothatwhichBaumandescribes.Theenforcementofthesepre-emptiveregimesproduces‘anadvanceguardofimmigrationstaff’(GibneyandHansen,2003,p.8)includingAirportLiaisonOfficersandImmigrationControlOfficers,withlittleornoviewoftheimmigrationsystemasawhole,who

aresettoworkinthepursuitoftightlydefinedobjectivesofchecking,verification,collection,surveillanceandpolicingindispersedsettings.

Inthisvein,Mountz(2013)characterisesthephenomenonofdetainingasylum-seekingpopulationsinremote,offshore,extraterritoriallocationsaspartofstates’tendenciestointerceptasylumseekersandbarthemfromcoreareas.Withinandbeyondsovereignterritory,remote,oftenruralorex-militaryholdingfacilitiesareusedtodisperseandconcealmigrantsfrom‘familymembers,friends,co-workers,resources,andpotentialadvocates’(Mountz,2013,p.91).Inparticular,islandssuchasLampedusa,Guam,andChristmasIsland‘offerextremeformsofdispersal,keepingpotentialasylumseekersatadistancefromsovereignterritorywheretheycouldmakeanasylumclaim’(Mountz,2013,p.98),oftenwellbeyondthepurviewofimmigrationdecisionmakerssuchasjudgesandsystemmanagers.

Foritspart,the‘downward’transferofresponsibilityforimmigrationcontrolfromnationaltosub-nationalactorsisbestdescribednotasdevolution,butasdelegation.Ingeneral,sub-nationallegislationhasincreasedtheresponsibilitiesoflocalauthoritiesincheckingthelegalstatusofimmigrants,providingwelfaresupportforasylumseekersandothermigrantsawaitingdecisions,incarceratingasylumseekersdeemedtobeatriskofabsconding,issuingpapersnecessaryforvisaapplications,exercisingdiscretionwithregardtofamilyandmaritalon-migration,andadministratingregionallyspecificnaturalisationlaws.Thedevolutionofresponsibilityfromhighertolowergovernmentaltiershascreateddiscrepanciesinasylumreceptionconditionswithincountries,obfuscatedlinesofaccountabilityconcerningreceptionconditionsandgivencentralstatesleewaytobothdistancethemselvesfromtheimplementationoftoughnationallevellegislationandcriticiseisolatedexamplesof‘harsh’applicationsoftheselaws(Weber,2003).

Alongsidepublicsectordelegationtosub-nationalstateauthoritiessitstheenrolmentofawiderangeoflocalnon-stateactorsinimmigrationcontrol(Cohen,2002;Coleman,2009).Theprimarymeansbywhichindividualssuchasestateagents,doctorsandnurses,teachers,drivinglicenceissuers,universitylecturers,policeofficersandprivatesecuritystaffareenrolledinmigrantpolicingisthroughinformationverificationandcollectionproceduresthattheyareincreasinglyrequiredtocarryout.So,forexample,since2004theBritishNationalHealthService(NHS)hasnotbeenatlibertytotreatasylumseekerswhohavereachedtheendoftheirlegalprocessformorethanemergencyproceduresintheUnitedKingdom,meaningthattheirstatusmustbechecked,reportedandrecordedbyNHSauthorities,constitutinganimportantinformationresourcefordeportationandremovalenforcementteams(Hargreavesetal.,2005).Sigonahasidentifiedthesamemechanismoperatingthroughtheresponsibilityplacedon‘socialworkerstoassessfailedasylumseekers’entitlementstoaccesssupport…andbyaskingschoolstocooperatewith[theBritishstate]onparentswhodonotcomplywithimmigrationcontrols’(Sigona,2010).Cohenobservesthattheserequirementsrender‘thestatutorydispensersofcommunitycare…investigatorsofimmigrationstatusandwithholdersofsuchcarefromthosewithouttheappropriatestatus’(Cohen,2002,p.534).

Whatisnotableaboutthedelegationofresponsibilitiestolocalactorsistheconcomitantclosureofindividualmoralleeway.Whereoncedoctors,teachersandothersmighthavebeen

atlibertytohelporturnablindeye,thecreepingubiquityoftherequirementtoperformimmigrationcheckshasimpingeduponthemoralroomformanoeuvreoftheindividual.Toturnablindeyenow,ortohelpsomeonewhodoesnothaverelevantstatusonthebasisofempathywiththeindividualconcernedorone’smoralconvictions,istoriskpersonalsanctionfornotcarryingouttherequirementsofone’sprofessionalposition.Thealignmentofamoralitywithrationalself-interestisthereforeagaininevidence.Systemsthatmakeitrationalornecessaryforindividualstooverlookthesufferingofothersinthepursuitoftheirownsurvivalorself-interestriskconjuringthesameconfigurationsofpersonalmoresandsufferingthatledtosuchwidespreadmiseryduringthelastcentury.Thedelegationofmandatoryimmigrationstatusverificationandcheckingresponsibilitieshaspreciselythiseffect.

Asimilarriskcharacterisesthe‘outward’exteriorisationofbordercontrols.Privatetransportcompanieshavebeenincentivisedtocarryouttheirownimmigrationchecksandenforcementproceduresthroughtheintroductionoffinancialpenaltiesuponcompaniesfoundtobetransportingclandestineimmigrants.Intheseways,states‘circumventconstraintsimposedbyjuridicalandcivilrightsgroups,whichmaybepresentatthenationalorinternationallevel’(LahavandGuiraudon,2000,p.64),becausetransportcompaniescanactpre-emptively–intransitoratsource–andthuscarryouttheiractivitiesbeyondthescrutinyofthesegroups.Employersfoundtobeemployingillegalimmigrantsalsofacefinancialpenalties,aswellasprisonsentencesforemployingpeoplewithoutadequateimmigrationstatusinvariouscountries.InBritain,landlordshaverecentlybeenaddedtothelistofgroupswhofacepenaltiesiftheydealwithmigrantswithoutstatus.

Overlayingtheupward,downwardandoutwardeschewingofresponsibilityformigrationisanemergentculturethatnurturesadiaphorism.ThedegreeofmediationbetweentheissuingofabordercontrolorderanditsimplementationhasbecomesopronouncedthatEurope’smigrationregimehasbeencharacterisedasavirtualrealmwhereinimperatives,logics,normsanddirectivesareoftennevereventraceabletoasinglesource(BigoandTsoukala,2008).Marketlogicshavebeenintroducedthroughtheintroductionoftenderingforcontractsbyprivatecorporationsandcountrieswhomustcompetetowinthembydemonstratingtheiraptitudeforprecisionandclinicalefficiency,whichleavesnoroomforsentimentalsensitivity.Andthedevelopmentofbordercontrolasamanagerialproblemhasrequiredtheintroductionofspecificexpertiseandformsoftraining,arisk-centredapproachtomigrationthatmergesconcernsoverterrorismwiththecontainmentofpeopleonthemove,andthedepoliticisationofconcernoverbordercontroltotechnicalissuesofbestpractice,partnership,norms,standardsandregulations(AndrijasevicandWalters,2010).

ConclusionInthischapterIhavearguedthatthebureaucraticsystemofmanagingbordersincreasinglyprecludesliteralproximity,andhenceencounters,betweenbureaucratsandtheirsubjects.Suchencounters,asarangeofmoraltheorists,geographersandpsychologistshavenoted,holdthepotentialtomovebureaucratstoactnotaccordingtoadiaphoricprinciplesofgovernment,butaccordingtoparticularmoralsentimentspromptedbytheneedsanddemandsofspecific

individuals.Administrativesystemsofruleareaversetotheseencountersowingtotheirdisruptivepotential,andthereforeanyreorganisationthatreducesthefrequencyoftheiroccurrenceandopensmoraldistanceisunlikelytoberesistedbybureaucraticmanagers.

Inthecaseofbordercontrol,moraldistancehasbeenopened(followingBauman)byincreasingtheliteraldistancebetweendecisionmakersandbureaucrats,increasingthelayersofmiddlemenortechnologiesthatseparatethetwo,andimplementingsystemsof(dis)incentivisationthatpromotetherationalpursuitofself-interestovermoralconcerns.ThistendencytowardskeepingpeopleapartiscommonbothtothehierarchicalbureaucraticformsofadministrationthatWeberandBaumandescribedandthegovernmentalstatesthatJessophasmorerecentlycharacterised.Indeed,moraldistancebetweensubjectsanddecisionmakersisfacilitated,ratherthanundermined,bygovernancearrangements,whichincreasinglymediatebetweencauseandeffect.

TheresultisthatthesortofencounterbetweenNataliyaandsystemmanagerslikeMrBrimelowthatoccurredintheForeignOfficeinLondonin1945,oranyonewithpersonaldiscretionoverindividualcases,isarguablyevenlesslikelytooccurnowthanitwasthen.Systemdesignersassuchmaynotevenexist,asmodernimmigrationcontrolsystemstendtoemergefromtheinteractionsofvariousgroupsratherthanthroughcentralisedplanning.Butwhereelitesdoexist,theycanrestassuredthattheyareshieldedbymorelayersoftechnology(supposedlymoreintelligent)thanthatavailableinMrBrimelow’stime,andthataccompanyingthistechnologyareanarmyoffunctionarieswhosejobsinvolvedispassionatelydeterminingNataliya’sclaimsbyrenderingthemlegibleintermsofprocedureandroutiniseddecisionmaking,theparametersofwhichtheyhaveneithertheauthoritynorincentivetoalter.

Weneedanapproachto‘thestate’thatissensitivetointerpersonalrelationsandtheirsuspension.ToabstractfrominterpersonalmattersasJessop(2002)doesistooverlookanimportantconsequenceoftheevolutionstateshaverecentlyundergone.Itisnotmyintentiontocontributetowards‘state-phobia’(Foucault,2008):Idonotwanttogivetheimpressionthatthetendencytowardsdehumanisationanddepersonalisationofmigrants,andtheavoidanceofencounters,isalwayspre-mediatedandmeticulouslyplanned.Butjustaswemightnotbeimpressedbythewaywaterexactlyfillstheavailablespaceinacup,soweshouldnotbesurprisedbythe‘amazingsophisticationandcomplexityofborderingpractices’(Bialasiewicz,2012,p.843)thatemergeasbureaucraciestakethepathsofleastresistanceavailabletothem.

Nevertheless,Ialsodonotwanttogivetheimpressionthatthediscussioninthischaptergivesacompleteaccountofhowdecisionmakersarenurturedtoactdispassionately,insensitivelyandindifferentlywithintheBritishimmigrationcontrolsystem.Althoughthedistancebetweendecisionmakersandsubjectsthatgovernancearrangementsintroducetobordercontrolsformsanimportantpartofthestory,variousconspicuousquestionsremainunanswered,includinghowdispassionismaintainedinrelationtothethousandsofasylumseekerswhodoarriveBritainandarenotkeptatarm’slength.Aremigrantstheonlyoneswhoare‘distanced’forinstance?AndwhydodecisionmakerswhodocomefacetofacewithmigrantsnotallreactwiththesamelevelsofcompassionandconcernasMrBrimelowdidwhenheencounteredNataliya?Meetingsliketheseoccurwhenimmigrationofficialsassessmigrants’casesfor

asylumviainterviewsandlegalhearings,aftertheyhavereachedtheUK,butonlyrarelycantheybecharacterisedasmorallydemandingencounters.InthenextchapterIwillcriticallyenrichthebroad,Baumanianaccountoftherelationbetweenmoraldistanceandcontemporarybordercontrolspresentedinthischapterbydrawingonempiricalmaterialtoexplorethesequestions.

Notes1ThisaccountistakenfromNicholasBethell’s(1974)book,TheLastSecret:ForcibleRepatriationtoRussia1944-7,anduseshispseudonyms.

2HereItakepartialismtomeantheviewthatitisreasonabletoshowpreferentialtreatmenttoaparticulargroup.

3MatthewGibney’s(2004)book-lengthtreatmentoftheethicalviewpointsofcosmopolitanismandparticularism,aswellasthedilemmasthatboththeseviewpointsproduce,isanaccessibleintroductiontothisissueinthecontextofasylummigration.

4Krznaric(2014)recognisesthissamepotentialforsurpriseinencounters.‘Ifyoubringtwopeopletogetherwithdifferentviewpointsandexperiences’,hewrites(Krznaric,2014,p.127),‘theencounterbetweenthemcancreatesomethingunexpectedandnew.’

5Wemightalsoaddcertainformsofbureaucraticmappingtothelistoftechnologiesthatachieveestrangement;see,forexample,themapsusedbyFRONTEXtoconceptualisemigrationroutes(inBialasiewicz,2012,p.849).

6WhenGregorydiscussesdistance,however,hedepartsfromasimpleaccountthatequatesdistanceandindifference.Whilehedoesdiscusstheideathatthedronerepresentsanextremeexampleoftheseparationofcauseandeffectandthatthisseparationfostersa‘Playstationmentality’thatmakesiteasiertokill(citingGrossman,2009),hecomplicatesthisaccountbypointingtotheimmersive,andhenceintimate,natureofdroneoperation(citingChamayou,2013).Droneoperativessitonly18inchesfromthescreenthatdepictstheconsequencesoftheiractionsontheground,makingitdifficulttomakethecasethattheyaredetachedorremovedbythetechnologytheyareusing.Theresultisthatdistancecannolongerbereliedupontomakeviolencemoreabstractandimpersonal:rather,Gregoryargues,thenewtechnologiesthatfacilitatedronewarfareareindifferentto‘near’and‘far’.

7SeeGill(2010)forafullerstatementofmypositionregardingtheconceptofthestateinresearchintoforcedmigration.

8WhileIdiscusstheupward,downwardandoutwardsexteriorisationofbordercontrolinthissection,infactrecentgovernanceinnovationsgobeyondmerely‘exteriorising’responsibilitiesforbordersbyoftensimultaneouslyextinguishingthepossibilitythatmigrantscanaccessasylumorlegalsupportatall.Ratherthantalkingabouta‘shift’inresponsibilitytodifferentscalesthen,arenunciationofresponsibilitymaybeamore

accuratemetaphor(seeAndrijasevic,2010,forafullerdiscussion).

ChapterThreeDistantBureaucratsInearlyJune2005thethen-Ministerforimmigration,TonyMcNulty,announcedtheabandonmentofaplantodevelopanetworkoflargeasylumaccommodationcentresinruralareasthroughoutEngland(BBC,2005a).Theschemewasoriginallyconceivedin1998andthelegislationwaspassedafewyearslaterundertheNationality,ImmigrationandAsylumAct(GreatBritain2002).Theaccommodationcentresweretobemandatory,andalthoughasylumseekerswouldbeabletocomeandgoduringthedaytheyweretobelocatedinremoteareassuchasoldairfieldsand‘inonecase,wherethediseasedcarcassesoftensofthousandsofsickcattlehadbeenincinerated’(Webber,2012,p.151).Theywereintendedtospeedupthesystemofasylumdeterminationbyreducingdecisiontimes,precludeperceivedopportunitiestoworkillegally,orengageinhousingorfinancialfraud(Polese,2013),andremoveasylumseekersfromlocalcommunitiesfromwhichitwasdifficulttodeportthem.Theintentionwastohousearound3000asylumseekersinfourcentresofupto750asylumseekerseach.

Infact,thesizeoftheproposedcentresprovedtobethestickingpointforiratelocalcommunities,membersofwhichwereconcernedaboutthecriminalrisksthecentresposedtotheirquietruralneighbourhoods,aswellastheextrainfrastructuralburdenthatcentresonthisscalerepresented.Soalthoughasylumseekers’andmigrants’rightscampaigngroupsraisedconcernssurroundingthesuitabilityofaccommodation,provisionofadequatehealthcare,capacityoflocalinterpretationservicesandaccesstoeducationforchildrenonsite(whowerenottobeallowedtogotomainstreamschools),itwastheobjectionsofaffluent,middle-class,ruralcommunitiesthateventuallyoverturnedtheplans(Hubbard,2005).ThechosenruralareaseachhappenedtobeincomfortableConservativeconstituencies,whichbroughtthechargethatthein-powerLabourpartywasattemptingtocontaintheimpactofthecentresinoppositionareas.Fuelledbyavociferouslyanti-asylumnationaltabloidprintedpress,theplanswhippedupsucharobustandformidableoppositionintheformoflocalprotests,demonstrationsandorganisedlegalobjectionsthattheplanningprocessbecamesignificantlydelayed(NationalAuditOffice,2007).‘Intheend’,writesPolese(2013,p.89),‘duetorecurringfailurestofindanappropriatesite,theplanforbuildingaccommodationcentreswaseventuallydroppedbythegovernment…BytheendofMarch2007,theHomeOfficestatedthatabout£33.7millionhadbeenspentontheprojectasawhole[andthat]£29.1millionhadbeenrecordedasafinancialloss’.Theaccommodationcentreswouldhaveachievedalevelofconcentration,isolationandconcealmentof‘undesirables’intheUnitedKingdomonascalenotwitnessedinEuropesinceWorldWarII.Yetthecauseofthefailureoftheplanswaslesstodowithmoralobjectionstothecentresthanwiththexenophobiaofwhitemiddle-classEngland.

Deniedtheopportunitytocordonoffasylumseekersinspecialised‘para-sites’(Serres,2007)suchastheseaccommodationcentres,theLabourgovernmentofthelate1990sand2000swasnotshortofalternativemeansbywhichtheremotenessandisolationofasylumseekerscould

beengineered.Asystemofdispersalwasintroducedin1999thatwasdesignedto‘spreadtheburden’(Robinsonetal.,2003,p.164)thatasylumseekersrepresentedtolocalauthoritiesawayfromLondonandtheSouth-EastofEngland.Apreviouslydecentralisedarrangementthatallowedasylumseekerstolivewheretheywantedto,whichforpracticalreasonswasmostfrequentlyLondon,wasreplacedbyacentrallyorchestratedsystemthatshiftedlargenumbersofclaimants‘toareasofsurplus[housing]intheolderindustrialcitiesintheMidlands,thenorthandScotland’(Griffithsetal.,2004,p.27).Allsevenofthemajordispersalareasnationallywereinthetop20mostdeprivedareasinBritainontheIndexofMultipleDeprivation(PhillimoreandGoodson,2006,p.1717).Asylumseekerswererelocatedonano-choicebasisawayfrom‘family,friends,ethniccommunities,servicesandrefugeesupportgroups’(Vickers,2012,p.52)andwereforcedtorelocatetoareas‘withinadequatesocialprovision[and]alackofqualifiedlawyers’(Vickers,2012,p.52).Thedispersalsystemwasdesignedexplicitlyasdeterrenceagainstasylumseekers’perceivedabuseoftheBritishbenefitssystem(HomeOffice,1998;Hynes,2009).

Dispersalwasaccompaniedbyasetof‘increasinglyhostile’punitivemeasures(Griffithsetal.,2004,p.27).Thenewsystemincludedtherequirementthatasylumseekersmoveonfromdispersalaccommodation‘within28daysofreceivingafinaldecisiononrefugeestatus’(Phillips,2006,p.542),meaningthatmanyfacedcompulsorydestitution.Evenwhentheywereallowedtoclaimfinancialsupport,asylumseekerswereforcedtosubsistonalevelofwelfarebenefitsequivalenttoonly70%ofthemainstreamlevelofincomesupport,afeaturethatwasavowedlydesignedtoreducetheattractionoftheUnitedKingdomtoeconomicmigrantsposingasasylumseekers–thenotoriousbutmythical‘bogusasylumseeker’.Whatismore,supportwastobeintheformofvouchersratherthanincash(supermarketsweretoldtheycouldkeepthechangeasanincentivetoparticipateinthesystem–seeWebber,2012),whichintroduceditsownstigmatisationoftheseparatedgroup.

Intheseways,theUnitedKingdom‘focuseditseffortsondevelopingpolicythatexclude[d]asylumseekersfrommainstreamsociety’(PhillimoreandGoodson,2006,p.1715)byemployingspatialstrategiesofrelocationandsegregationinorderto‘physicallyseparat[e]refugeeswithstatusfromthosewithout,refugeeswithoutstatusfromtherestofsociety,andrefugeeswithoutstatusfromoneanother’(Vickers,2012,p.52).Theconsequencesamountedtonothinglessthan‘institutionalisedinhumanity’(Webber,2012,p.9).Refugeeshadlittlecontroloverwheretheyweredispersedandregularlyfacedviciousracisminpoor,run-down,whiteworking-classareas(Boswell,2003).Thehousingitselfwassuppliedthroughcontractsbyamixtureofprivateandsociallandlordswhooftensoughtoutthecheapest,semi-derelicthousingavailable,resultinginmanyasylumseekerslivingin‘decrepit,unhygienicconditions’(Webber,2012,p.93).

Additionally,theawardoflargecontractstosupplyhousinginpoorareasartificiallydistortedthehousingmarketintheseareas.Asylumseekers–whowerenotallowedtowork,werehighlyvisibleduetotheirdifferentappearance,andplacedaperceivedstrainonhealthandeducationserviceslocally–werenowalsoseenasresponsibleforpushinguphousepricesandrentsindeprivedneighbourhoods(Phillips,2006).Families,whooftenhadtowalkforanhourtothenearestsupermarketparticipatinginthevoucherscheme,feltexposedand

threatenedandbegantoexperiencehighratesofdepressionandmentalhealthproblems(PatelandKelley,2006,pp.5–6).Womenfacedanincreasedriskofdomesticviolenceand,giventhelevelsofdestitution,weresometimesunabletolookaftertheirhealthappropriatelyfollowingchildbirth(Chantler,2010;Webber,2012).Eventuallythecalibrateddiscomfort(Darling,2011a),alongsideracialtensionsthatculminatedinvigilantestyleviolenceincludingthehighlypublicisedmurderofaKurdishasylumseekerinGlasgowin2001,forcedmanyasylumseekerstofleetheirdispersalaccommodationandreturntoLondonandtheSouth-East,losingtheirrighttohousingandconsequentlyfacingdestitution.By2006theRedCrossestimatedthattheyhadassisted36,000destituteasylumseekers,mostlythroughsoupkitchensandnightsheltersinLondon(TaylorandMuir,2006).By2008theMayorofLondon,BorisJohnson,calledforanamnestyforimmigrantswithoutstatusinLondon,estimatingthatsuchamovecouldgenerateanadditional£3billioninrevenuefromtaxesandincreasedwages(BritishRedCross,2010).By2013,whenhereissuedhisappeal,thesituationremainedunchanged(Mason,2013).

Forallitsinhumanitythough,dispersalhasnotsucceededinremovingasylumseekersfromthe‘horizonof…dailylife’(Bauman,1989,p.189)inthewaytheaccommodationcentreswereintendedto.AlthoughthefailuretolaunchaccommodationcentresintheUnitedKingdomwasatleastpartiallycompensatedbytheexcisionofasylumseekersfromtheirowncommunitiesofsupportthroughdispersal,urbanareassuchasBirmingham,Bristol,Cardiff,Glasgow,Leeds,Liverpool,ManchesterandSheffieldhaveadaptedtothedispersalarrangementsandnow,althoughdispersalisbynomeansaneasyoption,therearestrongcommunitiesofsolidarityintheseandothermajorBritishcities.TheworkofcommunitiesofsolidaritysuchastheCitiesofSanctuarymovementintheUnitedKingdom,theNationalCoalitionofAnti-DeportationCampaigns(nowcalledRighttoRemain)andNoBordershasrenderedatleastsomeasylumseekersineffaceable,asevidencedbythesteadystreamofsuccessfulattemptstoresistdeportation.

Facedwiththisinextricability,myargumentinthischapteristhattheimmigrationcontrolsystemintheUnitedKingdomhasbolstereditsspatialmanagementofasylumseekerswithinthecountrywithaprogrammeofspatialmanagementofitsowndecisionmakers.Thisargumentrulesouttheeasyassumptionthatmoraldistanceisprimarilyconcernedwithdistancingsubjectsfromdecisionmakersandnotviceversa.Giventhebureaucraticaversiontoproximitybetweendecisionmakersandsubjects,whichcanleadtotroublesomeencountersbetweenthem,andgiventhefailureofplanstoobscuresubjectsinremoteruralaccommodationcentres,decisionmakersthemselveshavebeenthetargetsofasustainedprocessofestrangementfromtheveryasylumseekersthattheymakedecisionsaboutonadailybasis.Thisstoryislessfrequentlytoldthanaccountsofdispersalanditsconsequencesyetresultsinthesameoutcomeofkeepingpeopleapart.

Thechapterdetailsthespatialstagesthroughwhichasylumsectordecisionmakersbecameestrangedfromtheirsubjectsduringthelate1990sand2000s.Iargueitispossibletodistinguishthreediscretestagesinthedistancingprocessbeginningwiththeinsulationofdecisionmakersfromcontactwiththeirsubjects,followedbybufferingthembypositioningotherorganisationsbetweenthem,andculminatinginthesplittingofthedecision-makinggroup

itselfinordertoestablishcompetitionamongseparateunitsoverthemostefficientwaytoachieveabstractobjectives.Twopointsfollow.First,itbecomesclearthatdecisionmakersareasmuchsubjecttothespatialstrategiesofasylumseekermanagementasasylumseekersthemselves.Theirruleisasmuchachallengeasthatoftheirsubjects.Second,theconsequencesofthesestagesareasmuchpsychologicalinrationaleastheyarespatial:Iidentifythesystematicspatialmanagementofdecisionmakersasakeyelementintheproductionofpsychologicaldispositionsamenabletodispassionatebureaucraticrule.

TheNationalAsylumSupportServiceTheintroductionofdispersalintheUnitedKingdomwasaccompaniedbythecreationofaspecialistagency,theNationalAsylumSupportService(NASS),whichwasaself-containedarmoftheHomeOffice.PriortotheestablishmentofNASS,asylumseekerswereabletoaccessthemainstreamwelfarebenefitssystemintheUnitedKingdom,butin1996theAsylumandImmigrationAct(GreatBritain1996)curtailedthataccess.Theresultwasthatby1999localauthoritieswerehavingtomeettheneedsofotherwisedestituteasylumseekers,oftenthroughadhocarrangements.Althoughthisprovisionwaschaoticandunder-resourced,lawyersandactivistswerelatertolookbackuponthisperiodasoneinwhichatleastsomeofthelocalauthoritiesintheUnitedKingdomtookdirectresponsibilityforthesupportneedsofasylumseekers.OneimmigrationlawyerwhohadpractisedinBristolthroughoutthe1990srecalledthat‘wejustdealtwiththelocalcouncilsocialworkers.TherewasaspecialdepartmentthatjustdealtwithasylumseekerssoIgottoknowthemverywellandeverybodyhadtheirowndesignatedsocialworker’.1Localauthorities,however,feltthattheyhadbeendrawnintotheprovisionofsupportwithoutadequateconsultationandthereforeprovideditonlygrudgingly.Althoughtheywerelegallycompelledtoprovidesupporttotensofthousandsofasylumseekers,theyarguedthattheywerereceiving‘disproportionateandunsustainabledemands’(NationalAssociationofCitizensAdviceBureaux,2002a,p.7)andthattheyhadneitherthefinancialcapacitynorthecompetencetoadequatelysupporttheasylum-seekingpopulation,especiallyintheSouth-EastofEngland.Compoundingthelocalauthorities’senseofgrievanceathavingtomeettheneedsofdestituteasylumseekers,asylum-seekingnumberswereincreasingmarkedlyatthattime(seeFigure3.1).

Figure3.1NumberofasylumapplicantstotheUnitedKingdom,1996–2005.AdaptedfromTheMigrationObservatoryattheUniversityofOxford(2014).

NASSwasthereforecreatedinordertoimplementthesystemofdispersalawayfromtheSouth-Eastand,inresponsetopoliticalandmediapressure,‘todiscourageabuseofachronicallyoverstretchedsystem’(Nobleetal.,2004,p.50).Figure3.2illustratestheeffectoftheeffortstowardsdispersal:asylumseekerswhowerehousedbyNASSarerepresentedbythewhitebars,whichoccuralmostexclusivelyoutsideGreaterLondon.Itwasmostlyonlythoseasylumseekerswhoforfeitedtheirrighttoaccommodationandreliedon‘subsistenceonly’supportwhowereabletoconcentrateinLondon(representedbytheblackbars).ThekeyfunctionsofNASSincluded:(i)ensuringthatonlythoseeligibleforsupportreceivedit;(ii)contractingwithprivateaccommodationproviderstoprovideasufficientsupplyofsuitableaccommodationforthosewhoneededit;(iii)facilitatingthefinancialsupportofasylumseekers,workinginpartnershipwitharangeofcommunitystakeholders;and(iv)providingemergencyaccommodationwhenrequired.

Figure3.2NationalAsylumSupportService(NASS)supportedasylumseekersbyregion,2004.

AdaptedfromNorthEastConsortiumforAsylumSupportServicesandNorthofEnglandRefugeeService(2004).

By2002NASSwassupporting82,000asylumseekers(Nobleetal.,2004)andthetotalannualcostoftheworkNASScommissionedexceeded£1billion(Nobleetal.,2004).Figure3.3showstheend-to-endprocessthatNASSoversaw.Theflowchartbeginswiththereceiptofawrittenapplicationforasylumsupport,anditwasNASSemployeeswhodecidedwhetherparticularindividualswereeligibleforsupport.

Figure3.3End-to-endNationalAsylumSupportService(NASS)process.AdaptedfromNationalAsylumSupportService(2007).

YetNASSasanorganisation,andconsequentlyitsemployees,werechargedwith

incommensurableobjectives.AsanindependentreportreviewingtheoperationofNASSnotedin2003:

StaffinNASS…havetowrestleconstantlywithaninherentcontradictionintheirrole.Ontheonehandtheyareprovidingawelfaresupportsystemtosomeveryvulnerablepeople.Andatthesametimetheyareworkingwithinaframeworkofdeterrent-basedpoliciesandlegislation…[G]ettingthebalancerightinanyindividualcaseisnoteasy,andthechallengeitpresentstojuniorstaffinparticularshouldnotbeunderestimated

Nobleetal.,2004,p.8

TheconfusionbetweentheimperativestosupportandinvestigateasylumseekerswaspalpableamongstNASSemployees.Inthesummerof2005IconductedresearchattheSouth-WestNASSofficeinPortishead,nearBristol,andwasabletointerviewstaffandaccesstheback-officesofthebuilding2(seeAppendixformethodologicaldetails).Thebulkoftheworkemployeescarriedoutinvolveddeterminingtheeligibilityofcasesforsupport,makingsureeligibleasylumseekersweresupportedbyrespondingtochangesintheircircumstancesandnegotiatingalargenumberofcontractswithavarietyofagenciestoprovideallaspectsofthesupportNASSmadeavailable.Contractshadtobenegotiatedwithhousingmanagementcompanies,voluntarysectororganisations(toprovideemergencyaccommodationandhelpasylumseekerscompletetheapplicationforNASSsupport),andcoachcompanies(totransportasylumseekerstotheirallocatedaccommodation).Commentinguponcontradictionsintheirrolethatranthroughouttheseactivities,oneemployeedescribedthetemptationtode-emphasisethesupportivesideofhiswork.‘WhereNASSareconcerned,’heexplained,

weareresponsibleforsendingoutthemoneyandtheaccommodation,andIthinkthereisanelementofNASSthatseesthatastheendofthesupportbit.Wealsooverseethemonitoring,thechecking,thegatekeepingbitandsometimesIthinkthatthatactuallybecomesmoreimportantthantheactualsupporting3

IntervieweestoldmethatmanyoftheircolleagueshadappliedforjobswithNASSbecausetheyfeltdrawntosupportingasylumseekersinsomecapacity.Indeed,somehadworkedforvoluntaryrefugeesupportagenciesinthepast.Yetoneemployeeinvolvedinhousingmanagementexpressedhismisgivingsaboutthesortofworkhewasexpectedtoperform.‘ItrytobeprofessionalandfairwhereverIcanbe,butit’slikeIamplayingGodwithpeople’slives’,hecomplained.‘I’mpersonallyagainsttheBNP[BritishNationalParty],DailyMail4attitude,butI’moftenputinanawkwardposition.’5Hegavetheexampleofbeingaskedbythepolicetorelocateamanwhowasperceivedtobethecauseofethnictensionandantisocialbehaviourinasmalltowninhisdispersalarea.‘Therewasnoevidence’,herecalled,butanticipationof‘trouble’amongthepolicewasenoughtotransferhimfromhiscommunityintheSouth-WesttoadifferentlocationintheNorthofthecountry.Thetransferwasagainsttheman’swishesbecauseheandhisfamilyhadbuiltupsocialnetworksinthetown.Myintervieweewasleftinnodoubtaboutthepunitiveandpotentiallyracistnatureofthetransfer.‘Theycouldn’tchargethepersonwithanoffence’,heexplained,‘sotheymadeusmovethemtoManchesterinstead.’

AnotheremployeeoutlinedheruneasinessatthewaythesupportivefunctionsofNASShadtomakewayforinvestigativeimperatives.Herroleincludedinvestigationsintoallegationsofdomesticviolenceandtakingaction,wherevernecessary,toprotectasylum-seekingwomen.Butshehadalsorecentlybeenaskedtolookforanysignsofillegalemploymentinthehouseholdsthatshevisited(asylumseekerswereusuallynotallowedtotakepaidemployment).This,inherview,produced‘aserioustrustissueandwomenwillnotcomeforward’.6Tomakemattersworse,hervisitswerealsobeingchannelledawayfromwomenandfamilies.Instead,so-called‘outreach’visitsweretobetargetedatyoungsinglemen,becausethesewere‘theonesmostlikelytobeworkingillegally’.Thefrequencyofvisitstoothertypesofhousehold,includingwomenwithchildrenbutnomalepartner,wereconsequentlyscaledbackbecausethey‘wouldnotbeabletoworkillegallyduetotheirresponsibilities’,despitethefactthattheymightbetheonesinmostneedofsupport.Asaresultofthesystematicreductionintheratioofsupportivetoinvestigativeactivities,sheexpressedherconsternationathavingtobe‘constantlyhardened’intherole.

InsulationFacedwithconfusionandambivalenceamongstitsstaffsurroundingthecontradictionsbetweentheirrolesascarersandtheirinvestigativeresponsibilities,NASSundertookaseriesofstepsthatdisentangleddecisionmakersfromtheirpotentialattachmenttoasylumclaimants.Crucially,thedecisionwasmadenottointroduceNASS-runservicecountersforasylumseekersattheinceptionofNASSin2000.AsthereviewofNASSoperationsin2004noted,‘NASSwassetupasaself-containedoperation…sothatitcouldconcentrateonitsintensiveprocessingandcontractingactivities…Atthetime,IND[ImmigrationandNationalityDirectorate]weretryingtodealwithsignificantcase-workingdifficultiesandtherewasmeritinsettingupNASSinawaythatinsulateditfromthedowndraughtofthoseproblems’(Nobleetal.,2004,p.50).Thismeantthat‘NASSquicklyestablished…anunenviablereputationforadministrativeinefficiencyandbureaucraticinaccessibility’(NationalAssociationofCitizensAdviceBureaux,2002a,p.1).

ApplicationsforNASSsupport,forexample,hadtobemadethroughastandardisedform(seeFigure3.4)ratherthaninperson.The24-pageformconstitutedpartofwhatWinder(2013,p.xi)hascalledthe‘elaboratepaperbarricade’thattheUnitedKingdomandotherdevelopedcountrieshaveconstructedinrecentyearstoregulateandcontrolmigratorymovements.7Itrepresentsathoroughinterrogationthatdwellsindetailuponhighlypersonalaspectsoftheapplicant’scaseandsituation,includingthevalueoftheirlandandwhetheritcanbeliquidatedinordertosupportthem,thevalueoftheirassetssuchasjewellery,andthevalueofelectricalgoodsthattheyownsuchasTVsandDVDs,obviouslycarryingtheimplicationthatthesearetobesoldinordertosupporttheapplicant.Despiteitslengththough,theformobscuresthecomplexityofasylumcases.Itmobilisesadetached,sterileaccountoftheasylumseekersitdescribes,distilling‘facts’fromemotions,abbreviatinglonghistoriesofoftenarduoustravel,andcurtailingaccountsoflossandsufferingtosmallblueboxesonapage.8

Figure3.4GraphicillustratingthestructureandtoneoftheApplicationFormforNASSsupport,basedonpages1and7.AdaptedfromtheNationalAsylumSupportServiceApplicationFormusedbytheHomeOfficein2012.

Partlyasaresultofthedifficultyofnavigatingtheapplicationprocess,areportpublishedbytheNationalAssociationofCitizensAdviceBureaux(2002a)issuedadesperatepleaforNASStoimproveitsaccountability.Thereportprovideddetailsofcountlessglitchesanderrorsthatwouldroutinelyoccurintheprocessofmatchingasylum-seekingfamiliestoaccommodation,deliveringthemsecurelyfromonelocationtoanotherandmakingsurethattheirfinancialsupportreachedthem.Usuallytheproblemsweresimplyproceduralinnaturesuchasvouchersbeingsenttothewrongaddress,financialprovisiontoattendimmigrationhearingsnotarriving,lettersnotbeingsentornotbeingpickedup,orconfusingguidancebeingissuedbyNASS.Theproblemswerecompoundedbybureaucraticincompetence.Atonepoint,forexample,NASSsentoutthousandsofletterstoitsclaimantscontainingtheinstruction‘IfyouhavenotreceivedthisletteryoushouldcontactNASSimmediatelyonthenumberabove’(NationalAssociationofCitizensAdviceBureaux,2002a,p.3).‘OnecanonlyimaginetheconfusionofsuchindividualsonreceivingaletterfromNASS–thegovernmentalbodychargedwithmeetingtheirwelfareneeds–thatconcludeswithth[is]statement’(NationalAssociationofCitizensAdviceBureaux,2002a,p.3).

However,asonevolunteerwithalocalrefugeesupportingcharityinBristolnoted,therewasadeeperissueofaninward-lookingculturethroughoutNASS.WithoutfrontdesksthatasylumseekerscouldvisitinpersonNASS‘appear[ed]tobeabdicatingresponsibilityforthatfacetofacesortingoutofjustthelittleerrorsandthingsthatcreepintothesethings’,sheexplained.‘ImeanwewerebusyenoughbeforeanditseemedasifNASSwerejusthandingonproblemstootheragencies.’9HerconcernsresonatedwiththeconclusionsoftheCitizensAdviceBureauxreport:

theprincipalissuehereisthatNASShasnolocalcounter(or‘drop-in’)services…Thislackoflocalaccesspointshasbeenseriouslycompoundedbya…stakeholderaverseculturewithinNASS[and]apaucityofuptodate,accurateguidanceonhowtocontactNASSorotherwiseresolveproblems.…[G]iveneffectiveaccesstoresponsive,localNASScounteror‘drop-in’services,most…problemscouldberesolvedbyasylumseekersthemselves,withoutoutsideintervention.

NationalAssociationofCitizensAdviceBureaux,2002a,p.4

TheconsequencesoftheaccessibilitydeficitofNASSweresometimesinexcusable,withmothersleftwithoutsufficientmoneytosustainbreastfeeding,andothershavingtoenduredaysofhungerbeforetheirallowancesarrived.Asjustoneexample,NASSintroducedasystemofemergencytokensinFebruary2003foranyclaimantwhosesupporthadbeeninterrupted.Thetokensweretobedeliveredbycourier‘within48hours’(NationalAssociationofCitizensAdviceBureaux,2002b,p.24)ofnotificationoftheinterruptionreachingNASS,andneededtobesignedforbytherecipient.NASSstipulatedthatrecipientsmustremainattheiraddressforthewhole48hoursinordertoreceivethesupport.Unsurprisingly,afterjustafewweeks,

NASSfoundthatnearly50%ofthetokenswereundeliverableatthefirstattempt,because48hours,oftenoverthreedays,istoolongtoexpecthungrypeopletostayindoorswaitingforadeliverythattheysuspectmayneverarrive.ThissortofineptitudebroughtthechargethatthesystemofsupportwasbeingrunfortheconvenienceofNASSandthatNASSwasincapableofempathywithitslargelynon-English-speakingclientgroup(NationalAssociationofCitizensAdviceBureaux,2002a,2002b).

Inresponsetosomeofthesecriticisms,NASSmadehalf-heartedattemptstoimproveaccountability.PhonelineswereintroducedsothatclaimantscouldmakeenquiriesdirectlytoaNASSemployee,andtheregionalofficeswerestrengthenedtoimproveaccountability.Inbothcases,though,theinnovationsactuallydidlittletoimproveaccountabilityandinsomerespectsundermineditfurther.

ThePhonelinesInthecaseofthephonelines,NASSsetupdedicatedtelephonehelplinestotakequeriesaboutitsservices.However,thehelplineswereroundlycriticised.Callersdescribedtheunhelpfultelephonemanner,theexperienceofgivingdetailsaboutproblemsonlytobetoldthattheywouldbecalledbackbysomeoneelseatanunspecifiedtime(andthenneverreceivingthecall),longwaitingtimesbeforeacallwasanswered,andnorecordofpreviouscommunicationheldbyNASS.AttimesthedifficultiesofcontactingNASSdescendedintofarce.CitizensAdvicedescribedthedifficultyofusingfaxestocontactNASS,forexample:

GiventhecontinuingdifficultyincontactingNASSbytelephone,CABadviserscommonlysendurgentletterstoNASSbyfax,usingfaxnumberssetoutintheNASStelephonedirectoryandotherguidancepostedontheHomeOfficeINDwebsite.…[H]owever,NASSmanagers[have]advisedCitizensAdvicethatfaxmachinesatNASSarenotroutinelymonitoredforincomingfaxes,andaskedthatfaxesshouldnotbesenttoNASSunlessthesenderhasfirsttelephonedNASStoconfirm.

CitizensAdvice(2003)10

VolunteerrefugeesupportworkersinBristoldescribedthe‘incredibleproblemstryingtogetthroughtoNASS.Ifsomebodycameinandtheyhadnothadtheirvouchersorwhateverwe’dringandbeonthelineforagesandagesandjustnotgetthroughoryou’dbepassedtoalotofpeople,soyou’dwaitforagesandthenbepassedtoanotherdepartmentandthey’dsay“ohyoushouldhavespokentoanotherdepartment”.’11TheindependentreviewofNASSconcludedthat‘thesystemforhandlingtelephonecallsis…justnotfitforpurpose,andsortingthatouthastobeakeypriority’(Nobleetal.,2004,p.8),

Thetelephonecall-centresarethemaincommunicationsrouteintoNASS.Theyareusedbyasylumseekersandthevoluntarysectoragenciesthathelpthem,totrytosortoutproblemsthatareoftenveryurgent[but]thepresentlevelofperformanceinhandlingandrespondingtotelephonecallsisjustnotacceptable.

Nobleetal.,2004,p.9

Incredibly,theexperienceoftheregionalemployeesthemselvesingettingthroughtotheircolleaguesinthecentralofficeinCroydon,London,wasmuchthesameasthatofexternalvolunteers.Theyoftenhadtorelyuponthesamehelpline,whichresultedinallmannerofproblems.‘Itseemscrazy’,oneemployeetoldme,‘tohaveacentralbodywhenyou’vegotpeopledispersedalloverthecountryandthey’rehavingtotrytogetthroughonthephonelineswhichareengagedmostofthetime…it’smadness.’12Anotheremployeecomplainedthat,

They[meaninghisNASSemployeecolleaguesinCroydon]willnotgiveusthenamesofpeopledealingwithcases,eventotheregions.Theyare20yearsbehind.Theywillputthephonedownonyou.Icalledoneguyonanextension,hegavemeanotherextensionnumberbutwhenhepickeditupitwasclearlythesameguy,andhejustsaidthepersonIwantedwasoutforlunch.13

AnotherintervieweelamentedthehighturnoverofstaffinCroydonwherethecentralNASSteamwerelocated,theirgeneralinexperienceandtheirlackofpersonalaccountability.‘Theythinkthatwe[intheregionaloffices]aretakingworkfromthem,sotheydon’twanttohelpusatall’,hecomplained.‘Theyarearrogantonthephoneandoftenthephonenumbersarewrong.’14Variousauthorshavenotedtheinternalcontradictionsinherenttostates.Painter(2006),forexample,notestheprosaicnatureofstateformationandurgesthat‘ouraccounts…givefullweighttotheheterogeneity,complexityandcontradictorinessof[the]state’(Painter,2006,p.764),andJeffrey(2013)hashighlightedtheneedtodevelopa‘criticalstancethatchallengestheontologyofthestateasacoherentsetofinstitutions’(Jeffrey,2013,p.23).Instudiesofthebureaucraticmanagementofbordercontrol,Heyman(1995)hashighlightedtherelianceoftheUnitedStatesImmigrationandNaturalizationServiceuponthe‘bureaucraticthought-work’(Heyman,1995,p.261)and‘world-views’(Heyman,1995,p.261)ofindividualofficerstomakesenseof,reconcileandpiecetogetheritscontradictorypolicies.AndinherethnographicstudyoftheCanadianresponsetohumansmuggling,behindtheprojectedfacadeofcoherenceandcontrolofthestate,Mountz(2010)describesthepanic,crisesand‘fascinatingsetofpowerstruggleswithinthestate’(Mountz,2010,p.61).

TheexperiencesoftheregionalNASSemployeesbearoutmuchofthisconfusion,contradictionandchaos.‘CommunicationwithCroydonisinfuriating’,onemanagement-levelemployeeexclaimed.‘Theycutyouoff.Peoplerefusetogivetheirnameandoftentheyaretemps.’15TheemployeewithresponsibilityforsupportingvictimsofdomesticviolenceinNASShousinghadasimilarexperience.‘IhavelotsoftroublereachingCroydon’,sherecounted,‘andevenwhenIdon’tgetthroughthephonelinedoesn’tletyouleaveamessage,thenitjustgoesdead.’16Whilemostofthedifficultiesweretraceabletoincompetenceandalackofresources,attimesmiscommunicationwithinNASSwasmorecalculatedthanaccidental.OnemanagerwhohelpedtoorganisedeportationsandremovalsdescribedhertacticofnotinforminghercolleagueswithinNASSoftheplansofherdepartment:

NASSshouldbeinformedwhenremovalsareimminent,butsometimestheyaren’t.Sotherearemeetingsthreeweeksaheadtodetailtheplans,butNASSaren’talwaysinvited.Sometimesthe[privateaccommodation]providersthathavebeencontractedbyNASSarepresent,butnotNASSthemselves.Sotherearesomeveryawkwardmomentsandyoureallyhavetokeepontopofwhoknowswhat.17

ThereasonshegaveforthissortofsecrecywasthatNASSemployeesmightrevealthetimingofthearrestanddeportationattemptswhendealingwith‘clients’.ButthisstrategydidnothingtoalleviatethesenseinwhichNASSemployeesfeltisolatedanddispiritedespeciallyintheregionaloffices.‘IthinkweareabufferbetweencentralCroydonandourclients’,oneworkercomplained,18whileanotherreflectedthat‘NASSisjusttoobig,andtheworkforceisverydemoralised.’19NASSemployeesreportedthat‘there’sageneralperceptionintheofficethatNASSregionalisationisnotworking’,20whilecharitablerefugeesupportgroupemployeesviewedtheNASSregionalworkersasratherimpotent.‘Imeantheyareverygood,theyaregoodcolleaguesofours’,onevolunteerexplained,21

buttheydon’thaveanawfullotofpower.Theycancomeoutandlookatlocalhousingconditionsandthatsortofthingbutifwehavesomebodywhoappliedfor[financialsupport]monthsagoandstillhasn’thadareplythere’snotmuchtheycandoaboutit.WefindthatweoftenfindoutwhatCroydonaredoingbefore[they]do,sotheirhandsareverymuchtied.

Thephonelines,then,achievedatwo-foldisolationofregionalNASSemployees.First,itmeantthatNASSemployeesweredeniedtheopportunitytomeettheasylumclaimantsthattheymadedecisionsabout,andhadtorelyinsteaduponanimpersonalandstandardisedformtoinformtheirdecisions.Andsecond,becausethephonelinewasanimportantwayforregionalNASSemployeestocommunicatewithcentralemployeesinLondon,theysimultaneouslyisolatedregionalfromcentralworkers.

RegionalisationAnotherresponsetothechargeofpooraccountabilityinvolvedstrengtheningtheregionaloffices.Facinganavalancheofcomplaintsabouttheinadequacyofsupport,thedecisionwastakentoregionaliseNASSfurtherbyexpandingtheregionalofficessothattheycouldtakeonsomeoftheworkofcontractinglocalhousingprovidersandliaisingwithstakeholders(Nobleetal.,2004).By2005,thefunctionsofthe12regionalofficesincludedthemanagementofhousingcontracts,makingsureasylumseekershadarrivedsafelyandthattheiraccommodationwasoftherequiredstandard,investigatingcasesofillegalworkingbyNASS-supportedapplicants,investigatingantisocialbehavioureitherexperiencedorperpetratedbyasylumseekers,andliaisingwithregionalstakeholdersincludinglocalauthorities,localpoliceforcesandthelocalvoluntarysector.AccordingtotheNASSwebsite,theideabehindthecomprehensiveregionalisationofNASSwastoincreasetheService’sproximitytolocalactorsandNASSusers.‘ByenhancingitsrepresentationintheRegions,NASSwillbeclosertoitspartners,stakeholders,anditscustomersandconsequentlywillbeabletoprovidea

stronger,moretargetedandeffectiveservice’,theImmigrationandNationalityDirectorate(2005)boasted.

YetmyresearchattheSouth-WestNASSofficeindicatedthat,ifanything,theregionalisationdriveachievedtheoppositeeffect.TheSouth-WestregionalofficewaslocatedinPortishead,atownwithapopulationofaround18,000(seeFigure3.5).Portisheadisaseasideresortandaretirementtown.Oneresidentdescribeditinthefollowingterms:

ThehousingisnotcheapandIwouldsayitispredominantlymiddleclass[and]whiteaswell.Sothat’stheprincipalmake-upofthepopulationhere.AlthoughtherehasbeenincreasingdiversityofpopulationinPortishead,thatdiversityIwouldsayisstillwhiteEuropean.22

Anothercharacteriseditashaving‘quitealargeConservativefaction…whohaven’treallybeencomfortablewithanychangesinthetown.’23Thetownhasexpensivehousingandasaresultsuffersfromamissinggenerationof20-and30-something-year-oldswhotendtohavetolocateinnearbyBristolwherethehousingismoreaffordable.Intermsofthedemographicmake-upofPortisheadinrelationtoBristolthereareconsequentlysomestarkdissimilarities.‘Althoughwe’reonlytenmilesfromthecentreofBristol,’onerespondentexplained,24‘inacrossculturalsensewe’reonadifferentplanet,becausePortisheadismainlymonocultural.’

Figure3.5MapofPortisheadandBristol.Source:ExeterUniversityGeographyDepartmentMapandPrintRoom.PopulationfigurescorrectJuly2014.

LikemanyBritishseasideresorts,Portisheadisaplacethatisdeeplyresistanttooutsideinfluences(seeBurdsey,2013,forthegeneralcase).Portisheaddoesnotgetmuchnationalnewscoverage,butdidmaketheheadlinesinApril2004duetoitsstaunchoppositiontothelocationofanasylumscreeningcentrenearto,andinadditionto,theexistingNASSoffice.Theproposalwouldhaveseenasylumseekersvisitingthetowninordertoregistertheirdetails,providefingerprintsandbeissuedwithregistrationcards.WhenapublicmeetingwascalledinPortisheadtodiscusstheproposals,however,oppositionwassostaunchthatitattractednationalattention.‘Thehostility…wastangible.…Anyattempttospeakinfavourofthecentrewasshouteddown’,reportedTheObserver(Bright,2004),anationalnewspaper.Theobjectionscentredaroundanexclusivehousingestate,TheVale:

TheValeestateisneatandbright,thelocationofmanyadreamhome.Butasyousnakethroughitstraffic-calmedroadsandcul-de-sacs,youglimpseamodestofficeblockonitsfringe.ThatiswheretheImmigrationServicewantstobringasylumseekers.Theasylumseekerswon’tbestayinginthearea.TheywillbecomingintoPortisheadforafewhoursandthengoingbacktotheirtemporaryhomeselsewhereintheSouthWest.Butmanylocalpeoplearefurious,fearingwhatthearrivalof50strangersaweekwillmean.

BBCNews,‘HowPortisheadDividedOverAsylum’,21April2004.Reporter:DominicCasciani

Thisfearseemedtoknownobounds.Onechurchleaderwhoattendedthepublicmeetingaboutthecentredetailedthesortofobjectionsthatwereraised.‘Alltheclassicstereotypeswerementioned’,herecalled,25‘mydaughter’sgoingtoberapedastheywalkfromthebustothecentre,they’regoingtobestealingfrommygarageandmyhouse,they’regoingtobedoingathousandandoneotherthings’.Anotherattendeedescribeda‘chapwhogotup[atthemeeting]andsaidthathelivedinthehousingareafairlyclosetotheproposedcentre,hehadyoungchildrenwholiketoplayoutinthestreetandifasylumseekersweretocometothecentretheywouldn’tbeabletodothatbecausetheywouldbeindanger’.26

Thecentreitselfwastobelocatedonly250yardsfromthenearestbusstopbringingasylumseekervisitorsfromBristol.Thiswasnotcloseenoughfortheopponentsofthecentre,however,whoformallyopposedtheplanningapplicationonthegroundsofinadequatetransportlinks.‘Itseemedanawfulthingtohavetosay,thatthey’renotwelcometowalkdownourpavement’,recalledoneresidentwhosawnoreasontoobjecttotheplans,‘italmostbroughtbackimagesofSouthAfrica,youknow?Whitesandnon-whitesandIjustfeltverysaddenedbythat.’27Inresponsetotheobjections,anewbusstoponlyafewmetresfromthecentrewaserected.TheHomeOfficeissuedastatementaimedtoquellthefearsoflocalresidentsbyreassuringthemthattherewouldbenomorethan50visitorsaweek,thatthecentrewouldnotbeopenattheweekendsorintotheeveningsandthattherewouldbenowherefortheasylumseekerstostayforanylengthoftime(althoughtherewouldbeasmallindoorwaitingareasothattheywouldnothavetowaitonthestreetinanunsightlyway).Yettheconcernspersisted.AConservativecounsellorremarkedtothepressthat:‘IrealisethatthesubjectofasylumisemotiveandIpersonallyabhorbigotry.Butifvisitorstothiscentreareallowedtowalkthroughtheestate,thatisjustnoton’(Casciani,2004).‘PeoplelivingatTheValeareconcerned’,thesameCouncillorcontinued,‘becausetheyhaveboughttheirnewhomesnotexpectingthatasylum-seekerswillbewalkingaroundthem.Itisthebiggestpurchaseoftheirlivesandtheyareworriedandaggrieved’(Thompson,2004).Anotherwomanexpressedhermisgivingstoalocalreporter:‘I’mnotagainstthemcominghereassuch.Buttheyshouldnotbepermittedtowanderaroundthecountrywithoutsomekindofregulation’(Casciani,2004).TheObserverandtheHomeOffice–thelatternotknownforitsliberalviews–wereastonishedbytherobustnessoftheoppositioninthetown.

HomeOfficeofficialshavebeentakenbysurprisebythestrengthoffeelinginPortishead.Previouscampaigns[againstaccommodationcentreselsewhereinEngland]havecentredongovernmentplanstobuildlargeresidentialcentresforasylumseekersinruralareaswherelocalconcernsinvolvedaninfluxoflargenumbersofoutsiders.…ButnotasinglerefugeeisgoingtoliveinPortishead.

Bright,2004

Eventuallytheofficewasbuilt,althoughnotbeforethegovernmentatthetimewasforcedtooverridethefindingsoftheirownconsultationwithlocalresidents(originallyintendedtoassuageconcerns)inordertobuildthecentre.ForitsparttheNASSofficecontinuedtobelocatedinthesameofficeblockastheproposedcentrethroughoutthefurore.WhattheepisodemadeclearisthatgiventhepublicfeelingtowardsasylumseekersinPortishead,expandingtheNASSofficeattheexpenseofboththelocalcouncilofficesinBristolbeforethecreationofNASS,andthecentralNASSofficesinCroydoninthefewyearsfollowingitscreation,canhardlybeseentobemovingNASSemployeesclosertotheir‘customers’.AsoneemployeeattheNASSofficeremarked,‘decentralisationisawaytoseparateresponsibilityfromauthority.Thecentreiscuttingbudgetsandmakingchangeswithouthavingtofaceresponsibilityforthebacklash.’28Indeed,duringtheintensepublicdebateaboutthesitingofthescreeningcentre,NASSstaffthemselvesfaced‘adegreeofangerdirectedagainstthem’,including‘frostylooksandoffishness’.29Thesearenottheactionsofacommunitythatwaslikelytogenerateopportunitiesfordecisionmakerstobecome‘closer’toasylumclaimants,asperthestatedaimsoftheregionalisationdrive.Onthecontrary,Portisheadshoweditselftobeaggressivelywhiteandexclusive.

Whatregionalisationinfactachieved,wastherelocationofdecisionmakingtositesthatwereculturallymoredistantfromasylumseekersthaneitherthedispersalareasthemselvesortheNASScentralofficesinCroydon.InthiswayNASSnurturedthesystematicinsulationofemployeesfromcontactwiththeirsubjects,inthiscasebylocatingtheminwhite,monoculturallocations‘onadifferentplanet’fromthoselivingintheno-choiceNASShousingitself.Ifaccommodationcentreshadfailedtoremoveasylumseekersfromthedailylivesofdecisionmakersthenthephonelines,thelackoffrontdeskfunctions,theform-basedpaperapplicationsandtheduplicitousregionalisationprocesssucceededinremovingdecisionmakersfrommigrants’everydaylivesinstead.

BufferingTheroleofthird-sectororganisationsinresistingorfacilitatingthisprocesswascontestedthroughoutthisperiod.Third-sectorgroupsoperatingintheasylumsupportsectorareheterogeneoustosaytheleast,andgeneralisationsaredifficult.Theyrangefromsmall,issue-specific,informalorganisationstolargecharities,andcanberefugee-ledornot,motivatedbydifferentconcernsanddisplayingverydifferentattitudestowardsworkingalongsidegovernmentagencies(Gilletal.,2012).ButakeyelementoftheinceptionofNASSwasthecontractingofcharitableagenciestoprovide‘one-stop’adviceservicesineachofthemain

regionsoftheUnitedKingdom.AlthoughNASSlackedfront-deskfunctionsofitsown,theseagenciesweretobethefaceofthedispersalsystem.InthefirsttwoyearsofNASS’soperations,sixorganisations(theRefugeeCouncil,MigrantHelpline,RefugeeActionandtheRefugeeArrivalsProjectinEngland,theWelshRefugeeCouncilinWales,andtheScottishRefugeeCouncilinScotland)receivedgrantstotalling£34millionfromtheHomeOfficetoprovidesignpostingservicesforasylumseekers,suchashelpwiththeapplicationprocess,helpsortingouttheirclaimsandhelpfindingemergencyaccommodationwhiletheywaitedforNASStomakedecisions.

Concernswereraisedthatcharitieswereallowingthemselvestobe‘co-opted’(Zetteretal.,2005,p.173)byacceptingthesecontracts,whichcamewithstipulationssuchasprohibitingthemfromsupportingrefusedasylumseekers.‘Whilstpubliclydenouncingthescheme’,Hynes(2009,p.102)writes,‘therewasnosustainedcampaignagainstdispersalfromthevoluntarysector,whichultimatelyundertookafrontlineroleinthelocallevelimplementationofdispersal.’BriskmanandCemlyn(2005,p.179)conductedinterviewswithvoluntaryagencyworkersintheearly2000sandconcludedthatwhilemany‘[i]ndividualworkers,statutoryandvoluntary,seektomakeadifference’theyfrequentlybecame‘enmeshedinmanaginganunsatisfactorysituation[inwhich]provisionisunder-resourcedanduncoordinated,leavingbasicneedsunmet’(BriskmanandCemlyn,2005,p.179).

ConcernsintheSouth-Westresonatedcloselywiththesecriticisms.RefugeeActionwasthecharitycontractedtoprovidesignpostingservicesbyNASSinBristol,andwhileoneoftheirmanagerscouldseesomelogicinthesystemofcontractsthatNASShaddesigned,theywereinnodoubtaboutthewaythecontractsobfuscatedNASS’saccountability.Sheexplainedthat:

WhenNASSwassetupin2000theyrealisedthattheHomeOfficedon’thaveabackgroundinadvice,givinginformationandsupport,soIthinktheyrecognisedthatexistingvoluntaryagenciesthathadalongtrackhistoryofworkingwithasylumseekerswereinthebestplaceiftheyweregoingtomakedispersalhappen.

NG:Okay,soyoudon’tfeelasiftheyhidebehindyoutosomeextent?

Theydo,yes,withoutadoubt,withoutadoubt.Imeantheydohaveregionalteams,thereisaregionalteambutitisbasedoutinPortishead!30

VolunteersinBristolwereconcernedthatRefugeeAction,whichhadplayedaleadingroleincritiquinglocalpolicyinthepast,wasneuteredbythecontractingarrangements.Oneanti-deportationcampaigngrouporganiserpointedoutthatRefugeeAction‘can’tcampaignlikeus:wedon’thaveanystringsattachedbecausewedon’ttakemoneyfromanybody.’31Incontrast,RefugeeActionfaced

apotentialtensionbecauseNASSoftheHomeOfficewillfeel‘wellhangonwe’refundingyou,youcan’tthenturnroundandcriticizeus’,orRefugeeActionwillfeel‘wellwecan’tbetoooutspokenaboutgovernmentpolicybecausewe’rewaitingforthechequetocomenextweekandifthatchequedoesn’tcomewecan’tpaytherent’.32

ThecontractingarrangementsalsoreducedNASS’sengagementwithorganisationsoperating

intheasylumsupportsectorandasylumseekersthemselves.TheBristolRefugeeInter-AgencyForum(BRIAF)wouldmeetbimonthlyincentralBristoltodiscussthechallengesfacingrefugeesandasylumseekersinthecity.TheForumwasrunbytherefugeecommunityandwaswellattended,withrepresentativesfromBristolCityCouncil,theSouth-WestRegionalGovernmentOffices,Bristol’spoliceforce,RefugeeActionandarangeofadvocacyorganisationsandrepresentativesoftheasylum-seekingandrefugeecommunitiesinthecity.

YetNASS’srepresentationontheForumbecameincreasinglysporadicfrom2002onwards.WhenIinterviewedoneoftheconvenorsoftheForum,heoutlinedthedifficultieshefacedingettingNASSalongtothemeetings:

Theyusedtobringstatisticstoshowhowmanyrefugeesthereare,arethereanyasylumseekers,whataretheissues,howcanweovercomethem.Sotheywereanaccountablebody.However,overthelastyearandahalforsoI’venoticedthatNASShasbeenreallynotthatwellrepresentedinBRIAF.Theyweren’tpresenttwomeetingsagobutNASShasn’tbeenexactlyeffectiverecentlyinanycase.They’relesseagertoengagewithBRIAF,goingtoBRIAFisnotapriority.33

NASS’slackofattendanceatBRIAFdeniedthemtheopportunitytoengagewiththeasylum-seekingcommunitiestheywereseekingtosupportintheSouth-West.BynotattendingBRIAF,employeesremainedinsulatedfromtheconcernsofasylumseekersinthecity.WhiletherefugeecommunityclearlymissedoutontheinformationthatNASSusedtoprovide,NASSitselfalsomissedtheopportunitytoengagewithasylumseekersandbeaccountabletothem.

OneNASSmanagerjustifiedherlackofattendanceandthatofherteambydescribingboththelackofformalismoftheBRIAFmeetingsandthefactthatRefugeeActionwouldalertthemtoanythingsignificantthatwasdiscussedinanycase.‘VerylittlecomesfromBRIAF’,shecomplained.‘Itneedsmorecohesion,aregularreportingstructureandatighterremitaboutwhatit’stherefor;itneedsmorecontinuity.’34InresponsetothechargeoflackofcohesiontheconvenorofBRIAFdefendedtherelativelyinformalstructureoftheForum,however:‘IfBRIAFwastobecomeaformalisedagencywithaconstitutionandafixedmembershipthen[attendees]wouldlosetheirfreedomtocomeandcriticisewhattheirdepartmentisdoing’,heargued.35Nevertheless,thiswasenoughfortheNASSmanagertodecidethatitwasnotworthattendinginpersonorsendingoneofherteam.‘Inanycase’,sheremarked,‘wewillfindoutwhatisgoingonfromourpartners[meaningRefugeeAction].’36

InthiswayRefugeeActionriskedbufferingNASSemployeesbyfieldingtheworstconsequencesofthedecisionsNASSofficialstookduringthisperiodandbyactingasaproxyfortheirinvolvementinthelocalrefugeeandasylumsupportcommunity.JohnLachs(1981,p.12)writesthatthe‘mostseriousconsequenceofmediatedactionisthepsychicdistanceitintroducesbetweenhumanbeingsandtheiractions.Wequicklylosesightof…thelongrangeeffectsofactions[and]howitfeelstocausewhatwecondone’.ThepositioningofcharitieslikeRefugeeActionexpresslybetweenNASSemployeesandtheasylumseekersandasylumsupportcommunitytheyaffectedmadethecharitiesintomediatinginstitutionsandopenedthedoortoNASSemployees’indifferencetowards,andignoranceof,theconsequencesoftheir

decisions.

CompetitionThestagewasnowsetfortheintroductionoftechniquesthatreducedasylumseekerstomereentriesonspreadsheetsandcomponentfiguresinoveralltotalsandtrends.AdocumentwaspublishedbytheHomeOfficeinSeptember2004entitled‘ReviewofResourcingandManagementofImmigrationEnforcement’(HomeOffice,2004),whichexaminedindetailthemostefficientandcost-effectivemeansofremovingfailedasylumseekersandothersrefusedpermissiontoremainintheUnitedKingdom.Theobjectivesofthereportweretomakerecommendationsinordertomaximisethetotalnumberofremovalspermemberofstaffinvolvedinenforcement,andtominimisethetotalcostperremovalaspartofabroaderdrivetowardstheexpansionofdeportationintheUnitedKingdom(seeGibney,2008,foradiscussionofthedeportationinitiativesundertakenatthistime).Amongitsrecommendationswereimproved‘performancemanagement,prioritysettingandtasking’(HomeOffice,2004,p.3),‘greatereffectivenessandefficiency’(HomeOffice,2004,p.3)and‘moreflexibledeploymentofresources’(HomeOffice,2004,p.3).ManagersacrosstheINDandNASSwereencouragedto‘rigorouslytargettheiractivitiestowardsthemostproductiveoperationalwork’(HomeOffice,2004,p.5)and‘collectmanagementinformationonaregularandsystematicbasiswhichenablesthemtomeasureinputsagainstoutputs’(HomeOffice,2004,p.5).

Partofthisoverhaulinvolvedexplicitlytargeting‘failedasylumseekerswhoarecostlytosupport(e.g.families)’(HomeOffice,2004,p.47).Asylumseekerswhovisitreportingcentres37werealsotobetargeted,because‘asylumseekerswhoroutinelyreporttoReportingCentresduringallorpartoftheasylumprocessmaydevelopapatternofcompliantbehaviour’whereas‘anarrest“inthefield”ofanindividualFAS[FailedAsylumSeeker]…islikelytobeaboutfourtimesasexpensiveasdetainingafailedasylumseekerwhentheyreport’(HomeOffice,2004,p.22).Ineffect,targetingofthissortensuredthatthemostvulnerableandobligingasylumseekers,whohonourthedemandingscheduleofcheck-insandmeetings,weretheonesmostexposedtothethreatofremovalbecausetheywereexpectedtoofferleastresistanceandthereforebecheapesttodeport.

NASSwasdirectlyimplicatedinthenewproposals,notleastinplanstoremovefamiliesandchildren,whichwereseenasanunderexploitedwaytoincreasedeportationsandmeettargets.‘Wenotethatoperationalactivityrelatedtofamilyremovalsisrelativelylow’(HomeOffice,2004,p.25)thereportread.‘WerecommendthattheImmigrationServiceshouldexamineinconjunctionwithNASShowtheycanincreasethenumbersofsuccessfulfamilyoperationsdespitetheinherentdifficulties’(HomeOffice,2004,p.25).ThereportalsointroducedacompetitivelogicacrosstheregionaljurisdictionsoftheINDandofNASS.‘TheuseofReportingCentrestofacilitateremovalsismoreeffectiveinLondonthanintheregions’,thereportnotedforexample.‘IfallReportingCentresachievedthecurrentLondonaverageforremovalsperreportingeventtherewouldbeanoverallincreaseinReportingCentreremovalsof20%’(HomeOffice,2004,p.21).

Thislogicofcomparisonandcompetitionamongtheinsulatedandbufferedgroup,accordingtosuchabstractmetricsas‘removalsperreportingevent’,‘costperremoval’and‘detectionsperpackageactioned’(HomeOffice,2004,p.49)isakeyinnovationthatreliesuponthemoralremotenessoffunctionaries.Foreachoffice,NASSintroduceda‘scorecard’indicatingperformanceagainstthetop40performancetargets,asagreedbytheseniormanagementteam,and‘dashboards’containingdetaileddataforeach‘businessarea’thatseniormanagementcouldread‘ataglance’incomparisontootherregionaloffices.

SomeofthekeymetricsthatofficeswereencouragedtocompeteoverwerewidelypublicisedamongNASSemployees.Forexample,thereceptionareaandofficenoticeboardattheSouth-WestofficeweredominatedbycorrespondencefromNASSheadquartersinCroydonthatemphasisedtheimperativetoreducethebacklogofoutstandingclaimsforsupportandcelebratedtheincreasingnumberof‘fraudulent’claimantsdetectedbothbytheINDandbyNASSduringtheprocessingofrequestsforsupport.Oneofthepiecesofcorrespondenceondisplaywasa‘RegionalisationNewsletter’informingemployeesattheregionalofficesofNASS’sprogressinimplementingthedrivetowardsregionalisation.Figure3.6isanadaptedextractfromthisnewsletter.

Figure3.6ExtractfromtheRegionalisationNewsletteroftheNationalAsylumSupportService(NASS).

Source:Author’sfigureadaptedfromtheNationalAsylumSupportServiceRegionalisationProjectNewsletter,August2005issue,p.4.

TheextractcomparestheaveragetimetakentodecideuponaclaimforsupportreceivedbyNASSinthevariousplacesthathostregionalNASSoffices.Theofficeswereunderextremetimeconstraintstomeetthetargettimesfordeterminingcasesforsupport.Thetimetakentodecideuponthelevelofsupportanasylumseekerisentitledtowasstrictlymonitored,withastandardtargetof55minutesandafast-tracktargetof39minutes,38bearinginmindthattheformsareeach24pageslong.Regionalisationintroducedahighdegreeofcompetitionbetweenregionalofficesonthismetric.TheLeedsoffice,forexample,receivedpraiseinthenewsletterforbeingthefastestatdeterminingcases,completingtheworkinlessthanhalfthetimeallocatedforstandardcases,whereastheManchesterofficewashumiliatedbecauseitwasmissingbothofthelistedtargets.

Thescriptingofasylumseekers’casesforwelfaresupportinnumericandtime-sensitivewayscreatesanartificialinformationalenvironmentwithinwhichdecisionmakersareunderpressuretoreachconclusionsquickly.AsylumseekersarerepresentedtoNASSemployeesinsimplistic,sanitisedwaysthroughthisprocess.Thedistillationofadecisionregardinganasylumseeker’sclaimforsupportintoaminute-and-secondcountviolentlyabstractsfromthepersonalcircumstancesthatunderwriteeachclaimandthreatenstoallowthesubjectivity,complexityandcase-specificityofthepracticeofdeterminingcasesforwelfaresupporttobeoverlooked.

’FindYourLocalAsylumSupportTeam’39

TheexclusivityandremotenessofthePortisheadNASSofficewasnotanisolatedcase.ThereputationNASSaccruedthroughtheearly2000sforbureaucraticinaccessibilityeventuallyledtoitsformalclosurein2006anditsreplacementwithso-calledRegionalAsylumTeams(RATs).Nevertheless,‘thecentralfeaturesofNASS–compulsorydispersaltoslumhousingandsub-subsistencesupport–remaineduntouched,survivingtheabolitionofNASSasaseparateagency’(Webber,2012,p.96).Sincethen,despitenumerousrestructures,thedispersalofasylumseekershascontinuedwhileboth‘[t]helegislationinrespectofeligibilityforasylumsupport,andthecategoriesofsupportavailable,hasnotchanged’(Hansard,28January2013).Indeed,theemphasisonRATssincethemid-2000shasincreasedthedistanceofimmigrationdecisionmakersfromtheirsubjectsandsetthemintoevenfiercercompetitionwitheachotheroverabstractmetrics.InthissectionIdemonstratethattheexclusivityofthePortisheadNASSofficewasnotanisolatedexample,andthatthecreationofRATsservedtoincreasethisexclusivityevenfurther.

Therewere12NASSofficescreatedintheearly2000s,eachofwhichshiftedtheworkofdecidingcasesforsupportawayfromcitycouncils,situatingback-officeasylumworkinmoreexclusive,whiterlocationsnotjustinPortishead–wheretheofficewaslocatedinapostcodethatis95.1%white40–butaroundtheUnitedKingdom.InCardiff,forexample,workwasrelocatedfromanareathatwas66.5%whiteandhadapopulationdensity10%higherthanthenationalaverage(thathousedthecounciloffices)toonethatwas77%whiteandhadapopulationdensityofjusthalfthenationalaverage.InGlasgowandManchesterworkwasalso

relocatedtoareasoflowerpopulationdensity,andinManchester,wherethenewNASSofficewasneartotheairport,thisalsomeantmovingfromanareawithunemploymentthatwas9%higherthanthenationalaveragetoonewithunemploymentlevelsofjusttwo-thirdsofthenationalaverage.Thecensusdescribesthefirstareaas‘typicallywhiteormixedrace’andthesecondassimply‘typicallywhite’.

LiverpoollostitsasylumsupportcaseworktothisnewManchesteroffice.TheshiftfromLiverpooltoManchesterrelocatedtheworkofdecidingclaimsforsupporttoanareanearly2000placesbetteroffontheindexofmultipledeprivation(acompositescaleofdeprivationofaround32,000placesintotal41)andfromanareathatis70.2%whitetoonethatis79.8%white.AsimilarpictureemergesinthecasesoftheBirmingham,Bradford,HullandNottinghamNASSoffices.Ineachcaseworkwasrelocatedtoareasoflowerpopulationdensityandfromareaswithhigherunemploymentratesthanthenationalaveragetoareaswithlowerratesthanaverage.Eachmovealsoinvolvedrelocationtoanareathatwassubstantiallybetteroffintermsoftheindexofmultipledeprivation(by7465,8408,8502and17,577placesrespectively)aswellastowhiterareas.InthecaseofBirmingham,forexample,themoveentailedrelocationfromanareathatis51.9%whitetoonethatis93.8%white,andtheBradfordmoveentailedrelocationfromanareathatis21.1%whitetoonethatis72.1%white.SimilarlyinthecaseofHullwhitenessoftheareasurroundingtheofficeincreasedfrom51.0%to72.1%,andintheNottinghamcasefrom28.5%to93.9%.

InNewcastletheworkwasshiftedfromanareathatis53.8%whitetoonethatis69.3%white,andinLeedstheofficewasrelocatedfromanareadescribedbycheckmyarea.com(awebsiteforhousebuyersandlocalresidents)as‘singlesandcouplesinsmallterracedproperties’to‘executivehouseholdsinsuburbanterracesandsemi-detachedhouses’.TheLeedsmovealsoinvolvedshiftingtoanareawithlowerpopulationdensityandfromanareathatis45.7%whitetoonethatis72.1%white.

OneoffewexceptionswastheabandonmentoftheworkofdeterminingcasesforasylumsupportinCoventry,whichshiftedworkfromCoventrytotheNASSofficeinPeterborough,whichhadhigherpopulationdensityandunemploymentlevels(althoughstillhigherpercentagewhitenessof55%incomparisonto31.5%attheCoventryCouncilHouse).WhentheNASSofficeswerereplacedbyRATs,however,theworkfromthePeterboroughofficewasshiftedtoSolihull,andtoanareadescribedasbeingpopulatedby‘affluent,maturefamiliesandcouplesinlargeexclusivedetachedhomes’bycheckmyarea.com.AttheSolihullofficepopulationdensityisjust27%ofthenationalaverage,unemploymentjust44%ofaverageandpercentagewhiteness82.9%.TheshiftfromPeterboroughtoSolihullentailedamovetoanarea23,247placesbetteroffonthemultipledeprivationindex,therebymorethancancellingoutthereductioninexclusivityassociatedwiththecreationoftheNASSPeterboroughoffice.

ThenewRAToffices,createdinthemid-2000s,haveagreaterhinterlandthaneitherthecitycouncilsortheNASSofficeshad.OnlysixofficesnowservetheentireUnitedKingdom,includingtwointernationaloffices(‘WalesandtheSouthWest’and‘ScotlandandNorthernIreland’).WhentheRATswerecreated,officesremainedinCardiff,Glasgow,Manchester,Solihull,LondonandNewcastle,butdisappearedfromLeeds,CastleDoningtonintheEast

Midlands,PeterboroughandPortishead.Forthoseareasthatlostanoffice,thephysicalremotenessofregionalofficesfromtheperipheriesoftheircatchmentsisanobviousconsequenceofthereorganisation.TheworkthatusedtobecarriedoutinPortishead,forexample,isnowcarriedoutinCardiffinWales,morethan120milesmoredistantfromBristolcitycentrethanPortishead.ThisWelshofficealsoservesPlymouth,whichis151milesaway.Whatismore,thelossoftheseofficesentailedfurtherexclusivenessandsocialremoteness,continuingthetendencythatwasestablishedwhentheregionalNASSofficeswerecreated.TheManchesteroffice,forexample,whichnowservestheentireNorth-West,isinanareaofpopulationdensitylowerthanthatoftheformerLeedsNASSoffice.SimilarlytheSolihullofficethattookovertheworkoftheCastleDoningtonofficehascomparablepopulationdensity,lowerunemploymentandanindexofmultipledeprivationrankover6000placesbetteroffthantheareatheCastleDoningtonofficewasin.

Overall,thecreationofNASSintheearly2000sandthecreationofRATsinthemid-2000sensuredthephysicalandsocialremotenessofdecisionmakersfromtheirsubjects.Doubtless,HomeOfficemanagerswouldarguethatthereisnoneedforfacetoface,across-the-counter,contactbetweendecisionmakersandasylumseekers.TheymightalsopointtothedwindlingnumberofasylumclaimstotheUnitedKingdom(Figure3.1),whichnecessitatesfewerofficestodealwiththepaperworkassociatedwithclaims,inordertojustifythegreaterhinterlandofoffices.Butthisdoesnothingtoaccountforthesteadilyincreasingsocialandracialremotenessofofficesandexclusivityofofficelocations,which,whetherintentionalornot,entailsthebufferingandinsulationofdecisionmakersandpreparesthewayforadiaphoriccompetitionbetweenthemoverabstractmetrics.

ConclusionInresponsetoNikolasRose’squestionof‘how[are]…bureaucratsandcivilservantstobegoverned?’(Rose,1999,p.149),immigrationsectoremployees’systematicestrangementfromtheirsubjectsthroughprocessesofinsulation,bufferingandthenurturingofcompetitionbetweenthem,constitutesanimportantpartoftheanswer.Throughthesespatialinnovations,NASSemployeesintheearly2000swerelicensedtotreatasylumseekersasiftheydidnotraisequestionsofmoralconcern.Moralconundrumsandthemorallyrepugnantconsequencesofmovingasylumseekersatshortnoticeunderthethreatofdestitution,housingthemininappropriateconditions,failingtoprovidesufficientfinancialsupportforthemandallowingterrifyingremovalattemptstobefallthemweresimplynotallowedtoconfronttheorchestratorsoreventheperpetratorsofthesystem,whowereinsteadallowedtoconcentrateonmaximisinghighlyabstractedmetricsthatboreverylittleresemblancetotheactionsthemselves.Bauman(1989,p.215)describeshow‘Stretchingthedistancebetweenactionanditsconsequencebeyondthereachofmoralimpulse[and]dissembling…humanobjectsofactionintoaggregatesoffunctionallyspecifictraits,heldseparatesothattheoccasionforre-assemblingthefacedoesnotarise’isthesurestwaytoensurethat‘actioncanbefreefrommoralevaluation’(Bauman,1989,p.215).ThisprocessinthecaseofNASSultimatelyfellmostheavilyuponfamilies,vulnerableasylumseekersandthemostobliging,becauseitis

thesethatofferedthefastestandcheapestwaytomeetdeportationtargets.

Theseobservationsallowustoenrichourunderstandingofhowmoraldistancingworksthroughabureaucracy.Notonlyaresubjectsdistancedfromdecisionmakers,butdecisionmakersarealsodistancedfromsubjects.InbothChapterTwoandinthischapter,however,Ihavegenerallyfocusedonliteralformsofdistancingthatseparatedecisionmakersandsubjects.Astheoristsofmoraldistancehaveshown,thisliteralseparationisconnectedtomoraldistance,whichisaparticulartypeofmoralestrangement.InthecaseofNASSthereisaclearcorrelationbetweenphysicaldistanceandmoraldistance,becauseitwasthroughtheprocessofphysicallysegregatingdecisionmakersfromtheeverydaylifeofasylumseekersthatmoralestrangementandindifferencewasachieved.Inthenextchapter,however,Iwillexamineadifferentsituationinwhichmoralestrangementoccursdespitephysicalcloseness.Asitturnsout,thetendencyofbureaucraticformstocreateindifferenceamongdecisionmakersisbynomeanscancelledoutbyphysicalclosenessbetweendecisionmakersandsubjects.Moraldistance,inotherwords,isonlyonemechanismthroughwhichestrangementandindifferencearenurtured.

Notes1Interviewwithimmigrationsolicitor,Bristol,3November2005.

2AlthoughtheintervieweesattheNASSofficemostlyrefusedtoberecorded,quotesarebaseduponscratchnotesmadeduringtheinterviewandwrittenupintoafullaccountshortlyaftertheinterviewsfinished.

3InterviewwithNASSemployee,5May2006.

4TheBritishNationalParty(BNP)isanationalistpoliticalparty.TheDailyMailnewspaperpublishedvariousexplicitlyanti-asylumstoriesduringthe2000s,totheextentthattheBNPandtheDailyMailbecameby-wordsforananti-immigrantperspectiveamongrefugeesupportworkersandactivistsduringthemid-2000s.

5InterviewwithNASSemployee,5May2006.

6InterviewwithNASSemployee,May2005.

7MatthewHull(2012)hasdiscussedtheissueofthecentralityofpapertomoderngovernments,whileJonathonDarling(2014)hasexaminedtheimportanceoflettersinasylumseekers’relationshipswiththeHomeOffice.

8SeeGill(2014)forafullerdiscussion.

9Interviewwithvolunteercoordinator,Bristol,June2006.

10ThisquotationistakenfromtheMemorandumSubmittedbyCitizensAdvicetotheHouseofCommonsHomeAffairsSelectCommitteewhoannouncedaninquiryintoasylum

applicationson25February2003.

11Interviewwithvolunteer,Bristol,7November2005.

12Interviewwithlocalgovernmentemployee,Gloucester,20June2006.

13InterviewwithNASSemployee,5May2006.

14InterviewwithNASSemployee,May2006.

15InterviewwithNASSemployee,June2006.

16InterviewwithNASSemployee,May2006.

17InterviewwithNASSemployee,Portishead,June2006.

18InterviewwithNASSemployee,Portishead,May2006.

19InterviewwithNASSemployee,Portishead,June2006.

20InterviewwithNASSemployee,Portishead,May2006.

21Interviewwithcharityworker,Bristol,June2006.

22InterviewwithresidentofPortishead,7June2006.

23InterviewwithchurchleaderandresidentofPortishead,June2006.

24InterviewwithresidentofPortishead,7June2006.

25InterviewwithchurchleaderandresidentofPortishead,June2006.

26InterviewwithresidentofPortishead,June2006.

27InterviewwithresidentofPortishead,June2006.

28InterviewwithNASSemployee,Portishead,May2006.

29InterviewwithNASSemployee,Portishead,June2006.

30Interviewwithcharityworker,Bristol,June2006.

31Interviewwithactivist,Bristol,13November2005.

32Interviewwithlocalgovernmentemployee,Gloucester,20June2006.

33Interviewwithvolunteerrefugeesectorco-ordinator,Bristol,17Mayand7June2006.

34InterviewwithNASSemployee,Portishead,June2006.

35Interviewwithvolunteerrefugeesectorco-ordinator,Bristol,17Mayand7June2006.

36InterviewwithNASSemployee,Portishead,June2006.

37Oftenasylumseekersarerequiredtoregularlyvisitreportingcentres,oftenlocatedinlocalpolicestations,inordertoindicatetoauthoritiesthattheyhavenotabsconded.

38Therewasafast-trackprocedureforclaimantscomingfromso-called‘WhiteList’countries,thatiscountriesthathadbeendeemedtobegenerallysafebytheHomeOffice,meaningthatclaimsforasylumfromthesecountrieswereviewedasmanifestlyunfoundedandclaimantswereentitledtoonlyapareddownversionoftheasylumdeterminationprocedure.

39Thesubheading‘Findyourlocalasylumsupportteam’istakenfromtheHomeOfficewebsitethatgivesdetailsofasylumsupport(HomeOffice,2014b).Thefiguresquotedinthissectionaretheauthor’scalculationsbasedondatafromtheDepartmentforCommunitiesandLocalGovernment(2014)forthemultipledeprivationindex,theOfficeforNationalStatistics(2014)forethnicity,unemploymentandpopulationdensity,andcheckmyarea.comfordescriptionsoflocalareas.IacknowledgevaluableassistancefromAbigailGraceforthissection.

40EthnicitydataonpercentagewhitenessinthissectionisderivedfromBritishcensusdataandmadeavailablebytheOfficeforNationalStatisticsatthefollowingwebaddresshttp://www.nomisweb.co.uk/census/2011/ks201ew(accessed22July2015).Thepercentagegivenreferstoamountofpeoplewhoare‘White:English/Welsh/Scottish/NorthernIrish/British’notthebroadercategoryof‘white’intermsofvisiblywhiteasthisincludescertaingroupsthatcanbeclassedasminoritiessuchas‘gypsyorIrishtraveller’and‘otherwhite’,whichmayincludewhitepeoplefromnon-UKorigins.ThisinformationwasnotavailableforScotland.Whereaspecificpostcodeareaisnotavailablefromthedataset,anadjacentpostcodeareaisused.ThiswasfoundusingGoogleMapsandPostcodeFindertofindtheclosestpossiblepostcodeareatothebuildinghousingtheofficesunderdiscussion(nofurtherthan1/4mile).

41TheIndexofMultipleDeprivationisanindexthatranks32,482smallareasoftheUnitedKingdombyincome,employment,healthanddisability,education,skillsandtraining,barrierstohousingandotherservices,crimeandlivingenvironment.Thearearanked‘1’hashighestdeprivationandthearearanked‘32,482’lowestdeprivation.

ChapterFourDistanceatCloseQuarters

Ithassometimesbeenheldthatmerelybyassemblingpeoplewithoutregardforrace,color,religion,ornationalorigin,wecantherebydestroystereotypesanddevelopfriendlyattitudes.Thecaseisnotsosimple.

GordonW.Allport,1954,p.261

IamstandingoutsideLunarHouseinCroydon,London,theheadquartersofimmigrationcontrolintheUnitedKingdominJuly2013inthebakingsun.1Theofficehascloseditsfrontdesktodayinanticipationoftrouble.TheEnglishVolunteerForce(EVF),aright-wing,nationalistpoliticallobbygroup,havingrecentlybeenbannedfrommarchingonmosquesinLondon,havechosenLunarHouseastheirnexttarget.TheyareconvincedthatimmigrationcontrolsaretoolaxintheUnitedKingdomandareplanningtoventtheirangeratstaffandimmigrationpolicyonthesmallconcreteplazaoutsidethemainLunarHousecomplex.UniteAgainstFascism(UAF),ananti-racistpressuregroupthatpromotesdiversityinBritishcommunities,hasjoinedforceswiththePublicandCommercialServices(PCS)Union–theunionthatrepresentsmanyofthefrontlinestaffinLunarHouse–tostageacounter-protestagainsttheEVF.Thecompositionofthecounter-protestisstriking.Therearemiddle-managersemployedbytheHomeOfficeinimmigrationcontrolhere,standingnexttofrontlineimmigrationofficers,standingnexttoradicalanti-fascistactivistsandrefugees.Ananti-fascistflagfliesproudlyoutsideimmigrationHQasiftherewasnothingunusualaboutitatall(seeFigure4.1).

Figure4.1Anti-fascistprotestoutsideLunarHouse.Author’sphotograph,2013.

TheEnglishVolunteerForcefinallyarrive,daubedinwhiteandredfacepaint,flyingUnionJacksandchantingnationalisticslogans.Foroveranhourthecounter-protest,whicheasilyoutnumberstheEVF,areunitedintheirchantinginreply.‘Whosestreets?’criesaprotestorwithamegaphone;‘Ourstreets!’wethunderinresponse.TheEVFmarchespeacefullypastthewaitingcounter-protestandalthoughasmallscuffleoccurswhensomeonetriestostealoneoftheEVFflags,theEVFmembershavebeenwellbriefed.Theyhaverealisedthatviolenceandthuggerydonothingtoimprovetheirpublicimageandtheydonotrisetotheprovocation.Insteadtheytakeupapositioninasmall,cordonedareaoppositethecounter-protestandbegintoexchangechantsandinsults.

TheemployeesofLunarHousearehuddledtowardsthebackoftheanti-fascistprotest,joininginwithsomeofthechantsbutlookingdecidedlyuncomfortableaboutothers.AtonepointaNoBordersgrouptakesthemegaphoneandbeltsouttheslogan‘NoBorders,NoNations,StoptheDeportations’.Astheydo,Iwatchtheimmigrationofficialsturnawayandchatamongst

themselves.Asthechantingwearsonthroughhalfanhour,andthenanhour,theofficialsfallsilentortalktoeachotherratherthantotheotheranti-fascists.Italktooneofthem,atradeunionmemberandanimmigrationofficeremployedinLunarHousewhowasdisgustedwiththefactthatthemanagementofLunarHousehaddonenothingtopreventtheEVFmarch.‘TheworkforceinLunarHouseis65%BME[BritishMinorityEthnic]’,heexplained,2‘andmanyofourmemberscouldbeintimidatedbytheEVFmarch’.It’sclearthathismotivationforattendingtheanti-fascistcounter-protestislaudable,butverydifferentfromthatofmanyoftheotherattendees.Althoughmanyoftheprotestersopposethecurrentlevelofimmigrationrestrictionsand,byimplication,theveryrationalefortheworkthatLunarHouseemployeescarryout,helimitshisconcerntothesafetyofhiscolleagueswhilstexecutingtheworkofbordercontrolandenforcement.

Inasimilarvein,anotherimmigrationofficerandunionmemberexplainedhisfrustrationatwhathesawasthenegligenceofLunarHousemanagementinprotectingstaffduringtheEVFmarch.Themarchwasstaged,withthehelpofheavypolicepresence,onaforecourtatthefrontoftheLunarHousebuilding,andthemanagementatLunarHousehadannouncedthatthisforecourtconstitutedpartofthepublicstreetandnotpartoftheirownpremises(seeFigure4.2).‘Thisisdespitedisciplininganemployeerecentlyforfightingontheforecourt,whichimpliesthattheforecourtisLunarHouse’sconcern’,explainedtheofficer.‘SayingthatthecourtyardisnotLunarHouselandhasmeantthattheseniormanagementteamarejustkeepingtheirheadsdown.Theywantthis[march]topassby.Asfarastheyareconcernedit’snottheirproblem.’

Figure4.2ForecourtoutsideLunarHouseandsiteoftheEnglishVolunteerForce(EVF)protestandcounter-protest.

Author’sphotograph,2013.

Accordingtothesameofficer,themanagementteamhadalsoissuedwarningstotheLunarHouseworkforcethatpoliticalparticipationintheprotestorcounter-protestcouldleadtodisciplinaryaction.Forthisofficer,thedenialandindifferenceoftheseniormanagementteamtotheEVFmarch,andtheirconfrontationalstancetothepoliticalactivitiesoftheirworkforce,typifiedthegeneralmanagerialapproachatLunarHousethatwaspartlyresponsibleforhispresenceattheprotest.Hewasfrustratedbythethreatofjoblossestoo,andthefactthat‘theyhavejustdoubledtargetssoeveryoneissupposedtoworktwiceashard’.

AstheEVFmarchesontowardsothersitesincentralLondonontheiritinerary,thecounter-protestbeginstowinddown.Theimmigrationofficersareamongthefirsttoleave,politelynoddingtotheorganisersbutkeepingagooddistancefromtherestoftheprotesters.Sowhilethecounter-protestprovidedbriefcontactbetweenmigrantsandimmigrationenforcementofficersitwasoverwithinacoupleofhoursandanysenseofunitythatthechantingandcommonadversaryoftheEVFhadgeneratedquicklydispersed.Theofficersfaceverydifferentconstraintsandhaveverydifferentprioritiestothemigrantsandmigrantsupport

groupsthattheyhavejuststoodnextto.Althoughtheyhavecomeintocontactwitheachother,theirdifferencesandthefleetingnessoftheirmeetinghaveprecludedanencounterfromoccurringevenincloseproximity.

InthischapterIexaminehowencountersandmeaningfulinteractionareavertedatclosequarters.WhilemuchoftheworkofBritishbordercontrolcanberoutinisedandcarriedoutatadistanceviatelecommunications,suchastheworkofNASSthatIdiscussedinthepreviouschapter,thereareoccasionsduringtheprocessingofanasylumapplicationwhenanofficialmustmeetamigrantwhoisclaimingasylum.Whenaclaimisfirstlodgedthereissuchawealthofinformationthatneedstobecollectedthataninterviewisthemostefficientapproach,andasecondinterviewisusuallyusedtoexploretheclaimsofapplicantsinmoredetail.And,shouldaclaimberefused,asylumapplicantshavealegalrighttoatribunalhearingduringwhichthey,aswellasajudgeandarepresentativeoftheHomeOffice,usuallyattendinperson.Althoughboththeasyluminterviewandtheappealarefacetofacecontactevents,theyarecarefullychoreographed,sothat‘whogetsclosetowhom,andunderwhatcircumstances,isnotlefttochance’(Fortier,2007,p.104).IttranspiresthattherearevariouswaysinwhichthesortofmorallyimpactfulinteractionthatjoltedMrBrimelowtopetitionhissuperiorsonbehalfofNataliya(seeChapterTwo)mightbeavoidedevenwhenanapplicantissittingrightacrossthedesk.AsIwillshow,itispossible,andinmanycasesroutine,tobebroughtfacetofacewithanotherandremainindifferenttowardsthem.

Thisargumententailstalkingabout‘encounters’inadifferentwaytoLevinas.Thereisasignificantliteraturethatexaminesprejudice,meaningfulinteractionandcontactwithinandbeyondgeography,andthroughoutthisliteraturemeaningfulcontactisgenerallyunderstoodasentailinginteraction‘thatactuallychangesvaluesandtranslatesbeyondthespecificsoftheindividualmoment’(Valentine,2008,p.325).Commentatorshavedisagreedoverpreciselywhatmeaningfulcontactorinteractionsinvolve,withsomeemphasisingtheirresults(e.g.‘newinfluencesandnewfriendships’,Amin,2002a,p.970),othersemphasisingtheirabilityto‘shiftconsciousness’(Wilson,2013,p.76)andothersforegroundingthedegreetowhichtheyinvolve‘deep’asopposedto‘surface’levelemotionalresponses(Hemming,2011).Themajorityofthesediscussions,however,donotemployanunderstandingofencountersintermsofanintense,non-synchronousandnon-coincidentexperienceofdifferencelikeLevinasdoes(seeBarnett,2005).Thisisimportantbecause,basingourapproachonLevinas,wemightarguethatanencounterprecedesinteraction,andeven,giventhatanencounterisanexperienceofrupture,thatinteractionsignalsadegreeofcommonalityandreciprocitythatwemightassociatewithequalityandsimilarity,ratherthandifference,andhencethatwheremeaningfulinteractionoccursencounterscannot.

Forthepurposesofmyargumenthere,however,Itakeamorepragmaticapproachthatemploysaratherlessdemandingdefinitionofencounters.Irefertoencountersasmorallyobligatinginteractions(Reader,2003).ThatisnottosaythatIunderstandmeaningfulnessandmorallyobligatinginteractiontobeequivalent:meaningfulnessissubjectiveandcouldconceivably(befeltto)arisewithoutexperiencingdifferencewithapartnerinaninteraction,andcertainlywithoutbecomingconcernedfortheirwelfareormorallyobligatedtothem.Itiseasytoimaginemeaningfulinteractionbetweenateacherandapupil,forinstance,without

eitherofthemexperiencingnewmoraldemandsasaresult.Nevertheless,itisreasonabletopositthatmorallyobligatingencountersaremeaningfultothosethatexperiencethem,sothediscussionofmeaningfulinteractionthatfollowsbearsuponthenotionoftheencounterinsofarasmorallyobligatingencountersconstituteacertain,specific,sortofmeaningfulcontact.

Myargumentisthatweneedtogivefarmoreattentiontohowsituationsinwhichmorallyobligatingencountersmightoccuraretransformedintosituationsinwhichimpersonal,unconstructive,negativeormeaninglessinteractiontakesplace.Thereismuchmileageinexaminingthefeaturesoforganisationsthatensurethattheconditionsformeaningfulcontactareviolatedandthatameetingorcontacteventdoesnotbecomeamorallydemandingencounter.Morebroadly,thechapterdemonstratesthatmoralestrangementisbynomeansthepreserveofsituationsinwhichdecisionmakersandsubjectsarephysicallyremotefromeachother.Ifanything,thebureaucratictendencytowardsmoralestrangementreachesacrescendoatclosequarters,andconsequentlyproducesitsmostsophisticatedanddisturbingdistancingtechniquesinsituationswheredecisionmakersandsubjectsmeet.

TheConditionsofContactIntheUnitedKingdom,theHomeOfficeisresponsibleforprocessingapplicationsforasylum.Applicantsarerequiredfirsttoattendaninterviewatwhichtheyareaskedforbiographicalandbiometricdata,detailsontheirtravelhistory,andbasicinformationaboutwhytheyareseekingprotection.Thisisfollowedbyasecond,moresubstantialasyluminterviewwithaHomeOfficecaseworker,andideally(althoughalltooinfrequently)inthepresenceofalegalrepresentative,whichisdesignedtoelicitthebasisoftheclaiminsomedetail.Inroughlythree-quartersofcases,theHomeOfficedecisionisarefusalofasylum,whichusuallymeansthattheapplicanthasnolegalrighttoremainintheUnitedKingdom.AsylumapplicantsgenerallyhavearightofappealagainstthisdecisiontoanindependentTribunalknownastheFirstTierTribunal(ImmigrationandAsylumChamber)(hereafterreferredtoas‘theTribunal’).Eachsubstantiveappeal3isheardbeforeanimmigrationjudge,andusuallyinvolvestheapplicant,theirlegalrepresentative,therespondent(whoisaHomeOfficerepresentative),aninterpreterifrequired,witnessesifcalled,andTribunalclerks(whoare‘silent’actorswhoassistinthesmoothrunningoftheprocess).Afterthehearing,theimmigrationjudgemustproduceawrittendetermination,eitherallowingordismissingtheappeal.InthischapterIexaminethesetwoevents–theasyluminterview(bothscreeninginterviewsandsubstantiveinterviews)andtheappealhearing–inordertodeterminehowtheirchoreographingimpactsuponthelikelihoodofmorallydemandingencountersbetweenapplicantsanddecisionmakers.

Asafirststeptowardsgraspingthedifferentformsofcontactthatbureaucraciescannurture,itisvitallyimportanttodepartfromtheideathatcontactbetweendifferentgroupswillreliablybepositiveandfriendlyandleadtoreducedantipathy.Althoughthisnotionhasrightlybeendismissedas‘starklynaïve’(Jahoda,1987,p.275),‘theadoptionofthecontactthesisoutsideofsocialpsychology,andespeciallyinpolicycircles,hasbeentoouncritical[bylendingtoomuchcredence]tosweeping,unequivocallyoptimisticconclusionsofthedominantstrandof

contactscholarshipaboutthepositiveeffectsofcontact’(MatejskovaandLeitner,2011,p.720).Inreality,thereisnoguaranteethat‘culturaldifferencewillsomehowbedissolvedbyaprocessofmixingorhybridizationofcultureinpublicspace’(Valentine,2008,p.324),especiallyoutsidetheclinicalexperiments,mostoftenconductedwithcollegestudents,thatcontactresearcherstendtogeneralisefrom(Dixonetal.,2005,p.706).

Meaningfulcontactandinteractioncanleadtoafreshunderstandingof,empathytowardsandevenintimacywithapreviouslyotheredsubject(McLaren,2003).Itinvolvesa‘somethingbetween’twopeoplethatlinksthemtogether(Reader,2003,p.370).Itinvolves‘somethingreal…theintertwinementofabitoflife…potentiallygeneratingmoralobligations’(Reader,2003,p.372).Thesearedemandingcharacteristicsthatjarwithournaturalinertiatowardsnewnessandourimpulseto‘notwelcomedifference,transformation,andchange’(LaVan,2003,p.6).Manycontactsituationsthereforeleavevalues‘unmoved,andevenhardened’(Valentine,2008,p.325).AsAllport(1954,p.263)observed,‘Wheresegregationisthecustomcontactsarecasual,orelsefirmlyfrozenintosuperordinate-subordinaterelationships.…Suchcontactdoesnotdispelprejudice;itseemsmorelikelytoincreaseit.…Themorecontactthemoretrouble’.Soalthoughcertaintypesofcontactofferthe‘possibilityforchange’(Leitner,2012,p.840),andthe‘potential…todisrupt’(Leitner,2012,p.840),otherformsofcontactworkintheoppositedirection,sometimessparkingfearandanxietyofothersandsometimessimplyleavingpre-existingattitudesunchanged.

Fromtheperspectiveofanencounter-aversebureaucraticadministrationconcernedabouttheunpredictablerisksassociatedwithpersonalinteractionbetweenitssubjectsanditsemployees,thisinsightcanbeseenassomethingofareprieve.Asitturnsout,therearevariousfeaturesoftheinstitutionalarrangementofasyluminterviewsandappealsthatensurethattheseeventsgenerallyfallshortofmorallydemandingencounters.Sowhileresearchershaveinvestigated‘thespacesofinteractionthatmayenablemeaningfulencounters’(Valentine,2008,p.325;seealsoAskinsandPain,2011,p.803)myinterestisinhowinteractionshavebeenchoreographedinordertodisablemeaningfulinteraction,nurturenegative,emptyandmeaninglesscontactandtherebyruleoutencounters.

Allport(1954)setoutaseriesofconditionsforcontacttobemeaningfulandprejudice-reducing,stressingthat‘theeffectofcontactwilldependuponthekindofassociationthatoccurs’(Allport,1954,p.262).Theseconditionsinclude,first,thefrequencyanddurationofcontact.Contactthatisfleeting,Allportobserved,islesslikelytoleadtoprejudicereductionthancontactthatissustainedand/orrepeated.4Second,hestressedwhathecalledthe‘roleaspectsofcontact’(Allport,1954,p.262)includingwhether‘therelationship[is]oneofcompetitiveorcooperativeactivity’(Allport,1954,p.262).Wherethelattercaseistrueandthetwopartiesunderstandthemselvestobe‘inpursuitofcommongoals’(Allport,1954,p.281),Allportarguedthatthelikelihoodofmeaningfulcontactisfargreater.‘Onlythetypeofcontactthatleadspeopletodothingstogetherislikelytoresultinchangedattitudes’(Allport,1954,p.276),hestated.Third,interactionislikelytoreduceprejudicewhenthe‘contactissanctionedbyinstitutionalsupports[suchas]law[or]custom’(Allport,1954,p.281).Fourth,Allportidentifiedthe‘socialatmospheresurroundingthecontact’(Allport,1954,p.262)includingwhetherthecontactfeelsrealorartificialandwhetheritisregardedas‘important

andintimateorastrivialandtransient’(Allport,1954,p.262).Giventhatinteractionneedstoberelaxedandfree-flowingforrelationshipstodeveloporforprejudicereductiontooccur,stilted,highlyformalandprescribedformsofinteractionarelikelytobecounter-productive,especiallyifthesubjectlacks‘basicsecurityinhisownlife,[is]fearfulandsuspicious’(Allport,1954,p.263),orhashadnegativepreviousexperienceofthedominantgroupinquestion.Fifth,Allportstressedtheimportanceofthe‘statusaspectsofcontact’(Allport,1954,p.262)duringtheinteraction:whenequalstatuscontactbetweengroupscanbeachievedthisismuchmoreconducivetoprejudicereduction.Insummary,‘[o]ptimalcontact[requiresthat]thecontactissanctionedbyrelevantauthorities,itiscooperative,peopleengagedincontactareworkingtowardcommongoals,andthepeopleengagedincontacthaveequalstatus’(Barlowetal.,2012,p.1630).Wheretheseconditionsarenotmet,contacttheoristshavedemonstratedthatcontactisfarlesslikelytoresultinmeaningfulinteractionandreducedprejudiceandmayverywellactintheoppositedirection(PettigrewandTropp,2006).

InsideLunarHouseLunarHouseisa20-storeyofficeblockinthecentreofCroydon,abusyLondonsuburb(seeFigure4.3).IthousestheheadquartersofBritishimmigrationcontrolandistheplacewherepeoplecanapplyforBritishcitizenshiporclaimasylumiftheydidnotdosouponenteringtheUnitedKingdom.In2005therewerejustunder2000staffbasedinLunarHousewithafurther4400inneighbouringtowersandofficesaroundCroydon(Backetal.,2005).Staffareinvolvedinawiderangeofaspectsofimmigrationapplicationdetermination,includingasylumapplicationmanagementandprocessingaswellasfrauddetection,securityandenforcementfunctions.ThissectiondescribestheworkthatiscarriedoutatLunarHousewithanemphasisonitsadministrativeinefficiency,thelackofadequatetrainingforstaff,andthestressandpressuresthatstaffexperienceatthesite.ThissetsthesceneforthefollowingsectionthatassessesthedegreetowhichAllport’sconditionsformeaningfulinteractionaremetduringtheasyluminterviewsconductedthere.

Figure4.3LunarHousewithsignandUnionJack.Author’sphotograph,2013.

MyresearchparticipantsconsistentlyrecalledthecrimesofbureaucracycommittedatLunarHousethatgivetheimpressionofabeleagueredandwoefullyunder-resourcedsystem.Documentslikeidentitycardsandpassportsarefrequentlymislaid,forexample.‘Iwasjustflabbergastedatthecompleteineptnessofthesituation’,recalledoneactivistwhohadhelpedanasylumseekerwhoseidentitycardhadbeenmislaid:

ImeanIspentfivehoursonthetelephoneretellingthestoryeverysingletimeonlytobetold‘well,wecan’tdealwithit,we’llhavetopassyouon’,andwewentroundandroundandroundincirclesandendedupbackatthereceptiondesk!TheonlypersonwhosenametheywouldgivemewasthepersoninchargeofthewholeimmigrationserviceandtheMinisterofState.It’sOrwellian.5

Similarly,aformerasylumseekerwhoworkedtohelpothersnavigatetheapplicationprocessduringthe2000sassertedthat:

CommunicationisalwayspoorinLunarHouse.Wesendlotsofpeopledifferentthings:originalpassports,I.D.cards,affidavitsfortheircase.Whentheyreceivedthemtheylostthem.Andpeoplegetangrywithmeormycolleaguesandsayhowitismyfault.Noitwasn’tmyfault.Wesentitbyrecordeddelivery.Theydidn’tputitintotherightsystem.Andthentheysaid‘wellitisinthesystem,somewhere’.Theydidn’ttelluswhere.6

Socommonplacewerethebureaucratichiccups,andsocostlythehumanconsequences,thatSouthLondonCitizens(SLC),acollectionofschools,churches,mosques,synagogues,charitiesandresidents’groupscommittedtotakingactionforthecommongoodofthepeopleofSouthLondon,commissionedaninvestigationandreportintotheshortcomingsandinadequaciesofLunarHousein2005,entitledAHumaneServiceforGlobalCitizens(Backetal.,2005).OneofthecontributorsdescribedtheImmigrationandNationalityDirectorate(IND)as‘impenetrable…it’sasystemthatputsrulesbeforepeople…thereisahugediscrepancybetweenwhattheysaytheyaredoingandwhathappensattheroutine,everydaylevel…it’safacelessbureaucracywhichcancrushpeoplebecauseithassuchadefinitiveroleinlifeordeath.’7EvenaseniormanageratLunarHouseadmittedthat‘wedohavecommunicationproblemsinthatit’sdifficulttotrackpeopledowninternally.Imeanwe’vegot17,000peopleintheIND[but]ifyouwanttosearchforadepartmentyoucan’tdoit.’8

Thesedeficienciesresultedinunacceptablylongdelaysinorganisingasyluminterviewsandmakingorcommunicatingdecisions.‘Myunderstandingofhowthingswork’,oneasylumsupportworkerwhohadvisitedLunarHousenumeroustimesnoted,

isthatassoonasanewpieceoflegislationcomesintoforcethepeoplewhoarestillunderthepreviouspiecesoflegislationendupgoingtowardsthebackofthequeuesbecausethenewlegislationgetsimplementedfirst.Staffareretrained,newstaffmembersaretakenontodealwiththelatestlegislationandthatmeansthatthereisarealproblemthenforpeoplewhoarestillwaitingforanswersorhadtheirlastdecisionbeforethiscameintoforce.Theyhavetowaitandfindoutwhathappensnextanditwilljusttakelongerbecausetheteamsdealingwiththepreviousregimesaremuchsmaller.Now,shockingly,wehavestillgotpeoplewhocameinbefore1993andhaven’thadafirstdecision.

Interview,asylumsupportworker,20069

Theeffectofpointlesswaitingwasalsofeltonadailybasis.OneasylumseekerfleeingthethreatofpersecutionforhispoliticalbeliefsandactivitiesasajournalistinanAfricancountrydescribedhisfirstexperienceofBritishbureaucracyattheLunarHousecomplex,justonedayafterhisarrivalinthecountry,whichresultedinhimneedlesslysleepingrough:

ItookthetrainandIgotoutandIrememberthenameitwasPiccadilly.IfoundsomeonewhocouldspeakFrenchandthenhehelpedmetogosomewhere‘cositwaslate.AndheexplainedhowtotakeabusandhowtobuyaticketandthenIwentthere[toLunarHouse].Igetinsideandthentheytellmeitistoolatetocomesoyouhavetowaitfortomorrow.SoIdon’thaveplacetogo,soIstayedtherejustwalking,walkingarounduntilmorning.[Itwas]veryfreezing,itwasveryfreezingatthistime;itwasMarch,veryfreezing.Inthemorningtheyopened.WhentheyopenedIwasthefirstinthequeueandIgetinsideandtheytoldmeit’snotthisplaceyouhavetogotoanotherplace.

Interview,formerasylumseeker,2006

Oneformerasylumseekernotedthelackof‘evenbasicstandardsofcare,beitprovidingseatingfortheelderlystandingforhoursinthecold,ortheomissionofaticketqueuingsystemwhenyoufinallyenteredthebuilding’,10whichforthemandmanyotheractivistsfamiliarwiththesite,pointedtowardsaflawedperceptionofhowtotreatpeopleinareasonablemanner.Asoneactivistnotedwryly:

Tospeakabout‘clients’andsoon,and‘managed’migration,andallofthoseseeminglyanodyneandbanalwaysoftalkingaboutasimpleprocess,wellhowthatcomparestowhatitmeanstogothroughthosegates,thosedoors,togoinsidetheofficesofimmigrationandtobesubjecttothekindofroutinehumiliationsthatthatinvolves,youknowitjustdoesn’tstackup.Ican’tthinkofanybusinessthatwouldtreatitscustomerslikethat.11

Theconditionsofworkandthelackoftrainingoftheworkforceundoubtedlycompoundedthedifficulties.Duringthe2000seachnewcaseworkerreceivedonly11daysofinitialtrainingfollowedbyaminimumof11daysofmentoringbeforetheywereallowedtomakeindependentdecisionsonclaimsforasylum(comparedtosixmonthstraininginGermanyforcaseworkerswhohadnopreviouslegalexperience).BeforeFebruary2004caseworkersalsodidnotrequireA-levels.12ForworkersinCroydon,theyconsequentlybegantoviewtheemploymentopportunitiesinLunarHouseasastop-gaporstepping-stonetobetterthings

ratherthanacareer.‘Itwasjustajobreally,itwasn’tapassionofours’,aformerintelligenceofficer,employedtoinvestigateinstancesofabuseandbenefitfraudamongasylumseekersduringthe2000s,recalled.13Wegothardlyanytraining’shecontinued,‘wejustwentstraightin.Straightin.Wehadatestthat…hadabsolutelynothingtodowiththejobweendingupdoing,buttheykindofjustthrowyouinatthedeependandthenjustkindofleaveyouthere.’Intheend,thissenseofdissatisfactioncontributedtothesameofficer’sdecisiontoleaveherjob,becauseshefeltthatshewasunderemployed,havingcompletedadegreebeforeshetooktheposition.‘My[colleague]didn’thaveadegree’,sherecalled,‘andIdon’tthinkshe’sgotA-levelseitherandthatwasanotherreasonIleftthejobbecauseIthought“wellIcouldhavejustcomehereatsixteen”,youknow?Insteadofgoingtouniversityandbeingthereforhowevermanyyears.’Alongsidethelackoftraining,otherformsofsupportwerealsolacking.ThePCSunionthatrepresentstheworkforceinLunarHousedrewattentiontothelackofprogressionopportunities,thehighturnoverofstaff,lowmorale,lackoffaithinmanagement,andtheconstantfearofmediascrutinyandcriticism.Oneactivistalsoexpressedconcernoverthelackofawarenessofsecondarytrauma,14anissuetowhichwereturninChapterFive:

Imeantherearerealissuestodowithsecondarytraumaforstaffmembers.Thewaypeoplecopewithhearingstoriesthatarereallyquitedifficulttohear,ifthey’renotgettingadequatesupportthemselves,istoburnoutorelseshutdown.Itfeedsintoculturaldisbeliefultimately,particularlywhenyou’vegotveryyoungstafflikeschoolleavers.Thereisnotsufficientsupportofstaffmembersforthemtodealwithanytraumaticfeelingsthattheyhave,theirowntraumatisationonasecondarylevelfrominterviewingpeople,fromreadingthedocuments,fromwhatever.Anditgetstoastageforsomepeoplethattheonlywaythattheycandealwiththisistoshutdownandsay‘thiscan’tbehappening,they’reallliars’.

Interview,asylumsupportworker,London,200615

Thetargets,thelackofsupportandthethreatofnegativemediaattentionmeantthatstaffretentionandstresswererecurringproblems.‘We’reeithertooeasyonasylumseekersorwe’rerightwingfascists’,declaredthePCSUnionbranchsecretaryin2003,capturinghisbeliefthatstaffwereina‘no-winsituation’.16TheSLCreportconveyedsimilarconcerns.‘Halftheworkers…hadexperiencedstress-relatedhealthproblemswithinthelastyear’,thereportrevealed(Backetal.,2005,p.62).‘Causesofstress[included]thedifficultnatureofthework,thevolumeofwork,unrealistictargets,longhoursonthefrontline,highpressurecausedbyahostilemediaclimate,case-fatigue,frequentpolicychanges,threatofjobcuts,poormanagement[and]lackofsupport’(Backetal.,2005,p.62).Workersquotedinthereportadmittedthattheyfelt‘anxious,frustratedanddemotivated’(Backetal.,2005,p.63).‘Iamdisappointedinmyself’,onedecisionmakerconfessed,‘becauseIendupactinginanuncaringandunsupportingwaywhendealingwithcustomers’(Backetal.,2005,p.63)whileanotherconcededthat‘[i]tisverydifficultnottobecomehardenedwhendealingwithpeopleduetothelackofleewayandsupportthegovernmentoffersitsemployees’(Backetal.,2005,p.63).‘We’retrainedtodothework’,anotherobserved,‘butnotatthisvolume’(Backetal.,

2005,p.65).

Staffturnoverwas,unsurprisingly,high,especiallyamongmoreexperiencedstaff.In200634%ofstaffleaversfromtheINDhadbetweenthreeandfiveyears’experienceintheirroles,meaningthattheytooksubstantialknowledgeandexperiencewiththemwhentheyleft,andby2013concernsaroundstaffretentionwerestillrife.Inamembers’briefingin2013,thePCSunionreportedthatmanyofthesameproblemsendured,includingtheconstantly‘increasingtargets’andmanagerialtendencytodemand‘moreforless’.Theydescribed‘acontinuederosionofstaffnumbersastherushtothedoorcontinuesunabated’.

‘Althoughitwasboring,itwasstressful’,theformerintelligenceofficerrecalledinreflectinguponhowdifficultconditionsbecamebeforesheleftherpost:

Iusedtoleavetherenearlyeverydaywithamigraine.Iusedtospendalotoftimeinfrontofthecomputerjustfilingandjusttryingtosortoutpeopleintodifferentcategoriestoinvestigateatalaterdateand…IwouldhavetargetsIwouldhavetogetthrough:howevermanyinaweek.Andsometimesthatwasvirtuallyimpossiblebecausephoningpeopleallthetime,youknow,peopledon’tlikecoldcallers…Icouldn’twaittogetoutofthere…Iremembersayingto[arelative]‘Ican’ttakeanymore’.17

Overlayingalloftheseissues,thespectreofracismamongtheworkforcewasofteninattendance.ManyoftheworkersatLunarHouselivedinandaroundCroydon,whichsufferedchronicshortagesofaffordablehousingandcouncilhousingduringthe2000s.‘They[meaningasylumseekersinCroydon]wouldgetfirstforthehousing’,thesameofficerrecalledwithatingeofbitterness.‘Sosomebodycouldhavelivedherealltheirlife,workedhere,contributed,andthentheycomeandtheyget,youknow,thenewestaccommodation…it’snotfair’.Fromthisperspectiveshedescribedhercolleagues’attitudes–includingcaseworkers,interviewersandotherenforcementpersonnel–totheasylumseekersintheircharge:

IknowsometimesthediscussionsthatpeoplewouldhavewithmeintheofficeIjustwouldexcusemyselffrom.…Youmighthearpeoplesayingthingsasyouwalkpastthemandtheysay‘Oh,nooffence’,18littlethingslikethat.Ithinkthelongeryouworkedthereyoubecomelessopenminded,themoreyoustarttothinktherestofthepeopleshouldn’tbehere,theyshouldgoback.Ineverreallyheardanythingpositiveabout[applicants]whileIwasthere.[Staff]wouldneverbeoutwardlyracist,theywouldbequitecarefulaboutwhattheysaid,buttheundertonewasalwaysthere.19

AsylumInterviewsAsylumseekersarepitchedintothisworkingenvironmentinthehopeoffair,consistentandwell-consideredtreatmentatapivotalmomentintheirliveswhentheymaybetraumatisedanddisorientated.‘Thesignificanceoftheasyluminterviewforthedecisionmakingprocesscannotbeoverstated’,Crawley(2010,p.163)asserts,whileWoolley(2014)pointsoutthattheaccountthatasylumseekersgiveofthemselvesandtheirexperiencesatinterviewcanbethedifferencebetweenlifeanddeath.Concernshavebeenraised,however,aboutthewayin

whichevidencegatheredatasyluminterviewshasbeenusedagainstapplicantsatalaterdate.Forexample,whereasinconsistenciesbetweenaccountsgivenduringeitherthescreeningorsubstantiveasyluminterviewandlaterintheapplicationprocessareroutinelyusedtounderminethecredibilityofapplicants,psychologistshaveestablishedthatinconsistencyisnotonlycommonwhentwodescriptionsaregivenofthesameeventatdifferenttimes,butthatinconsistenciesinperipheraldetailsthatarenotcentraltothegistoftheaccountareespeciallylikelyiftheeventsrecalledaretraumaticones(HerlihyandTurner,2006).Moreover,inthecaseoffemaleapplicants’interviews‘asylumdecisionmakersoften[invoke]factorssuchasdelayeddisclosure…andacalmoroverlyemotionaldemeanouronthepartofthefemaleapplicanttojustifysuspicionregardingallegationsofrape’(Memon,2012,p.678).Thistacticbetraysalackofunderstandingof‘thedifferentwaysinwhichawitnessmayrespondtotraumaand[its]complexeffectsontestimony’(Memon,2012,p.678),includingtheeffectsof‘shame,dissociationandpsychopathologyindisclosure’(Bögneretal.,2007,p.75).Moregenerally,giventhat‘aHomeOfficeinterviewcanbeastressfulandanxiety-provokingevent’(Bögneretal.,2007,p.75),psychologistshavewarnedthatthe‘circumstancesoftheinterviewprocessitself’canprofoundlyinterferewithdisclosure(Bögneretal.,2007,p.75).

InowturntoanassessmentofhowwellAllport’sconditionsformeaningfulcontactaremetduringscreeningandsubstantiveasyluminterviewssuchasthoseheldatLunarHouseinthemid-2000s.20Onlyoneofhisfiveconditionsisnotobviouslyviolated:themeetingbetweeninterviewerandintervieweeislegallylegitimate,meaningthatthemeetingis‘sanctionedbyinstitutionalsupports’inthewayAllport(1954,p.281)advocates.AsecondofAllport’sconditions–thatthetwopartiespursuecommongoals–isarguable.SeniormanagersatLunarHousewereextremelykeentoemphasisethegoalsthattheysharedwithasylumapplicantsandactivists.UponhearingabouttheSLCreport,forexample,managementwelcomedtheactivists’efforts(‘it’sgoodtohaveabitofexternalpressureactually’,aseniormanagerconfidedtome21)andexpressedtheireagernesstocooperatewiththeinitiative.‘Thereasonwhywewanttocooperatewiththemisthattheirobjectiveisexactlythesameasourobjective’,thesamemanagercontinued.‘Youknow,let’smakethisbetter,wewanttoimprovecustomerservice,wewanttomakethingsgoodforstaff…We’realwayslookingtoimproveourservice’.Inparticular,themanageremphasisedthecommondesiretonothaveapplicantswaitingtoolonginsideoroutsidethebuildingbeforetheirinterviewsoccur.‘Fromourpointofview’,sheexplained,‘we’vegotalotofcostconstraintssowedon’twanttohavelotsofpeoplewaiting[becauseof]theaddedsecurityandtheaddedbuildings.’

Althoughthemanagerdidnotadmitit,theembarrassmentthatlongqueuesoutsideLunarHousecausedtheINDandthegovernmentwasprobablyanotherfactorinwantingtoworkwithSLCtoreducewaitingtimes.LunarHousebecamenotoriousforlongqueuesduringthe2000s.‘ItisclearfromtheseaofhumanitythatdescendsonCroydoneachdaythateven20storeysofbureaucratscannotcopewiththeworkload’,TheObservernewspapertauntedin2003(Bright,2003),forexample,whilethethenMinisterforImmigration,TonyMcNulty,wasforcedtoconcede,duringaninterviewonahighprofileradiodocumentaryin2005,thatthe‘pigpen’-stylequeueswerenotsatisfactory(BBC,2005b).

Sopronouncedwastheeagernesstocooperatewiththeactivists’reportandrecommendations

thattheSLCactiviststhemselvesfoundthemanagers’attitudedisorientating.‘Insomewaysyoufeelalmostlostforwords’,onecontributorexplained,

becauseitfeelslikethegovernmenthavetakenallthosewordswhichyouareusingtotryandopenupthingsortoargueaboutinjusticesortoargueabouthypocrisyinthesystemandyouhearthesamewordscomingoutofthemouthsofseniorCivilServantsandseniorpoliticianswhohaveintereststhatseemverydifferent.22

Oncloserinspectionthough,theinterestsofmanagersandapplicantsonlycoincidedaroundveryspecificissues.Thesameseniormanagerexplainedthatshepreferredtotrytoreducewaitingtimesthantotakeanymeasurestomakethewaitingareasmorecomfortable.‘[Theactivists]weresaying“Oh,let’smakethingsalotmorecomfortable”’,sherecalled.‘Wellactuallyit’snotthatcomfortable,it’shardchairs…itdoesn’tmatterifit’sahardseatbecauseweonlywantthemtobetherefortwentyminutes.’Herconcernstoreducewaitingtimeswerealsorelatedtotheperceivedneedtodeter‘peoplewhotrytoabusethesystem’.‘ImeantheHomeOfficemottoisasafe,justandtolerantsociety’,sheexplained,

soinsomewaysthemoresuccessfulweareinmakingitsafer,justerandmoretolerantthemorepeoplewillwanttocomeover,soit’sslightlyironic.Thebetterweareinourobjectives,themorepeople.Butintermsofthepeoplewhotrytoabusethesystem,we’veputalotmorecontrolsandchecksandthatactsasadeterrentandnotonlydoesitstoppeopletodayitactuallystopspeopletomorrowbecauseit’sabigcommunityoutthere,wordgetsaroundifit’smoredifficulttogetin.Ifwedotheircasequickerandthenactuallyremovethemwhenthey’renoteligibletostay,thentheythink‘IsthereanypointingoingtoBritain,you’reonlytheresixweeks,you’relockedintodetentionandthenyou’resentout?’Sothat’swhatwe’vegottodo:processthingsquicker,faster,betterdecisions,quickerdecisions,moreremovals.Thenitactsasadeterrent.23

Soalthoughthemanagementmayseenoconflictbetweentheirdesireforfasterprocessingandthedesiresofapplicants,theirwiderconcerntodeterfuturefraudulentapplicationsbyprocessingclaimsfasterindicatesaverydifferentrationaleforwantingtospeedupdecisionmaking.Thisconflictcomestoaheadwhenthedesiretospeedthingsupbeginstounderminethequalityofdecisionmakingitself:applicantsdonotwantfasterprocessingattheexpenseofwell-considereddecisions.Yetmanagement’sdrivetoreducewaitingtimeshasresultedinsustainedpressureonimmigrationstafftoconductinterviewsandreachdecisionsmoreandmorehastily.ThePCSuniondescribedplannedincreasesinthetargetnumberofinterviewanddecisioncompletionsin2013as‘eyewatering’(PublicandCommercialServicesUnion,2013).‘IfwewantadecentAsylumsystemthatdealssympatheticallywithvictimsoftortureandpersecutionwemusthaveaworkforcefullytrainedandwithtimetointerviewapplicantsandtimetocometowell-reasoneddecisions’theUniondeclared(PublicandCommercialServicesUnion,2013).Ifqualitydecisionmakingisjeopardisedbytheapparentlycommongoalofspeedingupdecisionsthenthisisnotacommongoalatall,violatingAllport’sstipulationthatgroupsworktogetherwithacommonpurpose.

TheremainingthreeofAllport’sconditions–concerningthefrequencyofthecontact,the

socialatmosphereofthecontact,andthestatusoftheparties–areunequivocallyviolated.Althoughinterviewsarebynomeansfleeting,theydonotconstitutesustainedcontactinthewayAllportprescribes.Soalthoughsubstantiveinterviewsoftenlastthreeormorehours,andconstituteagruellingordealforapplicantsasaresult,theyareone-offcontacteventsthatarehardlyconducivetothedevelopmentof‘acquaintance’(Allport,1954,p.268).Inmanycasesapplicantshavewaitedalongtimetobeinterviewed.OneKurdishrefugee,whoeventuallywonrefugeestatusonappealaftereightyearsofwaiting,describedhisfeelingsaheadofhissubstantiveasyluminterviewatLunarHouse,whichcametwoandahalfyearsafterheinitiallyclaimedasylumattheborder.‘Iwasveryscared’,herecalled,24‘becauseIdidn’tbelieveit.Itwassolong,atthattime,aftertheytoldmesixmonthsandthenitwastwoandahalfyears,itwasawkwardandweird.’

Intermsofthesocialatmosphereofthecontact‘[t]hepurposeofthe[substantive]asyluminterview’,theHomeOfficewrites,‘istoobtaindetailsaboutwhytheapplicanthasmadeanapplicationforasylumand/orleavetoremainonhumanrightsgrounds.Itisanopportunityfortheinterviewingofficertofindoutmoreabouttheapplicant’sfearofreturntotheircountryofnationality,andanopportunityfortheapplicanttoelaborateonthebackgroundtohisclaimandintroduceadditionalinformation’(UKBorderAgency,2007).Assuch,aninterviewisintendedtobeafact-findingexerciseratherthanaconversation,duringwhichtheinterviewerisrequiredtogivenoinformationabouthimorherself,creatingadistinctasymmetryincommunicationbecauseapplicantsareexpectedtorevealsomeofthemostintimateanddifficultdetailsoftheirownlives.Thisasymmetrydoesnotprovidethegroundsforrelaxed,free-flowinginteraction.

In2013theHomeAffairsSelectCommittee25conductedaninquiryintotheasylumsystemintheUnitedKingdomandreceivedover100writtensubmissionsfrommigrantsupportgroups,activistsandcharitiesabouttheasylumdeterminationprocess(HomeAffairsSelectCommittee,2013a,2013b).Thesubmissionshighlightedaveritablecatalogueofissuessurroundingthesocialatmosphereofbothsubstantiveandscreeningasyluminterviews,includingtheinappropriatenessofthesettingfortheinterview(whichwasdescribedas‘hostileandintimidating’)andtheinappropriatenessofthequestioningtechniquesemployed.‘Asylumseekersarenotroutinelytoldthattheycanchoosetohaveaninterviewerandaninterpreteroftheirowngender’,26onesubmissionpointedout,whileanothernotedthat‘althoughasylumapplicantsareallowedtohavelegalrepresentationintheircriticalfirstinterview[meaningtheirscreeninginterviewatLunarHouse]itisn’tarequirementthattheyareadvisedofthis(andmanyaren’t).’27Othersdrewattentiontothelackofprivacyofthescreeninginterview,andthelackofplayfacilitiesmeaningthatsomeasylumseekershadtheirchildrenwiththemduringtheirinterviews.‘WhenIhadmysubstantiveinterview’oneformerasylumseekerrecalled,

therewere5people(myself,interpreter,mychildand2stafffromUKBA)inasmallroom.Every5mins,mydaughterwasinterruptingaskingforadrinkortogotothetoiletorformetodosomethingwithher.ItwasimpossibletoconcentrateandIforgotsomanythings.Theatmospherewassotense,Iwascryinginfrontofmydaughter.IhadtotalkaboutthedomesticviolencethatIhadexperiencedandmydaughterheardeverything.28

Duringtheinterviewsthemselvesconcernswereraisedthat‘decisionmakersarestillpronetodisbeliefwithoutfoundation,andtotreatingtheasyluminterviewanddecision-makingprocessasadversarialratherthanasanexerciseofaninternationalprotectionobligation’.29DuringscreeninginterviewsconductedatLunarHouseinterviewingofficerswerereportedtohave‘continuouslylookedat[their]computerratherthanlisteningtotheinterpreter’,30andtohave‘notallow[ed]theasylumseekertotellhisstorybutkeptintrudingwithquestions’.31Whatismore,thefactthat‘Interviewsconstantlymakeyoureliveyourtrauma’,32wasapparentlynotenoughtosensitiseinterviewersaboutthewaytheyaskedquestions.‘Duringtheinterview,Iwasasked8timestogivethedatethatmysondied’,oneasylumseekerquotedinasubmissionrecalled,33whereasanotherdescribedhowher‘accountoftortureasawomanwasnotbelievedatall’.Shecontinued:

IlookedlikeIwaswastingthetimeoftheofficers.Ihadnothingspecialtotellthem,theylookedliketheyalreadyknewwhatIamgoingtotellthem,fromthestarttilltheend.Ifeltveryuncomfortableasiftheycouldnotbelieveahumanbeingcouldbesubjecttoatorture,itwaslikeIwastellingthemsomethingfromamovie.34

Compoundingthesedifficultiesisastrongsenseofdistrustofgovernmentofficialsandinterpretersamongmanyasylumapplicants.‘Inourcountry’,oneformerasylumseekertoldmeduringaninterview,‘theinterpretersworkforthegovernment,soformeIdidn’tknowiftheinterpreterworkedforthegovernmentorforcharityorwhat?AndIdidn’tknowifwhathewassayingwastrueornot.’35

Withinsomecommunitiesofasylumseekerswaitingtobeinterviewed,itonlytakesoneaccountofpoortreatmentwithinLunarHouse,ortheregionalofficeswheresubstantiveinterviewshavebeenconductedsincethelate2000s,toprovokesignificantanxietyaboutforthcominginterviewevents:oneharshwordorangrygesturefromaninterviewerormemberofsecuritystaffcanreverberatewidelyaroundnetworksofasylumseekersandtheirsupporters.ThesameKurdishasylumseekerwhohadtowaiteightyearsforafinaldecisiondescribedhisanxietyuponenteringLunarHouseandbeinginterviewedbecauseoftheaccountsofdeportationhehadheardpriortohisarrival:

Iwaswithoneofmyfriends.Causehedrivedthere,sohewasstayinginthecarandIsaidifIdidn’tcomeoutjustringmyfamily,myfriends,thehumanrightsactivistsinourarea.[Because]thethingisyouthinkyouarenotgoingback,thatsomethingishappeninginside.Lotsofpeoplesaybefore.Peoplesaid‘Okayifyougointothatbuilding,youmaybenotcomingout,theycantakeyoutotheairportandsendyouback.’Sothatwasscaringeveryone.36

Whenapplicantsareanxiousanduncomfortableitisclearthatthesocialatmosphereoftheinterviewisfarfromideal.‘Insideisscary’,heexplained,‘becauseinsidethereisallthesecameraseverywhere.Itwaslikeaprison.Ifeelveryscared’.Rumourswerealsonotlimitedtoaccountsofdeportation(whichmayhavehadsometruthinthem37)butextendedtofar-fetchedaccountsabouthowtheHomeOfficeassessesapplicants.‘Intheinterviewtherewasfourpeoplethere’,herecalledindescribinghissubstantiveinterview,

mysolicitorandthentwopeopleweresittingandoneguystandingintheroom.AndIthought‘Whyishestanding?’‘causeI’dheardastorythatsomepeoplearestandinginsidetheinterviewroomandtheyaretheretowatchyou,whatareyoulike,areyouworriedabouttheprocess.Andthatpersonisapsychologicalsecurityperson.AndalwaysinmyheadIwasaskingmyself‘Isheasecurityguyoristhisapsychologistguy?’38

Allport’sfifthconditionformeaningful,prejudicereducinginteraction,concerningequalstatus,isperhapsthemostcomprehensivelyviolatedofallhisconditionsinthecontextofasyluminterviews.Jean-FrancoisBayart(2007)hasarguedthatoneofthedefiningfeaturesofthemodernglobalisedworldisthewayinwhichpoorandmarginalisedgroupsareforcedtowait.FromrisingprisonpopulationsintheUnitedStatesandpartsofEurope,toincreasingdisplacedpopulationsintemporary-come-permanentcampsaroundtheworld,waitinghasbeenfusedwithsubalternidentitiesthatindicatenon-belongingandnon-citizenship.Bayartarguesthatthistypeofwaitingisassociatedwiththeriseofthemodernstatewhoseroleistopoliceandregulateglobalisationandtheflowsofpeoplethatitengenders.Waitinghasbecomepartandparceloftheregulationandbureaucratisationofthemodernglobalsystem.‘[P]eoplehavebeenincitedbypowerfulinstitutionstobelieveinparticularvisionsofthefutureyetlackthemeanstorealizetheiraspirations’,Jeffrey(2010,p.3)explains.Thisresultsnotonlyindeadtime,whereallapersonimaginestheyaredoingiswaiting,butalsoisaccompaniedbystigmatisationandinsecurityasmainstreampopulationsassociatethosewhoareforcedtowaitwithloitering,surplusandidleness(Mbembe,2004).

Forasylumseekers,waitingfortheopportunitytomakeaclaim,telltheirstoryfully,orforadecisionontheirasylumclaimisanovelformoftormentthathasbeendescribedas‘permanenttemporariness’(Baileyetal.,2002)andapainful‘stateoflimbo’(HyndmanandGiles,2011,p.362;seealsoConlon,2011).‘Theuncertaintyofthefuturemakesdecisionsimpossible’,Webber(2012,p.56)writes,‘howtostudy,furnisharoom,buyclothes,makefriends,planafuturewheneverythingisprovisionalandinsecure?…thislimboisanothertorture’(Webber,2012,p.56).ThesameKurdishasylumseekerwhohadtowaiteightyearsforadecisiondescribedthisordealas‘thebiggestchallengeofmylife’:

Becauseyouarefindingyourselfgettingolder.Everymorningyouarelookingtoseeiftheletterorsomethinghasarrivedwhichisreallyhardandifyou’renotcarefulandyouarenotintegratedintosocietyyoucanhaveahugementalhealthproblem.We,asKurds,wesaythatifwehadstayedinIraqSaddamwasgonnakillusfast,thatisthekillingprocess,butheretheykillyoubykeepingyouwaiting.Sometimespeoplekillthemselves.Theythinkthatthislifeisnothing.Ialwaysdescribedmyself,beforegettingstatus,asababyinthestomachofthemother.Notborn.Assoonasyouareborn,assoonasyougetstatus,yourlifestarts.Becausewhenyougetstatuseverydooropensforyou.Butbefore,youcannotplan.Yousay‘Iwanttobuyahouse’,noyoudon’thavestatus,itcouldbeanytimeyougetrefusalandtheysendyouback.Iwantedtomakeaninvestment,youcan’t.Iwantedtostartlifeprovidingformyfamilybutalltheseprocessesarestoppingyou.39

Thistypeofwaitingistheresultofmorethansimplybureaucraticdelays.Itperformstheauthorityofthedominantgroupandassertsthestatusofapplicantsbydemonstratinghowlowdownthelistofprioritiesmigrantsare.Italsoforcesasylumseekerstoperformtheirownsubalternidentities:theyhope,theylong,theyspeculate,theygossip,theydream,theyfixate,theygetbored,theytalknotofanimprovementtotheirstatus,butofgettinganystatusatall.

Visitstogovernmentimmigrationofficesbringtheseinterminableperiodsofwaitingtoahead,andwiththesevisitstherequirementtoperformmigrantsubmissiontothestateintensifies.Queuesform,‘filledwithfeelingsofanguish,humiliationandattitudesofresignation’(Pérez,2010,p.168),whichrepresent,aboveall,‘thebasisofthesocialorganisationofaccessanddelay’(Pérez,2010,p.168).AtLunarHouseinthe2000sthequeuessometimesstartedat5.00am,oftenreachedfivehoursinlengthandregularlyheldoverathousandpeopleindraughty,semi-coveredareas,manywaitingtolodgeanasylumclaimandundergothescreeninginterview.‘WhatIsawwhenIwentthere’,recalledoneactivistwhohadaccompaniedanasylumseekertoLunarHouse,

weretraumatisedpeople,elderlywomen,pregnantwomenbeingherdedandbeingforcedtostandaroundinawaythatit’snotrightforpeoplewhenthey’reoldandcarryingchildrentobeforcedtostandinqueues,tobetreatedasthoughtheyhavenorightsatall.Iwastotallyhorrified.40

Shecontinued:

wehaverulesandregulationsabouthowwetreatanimals.Wecan’tmakethemstandaroundandnotgivethemwaterandpunishthem,we’renotallowedtodothattoanimals,andactuallywhatpeopleweregettingtherewasjustappalling,absolutelyappalling.They’revictims,there’snothingtheycandoforthemselves,theyaretotallydependentonpeople’sgoodoffices,theyaretotallydependentonpeopledoingtheirjobwithcareandcompassionandactuallythatwasabsent.

SimilarconcernswerereflectedintheSLCreport.‘Pleasemake[the]waitingareahumane’,onerespondentpleaded(Backetal.,2005,p.16).‘[The]queueareaisicycold’,wroteanother,‘[i]tmakespeoplesick’(Backetal.,2005,p.16).

Applicantswerealsohumiliatedwhiletheywaited:provisionforwomenwithchildren,forexample,wasparticularlybad.‘Ifyouhaveababyyoucan’tevengetnappies’,oneactivisttoldme.‘Youcanfindnowheretochangeababyanditcauseshugedistressforpeoplestandinginqueuesforhourswithcryingbabies,withnosupportorfacilitiesatall.’41Othersreportedhavingtocarrypushchairsuptothesecondorthirdfloorofthebuilding.

Securitystaffsometimesexacerbatethedifficulties.‘Therewasthispregnantwomannexttome’,oneactivisttoldme,‘whowasleaningagainstsomethingand[themalesecurityguard]cameoutandhejustabusedherandtoldherthatshewasn’tallowedtolean.Itwasdreadful.’42‘Youfeelitwhenpeopledon’tlikeyou,’aformerasylumseekerexplained,

theyhaveawayoftalkingtoyou.Whenyouaskforsomething,forexample.Iasked‘Where’sthetoilet?’Thewaysheansweredmewas…[shakeshead]…andshejustsaid‘waithere’andthesecurityguyscomeandtakeyoutothetoilet.AndIsaid‘youshowmewhereandIwilljustgothere’,buttheywouldn’t.43

TheverydesignofLunarHouseestablishesthe(non-)statusofthosewhowait.‘Thereissomethingaboutthephysicalarchitectureofthatplace,thethingsthatareliterallysetinstoneandinglassthatrevealsomuchaboutthewaythegovernmentandthestateviewsasylumandimmigration’,44anactivistobserved.‘It’slikeaDHSS45waitingroombutnotascomfortable.Peopleareforced,physically,tositontheedgeoftheirseats.Sometimestalkingaboutthemostpersonal,difficult,traumaticexperiencesofeitherpersecutionorwhatitmeanttofleethatpersecution.Andtheyaredoingitliterallysittingontheedgeofametalchairthatisboltedtothefloor,theyhavetoleanforward.’46

ThemetalchairswerepartofthesecuritymeasurestakenwithinLunarHouse.Asanotheractivistexplained,‘whenweputittooneoftheseniorpeopleoftheIND“Whydothesechairshavetobeboltedtothefloor?”hesaid“wellitstopspeoplethrowingthemthroughthewindow”.’47Thesesortsofsecuritymeasures,however,sendamessagetotheapplicantsthat

we’refrightenedofthem.Somuchthatwehavetofixtheirchairstotheground,wehavetoputaprotectivescreeninplace.Itcreatesacultureofsuspicionwhichtherecipientsfeelandwhichmakesthemfeelhostilebecausetheyarebeingtreatedasthoughtheyarenotreallygoodpeople.48

Intheworstcases,thesecuritymeasurescanthemselvesbeprovocative.Applicantsrecalledhowtheywererequiredto‘sittoattention’(Backetal.,2005,p.21)duringtheirscreeninginterviewsandhowdifficultitwastoheartheinterviewerbecauseoftheprotectiveplasticscreenthatseparatedthem.‘Thewholesystemmakesthemfeelthreatened’,oneactivistexplained.‘Ifyou’reamemberofstaffandyou’vehadfivepeoplehaveagoatyouinonemorning,andreallygetaggressive,youneedthatscreen.Butwhydidthosepeoplegetaggressiveinthefirstplace?Becausethescreenwasthere!Theycouldn’tspeakproperly!Theseatsaresofaraway[that]everybodycanhear…theirpersonalbusiness.’49

PsychologistshavearguedthatemotionsarecentrallyimportantinreducingprejudiceandwewillrevisitemotionsingreaterdetailinChapterSix.Butitisworthreflectinghereonthe

particularwayinwhichanxietyisspatiallymanagedandproducedinLunarHouse.Anxietyreductionbetweentwogroups‘hasbeenpositedasthe[italicsintheoriginal]mechanismthroughwhichcontactelicitsimprovedinter-grouprelations’(StephanandStephan,1985;Hewstone,2003;PettigrewandTropp,2008;MatejskovaandLeitner,2011).Conversely,‘byfarthestrongest[mediatorofpositivecontact]isintergroupanxiety’(Barlowetal.,2012,p.2).Inotherwords,thesurestwaytopoisonacontactevent,accordingtocontacttheorists,isforthepartiestobesuspiciousandfearfulofeachother.Furthermore,wheresuspicionsareconfirmedandcontactisnegative–perhapsbecauseofahostileoraggressivemeeting–theseexperiencesofnegativecontactareproportionatelymorepowerfulinnurturingprejudicethanpositivecontactisineradicatingit.‘Thebeneficialeffectsofnumerouspositiveintergroupencounters’,Barlowetal.(2012,p.12)explain,‘maybecounteractedbytherelativelyinfrequentbutpowerfuleffectsofnegativeintergroupencounters.’Theresultisthatnegative,hostileandaggressivemeetingsareactuallyamorepowerfulpredictorofprejudicethanpositivecontact(Paolinietal.,2010).Todesignthesettinginwhichapplicantsmeetdecisionmakersinanticipationofnegativecontact,therebyraisingthefear,expectationandlikelihoodofaggressionandhostilityonboth‘sides’,isthereforeprofoundlycounter-productivetothenurturingofmeaningful,prejudice-reducinginteraction.

Insummary,itisdifficulttoimaginehowboththescreeningandsubstantiveinterviewsthatwereconductedwithinLunarHouseduringthe2000scouldhavebeenstagedinawaythatwaslessconducivetomeaningful,positivecontactandmorallyobligatingencounters.ThemajorityofAllport’sconditionsareviolatedatthesite,whichstillhostsmostscreeninginterviewsofapplicantsapplyingforasylumfromwithintheUnitedKingdom.Theseconditionsincludethestipulationthatthepartiesworktowardssimilargoals,thatthecontactissustained,thattheinteractionoccursinarelaxedandfree-flowingwayandthatthestatusofthepartiesisroughlyequivalent.Itisthespecificorganisationofcontactspacesandsettingsthatunderminesmanyoftheseconditions:thecaseofLunarHouseconfirmstheimportanceof‘thespatialandtemporalcontextswithinwhichprejudiceoccurs’(Valentine,2010,p.534).Itillustratesnotonly‘howspaceandplaceinfluencethekindsofinteractionsthattakeplacebetweenstateagentsandcitizens’(Jones,2012,p.819)butalsothewayinwhichthe‘detailandtextureofinteraction’(AskinsandPain,2011,p.816)isconditionedbyinstitutionalarrangements.

AppealsItisatellingmeasureoftheinadequacyoftheinterviewsandtheinitialdecisionmakingprocessthataroundaquarterofnegativeinitialdecisionsareoverturnedonappeal,indicatingthatatleastaquarterofthemareerroneous50(AmnestyInternationalandStillHumanStillHere,2013).Thisisnottosay,however,thattheappealprocessisanylessencounter-averse.Itinvolveshearingroughly15,000asylumappealsperyearin13regionaltribunals51dottedacrosstheUnitedKingdom,suchastheoneinNewport,SouthWales(seeFigure4.4),andhasbeencriticisedforlackinglegalcoherence(Thomas,2011)aswellasobscuringasetof‘underlyingpowerrelations’beneathaveneerof‘impersonalityandneutrality’(Campbell,

2009,p.9).Therealvalueofasylumappeals,Thomasargues,istheir‘symbolicandexpressivefunctions’(Thomas,2011,p.23)whichprovidepowerfultechniquesforappeasingindividualsandquieteningpoliticalopposition,butdonotactuallyoffer‘muchbywayoflegalsubstance’(Thomas,2011,p.23).

Figure4.4First-tierImmigrationandAsylumTribunalHearingCentre,ColumbusHouse,Newport,Wales.PhotographbyMelanieGriffiths,2013.

HereIdrawona3-month,multi-sitedethnographyofhearingcentresconductedin2013,thattookineightofthethirteenmajorhearingcentresintheUnitedKingdom,toassesswhetherappealsdoabetterjobofmeetingAllport’sconditionsthantheinterviewsatLunarHouse(seeAppendixformoredetailsonmethodology).ThedataIdrawoninthissectionaretakenfromtheethnographicresearchdiariesofmyresearchersDrsMelanieGriffithsandAndrewBurridge.Wherethefirstpersonisusedindirectquotationsinthissectionitreferstooneofthesetworesearchers,whoIdenotewiththeinitialsMGandABrespectively.

Giventhelackofsubstanceofappeals,theprincipleoffairnessisconsistentlyatriskofbeingoverwhelmedbyadministrativeconsiderations.Inparticular,theHomeOfficeisvery

concernedthatthelengthoftheappealprocessmaymakeitdifficulttoeventuallyremovefailedapplicants,andthereforetribunalsandjudgesthemselvesareunderpressuretocompletedecisionswithin10daysofeveryhearing,andconclude75%ofasylumappealswithin6weeks(Thomas,2011,p.98).ThishastheeffectofputtingpressureonthelengthofhearingsandensuringthatsustainedinteractionsintheformthatAllportadvocatesdonotoccur.Actorsinvolvedincasesareespeciallykeennotto‘trythepatience’(MG52)oftheimmigrationjudgesbyprolongingthehearings.Inonecasethatwasobserved

both[sides]expressedadesiretogetthecaseoveranddonewithasquicklyaspossibleandbothwereextremelybriefintheirroles.Thewholehearingisjust48minuteslong!!Andtherearetwowitnessesasidesfromtheapplicant!Itell[thelegalrepresentativefortheHomeOffice]afterwardsthatI’mshockedhowquickitwasandsherepliesbytellingmethatthatwasn’tparticularlyquick,shecandotwoasylumappealhearingsby11.15am!53She’sclearlyproudofthis,feelingthatspeedisagoodsign.(MG54)

Intermsofthepursuitofcommongoals,thelegalapproachusedduringasylumhearingsinBritainisadversarialmeaningthatthetwopartieswillseektoundermineeachother’scredibilitythroughalegalstrugglefoughtbyopposingsidesthathastraditionallybeenseenasa‘trialofstrength’betweentwoadversariesratherthananenquiryintotruth(Rock,1993,p.31,citingDevlin,1979).AsylumseekersinvariablyenterthisbattlefieldonanunequalfootingbecauseinstitutionssuchastheHomeOfficearebetterequippedtodevisenewlegalstrategies(Campbell,2009).Someapplicantsmayhavelawyerswhereasotherswillnot,partlyasaresultofthesystematiccontractionoflegalaidmadeavailabletoasylumseekersinthissituationinrecentyears.

Foritspart,theHomeOfficeusuallyfieldsaPresentingOfficer(PO),whosejobinvolves‘havingtobecombativeandaccusepeopleoflying.Beingtoo“soft”ortrusting[is]consideredaproblem’(MG55).Theseofficersareusuallyrelativelyjuniorcivilservants‘withnolegalqualifications’(Good,2007,p.112),whocommonlyfocuson‘tryingtoinduceappellantstomakeinconsistentremarks’(Good,2007,p.112).OnePOdescribed,

howdifficultherjobis,howdemoralisingandwhatpressurePresentingOfficersareunder.Shesaidthattheyareundertrainedandunderpaid(incomparisontotrainedlegalrepresentativesinparticular)…Theyareexpectedtowin60%oftheircasesbutthatthisisunfairbecausesomecasesareboundtobesuccessful,nomatterhowgoodthePresentingOfficer.[I]ftheydon’tmeettheirtargets,theygetatalkingto(MG56).

IncontrasttoPOswhofallshortoftheirtarget,Officerswhodowellandeithermeetorexceedtheirtarget‘success’rate(meaningthatthejudgedecidestoupholdtheinitiallynegativedecisionoftheHomeOfficeandrefusetheasylumclaim)arerewardedwithpettybonuseslikehighstreetshoppingvouchersandextraholidays(TaylorandMason,2014).Conversely,thoseatriskoflosingcasesarealsoencouragedtowithdrawthemratherthannotchupafailureagainsttheirrecord,prolongingtheagonyofwaitingformanyapplicantswithstrongcases.

Theneteffectisthatitishardtoconceiveofasituationinwhichtheinterestsofthetwo

partiesaremorediametricallyopposed.Sopronouncedaretheincentivestoundermineeachotherinthelegalcontextthateventhemostbasicformsofbodylanguageandlinguisticetiquetteareimpacted,totheextentthatthesocialatmosphereandeaseofcommunicativeinteractioninthetribunalareoftenextremelynegativeandimpaired.DuringhearingsPOsoftenpurposefullykeeptheirheadsdownorintheirhandsandalmostneverlookattheappellant(MG57).OneOfficerrecognisedthat‘callingsomeonealiartotheirfaceisverydifficultandnotsomethingyouwouldeverdoinnormalsociety’(MG58).POsconsequentlyseemedto‘dealwiththeemotionsoftheirjobeitherbybeingveryaggressivetotheappellant,orcreatingabarrierwiththem,whichresultsintheirnotlookingattheappellant(e.g.closingtheireyeswhentalkingtothem,staringatthetableortheirdocuments,addressingthetranslatorinstead,orevenlookingintheoppositedirection)’(MG59).

Intermsofspokeninteraction,theconstantdrivetofindinconsistenciesinapplicants’accountscanresultinthecompletebreakdownofeffectivecommunication.POsatonecentre,forexample,

seemtorevelinmiscommunication.Unlikeineverydaycommunication,wherebothspeakersattempttorepairtheconversationwhenthereismisunderstanding,itseemstobeastrategyofPOstoallowmiscommunicationtopersevere,whetherbecauseitfrustratesjudgesorappearsasthoughtheappellantisbeingevasiveordifficult.So,ifanappellantdoesn’tappeartounderstandthequestion(butattemptstoanswerit,ratherthansaytheydon’tunderstand),POswilleitherrepeatthequestionusingexactlythesamewords(ratherthantrytoexplainthemselvesinanotherway),butwithgrowinganger,orjustaccusetheappellantofnotansweringthequestion.(MG60)

Thesestiltedformsofbodilyandverbalinteractionaremadeworsebyastrongcultureofseparatingthepartiesbeforeandduringhearings.Immigrationjudgesaresegregatedfromapplicantsviaseparateofficesandcorridors,reflectinglong-standingconcernsover‘contamination’bythewitnessesandapplicantsbeforetheirmomentincourt(Rock,1993).Tribunalsareconsequentlydesignedinordertosegregatedifferentgroupsinvolvedinhearings,andonlyafewtypesofindividuals(e.g.securitystaffandushers)areabletotraversethedifferentareas.TheriftbetweenPOsandapplicantsismostobviousinthecommonwaitingareasofthetribunals:

ThePresentingOfficerseitherwaitupstairsintheiroffice,inthereceptionareatalkingtoLegalRepresentativesorushers,orwalkbrisklythroughthewaitingroomtothehearingrooms.PresentingOfficersareusuallythefirstonesinthehearingrooms.[They]neverlingerinthewaitingroom,onlyevergoingthroughitquickly.PresentingOfficersdonotliketomixinthesepublicspaces.(MG61)

Overlayingtheseimpedimentstofree-flowinginteractionisasetofindicatorsoftheunequalstatusoftheactorsinvolvedinthehearing.Whilethedesignofthetribunalroomsclearlybestowsthejudgewithhigheststatus(theysitonaraiseddais,underacoatofarms,andhavetheirowndoorintothecourtroom),thelegalrepresentativeandthePresentingOfficerareusuallyclosesttothejudge,withtheapplicantbeingfurthestaway(Figure4.5).Alltheactors

intheroommustaddressthejudgeasSirorMa’am,standwhenthejudgeentersorleaves,anditisgoodpracticetoalsobowslightlyuponleavingatribunalroomifthejudgeisstillpresent.Althoughtheserulesofetiquetteapplyequallytoalltheactorsinthecase(includingthetranslatorifpresent,theapplicant,theirlegalrepresentativeifpresentandthePO),itismostfrequentlytheapplicantwhohasnotbeentoldabouttherules,hasnotunderstoodthemorismostunfamiliarwithprocedures,therebybeingthemostfrequentlyembarrassedbyhavingtoberemindedofthem.Duringverbalcommunicationotherrulesapply.Theapplicantshouldaddressthejudge,forexample,eveniftheyarespeakingthroughaninterpreter,andspeakslowlyinshortsentencestoallowthejudgetomakenotes.Theinteractionisthereforepunctuatedbyfrequentperiodsofsilenceasthejudgewritesdownwhatishappeningbeforesignallingforinteractiontocontinue.Oftenjudgeswillbeannoyedbyinfringementsofsuchrulesandalthoughmostremaincalmandreasonable,sometimesthiswillresultintheapplicantfeelingtheheatofthejudge’sanger.Somejudgeswhofeelthattheapplicantisnotcooperatingcanbecomeimpatient,frustratedandrude,andaremoreorlessatlibertytodosointheirowncourtroom.Thiscontrastsstarklywiththeprevailingattitudethat,inrelationtoapplicantsthemselves,‘thecourtisnotaplaceforemotion’(AB62)andthosewhoshowemotionare‘generallyseenasmakingthedaymuchharder.…Thereisnospaceforappellantstobeangryorfrustrated’(MG63).

Figure4.5LayoutofaTribunalhearingroom.Credit:DrMelanieGriffithsfortheoriginalsketchandDrRebeccaRotterforthecomputer-generatedversion.

Allinall,whiletheappealprocessconstitutesanindispensablecheckagainstpoorqualityinitialdecisionssuchasthosethatmightbemadeatLunarHouse,itneverthelessrepeatstheviolationsofAllport’sconditionsformeaningful,prejudice-reducinginteractioncommittedduringasyluminterviews.Although,likeinterviews,appealhearingsarelegallysanctionedandthereforesupportedbyrelevantauthorities,theyareone-offeventsthatlackthefrequency

ofinteractionthatAllportdescribed.Theyarealsohighlyformalisedexchangesthatembodydistinctasymmetriesofstatusand,perhapsmostimportantly,arearenasinwhichpartiesstriveexplicitlytowardsdiametricallyopposedgoals.

Conclusion:OntheArtsofAvertingEncountersInChapterTwoIexploredtheargumentthatbureaucracieshaveaninherentpropensitytokeepbureaucratsandsubjectsapart.Inthecaseofasylumapplicationdetermination,however,functionariesalsohavetomeetasylumapplicantsatvariousstagesoftheirapplicationprocess.Thisgivesrisetoadilemma:howtomeetasylumapplicantswithoutbecomingembroiledinthedetailsoftheirexperiencesoraffectedbytheharrowingstoriestheyhavetotell.Inotherwords,howtonurturewhatBarnett(2005,p.10)hascalled‘strangeproximity’.Functionarieshavetobecapableofmeetingasylumseekerswithoutcompromisingthemoralestrangementthatallowsthemtoactindifferently,objectivelyanddispassionatelyaccordingtotherulesofimmigrationcontrolratherthantheirowncodes,moresandsensibilities.

Thisabilityissecuredbytheinstitutionalsettingsinwhichtheseeventstakeplace,whichfacilitateadiaphoric,morallydisinterestedmeetingsbetweenofficialsandmigrantsbyopeningvariousdistancesbetweendecisionmakersandsubjectsasidefromphysicaldistance.Inthecasesofscreeninginterviews,substantiveinterviewsandasylumappeals,contactisinfrequentandunsustained,theinteractionisformalandstilted,thepartiesworktowardsdisparateobjectives,andtheasymmetricalstatusofapplicantsandofficialsovershadowstheirinteraction.Thisstymiedformofinteraction,occurringacrossarangeoftemporal,social,culturalandorganisationalformsofdistance,leaveslittleroomformeaningfulinteractionandmorallydemandingencounterstooccur.

Systemmanagersmayseenoneedtopursuecontactofanyotherforminthecontextofbordercontrol.Theymaybesolocked-intobureaucratic,operationalwaysofthinkingthattheywouldquestiontheutilityandfeasibilityofpursuingAllport’sconditionsatall.Unfortunately,however,thecold,clinicalandimpersonalsystemsthatthisoperationalmindsetproducesturnouttobetheidealbreedinggroundforthesortofindividualprejudiceandsystemicallyprejudicialdecisionmakingthathastarnishedthereputationsoftheIND,UKBAandtheirdescendantsoverthepast20years,asdiscussedintheintroductorychapter.

TheseobservationsconstituteasecondcriticaldevelopmentoftheaccountofmoraldistancepresentedinChapterTwo.Althoughmoraldistancingisanimportantconsequenceofrecentchangesintheorganisationofbordercontrols,itisapparentfromthediscussioninthischapterthatwherephysicaldistanceisclosed,moralestrangementneednotbe.Therearevariousbarrierstothe‘moralityinsideme’(Kant,1788/2002)thatphysicalproximitypromisestoactivate.ThelackofmoreencountersliketheonebetweenMrBrimelowandNataliya,describedinChapterTwo,owesitselflargelytotheexistenceoftheseinstitutionalformsofdistancing.

Thefactremains,however,thatbothasyluminterviewsandappealsare,bytheirnature,occasionalandintermittentaffairs.Conceivably,therefore,onecoulddefendtheBritish

immigrationcontrolsystembyarguingthatthereisalimittothedegreeofmeaningfulcontactthatcanbegeneratedinthesesituations.Accordingtothislineofargumenttheimmigrationcontrolsystemmightbemerelyavictimofcircumstance,unabletonurturemeaningfulormoralencountersbetweenitsfunctionariesandmigrants,eveniftherewasadesiretodoso,duetotheshorttimetheyspendtogether.Inthenextchapter,however,Iexaminetheorganisationofinteractionbetweenfunctionariesandmigrantsundertheconditionsofsustainedcontactthatimmigrationdetentionproduces.Asisturnsout,theingenuitythroughwhichmeaningfulinteractionandmorallydemandingencountersareavoidedis,ifanything,evenmorestrikinginthiscontext.

Notes1TheconversationsIhadatthecounter-protestthatIrecountinthissectionoccurredon27

July2013.

2TheevidencefromofficialsatthedemonstrationthatIquoteherecomesfrommyresearchdiary,whichIwroteonthebasisofscratchnotesmadeduringandimmediatelyafterthedemonstration.

3TherearealsoAsylumCaseManagementReviewhearingsatwhichpartiesagreeontheissuesunderconsiderationinthesubstantivehearing,andtherearealsobail,deportationandimmigrationhearings.Idonotdiscussthesehere.

4Theimportanceoffrequentcontactforprejudice-reduction,whichoccursinavarietyofsocialcontexts,hasbeenanenduringfindingofthecontactliteraturesinceAllport’sseminalwork(RothbartandJohn,1985).

5Interviewwithactivist,10October2006.

6Interviewwithformerasylumseeker,November2013.

7Interviewwithactivist,October2006.

8InterviewwithseniormanageroftheIND,ApolloHouse,2006.

9Interviewconducted20June2006.

10Formerasylumseekerandactivist,April2006.

11Interviewwithactivist,October2006.

12Afterwards,twoA-levelsandfiveGCSEswererequired.TheA-LevelisanabbreviationfortheGeneralCertificateofEducationAdvancedLevel,whichisanacademicqualificationofferedbyeducationalbodiesintheUnitedKingdomtostudentscompletingsecondaryorpre-universityeducation.TheGeneralCertificateofSecondaryEducation(GCSE)isanacademicqualificationawardedinaspecifiedsubject,generallytakenina

numberofsubjectsbystudentsaged14–16insecondaryeducationinEngland,WalesandNorthernIreland.Neitheroftheserepresentsadegreelevelqualification.

13Interviewwithformerintelligenceofficer,28November2013.

14Figley(1995,p.7)definessecondarytraumaas‘thestressresultingfromhelpingorwantingtohelpatraumatizedorsufferingperson’.Seealsosecondarytrauma.orgforalistofthecommonsymptomsofsecondarytraumaaswellasalistofprofessionalswhoareatriskfromit.

15Interviewwithactivist,20June2006.

16Thequoteistakenfroma‘PCSView’webarticlepublishedin2003andquotingthebranchsecretarywithresponsibilityforLunarHouse(PublicandCommercialServicesUnion,2003).

17Interviewwithformerintelligenceofficer,28November2013.

18TheofficerherselfidentifiedasBritishMinorityEthnic(BME).

19Interviewwithformerintelligenceofficer,28November2013.

20AtthetimeofmyprimaryresearchatLunarHouseduringthemid-2000ssubstantiveasyluminterviewswereusuallyheldinLunarHouseorthesurroundingareaofCroydon.WiththecreationofRegionalAsylumTeams(RATs),however,substantiveinterviewsbegantobeundertakenatotherlocationsincludingFolkestone,Cardiff,Solihull,Liverpool,Leeds,Newcastle,Glasgow,BelfastandelsewhereinLondon.

21InterviewwithseniormanageroftheIND,ApolloHouse,2006.

22Interviewwithactivist,October2006.

23InterviewwithseniormanageroftheIND,ApolloHouse,2006.

24Interviewwithformerasylumseeker,November2013.

25TheHomeAffairsSelectCommitteeisacommitteeoftheHouseofCommonsintheParliamentoftheUnitedKingdom,withresponsibilityforexaminingtheexpenditure,administrationandpolicyoftheHomeOfficeanditsassociatedpublicbodies.TheCommitteepublisheditsreportentitled‘Asylum’(HomeAffairsSelectCommittee,2013a)inOctober2013aftera10-monthinquiryintotheasylumsystem.Thereporthighlightedtheslowpaceofdecisionmaking,thepoorqualityofinitialdecisionssuchasthosemadeatLunarHouse,thepoorqualityofhousingforasylumseekersprovidedundernewcontractswithprivatecontractors,andtheinadequacyoffinancialsupportforasylumseekersandthosewhohavebeenrefusedbutareunabletoreturnhome.Aspartofresearchingthereport,theCommitteeinvitedsubmissionsofevidenceandmanyasylumsupportgroupsresponded.

26ThisevidenceistakenfromthewrittensubmissionbyLeicesterCityofSanctuarytotheHomeAffairsSelectCommittee(2013b)onAsylum.

27ThisevidenceistakenfromthewrittensubmissionbyWyonStansfeldtotheHomeAffairsSelectCommittee(2013b)onAsylum.

28ThisevidenceistakenfromthewrittensubmissionbyWomen’sRefugeeStrategyGrouptotheHomeAffairsSelectCommittee(2013b)onAsylum,andthewomancitedisfromPakistan.

29ThisevidenceistakenfromthewrittensubmissionbyASSISTSheffieldtotheHomeAffairsSelectCommittee(2013b)onAsylum.

30ThisevidenceistakenfromthewrittensubmissionbyLucyFairleytotheHomeAffairsSelectCommittee(2013b)onAsylum.

31ThisevidenceistakenfromthewrittensubmissionbyLucyFairleytotheHomeAffairsSelectCommittee(2013b)onAsylum.

32ThisevidenceistakenfromthewrittensubmissionbyLucyFairleytotheHomeAffairsSelectCommittee(2013b)onAsylum.

33ThisevidenceistakenfromthewrittensubmissionbyWomen’sRefugeeStrategyGrouptotheHomeAffairsSelectCommittee(2013b)onAsylum,andthewomancitedisfromtheDemocraticRepublicoftheCongo.

34ThisevidenceistakenfromthewrittensubmissionbySurvivorsSpeakOuttotheHomeAffairsSelectCommittee(2013b)onAsylum.

35Interviewwithformerasylumseeker,November2013.

36Interviewwithformerasylumseeker,November2013.

37LunarHousehasitsownshort-termholdingfacilityinwhichasylumseekersareheld,usuallyforafewhours,beforebeingtakenintodetentionfromwheretheycanbedeported.

38Interviewwithformerasylumseeker,November2013.

39Interviewwithformerasylumseeker,November2013.

40Interviewwithactivist,28February2006.

41Interviewwithactivist,28February2006.

42Interviewwithactivist,28February2006.

43Interviewwithformerasylumseeker,November2013.

44Interviewwithactivist,October2006.

45TheDepartmentofHealthandSocialSecurity(commonlyknownastheDHSS)wasaministryoftheBritishgovernmentfrom1968until1988.Itgainednotorietyforitsdrabanduncomfortablewaitingrooms,asdepictedinPaulGraham’sphotographentitledCrouchedMan,DHSSWaitingRoom,Bristol,whichcanbeviewedhere:http://www.moma.org/collection/object.php?object_id=55222(accessed31August2015).

46Foradiscussionofthisphenomenon,aswellasotheraspectsofbothLunarHouseandtheSLCreport,seeBack(2007).

47Interviewwithactivist,October2006.

48Interviewwithactivistandcommunityleader,October2006.

49Interviewwithactivistandcommunityleader,October2006.

50ItshouldbenotedthatatthispointintheargumentitisnecessarytotakeupsomeofthelanguageandconceptsoftheHomeOffice,whichordinarilyIwouldobjectto.Thenotionthatasylumclaimscanbe‘erroneous’onlymakessensewithinthetermssetoutbytheHomeOffice,andamoreradicalpositionwouldquestionwhetheranyoneshouldbedeemederroneousonthebasisoftheirattemptstotravelforabetterlife.

51Tribunalsoperatelikecourtsbuthaveaslightlylessformalstatusinlaw.

52Diaryentryof28August2013.

53Immigrationtribunalhearingschedulesinthefirsttiergenerallybeginat10.00am.

54Diaryentry17October2013.

55Diaryentry29October2013.

56Diaryentry28August2013.

57Diaryentry23August2013.

58Diaryentry23August2013.

59Diaryentry29October2013.

60Diaryentry29October2013.

61Diaryentry9September2013.

62Diaryentry8November2013.

63Diaryentry29October2013.

ChapterFiveIndifferenceTowardsSufferingOthersDuringSustainedContact

Ihaveneverbeenabletounderstandhowitwaspossibletoloveone’sneighbors.AndImeanpreciselyone’sneighbors,becauseIcanconceiveofthepossibilityoflovingthosewhoarefaraway.Ireadsomewhereaboutasaint,JohntheMerciful,who,whenahungryfrozenbeggarcametohimandaskedhimtowarmhim,laydownwithhim,puthisarmsaroundhim,andbreathedintotheman’sreekingmouththatwasfesteringwiththesoresofsomehorribledisease.Iamconvincedthathedidsoinastateoffrenzy,thatitwasafalsegesture,thatthisactoflovewasdictatedbysomeself-imposedpenance.IfImustlovemyfellowman,hehadbetterhidehimself,fornosoonerdoIseehisfacethanthere’sanendofmyloveforhim.

SpokenbythecharacterIvanKaramazovinFyodorDostoevsky’sTheBrothersKaramazov,andcitedinWendyHamblet,2003,p.361

[D]irectexperienceestablishestoocloseacontactHannahArendt,EssaysinUnderstanding,1994,p.323

IbeganthisbookwithanaccountofMrDvorzac’sdeathinimmigrationdetentionin2014,whichwasnotablebecauseitwasnotdistantorremotefromfunctionariesbutoccurredrightundertheirnoses.Althoughmoraldistancecanhelptoexplainsomeformsofindifferencetowardssuffering,itstrugglestoshedlightonindifferencethatpersistsinthesesortsofcircumstances.InthelasttwochaptersIhavecriticallyreflectedonsomeoftheimplicationsoftheaccountofmoraldistanceIputforwardinChapterTwo,arguingthatmoraldistanceneedstobeaugmentedbyanattentiontothedistancingofbothsubjectsandbureaucrats(inChapterThree)andwithanattentiontothewaysestrangementcanbemaintainedatclosequarters(inChapterFour).InthischapterIventurefurtherbeyondexplanationscouchedintermsofmoraldistancetoseektoaccountforMrDvorzac’sdeath.Thesortofindifferencegeneratedthroughmoraldistanceisunfamiliarwithsuffering,buthereIarguethatoverfamiliaritywithsufferingcangiverisetoadifferentformofindifference.

GeorgSimmel(1903/2002)firstlinkedthedevelopmentofablaséattitudetowardsotherswithmodernurbanlife.Contemporarycities,heargued,throwpeopletogetherwithsuchfrequency,andbringdiversityintosuchproximity,thatthemodern,metropolitanpersonality‘createsaprotectiveorganforitselfagainsttheprofounddisruptionwithwhichthefluctuationsanddiscontinuitiesoftheexternalmilieuthreatenit’(Simmel,1903/2002,p.12).Modernindividualsconsequentlydevelopawayofrelatingtoothersthatischaracterizedby‘apurelymatter-of-fact’(Simmel,1903/2002,p.12)attitude,‘unrelentinghardness’(Simmel,1903/2002,p.12)anda‘blaséoutlook’(Simmel,1903/2002,p.14)thattendstoresultin‘indifferencetowardsthedistinctionsbetween[others]’(Simmel,1903/2002,p.14).This

suggeststhatourmoralimpulses,mostathomeincloseproximity,areindangerofbeingoverstimulatedandexhaustedasmoderncitiesexposeuswithunprecedentedfrequencytodifferentpeopleandmoralclaims.Thisformofindifferencedoesnotrelyuponphysicaldistance:itisimpervioustonearness,andmayevenbeexacerbatedbyit.ClearlyinthecaseoftheabusedmeninHarmondsworth,thesortofmoralawakeningthatLevinasdescribesinproximitydidnotoccur:theethicalmomentofepiphanywassomehowsuspendeddespitethesustainedcontactbetweenguardsanddetainees.AsDostoevskyintimatesthroughhischaracter,IvanKaramazov,lovingpeopleandempathisingwiththemishardwork,especiallywhentheyappeardisgusting,inconsequentialorstrange.‘Empathyinvolvesimaginingourselvesinsomeoneelse’sskinandallowingourselvestofeelsomeoftheirsufferingbyassociation.Thisispainful’explainsStansfeld(2013).‘[I]fyoureallyopenyourselfwithpresencetootherpeople’sfeelingsandneeds’Krznaricwrites,

thenyoumightbecomeoverwhelmedbytheexperience,resultinginemotionaldistressandinaction.…youcanthinkof[it]asleapingtoofarintosomeoneelse’simagination.[Suchdistressandinaction]hasbeenobservedespeciallyamongstthoseworkinginemotionallyextremeandtraumaticsituations.

Krznaric,2014,p.116

Toavoidthisriskofbecomingoverwhelmed,oneresponsewhenconfrontedwithsufferingistoentera‘stateofdenial’accordingtowhichavarietyofpsychologicalrusesareemployedtohidethetruthabouttraumaandatrocity(andourimplicationinthem)fromourselves,includingfeignedblindnesstoobviouseventsandextremefidelitytothetechnicaldemandsofone’srole(Cohen,2001).

Forthosethatrefusetheserusesandinsteadattempttoremainsensitivelyandempatheticallyengagedwithtraumavictims,theconsequencesareoftendire.Itiswell-knownthatthosewhoworkcloselywithtraumatisedothersandacknowledgetheirsufferingareatheightenedriskofwhathasbeencalledcompassionfatigue,burnout,secondarytraumaticstresssyndromeandvicarioustraumatisation(Figley,2002).Thisphenomenon,whichItoucheduponbrieflyinthepreviouschapter,canresultintheemotionalcontagionofonesetoffeelingsbyanotherindividualand,whennotproperlysupportedbycounselling,‘[t]hepicturethatemergesisclear:Thosewhoworkwiththesufferingsufferthemselvesbecauseofthework’(Figley,2002,p.5).Evenprofessionallytrainedcounsellorsandpsychotherapistsreporttheirstruggleswithfeelingsofguilt,anger,stress,frustration,exhaustion,powerlessnessandhelplessnesswhenworkingwithtraumasurvivors(Centuryetal.,2007;Jensenetal.,2013).Theoptionsforsuchprofessionalsareeithertofaceuptothesecondarytraumahead-on,whichrequirescourageandisemotionallychallenging,ortoadoptshortcutstoavoidingcompassionfatigueincluding‘detachment[asa]distractionawayfromthehumanityofthepatient’(Figley,2002,p.218).HowmuchmorelikelyisthisdetachmentamongDetentionCustodyOfficers(DCOs)whohavenotbeentrainedorpreparedanythinglikeaswellastheseprofessionals?1

Onewaytointerprettheformsofindifferenceresponsibleforthepoortreatmentofdetaineesistorepudiatetheoriesoftheencounter.WendyHambletemploysaliteralreadingofLevinas

andtakesissuewithhisconceptualisationofethicsandthestatusthatheaccordstothefacetofaceencounteronthesegrounds.‘EmmanuelLevinas’sphenomenology,offeringanaïvedescriptionofthewayinwhichhumansoccupytheirsubjective“places”onearth,composesaremarkably–anddisturbingly–sympatheticaccountoflivingbeing’,sheargues(Hamblet,2003,p.356).Farfromrespondingwithgenerosityinthefaceofsuffering,

[r]evulsioninthefaceofthenearbyneedyresonateswithmostofus,thoughwemaybeashamedtoadmitit.Needystrangersonthestreetsofourcitiesaremostoftenmetwithfearordisgust.Theunknownotheristerrifying,horrifying;hisdifferenceisexperiencedasthreatening,preciselyinproportionashisabjectionisbeyondquestion.

Hamblet,2003,p.361

‘Nearnessfrustratescompassion’(Hamblet,2003,p.363),shesurmises,inoppositiontoLevinas.‘Theuglyrealityofthemiseriesoftheabject–theirfoulsmell,theirlouse-riddenandtornrags,theirwarylooksandsuspiciousdemeanour–renderimpossiblethe“identification”fromwhichethicalresponsemightbelaunched’(Hamblet,2003,p.363).Thehorrificessenceofimmigrationdetention,onthislogic,liesinrecognisingthisimpossibility.Byexposingfunctionariestoinnumerabledisturbingstoriesofpastindividualtraumasaswellaslegionexamplesofpresentsufferingtheyquicklybecomeoverwhelmed,theirsympathiesexhausted,andtheyareobligedtospontaneouslydeveloppsychologicaltechniquesofestrangement,detachmentandaloofness–i.e.indifference–asaformofself-care.

WhetherornotwefollowHamblet’sratherliteralinterpretationofLevinas,herbroaderpointsaboutdisgustandrevulsion,andconsequentpsychologicaldetachment,arehardtoignoreandareinkeepingwithSimmel’sdiscussionoftheblaséurbanpersonality.Disturbingly,itispossibletodiscernparticularinstitutionaltacticsthatmakethissortofdetachmentamongdetentionpersonnelbothimperativeontheonehandandeasierontheother.AsIshowinthefollowingsections,thespatialchurningofdetaineesfromcentretocentreexposesstafftoagreaterdiversityofsufferingandforcesthemtostepbackfromcloseempatheticrelationshipswithindividualdetainees,whiletheinstitutionalisedtrivialisationofdetainees,combinedwiththeiroften-assertedstrangeness,makesiteasierforstafftoconvincethemselvesthatrefusingtorespondsensitivelytodetaineesisacceptable.

Themoststrikingaspectoftheseinstitutionalfeaturesisthewayinwhichcontactturnsintosomethingthatactuallyfeedsandexacerbatestheindifferencethatstaffexhibit.InthecaseofthesortofpsychologicalavoidancethatSimmeldescribes,themoreexposuretotraumathemorepronouncedanddevelopedtheavoidancetacticsarelikelytobe(Figley,2002).Inareversaloftherelationshipbetweenindifferenceandcontacttothatdescribedinpreviouschapters,therefore,undertheextremesituationofsustainedcontactinimmigrationdetention,contactwithsufferingothersitselfactstojam,clogandoverwhelmtheempatheticpsychologicalcapacitiesoffunctionaries.Thisiswhyitisimperativetoappreciatethatindifferenceisofatleasttwohighlydistinctforms:thatderivedfromdistanceandunfamiliarity,andthatderivedfromover-closenessandoverfamiliarity.Ittranspiresthatsustainedcontactwithsufferingothersoftenhasanoppositerelationshiptothetwo:promisingtoalleviatethefirstbutthreateningtoexacerbatethesecond.

InwhatfollowsIexplorethelimitstotheethicalpotentialofthefacetofaceencounterthataresetbyoverfamiliaritywithsufferingandover-closenesstothe‘uglyrealityofthemiseriesoftheabject’(Hamblet,2003,p.363).IfirstsetoutthebackgroundtoimmigrationdetentionintheUnitedKingdom,characterisetherolethatDetentionCustodyOfficersplayinBritain’sremovalcentres,andestablishtheriskinessofimmigrationdetentiontotheBritishstatebypointingtoasetofsituationsinwhichempathetic,morallyproximaterelationshipshavedevelopedbetweenstaffanddetainees(seealsoHall,2012).Ithenexploretheinstitutionalarrangementsthateithermaketheneedtodevelopablasé,insensitiveattitudetowardsdetaineesmorepressing,ormakeiteasiertodoso,andconcludebyassessingthecruelconsequencesoftheinsensitivitythatisthusengendered.

ImmigrationDetentionintheUnitedKingdomAtthetimeofwritingtheUnitedKingdomutilises11detentioncentreswithacapacityforaround4000detaineesatanyonetime.Additionally,so-called‘pre-departureaccommodation’isavailableataspecialistcentrecalled‘Cedars’inLondon,whichholdsfamiliesincludingchildren(towhichweshallreturninthenextchapter)andthereiscapacitytoholdmoreindividualsatportsandinmainstreamprisons.Intotal,over30,000migrantsareheldunderimmigrationpowersintheUnitedKingdomannually,butdespitethescaleoftheoperationimmigrationdetentionislargelyhiddenfrompublicviewandoftenonlycomestothepublic’sattentionthroughreportsofcrisesindetentioncentresinthemedia,suchasthe2002Yarl’sWoodfire,theriotsinHarmondsworthin2004and2006,hungerstrikesandprotestsbydetainees,andtheoccasionaldeathofadetaineethatisparticularlydisturbing.ThesizeoftheimmigrationdetentionpopulationintheUnitedKingdomhasgrownsteadilyfromacapacityof250in1993(Bacon,2005).Allremovalcentresarecontractedout,eithertoHerMajesty’sPrisonServiceoroneofasmallnumberofprivatesecuritycompaniessuchasSerco,G4S,MitieandGeo.In2006IspenttimeresearchingtheoldestdetentioncentreintheUnitedKingdom,CampsfieldHouseRemovalCentre,andwasabletogainaccesstothecentreandthefacilitiesandinterviewavarietyofstaffaswellasformerdetaineesandactivists(seetheAppendixformoredetails).

DetentioncentresintheUnitedKingdomareofficiallyrunundertheDetentionCentreRules(ImmigrationandNationalityDirectorate,2001)althoughsuccessiveinspectionsbyHerMajesty’sChiefInspectorateofPrisons(HMIP)ofdetentionconditionshaverevealedthatsomeofthemostfundamentalprinciplesoftheserulesarenotadheredtoinpractice.Therulesstatethat:

Thepurposeofdetentionshallbetoprovideforthesecurebuthumaneaccommodationofdetainedpersonsinarelaxedregimewithasmuchfreedomofmovementandassociationaspossible,consistentwithmaintainingasafeandsecureenvironment,andtoencourageandassistdetainedpersonstomakethemostproductiveuseoftheirtime,whilstrespectinginparticulartheirdignityandrighttoindividualexpression.[…]Duerecognitionwillbegivenatdetentioncentrestotheneedforawarenessoftheparticularanxietiestowhichdetainedpersonsmaybesubjectandthesensitivitythatthiswillrequire,especiallywhenhandlingissuesofculturaldiversity.

ImmigrationandNationalityDirectorate,2001,p.4,sections3(1)–3(2)

Incontrasttothetoneoftheseprinciples,immigrationdetentionintheUnitedKingdomhasbeenallegedtobethesiteofsecondarytorturefortorturevictims(MedicalJustice,2012),whereforeignerswhooffernopoliticalmileagetopoliticianscanbelockedawayoutofsightandoutofmindforanindefiniteperiodunderexecutivepowers,thatis,withouttrialoraspecifiedreleasedate(BailforImmigrationDetainees,2009).‘Ithinkdetentionsystemisveryhard’oneofmyintervieweesexplained,2whohadspentaround18monthsindetentionatvariouscentresintheUnitedKingdom,‘becausethepeopletheyleft,theyleftourcountrybecauseofproblemandwhentheycomehereit’slikesame,sametreatment.SoImeanlikemeIbeeninmycountryIbeeninprisonandhereIbeenindetention.Ithinkalmostit’sthesame.’

TheUnitedKingdomisoneofonlyasmallnumberofcountriestopractiseindefinitedetention.Inthelate2000sFranceandCyprusshareda32-daylimitoverthelengthoftimethatapersoncouldbedetainedunderimmigrationrules,ItalyandSpain40days,Ireland56days,Portugal60daysandGermany18months(Phelps,2009).NotknowingthetermoftheirconfinementiswithoutdoubtoneofhardestandcruellestelementsoftheBritishdetentionsystem.‘Thelackofinformationimpactsontheirgeneralwellbeing’,oneactivistwhoregularlyvisitedthedetaineesinCampsfieldtoldme.3‘Theystartgettingfrustratedandangryanddepressedallatoncebecausetheydon’tknowhowlongthey’reherefor.Andalotofthemdon’tknowwhythey’rehereeitherbecausetheydon’tunderstandthelettersthey’regiven.’Itisestimatedthatnearly11%ofindividualsenteringdetentionspendlongerthan3monthsindetention,and2%spendmorethanayear(HomeOffice,2011a,citedinMarshetal.,2012).

Suchlongspellsindetentionareexpensive.In2007,despitenotnormallypublishingthecostsofimmigrationdetention,theHomeOfficerespondedtoafreedomofinformationrequesttorevealthattheweeklycostofincarceratingasingledetaineerangedfrom£511to£1620dependinguponthecentre(TheMigrationObservatoryattheUniversityofOxford,2015a).Subsequently,in2010,inresponsetoaquestionraisedintheHouseofLords,itwasstatedthattheaverageoverallcostofonebedperdayintheimmigrationdetentionestatewas£120(Hansard,4February2010),althoughsincethattimeithasfallentoaround£100perday.ThismeansthattoholdonedetaineeindetentionforayearcostsBritishtaxpayerswellover£35,000.Therearealsocompensationcostsforunlawfuldetentionandotherassociatedlegalcompensationpaymentstoconsider,whichtotalled£12millionin2009–10.Tomakemattersworse,thecharityDetentionActionhasobservedthat‘62%ofmigrantsleavingdetentionaftermorethanayeararereleasedandonly38%removed’(DetentionAction,2013,p.1)

indicatingthatforthemajorityoflong-termdetaineestheirincarcerationisafutileandwastefulexercise.4

Theinitialdecisiontoholdpeopleinimmigrationdetentionisnormallytakenbyanindividual,non-judicialimmigrationofficerwithoutformallegalqualificationsandwithoutautomaticindependentoversight(i.e.withoutanindependentactorsuchasajudgecheckingthedecision5).Thishasgivenrisetoconcernsaboutthearbitrarinessoftheuseofimmigrationdetention(Weber,2000;Fordhametal.,2013).Inparticular,oneofthecentraljustificationsforimmigrationdetentionistheperceivedriskthatthedetaineemightotherwiseabscond,meaningthattheycouldgo‘underground’inanattempttoavoidtheauthorities.Ofthesmallnumberofstudiescarriedoutintothesubject,however,BruegelandNatamba(2002)usedtherecordsofBailforImmigrationDetainees(BID),aregisteredcharity,totrace98asylumdetaineeswhowerebailedbetweenJuly2000andOctober2001,findingthatover90%kepttheirbailconditionsdespiteonly7%receivingafavourablelegaldecision.Thissuggeststhatover90%ofthedetaineeswereincarceratedunnecessarily.

Thereisevidencetosuggestthatthestandardsofcarewithinimmigrationdetentionarefrequentlyhighlyunsatisfactory.In2013alonetherewere325recordedincidentsofself-harmrequiringmedicaltreatment,andthereareregularsuicideswithinthedetentionestate.6Theconcernisthattheselevelsofself-harmandsuicidearedrivenasmuchbytheabusivetreatmentdetaineesreceiveindetentionasbytheirpre-migrationexperiences.‘Theywillusehorribleterminologyandveryracistlanguage’,oneofmyintervieweesasserted7abouttheguardsinCampsfieldIRCinthemid-2000s,corroboratingthefindingsofanundercoverBBCinvestigationintodetentionpracticesin2005.TwoBBCreportersworkedundercoverinadetentioncentreandforacompanythatescortsasylumseekersandimmigrantsaroundthecountry,revealingevidenceofacultureofviolence,abuseandassaultsagainstdetaineesamongstaff(BBC,2005c).

By2012,anddespiteanindependentinquiryfollowingtheBBCdocumentary,thestandardofcarewasstillnotadequate.Researchconductedwith46detainedwomeninYarl’sWooddetentioncentrereportedthatdespitethefactthat72%saidtheyhadbeenrapedbeforetheirarrivalintheUnitedKingdom,87%hadbeenguardedandwatchedbyamaleofficer,70%saidthismadethemfeeluncomfortableand50%saidthatamemberofstaffhadverballyabusedthem(Girmaetal.,2014).Compoundingtheseissues,healthfacilitieshavealsobeenshowntobeunacceptablybelowstandardbothingeneralandespeciallyfordetaineeswhoarepregnant,whohaveHIVandwhoarechildren(MedicalJustice,2010,2011,2012,2013).‘Thehealthfacilitieswereverypoor’,oneformerdetaineerecalled;‘paracetamolwasthemostcommonmedicationforanydisease’.8

Whendetaineescomplainaboutconditionstostaff(manydonot,onestaffmembernoted,because‘theythinkitwillaffecttheircase’9),thereisconcernthatthesecomplaintsarenottakenseriously.‘Alotofthedetaineessaythatitdoesn’tmatter’,oneactivistexplained;‘theycanmakeacomplaintbutnothingnecessarilyhappensoncetheyhavemadeit’.Onememberofstaffwhohadworkedaspartofthespiritualsupportteamatadetentioncentreforoverfiveyearsalleged:

Ifadetaineeputsinacomplaintaboutanofficeronecanbealmostsurethattheofficer’sfriendwillputina[notificationthatthedetaineeposesahighsecurityrisk]onthedetainee.…Thisusuallymeansthesegregationblock…Seniormanagementhavetheattitudethatdetaineesareguiltyunlessproveninnocent.Complaintsareseldomcompletedandmanymorearejustsweptunderthecarpetorthedetaineemoved…wehaveseendetaineesvictimisedformakingcomplaints.10

Mostofthedetentioncentreshavesegregationfacilitiesthatprovideausefulholdingbaypriortodeportationortransfertoadifferentcentre.‘Anywhoreactina“loud”wayoranywho[thecontractingcompany]thinkwillcauseproblems,areputintothesegregationunit’,aspiritualsupportteammembertoldme.11Detaineesalsoreportthepunitiveusesofthesefacilities.‘Ofcoursetheypunishyou’,oneasylumseekerwhohadspentovertwoyearsindetentiontoldme,

theyputyousomeplaceyouhavetostayalone.Fortwodaysorthreedaysyoustayedthere.Therewassomefightwithstaff.Therewasabigguyandthentheytakehimandtheyputhiminthatplace.Andit’sthesamewhenyouhaveremovalifyouhaveremovalforliketodayat10.00soat6.00theytakeyouto[thesegregationunit],soyoujustwaitingforthetimetocome.12

Theuseofsegregationforsupposedlyhigh-riskindividualsispartofthebroaderisolationofdetaineesthatdetentionachieves(seeMountz,2013,forageneraldiscussion).Asurveyin2011demonstrated,forexample,that49%ofdetaineesintheBritishdetentionestatehadnolegalrepresentationatthetimeoftheirinterviewforbail,and19%reportedneverhavinghadanadvisorwhilstindetention(BailforImmigrationDetaineesandtheInformationCentreaboutAsylumandRefugeesattheRunnymedeTrust,2011).Othershavenotedtheirisolationfrompoliceprotectionwithindetention:‘Adetaineehasnorighttocallthepolice’,aformerdetaineecomplained,‘eveniftherearecivildisturbanceorriotsinthecentre’.13Andthereareother,lessformal,waysinwhichdetaineesbecomeseparatedfromlegaladviceandsupportnetworks.‘Itismostcommontocollectpeopleattheweekendwhensolicitorsareoff’,onesupportstaffmemberexplained14withreferencetothedawnraidsintoasylumseekers’privatehomesthatmarkthebeginningofaperiodindetention(seeVickers,2012).‘Anotherploy’,shecontinues,‘istoremovetheirmobilephonessotheydonothaveaccesstophonenumbers.Theycan,eventually,betakentochecktheirphonefornumbers,buttheprocesscausesdelay.…Evenmoneyhasbeencalled“illegalmoney”andtakenfromthem…’

Unsurprisingly,thesocialatmospherewithindetentioncentrescanbeoppressive.Asidefromthe‘generalfeelingofuncertaintythat[detaineeshave]noideawhatisgoingon’,15asoneactivistputit,detaineesoftensufferfromacuteunder-stimulation.‘Themainthingthatpeoplearetellingmeisjusthowincrediblyboredtheyareaboutbeinglockedupinaplaceandnotbeingallowedtodoanything’,anactivistexplained;16‘Alotofthepeoplehavereallyhighqualificationsandthey’reprettywelleducatedalotofthem[andtheyare]justdyingfromunder-stimulationandnothavinganythingtodo.’Thisunderoccupationofthedetaineescombineswithastrictetiquetteprotocoltoproduceastiflingenvironment.‘Staffexpectpoliteness’,onestaffmembertoldme:17

Certainitemsmaybeborrowedlikehairclippers,TVremote,DVDs,tabletennisbatsandballandthedetainee’scardishandedinassurety.Smokingisonlypermittedincertainplaces.Detaineesmaynothavematches,butmustaskanofficerforalight.Lookingtoolongatthefenceisconsideredariskandthedetaineeislikelytobecalledanescaperiskandmovedintothesegregationcells.

Inductionintotheseregimentedsurroundingsisparticularlyimportantinestablishingandmaintainingorder.‘IrememberthatIwasaskedtodoatranslationforaninductionforanewguy’,oneformerdetaineerecalled,18‘andheaskedmespecificallytotranslatetothisnewdetainee.Thisguysaid“Ifyougiveusshitwewillgiveyoubackmoreshit.”Soheaskedmespecificallytotranslatethis.Ithinktheyhaveapolicyofpeoplebeingsubjectedtoahighdoseoffearandnottodoanyfoolishthings.’

EmpathyinImmigrationDetentionCampsfieldHouseIRCisimbuedwiththehallmarksofthecontinuingstruggletosubduethedetaineepopulation.Althoughthereisfreeassociationduringtheday,meaningthatdetaineescanleavetheirwingsandhaveaccesstomostofthecentre,securityishigh,includingpervasiveCCTVmonitoring,thoroughcheckingandsearchingofallvisitorstothecentre,guardspatrollingthe12-foothigh,razor-wire-toppedperimeterfence,multiplesteelsecuritydoorsandthesanctioneduseofforcefulcontrolandrestraintprocedureswhereveraggressiveresistanceismet.

IncharacterisingtherelationshipbetweenguardsanddetaineesinBritishimmigrationdetention,AlexandraHallhasnotedatensionbetween‘idealsofimpersonality,rationalityandformalisticbureaucraticaction’(Hall,2012,p.144)andthefactthat‘thediscretionarypowerthatofficers[hold]–aboutdesignatingathreattosecurity,abouttheuseofforce,aboutprotectingtheregime–alwayscontain[s]thepotentialforaresponsetothedetaineesthatrecogniseshimasmorethan“detainee”’(Hall,2012,p.19).HerethnographicresearchwithinLocksdon19RemovalCentrerevealedevidenceofbothinsensitivityandempathytowardsdetainees.Ontheonehandofficerswerequicktocondemndetaineesforwhattheysawas‘over-emotionality’and‘inappropriate’wilfulness(Hall,2012,p.169),whichtheyconflatedwitha‘nebulousandimpreciseillegalityandmoralfailing’(Hall,2012,p.169).ButontheotherhandHalldiagnosesoccasional‘ethicalmomentsincentrelife’atwhichpoint‘theboundariesthatshapedandemergedfromlifeindetentionweredissolvedandtranscendedbyexpressionsofconcernandcare’(Hall,2012,p.20).

Campsfieldembodiesasimilartension.Avarietyofstructuralelementsmitigateagainstcompassionaterelationshipswithdetainees,includingthehighturnoverofstaffowingtothelonghoursandshiftwork.‘[Guardswork]12hourshifts,sevendaysonandafewdaysoff,it’sverybadconditionsandverybadpay’,oneactivisttoldmeinthemid-2000s;20‘Theygetpaidafractionofwhatprisonguardsgetpaidandthere’sminimal,minimaltraining.’‘Ingeneralit’sclearthatyoudon’tneedanyspecificqualificationstoworkthere’,anotherregularvisitortothecentreassertedataroundthesametime.21‘There’salotofex-prisonpeopleand

alotofjustgeneralpeoplewhojustneedajob,whichIthinkisquiteworryingbecauseifyou’regoingtohavedetentioncentresatleasttheyhavetobestaffedbypeoplewhoarequalifiedindealingwithpeoplewho’vegonethroughtrauma.’

Despitetheparametersofthework,though,thereisevidencethatsomeofthestaffatthecentrearewillingtohelpdetaineesoutwithinthetermsoftheiremployment.‘Themajorityoftheofficersaregoodandkindpeople’,onestaffmembertoldme,22‘justafewareunpleasant’.AsoneformerCampsfielddetaineerecalled,‘Youaskaquestionofaguard[andthey]giveyoutheanswer.Theguard,hegiveyouwhatyouaskfor.Guardhelpyou,thisiswhyCampsfieldisdifferentfrom[otherdetentioncentres]’.23

AsidefromtheDCOsthemselvesotherstaff,includingthoseonthewelfare,spiritualsupportandeducationteamssometimeswentoutoftheirwaytohelpthedetainees.OneformerdetaineedescribedhisrelationshipwithaspiritualsupportworkeratCampsfield:‘ThelasttimeIgotocourt’,thedetaineerecalled,‘hewrotealettertobringtothejudgeandhesupportedme,hespokeintheletter,[he]isagoodman’.24Anotherstaffmemberadmittedthat‘[t]hereistheoccasionalcasewhereIwillstickmyneckout…Ispoketo[onedetainee’s]lawyerandshehadthecasereviewed’.25Onespiritualsupportteammemberlistedacatalogueofactionstheyhadtakentosupportdetainees:26

Wehavebeenabletoarrangeforluggagetobecollected,arrangednewlawyers,medicalappointments,phonecards,moneyforsomebeingdeported,clothes.WehaveprovidedforfestivitiesandhaveasupplyofBibles,Qur’ansandotherfaithliteraturetogiveaway.Wehavecontacteddetainees’families,andhaveputthosebeingsenttoNASSaccommodationaddressesofchurchesorrefugeesupportgroupswheretheycangethelpandadvice.WehavecontactedorganisationssuchasJesuitRefugeeServiceaboutthosebeingdeportedsothattheyhavesomesupportontheirreturn.

Somedetainees,however,weresuspiciousofthehelpthatDCOsandotherstaffoffered.OneformerdetaineewhohadenduredagruellingfouryearsindetentiononlytobeeventuallyreleasedintotheUnitedKingdomandawardedindefiniteleavetoremain(andyearslaterhadstillnotbeencompensated)wastornovertheissueofkindnessindetention.Ontheonehandherecognisedthatthereweresomeguardsindetentionwillingtoacthumanelyandsupportively.‘Someof[theguards]arebadandsomeofthem,iftheylikeyou,they’llbenicetoyou’,hereflected,27‘That’shumannature,ifyoulikesomeone.Theycanoutwardly[fulfil]theirjobdescriptionbutunderneaththeyhelpme.Andtherearepeoplelikethat.Maybeineverycentretwoorthreeoutofahundred.’Butontheotherhandheremainedcynicalaboutalotofthe‘help’thatdetaineesreceived,outlininghowguardswouldsometimesdevelopfavouritesandhelpthemasawaytoachieveotherinstrumentalgoals.Inhisexperiencefavourwouldinvariablybeshownto‘theoneswhoishelpingthemout,especiallytheonewhoishelpingthemtodepriveotherdetainees.Andtheyarenotshortofthemaswell.Theywillgetsomekindofimprovedwagesandbetterfacilities,betterroom,betterthingslikethat.’

Otherstaffdescribedhowtheystruggledtobalancebetweenthedesiretohelpdetaineesontheonehandandtheneedtoremainobjectiveanddispassionateintheirprofessionalrolesonthe

other.‘Theyareforeverneedingyoutoexplainalettertothemorjusttohelpthemwithsomepronunciationorhelpthemwritealetter’,oneemployeewhoworkedaspartofthewelfareteamexplained,28‘butI’mwaryofgettingintothatandwe’renotallowedtoofferlegaladvice.’Indeed,officerswereundersimilarlystrictrules.‘They’regovernedbythesamerulesasweare’,theemployeecontinued,

sotheycanbechummywithdetaineesbutifsomeonesays‘I’mgoingtoneedanotebook’youcan’tgoandbuyhimoneandbringitin.Youcan’tbringanythinginforanyoneindividuallyandpartlythat’sforfearofwhattheycall‘conditioning’.Soifsomeoneasksyoutobringonethingandsonextthey’llaskyouforsomethingbigandthenthey’llaskyouforsomethingbiggerandthenyoustartfeelingthatyoucan’tsayno.Soyeahtheycanofcoursebefriendlywithdetaineeshereandthere,andsomewho’vebeenhereformonthsandmonthsthey’resortofoldfriendsandtheygreeteachotherwith‘Allrightmatehowyoudoing?’butyoucan’tmaintainrelationshipswithdetainees.

Whattranspiresisacomplexandcontingentsetoffactorsthatdeterminewhetherandtowhatextentstaffdisplay‘kindness’andsupportdetainees.Althoughthereareavarietyofconstraintsincludingtherulesofthecentre,andalthoughthespectreofmanipulationandulteriormotivesisneverfarfromview,thereisalsoevidenceofoccasionalempathyandcompassion.

Itisimportanttonotethatempathyinitselfmaynotbeconcerningforcentremanagers,andindeedtheabilitytobeempatheticfeaturesinthejobadvertisementsfordetentioncustodyofficerroles.ThetendencyofDCOstopresentthemselvesas‘helpfulandcaringprofessionals’hasbeennotedinMaryBosworth’s20-monthethnographicworkinBritishimmigrationdetentioncentres(Bosworth,2014,p.148).Butwhenempathycausesstafftochampiondetainees’casesorcastthedehumanisingelementsofthecentreinabadlightitisnottobeencouragedbymanagement.InwhatfollowsIdescribethefeaturesofimmigrationdetentionthatreducethelikelihoodthatspontaneoushumankindnesseruptsindetention.Theyacttotipthebalancetowardsinsensitivityover‘uncalculatedandcaringencounters’(Hall,2012,p.47)byencouragingstaffto,atleast,containtheirsupportiveactivitieswithinthetightremitsofprofessionalismanddispassion.Theycanbedividedintofeaturesthatmakeinsensitivitymoreimperative(andsensitivitymorecostly)ontheonehand,andfeaturesthatrenderinsensitivityeasiertointernallyjustifyontheother.Withoutthemwemightexpectfarmorekindnessinimmigrationdetention.

MakingInsensitivityImperativeAsidefromthehighstaffturnover,detaineesatCampsfieldandothercentresarefrequentlytransferredfromonecentretoanother.AsBosworth(2014)notes:

StaffinIRCs(viathecentremanager)canaskDEPMU[DetaineeEscortingandPopulationManagementUnit]totransferdetaineestoprisonortoanotherestablishment,onthebasisofgoodorderanddisciplineorinresponsetoarequestfromthedetainee.…Decisionsabouttransferandadmissionmayalsoreflectfactorsunrelatedtotheperson’scase

Bosworth,2014,p.13

Transfersmayberequestedbydetaineesinordertobenearertofamily,ortobeinthejurisdictionofafirst-tierimmigrationandasylumtribunalthatisperceivedtobemoreattractive.Butwheretransfersareunsolicitedtheycanisolatedetainees.Theyalsoacttocurtailthedurationofco-presencethatstaffanddetaineesshareanddilutethedepthandqualityofrelationships.Althoughthefrequencyofinter-detentionestatetransfersisnotroutinelypublished,parliamentaryquestionsinthemid-2000srevealedthatin2004/5theBritishgovernmentspentover£6.5millionsimplymovingdetaineesfromonesecurefacilitytoanotherwithintheUnitedKingdom(author'scalculationsfromHansard,5December2005,andHansard,9January2006).WithinCampsfield,‘[t]heaveragelengthofstayisjust7days’,oneeducationsupportteamworkerestimated,29although‘ifyoufactorouttheovernightstayersit’sprobably4to6weeks’.ActivistsandregularvisitorstoCampsfielddetectedanincreasedfrequencyoftransfersbetweencentresin2006.‘They’veinitiatedatotallydifferentregime’,oneactivisttoldme,30

whichisthattheydon’twanttoleaveanydetaineesanywhereforanylengthoftime.ThereareafewdetaineesinCampsfieldthathavebeeninthereforalongtimebutveryfew.Theywillcomeinandtheywillstayfor10daysandtheywillbemovedtoHarmondsworthorYarl’sWoodoranywherebutit’samovingprocess.

Consequentlyformerdetainees’accountsoftheirdetentionexperiencesoftenincludetortuousandprotractedroutesaroundthedetentionestate(seeHiemstra,2013,andMartin,2013,forsimilarobservationsintheUScase).‘BeforeCampsfieldHouseIstaylongtime[in]fourdetentions’,oneformerdetaineedivulged:31

MyfirstdetentionisOakington.IstaythreedaysforOakington.FourmonthsfivedayinHarmondsworth.AfterHarmondsworth[name]couldbringmetoBelmarshprison–Istaymaybeonemonth.AfterBelmarshIstayinDoverdetentiontwomonthsfourdays.AfterDoverIgoagaintoHarmondsworthoneweek.AfterHarmondsworthIcome[name]bringmetoCampsfieldHouse…thetotal’sfifteenmonthsindetention.

Althoughtransfersmightbepromptedbycapacitydifferencesatthedifferentcentresandarangeofotheroperationalreasons(seeBosworth,2014),variousintervieweesdescribedtherationalefortransferslargelyintermsofdiscipline.‘Troublesomedetaineesseemedtobemovedmore’,aspiritualsupportofficerreflected.32‘Stafffrequentlysaythingslike“I’llrequesthisremoval”;“He’saringleader,incitingotherstocausetrouble”’,ahealthcareworkeralleged.33Thiswascorroboratedbytheexperienceofthedetaineewhohadspentfouryearsindetention:hisaccountofthetransfersbetweencentresspannedsevenoftheelevendetentioncentresintheUnitedKingdom,includingahighdegreeofshuttlingbackandforth,andhewasinnodoubtthatthetransferswereoftenprecipitatedondisciplinarygrounds.

‘Sometimestheywillaccusemeofleadingotherdetaineesandthingslikethat’heexplained;34‘TherewasoneoccasionwhenIcomplainedandanothergroupwhofollowedmeandcomplained.NextthingIwasgonefromthere’.Somedetentioncentreshavebetterfacilitiesincludingmorehoursoffreeassociationandbettergyms,food,healthfacilities,libraries,internetprovisionandrelationsbetweenofficersanddetainees.Theprospectofbeingmovedtoaworsedetentioncentre,oraprison,wasthereforeupsettingformanyofthedetainees.Iaskedoneformerdetaineewhetherhehadbeenconcernedaboutpossibletransferswhilstindetention.‘Yes,veryworryvery’,hereplied.35‘Maybeamanagerofstaffofdetentioncallyouandgiveyounews.Tomorrowyoumoveyougotoanotherdetention[where]treatmentisdifferent.’‘ItusedtobeHaslowtheywerethreatenedwith’,oneactivistclaimed,36‘butnowthereareworseplaces.ItwasRochesterforatimewhichwasanoldprisonanditwasrunbyprisonguards.Asylumseekershadtwoweeksofitandtheretheywerelockedintheircellsfor23hoursaday.Itwasaverybrutalplace.’Asaresultofthespatialchurningofthedetaineepopulation,somedetentioncentresgainareputationviawordofmouthaccountsamongthedetainees.‘Manyaremovedawayandcomebackagain,sometwoorthreetimes’,onehealthcareemployeereported.37Thiscanmeanthatdetaineesaregratefulforstayingputorbeingreturnedtocertaincentres,includingCampsfield.IaskedoneformerdetaineeifpeopleeverreturntoCampsfieldafterhavingbeentransferredaway.‘Yeahyeah,youcomebackyeah’,hetoldme,38‘maybepeopleenjoybecause…CampsfieldHouseisbetterdetention’.

Thetransfersthemselvesaredisruptive,oftenbreakingdetainees’tiestooutsidesupport.‘IftheygetmovedtoDungavel[themostnortherlymajordetentioncentreintheUnitedKingdomandthefurthestfromLondon]andtheyhavealawyerinLondonit’shard,thelawyeroftengivesupthecase’,oneactivisttoldme.39DungavelisinScotlandandtheScottishandEnglishlegalsystemsdiffer,sothissortofoccurrenceisnotuncommon.Sometimeswhendetaineesarenotforewarnedabouttheirtransfers(whichcanbeatactic‘incasetheyaretrouble’,onestaffmemberclaimed,40whichmeansthattheycanbe‘informedat10pmthattheywillbemovedthenextday’)thentheydonothavetimetonotifytheirsolicitor,especiallyiftheydidnothappentohaveaphonecardoramobilephonethatwasworkingoraccessibleatthetime.Itisalsomoredifficulttofindpeopletoactassureties41inbailhearings,andcanbemoredifficulttomaintainasupplyofwillingvolunteervisitorswhenthedetaineestheywillbevouchingfororvisitingareoftenpeoplethattheyhavemetonlyafewtimesbefore,ifatall.Theseside-effectsofthetransfersleftmanyactivistsinnodoubtabouttheircruelty.‘Peopleareshuffledarounddetentioncentres’,thehealthcareemployeealleged,42whichactsto

preventthemgettinghelptocomplainaboutabuse,orwiththeirimmigrationcase.Themovementsthemselvesaretraumaticandappeartoanimpartialobservertobepartofanintentionalsystemofdegradingtreatmenttopreventpeoplecomplainingorstrivingtobeacceptedasarefugee…Peopleareconstantlymovedtokeeppeoplesuppressedandfearful.Thestaff’sunderstandingshowsnodoubtaboutthis.

Evenwithinthecentre,thetransfersputincreasedstrainonthesupportthatdetaineeswere

abletoaccess.Staffreferredtotheconsiderablechallengesposedbyagreaterturnover,includingthedifficultyofprovidingcoherenteducationprogrammes,theincreaseddemandforhealthchecksandsecurityvettingprocedures,andthestrainplaceduponthecentre’sabilitytocopewithshort-noticedemandforlegalhelpandadvice.Iwastoldbystaffthatthereisa24-hourinductionprocedureforallnewdetaineesintoCampsfield,meaningthatduringthemid-2000sasignificantproportionofthedetainees,theso-called‘over-nighters’,wereneverfullyinducted.Althoughthereceptionsuiteiswellequipped,itissmallerandmoresterilethanthemainfacility,andisthesiteofvarioustestsandprocedures,fromEnglishlanguageassessmenttoHIVscreening.

Onememberoftheeducationsupportteamdescribedhowherclasses(mostlyEnglishlanguageclasses,butalsosomecomputerandartsclasses)weredisruptedbytheturnover:

Wehaveanincrediblyhighturnoverinclass.It’snotsodifficultforcomputerclassesbecauseeveryoneworksthroughthecourseattheirownpace.Sosomeonecanstartanydaytheylikeandjogalongattheirownpace.ButforanEnglishclassit’simpossibletogetanysortofcohesionandmovealongasagroupandmakeanysortofprogress.Becauseyoumightstartwith10peopleinyourgrouponaMondayandstillhave10attheendoftheweekbutthey’recompletelydifferentpeople.Theturnover’ssohigh…iftheyweren’tbeingmovedsoregularlybetweencentresforseeminglynoreasonwewouldhavethemforalotlonger.[But]detaineeswillleaveus,gotoScotlandorLondon,andtheycomebacktous.Soitseemsthatifthey’dstayedwithustheycouldhavehadanextramonthofstability.43

Thecentremanager’sactuallycomplainedaboutit’,shecontinued,‘becauseit’sverycostlyandit’sverytimeconsuming.Thefacilitieshereweredesignedasadetentioncentretohaveamuchlowerthroughput.Sonowit’sahigherthroughputthey’rehavingtodealwithmany,manymorepeopleeverydaycheckingtheminandout.’

Educationalprovisionwasnottheonlyformofsupporttosufferasaresultofthetransfers.Medicalcarewasalsocompromisedbecausemanytransfersoccurovernight.‘Anurseismeanttobepresent’,ahealthcareworkerpointedout.44‘None[are]presentatnight,butpeoplearethenroutinelyremovedatthattime’theyalleged.Onedoctor,whohadvisitedmanydetaineesinCampsfieldaswellasothercentresasanindependentmedicaladvisor,claimedthatdetainees’medicinesandmedicalnoteswouldoftennotbetransferredwiththemfromcentretocentre.‘Theyarrivewithouttheirmedication,theyarrivewithoutamedicalnote’,heexplained.45Subsequentlythereisariskthattheywillnotbebelievedwhenoutliningtheirneedformedicationafterhavingbeentransferredeitherfromanotherdetentioncentreoraprison.Thedoctorreportedinstancesinwhichtheinductionstaffhadrecordedthatdetainees‘claimed’toneedcertainmedication.‘EverycasewhichIhaveseenwhereithasbeenrecordedthatthepatient“claimed”tobeonsomemedicationorothertheybloodywellwere’,thedoctorreported,thepointbeingthattransfersexposedetaineestotheriskofnotbeingbelievedandthereforenothavingaccesstothemedicationtheyhavebeenprescribed.46

Arelatedissueconcernstheshortageofinterpretersbecause,asthedoctorpointedout,‘manyofthepeoplewhoareindetentiondonotspeakEnglishatallorwell’.Withahigher

‘throughput’ofdetaineesinandoutofcentres,thedemandforinterpretersincreasesbecauseeacharrivingdetaineeneedsaninterpreteraspartoftheirinduction.Thisisespeciallyimportantinthecaseofmedicalexaminationsthatshouldoccuruponarrival.47‘Ifyouexamineapatientwithoutbenefitofaninterpreteryouareveryunlikelytobeabletofindoutthemedicalfactsyouneedtoknowtohelp’,thedoctorexplained.Yet,hecontinued,‘thereisadefinitescarcityofinterpretersbecausetheuseofinterpreterscostsmoney.Rememberthatvariouscentresarerunbyprivatecompaniesforprofit.Withtheresultthatanyavoidableexpenditureisavoided.’

Onequestionablesolutiontothisproblemistousesame-languagedetaineesasmakeshiftinterpreters.Usingsame-languagedetaineesinthisway‘canbeproblematicwhenyouaredealingwithhighlyconfidentialinformationwhichmightthenspreadallthewayaroundthedetentioncentre’,thedoctorexplained.48Inthecaseofmedicalinformationthisproblemcanbeparticularlyacuteandputthedetaineeatriskof‘bullyingbyotherinmates’,thehealthcaresupportworkerclaimed,49whichoften‘goesunreportedbecausepeopleareafraiditwillaffecttheirimmigrationcase’.Theinformationthatdetaineesaregaymightendangerthem,forinstance,oratleastmakeitmoredifficulttosettleintoamaleonlycentresuchasCampsfield.‘Gaypeople[are]vulnerable[in]theenvironment’,thehealthcaresupportworkerclaimed;thereare‘powerfulhomophobicgroup[s]inthecentre.Quiteanumbersaidtheyhavebeenharassed.’

Inthesewaysthetransfersunderminethesupportavailabletothedetaineesthataremoved,andexposethemtoaseriesofrisks.Moreover,almostinevitably,staffthatworkintheinductionunits,inthemedicalandeducationteams,aspartofthespiritualsupportofthecentreandasregularcustodyofficersbegintoviewtheasylumseekersintheircareasacollectiveratherthanasindividuals–usingtermslike‘turnover’,‘throughput’and‘deportees’(ratherthandetainees)tocharacterisethedetentioncentre’smoretransientpopulation.Hall(2012,p.146)foundthatofficerswerenotkeenondetainees‘becomingtoofriendly’or‘familiar[or]assuminganequalsocialpersonhoodwiththeofficers’,andthestaffatCampsfielddisplayedsimilarantipathy.Theeducationsupportworkerreflecteduponthenecessityofremainingdetachedintherole:50

Somepeoplefinditveryhardonapersonalleveltoobecauseyouhearsomanyhorrificthingsfromthedetaineesaboutthingsthathavehappenedtothemorwhat’sgoingtohappentothemifthey’resenthome.And[oftentheyarein]anentirelyhopelesssituationbecausethey’venowayofprovingwhotheyareorwhatpoliticalpositiontheybelongtoandthedangerthatthey’rein.Allthosethingscanplayonyourmind,soyouhavetodevelopasortofprofessionaldetachmentwherebyyoulistentothemsympatheticallyatthetimeandhelpinanywayyoucan.Butwhenyouleaveyouhavetoleavethatatwork.IfyouweretotakeitwithyouIthinkitwouldbeahugeobstaclebecauseyou’dbeuselesstothenextbatchthatcomethrough.

Itispreciselytheknowledgethatanother‘batch’ofdetaineesisabouttoarrivethatmakesitimperativetoremainprofessionallydetached.Theturnoverofdetaineesactstodistractstafffromthespecificitiesofindividualcases.Asshecontinues,

It’slessdifficultnowbecausetheturnover’ssohigh.Inthepastsomeonewouldleaveandyou’dwonder‘whathappenedtohim,Ihaven’theardfromhimformonths,Iwonderifhe’sstillalive’.Butnowtheturnoverissohighthattheminutesomeone’sleftthere’ssomeonewho’sarrivedwithjustasbigproblemsorjustsuchnastysituations,sothere’salwayssomeoneelsetohelp.Nastyasitsoundsyouveryquicklyforgettheoneswho’vejustleftbecauseyou’reontothenextbatch.51

ForSimmel,thesheerfrequencyofbeingconfrontedbydifferenceiscapableof‘stimulat[ing]thenervestotheirutmostreactivityuntiltheyfinallycannolongerproduceanyreactionatall’(Simmel,1903/2002,p.14).Theresultis‘indifferencetowardsthedistinctionsbetween[others]’(Simmel,1903/2002,p.15)whereinthe‘meaningandthevalueofthedistinctionsbetweenthings,andtherewithofthethingsthemselves,areexperiencedasmeaningless.Theyappeartotheblasépersoninahomogenous,flatandgreycolourwithnooneofthemworthyofbeingpreferredtoanother’(Simmel,1903/2002,p.15).Whatthespatialchurningofdetainedpopulationsachievesisthemoreorlessmandatoryadoptionofadetacheddispositionamongstafftowardsthedetaineesintheircare.

MakingInsensitivityEasierVariousothermechanismsoperateinCampsfieldthatnotonlymakeinsensitivityimperative,butalsoeaseanypersonalconcernsaboutdisplayingsuchdetachment.Somestaffconvincethemselvesthatthedetaineesarenotcredible;thattheyarelyingabouttheircasesorthattheyshouldnotbeintheUnitedKingdom.Anotherstrategyistobelittlethedetaineesandviewtheirsufferingandconfusionastrivialandinsignificant.Thestrategyofconvincingoneselfthatthesubjectsinyourcarecanbetreatedflippantlycanresultinthecrueltreatmentofdetaineeswhoareinextremelyvulnerablesituations.Onehealthcaresupportworker,forexample,allegedacatalogueofneglectfulpracticesinthemid-2000s,including‘inadequatecleaning’,‘lackofadvice’,‘intimidatingdrughunts’,‘detentionofpeoplewhohavebeentortured[since]immigrationdonottakeitseriously’,‘medicaltreatmentwithheld’,‘hundredsmentallycoercedintogoing[backtotheircountryoforigin]everyyear’,‘bullyingbyotherinmatesandstaff’and‘staffaskedtosignformsafterthefacttosaypersonabletobehandcuffed’.52Theseexamplesofneglectbeliealevelofinsensitivitythatismadepossiblethroughthebeliefthatthedetaineesdonotpossessequivalentstandingtostaffandconsequentlycanbetreatedneglectfullylegitimately.

Thereexistinstitutionalpromptsthatcorroboratetheseself-toldrationalisations.Oneseniorcharityemployeeandlong-timeactivistagainstindefinitedetention,outlinedthepainstakingcataloguingofnon-belongingofindividualdetaineesinimmigrationdetentionthatunderminestheircredibilityandunderscorestheirstrangeness.53‘Thekeytacticistoproducemigrantsasunknowableandanonymous’,hesuggestswithreferencetotheindividualdossiersthatarekeptoneverydetainee,

what’sreallystrangewhenyoureadthesefilesandfollowcasesisgovernmentsnotactuallytryingtodocumenttheperson,nottryingtoprovetheiridentity,butbuildingupfilestoprovetheirundocumentability…Everyoneindetentiongetsadocumenteverymonthsettingoutthereasonsfortheirdetention.Anditwillalways,orusually,startname,soandso,aliasesandthere’llbesortoffifteenaliases…Whenyoureaditit’sactuallyname,MohamedAhmed,aliasesAhmedMohamed,MohamedwithtwoM’sAhmed,MohamedAhmad.It’sjustalotofofficialswho’vespelthisnamewrongovertheyears.Buthe’salreadybeingproducedasthissinister,unknowable,andcriminal,threateningpersonwhorequiresdetention.

Inthesemundanewaysdetentioncentrestaffareremindedcontinuouslythatthedetaineesintheircaredonotbelong.‘They…changedmyname’,oneformerdetaineewhohadexperiencedthisformofdisenfranchisementrecalled.54‘Mynameis[firstname][surname].Theychangedittooneletterfrommyfirstnameandoneletterfromthesurname.Thentheycomebacktomeandtheysay“[firstname],youarealien.Youdon’thavenorighttostayinthecountry”.’

Tomakemattersworse,thereareaccountsofstafftrivialisingtheexperiencesandconcernsofdetainees.Althoughhungerstriking,forexample,isanimportantformofdissentandself-expressionindetention(Bousfield,2005;EdkinsandPin-Fat,2005;Owens,2009;Simanowitz,2010;McGregor,2011;Conlon,2013),somerespondentstoldmethatstaffsometimesdidnottakefoodrefusalseriously(seeHall,2012,forsimilarfindings).Onehealthsupportworkerrecountedthecaseofamanwhohadrefusedfoodbecausehewas‘desperateaboutbeingsentbackandtorturedtodeathashehadbeentorturedandrapedbyprisonofficersinhis[homecountry]’.55Asaresultofhishungerstrikingtheman‘becameveryweakwithhisheartnotworkingproperly’.Atthispointhereceivedavisitorbut‘staffwouldnotletthevisitorseehiminthemedicalward…presumablybecausetheywantedtopunishhimfornoteating…ittooktwohourstogethimoutofbedandintoawheelchair.’

Insufficientrespectisalsoreportedlyshowntodetainees’possessions.Manyitemsareconfiscateduponarrival,whichispatronisinginitself.‘[Thedetaineesare]allowedtotakeacertainnumberofchangesofclothesandpersonalitemsfromtheirbaggage’,onememberofstaffexplained,‘buttherestofit’sthenlockedaway’.56Oneconsequenceisthatwhendetaineesaretransferredtodifferentcentrestheycaneasilybecomeseparatedfromtheireffects.‘Ilostmystuff’,oneformerdetaineetoldme,57

mybigbag,withfourorthree[pairsof]shoes.

NG:Anddidyoucomplain?

Yeah,Imademany,manycomplaints.Ihaveinmyhousetheletters.

NG:Wereyouhappywiththeresponsetothecomplaints?

Authoritiesspeaktome,writetomebuttheypaymenothing.

‘Somethingsgotoasafe’,anotherformerdetaineealleged,58‘sotheyputthemsafe,and[sometimes]theygomissing.Likeyou’vegotanexpensivewatchorsomething,andbythetime

thatpeoplearemovedtheywilllookinthatsafeandtheywillsay“Ohitisnotthere.”’Anotherconsequenceoftheconfiscationofbelongingsisthat,withouttheirbelongings,detaineesbecomemorereliantuponpurchasesfromthecentreshop.Withholdingaccesstotheshop,orthreateningtodoso,thenbecomesausefuldisciplinarytool.Oneformerdetaineedescribedbeingpunishedinthiswayforinfringingthecentrerules:

Youcan’tspendmoney,youcanspendjustonepoundortwopounds,andyoucouldlosepartorwholeofyourbelongingsandthat’satortureaswell.…Youcanbuythefoodfromtheshopbuttheycantakeitawayfromyou.Andit’sacommonpractice,commonpracticedeprivingpeopleoftheirpossessions,deprivingpeopleoftheirshopping.59

Asidefromthesesanctionsforundesirablebehaviour,therewardsthatarebestowedoncompliantdetaineesareequallyasrevealingaboutthetrivialisingandtrivialisedrelationshipbetweenstaffanddetainees.Onestaffmemberoutlinedhowdetaineescouldearnfivepoundsforkeepingtheirroomtidy,60whilearecentformerdetaineedivulgedthatpaidworkisnowallowedbysomeoftheprivatelycontractedsecuritycompanieswithindetention.‘Youcanworkforonepoundanhour’,hetoldme(thiscomparestotheminimumwageintheUnitedKingdomof£6.31perhouratthetimeofwriting),61Reflectingonwhytherateofpaywassolow,theformerdetaineesexplainedthatiswas

becausetheysay‘Wellwepayforeverythingelseforyou,wepayingyourhouse,we’repayingyourfood,sothat’swhatyou’regonnaget.’Onceyouareoutsideyougetfivepoundsanhourandtheycatchyouandsayyouhavenorighttoworkandtheytakeyouinsideandmakeyouworkforonepoundanhour,washing,cleaning.Foronepoundanhour!62

Payingdetaineesinsuchsmallamountsismoreakintopocketmoneythanarealwage.Notallowingdetaineestoearnanythingliketheminimumwagesendsastatementtostaffthatdetaineesaresomehowsubjacenttoregularcitizens.Paintingatrivialpictureofdetaineesmeansthatsomeoftheirhuman,adultneedscanbeoverlooked,includingtheirneedtoknowwhatwasgoingtohappentothemnextorwhentheirnexttransferwouldbe.‘Detaineesweregiveninsufficientwarningoftheirnextmoveandwereunabletopreparethemselvesorinformtheirfamilies,friendsorlegalrepresentativeswhatwashappeningtothem’,oneHMIPreportobserved(HMInspectorateofPrisons,2002).Itcontinued:

ThosegrantedadmissiontotheUKforthefirsttimeweregivennohelptoorientatethemselvestolifeintheUKortounderstandthesystemthatwouldsupportthem[…]Thosebeingremovedwereluckytohavemorethanthreedays’notice,andsomedidnothavethat.TherewasnoremovalplanwhichensuredthattheiraffairsintheUKwereclosedandtheyknewwhattodoonarrivalattheirnextdestination.No-onewouldchoosetoboardaplaneinthesecircumstancesanditwasinappropriatetoexpectdetaineestodoso.

HMInspectorateofPrisons,2002,‘AnInspectionofCampsfieldHouseImmigrationRemovalCentre’,pp.12–13

Eventheabilitytocommunicateonlinewascurtailed.‘Youcannothaveamobilephonewithinternetaccess’,onedetaineeexplained,63‘butyoucangotoacomputerroomwhereyoucan

accessmaterial,butonlytrytoconnecttowhattheyallowyou.Anythingelse:sorrythat’sblocked.’

Theeffectthatthesemechanismsofcontrolhave,notjustupondetaineesbutalsouponstaffintermsofdepictingthedetaineesintheircareastrivialandinfantile,impactsuponthewaystafftreatdetainees.Evenwhenstaffengageinfriendly,supposedlysupportiveactivities,apatronisingsubtextofsuperiorityandcondescensionisoftendiscernible.Theeducatormentionedearlier,forexample,emphasisedtheimportanceofcomputerclassesnotjustforeducativepurposesbutbecauseotherwisethedetaineesareproneto‘justdriftinandoutanddowhattheywant’.64Incontrast,theeducationprogrammeprovidesstructureandpurposeandwasunderstoodasawayfordetaineestodemonstratetheirstrengthofcharacter:‘itgivesthemachancetoprovetoyouthattheyhavesomesortofpersonalidentity’,theeducationcoordinatorexplained,65althoughitwasnotclearwhyitmightbenecessarytodoso.Asoneactivistconfirmed,theclassorganisershadasanctimoniousair.‘Ican’treallyexplainitbutjustthis,sortof,wayyou’dmakekidsdosomethingcreativeandgoodforthem.Theywerebeingfriendlybutitwasveryclearthatthey’reworkingabovethesepeople.’66

TheCruelConsequencesofInsensitivityInthesewaystheinstitutionalmechanismsoftransfers,sanctions,rewards,dossiersandclassesdepictdetaineesfleetingly,triviallyandcondescendingly,andencouragestafftotreatthemaccordingly.Insomecasesthesheerunresponsivenesstodetainees’sufferingillustratestheextenttowhichtheyhavebeentrivialised.Onememberofstaffallegedhowdetaineeswhowerebeingtransferredbetweencentresweresometimesforcedtowaitanunacceptableamountoftimeinthesecurityvansthattransportedthem.They‘werenotallowedrefreshmentsortousethetoiletforupto12hours,withnostopsforanything’,thestaffmemberclaimed,‘peoplehavewetthemselves’.67Inanothercaseanintrusivedrughuntwasallegedlyallowedtocontinuewithinsufficientregardforthepsychologicalimplicationsoftheprocedure.‘Dogsarebroughtinevery6monthsorsoforsearches’,onehealthsupportworkerreported.68‘AMuslimladwhothedogstoppedat[was]takentohisbedroom,askedtotakeallhisclothesoff,askedtosquatsotheycouldvisuallycheckhisanuswithanurseandtwogroupfourofficers.Hewastraumatizedbyit,nevergotoverit…Hadtogoonmedicationbecauseofit.’

Inothercases,thecrueltreatmentofdetaineescannotbeexplainedawayintermsofeitherinattentionoranover-fastidiousadherencetotherules.Forexample,attimesthedesireamongstafftoavoiddisciplinaryproceduresthemselveswasapparentlyvaluedabovedetainees’welfare,posingarisktodetainees.Onedoctorrecountedacaseinwhichhevisitedwhathethoughttobeatorturesurvivorindetention.Torturesurvivorsshouldnotbedetained,butthedoctorwasconcernedthatthescreeningprocessthatwassupposedtodetecttorturesurvivorswasinadequate.Whatismore,becausethedetaineehadbeentransferredfromadifferentfacility,ifthereceivingcentrefoundhertobeatorturesurvivorthiscouldimplicatethesendingcentreandpotentiallylandthestaffthereintotrouble.Theresult,inhisopinion,wasdisregardforclearevidenceoftorture.‘Sheshowedmetwoblatantcigaretteburnsontheback

ofherright,thatistosaydominant,hand’,healleged.69

Peopledonotself-harmwithcigarettesontheirdominanthand.Theydoitonthenon-dominanthandusingthedominanthandifitwasself-inflicted.Thiswasaveryobviouscigaretteburn.Ithada…darkedgeandithadadiameterofaboutalittlelessthanacentimetrewhichisvirtuallydiagnosticforacigaretteburn.

Giventheexistenceofthisscaronthedominanthand,thedoctorthoughtthenurseatthereceivingcentreshouldhaveraisedthepossibilitythatthispersonwasatorturesurvivor.70Whatismore,therewaslittlepossibilitythatthescarwasmissed:‘Thenursehadtakenthepulse’,thedoctorexplained,‘andhadsentareportsayingnoscars.Thepulsewasofcourseimmediatelyadjacenttothewrist,right,that’swhereyoutakeapulse.’Theonlyexplanationthatthedoctorcouldacceptwasthatthenursehadnotraisedconcernsaboutthedetaineebeingatorturesurvivor‘becausetheyknowthatUKBA[UnitedKingdomBorderAgency]donotwantareportoftorture’.

Inthiscasetheanxietiesofthenursearoundtheconsequencesofadmittingthattheyorsomeoneelsehadpreviouslymadethewrongassessmentwereallegedlyprioritisedabovethemorallycorrectthingtodo.Inothercases,thebureaucraticdemandsoftheinstitutionareseemtobevaluedsomuchhigherthantheexperiencesofthedetaineethattheimmoralconsequencesofensuringthesmoothrunningofthesystem,orbreakingdownresistancetoit,areoverlooked.Intheseinstances,thesufferingofdetaineesceasestomatterbeyonditsabilitytofrustratetheachievementofinstitutionalgoals.Detaineesthemselvesbecomesimplyanobstacletoabureaucraticprocess;anobstaclethatneedstobedismantled.Inthisvein,activistshavereportedtheabusiveuseofinter-centretransfers.Oneactivistwhohadworkedwithdetaineesforover5yearsallegedthat

peoplewithseriousmentalillness[are]beingtransferredaroundthedetentionestatewiththeexplicitpurposeof,andyoucanseeonthefile,ofupsettingthem.Theyaretoocomfortableintheirdetention,let’smovethemsomewhereelsesothatwecanupsetthemandbreakthemsothattheyagreetomoveback.

Ahealthsupportworkerallegedtheintimidatinguseofforceduringremovalattemptsalongsimilarlines.‘Ifadetaineefights’,sheexplains,71

theofficersscreamatthem‘f**kingkeepyourhandsstilloryou’llgetworse’orshout‘keepyourheaddown’,‘getuponyourknees’.Someofficersobviouslyloveit.Theofficershaveabriefingbeforeremovingsomeone,takeofftheirtiesandbeltsandgetworkedupforit.

Theconsequencesforsomedetaineesaremorallyinexcusable.Oneofmyinterviewees,aformerdetainee,recalledhistreatmentatthehandsofprivatesecurityguardsduringadeportationattempt.‘IfI’mgoing[backtohiscountryoforigin]maybeIwilldiethere.ThatwaswhyIwasnotliketogoback’,herecalled,72

andtheytriedtoforceme,andtheysaytheybeatme.Thentheybeatmeandthentheysendmeto[detentioncentre].

NG:Whenyousaythattheybeatyouwhatdoyoumean?

WhenIsaidI’mnotgoingtheytakemesomewhere,becauseitwastheairport,theytookme,putmesomewhere,andtheystartedbeatingmejustintheairport…theydon’tcare,theydon’tcare,theyjustneedtheirjob.Theyneedjust[that]Igo.

NG:Didtheyuseweaponsorjusthandsandfeet?

Nojustwithhandtheybeatmewithhand.Theybeatme,myface.Theybeatme.Theybrokemy[bone]andwhenIfinishedtheretheysendmeto[centre].

Suchallegationsarebynomeansuncommon.Initsstudy,entitled‘OutsourcingAbuse:theUseandMisuseofState-SanctionedForceDuringtheDetentionandRemovalofAsylumSeekers’,MedicalJustice(2008),aregisteredcharity,reportednearly300casesofallegedassaultsagainstasylumdeportees,includingassaultsagainstpregnantwomenandchildren.Theallegationsrangedfrombeingbeaten,choked,kicked,gagged,overzealouslyrestrainedwithhandcuffs,draggedabout,kneltonorsatontosexualabuse.Theallegedconsequencesrangedfrombruisingandswellingtofractures,dislocations,cuts,bleeding,andhead,neckandbackpain.LordDavidRamsbotham,formerChiefInspectorofPrisonsinEnglandandWales,wroteinreactiontothereportthat‘ournationalreputationisnotsomethingtobetreatedlightlyorwantonly,and…ifevenoneofthecasesissubstantiated,thatamountstosomethingofapreventablenationaldisgrace’(MedicalJustice,2008,p.1).

Othercrueltacticsareapparentlymotivatedbyadesiretobreakdownthenon-complianceofdetainees.‘Ifyoudonotgetonwiththemyourfoodwillbetampered’,oneformerdetaineeclaimed.73

Yourroomwillbemessedup,whenyougoouttheycancomeinandputthingsinyourbed,putrubbishinyourbed.Theycanmessupyourfood,allthingslikethat…Iftheydon’tlikeyouforwhateverreason,thecolourofyourskin,yourface,thewayyourbeardgrows,you’reintrouble.

ConclusionThischapterhaschartedtheproductionofadifferent,up-close,formofindifferencetotheindifferencedescribedinearlierchapters.Whereexposuretosufferingisfrequentthereisapossibilitythatuncalculatedcompassionandspontaneouskindnesscouldbreakoutanddisruptthesmoothfunctioningofbureaucraticsystemsofrulethatrequirethemorallydisinterestedtreatmentofvulnerableindividuals.Variousinstitutionalfeaturesmitigateagainstthispossibility,however,sothatcompassionismademorecostlyontheonehand,andinsensitivityismadeeasierontheother.Theconsequenceisthatstaffarecompelledtopsychologicallyavoidtheirownmoralculpability.TheethicalcommandthatLevinasdescribesthesufferingotheremittingisoverruledbytheinstitutionalorganisationofdetentionitself,thattrivialises

detainees.

Thisisnottosuggestthatthissortofpsychologicalavoidanceofasylumseekersbypersonnelisabsentinotherareasofborderworksuchastheback-officedecisionmaking,asyluminterviewsandtribunalappealhearingsdiscussedinpreviouschapters.AsnotedinChapterFour,staffexperiencevicarioustraumatisationfrequentlyintheseareasofworkalso,soalthoughIhavechosenimmigrationdetentionasawaytoillustratetheeffectofpsychologicalavoidanceandthemeansbywhichitiscalledforthfromfunctionariesbytheinstitutionswithinwhichtheywork,Idonotwanttoimplythataclean,mutuallyexclusiveseparationbetweenmoraldistanceatlongrange,moralestrangementatclosequartersandSimmel’sformofindifferencealwaysexistsbetweenparticularsitesofimmigrationcontrol.Inrealitythesituationismorecomplexanditispossibletoidentifymultipleformsofindifferenceatvarioussites.

Conversely,immigrationdetentionisbynomeansforeigntothesortoflong-rangemoraldistancethatIsetoutinChaptersTwoandThree.Inparticular,theseparationofdecisionmakersfromfrontlinestaffthroughthemediatingeffectofthecontracting-outofdetentioncentresresultsinamarkedbifurcationoftheorchestratorsandperpetratorsofthedetentionsysteminawaythatcloselyresemblestheconfigurationsofchainsofcommandthatBauman(1989)associateswithmoralinsensitivity.‘Ifyouspendanytimewiththedetentioncentreofficers,nottheimmigrationofficersbutthepeopleonthegroundinthedetentioncentres’,onelong-timeactivistexplains,74

theyareoften…confused[because]you’vegottwoseparatesourcesofauthority,you’vegotthespatialisedsecurityinstitutionofthedetentioncentre,whichismanaged,policedby,controlledbymostlycontractedsecuritystaffwhooftendon’treallyknowwhytheyarethereandwhatit’sallabout.Andyou’vegottheimmigrationofficers,whoarenotthere.…TheimmigrationofficersareinCroydonorLiverpoolsomewhere.Theywillneveractuallyvisitadetentioncentre.Theyneveractuallymeetthepersonwhosecasetheyaremanaging.

ThisformofmoraldistancingcorrespondsmorecloselytothefirstformofindifferenceoutlinedinChaptersTwoandThreethanitdoestoHamblet’sandSimmel’s:theutilisationofliteralandorganisationaldistancetooccludetheconsequencesofdecisionsandtoeffacethefaceofsufferingothers.Yetwhatimmigrationdetentionalsoachieves–uniquelyatleastinextent–isasophisticateduseofboththerealityandriskofvicarioustraumatisationtogenerateaninsensitiveworkforce.Thisisachievedthroughoverexposuretosuffering,whichpromptsareactionintheformsofpsychologicaldetachmentandavoidanceamongstaff.Suchavoidanceismadeallthemorenecessarybythefrequencyofexposuretotraumaengenderedthroughthespatialchurningofdetainees,anditismadeeasierbytheinstitutionalfeaturesofdetentionsuchasthedossiers,disciplinarysystemsandeducationprovisionsthatdepictdetaineesasstrange,infantileandtrivial.Thisresultsin‘compassionavoidance[as]alearnedbehaviour’(Moeller,1999,p.318)thatcanbe,andis,taughtbytheimmigrationcontrolsystem.

WehavenowarrivedattheoppositeendofthespectrumofindifferencethatunderpinsthevariousmigrantdeathsIdiscussedintheopeningsectionofthebook.Atthisextreme,contact

withsufferingothersitselfexacerbatestheneedforavoidancebythreateningtooverwhelmempatheticcapabilities.Proximity,then,takesonaverydifferentcharactertothatimaginedbyBauman,onethatismorealignedwithIvanKaramazov’saversiontonearbysufferingothers(Hamblet,2003).Atthisextreme,contactnurturesindifferenceratherthanactingasanantidotetoit,asfunctionariesaresystematicallyexposedtotheriskofsecondarytraumaandmustacttoprotectthemselvesby‘renouncingtheresponse’(Simmel,1903/2002,p.14)thatcomesmostnaturallywhenexposedtoemotionalstimuli–inproportiontothecontacttheyexperience.Atthisextreme,therelationshipbetween‘distance’andmoralityisalsocomplicatedanddistorted.Bauman’sthesisthattheclosingofphysicaldistanceincreasesmoralitydoesnotapplyhere:ratheramorecomplex,two-step,processofover-closenessthatprecipitatespsychologicaldistancingisinevidence.

TheresultisthatinimmigrationdetentionwediscoverthelimitsofBauman’sethicsofthefacetofaceencounterthatvaluesindividualsintheirspecificityanduniquenessandusurpsdepersonalisedstructuresofcontrol.AdmittedlythereisalwaysthepotentialforempathyasHall(2012)hasnoted.Neverthelesstheformofindifferenceidentifiedhereconstitutesapowerfulancillaryconsequenceoftheorganisationandadministrationofbordercontrolthat,initsfullestform,isperfectlycapableofdrawingforththesortofcrueltyanddegradingtreatmentthattheabusedmeninHarmondsworthDetentionCentrein2013weresubjectedto.

Notes1Notjustgovernmentemployees,butalsoasylumsupportgroupworkersintheUnitedStates

andtheUnitedKingdomregularlysuffercompassionfatiguethatcanleadthemto‘becomejaded,cynical,brusque,notreallyhavingthepatiencetogotothemeetingsor…explainwhyasylumseekersaren’tthesameasterrorists’(Gilletal.,2012,p.23).Someoftheissuesfacingimmigrationdetentioncentrestaff,includinghowsecondarytraumacanimpactuponthepersonallivesofstaff,arethesubjectofaninnovativeillustrationofanaccountofoneguard’sexperienceofworkinginanimmigrationdetentioncentreinAustralia–seeOlleetal.,2013.

2Interviewwithasylumseekerandformerdetainee,2006.

3Interviewwithactivistanddetaineevisitor,29May2006.

4Anindependentconsultant,MatrixEvidence,thatprovidesadvisoryservicestopublicandprivatesectororganisations,foundationsandcharities,foundthatbymakingsimpleimprovementstotheassessmentofthelikelihoodofeventualdeportationandreturnatthestartofadetainee’scaseandreleasingthosenotexpectedtobedeportable,theUnitedKingdomstandstosaveover£344million,morethandoublethemonitoringcostofensuringthateverydetaineewhowasconsequentlyreleaseddidnotabscond(Marshetal.,2012).

5AsthecharityLiberty(2014)explains,‘[a]decisiontodetainismadebyindividual

immigrationofficersand,unlikepeopledetainedunderthecriminaljusticesystem,itslawfulnessisnotautomaticallysubjecttoindependentreview.Adetainedpersoncan,aftersevendayshavepassed,applytoajudgeforreviewofhisorherdetention,butmanypeople,particularlythosewhodon’tspeakEnglish,areunawareofthisprocedureandfinditdifficulttoaccesslegaladvice.’

6Thesedataaretakenfromthefollowingwebsite:http://www.no-deportations.org.uk/Media-1-2012/Self-Harm2013.html(accessed19November2015).

7Interviewwithactivistandvisitortoimmigrationdetention,19May2006.

8ThisevidenceistakenfromacollectionofaccountsofimmigrationdetentionintheUnitedKingdomandAustraliapublishedbyBarbedWireBritainin2006,entitled‘VoicesFromDetentionII’(Garciaetal.,2006,p.32).Theindividualquotedwonhiscaseaftertwoyearsandhasbeenrecognisedasarefugeeunderthe1951GenevaConvention.

9Interviewwithstaffmemberworkinginimmigrationdetention,14July2006.

10Interviewwithstaffmemberinimmigrationdetention,14July2006.

11Interviewwithspiritualsupportteammember,July2006.

12Interviewwithformerdetainee,6February2014.

13ThisevidenceistakenfromacollectionofaccountsofimmigrationdetentionintheUnitedKingdomandAustraliapublishedbyBarbedWireBritainin2006,entitled‘VoicesFromDetentionII’(Garciaetal.,2006,p.30).TheindividualquotedwasforcedtofleefromNigeria.

14Interviewwithstaffmemberinimmigrationdetention,14July2006.

15Interviewwithactivistanddetaineevisitor,29May2006.

16Interviewwithactivistanddetaineevisitor,29May2006.

17Interviewwithstaffmemberinimmigrationdetention,14July2006.

18ThisevidenceistakenfromacollectionofaccountsofimmigrationdetentionintheUKandAustraliapublishedbyBarbedWireBritainin2006,entitled‘VoicesFromDetentionII’(Garciaetal.,2006,p.32).TheindividualquotedwasforcedtofleefromNigeria.

19Apseudonym.

20Interviewwithactivistanddetaineevisitor,23May2006.

21Interviewwithactivistanddetaineevisitor,29May2006.

22Interviewwithstaffmemberinimmigrationdetention,14July2006.

23Interviewwithformerdetainee,14July2006.

24Interviewwithformerdetainee,14July2006.

25Interviewwithmemberofimmigrationdetentioncentresupportstaff,December2005.

26Interviewwithdetentioncentrespiritualsupportteammember,July2007.

27Interviewwithformerdetainee,6February2014.

28Interviewwithwelfareteammemberinimmigrationdetention,3July2006.

29Interviewwitheducatorinimmigrationdetention,July2006.

30Interviewwithactivistandvisitortoimmigrationdetainees,19May2006.

31Interviewwithformerdetainee,mid-2000s.

32Interviewwithstaffmemberinimmigrationdetention,July2006.

33Writtencommunicationfromhealthcareworkerinimmigrationdetention,March2005.

34Interviewwithformerdetainee,6February2014.

35Interviewwithformerdetainee,July2006.

36Interviewwithactivist,28May2006.

37Writtencommunicationfromhealthcareworkerinimmigrationdetention,March2005.

38Interviewwithformerdetainee,July2006.

39Interviewwithactivist,28May2006.

40Writtencommunicationfromhealthcareworkerinimmigrationdetention,March2005.

41Suretiespledgeacertainamountofmoneyatthedetainee’sbailhearingthattheywillpaytothegovernmentifthedetaineeabsconds.

42Writtencommunicationfromhealthcareworkerinimmigrationdetention,March2005.

43Interviewwitheducatorinimmigrationdetention,July2006.

44Writtencommunicationfromhealthcareworkerinimmigrationdetention,March2005.

45Interviewwithdoctorwhohasvisitedimmigrationdetainees,October2010.

46BreaksinHIVandTBtreatmentinparticularcanbeextremelydangerousbecausetheycanallowdiseaseprogression.

47Iaskedonedoctorwhohadvisitedmanydetaineesinvariousdetentioncentresinthe

UnitedKingdomifthereareanyquestionnairesthatdetaineescancompleteintheirownlanguageabouttheirhealthasawaytoscreenformedicalissuesuponarrival.‘Thereare’,thedoctorreplied,‘andtherearetranslationsheetswhichareadequateIsupposeforaquickscreenbuttheyarenotadequateforamedicalexamination’.

48Interviewwithdoctorwhohasvisitedimmigrationdetainees,October2010.

49Writtencommunicationfromhealthcareworkerinimmigrationdetention,March2005.

50Interviewwitheducatorinimmigrationdetention,July2006.

51Interviewwitheducatorinimmigrationdetention,July2006.

52Writtencommunicationfromhealthcareworkerinimmigrationdetention,March2005.

53ThecharityworkerwastalkingatanESRC-fundedseminaronimmigrationdetention.

54Interviewwithformerdetainee,6February2014.

55Writtencommunicationfromhealthcareworkerinimmigrationdetention,March2005.

56Interviewwitheducatorinimmigrationdetention,July2006.

57Interviewwithformerdetainee,July2006.

58Interviewwithformerdetainee,6February2014.

59Interviewwithformerdetainee,February2014.

60Itmaybenocoincidencethatphonecards–whichrepresentsomedetainees’onlylinktotheoutsideworld–atthetimealsocostfivepounds

61Interviewwithformerdetainee,6February2014.

62TheGuardianranastoryin2014thatconfirmedthesepractices(Rawlinson,2014).

63Interviewwithformerdetainee,6February2014.

64Interviewwitheducatorinimmigrationdetention,July2006.

65Interviewwitheducatorinimmigrationdetention,July2006.

66Interviewwithactivistanddetaineevisitor,29May2006.

67Writtencommunicationfromhealthcareworkerinimmigrationdetention,March2005.

68Writtencommunicationfromhealthcareworkerinimmigrationdetention,March2005.

69Interviewwithdoctorwhohasvisitedimmigrationdetainees,October2010.

70Rule35oftheDetentionCentreRules(2001)requiresdetentioncentremedicalstaffto

reportanyoneforwhomdetentionisharmfulorwhomayhavebeenavictimoftorture.However,theIndependentChiefInspectorofBordersandImmigrationandHMInspectorateofPrisons(2012)havecriticisedthepoorqualityofthesereportsandoftheresponsesthatHomeOfficecaseownershavemadetothem.

71Writtencommunicationfromhealthcareworkerinimmigrationdetention,March2005.

72Interviewwithasylumseekerandformerdetainee,mid-2000s.

73Interviewwithformerdetainee,6February2014.

74TheactivistwastalkingatanESRC-fundedseminaronimmigrationdetention.

ChapterSixIndifferenceandEmotions

Violencehasbeenturnedintoatechnique.Likealltechniques,itisfreefromemotionsandpurelyrational.

Bauman,1989,p.98

IhavenowsetoutthreecriticaldevelopmentsofthemoraldistanceargumentIpresentedinChapterTwo,arguingthatmoraldistancingofsubjectsisonlypartofthestory,albeitanimportantpart,inaccountingfortheindifferencethatpervadesandfacilitatesbordercontrol.InmakingthisargumentIhaveemployedtheideasofasetoftheoristsofindifference,bureaucracyandmoraldistance–includingBauman,Simmel,GloverandWeber–inexposingthediversityofdistancingmechanismsandformsofindifferenceinevidencethroughoutBritain’sbordercontrolindustry.Inthischapter,Ichallengetheirapproachinanimportantrespect.Whereastheyseeestrangementandmoralindifferenceasessentiallydevoidofemotions,Ishowthatemotionsarecompatiblewith,andsometimescentralto,themechanismsthroughwhichindifferenceisachieved.

Myfocusonemotionsinthischapterchimescloselywiththeburgeoninginterestinemotionsamonghumangeographersinrecentyears,bothingeneraltermsandwithspecificreferencetopolicymakers.Geographershavereactedstronglyagainstformal,supposedlyemotionless,conceptionsofspacethat,forHenriLefebvreatleast,havebecomeincreasinglydominantincontemporarysociety.Lefebvreidentifiestheriseof‘abstract’conceptionsofspacethatareassociatedwith‘order’(Lefebvre,1991,p.33)suchasthosetypicallyusedby‘scientists,planners,urbanists,technocraticsubdividersandsocialengineers’(Lefebvre,1991,p.38).Thistypeofspace‘claimstobeneutral,universal,apolitical,valueandemotionfree’(Smithetal.,2009,p.2)butinfacttendstoreducethecomplexityofhumanlifeintoastrippeddownplan,thepursuitandrealisationofwhichsubsequentlyresultsinthesideliningoftheeverydaystuffoflifeitself.

Againstthese‘lethal’conceptionsofabstractspace(Lefebvre,1991,p.370)Lefebvreidentifiestheimportanceoflivedspace,whichreferstotheopenspaceoftheeveryday:a‘concrete…whichistosay,subjective’space(Lefebvre,1991,p.42).Livedspaceembracesthe‘lociofpassion,ofactionandoflivedsituations’(Lefebvre,1991,p.42).Geographerswhohaveattendedtoemotionsinrecentyearshaveoftendonesoinordertoprovideanantidotetoabstractspacebyfocusingontheeveryday,livedhappeningsofsociallifethattheyrefusetoproceduralise,flattenandunderstandasanancilliarypartofawiderrationalscheme.Theirinterestispromptedbyadesiretoresistthetypeofabstractspatialconceptionsthat‘facilitat[e]political,bureaucratic,andtechnologicalinterventionsofakindthatregardemotionalinvolvementsas…faultstobecorrected’(Smithetal.,2009,p.2).

Theupshothasbeenasustainedinterestinboththe‘incandescentpassions’thatoccasionally

maketheirmark,aswellasthelessintense‘constantswirlofemotionsthattakesusthroughtheday’(AminandThrift,2002,p.83;seealsoDavidsonetal.,2008).Emotionalgeographieshasbecomeavibrantsubfield.1Onefieldofinteresthasbeenintheemotionalexperienceofpolicymakingandgovernance(Hunter,2012).HortonandKraftl(2009),forexample,discern‘fundamental…connectionsbetweenthatfieldofpracticeconventionallyknownaspolicyandthatrangeofaffective,bodilyintensitiesconventionallynamedemotion’(HortonandKraftl,2009,p.2985).Inspiteofalingeringbeliefamongpolicymakersthatemotionalconsiderationsare‘“detachedfrom[the]realworld”’(HortonandKraftl,2009,p.2986,citingHamnett,1997,p.127),andapersistentperceptionamongsomegeographersandothersocialscientistsinterestedinemotionsthatpolicyanalysisis‘dull,lumpen[and]atheoretical’(HortonandKraftl,2009,p.2986),workontheemotionsofpolicymakersanddecisionmakershasaimedtoilluminatethe‘enlivened’(Smithetal.,2010)spacesofpolicypracticewithininstitutionalsettings.Thediscussioninthischaptercontributestothiswork.

Myfirstargumentisthatmoralindifferenceinbureaucraciesoftenarisesasaresultofanemotionallyconflictedstatewhereinempatheticcompassionisoverriddenbyavarietyofotherconcerns.FollowingNussbaum(2001),thisapproachholdsthattherearepowerfulemotionalimpedimentstocompassion.ThisinsightisimportantnotonlybecausetheapproachemployedbythetheoristsofmoraldistancethatIlistedabovetendstoimplythatmoraldistanceisgenerallyemotion-free,butalsobecausewheretheydorecognisetheoperationofemotionalinfluencesovermorality,theseareinvariablyseentoactinordertosoftenratherthanhardenattitudestowardssufferingothers.Bothassumptions,Iargue,areincorrect.

Mysecondargumentfocusesinparticularuponfeelingsofanxietyamongbordercontrolfunctionaries.AlthoughitispossibletodiscerntheinfluenceofaseriesofdifferenttypesofemotionsoverempatheticcompassioninBritishimmigrationcontrol,itisanxiety,Iargue,thatconstitutesthemostpervasivecheckovermoralsensitivityinthisarena.AnxietyamongfunctionariesislargelytraceabletotheinfluenceofthepressinBritain,whichhashadtheeffectofmakingworkersfearfuloftheconsequencesofactinghumanelybeyond(andsometimesevenwithin)thetermsoftheiremployment.BymakingthisargumentIdepartslightlyfromNussbaum’sapproach,assheidentifiesbothshameandenvyasimportantimpedimentsovercompassion,neitherofwhichrevealedthemselvesasparticularlyimportantinconstrainingcompassioninthecourseofmyowninvestigations.Indeed,whereIcameacrossevidenceofshameamongfunctionariesinparticular,thiswasmorelikelytobeassociatedwithanincreasinglysensitiveapproachtotheirwork,ratherthanalesssensitiveone(myargumentmorecloselyapproximatesthepositionofAhmed,2004,inthisrespect).Nevertheless,IretainNussbaum’sbasicargumenttotheextentthatcompassionamongfunctionariesappearedtobetrumpedbyvariouscounter-posedemotions,withanxietyfiguringprominentlyamongstthem.

AnimportantimplicationofthisinsightisthatitisnecessarytodrawadistinctionbetweenBauman’snotionsofinsensitivityandindifference(whichhetendstousemoreorlessinterchangeablyandwhich,uptothispoint,Ihavedonealso).Insensitivityimpliesalackofinternalemotionalexperience,animperviousnessthatsitscomfortablywiththeelidingofmoraldistanceandemotionlessnessthatIamobjectingto.Indifference,ontheotherhand,

mightwellinvolvepassionatelyfelt,yetcounter-posed,feelings.Aprisoner,forexample,couldbeindifferentbetweentheprospectoffiveyearsmoreconfinementinaregularprisonortwomoreyearsofhardphysicaldemandsinabootcamp,butcaredeeplyaboutbothoptions.Accordingtomyfindings,functionariesofbordercontrolstendtobemorelikelytobeindifferentthaninsensitivetotheplightofsufferingothers,eventhoughtheupshotofbothemotionalconditionsisoftencomparableintermsoftheirlackofcompassion.

Mythirdargumentconcernsthecontradictoryfunctionsofasetofsofteremotionsincludingcare,empathyandcompassioninthecompositionofindifference.Anethicofcarehasbeenvauntedasanantidotetodry,rule-basedformsofjustice(Tronto,1993).Butaconcerningelementoftheimmigrationcontrolsystemisthewayinwhichcarefeaturesasanelementofcontrolandsubjugation.Careandindifferencehavebecomeincreasinglycloselyintertwined,Iargue,and,atitsworst,carecannowbeseentooperateasascreenformorallydubiousactions.Thisargumentpromptsustoquestionwhetherthesesofteremotionsarereallyagoodthinginthecontextofbordercontrol–athemethatImaintaininthenextchapteraboutcompassion.

Overall,thechapterdemonstratestheemotionalcharacterofmuchofeverydaylifeinimmigrationcontrol,aswellastheconnectionsbetweenemotionsandthewaythatpoliciesareimplemented,bydrawingonaseriesofexamplesfromacrossthesitesandinstitutionsofcontrolalreadydiscussedinthepreviouschapters.Insodoingthechapteridentifiestheroleplayedbyemotionsinmoralindifferenceasanimportant,andoftenoverlooked,consideration.

EmotionsVersusIndifference?ThetheoristsIhavementionedassociateinsensitivityandindifferencewithemotionlessnessinvariousways.BothGloverandSimmel,forexample,emphasisehowtheconditionsofcontemporarysociallifehaveunderminedthesupposedpre-modernequilibriumbetweenemotionsandmorality.ForGlover,aprimarychallengeofglobalisationisthatitdrivesawedgebetweenthepeoplewhoseliveswecanprofoundlyaffect,andthepeoplewefeelemotionalabout.Accordingtothisargument,theextentofourinfluenceoverothersisnowmuchwiderthaninpreviouserasduetotheeffectsofmoderntechnologicaladvancesandtheglobalmarketeconomy.Butouremotionalresponsesprivilegeonlythenearathand.Henceevenwhenwehaveastronglyheldconvictionaboutthemorallycorrectthingtodoregardingthedistantneedy,Gloverargues,‘[o]urbeliefsstarttodivergefromtheemotionalresponsesnaturaltous’(Glover,1977,p.294).Thisisenoughtomakedoingtherightthing–suchasgivingsignificantlymoremoneytointernationalcharities,forexample–verydifficultindeed.Or,putmoreprecisely,ourlackofemotionalresponsestothedistantneedyislikelytomakedoingwhatwemightbelievetobethewrongthingwhenpressed–suchasnotdonatingtointernationalcharities–mucheasier.

ForhispartSimmel(1903/2002),indescribingthepitfallsofmoderncities,identifiestheemergenceofanimplacable,emotionlessmetropolitantypeofcharacter,asnotedinthepreviouschapter.‘Insteadofreactingemotionally’(Simmel,1903/2002,p.12)tothevariety

ofpeopleandsituationsthattheyencounterinurbansettings,Simmelwrites,peoplewiththistypeofcharacterreact‘primarilyinarationalmanner’(Simmel,1903/2002,p.12)thatcanbecharacterisedby‘apurelymatter-of-factattitudeinthetreatmentofpersonsandthingsinwhichaformaljusticeisoftencombinedwithanunrelentinghardness’(Simmel,1903/2002,p.12).Hecontinues:

Thepurelyintellectualisticpersonisindifferenttoallthingspersonalbecause,outofthem,relationshipsandreactionsdevelopwhicharenottobecompletelyunderstoodbypurelyrationalmethods.…Theserelationshipsstandindistinctcontrastwiththenatureofthesmallercircleinwhichtheinevitableknowledgeofindividualcharacteristicsproduces,withanequalinevitability,anemotionaltoneinconduct,aspherewhichisbeyondthemereobjectiveweightingoftasksperformedandpaymentsmade.

Simmel,1903/2002,p.12

LikeGlover,Simmelemploysareadingofthepastthat,perhapsnaïvely,envisagesanhistorical,pre-modern(andinSimmel’scaserural)spatialequilibriumbetweentheemotionalcapacitiesofindividualsandthereach,frequencyandintensityoftheiractivities(AminandThrift,2002,forinstance,arestronglycriticalofthenostalgiatheydetectinSimmel’swork).BothGloverandSimmelalsoexplicitlycontrastemotionsandpersonalismwithhardness,rationalityandindifference.

WeberandBauman’sworkonbureaucracysharesthesamebasicassumptionasGloverandSimmelthatemotionsandindifferenceareopposed.Weberwasleastinterestedinwhatheconsideredthelowestformofaction,whichhecalledaffectualaction,definedasactionbaseduponindividualemotionsinspecificsituations(Macon,2012).Hearguedthatthemoresophisticatedbureaucraciesbecomethelesscommonthistypeofactionis.‘Themoreperfectlythebureaucracyisdehumanized,’Weber(1922,p.15)writes,‘themorecompletelyitsucceedsineliminatingfromofficialbusinesslove,hatred,andpurelypersonal,irrationalandemotionalelementswhichescapecalculation.’Thenaturalresultofbureaucraticsystemsisthereforethedominanceof‘aspiritofformalisticimpersonality’thatcanbecharacterisedas‘withouthatredorpassion,andhencewithoutaffectionorenthusiasm’(Weber,1922,pp.15–16).‘Thisisthespiritinwhichanofficialconductshisoffice’,Weberargued(Weber,1922,pp.15–16),‘[o]therwisethedoorwouldbeopentoarbitrariness’.

BaumansimilarlyassociatesthedisastrousmoralestrangementandindifferencethatfacilitatedtheHolocaustwithalackofemotions,notingthesurprisinglackofviolencethataccompaniedsystematicmassmurder.‘[T]herewasnotenough“mob”tobeviolent’,heobserves(Bauman,1989,p.74),‘[m]assdestructionwasaccompaniednotbytheuproarofemotions,butthedeadsilenceofunconcern.Itwasnotpublicrejoicing,butpublicindifferencewhich[facilitatedtheHolocaust].’‘Stalin’sandHitler’svictims’,hecontinues(Bauman,1989,p.92),‘werekilledinadull,mechanicalfashionwithnohumanemotions…toenlivenit.’

Wecanraiseaseriesofobjectionstothewayinwhichemotionsandindifferenceareseparatedbytheseauthors.Emotionsaredealtwithasawholeasifthisconstitutesacoherentcategory,ratherthanbygivingattentiontospecificemotionsthatmayverywellhavedifferent

tendenciesandpropertiestoeachotherandbehaveinverydifferentways(Henderson,2008).Furthermore,theprocessofestrangementitselfisassumedtobelargelyimpassiveand,whereemotionsarediscussed,theseareseenasdetrimentaltomoralinsensitivity.Neitheroftheseassumptionsconformstotheevidenceprovidedbymyinterviewees,whoexperiencedarangeofspecificemotionsthatranalongside,andoftenaided,theprocessofdistancingandthenurturingofindifference.InthenextsectionsIshowthatavarietyofspecificemotionscanpromotemoralestrangementandindifference.

TheInterplayofEmotionsinImmigrationControlAdmittedly,Ioccasionallyuncoveredevidenceofemotionsthatworkedagainsttheprocessofmoralestrangement,asthesekeytheoristsassume.Shame,forexample,wassometimesdiscernible.‘OneofthemenworkingonthesecuritydooronthewayintoCroydonwasactuallygivinguphisjobthatweek’,oneactivistwhohadrecentlyvisitedLunarHousetoldme,2‘becausehecouldn’tlivewithhimselfanymoretreatingpeoplethewayhewasexpectedtotreatpeopleaspartofhisjob’.Anotherimmigrationofficer,whomImetatthecounter-protestagainsttheEVF[EnglishVolunteerForce]outsideLunarHouse,recalledhisworkintheremovalssectionoftheHomeOffice,includinghisroleindeportingchildren:‘Ihatedthat.Hatedit.Reallynastywork’,hetoldme.3‘EventuallyImovedfromLiverpooltoCroydonandtookondifferentwork,regularcasework.’AnotherimmigrationofficerwhowastemporarilyinvolvedinarefugeeresettlementschemerunbytheHomeOfficeexpressedhisreliefatbeingaskedtodoresettlementwork,whichrevealedhisviewoftheworkthatheusuallydidandthathiscolleaguescontinuedtobeengagedin.‘Iamoneoftheluckyones’,hereflected,4‘becauseIgettodosomeofthegoodworkwithrefugeecommunities.’

Shameseemedparticularlylikelytobeexperiencedbyfrontlinestaffwhowereexpectedtomaintainprolongedrelationshipswithmigrantsindifficultsituations.‘Iseetheminthecoffeeshopandtheycomeupandthey’rebloodystarving’,recalledonepoliceofficerwhoseregularpatrolincludedanareawheremanydestituteasylumseekersresided.5‘Howaretheygoingtofeedthemselves’,hecontinued,

unlessthey’regonnafindanemployerthat’sgoingtoexploitthemtotally,paythempeanutsfordoinglonghourstheyhavetofeedthemselvesbyresortingtocrime,pettycrime.Sothere’sanimmediateeffectwiththepoliceandsocietyingeneral.Anditpropagatesthispopularmyththatthepopularpresslikestopropagatethat,youknow,asylumseekersaretakingourmoney,thatthey’recommittingcrime.Ofcoursethey’recommittingcrimebecausethey’vegotnowayofbloodyfeedingthemselves!Andsopolicetimegetstakenup,costsalotofmoneytogettheminthecourtsystem,identifyingthemcostsmoremoney.Itcostsfarmoremoneyinthelongruntodealwiththesepeoplethanitdoestosupportthem.Thewholethingjustdoesn’tmakesenseatall.

Thissortofcriticalawarenessofthefailureofthesystemofbordercontrolfromexasperatedinsidershaslongbeenrecognisedasanimportantandpotentiallypotentsocialphenomenon(Goffman,1967;Scheff,1988).Incertaincircumstances,forexample,itcanproduce

compassionbeyondtheformaldemandsoftheemployee’srole.Oneactivistrecountedasituationinwhichasuicidallydepressedchildhadbeenreleasedfromhospitalintopolicecustodyasaresultofanadministrativeerror.‘Thepoliceofficerswereverysympathetic’,theactivistrecalled,6

becausetheywerehorrifiedtheyhadtodothistoafrightenedlittlegirl.Onepoliceofficerhadadaughterthatlookedthesameageasherandhewasashamedthatheactuallyhadtokeepthiskidinalockedcellovernight.She[theasylumseekinggirl]saidthathekeptgoinginduringthenighttocheckthatshewasalrightandtoseeifshewantedanythingtoeatbecauseshewascurledupinthefoetalpositioninthecornerofthecell.

Thelinkbetweencompassionandshamehasmeantthatshamehasbeenviewedbysomethinkersas‘crucialtomoraldevelopment’(Ahmed,2004,p.106).Admittingfailuretoliveuptoanidealsuchastreatingsufferingothersfairlyandkindly‘isawayoftakingupthatidealandconfirmingitsnecessity’(Ahmed,2004,p.106).‘Despitethenegationofshameexperiences,’Ahmedexplains,‘shameconfirms…commitmenttosuchidealsinthefirstplace’(Ahmed,2004,p.106).Inthisveinshamehasbeentakentoindicatetheexistenceofa‘laymorality’thatisimpervioustoinstitutionalinfluences(Sayer,2005,p.948).Whereshameinvolvesanuncomfortabledissonancebetweenpersonalethicsandthedemandsofinstitutionstheremayevenbescopeforinsider-ledreform.

Unfortunately,however,anxietywasamorepowerfulandmorecommonemotionamongmyintervieweesandtendedtopavethewayformorallyinsensitivesystemsofcontrol.Althoughtherewassomeevidenceofanxietyoverdisciplinaryproceduresamongstaffwhohadmademistakes(e.g.asnotedinthepreviouschapter,onevisitingdoctortoimmigrationdetaineesclaimedthatdetaineehealthproblemsarenotalwaysaccuratelyreportedbecausestaffareafraidofgetting‘introuble’andare‘frightenedoftheconsequence’),thecentralsourceofanxietywastraceabletotheright-wingprintedmediaintheUnitedKingdom.‘EverytimethereisascaremongeringheadlineintheDailyMailortheDailyMirrororTheSunaboutimmigration’,oneactivisttoldme,7‘thattranslatesdirectlyintopressureinsideLunarHouseandthroughouttheIND[ImmigrationandNationalityDirectorate].There’sakindofparanoiathatitproducesandtheanxietiesaboutthenextscandalthatisgoingtocomeoutorbeleaked.’TheBritishprintednewspaperpresshaveatrackrecordofnamingandshamingnotonlyindividualemployeeswhohaveactedincompetently,butalsothosewhoaredeemedtohaveactedtooliberallyandfacilitatedtheentryoftoomanymigrantsintotheUnitedKingdom.In2012,forexample,TheTelegraphwebsitecarriedastorythatlistedthenamesofthreeseniorjudgeswho‘rulefarmoreoftenthanothersinfavourofoffendersseekingtoavoiddeportation’(BarrettandEnsor,2012).Despitethefactthatthesejudgesmayverywellhavereceivedcertaintypesofcasesthatweremorelikelytowarrantcertainrulings,andhadinanycaseoperatedentirelywithinthelawandtheboundariesoftheirjudicialdiscretion,thissortofpublicityrunstheriskofdampeningwillingnesstoactcourageouslyandindependentlyintheexerciseofimmigrationpowersinthefuture.

Giventheever-presentriskofnegativemediaattention,ensuringthatthetaskofmanagingthemediaimageoftheINDwasproperlyresourcedwasactuallyacentralconcernofsenior

management.‘Wedon’thaveourownpressoffice,that’sinthecentralHomeOfficeandthatprovidesachallenge’,oneseniormanageratLunarHousetoldme.8‘Youhavetomakesurethatwe’reactuallygoingtobejoinedup…becausewedogethitbythepress’.Negativemediacoverageofgovernmentdepartmentsposesrisksnotonlyintermsofpopularperceptionsofastatefailingtoeffectivelycontrolmigration,butalsoforstaffmorale,whichhasimplicationsforproductivityandstaffturnover.Themanagerseemedatleastasconcernedaboutnegativepresscoveragefromthisperspective.‘What’shappeningispeople[referringtoherownstaffintheIND]areseeingthepressandweneedtohavealinetostaffaswell’,sheexplained;

Weneedtogetthemtounderstand…becausestaffpickupstuffinthepressandthink“Oh,isthattrue?Ididn’tknowaboutthat”.Actuallymostofthetimeitisn’ttrue,butthereissomethinginit,thereisagerminit,andweneedtoexplaintostaffthatthisiswherethisisfromandthisisthebackgroundtoitandthisiswhatwe’redoingaboutitetc.,etc.Sothat’squiteimportant9

Withtheserisksinmind,theimperativetoavoidsituationsthatmightleadtonegativemediacoveragecansometimesmakemanagementextremelywaryofforgingworkingrelationshipswithunknowngroups.WhenSouthLondonCitizens(SLC)approachedtheseniormanagementteamtoconducttheirinvestigationintohowtoimprovecustomerserviceatLunarHouse,forexample,themanagement’sinitialresponsewasguarded.‘Imeanthedangerforusisthattherewillalwaysbeajournalistwhowillpickthisupinsixmonths’timeandthink“ooh”orwhatever’,explainedoneofthemanagementteam.10Itwasonlywhentheactivistswereabletodemonstratethat,inthewordsofoneseniormanager,‘theywereverywellmeaning,theirheartswereintherightplace[and]theydidn’twanttohaveapopatIND’thatthemanagementteamwerepreparedtoworkwiththem.11

TheanxietythatSLCprovokedalsoledtosomebizarrebehaviour,indicatingtheinfluencethattrepidationovermediacoveragecanhave.Inonenotableinstance,thequeueoutsideLunarHousewasallegedly‘hidden’inanticipationofnegativemediaattention.AccordingtoanumberofSLCactivists,onthedaythattheyarrivedatLunarHouseinordertogiveteaandcoffeetoasylumseekersandothermigrantswaitinginthequeue,thequeueitselfbeganinthesmallhoursofthemorning.At9 am,however,thewaitingpeoplewerebeckonedinsidethebuildingsothat,bythetimetheactivistsarrivedat10 am,therewasonlyafractionofthenumberthathadbeenthereonlyanhourbefore.Asonelocalnewspaperreported,quotinganactivistwhowasinvolved:‘Thequeuehadmagicallydisappeared.Therewereafewpeoplequeuingatthebackofthebuildingbutthemajorityofthemhadmysteriouslygone.WebelievetheHomeOfficedeliberatelyhidthemtoplaydownourconcerns’(McQueenie,2005).‘WhattheINDdid’,oneactivistthatIinterviewedasserted,12‘thinkingthatthey’dbefacedwithsomereallyunpleasantpublicscene,wastheyjustmovedeveryoneinside,sotheybasicallyputpeopleupstaircasesandthingstomakesurethattherewasnoqueue’.

Thisisnottosaythattheeffectofthethreatofnegativemediacoverageisconfinedtohigh-profilecentresofcontrollikeLunarHouse.Employeesneverknowwhenthenextmediastormwillstrike,ortowhichpartofthesystemofbordercontrolitwillrefer.Thisuncertaintyover

theprecisenatureoftheriskthatisfacedisakeycharacteristicofanxiety.Whereasfearcanbedescribedasanemotionalreaction‘toathreatthatisidentifiable’(Rachman,1998,pp.2–3;seealsoFischer,1970),anxietydescribesthe‘tenseanticipationofathreateningbutvagueevent’orafeelingof‘uneasysuspense’(Rachman,1998,pp.2–3).Theupshotisthattheresponsetoanxietyisgeneralisedratherthanspecific–everyonewithinthebureaucracymusttakethenecessaryprecautions.

Consequently,whenanindividualreceivesnegativemediaattentionwholetranchesofemployeesinsimilarorrelatedrolescanbeputonalert.Whenoneimmigrationjudgemadesomeunfortunatecomments13abouthisworkonaradioprogrammein2010,forexample,otherimmigrationjudgeswereadvisedtobecautious,includingarecentintervieweeofmine.‘Pleaseexcusethisbriefinformalnotefollowingtheinterviewyouconductedwithmeaboutmyjudicialworkintheasylumandimmigrationfield’,wrotemyinterviewee,whodecidedtocontactmedirectlyabouttheincident;14

Sincethentherehasbeenanincidentwhenoneofthejudgesill-advisedlyparticipatedinaRadio5live‘phonein’programmemakingthereinsomeunguardedandunfortunatecommentsnotthoughttoreflectwelluponthejudiciary.Sincetheprogramme,individualjudgeshavebeenadvisedtosteerclearofthemedia…Thereisthereforesomereluctancebyjudgestogetinvolvedinanykindofdiscussionabouttheirworkwithoutfirstgettingapproval.…IhavenotspokentothejudgestowhomIreferredwhenwemet[myintervieweehadofferedtohelprecruitotherjudgesformyresearch],butotherstowhomIhavespokenhavebeensomewhatcautiousandapprehensivesincetheradioprogrammeabouttakingpartinanyinterviewsatall.

Infact,theprocessofcontactingandrecruitingresearchparticipantsformyresearchwasrevealinginotherways.AroundthreetimesasmanypeopleinofficialpositionsthatIapproachedforaninterviewrefusedtoparticipateinmyresearchthanagreed,forexample–eitherexplicitlyor,morecommonly,throughresolutelyignoringmyrequests.Whererefusalswereexplicittheriskofnegativemediaattentionwastheusualjustification.Thiscautiousapproachofmyintervieweesalsoextendedtotheinterviewsthemselves.Intervieweeswouldfrequentlyreservetheirrichestreflectionsfortheperiodimmediatelyafterthevoicerecorderwasturnedoff(muchtomyfrustration),usuallycitingthedesiretotalktome‘offtherecord’.Theyoftenalsowantedtoknowpreciselywhatwouldhappentothetranscripts,andsometimescheckedoverthemthoroughly.Someofficialswarnedaboutwhatcouldhappentomythesis(someoftheresearchwasdoctoralresearch)ifanythingwasmisquotedormisrepresented,andsomewouldtalkdarklyaboutworkbeing‘impounded’intheinterestsofsecurity,eventhoughthefeasibilityofthiswasnevermadecleartome.

CompoundingthissenseofcautionwasthefactthatmanyofthepeopleIinvitedtotakepartintheresearchwerealarmedifIadoptedanythingapproachingaformalmanner.Askinggovernmentemployeestosignconsentforms,forexample,ofteninducedsuspicionandreluctance.Anddressingsmartly,asistheusualwaytoapproach‘elite’interviews(Valentine,1997),alsoseemedtodisturbtheirimageofmeasaharmlessresearcherandIsoongaveupthepracticeinfavourofinformaldress,whichwasapparentlymuchlessthreatening.

Oneconsequenceofmedia-relatedanxietyisthatorganisationsthathavethepotentialtocastgovernmentdepartmentsinapositiveornegativelightinthepresscancommandahighdegreeofleverageamongimmigrationsectordecisionmakers.Oneseniormanager,forexample,wasappreciativeofSLC’swillingnesstocushiontheimpactofthe‘sexforvisas’scandal(mentionedinChapterOne)thatbrokeinthemid-2000s(DowardandTownsend,2006).15‘Wehada...scandalinJanuarywhentherewastheseaccusationsthatpeopleinthepublicenquiryofficehadtreatedcertainapplicantsmorefairlyanddemandedsexualfavoursandstufflikethat’,sherecalled,16

butthepresswentto[theSLCactivists]foraquoteandactuallyitwasquitegoodthatwe’vegotagoodrelationshipbecausetheysaid‘Noactually,wedidn’tseeanyofthat,theyneedtodoalotaboutwaitingtimesandcomfortofthebuildingandmaybechangethefacilitiesandblahblahblah,butactuallytheintegrityofthecaseworkerswewouldn’tquestion’.Andthat’sactuallyreallyusefulforusbecausewecouldhavesaidthosethings,whereasactuallyit’snotthateffectivewhenyousayityourself…butifoneofthestakeholdersdoes,it’sactuallyquiteeffective.

Itisimportanttonotethatmanymigrantsupportandactivistgroupsmakethedecisionnottohaveanydealingswiththepressforverygoodreasons.Someworrythatpressinvolvementaroundparticularmigrants’casesmightbackfireandincriminateorendangertheminsomeway.‘Imeantheirfamiliescouldbetargetedbackintheirhomecountries’,oneactivistexplained.17Othersdiscusstheriskthatimmigrationdecisionmakerslikecaseworkersandjudgeswhofeeltheyarebeingpressurisedintomakingaparticulardecisiononacasebyfeaturingthecaseinthemediamightrespondangrilyandmaketheoppositedecision.Othersfearthatembarrassingthegovernmentis‘riskingsomekindofretribution.There'sbeenstorieswhere[agovernmentdepartment]hasactuallygonebackandtriedtodigupadditionalinformationonsomeonebecausetheywereonthefrontpageofthenewspapertotrytodiscreditthatperson’,oneactivistnoted.18Formanyactivists,advocatesandcharityworkerstheserisksareenoughforthemtodecidethattheywantnodealingswiththepresswhatsoever.‘[I]tseemstometheonlythingthepresscoulddoisscrewmeup’,onelegaladvocateexplained.19‘Ican'tbeputtingmyservicesinthewayofanykindofdangerjustforthesakeofissuinganintereststory’,anothernoted,20‘Ijustdon'tseethebenefitofit’.Someactivistsevenfeltthattheyweremorelikelytobeabletoinfluencegovernmentpolicyorpracticewhengovernmentdepartmentswereoutofthelimelight.‘Youaremorelikelytohaveabitofspacetooperateinwithgovernmentoffthefrontpages,’oneadvocateforrefugeeissuessuggested,21‘becausetheydon’tfeelsopressurised.’

Otheractivistgroups,however,seeanxietyamongdecisionmakersaboutnegativepresscoverageaspotentiallyexploitable.Afterthequeue-hidingincident,forexample,theSLCactivistsatLunarHousewereabletocapitaliseupontheanxietyaboutfurthernegativemediacoverageamongthemanagementteamtoelicittheircooperationinimplementingaseriesofreformsthroughoutthebuilding.Althoughthemanagementteamhadgrudginglyagreedtoallowtheirinvestigationtotakeplaceandcooperatewherenecessaryafterthelaunch,accordingtovariousSLCactiviststheywouldroutinelypostponemeetings,withholdinformation,miss

deadlines,attempttocancelappointmentsandleaveverylongperiodsoftimebetweencorrespondence.Theactivistsrespondedbythreateninganothereye-catching,media-attractingpublicaction,suchasaparadeordistributingmoreteaandcoffeeatLunarHouse.Asoneorganiserexplained,reflectingupontheprocessofsecuringthecooperationoftheseniorINDmanagementteamduringthistime,whatthemanagerslongedforaboveallwastheabsenceofmedia.Ifthiswasassured,theneverythingelseseemedpossible:

[Aftertheinitialdistributionofteaandcoffee]theyweretakingusveryseriouslybecausetheysawwhatwe’ddone,we’dgotquiteabitofmediaattention.Whenweheardfrom[seniorimmigrationofficials]‘Yes,we’llcometodiscussworkingtogetheronthebasisthatthereisnomedia’,wesaid‘OK,weagree’.Andwhentheyhadn’tsentustheirresponse…wedecidedthatwewouldstageanaction,ifonlytogalvanisethesupportofthevoluntarysector.Buthavingletthemknowwhatwewereplanningtodo,wethengotanimmediateresponseback.

HavingreceivedthisresponseSLCthencalledofftheiraction.Thesameactivistrecalledthat‘[theIND]weresorelievedthatwe’dcalleditoffthat[name]the[seniorpositionwithintheIND]cameovertothechurchwherewemeettothankusandtotalktousabouttheresponsethatthey’dsent’.22

Thereis,then,acomplexinterplayofemotionsthatbothchallengeandpromotemoralindifference.Bordercontrolemployeessometimesfeelashamedabouttheirroleinsystemsthattheycanseeareimmoral.Butmorecommonlytheyfeelanxious:abouttheirjobs,aboutdisciplinarymeasuresandaboutthenextmediastorm.Anxietyaboutthetabloidprintedpressinparticularhastheeffectofdiscipliningthembymakingthemmorecomplianttosourcesofpressurethateitherthreatenthemwiththeriskofunwantedmediaattentionorpromisetoreducethisrisk.ItseemsclearthatthisinterplayresemblesneithertheemotionlessnessthatGlover,Simmel,BaumanandWeberassociatewithmorallyindifferentbureaucracies,northeoppositionbetweenemotionsandmoralindifferencethattheyposit.

TheSofterSideofBritishImmigrationControlAlongsideshameandanxiety,therhetoricofinternationalimmigrationcontrolnowregularlycitessofteremotionslikecare,empathyandcompassion.HereIfocusontheclaimsmadebyimmigrationcontrolorganisationsthattheyareactivelypursuingtheseemotionsamongtheirfunctionariesandthroughouttheircultures.Bialasiewicz(2012),forexample,noteshowtherenamingofdetentioncentresto‘carecentres’inLibyaallowedLibyanofficialstoclaimthatthecentres,whichwere‘oftenthesiteofforcedlabour,rapesandbeatings’(Bialasiewicz,2012,p.855),couldironicallynowbejustifiedasattempts‘toensurethephysicalintegrityofirregularmigrants,particularlyastheyexposethemselvestodangeroussituations’(Bialasiewicz,2012,p.855,quotingoneoftheLibyanofficials).Theclaimisthattheserepressivecentressomehowhavethebestinterestsofmigrantsinmind.23

ThissameclaimrecursintheBritishcaseandinwhatfollowsIexplorehowthisemotionalapparatusisrolledoutalongsideandintheserviceofmoralindifference.Oneseniormanager

talkedpassionatelyaboutthevaluesoftheHomeOfficewhenIinterviewedherinthemid-2000s.‘We’verecentlyintroducedsomevalues’,sheexplained,24

andwewanttomakesureweembedthosevaluesintermsofnotjusthavingnicepostersonthewalls.Thevaluesare:wewillbeprofessional,innovative,open,collaborative,havingrespectforpeople,nothingsurprisinginthere,butfranklyit’snotgoingtohaveanyeffectunlessweactuallytrytotranslatethatintobehaviours.

Sincetheirinception,theseandsimilarvalueshavebeenrolledouttounderpinmanyoftheseeminglybrutalelementsofimmigrationcontrol.Jobadvertisementstorecruitdetentioncustodyofficers,forexample,whichinclude‘day-in-the-life’styleaccountsfromexistingemployees,areissuedtojobcentresandnewspapersacrosstheUnitedKingdomandstronglyemphasisetheneedforempatheticstaff.‘Thebestpeopleinthisjobhaveexcellentcommunicationskills,arewillingtobeflexibleandmostimportantlybeabletoempathisewithothers’,oneadvertreads(G4S[Group4Securicor],2013a).‘Thesecrettothisjobisallabouttalkingtopeople.It’saboutspeakingtopeopleandtreatingthemwithrespect’,itcontinues.Keyskillsincludetheabilitytolistentoothersandbenon-judgemental.

Someofthedetaineesweescortareunderagreatdealofstressandareoftenconfusedorscared,sotheabilitytounderstandanddealcalmlywithallkindsofpeopleisessential.Wealwayshavetobeobservantandawareaswellaspatientwhentalkingtodetaineestoo.Butthemostimportantthingistobenon-judgementalandtreateveryoneasyouwouldliketobetreatedyourself

G4S,2013a

Inanotherexample,anexistingoverseasescortingofficerdescribeshisactionsduringadeportationprocedure.‘Ialwaysaskhowthedetaineeisfeelingabouttheremoval’,hetellsus,andwhilstontheplane‘[w]emaintainaconstantstreamofconversation’withtheaimof‘establishingarapport’(G4S,2013b).SimilarlytheBorderAgency’sguidelinesfortrainingdetentioncustodyofficers25stressesthatthedutiesofacustodyofficerinclude‘attend[ing]toadetainee’swell-being’alongsidetheirdutiestopreventescapeandmaintaindiscipline(UKBorderAgency,2011).

Elsewhere,oneofthemostcontroversialextensionstotheBritishdetentionestatefullyembracesthesoftersideofimmigrationcontrol.In2011anewspecialistfamilydetentioncentrenamedCedars–anacronymforcompassion,empathy,dignity,approachability,respectandsupport–wasannounced.ThecentrewastobemanagednotonlybyUKBA(UnitedKingdomBorderAgency)anditspartner,G4S,butalsobyawell-knownchildren’scharity,Barnardo’s.ThisdevelopmentcamedespitepromisesfromseniorpoliticiansthatchilddetentionhadendedintheUnitedKingdomanddespiteinternationallegalguidelines,suchasTheInternationalConventionontheRightsoftheChild,whichstipulatethatchildren‘shouldnotbedetainedforreasonsrelatedtotheirmigrationstatus’(Farmer,2013,p.15).Thenewcentrecouldbejustified,however,becauseitwassupposedlydistinguishedfromordinarydetentionviathedegreeofcareitofferedtoresidentsandthe72-hourmaximumtimelimitthatchildrenandfamilieswouldbeheldfor.‘Thisshiftfromsecuritytocare’,writeTyleretal.

(2014),

washighlightedinalettersenttolocalcouncillorsandlocalresidentsbytheplanningconsultancycompany...workingonbehalfofUKBAwithregardtotheCEDARSplanningapplication.Theletterstated:‘Thefacilitywillberunonacaremodelratherthanasecureone,supportedbyathirdsectororganisation.InshortitwilllookandfeelverydifferenttotheUKBorderAgency’simmigrationremovalcentres’

Tyleretal.,2014,p.16

Thecentreorganisesoccasionaltripstothecinemaandtotheshopsforfamilies(undersupervision),andvisitorshavereportedthatthecentreprovidescomfortablebeds,newfurniture,spaciousroomsandplayareas.Indeed,thepresenceofthechildren’scharityprobablygoesalongwaytoensuringthatthecentreisoperatedcarefully.YetasFrancisWebber,apractitionerofimmigrationlawforover30years,confirmed,contrarytothegovernment’sclaimsthatCedarsconstitutedanew,distinctclassofpre-departureaccommodation,Cedars‘willbeadetentioncentre–completewith2.5-metreperimeterfences,lockedareas,internalfencesdividingthesiteintoaccessibleandinaccessibleareas,a“bufferzone”insidetheperimeterfence,andpowerstouseforceand“controlandrestraint”techniquesonbothadultsandchildren’(Webber,2011).

Researchhasshownthatitisdetentionitselfthatcausesdamagetochildren,ratherthanitsconditions.ThecharityMedicalJustice(2010)conductedresearchwith141childrendetainedbetween2004and2010intheUnitedKingdomforanaverageof26dayseach,andfoundthatspellsindetentionwereassociatedwithincreasedrisksofpsychologicalharm(includingdevelopmentalregressionandexpressedsuicidalideation)andphysicalhealthproblems.Moreover,themannerofentryinto,andexitfrom,detentionoutweighstheimportanceoftheconditionswithindetentionthemselves.Ofthe61childrenwhoentereddetentionasaresultofanunannounceddawnraidontheirhome,forexample,overtwo-thirdswere‘reportedtohaveexhibitedbehavioralchangesincludingpanic,anxiety,andtrauma’(MedicalJustice,2010,p.5)afterwards,whichoftenpersistedaftertheirreleasefromdetention(over60%ofthechildreninthestudywereeventuallyreleasedbackintothecommunity).‘Playfacilitiesandsmilingfaces’,Webberconcludes,‘cannotcompensateforthelackoffreedom’(Webber,2011).

Therearetwosalientcharacteristicsofcareintheseextremesortsofsituations.First,carebeginstoactasasmokescreenforanimmoralorbrutalsystem.Typicallythissmokescreenwillco-optasetofethicalvaluesintheworkofasubjugatingpoliticalstructure.ThefirststepdownthisroadistoupholdtheKantianpresumptionofarupturebetween‘thepublicvirtueofjusticeandtheprivatevirtueofgoodness’(Smith,2000,p.97).Onceseparated,thelattercanbeputtouseintheserviceoftheformerasawaytolicenceinequitableorexploitativesocialandeconomicstratifications.Recognisingthisrisk,theoristsofcarehavewarnedthat‘careneedstobeconnectedtoatheoryofjustice’(Tronto,1993,p.171).Themistakeofcarerswhoallowthemselvestobecomepartofbrutalsystemsistoaccepttheprimacyoftheethicaloverthepolitical,ofcareoverjustice,asifanypoliticalmachinerycanbeexcusedonthebasisofanethicalor‘compassionate’approach.

Theinvolvementofthechildren’scharityBarnardo’sinCedarshasbeendescribedaslendingtheUKBorderAgencya‘cloakoflegitimacy’(Webber,2011).Otherorganisationsheldbackfromsimilarinvolvementthatcouldlendcredibilitytosomeoftheworstcharacteristicsofthedetentionsystem.‘UKbordersasked[myorganisation]toprovidetrainingtotheirdoctorsintherecognitionoftorture’,onemedicaldoctorwhovisiteddetaineestoldme.Ifhisorganisationhadagreed,thenthereisahighchanceitwouldhavelentlegitimacytotheinadequateproceduresfordetectingtorturesurvivorsindetentiondiscussedinthepreviouschapter(seeTheIndependentChiefInspectorofBordersandImmigrationandHerMajesty'sInspectorateofPrisons,2012,forconcernsoverthisinadequacy).‘However,’hecontinued,26

[wewere]concernedbecausewethenwenttoanorganisationwhichhasdonetrainingofthatkindinternationally…andtheysaid‘Don’ttouchitwithabargepole.Whenwedidtrainingin[country]and[country]allthathappenedwasthedoctorsrubberstamped“nottortured”oneverythingandjustifiedtheirexpertiseinsodoingonthegroundsthattheyhadreceivedtrainingfrom[us]’.

Thesecondcharacteristicofcarethathasbeenco-optedwithinasubjugatorysystemisthatthecarersthemselvesmaynotviewwhattheyaredoingasimmoral:eithertheydonotappreciatetheirownculpability,ortheycalculatethattheirco-optionisapriceworthpaying–anecessaryevil–intheprotectionofvulnerablepeople.Althoughlaudabletoapoint,forHannahArendtitispreciselythissortofcalculationthatcanensurethecooperationofbenevolentindividualsinmalevolentsystems(seeArendt,1964/1994).27ForWeizman(2012)thissamecalculationofenduringasupposedlysmallerevilinordertoavoidalargeronehasbecomeathreateninggeneralisedhabitofthoughtamongWesterncountries’militaryelite.TheresultiswhatWeizmancalls‘humanitarianviolence’accordingtowhichameasureofviolenceisunderstoodasnormalandnecessaryevenamongthoseconcernedtominimizeviolence.AsWeizman(2012,p.3)putsit:‘themoderationofviolenceispartoftheverylogicofviolence’.Therolethat‘wellmeaningcitizens’(Weizman,2012,p.35)mightplayincollaboratingwithsubjugatingpracticesandsystemsisstarklyforegroundedbyWeizman’scontemporaryapplicationofArendt’swork.

Theresultisthemorallyambiguoussimultaneityofcompassionandrepression(Žižek,2009).ThechiefexecutiveofBarnardo’sofferedcompellingargumentswhenthecharitytookupitsplaceinco-managingthenewso-calledpre-departureaccommodation.InaninterviewwiththeGuardiannewspaperin2012,forexample,shewasabletopointtoaseriesofimprovementsinthewaythegovernmentandG4SconducttheiroperationsatCedarsbecauseoftheir(Barnardo’s)involvement,especiallyaroundthetransportationoffamilies,eventhoughshewasalsoquotedassaying‘DoIwishthe[pre-departureaccommodation]didn'tneedtoexist?Absolutely’(Williams,2012).OneofherconcernswasoverwhatCedarsmightbecomeifthecharityeverwithdrew.‘Ifnotus,thenwho?’sheasks,implyingthatneitherG4Snorthegovernmenthavetheabilitytocareaseffectivelyashercharityforthefamiliesheldthere.In2014thecharitypointedoutthefactthat,beforeCedars,familiesandchildrenwereheldformuchlongerperiodsoftime,inworseconditionsandwithmuchhigherfrequency(Barnardo's,2014).Barnardo’shavealsomadeitclearthat,shouldpracticesatCedarscross

any‘redlines’thatthecharityinsistconstituteminimumhumanitarianstandards,theywillwithdrawfromtherunningofthecentre.

ThegistofBarnardo’sjustificationforitsowninvolvementinCedarsisthereforesomethinglike‘withoutus,thetreatmentofsufferingotherswouldbeevenworse’.Thistypeofargument,however,raisesathornymoraldilemmabecause,withoutthecharityatCedarsplanningpermissionmaynothavebeengrantedforthecentreinthefirstplace(seeTyleretal.,2014).Whatismore,shouldthecharitywithdrawfromtherunningofCedarsthenthegovernment’sreputationinthetreatmentoffamiliesfacingdeportationwouldbeseverelytarnished,potentiallyprovidinggroundsforawholesalere-evaluationofthesystemofdetentionanddeportationoffamilies,andyetnowithdrawalhastakenplace.

Ultimatelytheinvolvementofkind,caringandcompassionatepeopleandorganisationsinsubjugatingsystemsofcontrolisafaultofthoseverysystemsofcontrol.Itisverydifficult,andprobablysanctimonious,toascribeblameorfaulttocaringactorsunderabrutalsystem.Nevertheless,thelegitimacytheylendtosuchsystems,andthedegreetowhichtheycanbeco-opted,isaprofoundlyinsipidandtragiccharacteristicofdehumanisingbureaucracyaswellasonethatthekeytheoristsofmoraldistanceandindifferenceriskoverlookingbydownplayingemotions.

Anotherwaytounderstandthedynamicsoftheco-optationofcareistodistinguishbetweenempathy,compassionandcare.WhereasitmakesverylittlesensetoincludecompassioninthelistofvaluesthatplaceslikeCedarsattemptstoembody,itmakesmoresenseforthemtoclaimtobeempathetic.ForKrznaric(2014,p.x),empathyinvolves‘theartofsteppingintotheshoesofanotherperson[and]understandingtheirfeelingsandperspectives’.Empathy,then,primarilyinvolvesimaginativeperspective-takinganddoesnot,assuch,entailajudgementthatthesituationgivingrisetothefeelingsoftheotherpersonisundeserved.Incomparison,forNussbaum(2001)atleast,foranindividualtofeelcompassiontheymustbelievethatsomeonehassufferedseriousmisfortunethattheyhavenotbroughtuponthemselves,andthatinthesamesituationthiscouldhavehappenedtothem.Hence,‘empathyisnotsufficientforcompassion’(Nussbaum,2001,p.330).

WiththisinminditisperfectlypossibleforUKBAtopromoteempathywhilstmaintainingthatasub-subsistenceincome,detentionordeportationofindividualsisessentiallysomethingtheydeserveforhavinginfringedimmigrationrules.Oneseniorimmigrationmanagerexplainedherempathetic,butuncompassionate,positionasfollows:

IfIwasaNigerianwoman,Iwouldwanttobringmyfamilyoverhereandlive,Iwouldn’thaveanyright,soI’dhavetoberemoved…thatNigerianwomanwhocomesover,shehastoberemoved,that’sthepolicy…butwecandothathumanelyandkindlyand,youknow,[ensure]goodnessofservice28

Althoughinsistingonthecorrectnessofthepolicy,themanagerdisplaysanunderstandingofthedesiretomigrateandtheneedforkindtreatment.OnespiritualsupportworkeratCampsfieldRemovalCentreoccupiedacomparableposition.Duringaninterviewwithalocalnewspaperhereflecteduponhisdifficultwork(Paveley,2005).‘OftenI’llbewalkingaround

andwillseesomeonewholooksasiftheyareabouttocollapseintears’,hecommented.‘I’llgrabholdofthemandjustaboutgetthemintoaroomandthedoorshutbehindusandtheywillbecrying.AtonepointIlostsomanyhandkerchiefsmywifewasannoyedwithme!’Butdespitethisevidentcaringattitudethatindicatesahighdegreeofempathy,hemadeitveryclearinthesameinterviewthathefeltthatmanydetaineeswerejustifiablydetainedandthattheyhadbroughttheirsituationsuponthemselves:

Manyofthedetaineesareeconomicmigrants…Lotsof[them]comeinhereandseemeandsay,youareamanofGod,youshouldgetmeoutofhereandIsay‘No,thatisn’tmyjob,that’syourlawyer’sjob’…youhavetoremember,lyingisthelinguafrancahere,manyofthesedetaineeshavepaidhugeamountsofmoneytogetoverhereandaredesperatetostay.

(Paveley,2005)

Tobesure,compassionhasitsowndrawbacks.Theactofcompassioncanreproduce‘asymmetricrelations’,whichcanultimatelyrenderitcondescendingandpowerladen(Korf,2007,p.370).Thecompassionatepersonoftenactsfromasecureposition,andcanperformtheirprivilegeintheprocessofactingcompassionately(Barnett,2005).Andwherecompassionateactsaretrivialinthefaceofthesufferingofothers,theycantakeonahypocriticalcharacter.‘Charityisthehumanitarianmaskhidingthefaceofeconomicexploitation’,writesŽižek(2009,p.19),whereasFassin(2005,p.362)identifiesthe‘compassionaterepression’thatundergirdsmuchofcontemporaryhumanitarianism.

Butthedistinctionbetweenempathyandcompassionremainsimportantbecausecompassionentailsrecognitionthatthesufferingofanotherpersonisunfair:theirsufferingoccursthroughnofaultoftheirown.Thereis,then,asenseofinjusticeinherenttocompassionthatempathylacks,andthatmayprovidethebasisforabroadersystemiccritiqueofthesocialandpoliticalcausesofinjustice.ForNussbaum(2001),thisrelationshipofcompassiontowidernotionsofjusticesetsitapartfromemotionssuchaspity,kindness,mercyandempathy,whicharelesslikelytoentailcriticalawarenessofthepoliticalforcesoperatingbeyondtheimmediateencounterwithsuffering.ItisforthisreasonthatIreturntoadiscussionofcompassioninthecontextofactiviststrugglesaroundBritishimmigrationcontrolsinthenextchapter.

Whenitcomestocare,itisunclearwhetherthesortsofrelationshipstheHomeOfficelabelascaringonesactuallyqualifyascare.Arangeofdefinitionshavebeenemployedbydifferentauthors,fromtheperson-to-personprovisionofservices(EnglandandFolbre,1999,p.40)toa‘sustainedand/orintensepersonalattention’(Zelizer,2005,p.162)and‘anemotionalbond,usuallymutual,betweenthecaregiverandcared-for,abondinwhichthecaregiverfeelsresponsibleforothers’well-beinganddoesmental,emotional,andphysicalworkinthecourseoffulfillingthatresponsibility’(Hochschild,1995,p.333).DecipheringwhetherornottheinstitutionsofBritishbordercontrolare‘reallycaring’thereforeturnsupontheparticulardefinitionofcareathand:themoreexpansivethedefinitionthemorepoorlyitappearstodescribethesortofrelationshipsthattheHomeOfficerefersto.Theriskofanarrowdefinition,ontheotherhand,suchasEnglandandFolbre’s,isthatnarrowdefinitionscanreduce‘thosecaredfortophysicalobjectsonwhichworkisperformed’(Gill,2012,p.127).

Someprominentissueshereinclude:(i)theextenttowhichcareistradableandmarketable,becauseithasbeensuggestedthatitispreciselytheactofgoing-beyondthetradablerelationshipthatisthemostvaluableaspectofcare(Goffman,1961);(ii)theextenttowhichthecareismutual,becauseithasbeensuggestedthatgenuinecareaffectsthecareraswellasthecaredfor(Hochschild,1995;Bondi,2008);and(iii)thedegreetowhichcareisneededasopposedtoimposed,because,atitsworst,carecansometimesbeanexerciseinthe‘affirmationofrelationsofdependenceandvulnerability’(Darling,2011b,p.412;seealsoWatsonetal.,2004).OnallthreecountstheviewthattheHomeOfficetakesofcareappearsdecidedlyfragile.Itiscontracted,necessarilyandintentionallynon-mutualtotheextentthatofficersareadvisednottoenterintorelationshipswithdetaineesandotherrecipients,andimposedtotheextentthattheneedforcareitselfhasoftenonlybeencreatedasaresultoftheenforcementofimmigrationcontrolsinthefirstplace.

ConclusionInthischapterIhavecriticallyassessedtheclaimofarangeoftheoristsofmoraldistanceandindifferencethatindifferenceisessentiallyemotionless.IhavearguedthatavarietyofemotionsarecommonintheeverydaylivesofimmigrationcontrolfunctionariesintheUnitedKingdomwhoneverthelessremainindifferenttothesufferingofmanymigrantsthattheymanage.Althoughaminorityoftheseemotionsworkagainstmoralestrangement,manyworktoensureit.ThisargumentchallengesreceivednotionsabouttheseparationandoppositionofemotionsandbureaucracythatrunsthroughtheworkofSimmel,Bauman,WeberandGlover,andconstitutesanotherinsightintothegenerationofmoralestrangementinimmigrationcontrolthatIhavedevelopedinpreviouschapters.

Theemotionsofimmigrationstaffareoftenconflicted.Attimestheimmoralityofimmigrationcontrolsbecomespatentlycleartofunctionaries,andmostordinarypeopleinthesesituationsfeeluncomfortableandashamedatbeingpartofsuchasystem.Atthesemoments,though,thereareoftenpowerfulcountervailingemotionssuchasanxietythatacttooverruleorimpedecompassionateaction.Furthermore,empathy,careandcompassionareactivelyencouragedwithinthebureaucracyalthoughitisuncleartowhatextentthelattertwoconceptsaccuratelydescribethesortofemotionalresponsesamongitsfunctionariesthattheHomeOfficelabelsassuch.Insuchsituationsthesystemofimmigrationcontroliscapableofco-optingthesesofteremotions,whichpresentsanacuteethicaldilemmatoindividualsandorganisationswithinthesystem.Atitsmostsophisticated,thisco-optationofempathy,aswellasthelanguageofcareandcompassion,canbepowerfullyseductiveinprovidingajustificatorystorythatfunctionariesandcontractedagenciescantellthemselves:theyareactingsensitivelyandmorallyintheexecutionofdifficultbutnecessaryandunavoidablework.Thesubtextthatthispositionendorses,unfortunately,isthatthesystemofdetentionofchildren,ofenforcedpovertyandoflife-threateningdeportationisheretostay,whichconstitutesadamagingvoteofnoconfidenceinthestrugglesofabolitionistgroups.

ThechapterhasalsoprovidedgroundstopriseapartsomeofBauman’sconceptsrelatingtomoralestrangement.WhereasBaumangenerallyelidesmoralinsensitivityandmoral

indifference,thischapterprovidesatleasttworeasonstobecautiousindoingso.First,giventheconflictedcharacterofemotionswithinthebureaucracy,accordingtowhichshameisoverriddenbyotheremotionslikeanxiety,indifferenceratherthaninsensitivityisamoreappropriatemetaphor.Andsecond,wherecare,compassionandempathyareenrolledinexclusionaryprocessesofbordercontrol,itisperfectlypossibleforfunctionariestobehighlysensitivetowardstheimmediateplightofsufferingothersandyetremainindifferentinthesensethatalthoughtheyregretthesufferingofotherstheyseenoreasonforthepoliticalandlegalsystemsthatgaverisetothissufferingtochange.Theyeitherpositionthecauseofthesufferingoutsidetheirmoralframeofreferenceorseeitasmorallyjustifiable,evenastheyexpressconcernoverthesufferingitself.Theirchosencourseofactionisthereforetobepassionatelyimpassive,caringlyrepressiveor,tofuseBauman’sterms,sensitivelyindifferent.Inasimilarvein,BaumanandDonskis’s(2013)booklengthdiscussionof‘moralblindness’doesnotdojusticetothedisturbingsituationinwhichfunctionariesinimmoralsystemsofcontrolareanythingbutblindtotheconsequencesoftheirwork,recognisetheimmoralityofthesystemsthemselves,andyetdeterminethattheiractionswithinthesesystemsarenotonlydefensiblebutmorallylaudableasa‘priceworthpaying’ora‘necessaryevil’.

Notes1Completewithanannualmeeting–theInternationalandInterdisciplinaryConferenceonEmotionalGeographies–andajournal–EmotionSpaceandSociety.

2Interviewwithactivist,28February2006.

3Conversationwithimmigrationofficerduringthecounter-protest,27July2013.

4Conversationwithimmigrationofficerduringthecounter-protest,27July2013.

5Interviewwithpoliceofficer,July2006.

6Interviewwithactivistandcommunityleader,28February2006.

7Interviewwithactivist,10October2006.

8InterviewwithseniormanageroftheIND,ApolloHouse,2006.

9InterviewwithseniormanageroftheIND,ApolloHouse,2006.

10InterviewwithseniormanageroftheIND,ApolloHouse,2006.

11InterviewwithseniormanageroftheIND,ApolloHouse,2006.

12Interviewwithactivist,10October2006.

13Thecommentsreferredtothejudge’spersonalviewsonhoweasyitwasforgaypeopletoclaimasylumintheUnitedKingdom.

14Writtencommunicationwithimmigrationjudge,21July2010.

15Therewereactuallytwosex-for-visasscandalsrelatingtoworkersinLunarHousethatbrokein2006.Inthefirst,whichbrokeinJanuary2006,AnthonyPamnani,aformerimmigrationofficerbasedatLunarHouseforfouryears,toldTheSunnewspaperthatsomeimmigrationofficersexchangedsexforimmigrationstatus.Theclaimspromptedaformalinquirybuton14MarchTonyMcNulty,then-MinisterofImmigration,reportedtoParliamentthat‘IampleasedtosaythattheinvestigationfoundnoevidencetosupportTheSun'scentralallegationthattherewasacorruption“racket”inthePublicEnquiryOfficeinvolving“sexforvisas”’(Hansard,14thMarch2006).Althoughtheinquiryrevealed‘[s]omeisolatedincidentsofunprofessionalbehaviour’(Hansard,14thMarch2006)and‘misconductbysomemembersofstaff’(Hansard,14thMarch2006)italsoemphasisedthedifficultjobthatstaffattheINDdidunderextremepressure.Laterthatsameyear,however,chiefimmigrationofficerJamesDawute,alsobasedatLunarHouse,wasapparentlyrecordedofferingimmigrationstatusforsextoateenagedZimbabweanfemaleimmigrant(DowardandTownsend,2006).Theinterviewwiththeseniormanagerfromwhichthequotedmaterialinthetextistakenreferstothefirstscandalandwasconductedbeforethesecond.

16InterviewwithseniormanageroftheIND,ApolloHouse,2006.

17InterviewwithattorneybasedintheUnitedStates,19August2011.

18InterviewwithimmigrationadvocacyworkerbasedintheUnitedStates,30June2011.

19InterviewwithattorneybasedintheUnitedStates,30June2011.

20InterviewwithcharityworkerbasedintheUnitedKingdom,25September2011.

21Interviewwithrefugeeadvocate,London,6July2011.

22Interviewwithactivist,London,October2006.

23AsimilarclaimismadeinLampedusa,whichhoststhe‘temporarystayandassistancecentre’(Andrijasevic,2010,p.148).

24InterviewwithseniormanageroftheIND,ApolloHouse,2006.

25Theadvertrevealsthatthereisa‘fourweektrainingcourse’fordetentioncustodyofficers(G4S,2013a).

26Interviewwithdoctorwhohadvisitedimmigrationdetainees,October2010.

27ArendtwaswritinginthecontextoftheHolocaustinNaziGermany.WhileIavoiddrawingdirectparallelswiththeco-optationofcareduringtheHolocaust,becauseIdonotwanttobemisinterpretedasclaimingthatimmigrationdetentionresemblestheNazideathcamps,thereisaliteratureontheco-optationofcareinNazieuthanasiacentresthatilluminatesaseriesofanalogoussituationsanddilemmastothoseIdiscussinthissection(seeBenedict,

2003;Lagerwey,2003).

28InterviewwithseniormanageroftheIND,ApolloHouse,2006.

ChapterSevenExaminingCompassionInChapterFourIdescribedtheworkofSouthLondonCitizens(SLC),acollectionofschools,churches,mosques,synagogues,charitiesandresidents’groupscommittedtotakingactionforthecommongoodofthepeopleofSouthLondon,whoinvestigatedandwroteareportabouttheconditionsinsideLunarHouse.ThefollowingisanextractfromanaccountofthelaunchoftheirreportintotheconditionsatLunarHouse.

AtourAssemblyinAutumnMrs.LinHomerwasourmainguest.SheisnowtheheadoftheImmigrationandNationalityDirectorate[IND],andhasultimateresponsibilityforLunarHouse.Herpresenceattheassemblywasthefruitofarelationshipwhichwehavebuiltupoverthepastfewmonths.ShewelcomedourreportintotheconditionsatLunarHouseandmadeapromisetoworkalongsideusforthecommongood.TheMinisterofStateattheHomeOffice,TonyMcNulty,tookandlookedatourreport.TheMinisterwarmlywelcomedthereport,acknowledgedthethoroughnessofit,andalsothenuisancewehadbeenattimes.Thisisapowerfulsymbolofjusthowfarwehavecomeinthepastyear,andwethankedtheMinisterforhisrecognitionofus.Becauseofthatrecognition,Mrs.Apragashasavoicewhichcannowbeheard.TwoyearsagoshewasejectedfromLunarHouse,shoutedatandtoldtogoaway.Shewasnotbelieved.AttheassemblyMrs.ApragaswasabletogiveacopyofthereporttoMrs.Homer,asasignofourappreciationthatMrs.Homerhasagreedtoworkwithus,butalsoonbehalfoftheseeminglypowerlesspeoplewhouseLunarHouseandfeelignored,misunderstoodorworthlessandwhothisreportchampions,demandingthatthereistrulya‘humaneserviceforglobalcitizens’.InMary'sownwordsinbrokenEnglishshesaid‘OnbehalfofSouthLondonCitizensIamproudtogiveyouthisreport.Hereismystory,butalsothestoriesofmanyotherpeople.Itexplainswhatourexperienceislike,andwehopesomuchthatyouwillallowustoworkwithyouintheyearaheadsothatotherpeopledon'thavethesamebadexperiences.Itmeanssomuchtohaveyouherewithus,thankyouforcomingandmayGodblessyou’.

EmailcommunicationwithSouthLondonCitizensworker,2005

IthadtakenthebestpartoftwoyearstobringtheheadoftheINDfacetofacewithMaryApragas.Thecampaignhadinvolvedhundredsofpeoplegivingevidence,writingsubmissions,organisinghearingsandcallingdemonstrations.Thenin2009,fouryearsafterthisAssemblyatwhichSLC’sreportintotheconditionsatLunarHousewaslaunchedandhandedtoLinHomer,alocalnewspaperreportedthat‘anewwaitingareaatLunarHousehasbeencompletedafteryearsofdiscomfortforthousandsofimmigrantsandasylumseekerswho“waitedinthecoldandrain”togetseenbyofficials’(CroydonGuardian,22January2009).Thiswaitingareareplacedthe‘pig-pen’stylerailingsandqueuingsystemdiscussedinChapterFour.‘Thewaitingfacilities…havebeenupgradedbytheUKBorderAgencyaftertheSouthLondonCitizens,animmigrationcampaigngroup,producedareporthighlightingthe

needtoimproveconditionsforthepublic’,thenewspaperarticlecontinued.Itsconstructionwashailedasan‘£800 000victory’forSouthLondonCitizens(SouthLondonCitizens,2009).

ItisalltooeasytodismisstheachievementsofSLCatLunarHouse.LunarHouseisstillthesiteatwhichterrifyingandsubjugatingborderpracticesaremetedoutagainstvulnerablemigrantpopulationsdespiteadecadeofactivismatthesite.AlthoughtheSLCteammanagedtosecurethecooperationofseniorfiguresintheINDtoimplementtherecommendationsoftheirreportin2005,theseniorfiguresthemselveswereoftentruculent.Whatismore,thelistofdemandsSLCmadecouldbeseenasparochialandmodest,callingforbetterwaitingfacilitiesratherthanaradicaloverhaulofimmigrationcontrols.Forsomeoftheactivistsinvolvedinproducingthereport,however,thematerialvictories,likethecoveredwaitingarea,werelesssignificantthanthesymbolicvictorywonatthatautumnAssemblybackin2004.‘IsometimesthinkthattherewillbesomeonedowntheroadwhowillwriteaPhDthesisorwriteapublicationsayingthatwereallysoldoutwhen[we]didthatreportbecauseitsliberalrubbishanditdoesn’treallychangeanything’,oneoftheactivistsmusedshortlyaftertheAssembly,eyeingmesuspiciously.1‘Wellmaybewedid,’hecontinued,

butItellyouwhat,whenMary[Apragas],thewomanwhichitallstartedfromwhohadherpaperslostinLunarHouse,…goesuptoLinHomerandsaid‘Twoyearsagoyoutook–thesystemtook–myvoiceaway’,andshehandedthereporttothismostseniorcivilservantoftheHomeOfficeandsaid‘thankyouforgivingitback’.Andshegaveherthereport.NowthatmaybejustgoodpoliticaltheatrebutIjustthought,actually,regardlessofwhat’shappened,regardlessofwhathappensnext,inandofitselfitwasworthit.Justforthatonemoment.

Itisthispurposefulovercomingoftheartificialkeeping-apartofdecisionmakersandmigrantsthatthischapterexaminesandinparticularthepursuitofmorecompassionateofficialsgivingrise,intheory,tofairerandmorehumaneimmigrationcontrols.InthepreviouschapterIestablishedthatfeelingsofcompassionentailajudgementthatthemisfortunethathasbefallenanindividualisundeserved(Nussbaum,2001).Assuch,compassionembodiesafeelingthatinjusticehasoccurred,whichisnotnecessarilythecaseforempathy,norpity,andwhichmightimplythatthepursuitofcompassionamongfunctionariesisaworthwhileobjective.Thischapterconsequentlycriticallyassessestheworkofmigrantsupportgroupswhoseektonurturecompassionamongfunctionariesandmanagers.

FortheSLCactivists,thedetachmentofmanagersfromthehumanconsequencesoftheworkthattheyoverseehighlights,firstandforemost,thedifficultyandnoveltyofbringingelitesystemmanagerslikeMrsHomerfacetofacewithoneofitsusersinasituatedencounter(asnotedinChapterTwo,thisisevenlesslikelynowthanitwasinMrBrimelow’sday).Theachievementoftheseactivists,quiteapartfromthematerialupshotoftheirstruggles,wastobringseniorcivilservantsandgovernmentministersintoproximitywiththemarginalisedandexcluded,intoasituationof‘beingaddressedbytheappealoraccusationoftheOther’(Barnett,2005,p.19).Thiswasunderstoodasawaytonurturedeeperunderstandingamongelitebureaucratsinthehopethattheywillbemovedtoactcompassionatelyandhumanisethebordercontrolsthattheymanage.

Inwhatfollows,however,Icriticallyexaminecompassion.Ibeginbyshowinghowpopularthepursuitofcompassionatefunctionariesandsystemmanagersthroughnurturingfullerunderstandingofmigrants’situationshasbecomeamongasylumsupportgroupsintheUnitedKingdom.Idemonstratethatthelogicofcompassionnurturingisidentifiableatavarietyofscalesrangingfromactivists’mediaworktosmall-scale,one-offactivistinterventionswithindetentioncentres.FollowingthisIdiscusshowdistinctivethepursuitofcompassionisbycomparingtheseekingofcompassiontootherformsofnon-revolutionaryactivism.Ittranspiresthatactivisminpursuitofcompassionisdistinctivebecauseitisoftencarriedoutonbehalfofmigrants(ratherthanbythem),itisovertinthesensethatitiscarriedoutinfullviewoftheexistingauthorities(ratherthansurreptitiously),andittendstoaccepttheexistingconfigurationofpowersthatbureaucratsareatlibertytoexercise(preciselyinordertoentreatthemtoexercisetheirpowercompassionately).Inthislight,thecaseforscepticismaboutthepotentialofcompassiontobetrulyemancipatorybecomesclear.Activisminpursuitofcompassionatefunctionariesoftenentailsadegreeofcapitulationtoexistingconfigurationsofpowerthatmaybeunpalatabletoactivistgroups,evenincludingthosepursuingnon-revolutionary,non-abolitionistformsofactivism.

Inthefaceoftheseobservations,defendingcompassionisdifficult.Althoughmyintervieweesdorecountsomeinstancesinwhichcompassionhasfunctionedasaneffectivewaytocurbtheworstexcessesofthebureaucraticcontrolofborders,especiallyincaseswherelocaleffortshave‘scaled-up’tosystem-levelinitiatives(andIreturntotheSLCcaseinthiscontext),theseaccountsarenotenoughtooverturnthedamningchargeofthecapitulationofcompassiontoexistingsystemsandconfigurationsofcontrol.Atbest,theymaybeenoughtowarrantamilderviewofcompassioninspecificcircumstanceswhenalternativeshavebeenexhausted.Inotherwords,althoughitispossibletolistasetofmitigatingconsiderationsthatcanallowcompassiontobeaneffectiveactivistresponseincertaincircumstances,allinallthecaseagainstcompassionispowerfullycompellingandindicatesthatcompassionseekingasanactivisttacticmustbeapproachedextremelycautiously.Ioutlineacatalogueofrisksthatanapproachthatseeksexplicitlytonurturecompassionruns,IarguethattheappealtocompassionisatreacherousroutetoimprovingthelivesofasylumseekersintheUnitedKingdom,andIconcludethatitshouldbeseenastheactivismoflastresortasaresult.Althoughtherecentevolutionofbordercontrolscanbeseentohavesqueezedthehumanityoutofbordercontrols,ittranspiresthatseekingto(re)instatehumanebordersisnotthebestwaytocounterthisdevelopment.

ClosingMoralDistanceThroughtheMediaInthissectionandthenextIestablishhowwidespreadcompassion-seekingasanactivisttactichasbecome,firstatthegeneralscaleof‘thepublic’,then,inthenextsection,throughthelensesofinteractionandsustainedcontact.Aprimaryexampleofworktonurturecompassionismedia-basedactivism.Media-basedresponsestomoraldistancingtarget‘thepublic’ingeneralasmuchastheydoimmigrationemployeesandfunctionaries,buttheirpurposeistofurnishthosewhoareunfamiliar,poorlyacquaintedormisledaboutrefugeesandasylum

seekerswithrichandrealisticaccountsofrefugees’experiences.Consequently,thissortofworktendstoemphasisethehumancontentofthemedia-basednarrativesthatitproducesanddisseminates.‘Ijustthinktheimpactofhavingrefugeevoicesinthepressspeakingfromtheirownpersonalpointofviewhasanimpactonnotjustjournalistsbutpublicattitudesaswell’,onemanagement-levelcharityemployeetoldme.2Oftenthesestoriesareseenasverydifferentincharactertopoliticallobbyingorpolicyapproaches,whichareperceivedaslackingpersonalspecificity.‘Ourorganisationisfocusedonworkingthroughsocialmediaandnewsmedia,raisingawarenessofdetaineesandbyextensiongivingpeopleachancetothinkabouttheirattitudestowardsmigrantsingeneralbutthroughahumaninterestsortofapproachratherthanthroughapolicyapproach’,themanagerexplained.3‘Politicallobbyingtendstoappealtopeoplewhoarealreadyinterestedinpoliticallobbying’,anotheractivistobserved,4‘butalotofthegeneralpublicareprobablyturnedoffbypoliticallobbyingandyouneedthehumaninterestthingtoreallydrawpeople’sattention’.

Emphasisingthepersonalthroughindividualstoriesinevitablyraisesconcernsoverrevealingimportantdetailsofindividualmigrants’livesandexposingthemtounwelcomeattentionfromthemediaorbordercontrolenforcementauthorities.Somemedia-focusedgroups,however,demonstrateahighdegreeofconfidencethattheycanusepersonalstoriessafely.‘Weanonymisecases’,Iwastoldbyoneintervieweewhoworkedasacommunicationsofficerforalargerefugeesupportgroup,5‘andIthinkwe'requitegoodatremovingsufficientdetailtomakethecaseandthepersoncompletelyunidentifiable’.Indeed,itisthe‘humaninterestangle’ofthestorythatisseenasthebestantidotetodehumanisedandhostileportrayalsofasylumseekersinthepress.Workingclasscommunities,forexample,areunderstoodtobemorelikelytorespondpositivelytostoriesaboutmigrantswhentheycanrelatemigrants’storiestocertainaspectsoftheirownlives.‘You’ddomoreforthecauseofpeoplelikingmigrantsifyoucanestablishtheminthecommitteeofmembers’,oneactivistexplained,6

liketheybothsupportManchesterCityorsomething.It’sallaboutseeingcommonhumanity.Sostoriescanbewovenintothat.Someoneinasinkhousingestatecanrelatetotheideathatsomeonemightwanttomoveawayfromwherethey’vegrownupinordertobettertheirlivesandfindbetterfortheirfamilies.Theycanactuallyrelatetothatreallywell.

Furthermore,whereasitisgenerallyacceptedthatthereisnotmuchmileageinappealingtoconfirmedright-wingnationaliststhroughthemedia,thehumaninterestinstoriesisseenasthemosteffectivewaytoinfluencethosewhoarestillunsureaboutmigration-relatedissues.‘SoyourGuardianreader,wellwedon’thavetoworryaboutthembecausethey’reonside’,onemanagerofarefugeesupportgroupthatworkedtoraiseawarenessaboutimmigrationdetentionintheUnitedKingdomtoldme.7

AndtheDailyMail,wellforgetit,you’renotgoingtochangethatovernight.Butthere’sthatundecidedmiddlewhohaveideasbutnotfirmlyestablishedopinionsaboutmigrantsandmigrationandasylumanddetentionandallthatstuff.That’swherethehumaninterestthingcanmaybehaveanimpact.

Thedesiretodirectlyconfrontandrepairnegativemediastereotypesandprejudiceisalso

palpableamongasylumseekersthemselves,whooftenfindthelabel‘asylumseeker’degradingbecauseofthewaytheright-wingpresshasrepresentedthem.‘Idon’twanttobelivingasanasylumseekerbecauseIhavetobeshowingmyselfasanasylumseeker’,IwastoldbyoneKurdishmanwhohadbeenwaitingforadecisiononhisclaimforthreeyears;8‘I’msoembarrassedbecauseofwhathashappenednowinthemedia.SinceIcametothiscountrywehavebeenalwaysattackedbythemedia,manynewspapersinthiscountry,theyareagainstmorality,againsthumanity.Theyareagainstus.’Includingpersonaldetailsofthereasonsformigrationandmigrants’strugglesagainstpovertyintheUnitedKingdomisseenbymanyactivistsasawaytoencouragejournalistsandnewspaperstoemploymorebalancedreportingandiscommonlycitedasawaytoreduceprejudice.

Concernoverignoranceaboutrefugeeandasylumseekerissuesisespeciallyacuteinthecaseofyoungpeople,withsomegroupsseeingworkwithschoolchildrenspecificallyasakeyinvestmentinamorecompassionatesocietyinthefuture.Nussbaum(2001)discussestheimportanceandfeasibilityofaneducational‘imaginarycurriculum’(Nussbaum,2001,p.433)thatexposeschildrentoaccountsofundeservedmisfortuneasawaytoconstructamorecompassionatesociety.‘Theyoungeronestheyhavethejobstomorrow’,Iwastoldbyonerefugee-ledasylumsupportgroupvolunteerwhospentalargepartofhistimevisitinglocalschools.9‘Ifwestartcreatingthatawarenessamongtheyoungones,itwillnothaveaneffectnowbutinthefuture’.‘There’sapresentationthatweadaptforschools’,anotherasylumsupportgroupworker10toldme.

LastweekIaskedwhatpercentageofthepopulationdoyouthinkarerefugeesandonepersonsaid25percent!I’vedoneafewattheSixthformcollege,justlike,‘Youknowwhatitfeelsliketobearefugeeandasylumseeker?’andthingslikethat.Wealsocoverthedifferencebetweenrefugeeandasylumseekerandthebarrierstheymightface,notjustlanguagebutlegalbarriersoremotionortraumaorthatkindofthing.

Althoughalotofthemediaworkthatasylumsupportgroupsareengagedintargetsbroadpublicssuchas‘youngpeople’orthe‘undecidedmiddle’,ratherthanpresentlyemployedasylumsectordecisionmakers,myintervieweeswerenotshortoftheoriesabouthowchangingpublicopinionortargetingmasscommunicationchannelscouldimprovethewaysinwhichgovernmentofficialsspecificallyinteractwithmigrants.Theypointedoutthatofficialsarenotimpervioustothenewspapersandreflectedthatbroadcastingmaybetheirbestchanceofcommunicatingwithsomeofthemostinsulatedofficials.Forsomeofthelargerrefugeesupportgroups,theimportanceofpositioningthemselvessothattheywereinconversationwithgovernmentthroughthepresswasalsoimportant.‘[We’ve]beenverysuccessfulintermsofpresswork’,onerefugeesupportgroupmanagerexplained,11‘inthatinthepastyouwouldgetthepresscuttingsforthedayandtheHomeOfficewouldissueapressreleaseandtheywouldhavebeencopiedverbatimintendifferentnewspapers.WhereasnowandparticularlyintheScottishpresstheywillalwaysapproachusforourviewortoseektheviewofarefugeeorforacasestudy’.WhenpressreleasesfromtheHomeOfficeappearalongsidealternative,morehumanised,depictionsofindividualstoriesHomeOfficeemployeesareofferedtheopportunitytointerpretthestoryindependentlyandbegintothinkmorecritically

abouttheirroles.

NurturingPositiveInteractionOthergroupsemployamoretargetedapproachthatislessfocuseduponawarenessraisingamongbroadpublicsandmorefocusedonestablishingpositiveinteractionsbetweendecisionmakersandtheirsubjects.ThisworkdirectlyconfrontsthemechanismsofpsychologicaldistancingatclosequartersidentifiedinChapterFourbyestablishingandnurturingmeaningful,respectfulpersonalinteractionbetweendecisionmakersandsubjects.Insituationswhereinteractionisrare,orelsestilted,fleeting,unnaturalorconstrained,suchasduringasyluminterviews,variousmigrantsupportgroupsintheUnitedKingdomworktohumaniseandpersonalisetheimmigrationsystembynurturingfullerinteractionbetweenborderofficialsandmigrants.Inotherwordstheyfosterfamiliarity,whichrecognisesthatstories,accountsandself-expressednarrativesofmigrantsneedthe‘spacetobreathe’(Woolley,2014).Thissortofapproachisbasedontheviewthatasylumseekers’narrativescannotbestraightjacketedintorigid,formulaicmediumsofexchangeandstillretaintheirimpact,theirpoweroreventheirfullmeaning.‘Intellingandlistening,narrativescreatemeaningandhelptomakesenseofourlives’,writesSmith(2015,p.463).Theobjectiveofthesesortsoftacticsisconsequentlytoloosenthestricturesthatconfinethenarrativesthatmigrantsareabletoshare.Theaimistoensurethattheyarenotmerelyrecognisedaspartofthisorthatgrouporcategory,butthattheirexperiencesandsufferingsareacknowledgedontheirownterms.FortheSLCactivists,forexample,itwasaboutMaryApragas’svoice–herabilitytorelatehergrievancesandherfrustrationinherownway.

WhereastheSLCcampaignwasfocuseduponaspecificsetofissuesaroundLunarHouse,LivingGhostswasanationalcampaignthatranduringthemid-2000swiththeaimofgivingdestituteasylumseekerstheopportunitytotelltheirstoriestoinfluentialfiguresintheircommunitieswhorarelycomeintocontactwithasylumseekers.ThecampaignwasorganisedbyChurchActiononPoverty,anationalecumenicalChristiansocialjusticecharity,andinvitedactiviststotakepartinvariousformsofsolidaritywithdestituteasylumseekers,includingthe‘asylumdestitutionendurancechallenge’,whichinvolvedlivingoff£5andafoodparcelforaweek,aswellasthroughprayer,writingtolocalMPsanddonatingfunds.Forthosewhowantedto‘gofurther’,thecampaignpackalsoprovideddetailedinstructionsonhowtostagea‘povertyhearing’:

TheconceptofaPovertyHearingisassimpleasitischallenging.ThemainpurposeofaPovertyHearingistoprovidetheopportunityforpeoplewithdirectexperienceofpovertytospeakoutforthemselveswhileencouragingthosewithpower,authorityanddifferentexperiencestolisten.Muchofthelocalandnationalgovernmentplanstoalleviateoreradicatepovertyisdonebypeoplewhoknowaboutdeprivationbyreadingorhearingaboutit,butnotnecessarilyfeelingit.Partofthereasonforinjusticesisthatpeoplewithdirectexperiencearedeliberatelyexcludedornotmeaningfullyinvolvedindevelopingremedies.Forpovertyreallytobetackledithastobebuiltontheexpertiseofthosewhoknowaboutitfirst-hand.

LivingGhostsActionPack,2005

Theactionpackemphasisedthat‘thoseinpovertyaretherealexperts’andrecommendedthatinvitationsbesenttoMPs,churchleaders,counsellors,businesspeople,tradeunionrepresentativesandotherpublicfigurestoattendregionalhearingsthatwereheldaroundtheUnitedKingdominthemid-2000s.Destituteasylumseekersfeaturedheavilyamongthoseinpoverty.Theaimsofthecampaign,theactionpackexplained,wereto‘resourcesympatheticpeople’whowanttochangethepoliticalclimateandpoliciesthatcausedestitutionaswellasto‘pressgovernmenttoallowrefusedpeopleseekingasylumtoworkand/orclaimbenefits’.

Determiningthesuccessofthecampaignisverydifficult.Ontheonehand,theorganiserscanpointtosomeimportantpolicychangesthatoccurredduringthemid-2000s,includingabandonmentoftheblanketoutlawingofpaidworkforasylumseekersfollowinglegislationfromtheEuropeanCourtofHumanRightsin2005,12andthefactthatasylumseekersalsonow,technically,haveaccesstowelfarebenefitseveniftheyhavebeenrefused.13Ontheotherhand,althoughthesedevelopmentsmightbehailedasvictoriesthestipulations,conditionsandlimitationsimposedonboththerighttoworkandemergencysupportforrefusedasylumseekerslessentheirsignificanceinpractice.

Atalocallevelaswell,thesuccessofthecampaignisunclear.ThepovertyhearingintheSouth-West,forexample,whichwasheldinBristolinearly2006,washailedbyitsorganisersasamodestsuccess,butnotquitewhattheyhadhopedfor.Althoughithadgoodattendance,manyofthekeypeopletheyhadwantedtotargetdidnotarrive.Onelocaltelevisioncompanyhadsaidtheywouldbetherebutdidnotattend,andalocalnewspapercoveredtheeventtheweekbeforebutnotontheday.AnotherkeyjournalistandmanyoftheMPsthatwereinvitedalsodidnotattend,largelybecause,asoneoftheorganisersironicallyreflected,theysawitas‘toopolitical’.14

Nevertheless,theapproachLivingGhoststookinordertoexertpressureoverthegovernmentembodiesadistinctiveandinnovativemethodologythatemphasisedstagedinteractionsbetweenmarginalisedandinfluentialindividualsthatareofteneitherimpossibleorveryrareunderthenormalconditionsofbureaucraticadministration.Workthatshort-circuitsthewaydecisionmakersandsubjectsarekeptapartdirectlychallengesthemechanismsofmoraldistancingthatareinherenttobureaucraticformsofadministrationand,asanapproachtoactivism,itisthereforesignificantduetothedirectnesswithwhichitaddressestheimpersonalismandmoralestrangementdescribedearlierinthebook.

Othertacticstargettheinteractionbetweendecisionmakersandtheirsubjectsindifferentways.AlthoughnotworkingtonecessarilyestablishinteractionlikeSLCandLivingGhosts,somegroupsaremoreconcernedwithimprovingthequalitativenatureoftheinteractioninsituationswheredecisionmakersmayalreadybeinfrequentcontactwithmigrants.Sometimesthisinvolvesgivingcloseattentiontothetechnicalproceduralelementsofasyluminterviews.Foratleastadecade,forexample,theUnitedNationsHighCommissionforRefugees(UNHCR)haschippedawayattheproceduralfeaturesthatmakeanasyluminterview,suchasthoseconductedatLunarHouseinthemid-2000s,‘arigidandunbendingcontextquiteunsuitedtocapturingthecomplexityofpersonalexperience’(Woolley,2014)throughboththeirQualityInitiativeandQualityIntegrationprogrammes.TheseprogrammesincludeanagreementwiththeHomeOfficetoallowtheUNHCRaccesstoobserveasylumdeterminationprocedures.Throughaseriesofreports,theUNHCRhasmadenumerousrecommendationsabouthowinterviewsshouldbeconductedandinterviewerstrained.Theseincluderecommendationsforaccreditationoffrontlineemployeesinvolvedinmakingdecisions,usingadecision-templateinordertoensurethatkeyconsiderationsarenotoverlookedbydecisionmakers,requiringthatalltrainersofinterviewershaverecentcaseworkexperience,observinginterviewsfrequently,especiallyforthosenewtothejob,andencouraginginterviewerstofocustheirquestionstoavoidunnecessarilylengthyinterviews(UNHCR,2005,2006b,2007).

Variousotherrecommendationsconcerntheparticularmechanicsofinteractionduringtheinterviewsthemselves.Concernshavebeenraised,forexample,overthelackofeyecontact,thelackofaneutralandprofessionaltoneemployedbytheinterviewer,alackofopportunitygiventointervieweestoexpandupontheirstoriesandexplainapparentinconsistencies,andtheuseof‘rapid-fire’closedquestions(UNHCR,2006a,p.14;seealsoUNHCR,2006b).Otherconcernscentrearoundtheuseofinterpretation.‘Insomecasestheapplicantwasaddressedinthethirdperson’,forexample,‘withtheinterviewersayingtotheinterpreter:“Askherif…”’(UNHCR,2006a,p.14).Inthecaseofinterviewswithchildren,inappropriateseatingarrangementshavebeenidentifiedaswellasthelackofintroductorymaterialfortheinterviewthatwaslikelytobecomprehensibletoachild(UNHCR,2009).Activitiestoaddresstheseconcernsaimtonurturepositive,oratleastlessnegativeandstilted,formsofinteractionduringtheinterview.

WhereasUNHCR’seffortscentreupontheroutineformatofasyluminterviews,othermigrantsupportgroupsorganisemeetingsbetweenmigrantsanddecisionmakersindifferentcontextstothoseinwhichtheyusuallymeet.Onegroup,forexample,explainedthatthey‘havebeenworkinglocallywith[UnitedKingdomBorderAgency(UKBA)officials].We’vebeenverypleasedactuallythatwe’vebeenabletogoandtalktothem.Theyinvitedusintodosometraining.Itwasacoupleofrefugees,whoareworkingincommunityorganisationsnow,justtalkingabouthowtheyareputtingbackintothecommunityandhowtheyareintegratingandstufflikethat’.15Bychangingthecontentandpurposeofthediscussion–awayfrominterrogatingthecredibilityoftheclaimanttowardsthecontributionofrefugeestothelocalhostcommunity–theintentionofthisgroupistoalterthetenorandrhythmoftheinteractionsbetweendecisionmakersandsubjects.

Interestingly,thedemandforthesesortsoftrainingeventsoftencomesfromthedecision

makersthemselves.Anothersupportgroupthatspecialisesinthecareofvictimsoftortureandwas‘invitedtoparticipateinanawaydayfor[LunarHouse]staff’similarlyreportedthedesireamongstafftogain‘aninsightintothecustomersthat[LunarHouse]serveandtheirexperiencespriortoapplyingforasyluminordertocreateanunderstandingofthevulnerabilitiesofthecustomerasadirectresultofthetraumaexperiencedintheirhomecountry'.16ThesamedesiretoencountermigrantsdifferentlywasevidentamongtheemployeesIinterviewed.‘Evenifwehadlikeacoursetoshowuswhathadhappenedintheircountryorwheretheywerecomingfromthatwouldhavehelped’,theformerintelligenceofficerbasedatLunarHousenoted,17‘becauseIknowthatIdidn’tknowalotaboutwhypeoplewerehere.Ididn’treallyknowwhatwasgoingonin[country]atthattimeorwhytherewas,like,aninfluxofthem.Itwouldhavebeenusefultoeducateusonwheretheyhadcomefromandtheirstruggle.’

Again,itisdifficulttomeasurethesuccessoftheseinitiatives.CertainlysomeelementsoftheinterviewprocedurehavebeenchangedasaresultoftheUNHCR’sefforts,forexample,butequallytheproceduresremaintraumaticnotonlybecausesomeoftherecommendationsUNHCRhavemadehavebeenoverlooked18butalsobecauseoftheinherentlyintrusivenatureoftheasyluminterviewprocess.

AthirdgenreofattemptstonurturecompassionconcernstherelationshipsbetweenDetentionCustodyOfficers(DCOs)anddetaineesintheimmigrationdetentionestateandaddressestheoverfamiliaritywithsufferingthatIdescribedinChapterFive.Insituationswherecompassionfatigueandsecondarytraumaamongdecisionmakersareconstantthreats,tacticsaimtoensurethatinteractionbetweendecisionmakersandmigrantsisnottrainedexclusivelyuponthetraumaofanindividual.Theemphasisisagainuponchangingthedynamics,tenorandqualityoftheirinteractions,but,indetention,suchtacticsworktostageinformalinteractionbetweenfunctionariesandsubjectsasawaytoprecludeordiscourageoveremphasisingtrauma.Onedetaineesupportgroup,forexample,organisesartisticsessionsfordetaineesthatfocusprimarilyupongivingthedetaineestheopportunityforself-expression.But,asthemanagerofthegroupexplained,‘Therehavebeentimeswhenwehavemadearealdifferencetohowsomestaffhaveinteractedwiththedetaineesaswell.We’vekindofenabledstafftothinkafreshaboutwhattheyaredoingabit.’19Bywayofillustrationhecontinued:

Thereisanindirecteffectofourwork.[Oneofthemanagers]saidthatshefeltshe’dseenstaffinteractdifferentlywithdetainees,evenstaffwhohadn’tbeeninthesessionwithus,becausetheyknew[thesessions]werehappeninganditgavethemsomethingtotalktothedetaineesabout.Becausethey’refamiliarwithamemberofstaffintheroomduringthe[creating],thatcanchangetherelationshiptheyhavewiththedetainees.Becausethey’vemetonkindofanequalfootinginthecontextofthe[art].[Some]staffwanttoengagewithdetaineesbutarenotsurewhattotalkabout;Imeanwhatdoyoutalkabout?[Duringthesessions]there’ssomethingtherethatispositiveandtheycansay‘Oh,didyoudothe[art]?Oh,great.’Thatsortofsimplethingcanhavearippleeffectwithintheinstitution.SoIwouldn’twanttooverstateitbecausetherearemanyotherinfluencesonhowstaffanddetaineesbehaveandmanyofthemarenotatallpositive.Buttohavesomeimpactatleast,tomakesomethingsbettersomeofthetime,evenifthatisallitwas,it’sgood.

AsIhaveshowninthepreviouschapters,theeffectofthebureaucraticadministrationofbordercontrolistosqueezethemiddlegroundbetweenunder-andover-familiaritywithsufferingothersalmosttovanishingpoint.Bureaucraciespropagatetwooppositeyetcomplementaryformsofindifference–onethatestrangesfunctionariesfromtraumaandonethatsaturatesthemwithit.Thedelicateartofnurturingcompassionistopriseopentheintermediateterritory.Insituationsofunder-familiaritywithrefugees’stories,mediaexposureandmeaningfulcontactmightbenurtured.Insituationsofoverfamiliaritywithsuffering,tacticsthatnurturecompassionseektoensurethatinteractionmovesbeyondthefactofdifferenceandavoidsfetishisingsufferingorexperiencesofdisaster.Thistypeofinteractionacknowledgesthesubjectasmorethanavictimandfullerthanthemisfortunesthathavebefallenthem.

TheDistinctivenessofSeekingCompassionIntheforegoingsectionsofthischapterIhavedemonstratedthatthelogicofnurturingcompassioniswidespreadatavarietyofscales.Thecommondenominatorofalltheseactivitiesisthattheystrive,successfullyorotherwise,todisruptthemechanismsthatleaddecisionmakerstoviewtheirsubjectsasunits,specimensanddehumanisedelementsratherthanrealpeople.Mediaworkseekstoelicitacknowledgementandimproveunderstandingofrefugeeexperiences,whereasup-closetacticsworkeithertoestablishinteractionortopromotedifferent,freshwaystointeractinordertoimproverelationshipsandhumanisethebusinessofrule.ThesetypesofactivismarebynomeansunproblematicandinthenextsectionIsetoutthecaseforscepticismaboutcompassion-seekingandcompassion-nurturing.BeforeIdo,however,itisworthconsideringhowdistinctivethesetacticsare.InthissectionIconsiderwhere,ifatall,activisteffortstonurturecompassionfitalongsidesomeofthemorecommonlydiscussedtypesofactivisminthesocialsciences.Indoingso,afullerpictureofthecharacterofattemptstonurturecompassioncomesintoview.

TheattemptstonurturecompassionthatIhavedescribedarenotgenerallyrevolutionary.Theirobjectivesfallshortofacompletesystemoverhaulsuchasthewholesaledisbandingofimmigrationcontrols,andso,onthewhole,theyarelikelytodisappointradicalleft-wingthinkerswhomaintainthat‘economicandpoliticalpower…willnotbewhittledawaybya

slowprocessoferosion,nordestroyedbyasuccessionofpartialreforms’(Gorz,1968,p.112).Thisisanimportantpoint.Ifimmigrationcontrolisinherentlyunreformableowingtotheexcessofharmthatitcausesoveranymodificationstoitsorganisationthatcanbemade,thenwemaybeforcedtoacknowledgenotonlythateffortstohumaniseandsoftenthesystemarefatedtofail,butalsothattheyofferanopportunitytolegitimiseafundamentallyexploitativeandsubjugatoryarrangement.

Variousthinkers,however,havedefendedsomeformofactivismthatworkstowardsgoalsshortofrevolution.DeCerteau(1984,p.27),forexample,dismissesthepossibilitythatthesubordinatedclassesarelikelytoriseupagainstthedominatingsystemanytimesoonas‘fabulous,asinthestoriesofmiracles’.However,hewrites,although‘[t]hishopehasdisappeared…adiversionarypracticeremainspossible’(deCerteau,1984,p.27).Lefebvreconcurswhenhewritesthat,whilethereis‘nodoubt’thatreformismwaswrong(Lefebvre,2009,p.140),‘reformismhasnotbeencompletelywrong.Ifitmadenosenseitwouldhavedisappeared.Itspermanencecannotbebaseless.Anabsoluterupture,aleapfromnecessityintofreedom,atotalrevolution,andasimultaneousendtoallhumanalienation,thisdoubtlessnaïveimagecannolongerbemaintained’(Lefebvre,2009,p.140).

Itremainslessclear,however,whereamongtheconceptualapproachestoactivism-short-of-revolutionactivitiestonurturecompassionshouldbelocated.Influentialworkhasemphasisedtheimportanceofnotsimplylumpingallnon-revolutionaryactivistworktogetheras‘reformist’(Apple,1995,p.120):therearedifferentwaystoundertakediversionarypractice.JamesScott(1987),forexample,describesthestrugglesofslavesagainstcolonialrulers,inwhich‘opendefiancewasnormallyfoolhardy’(Scott,1987,p.33)but‘everydayformsofresistance’(Scott,1987,p.36)werebothmorecommonandmoreeffectivethan‘thefewheroicandbriefarmeduprisingsaboutwhichsomuchhasbeenwritten’(Scott,1987,p.34).Theseformsofresistanceinclude‘footdragging,dissimulation,falsecompliance,pilfering,feignedignorance,slander,arson,sabotage,andsoforth’(Scott,1987,p.29)andconstitutesomeofthe‘weaponsoftheweak’throughwhichindigenouscommunitiescouldmakethelivesoftheirWesterncolonisersverydifficultindeed.Yettheseformsofresistancearecarriedoutbythesubjugatedthemselves.TheworktonurturecompassionthatIhavedescribedislargelyundertakenonbehalfofmigrantsratherthanbythem.Althoughformerasylumseekersanddetaineesmaybeinvolvedintheseeffortsandoccasionallyorganisethem,thosestillwithindetentionorawaitingaHomeOfficeorjudicialdecisionareusuallynotinapositiontotakeonleadershiproles.TheSLCinitiativewasledbyprominentreligious,legalandacademicfigures,forexample,andalthoughdestituteasylumseekersgaveevidenceattheLivingGhostshearings,theydidnotinitiatethem.Hence,althoughScott’severydayresistanceisnon-revolutionary,itstacticsdiffermarkedlyfromattemptstonurturecompassionintermsofthedegreetowhichintermediariesareinvolvedinactingforandspeakingonbehalfofthesubjugated.

FordeCerteau,thediversionarypracticeofwhichhewritesconsistsof‘tactics’,whichhecharacterisesasguileful‘ruses’(deCerteau,1984,p.xv).Theartoftacticsentails‘“puttingoneover”ontheestablishedorderonitshomeground’(deCerteau,1984,pp.25–6).HencedeCerteau’stacticsinvolvesituationsinwhichthedominatingsystem‘istricked’(deCerteau,

1984,p.26).TheworktonurturecompassionthatIhavedescribed,however,operatesthroughawarenessraisingandimprovingunderstandingofmigrantsamongbureaucratsratherthanthroughdissipation,evasionandtrickery.Assuch,weshoulddrawadistinctionbetweendeCerteau’stacticsandworktonurturecompassionbecausethelatterisovertandupfront,ratherthansurreptitious,initsrelationshipwiththedominatingpower.

Feministthinkershavealsowrestledwithhowtoconceptualisenon-revolutionaryactivism,partlyinresponsetothemachismothatbesetsnotionsofwholesalerevolution,givingrisetoaneedtounderstandpost-heroicformsofactivismmoreclearly(LarnerandCraig,2005;seealsoChattertonandPickerill,2010).Indiscussingthechallengesthatglobalisationposestochildreninpoverty,forexample,CindiKatzdistinguishesresistance,resilienceandreworkingas‘threecreativestrategiesthatpeople[use]tostayafloatandreformulatetheconditionsandpossibilitiesoftheireverydaylives’(Katz,2004,p.x),whichactsasa‘usefulcounterpointtothemoretypicallabellingofallnonconformingactionasresistance’(Holt,2007,p.1269).Resistance,thefirsttypeofresponsethatKatzidentifies,isfundamentallyoppositional.Itistherarestofthethreetypesbecauseitisoftenmoredifficultandmorecostlythantheothersbutitistheclosestofthethreetoradicalrevolutionaryactivism.Resilience,ontheotherhand,describesthose‘smallacts’(Katz,2004,p.244)of‘gettingby,findingnewandcreativewaysofsurviving’(Cumbersetal.,2010,p.60).

Inthemiddleofwhatcanbeseenasacontinuumofreactionstosubjugation(Sparke,2008),reworkingservesasa‘transitionalcategory’(Cumbersetal.,2010,p.61).Reworkingisunderstoodto‘altertheorganizationbutnotthepolarizationofpowerrelations’(Sparke,2008,p.2).

Projectsofreworkingtendtobedrivenbyexplicitrecognitionofproblematicconsiderationsandtoofferfocused,oftenpragmatic,responsestothem.They…areenfoldedintohegemonicsocialrelationsbecauseratherthanattempttoundotheserelationsorcallthemintoquestiontheyattempttorecalibratepowerrelationsand/orredistributeresources.Thisisnottosaythatthoseengagedinthepoliticsofreworking…support…dominantsocialgroups,butthatinundertakingsuchpolitics,theirinterestsarenotsomuchinchallenginghegemonicpowerasinattemptingtoundermineitsinequitiesontheverygroundsonwhichtheyarecast.

CindiKatz,2004,p.247

Katz’sconceptofreworkingcapturesoneofthekeyaspectsofworktonurturecompassion:thecriticalapproachto,andengagementwith,centresofpowerandsystemsofcontrolontheirownterms,ratherthanoutrightrefutation(asinresistance)orevasion–asinKatz’s(2004)resilienceordeCerteau’s(1984)‘tactics’.Reworking,then,likeattemptstonurturecompassion,isneitherrevolutionarynorsurreptitious.Yetattemptstonurturecompassionare,atbest,averyspecifictypeofreworking.Theydonot,forinstance,attemptto‘recalibratepowerrelations’.TheinfluenceandpositionofthepowerfulisnotexplicitlyputintoquestionbythesortofactivismbyLivingGhosts,SLCortheUNHCRIhavedescribed.Indeed,itispreciselybecausetheindividualsthatthesecampaignstargetaresopowerfulthattheybecameobjectsofactivism:thepowerfulareappealedto,almostpleadedwith,ratherthanchallenged,

andtheexistingcalibrationofpowerrelationsistakenasgiven.Furthermore,althoughthereareminorskirmishesaroundresources,suchastheSLC’sattemptstosecureanewwaitingarea,therealbattlesarearoundacknowledgementandunderstanding.Thesympathiesofdecisionmakers,ratherthanthedistributionofresources,aretherealprizeofeffortstonurturecompassion.Thissortofactivism,then,targetsthewaydecisionmakersthink,theirallegiancesanddispositions,morethaneitherthepowerortheresourcesthattheycommand.

NeitherScott’severydayresistance,deCerteau’stactics,norKatz’sreworkingthereforefullycapturethekeycharacteristicsofeffortstonurturecompassion,eventhoughallfouractivitiesdescribedifferentwaystocarryoutactivismshortofrevolution.Indeed,arguablywelearnmostaboutattemptstonurturecompassionwhentheseattemptsarecontrastedto,ratherthanequatedwith,existingconceptualapproachestonon-revolutionaryactivismandresistance,asIhaveinthissection.Insodoingitbecomesclearthatattemptstonurturecompassionaremostlymediated(i.e.undertakenonbehalfofothers),overtandsympathy-focused.Inshort,theattemptstonurturecompassionthatIhaveidentifiedasoperatingthroughoutthemid-2000sintheUnitedKingdomaroundbordercontrolaredistinctive,andassuchtheyrequireanindependentassessment.

AgainstCompassionVariousdifficultiescanbesetattemptstopromoteconscientiousandcompassionateattitudestowardssufferingothers.Representingasylumseekersinthepress,forexample,notonlyintroducestheriskofexposureofasylumseekerstounwantedattention,butalsorisks,asonecommunicationsmanagerofasmalldetaineevisitingcharityputit,‘hittingthegeneralpublicovertheheadwiththestoryofsomebodyelse’strauma’.Peoplego“Yeah,OK”’,20hecontinued,

butfeelthey’rebeingtold‘You’vegottofeelsorryforthisperson’,‘You’vegottobenicetothem’,becausethey’vehadthisawfultime.Alltheyeverseeofadetaineeoramigrantisavictim,someonewhodoesn’thavepower,isnotarealperson,justthisother.Youdon’twanttohitthemovertheheadwithitbecausethentheyfeelthatthey’rebeingtoldwhattothinkandtheybackoff.Andyousensethemoreoutlandishthetraumathatthispersonhasgonethroughtheharderitisforsomebodytorelateto.

Sometimesthen,gettingthe‘personalangle’intothenewsstoryhasunintendednegativeconsequenceslikedepictingtherefugeeasdisempoweredandpassive(seeMalkki,1996,forageneraldiscussionofthiseffectamongworkthatattemptstoadvocateforrefugees).Moreover,activistmediaofficersandjournalistsareoftentemptedtofindthe‘mostdeserving’casestudy.Asonecommunicationsofficerputit,21‘Mycolleaguesjustwanttoworkwithaniceasylumseeker,somebodywhohassufferedproperly,youknow?’Thiscreatesarelatedriskaroundworkingwiththepress.Thedifficultiesofrepresentingandattemptingtospeakformarginalisedothers,evenwithindiscoursethatissupposedtoberadicalandemancipatory,haslongbeenrecognised(Spivak,1988).Dividingtheasylum-seekingpopulationintothosewhoaredeservingandundeservingshoresupthelegitimacyofthebordercontrolsystemto

arbitrateclaimsbecauseitappliesasimilarlogic:therearesomedesirablemigrantsandsomeundesirableones,anditis‘our’prerogativetochoosebetweenthem.Thiscanleadgroupsworkingwiththemediatoskimoverdifficultissuesinanattempttomakethe‘featured’asylumseekersmorepalatableandmedia-compatible.‘Someofthedetainedfamilycasesweareinvolvedinhaveinvolvedwomenengagedinanawfullotofcriminalactivity’,22onesupportgroupworkeroutlined,23‘butobviouslywe'renotdrawingattentiontothat.So,youjusthavetopickyourwaythroughverycarefully.’Thesameintervieweedescribedhowtheirworkwithforeignnationalex-offenders,‘isnotreallyforpublicconsumptionbecausethere'sasortofdoublewhammy.Theyarecriminalsandtheyarealsoforeignersandoftenasylumseekersaswell,whichmakesitatriplewhammy,soit'sprobablynotreallyworththeefforttryingtodoproactivemediaworkinthatarea’.Theresultisthatsomegroupsendupprojectingasanitised,partialviewofasylumseekersaccompaniedbyanoftenunarticulatedacceptancethatthelessdesirableorvulnerableasylumseekerscanbelegitimatelyexcluded.

Thisissuecomestoaheadinrelationtotheissueofthepitifulrefugee.Thereisatemptationforthoseworkingwiththemedia,aswellaslegalactorskeentosecureimmigrationstatusforapplicants,toemphasisethevulnerabilityofcertainrefugees,especiallywomen,childrenandsickrefugees,becausethishastheadvantageofelicitingpityforthem.Pityisaclosecousinofcompassionbutlessconnectedtoatheoryofjusticeandinjusticeandmorereliantupontheperceivedwretchednessoftheindividualconcerned.Althoughitmaybetemptingtoprojectthepitifulrefugeeincertaincases,theoveralleffectofthistacticistoperpetuatetheimageofapassive,helpless,non-agentialmigrantfigure,whichoftencouldnotbefurtherfromthetruthespeciallywithregardtowomenescapingviolence,migrantscopingwithillhealthandunaccompaniedminorsmakingtheirownwaytosafety.Pityisalsocloselyrelatedtocharityinitsmostcondescendingsense.Itproceedsfromgraciousnessandgenerosity(ratherthanconcernandsolidarity),whicharedangerouslyoptionalontheonehandandratherflatteringtotheimmigrationcontrolsystemontheother.

Whenitcomestonurturingpositiveinteractionbetweendecisionmakersandasylumseekersotherriskspresentthemselves.Incertaincircumstancesstagingcontactbetweenadecisionmakerandasubjectcanentrenchratherthansoftenscepticalandstandoffishattitudestowardsmigrants.AsdiscussedinChapterFour,notallcontactispositive,evenifitisorganisedwiththeintentionofcreatingamorallyobligatingencounterorbringingdecisionmakersintomoralproximitywithmigrants.Interactionis‘messy’(AskinsandPain,2011,p.813)andwhetherworthwhilesocialchangeoccursasaresultdependsupontheformoftheinteractionitself(Allport,1954).

Workingtoimproveandsoftenthebusinessofrulecanalsoleadtoincorporationintotheverysystemthatisbeingchallenged.Theworkofthegroupprovidingartsessionstogivedetaineesanopportunityforself-expression,forinstance,mayhavetheindirecteffectofchangingthedynamicsoftheinteractionsbetweenstaffanddetainees,butalsocomesperilouslyclosetoproviding‘anapologyfortheexistingreality’(Lefebvre,2009,p.38).Asthemanagerofthegroupexplained:24

Therearefranklymyriadinjusticesinthedetentionsystemandpeoplefeelverystronglyaboutthis,rightlyso,andtheywanttochangethemsothelogicalstepistocampaignonthoseissuesandtotryandraisethemwithgovernmentorwithUKBA.Andsowe’reabitunusual,we’reabitdifferentfromallofthat,becausewe…workmuchmorewithinaregimeofdetentionthanIguessmostothers.Whichisn’ttosaythat[we]don’tgointodetentionbutwe’remorepartofthecentre’sownprogrammeofactivitiesandnestledinwiththat.Sowe,it’snotsomuchonprinciplethatwedon’tgetinvolvedinlobbyingbutit’ssortofapragmaticdecisionnottogetinvolvedwithlobbying.Becauseifwegotinvolvedwithlobbyingthelevelofaccesswhichwehaveintodetentionwouldbeunlikelytobesustained.

Thisclosecooperationwiththemanagementofcentresopensthegrouptothechargeofco-optation.Asthemanagercontinued:

Thedetentioncentregetsquitealotoutof[theartsessionsfordetainees].Theygetbrowniepointsininspection,theygetlesschallengingbehaviourfromdetainees…thereareorganisationaldriversforthemso,youknow,theycanjustifythespendonitbeinggoodfortheirorganisationandfortheirtrackrecordandthingslikethat.Lessriots.

Thedegreeofclosenesstothebureaucracyisacalculatedandoftenagonisingdecision.Someartistsevendisassociatedfromthegroup,themanagertoldme,duetofeelingdifferentlyaboutthisverycalculus.‘One[setofartists]gotverycloselyengagedthrough[art]projectswithdetainees…andwereinterestedinitiallyinprogressingthatinvolvement’,themanagertoldme,but‘thendecidednottobecausetheyfeltthattogetmoreinvolvedwouldsomehowcondonetheworkofthedetentioncentre’.

Whattheexperienceofthisgroupillustratesistheveryrealriskthatattemptingtohumanisepartsofthesystemormakethemmorecompassionatemightlegitimateandbolsteritoverall.ForNussbaum(2001),dependinguponcompassionisbothinadvisableandshouldnotbenecessaryinajustsociety.Sheobservesthatthemechanismsthatbringpeopletofeelcompassionandactcompassionatelyareunreliablebecausetheyrestupon‘thesensesandtheimaginationinawaythatinprinciplemakesthemnarrowanduneven’(Nussbaum,2001,p.386)andwarnsthatsocietiesthatplaceagreatdealofemphasisuponcompassionasanorganisingprinciplecanexpect‘unevenandattimesarbitraryresults’(Nussbaum,2001,p.386).Compassion,sheargues,istherefore‘aninsufficient,andevenadangerous,moralandsocialmotive’(Nussbaum,2001,p.361)andconsequentlythat‘itwouldnotbegoodtorelyonittoomuch’(Nussbaum,2001,p.387).

Itisameasure,then,ofhowfarfromajustsocietyBritainhasstrayedthatsomanygroupsfeelcompelledtoresorttoattemptstogeneratecompassion,whichhasbeendescribedasaninegalitarian,condescending,sentimentalandfragileemotion(Garber,2004).Attemptstonurturecompassionshouldbeviewedasalast-ditchrecoursetounreliableandriskytacticsofactivisminthefaceofthefailuretoproperlysecurethewelfareofthemostvulnerablethroughappropriatelawsandpolicies.Anunjustsocietycanperfectlywellbehighlycompassionate,butwewouldnotsettleforthisasasatisfactorystateofaffairs.Inajustsociety,ontheother

hand,onecouldarguethatindividualcompassionwouldbecomeunnecessary.Itisfarpreferable,Nussbaumargues,torely‘onappropriatelyinformedpoliticalinstitutionsthanonthevicissitudesofpersonalemotion’(Nussbaum,2001,p.387,followingImmanuelKant).Theproliferationofriskyattemptstonurturecompassionshouldconsequently,firstandforemost,betakenasabarometerofhowfarthecurrentadministrationofbordercontrolfallsfromajustsystemthatisaccountableinother,morereliable,ways.

MitigatingConsiderationsTheobjectionstocompassionasabasisforsocialchangethatNussbaum(2001)setsoutingeneraltermsandthatIelaborateduponintheprevioussectionarecompelling.Nurturingorseekingcompassionamongthepowerfulmustbeviewedasaproblematicgoalforactivists.Thissaid,inthissectionIsetoutaseriesofmitigatingconsiderationsthatmightconstitutegroundstoviewcompassionsomewhatmorepositivelyinspecificcircumstances.IdosomindfulofthetendencythatBerlant(2004,pp.9–10)hasidentifiedforhighlyintellectualapproachestothepositiveemotionssuchaslove,kindnessandcompassionto‘notconnect,sympathize,orrecognizeanobligationtothesufferer…tosnuffordrownitoutwithpedanticallyshapedphrases,[andto]turnawayquicklyandharshly’.HereIarguethatalthoughwemustviewcompassionsceptically,therearesometimesredeemingfeaturesofcompassionthatshouldbetakenintoaccountindoingso.

Compassioncan,arguably,behighlyeffectiveincertainsituations.Thepoliceofficerdiscussedinthepreviouschapterwhowasashamedofhisworkandfrustratedwiththelawsthat‘makenosense’andthatleadasylumseekersintodestitutionhaddevelopedakeensenseofmoralityconcerninghiswork.Heoutlinedthewaysinwhichhewouldassisttheasylumseekershecameintocontactwith,helpingthemtocompletetheirlegalcasesforsupport,explainingthelegalprocessandfacilitatingcommunicationbetweenasylumseekersandlocalsupportgroups.Anumberofofficers,hetoldme,sharedclosepersonalrelationshipswithasylumseekersinthelocalarea,notonlyvisitingthemduringthecourseoftheirpatrolsbutalsomeetingthemsociallyonaregularbasis.Thisproducedahighdegreeofloyaltytowardsmorevulnerablemigrantsthatsometimesmeanthewaswillingtotakepersonalrisksoftheirbehalf.Whenhebecameawareofinformationthatmightaidthedeportationofrefusedasylumseekers,forinstance,heoftenretaineditratherthanpassingitontoenforcementofficers.‘I’mnottheimmigrationservice’,hetoldme;25

I’llspeaktotheimmigrationservice;ImeanI’mquitefrankwiththeimmigrationserviceaboutwhatIdo.ButIwouldn’tpromoteanybodybeingarrested,Iwouldn’tfacilitatethearrestofsomebodyunlessitwassomethingserious,Imeaniftheywereasuspectinaninvestigation.WhenIspeaktothemIdon’tsay‘Didyouknowsoandsoisnowlivinghere?’

Healsodisplayedwillingnesstoputtheneedsoftheasylum-seekingcommunitiesunderpolicejurisdictionbeforethepoliticalpressuretomeetdeportationtargets.‘Ifimmigrationsuddenlydecidedtheyweregoingtogoonaswoopandarrestalotof[nationalgroup],I’llringup

[name]andsay“Youshouldbeawareofthis”’,heexplained,‘notbecauseI’mtippinghimoff,errm,butbecauseitwillhaveasignificantimpactwithinthatcommunity’.

DuringmyresearchIcameacrossvariousotherfunctionarieswhoarecriticalofwhattheyseeasunfairelementsoftheimmigrationsystemandacthumanelywhenevertheycan.Oneoftheprimarychallengesfacingdetaineevisitinggroupsisthemovementofdetaineesfromonecentretoanother,whichcansevertheircontactwiththem,asdiscussedinChapterFive.Onevisitinggroupcoordinatortoldmeofaswitchboardoperatorwhoworkswithinadetentioncentreandwhoputsvisitorsbackintouchwithdetaineeswhereverpossiblewhentheyhavebeenmoved,therebycircumnavigatingtheofficial,fax-basedprocessoftracingdetaineeswhohavebeenmoved,whichisverytimeconsuming.Otherintervieweestoldmeaboutjudgeswhotakeacompassionateviewofcasestheyhearwherevertheycan,andsecuritystaffwhogobeyondthetermsoftheircontractstomakedetaineesfeelwelcomed.AlthoughitiseasytodismisstheseactionsasfiddlingwhileRomeburns,theymeantagreatdealtothemigrantswhobenefittedfromthematthetime.

Individualfunctionarieswhoquestionbordercontrolmechanismsandlogicscanalsosendahugelypowerfulmessage,notjustto‘thepublic’ingeneralasinthecaseofwhistleblowerslikeLouisePerrett(mentionedinChapterOne),butalsotofellowemployees.AmongmembersofthePublicandCommercialServices(PCS)Union(theunionthatrepresentsmanyemployeesatLunarHouse),forexample,thereiscontinuingsupportforboththeStillHumanStillHerecampaign,whichaimstoeradicatethecausesofdestitutionofrefusedasylumseekers,aswellasacampaigncalled‘Dignityforasylumseekers’,whichaddressesdifficultieswiththewaypaymentsofasylumseekers’welfarebenefitsaremade(PublicandCommercialServicesUnion,2014).Whenco-workersseetheircolleagueslendingsupporttosuchcampaigns,orsimplydoingtheirjobmoreconscientiouslyandhumanely,theyarefarmorelikelytoreassesstheirownrelationshiptotheasylumseekersundertheirauthority.

Afurthermitigatingfactorinfavourofcompassionconcernsthefactthateffortstonurturecompassioncangeneratemomentumtowardswider,systemlevelchangesinthewayimmigrationcontrolismanaged.InresponsetoNussbaum’scriticismsofcompassion,thedistinctionthatsheemploysbetweenindividualcompassionontheonehandandlawsandpoliciesontheothermaynotbeclearcut:theremaybesituationsinwhichtheformercanbescaleduptothelatter.FortheSLCactivists,forexample,thereportintoLunarHousewasnottheendofthestory.In2006,SLC

askedtwelveimpartialCommissionerstoconductanindependent,nationwidereviewoftheUK’sasylumsystem.TheIndependentAsylumCommissionspenttwoyearsgatheringtestimonyfromasylumseekersandthepublic,takingevidencefromexperts,andengagingindialoguewiththeauthorities.TheCommissionproducedover180recommendationstosafeguardpeoplewhoseeksanctuary[intheUK],whilerestoringpublicconfidenceintheUK’sroleasaplaceofsanctuaryforthosefleeingpersecution.

CitizensforSanctuarywebsitehomepage,2015

TheIndependentAsylumCommissionproducedthemostfundamentalandwide-ranging

independentreviewoftheBritishasylumsystemeverconducted(IndependentAsylumCommission,2008a,2008b),andthecampaigntoimplementitsrecommendationswasongoingatthetimeofwriting(CitizensforSanctuary,2015).TheCommissionevenintroducedanewlexiconaround‘sanctuaryseeking’thatrejectedtheworstconnotationsofthediscoursearoundasylumseekers.ThispotentialtoscaleupfromtheindividualencounterbetweenMaryApragasandMrsLinHomertoasystem-wide,politicalmovementshouldnotbeoverlooked.AlthoughitisimpossibletodeterminewhethertherisksthatSLCranintheircampaignwere‘worth’theeventualgains,itishelpfultothinkaboutthepoliticalpotentialofmorallyobligatingencountersandtheintertwinementofpersonalethicsandpublicpolitics.

Protectingtherighttoactconscientiouslyisimportanttoo.IntheUnitedStates,oneAmericanCatholicbishophasgoneasfarastocallforlegalprotectionforindividualimmigrationofficerswhorefusetocarryouttasksthattheyconsiderimmoral.BishopThomasJ.TobinofRhodeIslandwrotetotheAmericanimmigrationenforcementauthoritiesin2008citingthelegaldoctrineofconscientiousobjection–thatis,legallyenshrinedprotectionforthoseabstainingfromordersthattheyviewasimmoral–asawaytomountadefenceofimmigrationenforcementofficerswhorefusetoenterchurchesorothersensitivesitesinordertocarryoutdeportationraids(RomanCatholicDioceseofProvidence,2008).

Onthebasisoftheseconsiderationsitispossibletoidentifyasetoffactorsthat,althoughnotenoughtorecommendcompassionperse,areenoughtomitigatetowardsalessunfavourablejudgementincertaincircumstances.First,ifcompassioncanbepursuedingeneraltermsinreferencetoallmigrants,withoutrelyinguponparticularmarkerssuchasthoserelatedtogender,ageanddisability,thisislesslikelytoproducethenotionofthe‘deserving’migrantanditsunpalatableopposite.Second,ifcompassioncanbegeneratednotonthebasisofpity,butonthebasisofsolidarityandconcernthatisnotcondescending,thismayrecommenditfurther.Third,ifcompassionatthelevelofindividualencountersleadstoasignificantscalinguptowardssystem-levelchangethensomemayjudgetheriskstobeworththegains.Andfourth,ifcompassioncanbesoughtwhilstsimultaneouslyremainingoppositionaltotheoverallsystemofcontrols,thismayalsoweighinitsfavour.Theseare,nevertheless,extremelydemandingconsiderations.

Conclusion:TheRecoursetoCompassionInthischapterIhaveidentifiedandassessedtheattemptsofprogressiveasylumseekersupportgroupstonurturecompassionamongdecisionmakers.Workingthroughvariousexamples,anddistinguishingvariousscalesofactivitythatworktowardstheoverallobjectiveofnurturingcompassion,Ihaveidentifiedwhatsetsattemptstonurturecompassionapartfromotherformsofresistance,andIhaveoutlinedboththebenefitsandrisksofthissortofwork.Ihavearguedthatcompassionneedstobeapproachedextremelycautiouslybecauseitcarrieswithitrisksofco-optationaswellastheriskofratifyingthesystemofimmigrationcontrolsthatitpurportedlyresists.Thissaid,itispossibletoidentifyaseriesofmitigatingconsiderationsthatmightcauseustolooklesscriticallyuponcompassionincertaincircumstances.

Attemptstonurturecompassionbynomeansdescribealloftheactivitiesundertakenbyactivistsinsupportofasylumseekers.Manyfocusexclusivelyuponasylumseekersthemselves,providingwelfareassistance,legaladvice,spiritualsupportandsocialsupport,anddonotconcernthemselveswithdecisionmakersor‘thepublic’.Othersfocusondirectconfrontationwithdecisionmakersandbringingpoliticalpressuretobearonthemwithoutentreatingthemorsupplicatingthem.Othersmaycombineelementsofmanyofthesedifferenttactics.ButtherangeandnumberofmeasuresdesignedtonurturecompassionthatIhaveoutlinedisindicativeofthedegreetowhichcompassion-seekinghastakenholdamonggroupsworkingwithasylumseekersintheUnitedKingdom.Manyrealisehowproblematicthisworkis,butfeelasifthisistheonlyrealisticapproachintheabsenceofmoreinfluenceoverthepoliticalsystemthathasproducedthecurrentconfigurationofimmigrationcontrols.Indeed,itisthissenseofhelplessnessandtheunaccountabilityofthesystemofcontrolsinBritainthatistherealproblem.

Notes1Interviewwithactivist,October2006.

2Interviewwithcharityworker,June2011.

3Interviewwithcharityworker,June2011.

4Interviewwithcharityworker,June2011.

5Interviewwithemployeeofrefugeesupportingcharity,26September2011.

6Interviewwithcharityworker,June2011.

7Interviewwithcharityworker,June2011.

8Interviewwithrefusedasylumseeker,14July2006.

9Interviewwithrefugeeandactivistwithreligiousasylumsupportgroup,13June2011.

10InterviewwithworkeratanorganisationsetuptooffersupporttoTamils,SomalisandAfro-CaribbeanslivinginLondonbyrefugeewomen,16June2011.

11Interviewwithrefugeesupportgroupmanager,14June2011.

12Ifadecisiononanasylumseeker’sclaimhasnotbeenreachedwithin12monthsthroughwhatisconsideredtobenofaultoftheirowntheyhave,since2005,beenpermittedtotakeajob.In2010thestipulationswereaddedthatthejobtheytakemustbeonelistedontheShortageOccupationListoftheUnitedKingdom(HomeOffice,2014a),thattheycannotbeself-employed,andthattheycannotstartabusiness.Inpracticetheserequirementsarehighlyrestrictiveandmostasylumseekersareeithernotallowedtoworkorfinditextremelydifficulttosecurepaidemployment.

13ItusedtobethecasethatifasylumseekersdidnotapplyforasylumwithinthreeworkingdaysthentheywereautomaticallyrefusedsupportunderSection55oftheNationality,ImmigrationandAsylumAct(2002).FollowingaprotractedlegalbattleaHighCourtjudgeruledthatthiswasunlawfullydenyinghumanitarianhelptothosewhomayneedit(TheSecretaryofStatefortheHomeDepartmentvs.WayokaLimbuelaandBinyamTeferaTesemaandYusifAdam,2004).Therefore,sinceJune2004,asylumseekerswhoapplyforsupportafterthreeworkingdaysbutwhodonothavealternativemeansofsupportcannolongerberefusedemergencysupport(seealsoHomeOffice,2011b).

14DiaryentryafterplanningmeetingofLivingGhosts(SouthWest),16November2005.

15Interviewwithcharitymanager,10December2012.

16ThisevidenceistakenfromthewrittensubmissionbyFreedomfromTortureandSurvivorsSpeakOuttotheHomeAffairsSelectCommitteeonAsylum(HomeAffairsSelectCommittee,2013b).

17Interviewwithformerintelligenceofficer,28November2013.

18In2006,forexample,theUNHCRundertooka‘tremendousamountofwork’(UNHCR,2007,p.10)designing,andsupportingtheUKBAtoroll-out,a55-daycomprehensivetrainingcourseforcaseworkers.Atthetimeofitsinception,theUNHCRwasguardedlyoptimisticthatthiscoursewouldensureatleastsomeconsistencyandfairnessintheprocessofclaimdeterminations.Sincethecoursewasdesigned,however,thetrainingwasreducedfrom55daysto25days,resultingintheUKBAInspectorate(abodychargedwiththetaskofinspectingandreportingonUKBAoperations)reporting‘concern,particularlyfrommanagersandseniorcaseworkers,thattheshortenedmodulehadnotpreparedCaseOwnersadequately’(IndependentChiefInspectoroftheUKBorderAgency,2009,p.23).ThisconcerniscorroboratedbyWebber(2012)whoseesthe25-daytrainingprogrammeas‘absurdlyshort’(Webber,2012,p.54)inthelightofthewiderequirementsto‘learnrelevantlegislationandcaselaw,interviewing,assessmentofevidenceandreasoningdecisions’(Webber,2012,p.54).

19Interviewwithcharityworker,June2011.

20Interviewwithcharityworker,June2011.

21Interviewwithdetaineesupportingcharityworker,1September2011.

22Ittranspiredlaterintheinterviewthatthiscriminalitylargelyinvolvedminorinfringementsofimmigrationlaw.

23Interviewwithrepresentativefromdetention-focusedsupportgroup,16September2011.

24Interviewwithcharityworker,June2011.

25Interviewwithpoliceofficer,14July2006.

ChapterEightConclusion

Myhumanityisboundupinyours,forwecanonlybehumantogether.

ArchbishopDesmondTutu1

Therearenonations!Thereisonlyhumanity.Andifwedon'tcometounderstandthatrightsoon,therewillbenonations,becausetherewillbenohumanity.

IsaacAsimov2

BackattheprotestoutsideLunarHousetheEnglishVolunteerForce(EVF)takeuptheirpositionoppositeusinapenned-offsectionontheothersideofthecourtyard.ItisasifwearearguingoverLunarHouseitself,whosefrontsignismountedsquarelybetweenthetwosides(seeFigure8.1).Veryfewofthemarevisible.Wecanmakeoutsomefacesbutonlyjust;mostlywhatwecanseearepoliceofficerswhohavelinedupbetweenthetwoenclosures.Thesunisbeatingdownandsomeoftheleadchantersneedtotakeabreak.Weareinanendurancecontesttokeepourvoiceslouderthantheirs.TheUniteAgainstFascism(UAF)positionontheEVFandtheBritishNationalParty(BNP)isa‘noplatform’position,3andwelivethatoutbodilyhere,literallyoccupyingtheairwithoursoundtopreventtheirchantingfromreachingourears.

Figure8.1FacingtheEnglishVolunteerForce(EVF)outsideLunarHouse.Author’sphotograph,2013.

TheUAFandthePublicandCommercialServices(PCS)Union,however,werenottheonlyorganisationswhovoicedtheiroppositiontotheEVF’smarchonLunarHouseinJuly2013.Afewhundredmetresdowntheroad,andsurroundedbyasmallarmyofpolice,agroupofactivistsincludingmembersofNoBordersandNoOneisIllegalformedtheirown,separate,counter-demonstration(seeFigure8.2).Theyrefusedtostandnexttowhattheydescribedasthe‘thugsinuniform[and]thethugsinsuits’4whoworkedfortheUnitedKingdomBorderAgency(UKBA),eveninordertodemonstrateagainstthecommonenemyoftheEVF.

Figure8.2NoBorders,NoOneisIllegalandothergroupsstageademonstrationagainsttheEnglishVolunteerForce(EVF).Note:LunarHouseisafewhundredmetrestotheleftofthepicture.

Author’sphotograph,2013.

BeforethemarchaheateddebateaboutthecounterprotestplayedoutthroughtheiremaildiscussionsbecauseaminorityoftheNoBordersandNoOneisIllegalgroupofactivistswantedtosendadelegationtotheUAFandPCScounterprotestinordertostirupradicalfeelingsamongimmigrationstaff.SomeNoBordersactivistswereappalledattheideaofcooperatingwithimmigrationstaff,callingit‘abetrayaltoallthosewhohavesuffereddirectlyorindirectlyasaresultof[UKBA’s]work’,5andlistingthenamesof20individualswhohad‘losttheirlivesatthehandsofUKBAstafforhiredthugs’.6Theycontinued:

Aswithfascism,thestate'sapparatusofimmigrationcontrol:Illegalisesanentirepopulationbasedonarbitrarylawsandperceivedotherness;Keepsthispopulationinconstantfearofdiscovery,disqualifyingthemfromaccesstothebasicsofsurvivalavailabletoothers,suchaswork,benefits,emergencyshelter;Tearsapartfamilies,friendsandlovers;Reduceshumanlivestoachainofnumbers;Maintainsasystemofsurveillanceandreporting,witharbitraryandseriouspenaltiesfornon-compliance;Indefinitelyincarcerates3300peopleatanyonetime,includingchildren,initsmanydetentionfacilities;Relentlesslycollectivelyexpelsunwantedpeople;Inflictswidespreadphysicalandpsychologicalharm,andsometimesdeathuponthesecommunities;Naturalisesitspracticestotheextentthatfewquestionitslegitimacy.TheUKBorderAgencycannotbereformed.7

Nevertheless,andnotwithoutalotofsoulsearching,asmalldelegationdidstrikeoutfromNoOneisIllegaltoleaflettheimmigrationofficers.TheydistributedamessageamongtheUAFandPCSprotestorsthatadoptedamorereconciliatorytone.‘WeareheretodaytoopposethefascistsoftheEnglishVolunteerForce’,itread,

Butwemustnotforgetthatabiggerthreattomigrantsandasylumseekersiswhatgoesoninthisbuilding[meaningLunarHouse]andthebuildingsroundabout.Thisiswhereraidson…homesandworkplacesareorganised.Thisiswheretheyorganisedeportations.Peoplewalkinhereandtheirfamiliesneverseethemagain.Peopleareinterviewedhereinatraumatisedstateandwhattheysayistakendownandusedasevidenceagainstthem.Datacollectedhereisusedtostoppeoplegettingbenefits,accesstohealth,aproperjobandsoon.Thisiswheretheydecideyouareillegal.…Andwhataboutyou[referringtoimmigrationofficials]?Itisgreatthatsomeofyouworkingherehavecomeouttoopposethefascists.Yetyouarepartofthiscruelandfatalmachine.Isthisreallywhereyouwanttobe,whatyouwanttodo?Ifyoureallywanttodefeatracismandfascismforgoodthenrageagainstthismachine,turnagainstit,undermineit,blowthewhistleonitandwhenyougetanopportunity–leaveit.8

ThesetwosetsofsentimentsrevealagreatdealabouttheBritishimmigrationsystem,aswellasthedilemmasthatactivistsfaceinresistingit.TheysummarisepowerfullythemanysubjugatingaspectsofthesystemthatIhaveexploredinthisbookincludingtheimpersonalnatureofthesystemthatisatypicalfeatureofbureaucracies,aswellastheremarkablenormalisationandproceduralisationoflethalandsubjugatingcontrolsinasocietythatdeclaresitselfliberal,committedtohumanrightsandsuspiciousofstate-sanctionedviolence.Theyillustratethemoralpovertyoftheimmigrationcontrolsystemtoo:thetreatmentofordinary,althoughoftenvulnerable,peoplelikecriminalsandtheinexcusablefearanddeathtollthatthisproduces.

Theyalsocapturetheacutetensionbetweenoutright,wholesaleanddirectresistancetothesystemofimmigrationcontrolsandmorepragmaticapproachesthatseektoengageand‘convertthepolicymaker’(Feldman,2008,p.5).Thedelegationhopedthatbymeetingandreasoningwithofficialstheycouldpromptachangeofheart,illustratinganoptimisticviewofthepotentialofcontactandinteraction.Indeed,thisbookbeganbynotingthepotentialof

proximity.Notproximityinliteraltermsnecessarily,butmoralproximitythatproducesencounterswithothersthatchangevaluesandrupturethecompartmentsthatalienateofficialsfromtheirsubjects.Theworkofvariousphilosophers,psychologists,sociologistsandgeographersunderscorestheexcitingpotentialthatproximityholdstomakenewthingshappen,includingmomentsofethicalawakeningthatpromisetoovercometheindifferencethataccompaniesmodernbordercontrols.Itisthisproximity–thistogetherness–thatmovedtheaforementionedMrBrimelowwhenfacedwithNataliya.Proximityispowerfulenoughtoemboldenbureaucratstobend,questionandevenrewritetherules,andassuchitisakeyethicalresourceinaworldinwhichrules,numbersandsystemshavebecomevaluedaboverealhumanlife.Akeyargumentofthisbook,however,isthatthereareallsortsofmechanismsthatlimitandcontainthispotential.MycentralconcerninNothingPersonal?hasbeentoaccountfortheindifferencetowardssufferingothersthatpervadesimmigrationcontrolintermsofbothitsrationaleandtheoutlookofitsfunctionariesandmanagers.Moraldistance,meaningtheinversecorrelationbetweendistanceandmoralconcern,providesanimportantstartingpoint.Forabureaucracytofunctionitrequiresthesubordinationofthepersonalmoralityofbureaucratstosystemobjectives,andwhenbureaucraciesareorganisedinwaysthatdistanceofficialsfromsubjects,eitherliterallyorinstitutionally,therebymakingthissubordinationeasier,therewillbescantresistancefromsystemmanagers.Asaresultofthereorganisationofbordercontrols,includingtheir‘upward’,‘downward’and‘outward’rescaling,functionariesandsubjectsarekeptapartinvariouswaysasmoraldistanceisopened.

Theinfluenceofmoraldistanceisevenmorestrikinginlightofthedistancingofnotonlysubjectsfromofficials,butalsofunctionariesandsystemmanagersfromtheirsubjects.‘Distancing’inthecontextofmoraldistancecouldeasilybetakentorefertothedistancingofsubjects,butinChapterThreeIdemonstratedthatanimportantconsequenceofrecentchangestotheorganisationofborderworkintheUnitedKingdomwastheinsulation,bufferingandsubsequentcompetitionbetweenbackofficeworkerswho,asaresultofthesemechanisms,weredeniedaclearviewofthemoralconsequencesoftheirownwork.Thiseffectconstitutesanimportantsecondaryformofmoraldistancingthatalienatesandestrangesdecisionmakersfromtheasylumseekerstheymakelife-changingdecisionsaboutonadailybasis.

Moraldistancecanonlygosofar,however,inaccountingfortheindifferencethatriddlesBritishbordercontrolsystems.IbeganthebookwithanaccountofMrDvorzac’sdeathinimmigrationdetention,whichcannotbeexplainedintermsofmoraldistancebecauseMrDvorzacwasnotdistantfromthefunctionarieswhowereresponsibleforhimeitherliterallyorinstitutionally.Itisclear,inthislight,thatfurtherreflectiononindifferenceisnecessary,andIbeganthisprocessinChapterFourbydiscussingtheinstitutionalfeaturesofkeymeetingsbetweendecisionmakersandasylumseekersintheUnitedKingdomthatprecludemeaningfulcontactandinteraction,focusingonthescreeningandsubstantiveasyluminterviewsaswellasthefirstinstancetribunalappealhearing.HereIdepartedfromthemostcommonapproachesofgeographersandotherswritingaboutmeaningfulcontact,becauseinsteadofenquiringaftertheconditionsthatmakemeaningfulcontactpossible,theemphasisinthischapterwasonthewaysinwhichmeaningfulinteraction,andinparticularmorallydemandingencounters,are

suspended,avoidedandavertedininstitutionalandbureaucraticsettings.Ittranspiresthatbothinterviewsandappealsviolatethemajorityoftheconditionsnecessaryformeaningfulinteractiontooccur,underscoringthewaysinwhichbureaucraciescannurtureindifferenceeveninsituationsofclosephysicalproximity.

ThisthemewascontinuedinChapterFive,whichfocusedonthewaysindifferenceisnurturednotonlyincloseproximitybutalsoundertheconditionsofsustainedcontactthatimmigrationdetentionproduces.IusedthisChaptertodemonstratethatindifferenceisoftwodistincttypes,correspondingtothewell-knownphenomenonofmoraldistance,ontheonehand,andSimmel’sobservationsconcerningblaséattitudestowardsneedyothersatclosequarters,ontheother.Whereasmoraldistancereliesupondifferentformsofdistanceinordertobemaintained–literal,organisationalandtemporaldistance,forexample–therelationshipofSimmel’sblaséformofindifferencewithdistanceismorecomplex.Itisactuallyover-closeness,nearnesstosufferingandoverfamiliaritywiththegruesomerealitiesofabjectionthatprecipitatesthisformofindifference.Inthissensethissecondformofindifferencesharesanoppositerelationshipwithdistancetothefirstform.Over-closenesspromptsapsychologicalwithdrawal,arecoil,thatcanbedescribedasvolitionalpsychologicaldistancingasaformofself-care.

ChapterSixdevelopedafurthercritiqueoftheoristsofmoraldistanceandindifferencebydemonstratingthecompatibilityofemotionsandsubjugation.Keytothisargumentistherecognitionthatindifferencecanbekeenlyfeltbutconflictedincharacter,whichdistinguishesitfrominsensitivity.IsetoutevidencethatmanyfunctionariesinvolvedinborderworkintheUnitedKingdomareindifferentratherthaninsensitivetothesufferingoftheirsubjects.Thisimpliesthatitisperfectlypossibletofeelshameaboutone’swork,buttoallowcounter-posedemotionssuchasanxietytooverrulesuchsentiments.Italsoimpliesthatitispossibletoallowsofteremotionssuchascare,empathyandevencompassionintothediscourseofbordercontrol,andthechapterdiscussedvariousexamplesandconsequencesofthisrecentparadoxicaldevelopment.

Thisopensupthequestionofwhether,andhow,topursuecompassionamongfunctionaries.IregrettoreportthatthedelegationfromNoOneisIllegaltoreachouttotheimmigrationofficerstakingpartintheUAFandPCScounter-protestwasunsuccessful.ForthemostparttheimmigrationofficersinfrontofLunarHouseignoredthem,totheextentthat,aswewalkedawayfromthemarchandIaskedthedelegationhowsuccessfultheiractivitieshadbeen,theyexpressedtheirbitterestdisappointmentatthefactthatsofewimmigrationofficialshadengagedwiththematall.Eveniftheyhadbeenabletointeractwithmoreofficers,however,itisnotatallclearthatcanvassingthemisthebestwaytoresistimmigrationcontrols.AlthoughthesystemsandeffectsIhavedescribedinChaptersTwotoFivetendtocordonanddampencompassionamongfunctionaries,itdoesnotnecessarilyfollowthatthewaytorespondtotheseeffectsistoseektonurtureorreinstatecompassion.Infact,therearereasonstosuspectthat,oncecompassionhasbeenlimitedorlost,thepriceofre-establishingitagainmaybeveryhighintermsoftheriskofportrayingthe‘pitiful’or‘deserving’migranttofunctionaries,andthepublicmorebroadly.Thisapproachimplicitlyratifiestheirauthoritybyentreatingthem,therebyunderminingotherformsofactivismthatquestionandchallengethatauthority.

Encounter-AversionTheseargumentsholdaseriesofimplicationsforthewaywethinkaboutencounters,thebureaucraticmanagementofinternationalbordersandthewayswemightgoaboutopposingsubjugatingstructuresofcontrol.TheyalsoraisethequestionofwhetheranythinggeneralcanbesaidaboutindifferencebeyondthecaseofimmigrationcontrolthatIhavedealtwithinthisbook.

NothingPersonal?hasdescribedthephenomenonoftheencounter-aversionofbureaucracies.Positive,meaningfulinteractionisdifficulttostageatthebestoftimes,andmorallydemandingencountersevenmoreso.Importantly,thepointatwhichsuchencountersarelikelytooccurisnotthepointatwhichfamiliaritywithsufferingisatitshighest.Atthispointthesufferingthreatenstooverwhelmmoralsentiments(Hamblet,2003).ThisisaphenomenonsometimesoverlookedbyBaumaninhistheorisationofmoraldistance,resultinginanalmostnaïvefaithinthepossibilitiesofproximity.Inordertoavoidthismistakewemightthinkinsteadabouttheexistenceofanoptimalfrequencyandintensityofcontact–closebutnottooclose–thataffordsthepossibilityofconcern.Wemightexpectthisfrequencytobemaintainedbyparticularandspecificrelationshipswithothers,ratherthanbeingforcedtotreatsubjectsasagroup,populationora‘throughput’.Unfortunately,becausethisoptimalpointcanbedisturbedbothbyincreasinganddecreasingthefrequencyandintensityofcontact,itconstitutesaratherunstableequilibrium.Contrarytotherobustnessofindifference,itisfragile:allthemoresobecauseofthebureaucratictendencytobothunder-andover-stimulatetheempatheticsensibilitiesofdecisionmakers.

Encounter-aversionisnot,onthewhole,theresultofthecalculatedandpremeditatedplottingandplanningofasinister,monstrousstate,buttheresultofthetendencyofbureaucraticsystemstotakethepathsofleastresistanceavailabletotheminthecourseoftheirownoperation.Althoughonthesurfacethismightsoundlikegoodnews,thelackofacalculativeandidentifiable‘centre’arguablystrengthensthesystemitself.ForJohnLaw,

dominationisoftennotasystemeffect,theconsequenceofacoherentorder.Ratheritisaresultofnon-coherence.Ofelementsofstructuring,ordering,thatonlypartiallyhangtogether.Ofrelationsofsubordinationthatarerelativelyinvulnerablepreciselybecausetheyarenottightlyconnected.Invulnerablebecausewhenoneispulleddowntheothersarenotpulleddownwithit.

Law,2008,p.641

Thetensilitythatnon-coherenceaffordstoimmigrationcontrolsystemsisbolsteredbythealmostpermanentsenseofcrisisthatcommentators,especiallyinthepress,associatewithimmigrationcontrolinBritain.Perversely,thissenseofcrisisimprovessystemicflexibilityandagility,preciselybecausesystemsarepermanentlyviewedasinneedofreform,renderingchangeexpectedandacceptable(seeKlein,2007;MountzandHiemstra,2014).IntheUnitedKingdom‘publicconsenthasbeenprocured’(Tyler,2013,p.211)inthiswayforadizzyingpaceoflegislativeandpolicychurnoverthepast20yearsthatIsetoutinChapterOne.MypreferencefordescribingtheeffectsIhaveexploredinthisbookasbureaucratictendencies

ratherthanstatestrategiesreflectsthesepropertiesofthesystemofbordercontrols.

Thetendencytoremove,orefface,theindividualsubjectthatIhavedescribedinNothingPersonal?isnotasproblematicinothersituationsinwhichbureaucraticmodesoforganisationareemployed.ForDuGay(2000),theachievementofbureaucracyisitsabilitytotreatpeopleequallyandaccordingtosimilarstandards,thusdoingjusticetotheiroftencompetingorunrealisticclaimsinamorallydefensibleway.Thisimperative,heargues,outweighsdetractors’concernsthatbureaucracyiscoldlyimpassiveandinsensitive.Inthefaceofintractabledilemmasoverhowtodistributescarceresourcesthisargumentseemsplausible.ButIholdasylumseeking,andthedemandsofmigrantsingeneral,tobedistinctfromsuchdilemmasofgovernmentbecausethereisnoaprioridilemmainrelationtoasylumseekersthatisnotcreatedbytheexistenceofinternationalbordersthemselves:theproblemofmanaginginternationalbordersisself-inflictedbythesystemofnationstates.Themedia-fuelledanxietiesaboutbeing‘swamped’or‘flooded’bymigrantsgenerallyremaintrappedinnation-basedwaysofthinkingthatlackthevisiontoappreciatehowhumankindmightbenefitfromalackofinternationalborders(Hayter,2004;Gill,2009;Andersonetal.,2009).Inthislight,assessingtheeffectsofthebureaucraticmanagementofbordercontrolisnotamatterofbalancingtheneedforajustandimpartialapproachtotheintractableissuesthrownupbybordermanagementagainsttheslowness,redtapeandfrustratingimpassivenessofbureaucraticcontrol,becausetheverynotionofjustandfairinternationalbordersisonethatseemsincrediblystrangetoaccept.Internationalbordershelp,immeasurably,tokeeptheglobalpoorpoorandtheglobalrichrich,theyrandomlyassignlifechancesandopportunitiesonthebasisofthelotteryofbirth,andtheysupportanexploitativedivisionofgloballabourwithoutwhichglobalisationitselfwouldbeseverelyimpoverished(Bayart,2007).Intheasylumcontext,bordersalsohelptokeeptheconsequencesofviolencethatcanoftenbetracedtohistoriesofcolonialexploitationawayfromthehistoricalcolonisers.Thesearenottheresultsof‘mismanaged’,‘unjust’or‘unfair’internationalborders,thesearetheresultsofinternationalbordersperse.Itisonthisbasis–whichIadmitisanideologicaloneratherthanapracticalorworldlyapproachthatwillbeofmuchimmediateusetopolicymakersinvolvedinbordercontrol–thatIfeelatlibertytocritiquetheconsequencesofthebureaucraticmanagementofbordercontrolwithoutconcedingitsbenefits.

RemainingOppositionalTherefore,ifreadershadexpectedmetoprovidealistofreformshere,directedatgovernment,thatwouldallowashiftawayfromanunjustsystemofimmigrationcontrolstowardsamorejustsetofcontrols,theywillbedisappointed.Nevertheless,IamconsciousthatIhavepaintedableakpictureofimmigrationcontrolsand,throughmycriticaldiscussionofcompassion,ableakpictureoftheprospectofresistingthemaswell.ItfollowsfrommycommentsinChapterSevenaboutcompassionandtheinherentdifficultiesofsofteningandhumanisingtheimmigrationcontrolsystem,however,thatthemosteffectiveformsofresistancewouldnotdistinguishbetweendeservingandundeservingmigrants,andwouldinsteadinsistuponfreeinternationalmovementforall,regardlessofwhethermigrantshavesomethingto

offertotheirdestinationcountriesandregardlessoftheirbackground,skillsetorhistory.Accordingtothisreasoningtheclearestandmostlogicallyconsistentargumentforchangecomesfromradicalquarters:NoBordersandNoOneisIllegal,whocampaignforanendtointernationalimmigrationcontrolsingeneral.AstheNoOneisIllegalManifestoputsit:

Weareopposedtoallargumentsthatseektojustifythepresenceofanyoneonthegroundsoftheeconomicorculturaloranyothercontributionstheymaymake.ItisnotuptotheBritishstatetodecidewherepeopleshouldorshouldnotlive,oranyoneelsebutmigrantsandrefugeesthemselves.Wesupporttheunfetteredrightofentryofthefeckless,theunemployableandtheuncultured.WeassertNoOneIsIllegal.

NoOneisIllegal,2003

MyprescriptiontoWesterngovernmentswhoarebusybuildingever-tallerbarrierstointernationalimmigrationistoabandonthisactivityandbegintoundertakethe(admittedlycomplex)processofdismantlingthem.Limitingthelibertyofothers,includingtheirinternationalmobility,isapunishmentforwhich,forthevastmajorityofthosesubjecttoimmigrationcontrols,nocrimehasbeencommitted.Perhapsthereisacasetoretainsomemeasureofcontrolwhenitcomestoproventerroristsandproven,seriouscriminalsbecause,inthesecases,punishmentmaybejustifiedandlimitinginternationalmobilitymaybenecessarytoprotectinnocentpeoplefromtheriskofmalevolence.Butoutsidethesecases,immigrationcontrolsembodyaformofinstitutionalisedinjustice.Ratherthansuggestaseriesofreformsthen,Iprefertoposeaquestion:whoamongourgovernmentshasthecourageandpoliticalskilltoleadthewaytowardsadifferentglobalfuturewithoutinternationalimmigrationcontrols?Thinkinginthesetermspromisestopuncturethesuffocatingconsensusthatweneedinternationalbordercontrols,9andthattheyneedtobefirmerandtighter:aconsensusthatcurrentlycharacterisestherathertechnicalandunder-ambitiouspublicdebatesthattendtooccuraroundBritishbordercontrols.

NoBordersandNoOneisIllegalrejecttheobjectiveofsofteningandhumanisingthesystemofinternationalimmigrationcontrols.Forthem,thereisnosuchthingasahumaneinternationalimmigrationcontrolsystemanditismoreunrealistictoexpecttobeabletomakeinternationalimmigrationcontrolsjustandfairthanitistoexpectthemtobecompletelydisbanded,becauseatleastthelatterispossible.

Thedemandfornocontrols–basedontheassertionthatnooneisillegal–isfrequentlyderidedasutopianandiscomparedadverselytothe‘realism’ofarguingforfaircontrols.Howeverthisstandspoliticalrealityonitshead.Thestruggleagainstthetotalityofcontrolsiscertainlyuphill–itmaywellrequirearevolution.Howevertheachievementoffairimmigrationrestrictions–thatisthetransformationofimmigrationcontrolsintotheiropposite–wouldrequireamiracle.

NoOneisIllegal,2003

Forthem,thereisnothingthatcanbeimprovedaboutthesystemofimmigrationcontrolstomakeupforthefactthatitisarbitrarilyunjustandimperialistinlegacy.Thesegroupsdrawinspirationfromanarchistprinciplestoquestiontheneedforoneofthemostpervasiveand

exploitativestateinterventionsandchecksoverindividualfreedomthatisinforceintheworldtoday:thelimitationonfreeinternationalmovement.

Thetroublewithutopianideassuchasthedissolutionofinternationalbordercontrolsisthattheycanbedismissedasunrealisticby‘menofstate’whothinkintermsoftheexistingstatusquo,andwhocannotthinkbeyondit(Lefebvre,2009,p.54).10Butnotonlydoutopianideasservethefunctionofprovidinganavigationalaidethroughthemessinessofeverydayskirmishesandbargainsaroundbordercontrols.Theyalso,inthewordsofDavidHarvey(2000,p.281),‘holdupforinspectionthewasteandfoolishnessof[our]times’,and,insodoing,providethebasisuponwhichwecan‘insistthatthingscouldandmustbebetter’(Harvey,2000,p.281).

Thisisnottosaythatnothingcanbedonebyoppositionalgroupsintheabsenceofawholesaledismantlingofbordercontrols.Onthecontrary,itisperfectlypossibletoremainoppositionalanddefianteveninsituationswhererevolutionisnotyetfeasibleandthesystembeingresistedisunreformable.ThiswasdeCerteau’s(1984)pointwhenhedescribedthetacticsofthesubjugated:surreptitious,agile,diversionary,agitatingandsubversivecoursesofactionthatarecapableofchippingawayattheestablishedorderwithoutcondoningitforamoment.11

GeneralisedIndifferenceWhereasIhavediscussedindifferenceasitrelatestobordercontrol,variouscommentatorshavemadethecasethatindifferencetosufferingothersisageneralfeatureofmodernlife.Forexample,in2006BarackObamaremarkedthat:

There’salotoftalkinthiscountry[referringtotheUnitedStates]aboutthefederaldeficit.ButIthinkweshouldtalkmoreabouttheempathydeficit–ourabilitytoputourselvesinsomeoneelse’sshoes,toseetheworldthroughthosewhoaredifferentfromus–thechildwho’shungry,thelaid-offsteelworker,theimmigrantcleaningyourdormroom.…Weliveinaculturethatdiscouragesempathy,aculturethattoooftentellsusthatourprincipalgoalinlifeistoberich,thin,young,famous,safeandentertained.

BarackObama,SpeechtotheGraduatesofNorthwesternUniversityin200612

AndwhenHisHolinessPopeFrancisIvisitedthesmallItalianislandofLampedusa,thesiteofhorrificmigrantdeathsin2013,13heconnectedmigrantdeathswithprofoundgeneralshortcomingsinmodernmoralculture:

Thecultureofwell-being,thatmakesusthinkofourselves,thatmakesusinsensitivetothecriesofothers,thatmakesusliveinsoapbubbles,thatarebeautifulbutarenothing,areillusionsoffutility,ofthetransient,thatbringsindifferencetoothers,thatbringseventheglobalizationofindifference.Inthisworldofglobalizationwehavefallenintoaglobalizationofindifference.Weareaccustomedtothesufferingofothers,itdoesn’tconcernus,it’snoneofourbusiness.

HisHolinessPopeFrancisI,8July2013,Lampedusa14

Fromthisviewpointindifferencetosufferingotherscanbeviewedasaglobalmoralpandemic:thelogicalconsequenceofcapitalism’srelentlesslyindividuatingculture,brutalmediatacticsandbureaucracy’sdepersonalisingeffects.

TheagendathatIwouldrecommendforthecomingyearstogeographersandothersocialscientistswithaninterestinthesufferingofotherswouldconsequentlyplaceindifferencecentrestage.Weneedtounderstandthedynamicsofindifferencemorefully,intermsofitsrelationtospecificallygeographicalphenomenasuchasseparation,avoidanceanddifferentformsofdistance.WhatIhavesetoutinNothingPersonal?isastartingpoint,butitraisesquestionsabouttheextenttowhichtheanalysisoftherelationbetweendistanceandindifferencethatIhaveundertakenisgeneralisabletoothercontextsofsufferingandvulnerability,whetherthereareexceptions,andwhatfactorsmightdisturbit.Underpinningallofthesequestionsshouldbeafocusontheinterpersonal–thelevelofinteractionandrelationsbetweentwoorasmallnumberofpeopleorbeings.Itisatthislevelthatsociologists,moralphilosophers,geographersandpsychologistshavelocatedmorality,andthereforeitisthefactorsthatshape,constrainandfacilitateinterpersonalrelationshipsthatshouldbeofinteresttoaninvestigationintothecircumstancesofmoralfailure.

Notes1TakenfromTutu(1989),page69.

2TakenfromAsimov(1994),page421.

3A‘noplatform’positionreferstothebeliefthatcertainoppositiongroups,suchasthosethatareunderstoodtobeespousingfascistideas,shouldnotbeallowedapublicplatformortoenterintopublicdebate.

4Thisquoteistakenfromanemailcirculatedon16July2013aroundtheemaillistservmigrationstruggles@lists.riseup.netandwassigned‘NoBordersLondon’.

5Thisquoteistakenfromanemailcirculatedon16July2013aroundtheemaillistservmigrationstruggles@lists.riseup.netandwassigned‘NoBordersLondon’.

6Thisquoteistakenfromanemailcirculatedon16July2013aroundtheemaillistservmigrationstruggles@lists.riseup.netandwassigned‘NoBordersLondon’.

7Thisquoteistakenfromanemailcirculatedon16July2013aroundtheemaillistservmigrationstruggles@lists.riseup.netandwassigned‘NoBordersLondon’.

8Leafletdistributedatthecounter-protestagainsttheEVFoutsideLunarHouse,27July2013.

9Irecognisethatthedissolutionofinternationalbordercontrolswouldnot,onitsown,solvealloftheworld’sills;seeGill(2009)forafullerdiscussion.

10Lefebvre(2009,p.54)describesmenofstateaspeoplewho‘accepttheexistingStateasacentralgivenofreality,asacentralgivenofthemoralsciences,whothinkasafunctionofthisgivenandwhoposealltheproblemsrelatedtotheknowledgeofsociety,toscienceandrealityitselfasafunctionofthisgiven’.

11SeealsoScott(1985)and,foradiscussionspecifictoimmigrationcontrolintheUnitedKingdomandUnitedStates,Gilletal.(2014).

12Quotetakenfromhttp://www.northwestern.edu/newscenter/stories/2006/06/barack.html,accessed4August2015.

13On3October2013aboatcarryingmigrantsfromLibyatothesmallItalianislandofLampedusasankafteritsenginefailedandafirebrokeoutonboard.Theboatwasgrosslyovercrowdedandill-equippedforemergencies,andthedeathtollexceeded360,elicitingwidespreadexpressionsofshockandconcernfromtheinternationalcommunity.

14Quotetakenfromhttp://en.radiovaticana.va/news/2013/07/08/pope_on_lampedusa:_%E2%80%9Cthe_globalization_of_indifference%E2%80%9D/en1-708541,accessed4August2015.

MethodologicalAppendixNothingPersonal?drawsonaseriesoffourfundedresearchprojectsthatconstituteaprogrammeofresearchthatbeganin2003andisongoingatthetimeofwriting.ThefirstprojectwasdoctoralresearchfundedbytheEconomicandSocialResearchCouncil(ESRC)1attheUniversityofBristol,UK,thataimedtoexplorethechallengesfacingimmigrationdecisionmakersintheUnitedKingdomfromtheperspectiveofbothdecisionmakersthemselvesandasylumseekersintheircare(henceforththe‘decisionmakers’project).Iworkedonthisprojectalone,althoughablysupervisedbyProfessorsAdamTickellandWendyLarner,andconductedinterviewsandparticipantobservationinperson.ThesecondprojectwasalsofundedbytheESRC2andexaminedthechallengesandmitigatingstrategiesofasylumsupportgroupsintheUnitedKingdomandUnitedStates(henceforththe‘asylumsupportgroups’project),andforthisprojectIwasassistedbytwoco-investigators,DrsDeirdreConlonandImogenTyler,aswellasaresearcher,DrCeriOeppen.Thethirdproject,whichisongoingatthetimeofwritingandagainfundedbytheESRC,3examinestheasylumappealprocess(specificallythefirsttier)inEnglandandWales(henceforththe‘tribunals’project).ForthisprojectIhavebeenassistedbyMsJenniferAllsoppandDrsMelanieGriffiths,AndrewBurridge,RebeccaRotterandNataliaPaszkiewicz.Thefourthprojectisactuallyaseriesofseminars,alsoongoingatthetimeofwriting,fundedbytheESRCandonthethemeofimmigrationdetention,4whichhasgivenrisetomanydiscussionsandpresentationsthathaveinformedmyargumentinthisbook.

Althoughtheprojectsformacoherentprogrammeofresearchtheyalsospanavarietyofdifferentmethodologiesandapproaches,manyofwhichIhavedrawnoninNothingPersonal?.Theyhaveentailedfocusgroups,surveys,interviews,ethnographyanddocumentanalysis.ToexploreallthemethodologicalchallengesanddilemmasIhavefaced,anddecisionsthatIhavetaken,foreachoftheseprojectsandapproacheswouldrequireamuchfullertreatmentthanIhavespaceforhere,soIwillfocusuponasubsetofmethodologicalissuesincludingthoserelatingtosampling,access,ethicsandmyapproachtoanalysingthedata.

SamplingandAccessForthedecisionmakersprojectandthetribunalsproject,akeyissuewashowtoaccesssecureplacesofimmigrationcontrol.Inthecaseofthetribunalsthisisrelativelyeasytoaddress:itispossibleinEnglandandWalestoattendimmigrationhearingsbysittinginthepublicareaofthehearingrooms,andoverthecourseoftheprojectaround400appealshavebeenobservedinthisway.Forthedecisionmakersproject,accesswasmorechallenging.IrequiredaccesstoofficialsinLunarHouse,aswellastheNationalAsylumSupportService’s(NASS’s)backofficesinPortisheadandCampsfieldHouseimmigrationremovalcentre.Mystrategyinvolvedwritingletterstogatekeepersintheselocations,andalthoughIhadtobe

persistent(suchassendingmultipleletterstovariousindividuals,andfollowingupwithtelephonecallsfrequentlyinordertogetpastsecretariesandbeallowedtotalktothedecisionmakersthemselves)thisstrategydideventuallysucceed.IwasallowedaccesstotheNASSofficesincludingbeingshownaroundandintroducedtoavarietyofstaffthere.Iwasallowedtointerviewthestaffattheofficeandsnowballedfromestablishedcontactstonewones.IwasalsograntedentrytoCampsfieldHouseimmigrationremovalcentre,whereIwasgivenatour(althoughIwasalwaysaccompanied)andsomedetailedinterviewswiththestaffworkingatthecentre.AndinCroydonIwasallowedintothemanagementoffices(onlyonce,undersupervision),tointerviewaseniorimmigrationdecisionmaker.Thekeylimitationstomyaccessincludednotgainingpermissiontotalktoexistingdetainees(Ihadtointerviewex-detainees,althoughatleastthenwewerenotaccompaniedbyanofficialandtheycouldtalkmoreopenly)andnothavingtheopportunitytoconductaplacementattheNASSoffices(Ihadtosatisfymyselfwithinterviewsandbeingshownaround).Onthewhole,however,Iwassurprisedbythewillingnessofstafftotalktomeandgivetheirtimegenerouslyinsupportofmystudies.

AccesstoasylumsupportgroupworkersduringtheasylumsupportgroupprojectwasfarlesschallengingandIfoundvoluntaryandcharitablesectorworkersinparticulargenerousandapproachableeventhoughIwasaskingtointerviewthematatimeoffundingcutsandconsequentlygreatpressureintheirsector.OneintervieweememorablytoldCerithathelosthisjobthesameweekastheinterview.

Intermsofsampling,althoughIwasnotinpursuitofarepresentativesampleinastrictlystatisticalsense,Itriedtobalancevariousfactorsintermsofboththechoiceofresearchsitesandresearchparticipants.DuringthedecisionmakersprojectIsoughttosampleacrossthesitesatwhichthevariousstagesoftheasylumclaimdeterminationprocesstookplace.ThismeantresearchingatLunarHousewhereinitialclaimsarelodged,atNASSofficeswherepaperworkrelatingtoclaimsforwelfaresupportisdealtwith,andatCampsfieldwhereasylumseekersareconfined.DuringtheasylumsupportgroupprojectweattemptedtobalancebetweendifferentregionsoftheUnitedKingdomandUnitedStates,andalsotorepresentdifferenttypesofsupportgroup,includingsmall,informalgroupsaswellaswell-establishedcharities.Duringthetribunalsproject,especiallyduringtheethnographicphase,weexamineddifferenttribunalsacrossurbanandsuburbancontextsandwithdifferentlevelsofbusyness.

Thedecisionmakersprojectentailed39interviews.Ofthose,eightrefusedtoberecordedandtwowereconductedbyemail.Sixwerewitheithercurrentorformerasylumseekers.WhereinterviewswerenotrecordedImadedetailedscratchnotesabouttheinterviewimmediatelyafterwards,includinganydirectquotesIhadnoteddownduringtheconversation.Initialcontactwasusuallymadebysendingaletterandthencallingviatelephone,althoughtheasylumseekersandformerasylumseekersinthesamplewerecontactedviawordofmouth.Roughlyequalnumbersofintervieweeswerecontactedcold(15)asweresnowballed(16)(theremainderImetinvariousothercontexts).Mostinterviewstookplaceattheinterviewee’splaceofwork(20)butitwasalsocommontoconductinterviewsinapublicplace(9)orattheinterviewee’shome(8).

Theasylumsupportgroupprojectdrewonsurveyevidencewith130groups,interviewswith35oftheseandthreefocusgroups.Ofthe35interviewees,22wereUS-basedandarealmostexclusivelynotdrawnuponinNothingPersonal?,whereastheremaining13werewithUK-basedasylumsupportgroupsandfeaturemorefrequentlyinNothingPersonal?Thecharacteristicsofthesurveyrespondents,whichroughlyreflectthoseoftheinterviewrespondentsaswell,included(thesearenon-exclusivecategories):(i)58%wereinvolvedinprovidinglegalsupport;(ii)56%wereaimingtochangegovernmentpolicy;(iii)59%statedthattheprovisionoffood,medicalcareorotherserviceswastheprimaryaimoftheirwork;(iv)50%statedthatallowingasylumseekerstoexpressthemselvescreativelywasinvolvedintheirwork;and(v)32%statedthatcampaigningwasinvolvedintheirwork.Additionally,52%employedfewerthan10people,30%weremotivatedbyfaith,and88%weremotivatedbytheirconcernforhumanrights.

Thetribunalethnographiesdrewona3-monthintensiveethnographicstudyofimmigrationtribunalsintheUnitedKingdom.Theresearchers,AndyandMel,conductedaround100observationsofhearingsduring2013,whichpavedthewayforafurther290morestructuredobservationsofappealhearingsin2014.Observationswererecordedintheformofdetailedresearchdiaries.

EthicsForthedecisionmakersproject,formalconsentformswereused.Wherefeasibletheseweresignedbytheintervieweesbeforetheirinterviews,andsetouttheusesofthedata,thefactthatthedatawouldbeusedanonymouslyandtheirabilitytowithdrawfromtheprojectatanytime.Bothdecisionmakersandasylumseekers,however,wouldsometimesrefusetosigntheconsentformbutwerepreparedtoconductaninterviewnonetheless.InthesesituationsIattemptedtoreplicatethekeyinformationorallyatthestartoftheinterview.

Inthecaseofthetribunalsprojecttheobservationswereofapublichearingand,aftersomeconsideration,wedecidedthatrequiringtheapplicanttosignaconsentformwouldconstituteanadditionalsourceofstressatanalreadystressfultime.AsaconsequenceIdidnotasktheresearcherstoseektheconsentoftheasylumapplicantsbeingobservedwhentheythoughtthismighthaveaddedtotheanxietyoftheappellant.Becausethehearingsarepubliceventsduringwhichtheactorscanexpecttobeobservedthisapproachseemedappropriate.Fortheirpart,HerMajesty’sCourtsandTribunalsservicetoldusthatwewereatlibertytoconducttheresearchonconditionthatanyanonymityorreportingrestrictionsinplaceoverthecasesthatweobservedwererespected.Hearingsthatinvolvedparticularlysensitiveissuesweresometimesinaccessibleastheywereconductedincameraatthediscretionofthejudge.

Maintainingtheanonymityofrespondentshasbeenahighprioritythroughoutalloftheprojects.Theriskstoindividualasylumseekersofpublishingdetailsoftheircasesinparticularareacute,especiallyifafinaldecisionontheirclaimhasnotbeenreached.Itisinteresting,however,thatsomeinterviewees–activists,asylumseekersandactivistasylumseekers–requestedthatIwaivemypracticesregardinganonymitysoastoprovideexposure

fortheirsituation.Inotherwordstheypreferredtonotbeanonymisedbecausetheywantedasmanypeopletoknowaboutwhathappenedtothemaspossible.Thisposessomethingofadilemmatotheresearcher,whocouldpotentiallybeverybeneficialtoasylumseekersiftheybrokewithconventionandincludedpersonaldetailsinpublications.Usuallyonewantstobeasobligingaspossibletotheresearchparticipants.Nevertheless,onthebasisthatatleastsomeriskisinvolvedinrevealingthenamesofparticipantsIdecidedagainstdoingsoonthebasisthattheremaybeunpredictablechangesintheircircumstancesinthefuturethatcouldcausethemtoregretthepublicationofdetailsoftheirsituations.Thiswasadifficultdecisionbecauseitrequiredmetonotcarryoutthewishesoftheparticipants.

VariousotherethicalconsiderationshavepresentedthemselvesthroughtheresearchbutIwouldliketocommentinparticularontheissueofsecondarytraumaamongresearchersworkingwithsufferingothers.Speakingpersonally,becomingpartytotheaccountsofindividualsstrugglingwithtraumaticexperiencesintheirhomecountries,compoundedbytraumaticexperiencesintheUnitedKingdom,hasoftenbeenchallenging.Ihavefrequentlyfoundtheworkexasperatingandfeltunabletomakeanysortofdifference.Speakingasamanagerofresearcherswhohaveexposedthemselvestodisturbingaccountsoftraumadayafterdayforextendedperiodsofseveralmonthsatatime,Ihavewitnessedthestressandfatiguethatthissortofworkcanalsoproduce.Andspeakingasaresearcherinvestigatingasylumsupportgroups,Icanconfirmtheeffectthatsecondarytraumacanhaveingeneratingblaséanddetachedattitudeswithinsupposedlysupportiveorganisations.Takingthethreatofsecondarytraumaseriouslyisakeyconsiderationofethicalresearchinthisareainthefuture,andshouldalsobeakeyconsiderationofcourtsandtheHomeOfficeinprotectingtheirjudges,barristers,solicitors,translatorsandcaseworkers.

AnalysisIanalysedthedata,whichareavariedcollectionofnotes,diaryentries,emails,transcriptions,websites,sketches,photographs,letters,newspapers,policydocumentsandspeadsheets,byfollowingtheprinciplesofcodingforresearchanalysis(Crang,1997).AlthoughIdidnotuseacomputerpackagetocode,Itendedtodefineasmallnumberofcodesbeforereadingthedata,andthenexpandthisnumberasIwentalongwhencertainfindingsseemedparticularlyrelevantanddidnotfitintoanyofmyalreadyexistingcodes.AlthoughthistendedtomeanthatthenumberofcodesIemployedproliferatedwitheachreadingofthedata,thisapproachallowedmetobalancebetweenseekingouttheevidencethatIthoughtwasmostpertinentontheonehand,andallowingroomforthedatatoguidemetowardsunexpectedinsightsontheother.Thismeansofanalysiscanbeunderstoodasacrudebalancebetweentheetic(fromtheperspectiveoftheresearcher)andemic(fromtheperspectiveofthesubject)typesofdataanalysisthatarecommoninthesocialsciences(Merriam,1998).

Notes11+3doctoralawardfrom2003to2007,grantnumberPTA-030-2003-01643.

2GrantnumberRES-000-22-3928-A.

3GrantnumberES/J023426/1.

4GrantnumberES/J021814/1.

ReferencesAhmed,S.(2004)TheCulturalPoliticsofEmotion.Abingdon:Taylor&Francis.

Aitken,S.(2010)‘Throwntogetherness’:encounterswithdifferenceanddiversity.InD.DeLyser,S.Herbert,S.Aitken,M.CrangandL.McDowell(eds)TheSAGEHandbookofQualitativeGeography.London:Sage,pp.46–68.

Allen,J.(1990)Doesfeminismneedatheoryof‘TheState’?InS.Watson(ed.)PlayingtheState:AustralianFeministInterventions.NewYork:Verso,pp.21–37.

Allport,G.(1954)TheNatureofPrejudice.Reading,MA:Addison-WesleyPublishingCompany.

Amin,A.(2002a)Ethnicityandthemulticulturalcity:livingwithdiversity.EnvironmentandPlanningA34(6):959–980.

Amin,A.(2002b)EthnicityandtheMulticulturalCity:LivingwithDiversity.ReportfortheDepartmentofTransport,LocalGovernmentandtheRegionsandtheESRCCitiesInitiative.Durham:UniversityofDurham.Availableathttp://red.pucp.edu.pe/ridei/wp-content/uploads/biblioteca/Amin_ethnicity.pdf(accessed30August2015).

Amin,A.andThrift,N.(2002)Cities:ReimaginingtheUrban.Cambridge:PolityPress.

AmnestyInternational(2004)GetItRight:HowHomeOfficeDecision-MakingFailsRefugees.London:AmnestyInternational.Availableathttp://www.amnesty.org.uk/sites/default/files/get_it_right_0.pdf(accessed29July2014).

AmnestyInternationalandStillHumanStillHere(2013)AQuestionofCredibility:WhySoManyInitialAsylumDecisionsAreOverturnedOnAppealintheUK.London:AmnestyInternational.Availableathttp://www.amnesty.org.uk/sites/default/files/a_question_of_credibility_final_0.pdf(accessed29July2014).

Amoore,L.(2009)Algorithmicwar:everydaygeographiesofthewaronterror.Antipode41(1):49–69.

Amoore,L.andHall,A.(2009)Takingpeopleapart:digitiseddissectionandthebodyattheborder.EnvironmentandPlanningD:SocietyandSpace27(3):444–464.

Anderson,B.(2013)UsandThem?TheDangerousPoliticsofImmigrationControl.Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress.

Anderson,B.,Sharma,N.andWright,C.(2009)Editorial:WhyNoBorders?Refuge26(2):5–18.

Anderson,M.andDenBoer,M.(1994)PolicingAcrossNationalBoundaries.London:Pinter.

Andrijasevic,R.(2010)DEPORTED:TherighttoasylumatEU’sexternalborderofItalyandLibya.InternationalMigration48(1):148–174.

Andrijasevic,R.andWalters,W.(2010)TheInternationalOrganizationforMigrationandtheinternationalgovernmentofborders.EnvironmentandPlanningD:SocietyandSpace28(6):977–999.

ANSAmed(2013)Italy-Libya:bordercontrolapriority,LettatellsZeidan.ANSAmednews.Availableathttp://www.ansamed.info/ansamed/en/news/nations/libya/2013/07/04/Italy-Libya-border-control-priority-Letta-tells-Zeidan_8977604.html(accessed13November2015).

Apple,M.W.(1995)EducationandPower.NewYork:Routledge.

Arendt,H.(1994)Understandingandpolitics(thedifficultiesofunderstanding).InJ.Kohn(ed.)EssaysinUnderstanding1930–1954:Formation,ExileandTotalitarianism.NewYork:SchockenBooks,pp.307–327.

Arendt,H.(1964/1994)EichmanninJerusalem:AReportontheBanalityofEvil.NewYork:PenguinBooks.

Aristotle(1926)Aristotlein23Volumes(trans.J.H.Freese),Vol.22.CambridgeandLondon:HarvardUniversityPress;WilliamHeinemannLtd.

Asimov,I.(1994)I.Asimov.NewYork:Doubleday.

Askins,K.andPain,R.(2011)Contactzones:participation,materiality,andthemessinessofinteraction.EnvironmentandPlanningD:SocietyandSpace29:803–821.

AsylumAid(2013)TheAsylumProcessMadeSimple.Availableathttp://www.asylumaid.org.uk/pages/the_asylum_process_made_simple.html(accessed19February2013).

Athwal,H.(2014)DeathsinImmigrationDetention:1989–2014.InstituteofRaceRelations.Availableathttp://www.irr.org.uk/news/deaths-in-immigration-detention-1989-2014/(accessed19November2014).

Back,L.(2007)TheArtofListening.Oxford:Berg.

Back,L.,Farrell,B.andVandermaas,E.(2005)AHumaneServiceforGlobalCitizens:ReportontheSouthLondonCitizensEnquiryIntoServiceProvisionbytheImmigrationandNationalityDirectorateatLunarHouse.London:SouthLondonCitizens.

Bacon,C.(2005)TheevolutionofimmigrationdetentionintheUK:theinvolvementofprivateprisoncompanies.RefugeeStudiesCentreWorkingPaperNo.27.Oxford:RefugeeStudies

Centre.Availableathttp://www.rsc.ox.ac.uk/publications/the-evolution-of-immigration-detention-in-the-uk-the-involvement-of-private-prison-companies(accessed30August2015).

BailforImmigrationDetainees(2009)OutofSight,OutofMind:ExperiencesofImmigrationDetentionintheUK.London:BailforImmigrationDetainees.Availableathttp://www.osservatoriomigranti.org/assets/files/BID%20-%20Out%20ofsight%20out%20of%20mind.pdf(accessed30August2015).

BailforImmigrationDetaineesandtheInformationCentreaboutAsylumandRefugeesattheRunnymedeTrust(2011)SummaryFindingsofSurveyofLevelsofLegalRepresentationforImmigrationDetaineesAcrosstheUKDetentionEstate(Surveys1–6).13September2013.BIDResearchReports.

Bailey,A.J.,Wright,R.A.,Miyares,I.andMountz,A.(2002)ProducingSalvadorantransnationalgeographies.AnnalsoftheAssociationofAmericanGeographers92(1):125–144.

Barlow,K.,Paolini,S.,Pedersen,A.etal.(2012)Thecontactcaveat:negativecontactpredictsincreasedprejudicemorethanpositivecontactpredictsreducedprejudice.PersonalityandSocialPsychologyBulletin38(12):1629–1643.

Barnardo's(2014)Cedars:TwoYearsOn.Ilford,Essex:Barnardo's.Availableathttp://www.barnardos.org.uk/16120_cedars_report.pdf(accessed29July2014).

Barnett,C.(2005)Waysofrelating:hospitalityandtheacknowledgementofotherness.ProgressinHumanGeography29(1):5–21.

Barrett,D.andEnsor,J.(2012)JudgeswhoallowforeigncriminalstostayinBritain.TheTelegraph,16June.Availableathttp://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/immigration/9335689/Judges-who-allow-foreign-criminals-to-stay-in-Britain.html(accessed11September2015).

Bauder,H.(2003)Equality,justiceandtheproblemofinternationalborders:thecaseofCanadianimmigrationregulation.ACME:AnInternationalE-JournalforCriticalGeographies2(2):167–182.

Bauman,Z.(1989)ModernityandtheHolocaust.Cambridge:PolityPress.

Bauman,Z.(1993)PostmodernEthics.London:Routledge.

Bauman,Z.andDonskis,L.(2013)MoralBlindness:TheLossofSensitivityinLiquidModernity.Cambridge:PolityPress.

Bayart,J.-F.(2007)GlobalSubjects:APoliticalCritiqueofGlobalization.Cambridge:PolityPress.

BBC(2005a)Ruralasylumcentreplansdropped.11June2005.Availableathttp://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4083032.stm(accessed21July2014).

BBC(2005b)FileonFour:Immigration[transcript].10December2006.Availableathttp://news.bbc.co.uk/nol/shared/bsp/hi/pdfs/21_06_05_asylum.pdf(accessed7January2008).

BBC(2005c)DetentionUndercover–theRealStory.28February2005.Availableathttp://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/real_story/4304547.stm(accessed26June2013).

BBC(2006a)Deathinacold,strangeland.24March2006.Availableathttp://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/4582470.stm(accessed29July2014).

BBC(2006b)Clarkeinsists‘Iwillnotquit’.25April2006.Availableathttp://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4944164.stm(accessed28July2014).

BBC(2006c)Illegalworkerspromptnewprobe.19May2006.Availableathttp://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/4995764.stm(accessed29July2014).

Benedict,S.(2003)Caringwhilekilling:nursinginthe“euthanasia”centers,InE.BaerandM.Goldenberg(eds)ExperienceandExpression:Women,theNazis,andtheHolocaust.Detroit:WayneStateUniversityPress,pp.95–110.

Berlant,L.(ed.)(2004)Compassion:TheCultureandPoliticsofanEmotion.NewYork&London:Routledge.

Bethell,N.(1974)TheLastSecret:ForcibleRepatriationtoRussia1944-7.London:AndreDeutsch.

Bialasiewicz,L.(2012)Off-shoringandout-sourcingthebordersofEurope:LibyaandEUborder-workintheMediterranean.Geopolitics17(4):843–866.

Bigo,D.andTsoukala,A.(eds)(2008)Terror,InsecurityandLiberty:IlliberalPracticesofLiberalRegimesafter9/11.London:Routledge.

Bögner,D.,Herlihy,J.andBrewin,C.R.(2007)ImpactofsexualviolenceondisclosureduringHomeOfficeinterviews.BritishJournalofPsychiatry191:75–81.

Bohmer,C.andShuman,A.(2008)RejectingRefugees:PoliticalAsyluminthe21stcentury.London:Routledge.

Bondi,L.(2008)Ontherelationaldynamicsofcaring:apsychotherapeuticapproachtoemotionalandpowerdimensionsofwomen'scarework.Gender,PlaceandCulture15(3):249–265.

Boswell,C.(2003)Burden-sharingintheEuropeanUnion:lessonsfromtheGermanandUKexperience.JournalofRefugeeStudies16(3):316–335.

Bosworth,M.(2014)InsideImmigrationDetention.Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress.

Bousfield,D.(2005)Thelogicofsovereigntyandtheagencyoftherefugee:recoveringthe

politicalfrom‘barelife’'.YCISSWorkingPaperNo.36.Toronto:YorkUniversity.Availableathttp://yciss.info.yorku.ca/files/2012/06/WP36-Bousfield.pdf(accessed29July2014).

Brenner,N.(2004)NewStateSpaces:UrbanGovernanceandtheRescalingofStatehood.Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress.

Bright,M.(2003)WelcometoImmigrationCentral.Pleasejointhequeue:yournumberis110,001….TheObserver,2March.Availableathttp://www.theguardian.com/politics/2003/mar/02/immigration.immigrationpolicy(accessed30August2015).

Bright,M.(2004)Asylumseekers?Nothere,notevenforafewminutes.TheObserver,25April,p.5.Availableathttp://www.theguardian.com/uk/2004/apr/25/immigration.immigrationpolicy(accessed30August2015).

Briskman,L.andCemlyn,S.(2005)Reclaiminghumanityforasylumseekers:asocialworkresponse.InternationalSocialWork48(6):714–724.

BritishRedCross(2010)Notgone,butforgotten:theurgentneedforamorehumaneasylumsystem.London:BritishRedCross.Availableathttp://www.redcross.org.uk/About-us/News/2010/June/~/media/BritishRedCross/Documents/Archive/GeneralContent/N/Destitution%20report%20Not%20gone%20but%20forgotten.ashx(accessed7March2011).

Bruegel,I.andNatamba,E.(2002)Maintainingcontact:whathappensafterdetainedasylumseekersgetbail?SocialScienceResearchPaperno.16.London:SouthBankUniversity.

Burdsey,D.(2013)‘Theforeignnessisstillquitevisibleinthistown':multiculture,marginalityandprejudiceattheEnglishseaside.PatternsofPrejudice47(2):95–116.

Campbell,J.(2009)Refugeesandthelaw:anethnographyoftheBritishasylumsystem.Non-technicalsummary(Researchsummary).ESRCEndofAwardReportRes-062-23-0296.Swindon:ESRC.

Casciani,D.(2004)HowPortisheaddividedoverasylum.BBCNewsOnline,21April2004.Availableathttp://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3644595.stm(accessed28July2014).

Century,G.,Leavey,G.andPayne,H.(2007)Theexperienceofworkingwithrefugees:counsellorsinprimarycare.BritishJournalofGuidanceandCounselling35:23–40.

Chamayou,G.(2013)Théoriedudrone.LaFabriqueEditions.

ChannelFour(2015)Yarl’sWood:UndercoverintheSecretiveImmigrationCentre.Availableathttp://www.channel4.com/news/yarls-wood-immigration-removal-detention-centre-investigation(accessed27August2015).

Chantler,K.(2010)WomenseekingasylumintheUK:contestingconventions.InI.Palmary(ed.)GenderandMigration:FeministInterventions.London:ZedBooks,pp.86–103.

Chatterton,P.andPickerill,J.(2010)Everydayactivismandtransitionstowardspost-capitalistworlds.TransactionsoftheInstituteofBritishGeographers35(4):475–490.

CitizensAdvice(2003)MemorandumsubmittedbyCitizensAdvice.WrittenEvidencetotheHomeAffairsSelectCommitteeInquiryintoAsylumApplications,2003.Availableathttp://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/cm200304/cmselect/cmhaff/218/218we09.htm(accessed30July2014).

CitizensforSanctuary(2015)CitizensforSanctuary:SecuringJusticeforPeopleFleeingPersecution.RebuildingPublicSupportforSanctuary(websitehomepage).London:http://www.citizensforsanctuary.org.uk/(accessed10November2015).

Clayton,G.(2010)ImmigrationandAsylumLaw.Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress.

Cohen,S.(2001)StatesofDenial:KnowingaboutAtrocitiesandSuffering.Cambridge:PolityPress.

Cohen,S.(2002)Thelocalstateofimmigrationcontrols.CriticalSocialPolicy22(3):518–543.

Coleman,M.(2009)Whatcountsasthepoliticsandpracticeofsecurity,andwhere?Devolutionandimmigrantinsecurityafter9/11.AnnalsoftheAssociationofAmericanGeographers99(5):904–913.

Conlon,D.(2011)Waiting:feministperspectivesonthespacings/timingsofmigrant(im)mobility.Gender,PlaceandCulture:AJournalofFeministGeography18(3):353–360.

Conlon,D.(2013)Hungeringforfreedom:asylumseekers'hungerstrikes-rethinkingresistanceascounter-conduct.InD.Moran,N.GillandD.Conlon(eds)CarceralSpaces:MobilityandAgencyinImprisonmentandMigrantDetention.Farnham:Ashgate,pp.133–148.

Corbridge,S.(1993)Marxisms,modernities,andmoralities:Developmentpraxisandtheclaimsofdistantstrangers.EnvironmentandPlanningD:SocietyandSpace11(4):449–472.

Crang,M.(1997)Analyzingqualitativematerials.InR.FlowerdewandD.Martin(eds)MethodsinHumanGeography:AGuideforStudentsDoingaResearchProject.Harlow:Longman,pp.183–196.

Crawley,H.(2010)‘No-onegivesyouachancetosaywhatyouarethinking':findingspaceforchildren'sagencyintheUKasylumsystem.Area42(2):162–169.

Cumbers,A.,Helms,G.andSwanson,K.(2010)Class,agencyandresistanceintheoldindustrialcity.Antipode42:46–73.

DailyExpress(2002)‘Ourtown’stooniceforrefugees…theywilltrytoescape,rapistsandthieveswillterroriseus’.23March2002,p.1.

DailyExpress(2005)‘Bombersareallspongingasylumseekers’.27July2005,p.1.

DailyStar(2005)‘Asylumseekersateourdonkeys’.21August2005,p.1.

Darling,J.(2011a)Domopolitics,governmentalityandtheregulationofasylumaccommodation.PoliticalGeography30:263–271.

Darling,J.(2011b)Givingspace:care,generosityandbelonginginaUKasylumdrop-incentre.Geoforum42(4):408–417.

Darling,J.(2014)AnotherletterfromtheHomeOffice:readingthematerialpoliticsofasylum.EnvironmentandPlanningD:SocietyandSpace32(3):484–500.

Davidson,J.,Smith,M.,Bondi,L.andProbyn,E.(2008)Emotion,spaceandsociety:Editorialintroduction.Emotion,SpaceandSociety1(1):1–3.

Day,K.andWhite,P.(2001)Choiceorcircumstance:TheUKasthelocationofasylumapplicationsbyBosnianandSomalirefugees.GeoJournal56(1):15–26.

deCerteau,M.(1984)ThePracticeofEverydayLife.Oakland,CA:UniversityofCaliforniaPress.

DepartmentforCommunitiesandLocalGovernment(2014)IMD2010:postcodesandIMDrankings,bulkextractsforadminareas.Availableathttp://dclgapps.communities.gov.uk/imd/imd-by-postcode.html(accessed15December2014).

DetentionAction(2013)Thefinancialwasteoflongtermdetention.London:DetentionAction.Availableathttp://detentionaction.org.uk/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/costs-briefing-03131.docx(accessed29July2014).

Devlin,P.(1979)TheJudge.Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress.

Dickens,C.(1852–1853/1993)BleakHouse.WordsworthEditions.

Dikeç,M.,Clark,N.andBarnett,C.(2009)Extendinghospitality:givingspace,takingtime.InDikeç,M.,Clark,N.andBarnett,C.(eds)ExtendingHospitality:GivingSpace,TakingTime.ParagraphSpecialIssues,32(1).Edinburgh:EdinburghUniversityPress,pp.1–14.

Dixon,J.,Durrheim,K.andTredoux,C.(2005)Beyondtheoptimalcontactstrategy:arealitycheckforthecontacthypothesis.AmericanPsychologist60:697–711.

Dostoyevsky,F.(2003)TheBrothersKaramazov.London:Penguin.

Doward,J.andTownsend,M.(2006)‘Iwillhelpyou',hesaid.Thenheaskedforsex.TheObserver,21May.Availableathttp://www.theguardian.com/politics/2006/may/21/immigration.immigrationandpublicservices2(accessed30August2015).

duGay,P.(2000)InPraiseofBureaucracy:Weber-Organization-Ethics.Sage

Publications.

Edkins,J.andPin-Fat,V.(2005)Throughthewire:relationsofpowerandrelationsofviolence.Millennium-JournalofInternationalStudies34(1):1–26.

England,P.andFolbre,N.(1999)Thecostofcaring.AnnalsoftheAmericanAcademyofPoliticalandSocialScience561(1):39–51.

Eurostat(2015)EurostatStatisticsExplained:AsylumStatistics.Luxembourg:Eurostat.Accessedathttp://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php/Asylum_statistics(accessed27August2015).

Farmer,A.(2013)Theimpactofimmigrationdetentiononchildren.ForcedMigrationReview44:14–16.

Fassin,D.(2005)Compassionandrepression:themoraleconomyofimmigrationpoliciesinFrance.CulturalAnthropology20(3):362–387.

Feldman,G.(2008)Democracyortechnocracy?Rethinkingthepolicymakerasspecificintellectual.JPoX-JournalonPoliticalExcellence(pilotissue).Availableathttp://jpox.eu/static/bf_pdf/pdfoutput.php?cid=170(accessed13February2013).

Figley,C.(ed.)(1995)CompassionFatigue:SecondaryTraumaticStressDisordersfromTreatingtheTraumatized.NewYork:Brunner/Mazel.

Figley,C.(ed.)(2002)TreatingCompassionFatigue.Oxford:Routledge.

Finney,N.andSimpson,L.(2009)SleepwalkingtoSegregation?:ChallengingMythsAboutRaceandMigration.Bristol:PolicyPress.

Fischer,W.F.(1970)TheoriesofAnxiety.NewYork:Harper&Row.

Friedman,M.(1991)Thepracticeofpartiality.Ethics101(4):818–835.

Friedman,M.(1993)WhatareFriendsFor?FeministPerspectivesonPersonalRelationshipsandMoralTheory.Ithaca,NY,andLondon:CornellUniversityPress.

Fordham,M.,Stefanelli,J.andEser,S.(2013)Immigrationdetentionandtheruleoflaw:safeguardingprinciples.BinghamCentrefortheRuleofLaw.London:BritishInstituteofInternationalandComparativeLaw.Availableathttp://www.biicl.org/files/6559_immigration_detention_and_the_rol_-_web_version.pdf(accessed18March2014).

Fortier,A.-M.(2007)Toocloseforcomfort:lovingthyneighbourandthemanagementofmulticulturalintimacies.EnvironmentandPlanningD:SocietyandSpace25:104–119.

Foucault,M.(2008)TheBirthofBiopolitics:LecturesattheCollègedeFrance1978–1979.NewYork:PalgraveMacmillan.

G4S(2013a)AdayinthelifeofaDetaineeCustodyOfficer(InCountryEscorting).London:G4S.Availableathttp://careers.g4s.com/2010/11/a-day-in-the-life-of-a-detainee-custody-officer-in-country-escorting/(accessed8April2014).

G4S(2013b)AdayinthelifeofaDetaineeCustodyOfficer(OverseasEscorting).London:G4S.Availableathttp://careers.g4s.com/2010/11/a-day-in-the-life-of-a-detainee-custody-officer-overseas-escorting/(accessed8April2014).

Garber,M.(2004)Compassion.InL.Berlant(ed.)Compassion:TheCultureandPoliticsofanEmotion.NewYorkandLondon:Routledge.

Garcia,J.,Nasho,E.-K.andPeretz,L.(eds)(2006)VoicesFromDetentionII:AcollectionoftestimoniesfromimmigrationdetaineesintheUnitedKingdomandAustraliaintheirownwords.Oxford:BarbedWireBritain.Availableathttp://closecampsfield.files.wordpress.com/2011/03/voicesfromdetentionii.pdf(accessed29July2014).

Gibney,M.(2004)TheEthicsandPoliticsofAsylum:LiberalDemocracyandtheResponsetoRefugees.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress.

Gibney,M.(2008)AsylumandtheexpansionofdeportationintheUnitedKingdom.Government&Opposition43(2):146–167.

Gibney,M.andHansen,R.(2003)AsylumpolicyintheWest:pasttrends,futurepossibilities.DiscussionPaperNo.2003/68.Tokyo:UnitedNationsUniversity,WorldInstituteforDevelopmentEconomicsResearch(WIDER).

Gill,M.(2012)Careandvalueattheendoflife.Poetics40(2):118–132.

Gill,N.(2009)Whose‘NoBorders’?Achievingnobordersfortherightreasons.Refuge26(2):107–120.

Gill,N.(2010)Newstate-theoreticapproachestoasylumandrefugeegeographies.ProgressinHumanGeography5(34):626–645.

Gill,N.(2014)Formsthatform.InN.Thrift,A.Tickell,S.WoolgarandW.H.Rupp(eds)GlobalizationinPractice.Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress,pp.231–235.

Gill,N.,Conlon,D.,Oeppen,C.andTyler,I.(2012)NetworksofAsylumSupportintheUKandUSA:aHandbookofIdeas,StrategiesandBestPracticeforAsylumSupportGroupsinaChallengingSocialandEconomicClimate.Availableathttp://steedee.files.wordpress.com/2012/03/networks-of-asylum-support-print2.pdf(accessed18January2013).

Gill,N.,Conlon,D.,Tyler,I.andOeppen,C.(2014)Thetacticsofasylumandirregularmigrantsupportgroups:disruptingbodily,technological,andneoliberalstrategiesofcontrol.AnnalsoftheAssociationofAmericanGeographers104(2):373–381.

Girma,M.,Radice,S.,Tsangarides,N.andWalter,N.(2014)Detained:WomenAsylumSeekersLockedupintheUK.London:WomenforRefugeeWomen.

Glover,J.(1977)CausingDeathandSavingLives:TheMoralProblemsofAbortion,Infanticide,Suicide,Euthanasia,CapitalPunishment,WarandOtherLife-or-deathChoices.Harmondsworth,Middlesex:Penguin.

Goffman,E.(1961)Asylums:EssaysontheSocialSituationofMentalPatientsandOtherInmates.NewYork:Anchor.

Goffman,E.(1967)InteractionRitual.NewYork:Anchor.

Good,A.(2007)AnthropologyandExpertiseintheAsylumCourts.Glasshouse.

Gorz,A.(1968)Reformandrevolution.SocialistRegister5:111–143.

Gregory,D.(2013)Theoryofthedrone10:killingatadistance.GeographicalImaginations:War,SpaceandSecurity.Availableathttp://geographicalimaginations.com/2013/09/15/theory-of-the-drone-10-killing-at-a-distance/(accessed15December2014).

Griffiths,D.,Sigona,N.andZetter,R.(2004)IntegrationanddispersalintheUK.ForcedMigrationReview23:27–29.

Grossman,D.(2009)OnKilling:ThePsychologicalCostofLearningtoKillinWarandSociety.BackBayBooks.

Guild,E.(2000)EuropeanCommunityLawfromaMigrant'sPerspective.TheHague/London/NewYork:KluwerLawInternational.

Guild,E.(2002)Theborderabroad:visasandbordercontrols.InK.Groenendijk,E.GuildandP.Minderhoud(eds)InSearchofEurope'sBorders.TheHague/London/NewYork:KluwerInternationalLaw,pp.87–105.

Guiraudon,V.(2000)Europeanintegrationandmigrationpolicy:verticalpolicymakingasvenueshopping.JournalofCommonMarketStudies38(2):163–195.

Guiraudon,V.(2003)BeforetheEUborder:remotecontrolofthe“huddledmasses”.InK.Groenendijk,E.GuildandP.Minderhoud(eds)InSearchofEurope'sBorders.TheHague/London/NewYork:KluwerInternationalLaw,pp.191–214.

Gupta,A.(2006)Blurredboundaries:Thediscourseofcorruption,thecultureofpolitics,andtheimaginedstate.InA.SharmaandA.Gupta(eds)TheAnthropologyoftheState:AReader.Oxford:Blackwell,pp.211–242.

Hall,A.(2012)BorderWatch:CulturesofImmigration,DetentionandControl.London:PlutoPress.

Hamblet,W.(2003)Thegeographyofgoodness:proximity'sdilemmaandthedifficultiesofmoralresponsetothedistantsufferer.TheMonist86(3):355–366.

Hamblet,W.(2011)Moraldistance.InD.Chatterjee(ed.)EncyclopediaofGlobalJustice.Springer,pp.717–719.

Hamnett,C.(1997)‘Thesleepofreason?’EnvironmentandPlanningD:SocietyandSpace15(2):127–128.

HansardHC(5December2005)Vol.440Col.972W.

HansardHC(9January2006)Vol.441Col.374W.

HansardHC(14March2006)Vol.443Col.97WS.

HansardHC(28January2013)Vol.557Col.531W.

HansardHL(4February2010)Vol.717Col.67WA.

Hargreaves,S.,Holmes,A.andFriedland,J.(2005)ChargingfailedasylumseekersforhealthcareintheUK.TheLancet365(9461):732–733.

Harvey,D.(2000)SpacesofHope.Berkeley,CA:UniversityofCaliforniaPress.

Hayter,T.(2004)OpenBorders:TheCaseAgainstImmigrationControls.London:PlutoPress.

Hemming,P.J.(2011)Meaningfulencounters?ReligionandsocialcohesionintheEnglishprimaryschool.Social&CulturalGeography12(1):63–81.

Henderson,V.L.(2008)Istherehopeforanger?Thepoliticsofspatializingand(re)producinganemotion.Emotion,SpaceandSociety1:28–37.

Herlihy,J.andTurner,S.(2006)Shoulddiscrepantaccountsgivenbyasylumseekersbetakenasproofofdeceit?Torture16(2):81–92.

Hess,F.(1998)SpinningWheels:ThePoliticsofUrbanSchoolReform.Washington,D.C.:TheBrookingsInstitutionPress.

Hewstone,M.(2003)Intergroupcontact:panaceaforprejudice?ThePsychologist16:352–355.

Heyman,J.(1995)Puttingpowerintheanthropologyofbureaucracy:theimmigrationandnaturalizationserviceattheMexico-UnitedStatesborder.CurrentAnthropology36(2):261–287.

Hiemstra,N.(2013)‘Youdon’tevenknowwhereyouare’:chaoticgeographiesofUSmigrantdetentionanddeportation.InD.Moran,N.GillandD.Conlon(eds)CarceralSpaces:MobilityandAgencyinImprisonmentandMigrantDetention.Farnham:Ashgate,pp.57–76.

HMChiefInspectorofPrisons(2014)ReportonanunannouncedinspectionofHarmondsworthImmigrationRemovalCentre,5-16August2013.London:HMInspectorateofPrisons.Availableathttp://www.justice.gov.uk/downloads/publications/inspectorate-reports/hmipris/immigration-removal-centre-inspections/harmondsworth/harmondsworth-2014.pdf(accessed29July2014).

HMInspectorateofPrisons(2002)AninspectionofCampsfieldHouseImmigrationRemovalCentre.London:HMInspectorateofPrisons.Availableathttp://www.justice.gov.uk/downloads/publications/inspectorate-reports/hmipris/immigration-removal-centre-inspections/campsfield-house/campsfieldhouse02-rps.pdf(accessed29July2014).

Hochschild,A.R.(1995)Thecultureofpolitics:traditional,postmodern,cold-modern,andwarm-modernidealsofcare.SocialPolitics:InternationalStudiesinGender,State&Society2(3):331–346.

Holt,L.(2007)Growingupglobal:economicrestructuringandchildren'severydaylives(Review).EnvironmentandPlanningA39(5):1269–1270.

HomeAffairsSelectCommittee(2013a)SeventhReport:Asylum.London:HouseofCommons.Availableathttp://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201314/cmselect/cmhaff/71/7102.htm(accessed15January2014).

HomeAffairsSelectCommittee(2013b)WrittenEvidence:Asylum.London:HouseofCommons.Availableathttp://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201314/cmselect/cmhaff/71/71we01.htmandhttp://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201314/cmselect/cmhaff/71/71vw01.htm(bothaccessed30August2015).

HomeOffice(1998)Fairer,Faster,Firmer:AModernApproachtoImmigrationandAsylum.Cm.4018.London:HMStationeryOffice.Availableathttps://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/264150/4018.pdf(accessed29July2014).

HomeOffice(2004)ReviewofResourcing&ManagementofImmigrationEnforcement:FinalReport.C.Pelham.London:HomeOffice.

HomeOffice(2006)ControllingOurBorders:MakingImmigrationWorkforBritain.FiveYearStrategyforAsylumandImmigration.Norwich:HMStationeryOffice.Availableathttps://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/251091/6472.pdf(accessed30August2015).

HomeOffice(2011a)Detentiondatatables:ImmigrationStatisticsApriltoJune2011.Availableathttp://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/publications/science-research-statistics/research-statistics/immigration-asylum-research/immigration-tabs-q2-2011v2/detention-q2-11-tabs

(accessed29July2014).

HomeOffice(2011b)PolicyBulletin:Section55Guidance.London:HomeOffice.Availableathttps://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/257491/pb75.pdf(accessed2July2014).

HomeOffice(2014a)AsylumPolicyInstruction:PermissiontoWork.London:HomeOffice.Availableathttps://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/299415/Permission_to_Work_Asy_v6_0.pdf(accessed2July2014).

HomeOffice(2014b)Asylumsupport.London:HomeOffice.Availableathttps://www.gov.uk/asylum-support/further-information(accessed15December2014).

Horton,J.andKraftl,P.(2009)What(else)matters?Policycontexts,emotionalgeographies.EnvironmentandPlanningA41(12):2984–3002.

Hubbard,P.(2005)Accommodatingotherness:Anti-asylumcentreprotestandthemaintenanceofwhiteprivilege.TransactionsoftheInstituteofBritishGeographers30(1):52–65.

Hull,M.(2012)GovernmentofPaper:theMaterialityofBureaucracyinUrbanPakistan.Oakland,CA:UniversityofCaliforniaPress.

Hume,D.(1739/1896)ATreatiseofHumanNaturebyDavidHume,ReprintedfromtheOriginalEditioninThreeVolumesandEdited,withanAnalyticalIndex.Oxford:ClarendonPress.

Hunter,S.(2012)Orderingdifferentiation:Reconfiguringgovernanceasrelationalpolitics.JournalofPsycho-SocialStudies6(1).

Hutcheson,F.(1971)Inquiryintotheoriginalofourideasofbeautyandvirtue[1726].InB.Fabian(ed.)CollectedWorksofFrancisHutcheson.Hildesheim:GeorgeOlmsVerlagsbuchhandlung.

Hyland,J.(2000)58ChinesemigrantsfounddeadinlorryatDover,Britain.WorldSocialistWebSite.OakPark,MI:InternationalCommitteeoftheFourthInternational.Availableathttp://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2000/06/immi-j21.html(accessed29July2014).

Hyndman,J.andGiles,W.(2011)Waitingforwhat?Thefeminizationofasyluminprotractedsituations.Gender,Place&Culture18(3):361–379.

Hynes,P.(2009)Contemporarycompulsorydispersalandtheabsenceofspacefortherestorationoftrust.JournalofRefugeeStudies22(1):97–121.

ImmigrationandNationalityDirectorate(2001)DetentionCentreRules.SI2001/238.London:HMSO.Availableathttp://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2001/238/pdfs/uksi_20010238_en.pdf(accessed18March

2014).

ImmigrationandNationalityDirectorate(2005)TheServiceNASSProvides:HowNASSProvidesitsService.

IndependentAsylumCommission(2008a)FitforPurposeYet?TheIndependentAsylumCommission'sInterimFindings.London:CitizenOrganisingFoundation.

IndependentAsylumCommission(2008b)SavingSanctuary.London:CitizenOrganisingFoundation.

IndependentChiefInspectoroftheUKBorderAgency(2009)Asylum:GettingtheBalanceRight?London:IndependentChiefInspectoroftheUKBorderAgency.Availableathttp://icinspector.independent.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/Asylum_Getting-the-Balance-Right_A-Thematic-Inspection.pdf(accessed20May2013).

Jahoda,M.(1987)Contactandconflictinintergroupencounters.BritishJournalofPsychology78:275–277.

Jeffrey,A.(2013)TheImprovisedState:Sovereignty,PerformanceandAgencyinDaytonBosnia.Oxford:Wiley-Blackwell.

Jeffrey,C.(2010)TimepassYouth,Class,andthePoliticsofWaitinginIndia.PaloAlto,CA:StanfordUniversityPress.

Jensen,N.,Norredam,M.,Priebe,S.andKrasnik,A.(2013)Howdogeneralpractitionersexperienceprovidingcaretorefugeeswithmentalhealthproblems?AqualitativestudyfromDenmark.BMCFamilyPractice14(17).

Jessop,B.(2002)TheFutureoftheCapitalistState.Cambridge:Polity.

Jones,R.(2007)People/States/Territories.Oxford:Blackwell.

Jones,R.(2012)Stateencounters.EnvironmentandPlanningD:SocietyandSpace30(5):805–821.

Kant,I.(1788/2002)CritiqueofPracticalReason.Indianapolis:HackettPublishing.

Karpf,A.(2002)We'vebeenherebefore.TheGuardian,8June.Availableathttp://www.theguardian.com/uk/2002/jun/08/immigration.immigrationandpublicservices(accessed11September2015).

Katz,C.(2004)GrowingUpGlobal:EconomicRestructuringandChildren'sEverydayLives.Minneapolis,MN:UniversityofMinnesotaPress.

Kelly,T.(2012)Soft-touchBritain,theasylumseekercapitalofEurope:weletinmorethananyoneelselastyear.DailyMail,29June.Availableathttp://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2166738/Soft-touch-Britain-asylum-seeker-capital-

Europe-We-let-year.html(accessed11September2015).

Klein,N.(2007)TheShockDoctrine:TheRiseofDisasterCapitalism.NewYork:MetropolitanBooks.

Korf,B.(2007)Antinomiesofgenerosity:moralgeographiesandpost-tsunamiaidinSoutheastAsia.Geoforum38(2):366–378.

Koslowski,R.(2006)Towardsaninternationalregimeformobilityandsecurity?InK.TamasandJ.Palme(eds)GlobalizingMigrationRegimes:NewChallengestoTransnationalCooperation.London:Ashgate,pp.274–288.

Krznaric,R.(2014)Empathy:AHandbookforRevolution.London:Rider.

Lachs,J.(1981)ResponsibilityoftheIndividualinModernSociety.Brighton:Harvester.

Lagerwey,M.D.(2003)Thenurses'trialatHadamarandtheethicalimplicationsofhealthcarevalues.InE.BaerandM.Goldenberg(eds)ExperienceandExpression:Women,theNazis,andtheHolocaust.Detroit,MI:WayneStateUniversityPress,pp.111–126.

Lahav,G.andGuiraudon,V.(2000)Comparativeperspectivesonbordercontrol:awayfromtheborderandoutsidetheState.InP.AndreasandT.Snyder(eds)TheWallAroundtheWest:StateBordersandImmigrationControlsinNorthAmericaandEurope.Lanham,MD:RowmanandLittlefield,pp.55–79.

Larner,W.andCraig,D.(2005)Afterneoliberalism?CommunityactivismandlocalpartnershipsinAotearoaNewZealand.Antipode37(3):402–424.

LaVan,M.(2003)Spacesofmovement:performance,technology,transformation.AmericanCommunicationJournal6(3).

Lavenex,S.(2001)TheEuropeanizationofrefugeepolicies:normativechallengesandinstitutionallegacies.JournalofCommonMarketStudies39(5):851–874.

Lavenex,S.(2006)Shiftingupandout:theforeignpolicyofEuropeanimmigrationcontrol.WestEuropeanPolitics29(2):329–350.

Law,J.(2008)OnsociologyandSTS.SociologicalReview56(4):623–649.

Lefebvre,H.(1991)TheProductionofSpace.Oxford:Blackwell.

Lefebvre,H.(2009)State,Space,World:SelectedEssays(edsN.BrennerandS.Elden).Minneapolis,MN:UniversityofMinnesotaPress.

Leitner,H.(2012)Spacesofencounters:immigration,race,class,andthepoliticsofbelonginginsmall-townAmerica.AnnalsoftheAssociationofAmericanGeographers102(4):828–846.

Leveson,B.(2012)AnInquiryintotheCulture,PracticesandEthicsofthePress:Report.

London:TheStationeryOffice.

Levinas,E.(1979)TotalityandInfinity:AnEssayonExteriority.NewYork:Springer.

Levinas,E.(1981)OtherwiseThanBeingOrBeyondEssence.NewYork:Springer.

Lewis,C.S.(2009)TheScrewtapeLetters.London:HarperOne.

Liberty(2014)Immigrationdetention.London:Liberty.Availableathttps://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/human-rights/asylum-and-borders/immigration-detention(accessed23July2014).

Lipsky,M.(1980)Street-LevelBureaucracy:DilemmasoftheIndividualinPublicServices.NewYork:RussellSageFoundation.

Macon,K.M.(2012)Bureaucraticregulationandemotionallabor:Implicationsforsocialservicescasemanagement.MAthesis,DepartmentofSociology.Atlanta,GA:GeorgiaStateUniversity.

Maiman,R.(2005)AsylumlawpracticeintheUnitedKingdomaftertheHumanRightsAct.InA.SaratandS.Scheingold(eds)TheWorldsCauseLawyersMake:StructureandAgencyinLegalPractice.StanfordUniversityPress,pp.410–424.

Malkki,L.(1996)Speechlessemissaries:refugees,humanitarianism,anddehistoricization.CulturalAnthropology11(3):377–404.

Marsh,K.,Venkatachalam,M.andSamanta,K.(2012)Aneconomicanalysisofalternativestolong-termdetention.London:MatrixEvidence.Availableathttp://detentionaction.org.uk/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/Matrix-Detention-Action-Economic-Analysis-0912.pdf(accessed26June2014).

Martin,L.(2013)‘Gettinginandgettingout':legalgeographiesofUSimmigrationdetention.InD.Moran,N.GillandD.Conlon(eds)CarceralSpaces:MobilityandAgencyinImprisonmentandMigrantDetention.Aldershot:Ashgate,pp.149–166.

Mason,R.(2013)BorisJohnsonbackscallforone-offamnestyforillegalimmigrants.TheTelegraph,2July2013.

Massey,D.(2005)ForSpace.London:Sage.

Matejskova,T.andLeitner,H.(2011)Urbanencounterswithadifference:thecontacthypothesisandimmigrantintegrationprojectsineasternBerlin.Social&CulturalGeography12(7):717–741.

Mbembe,J.-A.(2004)Aestheticsofsuperfluity.PublicCulture16(3):373–405.

McGregor,J.(2011)Contestationsandconsequencesofdeportability:hungerstrikesandthepoliticalagencyofnon-citizens.CitizenshipStudies15:597–612.

McLaren,L.M.(2003)Anti-immigrantprejudiceinEurope:contact,threatperceptions,andpreferencesfortheexclusionofimmigrants.SocialForces81:909–936.

McQueenie,K.(2005)AsylumqueuedisappearsfromLunarHouse.CroydonGuardian12May2005.Availableathttp://www.croydonguardian.co.uk/news/596013.print/(accessed18December2014).

Medic,N.(2004)MakingaMealofaMyth.Availableathttp://www.mediawise.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/Making-a-meal-of-a-myth.pdf(accessed28July2014).

MedicalJustice(2008)OutsourcingAbuse:TheUseandMisuseofState-SanctionedForceDuringtheDetentionandRemovalofAsylumSeekers.London:MedicalJustice.Availableathttp://www.medicaljustice.org.uk/images/stories/reports/outsourcing%20abuse.pdf(accessed26June2014).

MedicalJustice(2010)‘StateSponsoredCruelty’:ChildreninImmigrationDetention.London:MedicalJustice.Availableathttp://www.medicaljustice.org.uk/images/stories/reports/sscfullreport.pdf(accessed26June2014).

MedicalJustice(2011)DetainedandDenied:TheClinicalCareofImmigrationDetaineesLivingwithHIV.London:MedicalJustice.Availableathttp://www.medicaljustice.org.uk/images/stories/reports/d%26d.pdf(accessed26June2014).

MedicalJustice(2012)‘TheSecondTorture':TheImmigrationDetentionofTortureSurvivors.London:MedicalJustice.Availableathttp://www.medicaljustice.org.uk/reports-a-intelligence/mj/reports/2058-the-second-torture-the-immigration-detention-of-torture-survivors-22052012155.html(accessed18March2014).

MedicalJustice(2013)ExpectingChange:TheCaseforEndingtheImmigrationDetentionofPregnantWomen.London:MedicalJustice.Availableathttp://www.medicaljustice.org.uk/images/stories/reports/expectingchange.pdf(accessed26June2014).

Memon,A.(2012)Credibilityofasylumclaims:consistencyandaccuracyofautobiographicalmemoryreportsfollowingtrauma.AppliedCognitivePsychology26(5):677–679.

Merriam,S.(1998)QualitativeResearchandCaseStudyApplicationsinEducation.SanFrancisco,CA:Jossey-Bass.

Milgram,S.(1974/2005)ObediencetoAuthority.London:Pinter&Martin.

Moeller,S.(1999)CompassionFatigue:HowtheMediaSellDisease,Famine,War,andDeath.Abingdon:PsychologyPress.

Mollard,C.(2001)Asylum:TheTruthBehindTheHeadlines.Oxford:OxfamPovertyProgramme.

Morgan,M.(2011)TheCambridgeIntroductiontoEmmanuelLevinas.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress.

Morrison,K.(2006)Marx,Durkheim,Weber:FormationsofModernSocialThought.London:Sage.

Mountz,A.(2010)SeekingAsylum:HumanSmugglingandBureaucracyattheBorder.Minneapolis,MN:UniversityofMinnesotaPress.

Mountz,A.(2013)Mappingremotedetention:dis/locationthroughisolation.InJ.Loyd,M.MitchelsonandA.Burridge(eds)BeyondWallsandCages:Prisons,Borders,AndGlobalCrisis.Athens,GA:TheUniversityofGeorgiaPress,pp.91–104.

Mountz,A.andHiemstra,N.(2014)Chaosandcrisis:dissectingthespatiotemporallogicsofcontemporarymigrationsandstatepractices.AnnalsoftheAssociationofAmericanGeographers104(2):282–390.

NationalAssociationofCitizensAdviceBureaux(2002a)ProcessError-AsylumSupportSystemFailingonallFronts.London:NationalAssociationofCitizensAdviceBureaux.

NationalAssociationofCitizensAdviceBureaux(2002b)DistantVoices:CABClients’ExperienceofContinuingProblemswiththeNationalAsylumSupportService.London:NationalAssociationofCitizensAdviceBureaux.

NationalAsylumSupportService(2005)RegionalisationProjectNewsletter:August2005issue.Croydon:NationalAsylumSupportService.

NationalAsylumSupportService(2007)Diagramofthe‘EndtoEnd'ProcessofNASSSupport.Croydon:NationalAsylumSupportService.

NationalAuditOffice(2007)ThecancellationofBicesterAccommodationCentre.HomeOffice.Availableathttp://www.nao.org.uk/publications/0708/the_cancellation_of_bicester_a.aspx(accessed22November2013).

Nethery,A.,Rafferty-Brown,B.andYaylor,S.(2013)Exportingdetention:Australia-fundedimmigrationdetentioninIndonesia.JournalofRefugeeStudies26(1):88–109.

Neumayer,E.(2006)Unequalaccesstoforeignspaces:howstatesusevisarestrictionstoregulatemobilityinaglobalizedworld.TransactionsoftheInstituteofBritishGeographers31:72–84.

Nietzsche,F.(1892/1961)ThusSpokeZarathustra:ABookforEveryoneandNoOne.Harmondsworth,Middlesex:PenguinBooks.

Noble,G.,Barnish,A.,Finch,E.andGriffith,D.(2004)AreviewoftheoperationoftheNationalAsylumSupportService.NationalAsylumSupportService.Croydon:HomeOffice.

NoOneIsIllegal(2003)Manifesto.Bolton:NoOneisIllegal.Availableathttp://www.noii.org.uk/no-one-is-illegal-manifesto/(accessed16July2014).

NorthEastConsortiumforAsylumSupportServicesandNorthofEnglandRefugeeService(2004)AsylumSeekingCommunitiesintheNorthEastofEngland:QuarterlyStatisticsasatMarch2004.Newcastle-upon-Tyne:NorthofEnglandRefugeeService.Availableathttp://www.refugee.org.uk/sites/default/files/NASS%20regional%20stats%20March%2004.pdf(accessed9June2014).

Nussbaum,M.C.(2001)UpheavalsofThought:TheIntelligenceofEmotions.CambridgeUniversityPress.

OfficeforNationalStatistics(2014)Homepage.Availableatwww.ons.gov.uk(accessed15December2014).

Olle,N.,Wallman,S.,Grant,P.,Bungey,S.,Armstrong,P.,Finger,S.andMartin,L.(2013)Atworkinsideourdetentioncentres:aguard'sstory.Availableathttp://tgm-serco.patarmstrong.net.au(accessed30August2015).

Owens,P.(2009)Reclaiming‘barelife'?AgainstAgambenonrefugees.InternationalRelations23(4):567–582.

Painter,J.(2006)Prosaicgeographiesofstateness.PoliticalGeography25:752–774.

Paolini,S.,Harwood,J.andRubin,M.(2010)Negativeintergroupcontactmakesgroupmembershipssalient:explainingwhyintergroupconflictendures.PersonalityandSocialPsychologyBulletin36:1723–1738.

Patel,B.andKelley,M.(2006)TheSocialCareNeedsofRefugeesandAsylumSeekers.London:SocialCareInstituteforExcellence.

Paveley,R.(2005)FindingGodatCampsfield.TheDioceseofOxfordReporter,2November.

Peck,J.andTickell,A.(2002)Neoliberalizingspace.Antipode34:380–404.

Pérez,N.M.(2010)Emotionsofqueuing:amirrorofimmigrants’socialcondition.InB.Siebenand.Wettergren(eds) EmotionalizingOrganizationsandOrganizingEmotions.Basingstoke:PalgraveMacmillan,pp.166–186.

Pettigrew,T.F.andTropp,L.R.(2006)Ameta-analysistestofinter-groupcontacttheory.JournalofPersonalityandSocialPsychology90:751–783.

Pettigrew,T.F.andTropp,L.R.(2008)Howdoesintergroupcontactreduceprejudice?Meta-analytictestsofthreemediators.EuropeanJournalofSocialPsychology32:922–931.

Phelps,J.(2009)DetainedLives:TheRealCostofIndefiniteImmigrationDetention.London:LondonDetaineeSupportGroup(nowDetentionAction).Availableathttp://detentionaction.org.uk/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/Detained-Lives-

report.pdf(accessed30August2015).

Phillimore,J.andGoodson,L.(2006)Problemoropportunity?Asylumseekers,refugees,employmentandsocialexclusionindeprivedurbanareas.UrbanStudies43(10):1715–1736.

Phillips,D.(2006)Movingtowardsintegration:thehousingofasylumseekersandrefugeesinBritain.HousingStudies21(4):539–553.

Polese,C.(2013)Negotiatingpowerbetweencivilsocietyandthestate:theformulationofasylumpoliciesinItalyandintheUnitedKingdom.PhDthesis.DepartmentofGeography.London:UniversityCollegeLondon.

Popke,J.(2006)Geographyandethics:everydaymediationsthroughcareandconsumption.ProgressinHumanGeography30(4):504–512.

Proctor,J.(1999)Introduction:overlappingterrains.InJ.ProctorandD.Smith(eds)GeographyandEthics:JourneysinaMoralTerrain.London:Routledge.

PublicandCommercialServicesUnion(2003)AsylumBehindtheHeadlines.London:PublicandCommercialServicesUnion.

PublicandCommercialServicesUnion(2014)Campaignswesupport.London:PublicandCommercialServicesUnion.Availableathttp://www.pcs.org.uk/en/campaigns/campaigns_we_support/index.cfm(accessed5August2015).

Rachman,S.(1998)Anxiety.Hove:PsychologyPress.

Rawlinson(2014)Privatefirms‘areusingdetainedimmigrantsascheaplabour’.TheGuardian,22August.Availableathttp://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/aug/22/immigrants-cheap-labour-detention-centres-g4s-serco(accessed11September2015).

Reader,S.(2003)Relationshipandmoralobligation.TheMonist86(3):367–381.

Rhodes,R.A.W.(1994)Thehollowingoutofthestate:thechangingnatureofthepublicserviceinBritain.ThePoliticalQuarterly65(2):138–151.

Rhodes,R.A.W.(1996)Thenewgovernance:governingwithoutgovernment.PoliticalStudiesXLIV:652–667.

Rigo,E.(2007)EuropadiConfine:TrasformazionidellaCittadinazanell'UnioneAllargata.Rome:Meltemi.

Robinson,V.andSegrott,J.(2002)UnderstandingtheDecisionMakingofAsylumSeekers.HomeOfficeResearchStudy243.London:HomeOffice.

Robinson,V.,Andersson,R.andMusterd,S.(2003)SpreadingtheBurden?European

PoliciestoDisperseAsylumSeekers.Bristol:PolicyPress.

Rock,P.(1993)TheSocialWorldofanEnglishCrownCourt:WitnessesandProfessionalsintheCrownCourtCentreatWoodGreen.Oxford:ClarendonPress.

Rodríguez-Pose,A.andGill,N.(2003)Theglobaltrendtowardsdevolutionanditsimplications.EnvironmentandPlanningC:GovernmentandPolicy21(3):333–351.

RomanCatholicDioceseofProvidence(2008)Bishop,pastorsurgeICEtoceaseraids,allowagentstoexercise‘conscientiousobjection’.RhodeIsland:RomanCatholicDioceseofProvidence.Availableathttp://www.diocesepvd.org/bishop-pastors-urge-ice-to-cease-raids-allow-agents-to-exercise-conscientious-objection/(accessed2July2014).

Rose,N.(1999)PowersofFreedom:ReframingPoliticalThought.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress.

Rothbart,M.andJohn,O.P.(1985)Socialcategorizationandbehavioralepisodes:acognitiveanalysisoftheeffectsofintergroupcontact.JournalofSocialIssues41(3):81–104.

Sandel,M.(2009)Justice:What'stheRightThingtoDo?London:Penguin.

Sayer,A.(2005)Class,moralworthandrecognition.Sociology39(5):947–963.

Scheff,T.(1988)Shameandconformity:thedeference-emotionsystem.AmericanSociologicalReview53(3):395–406.

Schuster,L.(2005)Therealitiesofanewasylumparadigm.COMPASWorkingPaperNo.20.Oxford:OxfordUniversityPolicyDocumentationCentre.Availableathttp://www.compas.ox.ac.uk/publications/working-papers/wp-05-20/(accessed1November2013).

Schuster,L.andMajidi,N.(2013)Whathappenspost-deportation?TheexperienceofdeportedAfghans.MigrationStudies1(2):221–240.

Scott,J.(1985)WeaponsoftheWeak:EverydayFormsofPeasantResistance.NewHavenandLondon:YaleUniversityPress.

secondarytrauma.org(2010)Whatissecondarytrauma?Aurora,CO:secondarytrauma.org.Availableathttp://secondarytrauma.org/contact.htm(accessed23July2014).

Serres,M.(2007)TheParasite.Minneapolis,MN:UniversityofMinnesotaPress.

Sharma,A.andGupta,A.(2006)TheAnthropologyoftheState:AReader.Oxford:Blackwell.

Sigona,N.(2010)Triplevulnerability:thelivesofBritain’sundocumentedmigrantchildren.OD50:50.London:OpenDemocracy.Availableathttp://www.opendemocracy.net/5050/nando-sigona/triple-vulnerability-lives-of-britains-

undocumented-migrant-children(accessed6June2014).

Simanowitz,S.(2010)Thebodypolitic:theenduringpowerofthehungerstrike.ContemporaryReview292:1698.

Simmel,G.(1903/2002)Themetropolisandmentallife.InG.BridgeandS.Watson(eds)TheBlackwellCityReader.Oxford:Wiley-Blackwell,pp.103–110.

Singer,P.(1972)Famine,affluenceandmorality.PhilosophyandPublicAffairs1(3):229–243.

Smith,A.(1790)TheTheoryofMoralSentiments.LibraryofEconomicsandLiberty.Availableathttp://www.econlib.org/library/Smith/smMS3.html(accessed20November2014).

Smith,D.(1998)Howfarshouldwecare?Onthespatialscopeofbeneficience.ProgressinHumanGeography22(1):15–38.

Smith,D.(2000)MoralGeographies:EthicsinaWorldofDifference.Edinburgh:EdinburghUniversityPress.

Smith,F.,Timbrell,H.,Woolvin,M.etal.(2010)Enlivenedgeographiesofvolunteering:situated,embodiedandemotionalpracticesofvoluntaryaction.ScottishGeographicalJournal126:258–274.

Smith,K.(2015)Storiestoldby,for,andaboutwomenrefugees:Engenderingresistance.ACME:AnInternationalE-JournalforCriticalGeographies,2015,14(2),461–469.

Smith,M.,Davidson,J.,Cameron,L.andBondi,L.(2009)Introduction–geographyandemotion–emergingconstellations.InM.Smith,J.Davidson,L.CameronandL.Bondi(eds)Emotion,PlaceandCulture.Farnham:Ashgate.

SouthLondonCitizens(2009)SouthLondonCitizensNewsletter,Winter2009.London:SouthLondonCitizens.Availableathttps://www.academia.edu/3666590/South_London_Citizens_Newsletter_Winter_2009(accessed2July2014).

Sparke,M.(2008)Politicalgeography:politicalgeographiesofglobalizationIII–resistance.ProgressinHumanGeography32:1–18.

Spivak,G.(1988)Canthesubalternspeak?InC.NelsonandL.Grossberg(eds)MarxismandtheInterpretationofCulture.Urbana,IL:UniversityofIllinoisPress,pp.271–333.

Squire,V.(2009)TheExclusionaryPoliticsofAsylum.Basingstoke:PalgraveMacmillan.

Stansfeld,W.(2013)UKcrueltytowardsasylumseekersandwhatshouldbedoneaboutit.SanFrancisco,CA:Scribd.Availableathttp://www.scribd.com/doc/125752329/UK-Cruelty-Towards-Asylum-Seekers-and-What-Should-Be-Done-About-It-v-1-4-2(accessed18March

2014).

Stephan,W.G.andStephan,C.W.(1985)Intergroupanxiety.JournalofSocialIssues41:157–175.

Strauss,K.(2013)Unfreeagain:socialreproduction,flexiblelabourmarketsandtheresurgenceofganglabourintheUK.Antipode45(1):180–197.

Taylor,D.andMason,R.(2014)HomeOfficestaffrewardedwithgiftvouchersforfightingoffasylumcases.TheGuardian,14January.Availableathttp://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/jan/14/home-office-asylum-seekers-gift-vouchers(accessed30August2015).

Taylor,D.andMuir,H.(2006)RedCrossaidsfailedasylumseekers.TheGuardian,9January.Availableathttp://www.theguardian.com/news/2006/jan/09/immigrationasylumandrefugees.uknews(accessed30August2015).

Taylor,D.andMuir,H.(2010)Borderstaffhumiliateandtrickasylumseekers–whistleblower.TheGuardian,2February.Availableathttp://www.theguardian.com/uk/2010/feb/02/border-staff-asylum-seekers-whistleblower(accessed30August2015).

TheIndependentChiefInspectorofBordersandImmigrationandHerMajesty'sInspectorateofPrisons(2012)TheEffectivenessandImpactofImmigrationDetentionCasework:AJointThematicReviewbyHMInspectorateofPrisonsandtheIndependentChiefInspectorofBordersandImmigration.London:HMInspectorateofPrisonsandTheIndependentChiefInspectorofBordersandImmigration.Availableathttp://icinspector.independent.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/Immigration-detention-casework-2012-FINAL.pdf(accessed29July2013).

TheMigrationObservatoryattheUniversityofOxford(2014)Asylumapplicationsandestimatedinflows,1987–2011.Oxford:MigrationObservatoryattheUniversityofOxford.Availableathttp://www.migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk/data-and-resources/charts/asylum-applications-and-estimated-inflows-1987-2011(accessed9June2014).

TheMigrationObservatoryattheUniversityofOxford(2015a)ImmigrationdetentionintheUK.UpdatedbyS.SilvermanandR.Hajela.Availableathttp://migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk/briefings/immigration-detention-uk(accessed30August2015).

TheMigrationObservatoryattheUniversityofOxford(2015b)MigrationtotheUK:Asylum,byScottBlinder.Accessedathttp://migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk/briefings/migration-uk-asylum(accessed27thAugust2015).

TheSecretaryofStatefortheHomeDepartmentvs.WayokaLimbuelaandBinyamTeferaTesemaandYusifAdam(2004)EWCACiv540.CaseNo:C/2004/0383,C2/2004/0384&

C/2004/0277.

TheSun(2003)‘SwanBaked…Asylumseekersarestealingandeatingswans’.4July2003,p.1.

TheSun(2001)‘HasHagueabandonedallhopeofwinningthistime?’7March2001,p.8.

Thomas,R.(2011)AdministrativeJusticeandAsylumAppeals:AStudyofTribunalAdjudication.Oxford:Hart.

Thompson,J.(2004)Outrageoverasylumcentre.BristolEveningPost,21April,p.1.

Torre,M.E.,Fine,M.,withAlexander,N.etal.(2008)Participatoryactionresearchinthecontactzone.InJ.CammarotaandM.Fine(eds)RevolutionizingEducation:YouthParticipatoryActionResearchinMotion.NewYork:Routledge,pp.23–44.

Tronto,J.(1987)Beyondgenderdifferencetoatheoryofcare.Signs12(4):644–663.

Tronto,J.C.(1993)MoralBoundaries:APoliticalArgumentforanEthicofCare.Oxford:PsychologyPress.

Trouillot,M.-R.(2001)Theanthropologyofthestateintheageofglobalisation.CurrentAnthropology42(1):125–138.

Tuan,Y.-F.(1999)Geographyandevil:asketch.InJ.ProctorandD.Smith(eds)GeographyandEthics:JourneysinaMoralTerrain.LondonandNewYork:Routledge,pp.106–119.

Tutu,N.(ed.)(1989)TheWordsofDesmondTutu.London:Hodder&StoughtonReligious.

Tyler,I.(2013)RevoltingSubjects:SocialAbjection&ResistanceinNeoliberalBritain.London:ZedBooks.

Tyler,I.,Gill,N.,Conlon,D.andOeppen,C.(2014)Thebusinessofchilddetention:charitableco-option,migrantadvocacyandactivistoutrage.Race&Class56(1):3–21.

UKBorderAgency(2007)ConductingtheAsylumInterview.London:UnitedKingdomBorderAgency.

UKBorderAgency(2011)Detaineecustodyofficercertification.London:HomeOffice.Availableathttps://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/257734/detainee-custody-officer-cert.pdf(accessed29July2014).

UNHCR(2002)2002UNHCRStatisticalYearbook–Chapter1:PopulationLevelsandTrends.LondonandGeneva:UnitedNationsHighCommissionforRefugees.Accessedat:http://www.unhcr.org/41206f762.html(accessed27August2015).

UNHCR(2005)QualityInitiativeProjectSecondReporttotheMinister.LondonandGeneva:UnitedNationsHighCommissionforRefugees.

UNHCR(2006a)QualityInitiativeReport:ThirdReporttotheMinister.LondonandGeneva:UnitedNationsHighCommissionforRefugees.

UNHCR(2006b)QualityInitiativeReport:KeyObservationsandRecommendations.LondonandGeneva:UnitedNationsHighCommissionforRefugees.

UNHCR(2007)QualityInitiativeProject:FourthReporttotheMinister.LondonandGeneva:UnitedNationsHighCommissionforRefugees.

UNHCR(2008)QualityInitiativeProjectFifthReporttotheMinister.LondonandGeneva:UnitedNationsHighCommissionforRefugees.

UNHCR(2009)QualityInitiativeProject:KeyObservationsandRecommendations.LondonandGeneva:UnitedNationsHighCommissionforRefugees.

UNHCR(2014)UNHCRurgesfocusonsavinglivesas2014boatpeoplenumbersnear350,000.Geneva:UnitedNationsHighCommissionforRefugees.Accessedathttp://www.unhcr.org/5486e6b56.html(accessed27August2015).

UNHCR(2015)UNHCRGlobalTrends:ForcedDisplacementin2014.Geneva:UnitedNationsHighCommissionforRefugees.Availableathttp://reliefweb.int/sites/reliefweb.int/files/resources/556725e69.pdf(accessed27August2015).

UNITED(2015)Listof22,394documenteddeathsofasylumseekers,refugeesandmigrantsduetotherestrictivepoliciesofFortressEurope.Amsterdam:UNITEDforInterculturalAction.Accessedathttp://www.unitedagainstracism.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/Listofdeaths22394June15.pdf(accessed27August2015).

Urry,J.(2007)Mobilities.PolicyPress.

Valentine,G.(1997)Tellmeabout…:usinginterviewsasaresearchmethodology.InR.FlowerdewandD.Martin(eds)MethodsinHumanGeography:AGuideforStudentsDoingaResearchProject.Harlow:Longman,pp.110–126.

Valentine,G.(2008)Livingwithdifference:reflectionsongeographiesofencounter.ProgressinHumanGeography32(3):323–337.

Valentine,G.(2010)Prejudice:rethinkinggeographiesofoppression.Social&CulturalGeography11(6):519–537.

vanHoutum,H.(2010)Humanblacklisting:theglobalapartheidoftheEU'sexternalborderregime.EnvironmentandPlanningD:SocietyandSpace28(6):957–976.

Vaughan-Williams,N.(2009)Thegeneralisedbio-politicalborder?Re-conceptualisingthelimitsofsovereignpower.ReviewofInternationalStudies35(4):729–749.

Vickers,T.(2012)Refugees,CapitalismandtheBritishState:ImplicationsforSocial

Workers,VolunteersandActivists.Farnham,Surrey:Ashgate.

Waldron,J.(2003)Whoismyneighbor?Humanityandproximity.TheMonist86(3):333–354.

Watson,N.,McKie,L.,Hughes,B.,Hopkins,D.andGregory,S.(2004)(Inter)dependence,needsandcare:thepotentialfordisabilityandfeministtheoriststodevelopanemancipatorymodel.Sociology38(2):331–350.

Webber,F.(2011)DoesBarnardo'slegitimisechilddetention?London:InstituteofRaceRelations.Availableathttp://www.irr.org.uk/news/does-barnardos-legitimise-child-detention/(accessed7April2014).

Webber,F.(2012)BorderlineJustice:TheFightforRefugeeandMigrantRights.London:PlutoPress.

Weber,L.(2003)Downthatwrongroad:discretionindecisionstodetainasylumseekersarrivingatUKports.TheHowardJournal42(3):248–262.

Weber,L.andBowling,B.(2002)Thepolicingofimmigrationinthenewworlddisorder.InP.Scraton(ed.)BeyondSeptember11th:AnAnthologyofDissent.London:PlutoPress,pp.123–129.

Weber,M.(1922/1987)Legitimateauthorityandbureaucracy.InL.E.BooneandD.D.Bowen(eds)TheGreatWritingsinManagementandOrganizationalBehavior.Boston:Irwin,pp.5–19.

Weber,M.(1948)Politicsasvocation.InM.Weber,H.GerthandC.W.Mills(eds)FromMaxWeber:EssaysinSociology.London:Routledge,pp.77–128.

Weizman,E.(2012).TheLeastofAllPossibleEvils:HumanitarianViolencefromArendttoGaza.VersoBooks.

Williams,R.(2012)Barnardo'schief:inthebestinterestsofthechildren.TheGuardian,11September.Availableathttp://www.theguardian.com/society/2012/sep/11/barnardos-chief-social-care-asylum-seekers(accessed30August2015).

Wilson,H.(2013)Learningtothinkdifferently:diversitytrainingandthe‘goodencounter’.Geoforum45:73–81.

Winder,R.(2013)BloodyForeigners:TheStoryofImmigrationtoBritain.London:Abacus.

Woolley,A.(2014)BBCRadio4FourThought:RefugeeStories,Series4.Episode33:broadcast8January2014.AvailableoniPlayerRadioathttp://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b03nt9wg(accessed24June2014).

Yiu-leung,C.F.(2001)Snakeheads.11October2001,HongKong:Martini[film]

Zelizer,V.A.R.(2005)ThePurchaseOfIntimacy.Princeton:PrincetonUniversityPress.

Zetter,R.,Griffiths,D.andSigona,N.(2005)Socialcapitalorsocialexclusion?Theimpactofasylum-seekerdispersalonUKrefugeecommunityorganizations.CommunityDevelopmentJournal40(2):169–181.

Zimmermann,S.(2014)Reconsideringtheproblemof‘bogus'refugeeswith‘socio-economicmotivations'forseekingasylum.InN.Gill,J.CaletrioandV.Mason(eds)MobilitiesandForcedMigration.LondonandNewYork:Routledge,pp.35–52.

Žižek,S.(2009)Violence:SixSidewaysReflections.London:ProfileBooks.

Index

abolition

abstractspace

accountabilityissues

activism

seealsoSouthLondonCitizens;supportgroups

compassion

conceptualdiscussion

counter-protests

interviews

LivingGhostscampaign

non-revolutionaryformsof

politicallobbying

positiveinteraction

thepress

solidarity-withtactics

UnitedNationsHighCommissionforRefugees(UNHCR)

adiaphorism

Afghanistan

againstcompassion

Allport,Gordon

Amin,Ash

AmnestyInternational

Amoore,Louise

anxiety

seealsofatigue;secondarytrauma

definition

appealsagainstnegativedecisions

seealsocourts

conceptualdiscussion

PresentingOfficers(Pos)

statistics

applicationforms

Apragas,Mary

Arendt,Hannah

Aristotle

arrestsoffailedasylumseekers

Asimov,Isaac

asylumaccommodationcentres

AsylumandImmigrationAct1996

asylumseekers

seealsoimmigrationdetention

2002statistics

2014statistics

appealsagainstnegativedecisions

bogusasylumseekers

crime/criminalisation

definition

dispersal

domesticviolence

economicmigrants

Englishlanguagedifficulties

gay

healthcareissues

interviews

non-belongingattitudes

paidwork

perceptions

socialsecuritybenefits

stagesofapplication

statistics

terrorism

unfairnessofaccommodation-allocationconcerns

intheUnitedKingdom

asylumsupportgroups

seealsosupportgroups

audits

BailforImmigrationDetainees(BID)

Barnardo’s

Barnett,Clive

Bauman,Zygmunt

Bayart,Jean-Francois

BBCradio

BBCtelevision

being-together-ness,potentialof

belongings,immigrationdetention

Bethell,Nicholas

Bialasiewicz,Luiza

BleakHouse(Dickens)

bogusasylumseekers

seealsoeconomicmigrants

definition

povertyofthenotion

BorderandImmigrationAgency

borders

seealsostaterescaling

controlsystems

export(push-back)ofborders

Bosworth,Mary

Brenner,Neil

Bristol

BristolRefugeeInter-AgencyForum(BRIAF)

BritishNationalParty(BNP)

buffers

seealsocharities;mediators;third-sectororganisations;volunteers

conceptualdiscussion

bureaucracies

seealsodecisionmakers;governance;LunarHouse;NationalAsylumSupportService;rationality

conceptualdiscussion

definition

dehumanisation

keepingpeopleapart

mediators

moraldistance

obedience

objectives

Orwellianenvironment

reform

training

Weber’stheories

camps

CampsfieldHouseimmigrationremovalcentre

seealsoimmigrationdetention

functions

capitalism

care

seealsoemotions;kindness

characteristics

definitions

feministethicofcare

indifference

Cedarsdetentioncentre

ChannelFourtelevision

charities

children,Cedarsdetentioncentre

Chinesecockle-pickersinMorecambeBayin

ChinesestowawaysinDoverin2001

Christianphilosophy

ChristmasIsland

ChurchActiononPoverty

cities

being-together-ness,potentialof

segregationdangers

throwntogetherness

CityofSanctuary

CitizensAdviceBureaux(CAB)

citizenship

civilrightsgroups

closeness,encounters

co-optationissues

cognitivebias,proximity

CommonEuropeanAsylumPolicy

communicationtechnologies

communityleaders

compartmentalisation

compassion

seealsoemotions;kindness

activism

againstcompassion

co-optation

conceptualdiscussion

definition

distinctivenessofseekingcompassion

empathydistinction

fatigue

impediments

justiceaspects

mediauses

mitigatingpositiveconsiderationsforcompassion

‘nearnessfrustratescompassion’

positiveinteraction

repression

scepticismabout

compassionaterepression

competition

complaintsprocedures,immigrationdetention

conditionsofcontact

consentforms,employees

ConservativeParty

contact

seealsoencounters;meaningfulinteractions

conceptualdiscussion

conditions

indifference

contracts

coststothetaxpayer,immigrationdetention

counter-protests

seealsoactivism

courtethnography

courts

seealsoappeals;legalinnovations

criminalisationofasylumseekers

Croydon

seealsoLunarHouse;NationalAsylumSupportService

crueltyallegations

reasonableforce

reputationalthreats

DailyExpress

DailyMail

DailyMirror

DailyStar

‘dashboards’,NASS

Dawute,James

deCerteau,Michel

deathsindetention

seealsomigrantdeaths

decentralisation

decisionmakers

seealsobuffers;bureaucracies;competition;insulation;moraldistance;proximity

bureaucracies,reformof

conceptualdiscussion

decisiontimescale

definition

denials

estrangementof

keepingpeopleapart

refusals

dehumanisation

delay/delays

delegation/devolution

depersonalisation

deportation

seealsoremovalcentres

allegedconsequences

deprivedareasinBritain,dispersalsystems

detachmentattitudes

seealsoindifference;over-familiaritywiththesufferingofothers

compassionfatigue

DetainedFastTrack(DFT)

detentionseeimmigrationdetention

DetentionAction

DetentionCentreRules

detentioncustodyofficers(DCOs)

Dickens,Charles

discretion

dispassionrequirements

dispersal

seealsoNationalAsylumSupportService

conceptualdiscussion

landlords

perceptions

regionsintheUK

‘distancedecay’

seealsomoraldistance

distantbureaucrats

seealsobureaucracies;moraldistance

distinctivenessofseekingcompassion

diversity,encounters

divisionoflabour

doctors

seealsohealthcare

delegation/devolution

domesticviolence

Dostoevsky,Fyodor

downwardreorganisation(delegation/devolution),staterescaling

drones,military

drugsearches

DuGay,Paul

DungavelImmigrationRemovalCentre

Dvorzac,Alois

e-borders

economicmigrants

seealsobogusasylumseekers

EconomicandSocialResearchCouncil(ESRC)

educationfacilities

electronictags

emotionalcoolnessofbureaucracies

emotions

seealsoanxiety;care;compassion;empathy;kindness;shame

conceptualdiscussion

theHolocaust

indifference

prejudice

softersideofimmigrationcontrol

empathy

seealsoemotions

compassiondistinction

conceptualdiscussion

definition

immigrationdetention

employees

anxiety

consentforms

crueltyallegationsinimmigrationdetention

kindness

locations

moraleproblems

over-familiaritywiththesufferingofothers

politicalactivities

qualifications

salaries

staff-turnoverproblems

training

whistleblowers

employers,penalties

employmentprospectsforasylumseekers

‘enablingstate’

encounters

seealsocontact;meaningfulinteractions;proximity

closeness

conceptualdiscussion

definitions

estrangement

Englishlanguagedifficulties

EnglishVolunteerForce(EVF)

estateagents,delegation/devolution

estrangement

seealsobuffers;competition;insulation

ethics,researchmethodologies

ethnicity

ethnography

EuropeanCommunity(EC)

EuropeanCourtofHumanRights

EuropeanUnion(EU)

‘safethirdcountry’EUrules

statistics

export(push-back)ofborders

eyescanners

facilities,immigrationdetention

failedasylumseekers

seealsoremovalcentres

arrests

conceptualdiscussion

statistics

fascists

fast-tracksystems

fatigue

seealsoover-familiaritywiththesufferingofothers;secondarytrauma

definition

faxes,NASS

feministconceptualdiscussionofnon-revolutionaryactivism

feministethicofcare

fingerprinting

firein,Yarl’sWoodimmigrationremovalcentre

First-TierTribunal,background

flowchartofNASSprocesses

focusgroups,researchmethodologies

foodstandards,immigrationdetention

ForeignOffice

Foucault,Michel

FrancisI,Pope

freeinternationalmovementofpersons

Friedman,Marilyn

FRONTEX

functionaldivisionoflabour

Gaddafi

Gangmaster(Licensing)Act2004(GLA)

gayasylumseekers

generosity

seealsokindness

GenevaConventionof

Germany

Glasgow

globalisation

Glover,Jonathan

theGoodSamaritanParable

governance

seealsobureaucracies;meta-governance;outsourcing;policychurn;privatisation

conceptualdiscussion

frequentchanges

reformproposals

‘grantmonkey’humiliations

GroupSecuricor(G4S)

TheGuardian

Hall,Alexandra

Hamblet,Wendy

HarmondsworthImmigrationRemovalCentre

functions

riotsin/2006

suicideattempts

Harvey,David

healthcareissues

seealsoselfharm

HerMajesty’sChiefInspectorofPrisons

Hitler

HIV

theHolocaust

HomeAffairsSelectCommittee

HomeOffice

seealsoNationalAsylumSupportService(NASS)

appeals

values

Homer,Lin

homosexualasylumseekersseegayasylumseekers

‘howfewmenwithgunswereneededtomurdermillions’,NaziGermany

Hume,David

hungerstrikes

seealsoselfharm

ImmigrationAct2014

ImmigrationandAsylumAct1999

immigrationcontrols

seealsoborders;governance

emotions

moraldistance

reforms

softerside

immigrationdetention

seealsoemployees;removalcentres

background

belongings

Cedarsdetentioncentre

complaintsprocedures

coststothetaxpayer

crueltyallegations

deathsindetention

empathy

facilities

foodstandards

functions

healthcareissues

indefinitedetention

insensitivity

kindness

paiddetainees

reasonableforce

rules

statistics

torturesurvivors

transfers

UKbackground

under-stimulatedasylumseekersindetention

ImmigrationandNationalityDirectorate(IND)

seealsoDetentionCentreRules;LunarHouse

background

critique

indefiniteimmigrationdetention

IndependentAsylumCommission

IndexofMultipleDeprivation

indifference

seealsocloseness;moraldistance

care

conceptualdiscussion

contact

definitions

emotions

generalisedindifference

over-familiaritywiththesufferingofothers

types

individuatingcultures

industrializationeffects

insensitivityissues

InstituteofRaceRelations

insulation

internationalisation

Internet

interpersonalrelationships

interpretationservices

interviews

seealsoscreeninginterviews;substantiveinterviews

asylumseekers

conceptualdiscussion

researchmethodology

‘invasioncomplex’perceptions

Ireland

Jessop,Bob

Jesus,ParableabouttheGoodSamaritan

Jews

‘howfewmenwithgunswereneededtomurdermillions’

NaziGermany

Johnson,Boris

judges,thepress

justice

justiceaspectsofcompassion

Kant,Immanuel

Katz,Cindy

keepingpeopleapart,bureaucracies

Keynesianstate

kindness

seealsocare;compassion;generosity

Kosovo

Krznaric,Roman

Kurdishasylum-seekers

decisiontimescale

murderinGlasgowin

LabourParty

Lachs,John

Lampedusa

landlords

dispersalsystem

employees

penalties

Law,John

learnedbehaviours,compassionavoidance

Lefebvre,Henri

legalaidcuts

seealsoappealagainstnegativedecisions;courts;solicitors

legalinnovations

seealsocourts

LevesonInquiry

Levinas,Emmanuel

Lewis,C.S.

Liberty

Libya

Lipsky,Michael

‘ListofDeaths’

livedspace,definition

Liverpool

LivingGhostscampaign

seealsoactivism

London

LondonResolutionsin,‘safethirdcountry’EUrules

LondonandSouth-EastEngland

dispersalsystems

LunarHouseclaimsprocessing

communicationproblems

critique

EnglishVolunteerForce

functions

metalchairs

phonelines

queues

‘sexforvisas’scandals

McNulty,Tony

Manchester

Marxistaggregationofthestate

Massey,Doreen

meaningfulinteractions

seealsocontact;encounters

definitions

media

seealsoBBCradio;BBCtelevision;ChannelFourtelevision;press

background

moraldistance

mediators

seealsobuffers;charities;immigrationdetention;third-sectororganisations;volunteers

conceptualdiscussion

MedicalJustice

Mediterraneanseacrossings

meta-governance

seealsogovernance

metalchairs,LunarHouseclaimsprocessing

middle-classEngland

middlemenandwomen

seealsobuffers;mediators

theMidlands,dispersalsystems

migrantdeaths

seealsodeathsindetention

Britishattitudes

‘ListofDeaths’

statistics

MigrantHelpline

migrantsupportgroups

seealsosupportgroups

Milgram,Stanley

Milgram’selectric-shockobedienceexperiments

minimumwagelevels

MinisterofState

mobilephones

modernity

‘moralblindness’

moraldistance

seealsobuffers;competition;indifference;insulation;proximity

bureaucracies

conceptualdiscussion

definition

enrichingaccountsof

geographicalchallenges

immigrationcontrols

media

rereadingthemodernstate

‘moralsleepingpills’

moraltheoryandpractice,proximity

moraleproblems,employees

mosques

Mountz,Alison

Nataliya’sstory

NationalAsylumSupportService(NASS)

seealsoCroydon;dispersal;HomeOffice;Portishead…;RegionalAsylumTeams

applicationforms

background

buffering

closure

communicationswithinNASS

competitionbetweenoffices

critique

‘dashboards’

faxes

flowchartofprocesses

functions

insulation

letters

phonelines

regionaloffices

‘scorecards’

staff-turnoverproblems

statistics

tokens

NationalHealthService(NHS)

Nationality,ImmigrationandAsylumAct

NaziGermany

‘nearnessfrustratescompassion’

newspapersseepress

Nietzsche,Friedrich

NoBorders

NoOneisIllegal

non-belongingattitudes

theNorth,dispersalsystems

NorthernIreland

nurses

seealsohealthcareissues

Nussbaum,Martha

Obama,Barack

obedience

obfuscation

objectives,bureaucracies

TheObserver

offshorecamps,bordercontrols

Orwellianenvironment

outsourcing

outwardreorganisation,staterescaling

over-familiaritywiththesufferingofothers

seealsofatigue;indifference

conceptualdiscussion

indifference

psychologicalavoidance

overviewofthebook

paidwork,asylumseekers

Pamnani,Anthony

ParableabouttheGoodSamaritan

partialityconcept

passports

perceptions,asylumseekers

Perrett,Louise

personnelseeemployees

phonelines

LunarHouseinitialclaimsprocessing

NASS

pity

police

delegation/devolution

interviews

sympathies

policychurn

seealsogovernance

politicalactivities,employees

politicallobbying

popularprintedtabloidpressseepress

Portisheadback-officelocationforwelfare-supportclaims

seealsoNationalAsylumSupportService

PovertyHearingsconceptualdiscussion

prejudice

contact

emotions

PresentingOfficers(POs)

thepress

seealsoindividualnewspapers;NationalAsylumSupportService

activism

background

critique

judges

moraldistance

supportgroups

prisons

seealsoimmigrationdetention

privatesecuritystaff

crueltyallegations

delegation/devolution

removalcentres

privatisation

proximity

seealsoencounters;moraldistance

cognitivebias

conceptualdiscussion

definition

Milgram’selectric-shockexperiments

moraltheoryandpractice

naïvefaithinmoralbenefits

obedience

‘strangeproximity’

psychologicalavoidance

seealsoover-familiaritywiththesufferingofothers

learnedbehaviours

PublicandCommercialServicesUnion(PCS)

punishment

qualifications,employees

qualitativeresearchmethods

queues

seealsowaiting

LunarHouseclaimsprocessing

race

racism

seealsoxenophobia

raids

Ramsbotham,David,Lord

rationality

seealsobureaucracies

‘unrelentinghardness’

RedCross

RefugeeAction

seealsobuffers;mediators

RefugeeArrivalsProjectinEngland

RefugeeCouncil

refugeesupportgroups

seealsosupportgroups

refusals

seealsofailedasylumseekers

decisionmakers

RegionalAsylumTeams(RATS)

seealsoNationalAsylumSupportService

regionaloffices,NASS

regionsintheUK,dispersalsystems

relationalnetworks

religion

remoteness

removalcentres

seealsoCampsfieldHouseimmigrationremovalcentre;deportation;Dungavelimmigrationremovalcentre;Harmondsworthimmigrationremovalcentre;immigrationdetention;Yarl’sWoodimmigrationremovalcentre

background

crueltyallegations

functions

privatesecuritystaff

securityissues

removals

seealsofailedasylumseekers

reasonableforce

ReportingCentres

statistics

ReportingCentres

reputationalthreats,crueltyallegations

rereadingthemodernstate,moraldistance

researchmethodologies

resistance

revolution

revolutionofgenerosity

rhythm

‘rightsofpresence’

riotsin/2006,HarmondsworthImmigrationRemovalCentre

Rose,Nikolas

rules,immigrationdetention

‘safethirdcountry’EUrules

salaries,employees

sampling

‘sanctuaryseeking’

‘scorecards’,NASS

Scotland

Scott,James

ScottishRefugeeCouncil

screeninginterviews

seasideresorts

seealsoPortishead…

secondarytrauma

seealsoanxiety;fatigue

definition

securityissues,removalcentres

segregation

selfharm

seealsohungerstrikes;suicideattempts

self-organisation

Serco

‘sexforvisas’scandals

shame

Simmel,Georg

Singer,Peter

Smith,Adam

Smith,David

socialsecuritybenefits

‘socialstate’

socialworkers

softersideofimmigrationcontrol

solicitors

seealsolegalaidcuts

solidarity-withtactics,activism

soupkitchensandnightshelters

SouthLondonCitizens(SLC)

seealsoactivism

achievements

background

SovietUnion

spatialchurn

spiritualsupport

staff-turnoverproblems

stagesofapplication,asylumseekers

Stalin

staterescaling

seealsobureaucracies;governance

conceptualdiscussion

downwardreorganisation(delegation/devolution)

outwardreorganisation

rereadingthemodernstate

upwardreorganisation(internationalisation)

‘state-phobia’

stigma

StillHumanStillHere

‘strangeproximity’

‘street-level’bureaucrats

substantiveinterviews

suicideattempts

seealsoselfharm

TheSun

supportgroups

seealsoactivism;asylumsupportgroups;migrantsupportgroups;refugeesupportgroups

compassion

thepress

surveys

Syria

systemmanagers

tabloidpressseepress

technologicalinnovations

TheTelegraph

temporaryleavetoremain

tendersforcontracts

terrorism

third-sectororganisations

seealsobuffers;mediators

throwntogetherness

TilburyDocks,shippingcontainerin

Tobin,BishopThomasJ.

tortureallegations

seealsocrueltyallegations

training

transfers,immigrationdetention

transportcompanies

TribunalseeFirst-TierTribunal

Tutu,Desmond,Archbishop

Tyler,Imogen

under-stimulatedasylumseekersindetention

unemploymentrates

UniteAgainstFascism(UAF)

UNITED

UnitedKingdomBorderAgency(UKBA)

abolishment

Cedars

UnitedKingdom(UK)

seealsoindividualtopics

2002statistics

2014statistics

deprivedareasinBritain

immigrationdetentionbackground

indefiniteaspectsofimmigrationdetention

‘invasioncomplex’perceptions

legalinnovations

reformproposals

‘safethirdcountry’EUrules

scandals

socialsecuritybenefits

socio-politicalcontext

UnitedNationsHighCommissionforRefugees(UNHCR)

UnitedStates

immigrationcontrolsystem

prisonpopulations

‘unrelentinghardness’

upwardreorganisation(internationalisation),staterescaling

utopianideas

Valentine,Gill

values,HomeOffice

visasystems

visiting

volunteers

vouchers

vulnerablepersons

waiting

seealsoqueues

Waldron,Jeremy

Wales

Webber,Francis

Weber,Max

Weizman,Eyal

WelshRefugeeCouncil

whistleblowers

whitepopulationregions

whiteworking-classareas,deprivedareasinBritain

WorldWarII

X-rayscanners

xenophobia

seealsoracism

Yaltaagreement

Yarl’sWoodimmigrationremovalcentre

crueltyallegations

firein

maleguards

Yohannes,Bereket

WILEYENDUSERLICENSEAGREEMENTGotowww.wiley.com/go/eulatoaccessWiley’sebookEULA.