The detention of foreigners in France: Between discretionary control and the rule of law

Fischer, Nicolas

doi:10.1177/1477370813495126

Cited by 8 publications

(7 citation statements)

References 18 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The front-line policy has increasingly been used as a weapon against migrants, especially since the early 2000s, when immigration and detention policies were generalized in France (Fischer 2013). More broadly, in Europe as well as in United States, immigration reforms have made greater use of detention and focused on enforcement rather than on hosting programmes and services for asylum seekers (Welch and Schuster 2005).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Discretionary power as a political weapon against foreigners

Spire¹

2020

Etikk Praksis - Nord J Appl Ethics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The administrative practices of officials who process the admission of immigrants show severe variations in the ways in which migration policy is enforced on the ground. For the author, inequality of treatment lies in the very hierarchy of tasks and services of what he dubs, following Pierre Bourdieu, the immigration "field". According to the author, the governments’ securitizing priorities favour the sort of suspicion towards foreigners that the media then reproduces, thus authorizing so-called street-level bureaucrats to act with great leeway with regard to immigrants. Under pressure, governments implement what the author calls a "trompe-l’oeil policy" that explores the ambivalence between international and domestic law: while the state enforces repressive laws that apparently comply with fundamental human rights, it leaves to low-ranking civil servants enough discretion to make those rights ineffective. This point is the author’s central contention. The arbitrariness of these officials is neither contingent nor accidental: it actually constitutes a purposive "front-line policy" to enlarge the discretionary power of street-level bureaucrats in charge of regulating admissions. Unequal treatment comes in three flavours in this context. First, officials are asked to ensure that each right granted to a foreigner will not threaten the national order, which means the economic, social and political order. They are therefore in a position to judge the suitability of each application in view of their own arbitrary interpretation of what such "threats" consist of. The question of discretionary power is in this way intimately linked to the problem of equality before the law. Second, the scarcity of material and human resources allocated to services in charge of welcoming migrants starkly contrasts with the expenditure incurred to deport foreigners. Inequality also arises from how agents perceive users and the leeway they have to implement the law. Third, inequality is related to foreigners’ abilities and means to challenge discretionary power, especially through the legal tools they use or through legal intermediaries. The author thus concludes that such "front-line policy" has increasingly been used as a weapon against migrants, especially since the early 2000s, when immigration and detention policies were generalized in France. More broadly, in Europe as well as in United States, immigration reforms have made greater use of detention and focused on enforcement rather than on hosting programs and services for asylum seekers. But they have also strengthened the role of legal intermediaries. Hence the need to investigate how discretionary power is challenged as it sheds light on the power relations between states and migrants. Keywords: foreigners, discretion, sociology, participant observation, front-line policy, illegalism, jobs, insecurity, legal intermediaries

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Discretionary power as a political weapon against foreigners

Spire¹

2020

Etikk Praksis - Nord J Appl Ethics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The longer people are detained the worse they feel, 86 yet, even the brief periods of detention in France have negative effects. 87 Ethnographic research finds detention centres are sites of considerable depression and anxiety, with staff and detainees unclear about their purpose and legitimacy. 88 Detainees find it hard to bridge language and culture barriers.…”

Section: Time and Human Rights: Governance Conditions And Uncertaintymentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparing Immigration Detention in Britain and France: A Matter of Time?

Bosworth

Vannier

2016

Eur J Migr Law

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In this article, we explore the human rights implications of immigration detention in Britain and France by focusing on duration. In so doing, we show how practices in both systems fail to meet basic human rights protections, raising urgent questions about the legitimacy and justification of these sites of confinement. Whereas in the uk problems arise from the absence of a statutory upper time limit to detention, in France it is the brevity for which foreign nationals may be held that raises humanitarian concerns. In the uk, the uncertain duration of detention makes it difficult for detainees to obtain or retain legal advice. Those who are held for long periods of time struggle to maintain their right to family life, while most find the lack of clarity about the period of their confinement hard to endure. In France, where most detainees are released or deported within a matter of days, it is often difficult to access due process and legal protections in time. This brief period of confinement before expulsion contrasts with its enduring effect on their family ties and future. Drawing on policy documents, law, and the limited body of empirical material available on these carceral sites, we map the similarities and differences between them in order to identify the limits as well as some prospects of human rights in immigration detention.

show abstract

“…France has set in motion an extensive repressive apparatus of policing, incarceration and deportation of non-citizens (Fassin, 2013;Fischer, 2013;Cimade et al, 2012Cimade et al, , 2017, deportation relying on international cooperation. Various forms of state collaboration have been encouraged via a shift in migration management towards policing, control and surveillance of aliens (Block, 2012;Ellermann, 2008;El Qadim, 2014).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Devised to punish: Policing, detaining and deporting Romanians from France

Vrăbiescu

2019

European Journal of Criminology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The criminalization and de-criminalization of foreign nationals is performed by the French state through legal and institutional means in order to increase the deportability of unwanted EU citizens. By policing petty criminals and then instrumenting administrative coercion as a form of punishment, France opts to detain, deport and ban the entry of undesirable EU citizens, mostly Romanian citizens. Moreover, under a bilateral state agreement, France also engages Romanian police agents to help identify ‘their own’ nationals. This article uncovers, problematizes and explains the relationship between state (de-)criminalization practices and the forced removal of EU citizens. In doing so, it aims to respond to the following questions: What is the role of the Franco-Romanian police alliance in the criminalization of migration? What are the legal mechanisms advancing the de-criminalization of migration and how do they influence deportation processes? What is the meaning of punishment for EU deportable/deported citizens?

show abstract

The detention of foreigners in France: Between discretionary control and the rule of law

Cited by 8 publications

References 18 publications

Discretionary power as a political weapon against foreigners

Discretionary power as a political weapon against foreigners

Comparing Immigration Detention in Britain and France: A Matter of Time?

Devised to punish: Policing, detaining and deporting Romanians from France

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About