The absent presence of the deportation apparatus: methodological challenges in the production of knowledge on immigration detention

Due to the difficulties in accessing detention facilities, discussion on immigration often draws limited empirical data with varying degrees of attention paid heterogeneity detained population and their different stakes an impending removal. Although a closed institution, various legal administrative processes related enforcement decisions render relational field. Drawing my fieldwork experiences while conducting multi-sited ethnographic research system Finland, I discuss how methodological choices, theoretical presuppositions circumstantial factors affect production knowledge detention. address relevance of: 1) case selection among detainees considerably histories, social situations times; 2) setting conceive during detention; 3) engaged strategy access detainees’ first-hand cases beyond dramatic representations; 4) employment contextualising findings. argue for importance examining negotiations deportation apparatus, which shapes available options as well determines outcome from ‘outside’, despite its absence everyday life En raison des difficultés d’accès aux centres de détention, le débat sur la détention immigrants s’appuie souvent données empiriques limitées. Celles-ci accordent plus ou moins d’attention à l’hétérogénéité détenue et différents enjeux d’un renvoi imminent. Bien qu’il s’agisse d’une institution fermée, divers processus juridiques administratifs liés l’exécution décisions d’immigration font d’immigrants un domaine relationnel. Inspirée par mes expériences terrain lors recherche multisites système immigrés en Finlande, je discute comment choix méthodologiques, présupposés théoriques facteurs circonstanciels affectent connaissances immigrants. J’aborde pertinence de: sélection cas parmi les détenus ayant dont antécédents matière d’immigration, sociales durée détention; cadre multi-sites afin concevoir d’application lois l’immigration pendant site stratégie engagée pour accéder vécue leur au-delà représentations dramatiques ; l’utilisation administratives contextualiser résultats empiriques. Je soutiens est important d’examiner négociations avec l’appareil d’expulsion, ce qui façonne leurs ainsi que détermine « l’extérieur », malgré son dans vie quotidienne détention. – deprivation liberty pre-emptive security measure usually or secondary sources retrospective accounts (Esposito 2017; Turnbull 2019). According Bosworth, ‘Only by going inside can we try make better sense IRCs [immigration removal centres]. Bearing witness daily life, observing women men interact, reveal trials living working such liminal space’ (2014: 17). Several studies have highlighted lived uncertainty, distress waiting (e.g. Griffiths 2014; Lietaert al. 2015; Puthoopparambil 2016). Occasionally, scholars brought up events, suicide (Khosravi 2009) self-mutilation (Fischer 2015), whereas others addressed apparatus (Campesi Leekers Kox While predominantly individual testimonies, little information is provided about logic representativeness within highly complex where vary unauthorised entry rejected asylum applications, deportable offences irregular residency. Instead, are contextualised only gender, age nationality Bosworth 2016), without times possibly ranging days years grounds Moreover, statistical rarely used contextualise findings even when available, complicating assessment negotiating permit sites migration governance requires considerable effort (Bosworth Kellezi Esposito Lindberg Borelli 2019; Rozakou 2019) be dependent voluntary work (Hasselberg assistance (Le Courant 2013) luck (Kalir 2019), getting first step. Notwithstanding restrictions research, produce diverging interpretations, depending questions, factors, timing length fieldwork, selection. presupposes understanding constitution field: ‘the locus study not object study’ (Geertz 2000: 22), nor ‘truth confined fieldsite’ (Burawoy 2017: 262). Considering potentially enormous variety histories residence times, (and deportees) comprise ‘accidental community’ (Malkki 1997: 99) rather than particular bounded group (also Peutz 2006). Even if provides well-defined spatial constraints there no ‘ethnos’ described classical ethnography, place itself assumed carry shared meaning detainees, fact that they may develop belonging community (see 2014). As Goffman notes institutions, full inmate being “in” “on inside” does exist apart special him “getting out” outside”’ (1961: 13). In addition ties detaining country, ‘getting out’ designate completely places: result release bail, Europe removals made one EU member state another due previous instead country citizenship. Desmond (2014), more basic analysis, derivable arguments. By overlooking processual nature reality, implicit group- place-defined settings risk becoming mired substantialism (Desmond Likewise, Genova argues necessity ‘distinguish between studying undocumented people, hand, “illegality” deportability, other’, warning familiar pitfalls objectification becomes kind anthropological pornography showing it just show it, were’ (2002: 422). This insight remains pivotal context immigrant detention, because migrants but conclusions drawn preceding ongoing determining outside’. decisions, discrete event, concerning residency requirements begun long before order. several actors involved (Peutz 2006; Campesi 2015) police, officials, International Organization Migration (IOM), border guards judiciary also participate operation rendering field presence units remaining invisible. Immigration understood materialised instance regime asymmetrical relations characterise process; Foucault writes, power ‘embodied crystallized institution’, ‘fundamental point anchorage’ found outside (2000: 343). Therefore, cannot examined isolation policies, detainable ways (de 2002), resulting individualised fields struggle (Könönen this article, drawing focus four issues which, experience, shape conception detention: addressing perspective institution; The title absent refers challenges grasping remain invisible generally lack outcomes Consequently, long-term approach enforcement, determine ‘outside’. other words, pay cases, actual order understand struggles perceive operations itself. differences scale organisation across countries benefits small accessibility hope remarks presented here contribute institutions. mainly prepare enforce non-compliant non-citizens based estimated absconding; minority orders issued guard at points, requirements. unwilling return voluntarily cooperate authorities process, police detain connection crime control checks preparation decisions. supervised afterwards district courts: court hearing organised 96 hours thereafter 14 earliest, request. threshold Finland relatively low possess wide discretionary powers ineffective judicial review process vague stipulated Alien Act 2017). 2016, total 1,073 were detained, most them young 20 35 old; around 12% women. largest groups citizenship Estonian (181), Romanian (126), Gambian (75), Iraqi (69), Russian (48), Indian (47), Moroccan (40), Nigerian (37), Somalian (33) Belarusian (31) citizens, covering Finland. average time 2016 was around15 days, durations few almost year, maximum charge carried out two institutional settings. Metsälä unit, former office building Helsinki, has capacity 40 Konnunsuo unit near located prison had 30 places total, including 10 separate floor families. Metsälä, operated under Social Services Health Care Division City Helsinki until 2017, employees services; managed Finnish Service, concerns priority. primary logistical centre recently persons arrive implemented daily. Non-compliant who completed sentences housed Konnunsuo, consequently longer compared Metsälä. Additionally, space architectural own rooms, each television fridge. accommodated rooms spend common area; eat together dining room, joined workers. conducted 2016; covered 300 over 75 visits units. To conduct subject formal application after round discussions unit. Access granted director quite reserved towards request first. My aim examine whole, starting taking analysis. tried into account ultimately connected processing implementation After units, soon realised all took sight, making necessary extend fields. started follow juridical extension Imatra courts, supervise respectively. followed 112 hearings 21 visits. interviews workers (N=18) lawyers (N=12). get overall database. It six months receive records initially reluctant provide requested data. analysis number releases proved valuable enabled me filling gaps fieldwork. Before view, literature articles published media, distressing seekers await Exaggerated part staff contributed initial perception risky environment. A lengthy permissions proving university insurance covers physical harm. Contrary dominant narrative expectations, undramatic ordinary notwithstanding some visibly distraught times. Indeed, struggled seemingly incomparable detainees. During talked North African status years; woman her child; West ‘flights’ Italy, status; Iraq transferred Germany Dublin Regulation; man USA, lost his right divorce; Eastern European nationals, wanted nightlife men, stressed back upcoming shifts. surprise, objecting removal, enforceable expressed hopes deported possible. Though same space, seemed worlds variation periods current straightforward criteria participants. For example, category seeker analytical usefulness because, pre-removal apprehended arrival (due uncertain identity), (in disappearance reception centre) transfer (under Regulation). any person apply reapply committed offences. Similarly, find themselves situations, residents; removed history states. varied years. Compared never visited many residents awaiting whole adult lives family members, partners children 211) highlights ‘hyper diversity’ religion, ethnicity, sexuality, class. vulnerabilities, constitutes reality primarily depends perceived threats opportunities other. causing practical significantly compliance implications recognise distorted visibility caused high turnover imaginary indeterminate like prisons (Armstrong 2018) mobile spaces short Whenever went could sure whether would present new people might arrived. accounted third greatest nationals Estonians 2.1 4.4 Romanians 2016. spent developed closer relationships short-time whose missed altogether, best intentions. Key informants play significant role facilitating providing incidents occur visits, yet testimonies researcher’s Agar 1980). however, key likely lead unbalanced view prolonged exacerbate anxiety distress. Based desperate willing share experiences. directed apparently assuming interest me. affecting participants, choice far-reaching consequences arguments research. Instead focusing felt prospects regarding incommensurable realties space. frustrated distressed main concern potential shaped future horizons learned decision, pending possibility release. Yet controlled exit (i.e. escorting detainee airport harbour) compliance, escorted Nevertheless, these remained difficult grasp problem take sight. From comprised actor system; expressions ‘Finland state’ refer broad police. Yet, visible regular deliver implement removals. With exceptions, saw departure coincided coming going. able removals, early morning reasons. Those undramatic: deportees said goodbyes fellow well, departing been arrived, acquainted facilities quickly identified spoke language. Detention appeared normal unexpected measure. earlier, either elsewhere Europe; reconnected previously individuals caught Estonians, Europeans resident Italy. Ethnography method implies participation activities field; peculiar respect non-eventful Hasselberg writes removal: phenomenon means observe in’ (2016: 155). 2016): played games, browsed internet media smartphones, watched movies, otherwise killed time. Daily prescribed dining, outdoor, gym visiting hours. Long-term activities; programme hour outdoors afternoon and, bingo Fridays. affects resulted asocial long, stretching late evening. Detainees woke late; occasionally morning, available. possibilities participatory observation permission. both did keys arrange beforehand. requests stay overnight invitation declined ‘security reasons’. hung setting. platform interactions capture required Methodologically, extending Soon beginning decided attend judiciary. source frustration urged bear works police’. turned easier thought hearings, public assistants interpreters participated via video link. practice, mere formality sometimes minutes unlikelihood Just observed release, wards courts released 15 modest 1.2% rate. ostensibly guarantee rights communicated opposite message: abandoned protection law. interviewed considered ‘theatre’ ‘rubber stamp’. 2017.) Observing comprehend criminal charges met. palpable centres, those optimistic chances wer