Global Crimes Complete PDF

Criminology-crime: This excerpt from "Introducing Criminology" provides a comprehensive overview of the field and its complexities. Here are the key themes and points: Crime as a Product of Society: Drawing on Marx, the text emphasizes that crime can be viewed as a form of social production. The ex...

Criminology-crime: This excerpt from "Introducing Criminology" provides a comprehensive overview of the field and its complexities. Here are the key themes and points: Crime as a Product of Society: Drawing on Marx, the text emphasizes that crime can be viewed as a form of social production. The existence of crime creates various professions, including criminologists, and highlights the political nature of criminology. Political Dimensions of Criminology: Criminology is portrayed as a political endeavor influenced by who defines crime and who is punished. The text urges critical examination of why certain acts are criminalized and the power dynamics involved in these decisions. Sutherland's Definition: Edwin Sutherland's definition of criminology encompasses the law-making process, law-breaking, and societal reactions to these acts. This broad scope underscores the multifaceted nature of the field. Historical Development: The passage outlines the evolution of criminology from a collection of disparate interests into a recognized field, drawing from various disciplines such as sociology, psychology, and law. Lack of Consensus: Criminology is characterized as a "rendezvous subject" without a single theoretical framework or method. This diversity can lead to differing perspectives and debates, which the author views as a strength. Common Misconceptions: The author dispels myths about criminology, noting that most criminologists are not directly involved in crime investigation. Instead, they focus on broader questions related to crime and society. Core Questions of Criminology: The text sets up a framework for exploring fundamental questions about crime, such as its definition, who commits it, and societal responses to it. It suggests that understanding crime requires careful consideration of its complexities. There is an argument for broadening the definition of crime beyond legal violations to include social and moral considerations. This perspective allows for examining behaviors that challenge social norms, such as graffiti. Cultural Contexts of Crime: The example of graffiti illustrates how certain behaviors can straddle the line between art and crime. The social reaction to graffiti raises questions about authority, control, and perceptions of youth, emphasizing the importance of context in criminological study. criminology is a dynamic, politically charged field that requires a nuanced understanding of crime, its definitions, and the societal responses to it. It invites readers to think critically about the nature of crime and the factors that shape our understanding of criminal behavior. 1 Historical Changes in Legality: The text discusses how certain acts, like abortion and homosexuality, were once criminalized but have since been legalized through political and legal changes. The discussion of the Loving case exemplifies how marriage laws regarding race evolved, highlighting the impact of social movements on legal definitions. There is a reverse trend, where activities once tolerated—such as drug use or smoking—have become criminalized or heavily regulated. The shift in societal views towards substances and behaviors showcases how crime is often a reflection of contemporary social attitudes. Relativity Across Jurisdictions: The author emphasizes that what is considered criminal varies significantly by location, with examples like apostasy and blasphemy laws demonstrating how different cultures and legal systems can treat similar actions differently. The text also touches on developmental relativity, focusing on how children and juveniles are treated differently in the justice system. The contrasting cases of the Bulger and Redergard incidents illustrate how societal perceptions of youth and crime can lead to vastly different legal outcomes. Social Construction of Crime: The discussion on criminalization highlights the role of power and societal constructs in defining what is considered criminal behavior. The author prompts readers to consider who benefits from these definitions and who is disproportionately affected. Disparities in Enforcement: The examples of stop-and-frisk policies and the treatment of financial fraud versus benefit fraud underscore systemic biases in the criminal justice system. The stark differences in how laws are enforced based on social status or identity raise questions about equity and justice. corporate wrongdoing is often overlooked compared to individual offenses. Crime vs harm The idea of crime is not straightforward; it encompasses a wide range of behaviors that might not have anything in common except being labeled as criminal. Behaviors such as drink driving, prostitution, and identity theft are categorized together under criminal law, but they differ significantly in context and impact. Criminals as a Category The term "criminal" implies that individuals within this group share inherent characteristics. However, with around 65 million adults in the U.S. having criminal records, it’s difficult to argue that they are fundamentally different from non-criminals. Many people, including those we know, have likely engaged in activities that could lead to criminal charges, highlighting the blurry line between criminal and non- criminal behavior. Starting to engage in criminal behavior at a young age increases the likelihood of continued and serious offending later in life. Factors such as family violence, breakups, and substance abuse during childhood are linked to higher risks of serious criminal behavior. Recent research is revisiting the role of biological and psychological characteristics in understanding criminal behavior, suggesting that certain traits may predispose individuals to violence. 2 The Nature of Harm and Criminal Justice The majority of offenses considered criminal are relatively minor and cause limited harm. This raises questions about the aims of the criminal justice system. Significant harms are often overlooked, including those caused by governments and corporations. These may not be prosecuted despite their serious impacts. High crime rates persist despite harsh penalties. Recidivism remains a challenge, suggesting that punitive measures alone may not address the root causes of crime. Traditional criminal justice may overlook informal means of resolving disputes, leading to greater societal harm. Increasing interest in alternative justice models, such as restorative justice, reflects a desire to address conflicts more effectively and inclusively. From crime to social harm: Traditional narratives of crime often exclude powerful individuals (e.g., corporate executives, military officers, doctors). These individuals can cause significant harm but are not typically labeled as "criminal." Criminology often relies on state definitions of crime, which can obscure corporate or systemic harms (e.g., tax avoidance, state violence). The discipline tends to focus on crimes committed by marginalized groups while overlooking actions by those in power. The concept of "crime" is not fixed; it changes over time and across different cultures. Definitions of crime are shaped by those in power, typically middle to upper-class men. Scholars like Sellin and Sutherland have suggested broader definitions of crime that encompass societal norms and laws outside the criminal code. Human rights frameworks advocate for including harms like racism, sexism, and economic exploitation in criminological study. Zemiology The term "zemiology" was introduced to focus on social harm instead of traditional crime. Zemiology aims to challenge the conventional definitions of crime and emphasize structural and ideological harms, especially those arising from capitalism. Discussions around zemiology incorporate diverse fields beyond criminology, suggesting a need for a more holistic understanding of harm. Crime variation Same-Sex Relationships: Criminalized in many countries, illustrating the influence of cultural and legal contexts. Abortion: Varies significantly by region; legal in some places, illegal in others, demonstrating changing societal values. Death Penalty: A complex issue where the same act (killing) can be defined differently based on legal context (state-sanctioned vs. extrajudicial). 3 This text critiques the conventional understanding of crime and calls for a broader examination of social harm, highlighting the need for an interdisciplinary approach to better understand and address these issues. This excerpt dives into critical perspectives on criminology, highlighting significant criticisms of the discipline and advocating for the concept of social harm as an alternative framework. Here’s a summary of the key points: Ontological Reality of Crime: Crime lacks intrinsic qualities that make it universally recognizable. It is a constructed concept defined by legal systems, making it contingent on social relations. Myth of Crime: Criminology often accepts crime as a given without questioning its definitions, leading to a perpetuation of misconceptions about what constitutes harmful behavior. Petty vs. Serious Crimes: Many behaviors labeled as crimes are minor and not necessarily harmful, while serious harms, such as corporate and state crimes, are often overlooked. Exclusion of Serious Harms: The criminal justice system frequently fails to address severe issues like violence against women and corporate crime, which have significant societal impacts. Criminalization Process: The process of defining and responding to crime is complex and often fails to account for the power dynamics that influence which behaviors are criminalized. Ineffectiveness of Crime Control: The existing crime control measures often do not achieve their intended goals of reducing crime or rehabilitating offenders. Instead, they maintain unequal power structures. Power Relations: The category of crime serves to uphold existing power dynamics, often privileging the behaviors of powerful individuals or organizations while criminalizing marginalized groups. Call for Zemiology: The authors argue for a shift towards zemiology, focusing on social harm rather than crime, to address a broader spectrum of harmful behaviors and the systemic issues that contribute to them. significant critiques of traditional criminology, advocating for a shift toward understanding social harm and developing zemiology as a discipline; 1. Critique of Crime as a Concept: The authors argue that crime lacks inherent reality and is socially constructed through legal frameworks. This challenges the idea of crime as a fixed category and emphasizes its variability across contexts. 2. Social Harm vs. Crime: The text proposes that criminology often ignores many serious social harms, particularly those related to corporate or state actions. This suggests a need for a broader lens that encompasses various forms of harm beyond criminal acts. 3. Invisible Crimes: Many harmful actions, particularly those by powerful entities, go unpunished and are often overlooked by conventional criminology. The authors call for a focus on these neglected areas to understand their impact on society. 4  4. Harms of the Criminal Justice System: The text discusses the harms perpetuated by the criminal justice system itself, highlighting issues like legal pollution and the adverse effects of punitive measures on communities. 5. Expanding Definitions of Harm: The authors advocate for expanding the definition of crime to include a range of harms, including those not formally recognized as criminal but that have significant social consequences. 6. Zemiology as a Discipline: The authors propose zemiology as a distinct field focused on understanding and addressing social harms. They emphasize its potential for theoretical coherence, comprehensive analysis, and broader applicability beyond individualistic frameworks of responsibility. Intersections of Power and Harm: A central theme is the relationship between social harm, power structures, and systemic inequalities. Zemiology aims to address these issues and advocate for policies that go beyond mere criminalization. Introduction to global mobility Modernity was a time of static, sold, heavy systems and institutions but late modernity (=liquid modernity) is a time of constant change as systems and institutions emerge, evolve and dissolve. Identity and power are fragmented. We can say that social life is fluid, changeable and mobile. This environment affects the way that crime is constructed, committed, controlled and punished. This causes a sense of instability and uncertainty for certain groups like asylum seekers or poor people. In this environment punitiveness and the use of crime arise as a governing tool. Associated with liquefaction of society is an increase in physical movement of people, information and ideas. This leads to new mobility paradigm is social sciences. There is now more movement of people, ideas, and information due to globalization and technological advances. Concept of mobility has become a central focus in social sciences, helping us understand global structures and relationships. Mobility is often celebrated and encouraged in contemporary society. People are expected to be adaptable and able to move freely for work or leisure. Nomad as a Symbol: The "nomad" embodies this fluid, mobile lifestyle, often characterized by temporary work and minimal commitments, aligning with the qualities of "liquid modernity" Mobility Inequality: Tourists vs. Vagabonds Not all people enjoy the same freedom of movement, creating a divide in global society. Mobility has become a new factor in social hierarchy. Tourists (usually from the global north) travel for pleasure or business, while vagabonds (often from the global south) move out of necessity, escaping hardship. This highlights the difference in global movement freedom. 5 Fluid vs Solid borders : For certain individuals (e.g., tourists), borders are less restrictive, while for others (e.g., asylum seekers), they are heavily enforced, creating an inequitable mobility regime. Physical vs Virtual Borders: Borders are enforced through physical barriers (e.g., walls, maritime patrols) and virtual controls (e.g., biosocial profiling), which regulate people beyond the traditional nation-state borders. Borders as Social Exclusion: Borders now symbolize global social exclusion, with certain groups (asylum seekers, those from marginalized regions) facing increasing restrictions. This control reflects broader social anxieties, where certain "undesirable" groups are restricted as a means of addressing social insecurity and uncertainty in a globalized world. Traditional maps are based on historical European dominance, shaping how we visually understand the world and its power dynamics. New map perspectives could better reflect the current geopolitical landscape. Upside-down maps, for example, challenge traditional power narratives and suggest a reshaped understanding of global hierarchies. In summary, this passage discusses how mobility—and the limits imposed on it—reflects and reinforces global social hierarchies, where some are free to move while others are restricted by physical and digital borders. The need to rethink traditional concepts of borders, movement, and global maps highlights the fluidity of global power and society. Southern criminology and cognitive justice Knowledge Production and Global Inequality In the Information Age, dominance in academia mirrors colonial dynamics, with the Global North (especially the U.S. and U.K.) producing the majority of global academic content. The U.S. and U.K., with only 15% of the world's population, produce over half of academic knowledge, creating a Northern- centric hegemony in social science fields, including criminology. Traditional criminology has been heavily shaped by Global North experiences, particularly those of English-speaking countries. This dominance impacts research priorities, theory, and academic discourse. Including the insights of Global South societies could enhance criminological knowledge and challenge the narrow views formed by Northern experiences alone. Approximately 85% of the world's population lives in the Global South, facing unique challenges such as severe poverty, health, and education disparities, along with issues of violence and insecurity. The scale and severity of crime-related issues, such as homicide, human rights abuses, and corruption, are often greater in the Global South. Yet, these regions have historically received less criminological attention despite their critical importance. The Northern-dominated narrative of criminology has overlooked the unique contexts of the Global South, which is now being critically examined to create a more balanced, inclusive criminological 6 approach. Southern criminology seeks to incorporate the unique experiences and perspectives of the Global South, providing a broader criminological understanding. Connell’s Southern Theory: Raewyn Connell critiques the North-centric approach of social sciences, arguing that social theories often present Northern experiences as universal, overlooking how colonial history and global power structures influence knowledge. Decolonizing Knowledge: Southern thinkers such as Boaventura de Sousa Santos call for “cognitive justice,” arguing that Western-dominated academic structures need an epistemological shift to recognize diverse, localized knowledge. Border Thinking: Walter Mignolo advocates for “border thinking,” a concept that promotes alternative ways of understanding reality from marginalized perspectives, challenging universalist Western narratives (Mignolo 2012). North Atlantic countries' global power was largely built through imperial conquests, which shaped their own development and influence in academic fields. By “Southernizing” criminology, this approach aims to redefine criminology to include diverse global perspectives and recognize the interplay between the Global North and South in knowledge production. The terms "Global North" and "Global South" emerged as an alternative to outdated binaries like "developed/developing." The Brandt Commission's reports in the late 1970s popularized the North/South division to highlight global economic inequalities. It separated the wealthier "North" from the economically disadvantaged "South," yet also reified the North as the developmental "norm" to which the South is expected to aspire. Conceptualizing the South in Criminology and Global Relations: The "South" in criminology highlights the influence of colonial history on contemporary social and legal systems, encouraging autonomous knowledge creation from Southern perspectives. The passage critiques the Northern-centric approach in criminology, advocating for an inclusive framework that considers the historical context of colonial exploitation and its enduring effects on Southern societies. The concept of the North/South divide is deeply intertwined with histories of empire, particularly European colonialism, which often imposed racial and cultural hierarchies that still influence global relations today. Settler colonialism in regions like Australia and the Americas established structures that prioritized white European identities, often at the expense of indigenous and non-white populations. Neo-liberal globalization and the digital age are reshaping the North/South relationship, creating both opportunities and challenges for Southern societies. New economic hubs in the South challenge traditional economic power structures, yet wealth disparities persist globally. The rise of a global elite and the marginalization of subaltern groups underscore the uneven impact of globalization within both the North and the South, intensifying discussions around global justice and inclusive knowledge production. In summary, the "South" is framed as a construct used to resist 7 Northern hegemony in various domains, calling for a re-evaluation of history and the spatial-temporal power dynamics that shape our world. Migrational Predisposition & Modern Life: Carter (1992) advocates for adopting a "migrational predisposition" to better understand the impact of global mobility and displacement on modern identity. Suggests that despite global interconnectedness, there is rising nationalism and xenophobia—a trend Carter observed presciently in the early 1990s. Latour (2017) argues that climate change has made environmental displacement a universal reality, "sweeping away all borders" and affecting everyone. Those in the Global South, who contribute least to climate change, face disproportionate harm, which will generate new waves of migration and conflict. Environmental degradation is linked with social structures of domination and control, which are present in settler cultures and cycles of expansion, settlement, and exclusion. Latour and Hage argue that human and environmental oppression share "generative structures" of inequality, suggesting a need to view these issues as interconnected. Criminology's origins are rooted in Northern theories and practices, with early "scientific" views of criminality shaped by European imperialism, racial science, and eugenics. Thinkers like Lombroso used Social Darwinism to frame the Global South as "atavistic," portraying its populations as inherently more "criminal" due to evolutionary ideas that favored the North's "civilized" standards. Despite advancements, criminology still relies on frameworks that may reinforce biases. Examples include life- course criminology, which often focuses on "deviance" in certain racial or socioeconomic groups. Mainstream criminology often overlooks corporate and environmental crimes that cause widespread harm, focusing instead on "dangerous subjects" shaped by these historical biases. To address modern issues like climate-driven displacement and systemic harms, criminology must evolve beyond its origins and incorporate a more inclusive, global perspective on crime and deviance. In summary criminological theories developed in the Global North are often applied in the Global South without sufficient adaptation, assuming they have universal applicability. This practice reinforces a "vertical integration" model where Northern theories dominate, limiting innovation and horizontal collaboration across regions. Until recently, the Global South's unique social and criminological challenges were largely ignored, reinforcing a one-directional flow of ideas from North to South. The dominance of Northern frameworks marginalizes Southern-specific criminologies, despite recent growth in areas like feminist, queer, green, and indigenous criminologies. Terra-Centric and State-Centric Criminology: Criminology has traditionally focused on domestic crime and urban settings within stable, liberal states, ignoring transnational issues and non-urban crimes. This approach is problematic in an increasingly globalized and digital world where borderless cybercrime and transnational violence have a substantial impact. 8 Traditional criminology often ignores the role of violence in state-building, conquest, and colonization— particularly the imposition of European imperial power on Southern societies. Criminology's origins tied to state power have led to a focus on "peace-time" crime management, excluding contexts like ethnic cleansing, war, and rural violence that are more common in the Global South. Colonial Impact and Forced Labor: The expansion of European capitalism involved violent changes in the Global South, such as land expropriation, forced labor, and the suppression of local economies to meet Northern demands. These historical processes still shape contemporary Southern crime dynamics, challenging the view of crime as merely a domestic urban issue. However, now liberal policing principles, such as minimal force, applied in the North were often replaced by repressive practices in colonial settings, like summary execution, detention, and violence against colonial populations. What is southern criminology? - Criminology has historically neglected the Global South, focusing instead on issues and frameworks rooted in Northern. Southern criminology aims to democratize and expand criminology by incorporating perspectives and histories of crime, justice, and security from the Global South. Theoretically, Southern criminology aims to create its own theories rather than merely applying those from the North, addressing the power imbalance that favors Northern knowledge. Southern criminology does not seek to replace or oppose traditional criminology; instead, it promotes intercultural dialogue and collaboration to better understand global interconnections. Its goal is to "Southernize" criminology, enriching it with diverse perspectives rather than entirely restructuring the field. It highlights the need for reflection on how metropolitan (Northern) dominance has influenced criminology, urging a shift to more inclusive practices that account for the South's unique contexts. Although Southern criminology may not immediately transform criminology’s power dynamics, it aims to gradually reshape the field to be more globally inclusive and representative of both North and South. Emergence and Debate: The concept of Southern criminology gained significant attention after its introduction in a 2016 British Journal of Criminology article. It sparked widespread interest and debate, highlighting the value of a criminological approach that accounts for experiences from the Global South. Max Travers questioned the feasibility of Southern criminology, while Chris Cunneen argued that it would be more impactful if it integrated indigenous perspectives. The authors counter that Southern criminology isn’t a new “brand” but rather an effort to incorporate marginalized voices, particularly from the Global South, to address global justice issues. Criminology remains dominated by perspectives from the Global North, particularly the U.S., where criminology has become institutionalized. This North-centric focus often limits the representation of Southern nations in criminological discourse.Linguistic and institutional limitations further complicate knowledge exchange, marginalizing countries like those in Latin America and Asia. Even where Southern 9 criminological research exists, language barriers and a focus on English publications often reduce its visibility. Southern criminology has spurred new collaborations across Asia and other regions, facilitating academic events and publishing opportunities. Examples include the Asian Criminology Society and the successful Asian Journal of Criminology. Southern criminology faces the challenge of avoiding closure and dogmatism, instead staying open to critical examination and resisting conformity to political correctness or academic trends. The passage emphasizes that Southern criminology’s purpose isn’t to overthrow Northern theories but to complement them, fostering a more globally representative criminology. It advocates for a criminology that acknowledges the unique social and political histories of Southern nations, like the impact of colonialism and authoritarianism in regions like Latin America and post-apartheid South Africa. This involves a "journey" approach rather than creating fortified fields of isolated expertise, as it seeks to democratize knowledge and foster cognitive justice. A central theme in the text is the critique of the Global North's influence on crime control policies and institutions that are often exported to Southern contexts without adaptation to local needs, resulting in problematic implementations. For instance, the North’s "modern" prison systems, established during colonial times, were implemented in the South with significant challenges due to local socioeconomic constraints and state fragility, leading to prisons that functioned more as "punitive swamps" than rehabilitative facilities. Southern Criminology encourages a two-way exchange of knowledge and practices. While historically, policies have primarily flowed from North to South, notable practices—like restorative justice and transitional justice—are rooted in Southern traditions and have started influencing Northern policies, fostering a more equitable global knowledge exchange. Moreover, South-South exchanges are highlighted as an underexplored yet valuable area, especially in approaches to gender violence and community justice. Criminalization of mobility The text explores the themes of migration control, the racialization of global societies, and the convergence of immigration and criminal law—termed "crimmigration law” Wealthy nations in North America, Europe, and Australasia, alongside affluent areas in Asia, are reacting defensively to perceived threats to their stability and way of life. These nations are increasingly isolating themselves in response to global population pressures, economic crises, and shifting political power, which leads to conflict and heightened migration. However, The need to adapt to ethnocultural diversity and mass migration is emphasized as essential for peaceful coexistence. This perspective challenges the rising trend towards segregation and discrimination against minorities. 10 Considering the current immigration policies, there is a growing visibility of global apartheid—a divide between the wealthy and impoverished. Borders are becoming stricter, functioning as mechanisms for discipline and punishment against marginalized groups, including migrants. Criminology of Mobility The text introduces a new sub-field termed “criminology of mobility,” suggesting that the study of crime can enhance understanding of border work and migration control. It challenges the notion that border crossing is inherently criminal, arguing that it is a natural part of globalization and economic interdependence. Criminalization is a social construct. An act is labeled criminal based on societal definitions and the power dynamics between those who enforce the law and those subjected to it. Migration control practices are increasingly viewed through a criminological lens, recognizing the punitive nature of these policies. The rise of a migration-control industry parallels existing crime control systems, incorporating surveillance, policing, and legal processes. This industry will play a crucial role in the broader framework of global social control, emphasizing the need for criminology to address these developments. The blending of immigration and criminal law has led to the creation of "crimmigration law," where border violations are now treated as criminal offenses. This shift includes a broader definition of deportable offenses and the criminalization of aiding or associating with undocumented migrants. There is a noted increase in punitive discourse around migration, with migrants being framed as deviants or threats to society. The rhetoric surrounding migration has become more authoritarian, emphasizing tougher law enforcement and preemptive measures to control perceived risks associated with migration. Deportation is framed not merely as an administrative action but as a form of punishment, particularly affecting long-term lawful residents. This shift in perception places significant restrictions on migrants, portraying them as threats to social order and public safety. This excerpt provides a comprehensive overview of how technological advancements and policing strategies are converging in the contexts of crime and migration control, highlighting the phenomenon known as "crimmigration." ### Key Themes and Concepts Technological Innovations in Crimmigration: Crime control drives technological innovation, and similarly, migration control technologies are rapidly evolving. This includes physical barriers (like fences) and advanced information technologies (like databases and biometric systems). The use of military technologies and strategies in border enforcement underscores a shift towards a more aggressive and militarized approach to migration control. 11 The lines between domestic policing and border control are increasingly blurred. Agencies that historically operated separately are now converging, sharing intelligence and operational capabilities. There is a trend of border agents acquiring police-like powers, allowing them to operate within the domestic sphere, including powers of arrest and search. Global initiatives, such as The Five Country Conference, facilitate the sharing of biometric data among nations, which strengthens the enforcement capabilities of immigration authorities. This transnational cooperation leads to a more interconnected and cohesive system of border security that extends beyond traditional borders. Crimmigration and Immcarceration: The term "immcarceration" describes the intersection of immigration and criminal justice systems, leading to the detention of individuals who fall into a gray area between being a migrant and a criminal. Immigration detention centers often resemble prisons, emphasizing a punitive approach rather than rehabilitation. This approach disproportionately affects foreign nationals, highlighting issues of race, ethnicity, and nationality. The merging of immigration and crime control raises significant questions regarding legitimacy, accountability, and the treatment of marginalized populations. There is a troubling trend toward seeing individuals, particularly migrants, as security threats rather than people with rights, resulting in a system designed primarily for exclusion rather than rehabilitation. The militarization of border enforcement raises ethical concerns about the use of force and the treatment of individuals crossing borders. The deployment of military technologies and personnel in migration control can lead to human rights violations. The extensive use of information communication technologies for surveillance and data collection poses risks to individual privacy and civil liberties. The sharing of biometric data across nations raises concerns about consent and the potential misuse of personal information. The concept of immcarceration reflects systemic inequalities, as marginalized populations, particularly migrants, bear the brunt of punitive measures. The lack of a focus on rehabilitation in detention centers further worsens social injustices. There is a need for a re-evaluation of current approaches to migration and crime control, emphasizing humane treatment, rehabilitation, and the protection of human rights. Scholars and policymakers must consider the long-term implications of crimmigration on society and the rule of law. Punishment and Pain: The text discusses the intrinsic nature of punishment as pain inflicted by the state. This concept extends to the crimmigration system, where non-citizens face severe repercussions that can resemble punitive measures, even if they are framed as administrative actions. 12 Withdrawal of Rights: Irregular migrants experience the deprivation of fundamental rights, including the right to life, liberty, and basic necessities. The systemic denial of these rights leads to physical and psychological harm. Deaths and Physical Harm: The securitization of borders has resulted in thousands of deaths and injuries among migrants attempting to cross borders. These harms are often framed as collateral damage, raising ethical questions about the justification of such policies. Economic and Racial Inequality: The text argues that migration control disproportionately affects marginalized racial groups, with policies designed to favor wealthier individuals and reinforce existing social hierarchies. This is likened to apartheid practices that aimed to segregate and control marginalized populations. Justifications for migration control often stem from racial ideologies that seek to preserve national identity and security. This echoes historical segregationist rhetoric, suggesting that contemporary migration policies are grounded in a desire to control difference. Institutional racism perpetuates inequalities within migration control systems. Racial and ethnic identities are often used to justify discriminatory practices that target specific groups. There is a call for researchers to explore the intersection of race, political economy, and state power in relation to migration control. This includes examining how coercive state practices impact racialized communities and the broader implications for social justice. While overtly racist policies have become less acceptable, subtle forms of racial exclusion persist, often cloaked in discussions of nationality and immigration status. This analysis raises critical questions about the ethics of migration control and the role of the state in perpetuating harm against vulnerable populations. It challenges the reader to consider how contemporary practices may reflect historical injustices and to advocate for more equitable and humane approaches to migration and border control. 1. **Comparative Studies**: Examining the migration control practices of various countries to identify patterns of discrimination and enforcement. 2. **Impact Assessments**: Evaluating the social and psychological impacts of crimmigration policies on affected communities. 3. **Policy Analysis**: Investigating the motivations behind migration control policies and their alignment with human rights principles. 4. **Intersectionality**: Exploring how various identities (e.g., race, gender, class) intersect to shape individual experiences within the crimmigration system. 13 This text provides a profound examination of the intertwined nature of crime control and immigration policy, coining the term "crimmigration control" to encapsulate the convergence of these domains. Here’s a brief summary and analysis of the key themes and conclusions presented: Infliction of Pain and Rights Withdrawal: Systems of crime control are inherently designed to inflict harm and pain on individuals. This perspective is particularly pronounced in the context of crimmigration control, where the withdrawal of fundamental rights, including the right to life, becomes evident through harsh policies at borders. Dehumanization and Punitive Nature of Migration Policies: The narrative positions the punitive aspects of migration control in contrast to traditional criminal justice systems, which are typically bound by due process protections. It suggests that migration control policies function as a form of punishment, even if not officially recognized as such. The notion of "collateral damage" emerges, raising questions about whether the harms inflicted on migrants can be justified within any moral or ethical framework. Contemporary migration control policies in Western nations and the apartheid system in South Africa, are founded on racial and economic inequalities. It highlights the ideological underpinnings that justify these exclusionary practices, often framed within the context of national security and economic privilege. Transnational Dimensions of Crimmigration Control: The increasingly transnational nature of crime and migration control, suggesting that these systems now operate in a space that transcends national boundaries. The crimmigration control infrastructure, including detention centers and border enforcement agencies, represents a new frontier of governance that merges security and immigration policies. Call for Change and a More Inclusive Future: A radical shift away from exclusionary practices and towards a more equitable global political economy, involves decriminalizing migration and fostering a cosmopolitan ethos that values diversity and human rights. There is a need for a critical criminology of mobility to resist the punitive aspects of the emerging transnational state system and to address the systemic injustices faced by marginalized groups. Can immigration detention be legitimate? Immigration detention (UK) The UK's immigration detention system began in 1970 with the opening of the Harmondsworth Immigration Detention Unit near Heathrow Airport, originally accommodating Commonwealth citizens 14 denied entry. The system has since expanded significantly, evolving from 40 beds to 10 centers (or 11 if including family pre-departure accommodations), with current capacities ranging from 200 to 615 detainees each. Nowadays Approximately 3,000 individuals, including some children, are held in Immigration Removal Centres (IRCs) and Short-Term Holding Facilities (STHFs). An additional 800 ex-prisoners may remain in prison pending deportation, and there is no consistent data on individuals held in police custody. Detainees encompass a wide range of individuals, including asylum seekers, ex-prisoners, visa over- stayers, and undocumented migrants. Roughly 90% of detainees are adult men, and many have family ties in the UK or are long-term residents. Although the legal requirement is for detention to be short, many individuals experience prolonged confinement. The average duration is under six months, but an increasing number are held much longer, often without clear justification or communication about their situation. Lack of reason: Detainees often struggle to understand the reasons for their detention and experience difficulties accessing legal support, leading to feelings of isolation and boredom. Educational and recreational activities are limited, exacerbating mental health issues. Lack of regulations; Many detainees draw parallels between detention centers and prisons, noting that detention lacks the structure and predictability of prison life. Detainees express frustration with the uncertainty of their situation and the absence of clear timelines for their release or deportation. Lack of purpose; The official purpose of detention policies is not clearly articulated; there is no statutory definition or detailed description of goals in the 2001 Detention Centre Rules. The UK Border Agency (UKBA) lacks an official mission statement regarding detention, often resorting to a vague slogan: "detain, protect, remove." Detention custody officers (DCOs) often find their roles ambiguous, straddling the line between providing care and maintaining security. While some DCOs emphasize a supportive approach, they acknowledge the inherent tension in their responsibilities, particularly as they assist detainees seeking legal remedies for their confinement. Why immigration system has grown? The immigration system has grown in complexity due to numerous legislative changes, leading to the criminalization of previously administrative matters, such as visa overstaying. Mandatory deportation applies to non-European Economic Area (EEA) nationals sentenced to more than 12 months in prison, with deportation also possible for any foreigner with a criminal record. Most detention centers are privately operated, with the same company (now known as G4S) managing two of them since their inception. The legacy of the British Empire is evident in the disproportionate number of Commonwealth citizens detained. Justifying detention 15 Immigration Removal Centres are viewed by the UK government as essential for border control, serving both a right and an obligation of the state. Critics argue that IRCs lead to long-term psychological distress, are used arbitrarily, and represent an inefficient allocation of resources. There is little evidence supporting the claim that detention deters migration; instead, IRCs are shown to cause considerable harm. Detainees have expressed their dissatisfaction through various forms of protest, including hunger strikes and riots, and there have been instances of suicides and escapes. Despite the decline in asylum seekers since the 1990s, many individuals remain undocumented, often stemming from conflict zones, particularly in the Middle East. The system has expanded significantly since its inception, with a diverse mix of detainees subject to uncertain and often arbitrary detention practices. The criticisms levied against IRCs reveal significant issues related to mental health, administrative inefficiencies, and the ethical implications of detaining individuals based on their immigration status. The lack of a clearly defined purpose for detention policies further complicates the discourse, underscoring the urgent need for reform in immigration detention practices and the legal frameworks that underpin them. Legitimacy in penal control Legitimacy is crucial for understanding the dynamics of power in penal systems, including prisons and detention centers. It is both an analytical and normative concept that reflects how power is exercised and experienced, particularly by those who are subordinate (i.e., detainees). Previous studies on legitimacy, particularly by Sparks and Bottoms, have been criticized for lacking consideration of factors like gender, race, and citizenship, leading to a somewhat blind approach to issues of power and identity. The notion of prisoners negotiating their power dynamics has been questioned, as it may overlook the realities of compliance driven by "dull compulsion," rather than true agency. Detention centers are characterized by "hyper diversity," complicating the assumptions of shared group membership that legitimacy theories often rely upon. The state’s power is not only absolute but is also mediated through various actors (NGOs, private companies) involved in the detention process, complicating detainees' agency. Identity of detainees and power: Detainees' identities are crucial in shaping their experiences and power dynamics within the centers. The treatment of detainees often reflects racial and gender biases, exacerbating their vulnerabilities. The concept of agency is problematic; many detainees lack the capacity to meaningfully fight for their detention due to systemic barriers and power imbalances. Moral issues 16 Detention centers exist in a moral and normative gray area, operating outside traditional understandings of legitimacy. They serve as a "no-man’s-land," emphasizing the arbitrary nature of detention without clear justification. Unlike prisons, which serve punitive purposes, detention centers hold individuals indefinitely without a defined time frame, raising ethical questions about their existence. Traditional legitimacy models do not adequately capture the complexities and injustices of these institutions. The challenges of globalization and identity highlight the erosion of rights for non-citizens, who are often left without adequate protections or opportunities for redress. Critiques: 1. Intersectionality: The experiences of detainees cannot be understood without considering the intersections of race, gender, and citizenship. The one-size-fits-all approach overlooks these critical dimensions. 2. Agency vs. Compliance: The distinction between agency and mere compliance underlines the complexities of power dynamics. Recognizing that many detainees comply not out of consent but rather due to structural constraints is essential for understanding their dilemma. 3. Globalization and Mobility: The text situates immigration detention within a global context, highlighting the paradox of states' desires to control borders while facing inevitable migration flows. This dynamic complicates notions of justice and legitimacy. 4. Moral Imperatives: The critique calls for a reevaluation of how society views and addresses the needs of non-citizens. It challenges the existing punitive framework and urges for a more humane approach to immigration. A case of mixed motives: In most EU countries and the United States, immigration detention is defined as an administrative, non-punitive measure to facilitate expulsion. This paper argues that immigration detention in the Netherlands serves three informal functions in addition to its formal function as an instrument of expulsion: (1) deterring illegal residence, (2) controlling pauperism and (3) managing popular anxiety by symbolically asserting state control. These informal functions indicate that society has not found a definitive solution for the presence of migrants who are not admitted but are also difficult to expel. The analysis, which is placed against the background of the functions of penal detention, is based on policy documents, survey data, administrative data and fieldwork in a Dutch immigration detention center. Across Europe, the U.S., and Australia, there's a significant increase in the construction and utilization of detention centers for immigrants, particularly those classified as ‘unwanted’. This trend reflects a broader governmental approach to regulating international immigration. 17 Immigration detention can be categorized into two main types: pre-admission (at the border) pre-expulsion (for unauthorized migrants) In many European countries, including the Netherlands, immigration detention is considered administrative rather than punitive, with the stated goal of maintaining public order and enabling border control. Despite the formal classification of immigration detention as a non-punitive measure, actual practices in the Netherlands suggest that detention serves informal functions not codified in law. By observing the situation we can conclude that: - An increase in the capacity and usage of detention, despite a decrease in actual expulsions. - An increase in the average length of detention. - A revolving door phenomenon where individuals are released but often re-detained. Challenge of identity: Identification and compliance issues complicate expulsion processes, as many undocumented migrants conceal their identities and countries of origin are reluctant to accept them. The article seeks to explore informal functions of immigration detention, examining perspectives of various stakeholders (politicians, policymakers, migrants, etc.) and distinguishing between formal and informal functions. Legal vs. Informal Functions: The distinction between what is legally prescribed and the practical functions of detention raises questions about the effectiveness and ethical implications of current immigration policies. Public Perception and Policy Support: The notion of immigration detention as a tool for asserting control over migration may reflect a broader societal concern about immigration, which could affect public trust in governmental institutions. Need for Comprehensive Analysis: Your approach suggests the necessity of a multifaceted examination of immigration detention, considering not just legal frameworks but also the lived experiences of detainees and the societal impacts of these policies. Function of penal detention: Functions of punishment, particularly within the context of immigration detention, raises critical questions about the moral and social implications of punitive measures. 1. Moral Functions of Punishment: Punishment satisfies moral needs beyond its effectiveness in deterring deviance. a. Retribution: Wrongdoers deserve punishment proportional to their moral wrongdoing. 18  b. Denunciation: Law violators should be publicly condemned as a reflection of societal values. While informal functions of punishment (like deterrence and incapacitation) are not explicitly stated in administrative law, they are implied and widely recognized in criminal and penal law. The transition from rehabilitation to a focus on incapacitation, noted in the literature on ”new penology” and the “culture of control”, marks a significant change in penal practices from the 1960s and 1970s. Rising incarceration rates in Western Europe and North America are indicative of this shift. The penal system has expanded to include a wider range of social groups, targeting those deemed "dangerous," such as the poor and drug addicts. De Giorgi's observation emphasizes that the focus has shifted from individual characteristics to social factors that categorize individuals into risk classes. Moral Underpinnings of Punishment: The discussion emphasizes the importance of understanding the moral rationale behind punitive measures, which can affect public perceptions of justice and the treatment of marginalized groups, including illegal migrants. Shifts in Penal Philosophy: The move from rehabilitation to incapacitation reflects broader societal attitudes towards crime and punishment, suggesting that punitive measures may serve to reinforce social hierarchies and control vulnerable populations. Intersection of Social Policy and Penal Practices: The increasing overlap between social issues (like poverty and drug dependency) and penal measures raises questions about the role of the welfare state and the implications for those caught in the net of the penal system. Deterring illegal residence: Immigration detention in the Netherlands Punishment vs. Administrative Detention: Although administrative detention is not formally considered a punishment, detainees often perceive it as punitive. This raises questions about the intended purpose of such detention. The conditions of administrative detention—limited opportunities for work and study—are contrasted with regular prison settings, suggesting a punitive aspect that may deter illegal migration. Deterrence: Political figures acknowledge the use of administrative detention as a deterrent against illegal migration. The belief is that increased surveillance and the threat of detention discourage illegal residence. Despite these efforts, there is little evidence to suggest that administrative detention effectively reduces the number of illegal migrants in the Netherlands. Social Exclusion and Dependency: 19 The Koppelingswet (Linking Act) excludes illegal migrants from welfare and healthcare, leading to increased dependence on informal support networks. This marginalization can result in increased crime among illegal migrants. Local governments have started providing some support to specific categories of illegal migrants, but this assistance is limited and selective. Emerging Patterns of Vulnerability: There is a growing group of highly vulnerable illegal migrants who cannot find adequate support, exacerbated by the restrictive policies in place. This group faces difficulties in regularization due to their marginalized status and past criminal records. Detention is viewed as a potential form of "relief" for these individuals, offering a temporary escape from their difficult lives on the streets. Comparison with Historical Institutions: The practices surrounding immigration detention today are likened to historical poorhouses and workhouses that aimed to control poverty. However, current detention systems focus on "outsiders" rather than rehabilitating "insiders." This shift indicates a movement away from rehabilitation towards a punitive, incapacitating system for managing marginalized populations. Overall, immigration detention has evolved into a mechanism for controlling and incapacitating marginalized illegal migrants rather than providing rehabilitative support. This reflects broader shifts in penal policies and societal attitudes towards migrants, indicating a move towards stricter control and exclusion rather than integration and support. Public Sentiment and Immigration Policy Increased Negative Attitudes: Public opinion in the Netherlands has shifted increasingly against immigration from poorer non-EU countries since the mid-1990s. Surveys indicate a significant portion of the population favors restrictive immigration policies. Political Response: In response to public anxiety about immigration, the Dutch government has both implemented stricter policies and, at times, taken steps to regularize certain groups of rejected asylum seekers, such as in 2008. Functions of Immigration Detention Formal vs. Informal Functions: While the formal aim of immigration detention is to facilitate expulsion, three informal functions are identified: - Deterrence: Aims to dissuade illegal residence. - Control of Pauperism: Addresses social unrest related to poverty and illegal migration. - Symbolic Assertion of State Control: Immigration detention acts as a symbol of state authority and control over borders, reflecting societal anxieties about migration. 20 Physical and Symbolic Exclusion: Detention centers serve both to physically remove unwanted migrants and symbolize exclusion, reinforcing the idea that the state maintains control over who belongs. Spatial Distribution: The locations of detention centers near urban areas and transportation hubs (like airports) are not only practical for expulsion but also serve to publicly reinforce state control over migration. Interplay of Policies and Public Perception The dilemma: The state faces a dilemma between creating comfortable detention conditions (which may reduce cooperation for expulsion) and harsh conditions (which can raise humanitarian concerns and public unrest). And also regarding he motive Immigration detention reflects a combination of administrative and punitive motives, blurring the lines between administrative and criminal law. Blurring Legal Distinctions: There is a growing recognition that practices related to immigration detention and expulsion often have punitive characteristics, challenging the distinctions between criminal, civil, and administrative law. Future changes may see aspects of immigration detention incorporated into criminal law, while non-criminal migrants may be treated with less punitive measures, reflecting an evolving understanding of immigration status and rights. Similar trends are observed internationally, where countries are reevaluating their approaches to immigration detention and considering less punitive alternatives for certain groups of migrants. Examples from the Netherlands, like open centers for rejected asylum seekers, indicate a possible shift towards more humane treatment for certain categories of migrants, acknowledging the need for cooperation in voluntary return processes. Global crimes 2nd half A. Externalization: The New Frontier of Border Control Externalization: refers to the practice where countries manage migration by shifting the responsibility for border control beyond their own territories. This approach has gained traction in recent years as governments seek to address complex migration challenges, in an attempt to distance nations from the humanitarian crises at their borders. However, this strategy does not eliminate the problems but simply moves them elsewhere. In recent years, externalization has become a leading strategy for managing migration by shifting border control responsibilities beyond a country’s physical borders. Instead of handling migrants within their own territory, countries now seek to manage migration flows before they even arrive. This marks a major change from traditional immigration practices that focused on national borders alone. 21 As sociologist Cecilia Menjívar explains that this approach reflects a growing focus on border securitization—where governments emphasize control and restriction over providing access and rights. Externalization therefore works as a type of “remote control,” where tasks like processing asylum claims, detaining migrants, and sometimes even resettling them, are moved to other countries. In this way, the physical border is “extended” outward, as responsibility is transferred to third countries. But externalization takes several forms. Some countries make agreements to intercept and return migrants before they reach national borders. Others set up offshore processing centres in foreign countries, where migrants can be screened outside the main destination country. Also, countries may create partnerships with other nations to act as “containment zones”, keeping migrants from moving further. Such policies aim to distance the issue of migration by turning it into a matter handled far from public view and from national accountability. This makes migration management seem like a logistical task rather than a humanitarian one, while reducing the visibility of migration’s human impact on the receiving country. 2. Safe Countries vs. Safe Countries of Origin: When Safe Isn’t Safe for All externalization policies, which allow countries to send asylum seekers to other nations labeled as "safe." There are two main concepts: Safe third countries: These are countries considered secure enough for asylum seekers to be sent to for processing or resettlement. Safe countries of origin: These are countries where it’s assumed people aren’t generally at risk of persecution, leading to faster rejection of asylum claims from their nationals. However, labeling countries as "safe" can be very problematic because safety isn’t the same for everyone. A person's background, social status, or vulnerabilities (like being part of the LGBTQ+ community) can make them unsafe even in a "safe" country. For example, someone from the LGBTQ+ community might face severe discrimination or even legal danger in a country deemed safe. An example is the UK-Rwanda agreement, where Rwanda was called a "safe" place for asylum seekers. But human rights groups raised concerns about Rwanda’s ability to protect migrants’ rights. In this case, the term "safety" seemed more like an excuse for the UK to shift responsibility rather than genuinely ensuring the migrants’ well-being. 3. The Principle of Non-Refoulement*: The Thin Line Between Control and Compassion (*the forcible return of refugees or asylum seekers to a country where they are liable to be subjected to persecution) The principle of non-refoulement is a key rule in international refugee law. It prevents countries from sending people back to places where they face serious dangers like persecution or torture. This rule is meant to protect asylum seekers from harm. 22 However, externalization policies—where countries like the UK and EU outsource asylum processes to third countries—challenge this principle. These countries claim they are following the non-refoulement rule because asylum seekers aren’t directly sent back to dangerous places. Instead, they are sent to "safe" third countries. But in many cases, these third countries, like Turkey, Libya, or Rwanda, have weaker protections, and migrants face detention, abuse, or even deportation there. This creates a conflict between state sovereignty and humanitarian commitments; On one side, countries focus on securing borders and controlling migration. On the other, they are supposed to protect human rights and uphold international obligations. Framing migration as a security issue often pushes countries to prioritize control over compassion, making externalization policies a way to follow the letter of non-refoulement while ignoring its spirit. The broader problem is that these policies shift responsibility away from richer nations without guaranteeing proper protection for asylum seekers. Over time, this weakens the principle of non- refoulement, turning it into a loophole that prioritizes state control over the safety and rights of vulnerable people. B. Legal Foundations or Fictions? 1. A Legal Precedent or a Legal Patchwork? Tracing the Roots of Externalization in International Law Externalization policies have gained ground as nations seek ways to manage migration indirectly by shifting responsibility beyond their borders. But do these practices rest on solid legal ground? The answer is complex, as the legal foundations for externalization are better described as a patchwork of precedents, agreements, and selective interpretations of international law rather than a unified framework. The practice of externalization emerged from a European desire to manage increasing and unpredictable migration flows, especially since the early 2000s. Initially, migration control was an internal matter, as seen in policies such as the Dublin Regulation, which determined that the first EU country an asylum seeker entered was responsible for their asylum claim. However, the challenges of managing migration on EU soil led states to explore externalization—a concept whereby countries outsource migration control to third nations. This includes funding security forces, establishing border controls in transit countries, and setting up offshore processing centres. Yet, the legal grounds for this shift are unclear. European states use orchestration strategies to delegate migration control to third countries, thereby "breaking the legal link" without formally breaching international obligations. Through selective interpretations of non-refoulement and safe third-country principles, European states avoid direct violations by transferring asylum seekers to places like Libya and Turkey, countries with varying levels of protection. 23 As Menjívar points out, these practices create a legal grey zone, where states claim to act within the law while evading their humanitarian responsibilities. Menjívar frames this as a conflict between humanitarian obligations and state sovereignty, with the legal foundation of externalization lying in an unstable balance between the two. As Italy, for instance, increases its reliance on agreements with countries like Libya and Albania, it tests the limits of both national and international laws. International organizations, including the UNHCR(united nation’s high commissioner for refugees) and IOM(international organization for migration), often collaborate in these externalization policies, aiming to uphold human rights standards within challenging frameworks. However, this cooperation does not erase the legal ambiguities or absolve states from ethical concerns surrounding the externalization strategy. 2. Justifications and Loopholes: What Legal Grounds Support the Outsourcing of Borders? Supporters of externalization often defend it with arguments rooted in national security, resource conservation, and border sovereignty. They assert that controlling migration at a distance allows countries to manage their borders efficiently and minimizes irregular migration. But the legal justifications for these policies are often built on loopholes in international law rather than robust legal principles. One justification is that the state has a right to control its borders, a key principle of national sovereignty. By forming partnerships with transit countries, states claim they are exercising legitimate control over migration flows. This is evident in agreements like the Italy-Albania and UK-Rwanda pacts, where destination countries delegate the responsibility of migrant processing to transit states. Breaking the legal link but not the law? The externalization of EU migration control through orchestration in the Central Mediterranean arguing that this delegation is an extension of their sovereign rights. But, these practices can break down the integrity of international asylum protections, especially when destination states selectively interpret their obligations. Another justification for externalization is the designation of certain countries as “safe third countries”— places deemed safe enough for migrants to be processed or resettled. This designation allows destination countries to transfer asylum seekers to third countries while claiming compliance with non- refoulement. "safe" is a relative term and that countries like Rwanda or Libya may lack the necessary infrastructure or legal protections for vulnerable populations, exposing them to indirect refoulement. The EU encourages other countries to act as "gatekeepers" by offering financial incentives and coordinating policies. This allows the EU to avoid direct involvement in practices that might violate rights. By doing this, EU countries can claim they follow international law while passing enforcement responsibilities to nations with fewer resources or weaker protections. For example, Italy works with Libya, using EU funding to stop migrants from leaving Libya and reaching Europe. This breaks the direct connection between migrants and EU countries, creating a legal loophole that hides responsibility for 24 possible rights abuses. This system lets EU countries control migration while appearing to follow the rules. However, the ethical implications of these policies are far-reaching. Third countries that serve as "containment zones" may lack the legal frameworks and resources to adequately safeguard migrant rights. When transit countries like Libya or Albania are incentivized to stop migration flows, they may do so with minimal regard for migrants’ welfare, as seen in reports of detention, abuse, and forced deportations. The broader concern, is that externalization represents a shift in migration policy toward a model that places border rights over human rights. By prioritizing securitization and logistical convenience, states risk undermining the very foundations of international asylum law. This rebalancing of priorities, as we will see in the case studies of Italy and the UK, leads to a weakening of human rights standards in favour of political convenience, setting a precedent that could transform asylum from a right to a privilege based on geographic convenience. C. Case Studies in Controversy: The UK-Rwanda and Italy-Albania Agreements 1. The UK-Rwanda Deal: A Distant Solution or a Political Showpiece? The UK-Rwanda Agreement stands as one of the most controversial and ambitious examples of externalization, but it also represents something more than mere border control: a form of containment. Under this agreement, asylum seekers arriving in the UK are relocated to Rwanda for processing, with the expectation that, if their claims are successful, they will remain in Rwandan society rather than return to the UK. This policy, in effect, turns Rwanda into a containment zone rather than a traditional buffer state, creating a permanent separation between asylum seekers and the UK itself. The UK government justified the deal as a deterrent to dangerous crossings and a method to dismantle the smuggling networks profiting from irregular migration. However, the policy quickly faced legal and moral opposition. In December 2022, the High Court of England and Wales declared the agreement illegal, ruling that Rwanda did not meet the standards necessary to guarantee asylum seekers’ rights to safety and protection. Rather than abandon the policy, the UK government sought to bypass this legal hurdle by passing new legislation in early 2023 that designated Rwanda a “safe third country” by law. This maneuver attempted to sidestep the court’s concerns by legally enshrining Rwanda as safe, regardless of the actual conditions or rights protections available there. Critics argue that the UK’s reliance on containment agreements like this undermines core humanitarian obligations, especially the principle of non-refoulement as outlined in the 1951 Refugee Convention. By sending asylum seekers to a third country with limited protections, the UK effectively avoids its duty to ensure their welfare and security. While the policy frames Rwanda as a “safe” third country, human rights organizations have voiced concerns about Rwanda’s ability to provide adequate protections and 25 about the country’s own human rights record. This as a shift toward securitization over human rights, where the state’s commitment to control and containment overshadows its humanitarian obligations. The UK-Rwanda deal exemplifies what Müller and Slominski call breaking the legal link: orchestrating migration policies in a way that technically complies with international law while sidestepping its full spirit. By establishing Rwanda as a containment zone, the UK distances itself from the direct responsibility of asylum processing, effectively outsourcing legal and ethical obligations. Yet this “legal distance” has proven fragile. The High Court ruling and subsequent legislative pushback set off a wave of public backlash in the UK. Many public employees, especially in immigration services, refused to implement the policy, and public protests grew as ethical and practical concerns intensified. In June 2024, the government lost the election, with migration policy playing a central role in its defeat. The newly elected government quickly halted the policy, committing to a comprehensive review of migration strategies with a renewed focus on humanitarian principles. Ultimately, the UK-Rwanda Agreement serves as a case study in the limits and consequences of migration containment strategies. Although framed as a solution to migration challenges, the deal became more of a political signal—a “showpiece” meant to demonstrate toughness on immigration rather than a sustainable policy. Its legal, operational, and ethical flaws underscore the complexities and risks associated with using containment policies to outsource asylum responsibilities. 2. Italy and Albania’s Agreement: A Managed Gateway, Not a Containment Hub The Italy-Albania Agreement is a cornerstone of Italy’s current externalization strategy, reflecting a distinct approach to migration management. Unlike the UK-Rwanda deal, which created a permanent containment zone by relocating asylum seekers with no return pathway to the UK, Italy’s arrangement with Albania establishes coordinated processing centres where asylum seekers will undergo assessments overseen by Italian personnel. Those whose claims are successful will ultimately be transferred to Italy, not left to remain in Albania. In November 2023, Italy and Albania signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) to establish detention centers in Albania, where some asylum-seekers, including third-country nationals rescued at sea or intercepted on Italian soil, will be processed. Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni promoted the agreement as a groundbreaking model for migration management, despite Albania not being an EU member. This protocol reflects Italy’s strategy to address immigration issues outside its borders by using third-country facilities to process asylum claims and handle deportations. The MoU envisions building two main detention centers in Albania—one near the port of Shengjin, where arrivals and initial processing occur, and another in Gjader for housing individuals denied asylum. These facilities are expected to detain up to 3,000 people at once, with the potential to process 36,000 annually. Under the agreement the Italian authorities will manage operations within the centers, including the processing of asylum and deportation procedures, while the Albanian authorities will handle security for the areas around the centers and support transfers, but jurisdiction within the centers remains Italian. The MoU designates these detention facilities as falling under Italian law, which 26 claims adherence to EU asylum standards. Yet, because Albania is outside the EU, European Union laws technically do not apply within Albanian territory, creating legal and procedural ambiguities. This partnership builds on Italy’s long history of externalization policies, first initiated with its controversial agreements with Libya in the early 2000s. There are many documents and reports detailing how Italy has expanded on these strategies over the years, using third-country partnerships to help manage the pressures of irregular migration. Yet, in the Albania arrangement, the Italian government is taking a more hands-on approach by directly funding and staffing these centres in Albania. Italian personnel will be deployed to oversee operations, and Italian authorities will control much of the asylum process from registration through to final determination, ensuring that the standards align with Italian and EU regulations. This system, according to the Italian government, is intended to streamline Italy’s migration management by keeping initial processing offshore without permanently shifting responsibility to a third country. Rather than a containment zone, Albania functions as a managed gateway where Italy retains oversight of both operations and outcomes. This model allows Italy to manage asylum claims outside its borders without severing the legal and humanitarian connection to successful claimants, who will eventually be resettled in Italy. By contrast, the UK-Rwanda arrangement involves the complete transfer of asylum responsibility to Rwanda, where successful claimants are expected to stay, essentially disconnecting them from their original destination country. The scrutiny of this model: The protocol has drawn significant scrutiny from EU legal experts, international human rights organizations, and civil society due to its controversial approach to handling migration. First of all there is an issue in terms of democratic and transparency deficits. The MoU, characterized as a politically motivated bilateral arrangement rather than an official international treaty, bypasses EU frameworks and traditional legal safeguards. It was negotiated behind closed doors, with limited scrutiny from either national or EU legislative bodies. Critics argue that Italy's unilateral decision infringes upon democratic principles, as the agreement covers areas that EU law typically regulates. The second is a search and Rescue (SAR) and Human Rights Issue. The protocol raises concerns over Italy's SAR obligations under international maritime law. According to the MoU, people rescued at sea will not be disembarked at the nearest Italian ports but may instead be transported over 700 km to Albania. This delay in disembarkation, alongside selective criteria that separate “vulnerable” individuals for Italian territory, potentially risks the health and safety of those rescued, and exposing them to hazardous conditions. Despite the apparent respect of asylum right, critics highlight the MoU’s failure to guarantee prompt access to fair asylum procedures. The agreement lacks clear legal protections for asylum-seekers in Albanian centers, with concerns about limited judicial recourse and language barriers that could infringe upon the right to due process. EU law requires accessible, timely asylum procedures, but the protocol’s remote location complicates legal representation, exacerbating risks of arbitrary detention and unfair treatment. 27 The Italian government, however, views this agreement as a more sustainable and cooperative model for migration management, aligning with EU goals of reducing irregular migration while respecting asylum seekers’ rights. By providing funding, infrastructure, and direct personnel support, Italy retains substantial influence over the asylum process, mitigating some of the risks associated with outsourcing to third countries that lack robust asylum systems. This model represents a blend of externalized management with internal accountability, contrasting sharply with the UK’s Rwanda policy, where the UK government surrendered oversight of the asylum process after transfer. Ethical questions remain, however. Italy’s decision to process asylum seekers in Albania, though temporary, reflects a broader shift in Europe’s approach to “safety” and responsibility. By designating Albania as a suitable location for the first stages of processing, Italy is effectively extending its border into another country, raising questions about the shifting boundaries of European asylum protections and the implications for Albania’s developing legal and social frameworks. Ultimately, the Italy-Albania Agreement underscores a more integrative approach to externalization— one where Italy maintains both operational control and responsibility for asylum seekers throughout the process, as opposed to a full transfer of accountability. This hybrid model may serve as a prototype for future EU migration policies, as it aims to balance the logistical benefits of externalized processing with the legal and ethical standards demanded by EU and international law. However, as seen with the recent court ruling, this approach will likely face ongoing challenges in its alignment with EU asylum standards, especially as more cases come under judicial review. In this way, Italy’s partnership with Albania differs significantly from the UK-Rwanda containment approach, positioning Albania not as a holding area but as an extension of Italy’s own asylum process—a distinction that could determine the policy’s resilience amid increasing legal and public scrutiny. From a legal perspective, the Italy-Albania Agreement is the current days at the centre of a clash between Government and judicial authority. 3. What Do These Agreements Mean for Europe? Lessons, Limitations, and Legal Landmines The UK-Rwanda and Italy-Albania agreements highlight a broader trend within the EU towards externalization as the go-to strategy for migration control. By outsourcing asylum responsibilities to third countries, EU member states establish a precedent that may influence other states seeking similar solutions. As PICUM’s recent editorial reveals, while these agreements might provide short term political advantages, they introduce complex legal and ethical challenges with potential long-term repercussions for the EU as a whole, undermining its commitment to human rights. One of the most obvious issues with these externalization strategies is their legal vulnerability. As recent judicial interventions demonstrate, these policies are often at odds with both EU and international human rights standards. The PICUM*(platform for international cooperation on undocumented migrants) editorial points out that the European Court of Human Rights recently condemned Cyprus for its pushback of Syrian migrants without properly processing their asylum claims, signaling a growing judicial resistance to these kinds of externalization tactics. In this context, the Italy-Albania and UK- 28 Rwanda agreements appear more as legal landmines than long-term solutions, likely to face continued challenges from courts and human rights organizations. A primary legal risk lies in the lack of transparency surrounding these agreements. Details of the Italy- Albania deal, for instance, were initially withheld from public view, with key terms on funding, operational control, and migrant rights only partially disclosed. This ambiguousness not only limits public accountability but also opens the door for potential legal challenges. Examples are the European Ombudsman’s recent demand for greater disclosure regarding the Tunisia- EU deal, where funding has been directed to security forces with questionable human rights records.The Rome court’s October 2024 ruling, invalidating the detention of asylum seekers in Albanian facilities, is another clear example of how legal scrutiny can quickly disrupt these arrangements. Similarly, the European Court of Justice (ECJ) has signaled its willingness to examine externalization policies, emphasizing the need for third countries to uphold EU protections if they are involved in asylum processing. This text criticizes the European Union’s (EU) strategy of externalizing migration management by paying countries outside the EU (like Turkey, Libya, Tunisia, and Senegal) to control migration flows. It highlights two main issues: 1. Resource Misallocation: The funding for these externalization efforts often goes to countries lacking proper infrastructure and resources to treat migrants humanely. This means that the money could be better spent on sustainable solutions to address migration effectively. 2. Ethical and Practical Failures: These agreements prioritize quick political solutions over long- term ethical responsibilities. They create short-term results but fail to address the deeper causes of migration (like poverty, conflict, and inequality). As a result, they lead to legal, financial, and human rights concerns, damaging the EU's reputation and moral authority. Organizations like PICUM argue that the EU should shift focus from these costly and opaque policies to building a migration system based on fairness, welcoming attitudes, and social justice. Without reforms, the EU risks relying on ineffective and ethically questionable strategies, undermining its commitment to international law and human rights. D. The Price of Externalization: Power, Politics, and Pitfalls 1. Control Over Compassion: The Hidden Agenda Behind Outsourced Border Policies While externalization policies have been publicly framed as necessary responses to migration pressures, they carry an underlying, and often unspoken, priority: control over compassion. What initially appears as a strategy to “share the burden” of migration with third countries is, in reality, a means of pushing Europe’s borders outward, creating physical and psychological distance between migrants and the protection they seek within Union. In the pursuit of this distance, externalization has 29 become less about partnership and more about containment, reflecting a deep-seated shift in migration policy where managing movement takes precedence over everything else. This shift is seen clearly in the UK-Rwanda and Italy-Albania deals. Each agreement, though distinct in its structure, ultimately seeks to transfer the perceived “problem” of migration away from Europe’s shores. But, the cost of this approach is high, not only for the individuals involved but for the integrity of the EU’s commitment to humanitarian principles. The choice to remove asylum seekers from the direct jurisdiction of EU nations reflects a desire to reduce visible pressures at home while maintaining an appearance of humanitarian engagement. However, the underlying intention of these deals is deterrence, with each agreement designed to send a signal that Europe is not an accessible destination for migrants. UK-Rwanda Model: Asylum seekers are relocated to Rwanda permanently, with no option to return to the UK. This strategy isolates asylum seekers from British society entirely, aiming to discourage future migration by making the process seem hopeless. Critics argue this reflects a hidden agenda to dismantle asylum pathways altogether, sending a message that Europe is closing its doors to migrants. Italy-Albania Agreement: Italy takes a slightly different approach by maintaining control over the asylum process, including funding, staffing, and oversight of centers in Albania. Successful asylum seekers are eventually transferred to Italy, but initial processing in Albania allows Italy to manage political and social pressures at a distance. This mirrors Italy’s historical strategy of mobile borders, designed to meet political needs while keeping migrants physically distant. Both arrangements rely on labeling countries like Rwanda and Albania as "safe," using legal and rhetorical tools to justify transferring asylum seekers. Critics argue this "designated safety" is a strategic move to shift the burden of protection while maintaining a facade of compliance with international laws. Both the UK and Italy are outsourcing their asylum processes to other countries. The UK’s approach is harsher, permanently relocating asylum seekers to Rwanda, cutting off any ties to the UK. Italy’s method is more involved, overseeing the process in Albania but still keeping asylum seekers at a distance. In both cases, these policies aim to reduce migration’s impact on the home countries by using “safe country” labels as legal justification, though critics say these strategies often ignore the actual conditions and rights of asylum seekers. The human cost of this strategy is substantial. By prioritizing control, these policies create a migratory landscape filled with deterrence measures and containment zones—a system where protection is secondary to the broader goal of reducing movement. For Europe, this shift from compassion to control presents a profound challenge to the ideals on which its asylum protection framework was founded. Control over compassion may serve immediate political interests, but as courts and human rights groups continue to push back, the price of externalization is becoming increasingly visible, revealing the ethical and practical consequences. 2. Echoes of Empire: Why “Safe” Doesn’t Mean the Same for All Nations 30 Colonial Roots: These externalization policies echo Europe’s colonial past, where Africa and parts of the Global South were seen as places to manage Europe’s "problematic" groups. For example, sending refugees to Rwanda isn’t new; the UK did this during World War II. This reflects an imperial attitude that treats African countries as places to send unwanted populations, without considering their sovereignty or dignity. Racialized Treatment of Refugees: The policy also shows a racialized approach to migration. Ukrainian refugees, for instance, are welcomed and integrated into Europe, while refugees from Africa or the Middle East are detained or processed in countries like Rwanda or Albania. This unequal treatment suggests that Europe views itself as a "white" continent, keeping "undesirable" non-European refugees out of sight. A Strategy of Displacement: Instead of genuinely offering safety, these policies aim to make certain migrants disappear from Europe’s view. By sending refugees to places like Rwanda, Europe is seen as selectively hospitable, maintaining an image of openness while avoiding the responsibility of integration for certain groups. In the case of Italy and Albania, this colonial undercurrent is particularly poignant. As Lingelbach notes, Albania was occupied by Italy as a Protectorate from 1939 to 1943 under fascist rule, creating a lasting postcolonial dynamic between the two countries. Today, Albania’s role as a processing centre for Italy’s migration management reinforces a postcolonial relationship where Italy, an EU member, retains control over the migration process within Albania’s borders, providing funding and oversight but outsourcing initial processing. This arrangement, while logistically different from the UK-Rwanda containment model, still places Albania in a subordinate role within a broader European migration strategy. Such partnerships evoke a troubling legacy, recalling a time when powerful states dictated the movement and containment of people across regions without regard for local autonomy. The myth of “empty lands” also plays into these policies. Lingelbach highlights that European colonial powers historically sought to relocate people to what they perceived as unsettled, remote areas, ignoring the reality that these regions were already inhabited and culturally complex. The notion that Africa or the Balkans can absorb Europe’s migration challenges reflects a continuation of this colonial myth. Rwanda, Albania, and other third countries involved in EU externalization deals are not empty spaces—they are nations with their own histories, populations, and social fabrics. By treating these areas as convenient receptacles for Europe’s migratory flows, policymakers risk disregarding the social impact on these communities and perpetuating a colonial myth of African and Balkan spaces as uninhabited and available. This colonial mindset is not limited to historical reflections but continues to shape modern migration policies. In Italy, Denmark, and the UK, right-wing political rhetoric often frames externalization as a necessary measure to protect European society from the perceived threats of migration. Yet, as Lingelbach points out, this rhetoric reveals a post-imperial mentality that imagines non-European spaces as compliant zones for Europe’s convenience. 31 By pursuing externalization, European governments effectively impose policies on countries that lack the bargaining power to refuse, reinforcing a dynamic where Europe controls not only the movement of people but also the sovereignty and autonomy of other nations’ borders and territories. In this way, externalization policies are more than strategic responses to migration pressures—they are the latest expression of a worldview where Europe retains the right to dictate who belongs where, often based on racialized and colonial assumptions. The designation of certain countries as “safe” third countries, irrespective of their human rights conditions or capacities, serves to sustain this vision, allowing European states to distance themselves from asylum responsibilities while relying on non-European regions as holding zones. The cost of these policies is substantial, eroding the integrity of Europe’s humanitarian commitments and risking the spread of a precedent that prioritizes political convenience over genuine protection. 3. Secrecy and Suspicion: The Veil of Confidentiality and Its Legal Risks This paragraph talks about the lack of transparency in the European Union's externalization agreements, which send migrants to non-EU countries for processing. These agreements, such as those between the EU and countries like Libya or Tunisia, are often informal deals, like Memorandums of Understanding (MoUs), rather than official treaties. MoUs are not subjected to public scrutiny, parliamentary debate, or legal review, which makes it easier for governments to make decisions behind closed doors. This secrecy raises serious legal and ethical concerns. Lack of Transparency: Many EU agreements with non-EU countries are not formal treaties but MoUs, which allow governments to act without public or legal oversight. These deals are made quietly, without the usual checks and balances that formal treaties would require. Exclusion of Public Scrutiny: Since MoUs avoid parliamentary debate and judicial review, they bypass the usual democratic processes. This means that civil society groups, human rights organizations, and the public are excluded from the decision-making process, leaving them unable to ensure these deals meet international human rights standards. Financial Secrecy: While EU countries allocate funds to support migration control in countries like Libya, the specifics of how the money is spent (such as on detention centers or deportation efforts) are often hidden. This lack of transparency leaves EU citizens unaware of how their taxes are used and whether these actions align with European ethical standards. Legal Risks: Because MoUs are not legally binding like treaties, they are easier to challenge in court, which could lead to legal instability and lawsuits. This lack of formal status creates legal risks for both the EU and partner countries, as these informal agreements can lead to human rights abuses without facing immediate legal consequences. Long-Term Risks for Human Rights: The secrecy of these deals undermines the EU’s reputation for transparency and human rights. If these agreements remain hidden from public view, the EU risks being seen as prioritizing convenience over its commitment to global ethical standards. The growing public 32 awareness and legal challenges may eventually push the EU to reconsider these informal, non- transparent agreements. The EU’s recent deals with countries like Libya and Tunisia to control migration are often made secretly, using informal agreements (MoUs) instead of formal treaties. These deals avoid public debate and legal checks, making it easy for governments to act without accountability. This lack of transparency is concerning because it hides how EU funds are spent and whether human rights are being violated. The informal nature of these agreements also creates legal risks, as they are easier to challenge in court. Ultimately, the EU’s reliance on these secretive deals could harm its reputation for upholding human rights and lead to more scrutiny from the public and courts. 4. Economics in Question: Costly Policies, Empty Promises Externalization Investments and Results: The EU spends billions on externalizing migration control, which means managing migration outside its borders. This approach is expected to save costs and manage migration effectively. However, these strategies often fail to deliver promised economic and humanitarian benefits, leading critics to call them expensive and inefficient. Where the Money Goes: Funds come from EU budgets like NDICI, AMIF, and BMVI, aimed at addressing root causes of migration, such as poverty or lack of jobs in third countries. However, much of this money is spent on border enforcement and anti-smuggling operations, not actual development. For example, the EU has funded Libya's Coast Guard, but this has led to migrant detention under poor conditions, without reducing migration in the long term. Dependency and Ethical Issues: The EU rewards countries like Libya or Tunisia with more money for cooperating on migration control, creating dependency. Aid is often tied to these countries’ willingness to enforce migration policies, raising concerns about ethics and undermining long-term development. Human Rights Concerns: EU-funded pr