Balancing Legitimacy, Exceptionality and Accountability: On Foreign-national Offenders' Reluctance to Engage in Anti-deportation Campaigns in the UK

Abstract

This paper addresses the lack of collective political action and engagement in protests and anti-deportation campaigns (ADCs) on the part of foreign-national offenders facing deportation from the UK. Taking ADC guidelines from migrant support groups, and drawing on ethnographic fieldwork conducted in London, I show that the circumstances of foreign-national offenders, and in particular their own understandings of their removal, appear incompatible with open political action and with the broader work of ADC support groups. The findings presented throughout this paper make the case that foreign-national offenders have conflicting notions about their deportation and their ‘right’ to protest and campaign against it, revealing how perceptions of legitimacy impact not only on how policies are lived and experienced but also on the scope for political action on the part of those who are experiencing those policies.

Keywords:

• Anti-deportation Campaigns
• Legitimacy
• Foreign-national Offenders
• Deportation
• UK

Acknowledgements

Findings in this paper are drawn from my doctoral research carried out at the School of Global Studies, University of Sussex, and fully funded by Fundação para Ciência e Tecnologia. I am grateful to Heike Drotbohm, Sarah Turnbull, Fran Meissner and the anonymous reviewer for commenting on earlier drafts of this paper.

Notes

[1] The situation of research participants as foreign-national offenders facing deportation differs from other populations of removable migrants in that most had leave to remain, do not fear for their lives if returned to their countries of origin, and have a strong sense of entitlement to remain in the UK.

[2] See Meissner and Hasselberg (2012) for a discussion of access and research locations, and Hasselberg (2013, 44–50) for a discussion on the ethical issues arising from adopting different positionalities in the field.

[3] Mostly due to the costs of legal representation, but also in many cases through forfeiting their right to work.

[4] That is migrants that have overstayed; breached a condition of leave to enter or remain; sought or obtained leave to remain by deception; had their indefinite leave revoked because they have ceased to be a refugee; or are family members of the above (UKBA undated).

[5] Immigration policy and legislation has changed in many significant ways since the time of fieldwork in 2009, and more changes are likely to come about with the new Immigration Bill. These changes have sought to both curtail appeal rights (and access to legal aid) and increase state powers in deporting people.

[6] There have been multiple reforms to the Immigration Tribunal system. At the time of research, in 2009, immigration appeals were hear at the single-tier Asylum and Immigration Tribunal, which was subsequently reverted to a two-tier system in February 2010. To avoid confusion over terminology, I chose here to refer to it only as Immigration Tribunal.

[7] Perhaps not coincidentally, Maria had exhausted all her appeals and by then she knew her deportation was only a matter of time.

[8] Quoted from Marika's petition, which is available at http://www.gopetition.com/petitions/stop-the-deportation-of-an-ex-british-army-soldier.html [last accessed May 21, 2012].