² In this article I will use the terms ‘deportation’ and ‘removal’ interchangeably. Under UK law, however, these two categories are separable and involve different sorts of rights and consequences. Both categories, though, involve the expulsion of foreigners from state territory.Google Scholar

³ K. Bennett, T. Heath and R. Jeffries, Asylum Statistics, United Kingdom 2006, Home Office Statistical Bulletin, 21 August 2007, London, Home Office, 2007, p. 83. If one includes people detained and removed at the port of entry, as the government does in its statistics, the figure rises to 63,865 for 2006.Google Scholar

⁴ The claim that inclusive practices towards immigrants and asylum seekers once they arrive in liberal democratic states have been a factor fuelling the development of practices that prevent refugees accessing state territory is developed in M. J. Gibney, ‘The State of Asylum: Democratization, Judicialization and the Evolution of Refugee Policy’, in Susan Kneebone (ed.), The Refugee Convention 50 years on: Globalization and International Law, Aldershot, Ashgate/Darmouth, 2002, pp. 19–46.Google Scholar

⁵ See, for example, Eva-Lotta Hedman's ‘Refuge, Governmentality and Citizenship: Capturing “Illegal Migrants” in Malaysia and Thailand’ in this issue. As she notes there, the punishment in Malaysia for illegal immigrants include caning and indefinite detention pending deportation.Google Scholar

⁶ M. J. Gibney and R. Hansen, Deportation and the Liberal State, New Issues in Refugee Research: Working Paper 77, Geneva, UNHCR, February 2003.Google Scholar

⁷ Some of these works include: Ellermann, A., ‘Street-Level Democracy: How Immigration Bureaucrats Manage Public Opposition’, West European Politics, 29: 2 (March 2006), pp. 293–309;CrossRefGoogle Scholar D. Kanstroom, Deportation Nation, Cambridge, MA, Harvard University Press, 2007; Michael Alexander, ‘Deportation as an Immigration Policy Tool: The Israeli Experience in Comparative Perspective’, unpublished MS, 2006; A. Pratt, Securing Borders: Detention and Deportation in Canada, Vancouver, UBC Press, 2005; L. Schuster and A. Bloch, ‘At the Extremes of Exclusion: Deportation, Detention and Dispersal’, Ethnic and Racial Studies, 28: 3 (May 2005), pp. 491–512

⁸ Home Office, Controlling Our Borders: Making Migration Work for Britain, London, Home Office, February 2005, p. 44.Google Scholar

⁹ Ibid.; Bennett et al., Asylum Statistics, United Kingdom 2006, p. 83.Google Scholar

¹⁰ Robin Cohen, Frontiers of Identity: The British and the Others, London, Longman, p. 61.Google Scholar

¹¹ Home Office, Controlling Our Border, p. 44.Google Scholar

¹² Ellermann, ‘Street-Level Democracy’, p. 296.Google Scholar

¹³ See, for example, M. J. Gibney, Outside the Protection of the Law: Irregular Migration in Europe, Refugee Studies Centre Working Paper 6, Oxford, University of Oxford, December 2000.Google Scholar

¹⁴ Barbara Marshall quotes one expert, who claims that in Germany ‘Employment and benefit system are so tightly regulated that … the survival of large numbers of illegal immigrants for any length of time … is not possible.’ See her The New Germany and Migration in Europe, Manchester, Manchester University Press, 2000, pp. 82–3; others, however, demur. See Gibney, Outside the Protection of the Law, pp. 10–15.Google Scholar

¹⁵ See Antje Ellermann's article in this issue. On duties of states to readmit their own nationals, see G. S. Goodwin-Gill, International Law and the Movement of Persons Between States, Oxford, Oxford University Press, 1978.Google Scholar

¹⁶ Select Committee on Home Affairs, Fourth Report: Asylum Removals, 14 April 2003, available at http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/cm200203/cmselect/cmhaff/654/65402.htm.Google Scholar

¹⁷ Ibid.Google Scholar

¹⁸ See, for example, the decision in Saadi v. the United Kingdom, ECtHR, 11 July 2006.Google Scholar

¹⁹ Compare, for example, the Council of the European Directive on ‘minimum standards and procedures in Member States for granting and withdrawing refugee status’, 1 December 2005; Gibney, ‘State of Asylum’, p. 36.Google Scholar

²⁰ ‘Joy Gardner's Family Sues Police’, BBC News online, 15 February 1999; Arund Kunani, The End of Tolerance? Racism in 21st Century Britain, London, Pluto, 2007.Google Scholar

²¹ Schuster and Bloch, ‘At the Extremes of Exclusion’.Google Scholar

²² It should be noted that because of the slow processing of claims, the number of asylum determinations annually was also low. On the statistics, see Cohen, Frontiers of Identity, pp. 61 and 95.Google Scholar

²³ Parliamentary Debates of the House of Commons, 5 March 1987, p. 1017.Google Scholar

²⁴ Parliamentary Debates of the House of Commons, 20 November 1995, paragraph 338.Google Scholar

²⁵ ‘Asylum Camp Plan Attacked’, BBC News online, 18 April 2000.Google Scholar

²⁶ ‘UK “Winning” Asylum Battle’, BBC News online, 25 April 2001.Google Scholar

²⁷ According to recent analyses of the Blair government, Tony Blair, in particular, was determined to confront head-on the perception that the government was not (and could not) control the asylum issue. See, for example, S. Spencer, ‘Immigration’, in A. Seldon (ed.), Blair's Britain, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 2007, pp. 345–6.Google Scholar

²⁸ Home Office, Fairer, Faster and Firmer: A Modern Approach to Immigration and Asylum, London, Home Office, 1998.Google Scholar

²⁹ ‘Asylum Camp Plan Attacked’, BBC News online, 18 April 2000.Google Scholar

³⁰ ‘Straw Pledges Asylum Crackdown’, BBC News online, 21 November 2000.Google Scholar

³¹ ‘Asylum Target “Too Ambitious”’, BBC News online, 18 September 2002; ‘Government to Miss Asylum Target’, BBC News online, 22 November 2005.Google Scholar

³² According to Anthony Seldon, asylum was at the top of Blair's domestic agenda by 2002. A. Seldon, Blair, New York, Free Press, 2004, p. 635.Google Scholar

³³ S. Milner and A. Travis, ‘Blair's Secret Plan to Crackdown on Asylum Seekers’, Guardian Unlimited online, 23 May 2002.Google Scholar

³⁴ ‘Howard Unveils Tory Asylum Plan’, BBC News online, 24 January 2005.Google Scholar

³⁵ ‘Blair Defends Asylum Policy’, Guardian Unlimited online, 14 March 2006.Google Scholar

³⁶ Home Office, Review of Resourcing and Management of Immigration Enforcement: Final Report, London, Home Office, September 2004, p. 13.Google Scholar

³⁷ Ibid.Google Scholar

³⁸ National Audit Office, Returning Failed Asylum Seekers: Report by the Comptroller and Auditor General, London, National Audit Office, 14 July 2005, p. 30.Google Scholar

³⁹ Home Office, ‘The New Asylum Model’, Press Release, 18 January 2006.Google Scholar

⁴⁰ Compiled from statistics provided in Home Office, Asylum Statistics: December 2000, United Kingdom, London, Home Office, 2000, p. 3; Home Office, Asylum Statistics: 2nd Quarter 2007, United Kingdom, London, Home Office, 2007, p. 18; Home Office, Asylum Statistics: 2nd Quarter, 2005, United Kingdom, London, Home Office, 2005, p. 21.Google Scholar

⁴¹ Department for Consititutional Affairs, ‘The Government's Response to the Constitutional Affairs Select Committee's Report on Asylum and Immigration Appeals’, June 2004, para. 13.Google Scholar

⁴² Helen O'Nions, ‘The Erosion of the Right to Seek Asylum’, Web Journal of Current Legal Issues (2006), available at http://64.233.183.104/search?q=cache:7QXljrBF_JEJ:webjcli.ncl.ac.uk/2006/issue2/onions2.html+%22white+list%22+%22threat+to+the+non-refoulement+principle%22&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=uk.Google Scholar

⁴³ Bail for Immigration Detainees, ‘Detained Fast Tracking of Asylum Claims: Information Sheet by Bail for Immigration Detainees’, 18 October, 2006, available at www.biduk.org.Google Scholar

⁴⁴ S. Oakley and K. Crew, Working Against the Clock, London, BID, 2006, p. 4.Google Scholar

⁴⁵ Refugee Council, ‘The New Asylum Model: Refugee Council Briefing’, August 2007, available at http://www.refugeecouncil.org.uk/policy/briefings/2007/nam.htm.Google Scholar

⁴⁶ Ibid., p. 3.Google Scholar

⁴⁷ Chamber Judgment, ‘Saadi v. the United Kingdom’, ECtHR, 11 July 2006, press release issued by the Registrar; Joint Committee on Human Rights, The Treatment of Asylum Seekers: Tenth Report of Session 2006–07, London, JCHR, March 2007, p. 70.Google Scholar

⁴⁸ A. Travis, ‘Electronic Tagging for Asylum Seekers’, Guardian Unlimited online, 14 March 2006.Google Scholar

⁴⁹ Refugee Council, ‘The New Asylum Model’, pp. 1–2.Google Scholar

⁵⁰ National Audit Office, Returning Failed Asylum Seekers, p. 28.Google Scholar

⁵¹ R. Norton-Taylor, ‘Amnesty Criticizes Britain Over Forced Returns of Iraqi Refugees’, Guardian Unlimited online, 25 September 2007.Google Scholar

⁵² Foreign and Commonwealth Office, ‘Lord Triesman Appointment’, FCO News, 15 January 2007.Google Scholar

⁵³ Home Office, Controlling our Borders: Making Migration Work for Britain, London, Home Office, 2005, p. 30.Google Scholar

⁵⁴ Joint Committee on Human Rights, The Treatment of Asylum Seekers, p. 91. See also the complaint by Justice Collins that asylum seekers are often deported ‘at about midnight in the middle of the weekend’ in ‘Judge Attacks Deportation Tactics’, BBC News online, 19 December 2005.Google Scholar

⁵⁵ Joint Committee on Human Rights, The Treatment of Asylum Seekers, p. 93.Google Scholar

⁵⁶ National Audit Office, Returning Failed Asylum Seekers, p. 24.Google Scholar

⁵⁷ A. Travis, ‘Minister Defiant Over Asylum Children in Care’, Guardian Unlimited online, 22 February 2007.Google Scholar

⁵⁸ Home Office, Controlling our Borders, p. 31.Google Scholar

⁵⁹ National Audit Office, Returning Failed Asylum Seekers, p. 24.Google Scholar

⁶⁰ Home Office, Controlling our Borders, p. 31.Google Scholar

⁶¹ Ibid.Google Scholar

⁶² Compare, for example, the Vera Institute of Justice in the USA, who tested what they described as an ‘appearance assistance program’, which proposed to increase removal rates for rejected asylum seekers by substituting detention for community supervision programmes. For a more detailed discussion of the programme, see http://www.vera.org/project/project1_1.asp?section_id=6&project_id=56.Google Scholar

⁶³ The Immigration Law Practitioners' Association, as summarized in Joint Committee on Human Rights, The Treatment of Asylum Seekers, p. 73.Google Scholar