Detention of asylum seekers in the UK and USA
| Author | Liza Schuster,Michael Welch |
| DOI | 10.1177/1462474505057117 |
| Published date | 01 October 2005 |
| Date | 01 October 2005 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
05_welch_057117 (jk-t) 2/9/05 9:12 am Page 397
Copyright © SAGE Publications
London, Thousand Oaks, CA
and New Delhi.
www.sagepublications.com
1462-4745; Vol 7(4): 397–417
DOI: 10.1177/1462474505057117
PUNISHMENT
& SOCIETY
Detention of asylum
seekers in the UK and
USA
Deciphering noisy and quiet constructions
MICHAEL WELCH AND LIZA SCHUSTER
Rutgers University, USA and London School of Economics, UK, and City University, UK
Abstract
Moral panic theory continues to be applied to a range of phenomena, allowing soci-
ologists to refine our understanding of negative societal reaction aimed at people who
are easy to identify and easy to dislike. Whereas the prevailing notion of moral panic
rests on its noisy features, there are constructions that occur under the public radar. In
such instances, government officials quietly institute policies and practices that
adversely affect a targeted group. Moral panic over so-called bogus asylum seekers in
the UK represents a noisy construction whereby claims making is loud and public. In
the USA, however, that construction is remarkably quiet and does not resonate openly;
still, much like their British counterparts, American officials have resorted to the use
of confinement. This work explores the differences between the UK and the USA in
the realm of moral panic over asylum seekers while remaining attentive to their shared
consequences, the unjust detention of those fleeing persecution. Implications to social
control and human rights in a post-11 September world are discussed throughout.
Key Words
asylum seekers • comparative approach • detention • human rights • moral panic
Particularly for long periods of time, detention is among the gravest acts the state can
take against people. The seriousness of detention is even greater under circumstances
in which persons are held not on criminal or immigration charges but rather after fleeing
persecution. The current practices of detaining asylum seekers in the UK and the USA
worries human rights organizations, especially since they clash with the United Nations
Convention on Refugees. Still, the controversy has taken different forms in otherwise
similar nations, most notably along lines of social constructionism and moral panic.
While there is considerable public and political attention directed at asylum seeking in
397
05_welch_057117 (jk-t) 2/9/05 9:12 am Page 398
PUNISHMENT AND SOCIETY 7(4)
Britain, the putative problem in the USA remains muted; nevertheless, the consequences
are the same, subjecting asylum seekers to unnecessary detention in harsh conditions
of confinement.
While scholars recently are turning critical attention to issues of immigration, race,
ethnicity and crime (Wacquant, 1999; Angel-Ajani, 2003; Calavita, 2003; Melossi,
2003; Young, 2003), penologists rarely have delved into the problem of detaining people
fleeing persecution. This work examines the controversy over the detention of asylum
seekers, sorting out differences between the UK where voices on both sides of the debate
are public and loud and the USA where the issue is quietly concealed by government
officials. As discussed throughout, there are key implications to the nuances of moral
panic as well as to the sociology of punishment, social control and human rights predica-
ments in a post-11 September world. The detention of asylum seekers clearly demon-
strates that certain facets of the war on terror manifest more as immigration and social
control rather than as crime control. Supposedly operating under the umbrella of the
war on terror, the Department of Homeland Security has gained greater authority over
immigration and asylum matters. Human rights organizations are concerned over that
shift in power since it can lead to abuse. The United Nations recently documented a
pattern of mistreatment among US airport inspectors who detained, handcuffed and
intimidated travelers fleeing persecution in an effort to discourage them from request-
ing political asylum and thereby deporting them. Some of those who were deported
had even demonstrated a credible fear of persecution, the principal criterion for asylum.
Incidentally, the report was intended to remain confidential but was provided to the
New York Times by ‘a person unaffiliated with the United Nations who was concerned
about the government’s plan to expand summary deportations to the country’s land
borders’ (Swarns, 2004: A11).
Also consider the blanket detention order issued by Attorney General John Ashcroft
in 2003. The Government claims that wholesale detention is necessary to protect the
USA from terrorist threat; however, the order is a response to the case of David Joseph,
a Haitian asylum seeker. The Board of Immigration Appeals upheld the decision to
release Joseph on bond but Ashcroft insists that his release would prompt a mass exodus
from Haiti to the USA. Moreover, the State Department went so far as to say that Haiti
has become a staging point for terrorists from the Middle East (Anderson, 2003). Along
with those developments, the profiling of Arabs and Muslims leading to their deten-
tion and deportation for minor offenses (e.g. document fraud and cheating on the
English language exams) also serve immigration and social control functions (Associated
Press, 2003; General Accounting Office, 2003; TRAC, 2003).1
MORAL PANIC AS A THEORETICAL GRID
While establishing the theoretical grid of this analysis, it is important to acknowledge
that the moral panic paradigm has undergone considerable development since it entered
the literature more than 30 years ago. The term was used initially by Jock Young (1971)
in his examination of police and how they negotiate reality and translate fantasy but soon
Cohen (2002) elaborated more fully on the concept in his book Folk devils and moral
panics: The creation of Mods and Rockers. In its infancy, moral panic theory incorporated
an emerging sociology of deviance and embryonic cultural studies, reflecting the
398
05_welch_057117 (jk-t) 2/9/05 9:12 am Page 399
WELCH & SCHUSTER
Detention of asylum seekers in the UK and USA
changing social mood of the late 1960s. Young and Cohen concede that they probably
picked up the idea of moral panic from Marshall McLuhan’s Understanding media (1964).
According to Cohen, moral panic has occurred when: ‘A condition, episode, person or
group of persons emerges to become defined as a threat to societal values and interest;
its nature is presented in a stylized and stereotypical fashion by the mass media and poli-
ticians’ (1972: 9). Cohen explored the roles of the public, media and politicians in
producing heightened concern over British youths in the 1960s when the Mods and
Rockers were depicted as threats to public peace as well as the social order. Together, the
media and members of the political establishment publicized putative dangers posed by
the Mods and Rockers; in turn, such claims were used to justify enhanced police powers
and greater investment in the traditional criminal justice apparatus.
When Folk devils and moral panics was released in its second edition in 1980, Cohen
added reflections on developments in subcultural theories of delinquency associated
with the Birmingham Centre for Contemporary Cultural Studies. In 2002, the book’s
third edition was published, allowing Cohen to look back on how moral panic as a
concept has been used – and misused – by academics and journalists. Chronicling its
applications, Cohen reviews key advances in several areas of inquiry, including juvenile
delinquency, school violence, bad drugs, pornography, welfare issues and asylum seekers.
Nevertheless, a greater understanding of moral panic goes beyond recognizing its many
territories of expansion; also it is crucial to reveal the depth and complexity of the
concept. The third edition of Folk devils and moral panics stands apart for its ability to
delineate further the explanatory power and meaning of moral panic. Three extensions
of moral panic theory are considered: social constructionism; media and cultural studies;
and risk. In approaching these domains, Cohen confronts a significant problem facing
moral panic analysis, namely its subjective nature: ‘Why is reaction to Phenomenon A
dismissed or downgraded by being described as “another moral panic” while the puta-
tively more significant Phenomenon B is ignored, and not even made a candidate for
moral signification?”’ (2002: xxi). As a partial remedy to this predicament, Cohen calls
for a comparative sociology of moral panic that provides researchers an opportunity to
discern why a certain condition manifests as a pseudo-disaster in one nation but not in
another. Moreover, comparative research invites critical analysis in determining the
many forms and nuances of moral panic.
Also in the third edition, Cohen (2002) reminds us of the differences between the
‘strong’ or ‘strict’ constructionists and those regarded as ‘weak’ or ‘contextual’. The
former insists that there are constructs and nothing but constructs, arguing that soci-
ologists are just another type of claims maker. Attempting to present a more objective
view, the latter proposes that sociologists can (and should) issue reality-checks while
detecting and documenting exaggeration. In doing so, sociologists – including us –
reveal the social construction process but also are committed to understanding and
resolving social problems. Further refining the sociology of moral panic, Cohen (2002)
distinguishes between noisy and quiet constructions. As the name suggests, noisy
constructions manifest in moral panic accompanied by high levels...
Copyright © SAGE Publications
London, Thousand Oaks, CA
and New Delhi.
www.sagepublications.com
1462-4745; Vol 7(4): 397–417
DOI: 10.1177/1462474505057117
PUNISHMENT
& SOCIETY
Detention of asylum
seekers in the UK and
USA
Deciphering noisy and quiet constructions
MICHAEL WELCH AND LIZA SCHUSTER
Rutgers University, USA and London School of Economics, UK, and City University, UK
Abstract
Moral panic theory continues to be applied to a range of phenomena, allowing soci-
ologists to refine our understanding of negative societal reaction aimed at people who
are easy to identify and easy to dislike. Whereas the prevailing notion of moral panic
rests on its noisy features, there are constructions that occur under the public radar. In
such instances, government officials quietly institute policies and practices that
adversely affect a targeted group. Moral panic over so-called bogus asylum seekers in
the UK represents a noisy construction whereby claims making is loud and public. In
the USA, however, that construction is remarkably quiet and does not resonate openly;
still, much like their British counterparts, American officials have resorted to the use
of confinement. This work explores the differences between the UK and the USA in
the realm of moral panic over asylum seekers while remaining attentive to their shared
consequences, the unjust detention of those fleeing persecution. Implications to social
control and human rights in a post-11 September world are discussed throughout.
Key Words
asylum seekers • comparative approach • detention • human rights • moral panic
Particularly for long periods of time, detention is among the gravest acts the state can
take against people. The seriousness of detention is even greater under circumstances
in which persons are held not on criminal or immigration charges but rather after fleeing
persecution. The current practices of detaining asylum seekers in the UK and the USA
worries human rights organizations, especially since they clash with the United Nations
Convention on Refugees. Still, the controversy has taken different forms in otherwise
similar nations, most notably along lines of social constructionism and moral panic.
While there is considerable public and political attention directed at asylum seeking in
397
05_welch_057117 (jk-t) 2/9/05 9:12 am Page 398
PUNISHMENT AND SOCIETY 7(4)
Britain, the putative problem in the USA remains muted; nevertheless, the consequences
are the same, subjecting asylum seekers to unnecessary detention in harsh conditions
of confinement.
While scholars recently are turning critical attention to issues of immigration, race,
ethnicity and crime (Wacquant, 1999; Angel-Ajani, 2003; Calavita, 2003; Melossi,
2003; Young, 2003), penologists rarely have delved into the problem of detaining people
fleeing persecution. This work examines the controversy over the detention of asylum
seekers, sorting out differences between the UK where voices on both sides of the debate
are public and loud and the USA where the issue is quietly concealed by government
officials. As discussed throughout, there are key implications to the nuances of moral
panic as well as to the sociology of punishment, social control and human rights predica-
ments in a post-11 September world. The detention of asylum seekers clearly demon-
strates that certain facets of the war on terror manifest more as immigration and social
control rather than as crime control. Supposedly operating under the umbrella of the
war on terror, the Department of Homeland Security has gained greater authority over
immigration and asylum matters. Human rights organizations are concerned over that
shift in power since it can lead to abuse. The United Nations recently documented a
pattern of mistreatment among US airport inspectors who detained, handcuffed and
intimidated travelers fleeing persecution in an effort to discourage them from request-
ing political asylum and thereby deporting them. Some of those who were deported
had even demonstrated a credible fear of persecution, the principal criterion for asylum.
Incidentally, the report was intended to remain confidential but was provided to the
New York Times by ‘a person unaffiliated with the United Nations who was concerned
about the government’s plan to expand summary deportations to the country’s land
borders’ (Swarns, 2004: A11).
Also consider the blanket detention order issued by Attorney General John Ashcroft
in 2003. The Government claims that wholesale detention is necessary to protect the
USA from terrorist threat; however, the order is a response to the case of David Joseph,
a Haitian asylum seeker. The Board of Immigration Appeals upheld the decision to
release Joseph on bond but Ashcroft insists that his release would prompt a mass exodus
from Haiti to the USA. Moreover, the State Department went so far as to say that Haiti
has become a staging point for terrorists from the Middle East (Anderson, 2003). Along
with those developments, the profiling of Arabs and Muslims leading to their deten-
tion and deportation for minor offenses (e.g. document fraud and cheating on the
English language exams) also serve immigration and social control functions (Associated
Press, 2003; General Accounting Office, 2003; TRAC, 2003).1
MORAL PANIC AS A THEORETICAL GRID
While establishing the theoretical grid of this analysis, it is important to acknowledge
that the moral panic paradigm has undergone considerable development since it entered
the literature more than 30 years ago. The term was used initially by Jock Young (1971)
in his examination of police and how they negotiate reality and translate fantasy but soon
Cohen (2002) elaborated more fully on the concept in his book Folk devils and moral
panics: The creation of Mods and Rockers. In its infancy, moral panic theory incorporated
an emerging sociology of deviance and embryonic cultural studies, reflecting the
398
05_welch_057117 (jk-t) 2/9/05 9:12 am Page 399
WELCH & SCHUSTER
Detention of asylum seekers in the UK and USA
changing social mood of the late 1960s. Young and Cohen concede that they probably
picked up the idea of moral panic from Marshall McLuhan’s Understanding media (1964).
According to Cohen, moral panic has occurred when: ‘A condition, episode, person or
group of persons emerges to become defined as a threat to societal values and interest;
its nature is presented in a stylized and stereotypical fashion by the mass media and poli-
ticians’ (1972: 9). Cohen explored the roles of the public, media and politicians in
producing heightened concern over British youths in the 1960s when the Mods and
Rockers were depicted as threats to public peace as well as the social order. Together, the
media and members of the political establishment publicized putative dangers posed by
the Mods and Rockers; in turn, such claims were used to justify enhanced police powers
and greater investment in the traditional criminal justice apparatus.
When Folk devils and moral panics was released in its second edition in 1980, Cohen
added reflections on developments in subcultural theories of delinquency associated
with the Birmingham Centre for Contemporary Cultural Studies. In 2002, the book’s
third edition was published, allowing Cohen to look back on how moral panic as a
concept has been used – and misused – by academics and journalists. Chronicling its
applications, Cohen reviews key advances in several areas of inquiry, including juvenile
delinquency, school violence, bad drugs, pornography, welfare issues and asylum seekers.
Nevertheless, a greater understanding of moral panic goes beyond recognizing its many
territories of expansion; also it is crucial to reveal the depth and complexity of the
concept. The third edition of Folk devils and moral panics stands apart for its ability to
delineate further the explanatory power and meaning of moral panic. Three extensions
of moral panic theory are considered: social constructionism; media and cultural studies;
and risk. In approaching these domains, Cohen confronts a significant problem facing
moral panic analysis, namely its subjective nature: ‘Why is reaction to Phenomenon A
dismissed or downgraded by being described as “another moral panic” while the puta-
tively more significant Phenomenon B is ignored, and not even made a candidate for
moral signification?”’ (2002: xxi). As a partial remedy to this predicament, Cohen calls
for a comparative sociology of moral panic that provides researchers an opportunity to
discern why a certain condition manifests as a pseudo-disaster in one nation but not in
another. Moreover, comparative research invites critical analysis in determining the
many forms and nuances of moral panic.
Also in the third edition, Cohen (2002) reminds us of the differences between the
‘strong’ or ‘strict’ constructionists and those regarded as ‘weak’ or ‘contextual’. The
former insists that there are constructs and nothing but constructs, arguing that soci-
ologists are just another type of claims maker. Attempting to present a more objective
view, the latter proposes that sociologists can (and should) issue reality-checks while
detecting and documenting exaggeration. In doing so, sociologists – including us –
reveal the social construction process but also are committed to understanding and
resolving social problems. Further refining the sociology of moral panic, Cohen (2002)
distinguishes between noisy and quiet constructions. As the name suggests, noisy
constructions manifest in moral panic accompanied by high levels...
To continue reading
Request your trial