手机禁令是否表明移民拘留正变得越来越像监狱?

IF 1.3 Q1 LAW
Louise Boon-Kuo
{"title":"手机禁令是否表明移民拘留正变得越来越像监狱?","authors":"Louise Boon-Kuo","doi":"10.1080/10383441.2022.2152603","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT The mobile phone enables people to be heard through walls of confinement. During the suspension of visits to immigration detention in the COVID-19 pandemic, mobile phones were a lifeline to family and friends. There is also a long history of people using phones to document and communicate their experience in Australian-run detention to the world. The Australian government’s attempts to ban mobile phones in detention provide a lens, and in this paper, a case study, to explore whether immigration detention in Australia is becoming more like prison. I argue that while the official purpose for detention remains administrative not punitive, the proposed mobile phone bans reveal the changing function of detention in Australian border control. Mobile phone bans show how people in influential roles have reimagined the legal subject of detention from the ‘asylum seeker’ to the ‘migrant criminal’. Proposals to ban mobile phones also convey a transformation in how immigration detention is legally conceived – from a civil space under the supervision of police and the general criminal law to a more segregated space ruled from within. Drawing on scholarship on law, crimmigration, and carcerality, this paper traces how mobile phone bans came to be regarded as the natural next step in detention law-making.","PeriodicalId":45376,"journal":{"name":"Griffith Law Review","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.3000,"publicationDate":"2022-12-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Do mobile phone bans show that immigration detention is becoming more like prison?\",\"authors\":\"Louise Boon-Kuo\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/10383441.2022.2152603\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"ABSTRACT The mobile phone enables people to be heard through walls of confinement. During the suspension of visits to immigration detention in the COVID-19 pandemic, mobile phones were a lifeline to family and friends. There is also a long history of people using phones to document and communicate their experience in Australian-run detention to the world. The Australian government’s attempts to ban mobile phones in detention provide a lens, and in this paper, a case study, to explore whether immigration detention in Australia is becoming more like prison. I argue that while the official purpose for detention remains administrative not punitive, the proposed mobile phone bans reveal the changing function of detention in Australian border control. Mobile phone bans show how people in influential roles have reimagined the legal subject of detention from the ‘asylum seeker’ to the ‘migrant criminal’. Proposals to ban mobile phones also convey a transformation in how immigration detention is legally conceived – from a civil space under the supervision of police and the general criminal law to a more segregated space ruled from within. Drawing on scholarship on law, crimmigration, and carcerality, this paper traces how mobile phone bans came to be regarded as the natural next step in detention law-making.\",\"PeriodicalId\":45376,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Griffith Law Review\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-12-20\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Griffith Law Review\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/10383441.2022.2152603\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"LAW\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Griffith Law Review","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10383441.2022.2152603","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

移动电话使人们能够隔着禁闭的墙壁被听到。在2019冠状病毒病大流行期间,移民拘留所暂停探视,手机是家人和朋友的生命线。人们用手机记录和向世界传达他们在澳大利亚拘留期间的经历也有很长的历史。澳大利亚政府在拘留所禁止使用手机的尝试提供了一个镜头,在本文中,一个案例研究,来探讨澳大利亚的移民拘留所是否变得越来越像监狱。我认为,虽然拘留的官方目的仍然是行政而不是惩罚,但拟议的手机禁令揭示了澳大利亚边境管制中拘留功能的变化。手机禁令表明,有影响力的人如何重新想象拘留的法律主体,从“寻求庇护者”到“移民罪犯”。禁止移动电话的提议也传达了移民拘留在法律上的转变——从一个在警察和一般刑法监督下的公民空间,到一个更隔离的由内部统治的空间。借助法律、犯罪、移民和谋杀方面的学术研究,本文追溯了手机禁令如何被视为拘留立法的自然下一步。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Do mobile phone bans show that immigration detention is becoming more like prison?
ABSTRACT The mobile phone enables people to be heard through walls of confinement. During the suspension of visits to immigration detention in the COVID-19 pandemic, mobile phones were a lifeline to family and friends. There is also a long history of people using phones to document and communicate their experience in Australian-run detention to the world. The Australian government’s attempts to ban mobile phones in detention provide a lens, and in this paper, a case study, to explore whether immigration detention in Australia is becoming more like prison. I argue that while the official purpose for detention remains administrative not punitive, the proposed mobile phone bans reveal the changing function of detention in Australian border control. Mobile phone bans show how people in influential roles have reimagined the legal subject of detention from the ‘asylum seeker’ to the ‘migrant criminal’. Proposals to ban mobile phones also convey a transformation in how immigration detention is legally conceived – from a civil space under the supervision of police and the general criminal law to a more segregated space ruled from within. Drawing on scholarship on law, crimmigration, and carcerality, this paper traces how mobile phone bans came to be regarded as the natural next step in detention law-making.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.90
自引率
8.30%
发文量
25
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信