Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorGill, N
dc.date.accessioned2013-06-26T11:47:07Z
dc.date.issued2009-06-18
dc.description.abstractThis paper explores the ways in which mobility can have governmental effects in the context of the management of asylum seekers awaiting deportation from the UK. Drawing upon the case of Campsfield House Immigration Removal Centre, a facility for the incarceration of immigration deportees near Oxford, the paper makes the case that the way asylum seekers are moved between detention centres within the UK has implications for the way they are represented to both asylum activists and asylum sector employees, causing them to choose to use their influence differently by with-holding the support that they might otherwise provide. The constant moving and repositioning of asylum seekers means that they are depicted as transitory, fleeting and depersonalised to those actors with the greatest degree of influence over them. The subjection not only of asylum seekers through forceful, blunt forms of power, but also of more powerful asylum sector actors through subtler, governmental techniques, has significant material implications for the incarcerated asylum seeking community that populates Britain's detention estate.en_GB
dc.identifier.citationVol. 28 (3), pp. 186 - 196en_GB
dc.identifier.doi10.1016/j.polgeo.2009.05.003
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10871/11406
dc.language.isoenen_GB
dc.publisherElsevieren_GB
dc.subjectMobilityen_GB
dc.subjectGovernmentalityen_GB
dc.subjectAsylum seekersen_GB
dc.subjectDetentionen_GB
dc.subjectRemoval centresen_GB
dc.subjectIncarcerationen_GB
dc.titleGovernmental mobility: The power effects of the movement of detained asylum seekers around Britain's detention estateen_GB
dc.typeArticleen_GB
dc.date.available2013-06-26T11:47:07Z
dc.descriptionCopyright © 2009 Elsevier. NOTICE: this is the author’s version of a work that was accepted for publication in Political Geography. Changes resulting from the publishing process, such as peer review, editing, corrections, structural formatting, and other quality control mechanisms may not be reflected in this document. Changes may have been made to this work since it was submitted for publication. A definitive version was subsequently published in Political Geography, 2009, Vol. 28, pp. 186 – 196 DOI: 10.1016/j.polgeo.2009.05.003en_GB
dc.identifier.journalPolitical Geographyen_GB


Files in this item

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record