The Immigration and Asylum Agenda

Abstract: An area of freedom, security and justice was created by the Treaty of Maastricht of 1991/1993. Immigration and asylum of third‐country nationals was inserted into Title IV EC by the Treaty of Amsterdam of 1997/1999. The European Council of Tampere of October 1999 provided a substantive input. The proposals of the European Commission cover almost all aspects of immigration and asylum and, in line with the Tampere conclusions, are oriented at the status of EU citizens. A common European migration and asylum policy has been realised at an astonishing speed, though some core instruments have not yet been adopted. During the negotiations the proposals have been watered down and thus provide only relatively low standards, in particular as regards access to employment, which is an important requisite for the integration of migrants.     

Asylum seekers and informed consent--European perspective

For centuries, people of various nationalities from various States have sought asylum for varied reasons. These people seeking asylum can need medical care in the host country. In this article I would like to discuss to what extent informed consent is needed, and to what extent informed consent must be sought. The problem is discussed from the perspective of European international documents, mainly on those of the Council of Europe.     

The Detention of Asylum Seekers as a Crime of Obedience

This article deals with discretionary decisions made by British immigration officers about whether to detain asylum seekers. It takes as its point of departure the remarkable variety of views and practices reported by front line decision-makers interviewed at British ports (Weber and Gelsthorpe 2000; Weber and Landman 2002). The discussion begins by drawing historical parallels between the pre-Holocaust era and the present day hostility towards asylum seekers, which forms the wider context for official decision-making. It notes the failure of structural analyses to account for individual differences in rule-following and draws on theoretical perspectives developed by American social psychologists Kelman and Hamilton (1989) to explore the individual dynamics of conformity and dissent. In the concluding section, theoretical connections are made between the idea of discretionary detention as a crime of obedience, and contemporary discussion about state crime and governmentality. The underlying message of this article is as much a normative as an analytical one. While recognizing the practical limitations of individual conscience, the discussion ends, as it begins, by celebrating the emancipatory potential of dissent in the face of populist policies that sanction harm against targeted groups.