权益分类	功能权益	普通用户	{{item.name}}会员
{{category.name}}	{{benefitItem.name}}

Seeing Illegal Immigrants: State Monitoring and Political Rationality

目睹非法移民：国家监控与政治理性

基本信息

批准号：
ES/N011171/1
负责人：
Christina Boswell
金额：
$ 67万
依托单位：
University of Edinburgh
依托单位国家：
英国
项目类别：
Research Grant
财政年份：
2016
资助国家：
英国
起止时间：
2016 至无数据
项目状态：
已结题

来源：
https://gtr.ukri.org/projects?ref=ES%2FN011171%2F1
关键词：
Seeing Illegal Immigrants State Monitoring

项目摘要

Irregular immigration via Europe's sea borders has attracted substantial political attention recently. But just as striking is the lack of knowledge about, or even strategic ignorance of, unauthorised immigrants already resident in European countries. Few countries regularly estimate the number of illegal residents on their territory, and governments tend to be reticent about collecting and publishing data on the control of illegal residence or employment. This project will examine how states 'see' illegal immigrants, through addressing two sets of questions. (1) Which forms of illegality do states monitor, and which are left unscrutinised? What sorts of techqniues and practices do public authorities use to monitor illegal residents? The project will be the first to systematically map, compare and explain the practices and technologies deployed in different European countries to monitor illegal immigrants.(2) What do monitoring practices tell us about the type of political rationality informing state monitoring practices - what we term state 'logics of monitoring'? Through comparing monitoring practices in three countries, we can gain insight into how public authorities decide which aspects of illegal immigration to scrutinise, and which to overlook. The focus on monitoring provides a lens for reconstructing the logics underpinning political agency.We will compare monitoring practices in three countries: the UK, France and Germany. These countries are similar in many respects. They each experienced a significant rise in immigration in the decades after World War II, driven by colonial commitments (UK), labour requirements (Germany), or a combination of the two (France). And each country introduced measures to close channels for legal immigration in the early 1970s. They are all subject to a range of EU provisions on borders, immigration and asylum (and Schengen rules in the case of France and Germany). Yet these countries differ across three main variables we might expect to produce different monitoring practices: state administrative capacity for monitoring, political dynamics and labour market flexibility.The research will involve comparative and historical case study analysis. Comparison will help us identify and explain variations between the three cases. The historical perspective helps us to trace the evolution of monitoring practices over time, charting how they have been adjusted in response to different domestic and international factors. Historical analysis also helps us identify the ways in which current monitoring practices are constrained by prior choices. The research will involve two main methods: (a) Archival data analysis. We will study public records from the mid 1960s to the early 1970s, to examine how policy actors and politicians analysed and deliberated on policy and practices relevant to monitoring illegal immigrants, during a critical juncture in immigration control in each country. (b) 100 interviews with policy actors, to reconstruct how public authorities perceived and responded to a second control crisis in the early 1990s; and to examine recent and current monitoring practices (up until 2015). Through our research, we hope to foster more informed debate on the ethics and politics of immigration control. There is a pronounced gap between public/media debates on illegal immigrants, which focus on the need for robust control; and the practices of public authorities and organisations involved in providing services to illegal immigrants, which are far more ambivalent about such control. Through a series of events and media dissemination, we will stimulate a knowledge-based discussion of the issue, and encourage organisations to reflect on their role in monitoring and supporting illegal immigrants.

最近，通过欧洲海上边界的非正常移民引起了政治上的极大关注。但同样令人震惊的是，对已经居住在欧洲国家的未经授权的移民缺乏了解，甚至是战略上的无知。很少有国家定期估计其领土上的非法居民人数，各国政府往往不愿收集和公布有关控制非法居留或就业的数据。该项目将通过解决两组问题来研究各州如何“看待”非法移民。(1)哪些形式的非法行为是国家监控的，哪些是未经审查的？公共当局使用什么样的技术和做法来监视非法居民？该项目将是第一个系统地绘制、比较和解释欧洲不同国家监测非法移民的做法和技术的项目。(2)监督实践告诉我们什么样的政治合理性通知国家监督实践-我们称之为国家的“逻辑的监测”？通过比较三个国家的监测做法，我们可以深入了解公共当局如何决定对非法移民的哪些方面进行审查，哪些方面可以忽略。对监督的关注为重建政治代理的逻辑提供了一个透镜。我们将比较英国、法国和德国三个国家的监督实践。这些国家在许多方面都很相似。在第二次世界大战后的几十年里，由于殖民承诺（英国）、劳动力需求（德国）或两者结合（法国）的推动，它们都经历了移民的显著增加。每个国家都在20世纪70年代初采取措施关闭法律的移民渠道。它们都受到欧盟关于边境、移民和庇护的一系列规定的约束（法国和德国则受到申根规则的约束）。然而，这些国家在三个主要变量上存在差异，我们可能会期望产生不同的监测做法：国家监测行政能力，政治动态和劳动力市场灵活性。比较将有助于我们识别和解释这三种情况之间的差异。历史的视角有助于我们追踪监测做法随时间的演变，绘制它们是如何根据不同的国内和国际因素进行调整的图表。历史分析还有助于我们确定当前的监测实践受到先前选择限制的方式。研究将涉及两种主要方法：（a）档案数据分析。我们将研究从20世纪60年代中期到70年代初的公共记录，以研究政策参与者和政治家如何分析和审议有关监测非法移民的政策和做法，在每个国家的移民控制的关键时刻。(b)与政策行为者进行了100次访谈，以重建公共当局如何看待和应对1990年代初的第二次控制危机;并审查最近和当前的监测做法（截至2015年）。通过我们的研究，我们希望促进对移民控制的道德和政治更明智的辩论。公众/媒体关于非法移民问题的辩论侧重于强有力的管制的必要性，而参与向非法移民提供服务的公共当局和组织的做法则对这种管制的态度更为矛盾，两者之间存在着明显的差距。通过一系列活动和媒体宣传，我们将激发对这一问题的知识性讨论，并鼓励各组织反思其在监测和支持非法移民方面的作用。