Seeing Illegal Immigrants: State Monitoring and Political Rationality

通过欧洲海上边界的非法移民最近引起了大量的政治关注。但同样引人注目的是，对已经居住在欧洲国家的非法移民缺乏了解，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，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。这个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由国家监督，哪些不受监督？公共当局使用何种技术和做法来监控非法居民？该项目将是第一个系统地绘制、比较和解释不同欧洲国家监控非法移民的做法和技术的项目。(2)监测实践告诉我们，国家监测实践的政治理性类型——我们称之为国家“监测逻辑”——是什么？通过比较三个国家的监测实践，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。对监控的关注为重建支撑政治机构的逻辑提供了一个视角。我们将比较三个国家的监测实践：英国、法国和德国。这些国家在许多方面相似。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）或两者的结合（法国），它们都经历了移民人数的显著增加。在20世纪70年代初，每个国家都采取措施关闭合法移民的渠道。这些国家都要遵守欧盟在边境、移民和庇护方面的一系列规定（法国和德国则遵守申根规则）。然而，这些国家在三个主要变量上存在差异，我们可能会期望它们产生不同的监测实践：国家监督的行政能力、政治动态和劳动力市场灵活性。研究将包括比较和历史案例分析。比较将有助于我们识别和解释这三种情况之间的差异。从历史的角度看，有助于我们追踪监测做法的演变，绘制出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，以研究在每个国家移民控制的关键时刻，政策参与者和政治家如何分析和审议与监测非法移民有关的政策和做法。(b)与政策行为者进行100次访谈，以重建公共当局如何看待和应对1990年代初的第二次管制危机；并审查最近和当前的监测做法（截至2015年）。通过我们的研究，我们希望促进关于移民控制的伦理和政治的更有见地的辩论。公众/媒体关于非法移民的辩论之间存在明显的差距，辩论的重点是需要强有力的控制；而参与向非法移民提供服务的公共当局和组织的做法，对这种控制的态度要矛盾得多。我们会透过一系列的活动及传媒宣传，激发公众对这个问题的讨论，并鼓励各机构反思他们在监察和支援非法入境者方面所扮演的角色。

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.