Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Crimmigration and the Australian Legal Lexicon: Reflecting on Border Control, Theory and the Lived Experience

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Crimmigration in Australia

Abstract

The punitive responses of governments to certain types of mobility have generated intense public interest and captured the attention of scholars writing from across the globe. Billed as a new thesis, crimmigration has provided a theoretical hook for the analysis of the increasing convergence of criminal and immigration law, strategies and technologies, in different nation-states. In this chapter, I examine the development of the crimmigration thesis and the extent to which it has become part of our Australian legal lexicon. Reflecting on its uptake, reach and limitations, this chapter makes the case for careful appraisal of the impact of Stumpf’s crimmigration thesis and the need to look beyond crimmigration law/policy to disentangle the impacts of laws, policies, practices and discourses of the securitization of migration. This chapter argues for closer inspection of these impacts through analyzing the lived experiences of non-citizens and those responsible for enacting crimmigration legal processes – judicial officers and lawyers.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 139.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 179.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 179.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    In a unanimous decision, the Papua New Guinea Supreme Court in Namah v Pato [2016] SC1497 (Salika DCJ, Sakora, Kandakasi, Sawong and Higgins JJ) (Supreme Court of Papua New Guinea) found that the detention of asylum seekers and refugees in detention centres funded by Australia was a breach of the right to liberty in s42 of the Constitution of the Independent State of Papua New Guinea1975. The Manus Island detention centre was decommissioned at the end of October 2017; see Ghezelbash et al. 2018, p. 345.

  2. 2.

    See UN Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, Juan E Méndez 2015; Médecins Sans Frontières 2018.

  3. 3.

    Caisley 2018: The Prime Minister of the Czech Republic, Andrej Babis, recently commented that “The only solution to the migration crisis is the Australian model, not to allow the landing of migrants in Europe and the return of the ships from which they emerge”. Similarly, Italian Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of the Interior, Matteo Salvini, supports Australia’s offshore processing arrangements for those irregular migrants arriving by sea: see Miller 2018.

  4. 4.

    See Weber and McCulloch 2018.

  5. 5.

    Gerard 2014.

  6. 6.

    Sassen 1998.

  7. 7.

    Stanley 2018.

  8. 8.

    The Australian Government has sought to distinguish between asylum seekers arriving with valid visas, lawfully, by plane and those arriving unauthorised by boat, with the latter cohort subject to harsher deterrence policies and punitive frameworks that include temporary protection, and offshore processing: see Crock 2015, p. 7.

  9. 9.

    Stanley 2018.

  10. 10.

    Pickering and Weber 2014, p. 1007.

  11. 11.

    Gerard 2013, p. 59; see also Dauvergne 2008, p. 22.

  12. 12.

    Brown 2013, p. 606

  13. 13.

    See Chap. 3 by Boon-Kuo.

  14. 14.

    See Pickering 2014.

  15. 15.

    Weber 2006.

  16. 16.

    See Stanley 2018: Stanley’s article articulates the expanding reach of crimmigration through analysis of the detention and deportation of New Zealanders from Australia. Stanley contends that crimmigration is developing through: the application of punitive measures to non-citizens that are formerly ‘mates’ of Australia; enhanced practices of pre-emption where legal safeguards such as the presumption of innocence are sidelines; and, the spread of crimmigration through cross-border securitisation.

  17. 17.

    e.g. see Hedrick 2017.

  18. 18.

    Stumpf 2006.

  19. 19.

    Bowling and Westenra 2018.

  20. 20.

    Stumpf 2006.

  21. 21.

    Ibid. p. 376.

  22. 22.

    Ibid. p. 381.

  23. 23.

    Ibid. p. 380.

  24. 24.

    Ibid. p. 377.

  25. 25.

    Ibid. p 377.

  26. 26.

    Ibid. pp. 378–9.

  27. 27.

    Ibid. p. 378.

  28. 28.

    Ibid. p. 378.

  29. 29.

    Ibid. p 402.

  30. 30.

    Ibid. p. 402.

  31. 31.

    Sassen 1998; Bosworth and Guild 2008.

  32. 32.

    Stumpf p. 393.

  33. 33.

    Ibid. p. 394.

  34. 34.

    Smith 2018.

  35. 35.

    Stumpf 2011, p. 1705.

  36. 36.

    Stumpf 2015.

  37. 37.

    Ibid. p. 72.

  38. 38.

    See Tubex et al. 2015.

  39. 39.

    Farmer 2018.

  40. 40.

    Farmer 2018, p. 6.

  41. 41.

    See for example Jones and Newburn 2002. Or the critical accounts of the proliferation of restorative justice policy by Cunneen and Muncie 2005. Or for a critique of policy transfer in restorative justice practice see Cunneen 2010, p. 125.

  42. 42.

    Brown 2013, p. 612.

  43. 43.

    In David Brown’s paper, hybridity refers to the use of criminal penalties in regulatory fields and their blending and blurring. The example Brown uses is alcohol-related violence in public domains whereby certain offences will be dealt with by the traditional criminal law such as assault, offensive behaviour, malicious damage, and a number of prosecutions for operators of licensed venues. See Brown 2013, p. 615.

  44. 44.

    Fan 2014.

  45. 45.

    See Chap. 2 by Finnane and Kaladelfos.

  46. 46.

    Fan 2014, p. 132.

  47. 47.

    Weber and Bowling 2008.

  48. 48.

    Brown 2007. The Northern Territory Intervention was the Commonwealth Governments response to a report on the sexual abuse of children in the Northern Territory entitled the ‘Ampe Akelyernemane Meke Mekarle – ‘Little Children Are Sacred’: Report of the Northern Territory Board of Inquiry into the Protection of Aboriginal Children from Sexual Abuse’. Announced in June 2007, the Northern Territory Intervention involved a whole raft of ‘emergency measures’ – restrictions on alcohol and pornography, increased policing, reforms to native title and Indigenous governance – under the auspices of improving access to human rights for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people in the NT: see Billings 2009. The NT Intervention ‘repeats or resembles the manner of historical interventions in the lives of Aboriginal peoples’: Billings 2009, p. 35. Billings 2009, p. 37 calls for an attitudinal shift from government to promote non-discrimination and the recognition of its interdependence with human rights an approach that is governed by the principles of informed consent, participation and partnership.

  49. 49.

    Jupp 2002. See also, Chap. 3 by Boon-Kuo.

  50. 50.

    Jupp 2002.

  51. 51.

    Stumpf 2015. See also Hernández 2013, p. 1461 who writes that the US has a long history of animus towards immigrants but that this hadn’t culminated in the combined force of immigration and criminal laws with law enforcement. Thus, Hernández argues, the current crimmigration phenomenon is recent.

  52. 52.

    Castles 2010.

  53. 53.

    Ibid. p. 1566.

  54. 54.

    Jupp 2002, p. 17.

  55. 55.

    Castles 2010, p. 1574

  56. 56.

    Mann 2017.

  57. 57.

    LexisNexis 2018.

  58. 58.

    Stumpf 2006.

  59. 59.

    See Lasch 2014; Keun Kwon 2016.

  60. 60.

    Gerard 2013.

  61. 61.

    G.I.E.M. S.r.l. and Others v. Italy, p. 116.

  62. 62.

    Ibid. p. 115.

  63. 63.

    See International Commission of Jurists 2008; Hammarberg 2011; Gerard 2014.

  64. 64.

    Abdullahi Elmi and Aweys Abubakar v Malta, p. 34.

  65. 65.

    Ibid. p. 36.

  66. 66.

    Ibid. p. 41.

  67. 67.

    Ibid. p. 44.

  68. 68.

    Ibid. p. 46.

  69. 69.

    Quite exemplary of this trend, Saadi v. the United Kingdom, paras. 50 and 64, which situates asylum-seekers’ detention in the context of immigration control; and Court of Justice of the European Union, Hassen El Dridi Soufi Karim, paras. 58–62.

  70. 70.

    Mr. Mustafa Abdi v. United Kingdom, paras. 27 to 29, is paradigmatic.

  71. 71.

    Abdullahi Elmi and Aweys Abubakar v Malta, 48

  72. 72.

    Huysmans 2006.

  73. 73.

    Welch 2011; van Berlo 2015; Stanley 2018.

  74. 74.

    Stumpf 2006.

  75. 75.

    Welch 2011.

  76. 76.

    Welch 2011, p. 325; see also Pickering 2001.

  77. 77.

    Welch 2011, pp. 331–336.

  78. 78.

    Temporary protection visas were first introduced in Australia in 1989 but an amnesty declared shortly after that meant all those on temporary permits transitioned to permanent protection. They were reintroduced again by the Migration Amendment Regulations 1999 (No 12) (Cth), as repealed by the Migration Reform (Transitional Provisions) Regulations 1994 (Cth). Temporary protection visas were reinvigorated by the Migration Amendment (Temporary Protection Visas) Regulation 2013 (Cth) and later the Migration and Maritime Powers Legislation Amendment (Resolving the Asylum Legacy Caseload) Act 2014 (Cth). Temporary protection visas have been used in the Australian context to deter and even punish asylum seekers: see Crock 2015, p. 524.

  79. 79.

    Failla 2016.

  80. 80.

    See, Gerard and Weber 2019; and, Chap. 7 by Anthea Vogl.

  81. 81.

    Gerard and Kerr 2016.

  82. 82.

    See Chap. 14 by Greg Martin.

  83. 83.

    Van Berlo 2015.

  84. 84.

    See also Weber and Pickering 2014.

  85. 85.

    Stanley 2018.

  86. 86.

    Under these amendments, s501 of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) contains a ‘character test’ that can be used to refuse entry or cancel the visa of a non-citizen for ‘past activities, reputation or known criminal record’ see Billings 2019, p. 2.

  87. 87.

    Stanley 2018, p. 520.

  88. 88.

    See Ibid. pp. 520–27.

  89. 89.

    Ibid. p. 528.

  90. 90.

    Ibid. pp. 529–530.

  91. 91.

    Primarily Canada, the US and Europe: see Aiken et al. 2014.

  92. 92.

    Ibid. p. ii.

  93. 93.

    Macklin 2014.

  94. 94.

    Stumpf 2014, p. 86.

  95. 95.

    Ibid. pp. 87–89.

  96. 96.

    Roach 2014.

  97. 97.

    Guild and Zwaan 2014.

  98. 98.

    Van der Woude et al. 2014.

  99. 99.

    Brouwer et al. 2017, p. 101.

  100. 100.

    Barker 2017.

  101. 101.

    Barker 2017, p. 122.

  102. 102.

    van der Woude and van der Leun 2017.

  103. 103.

    Here I mean legal-doctrinal studies.

  104. 104.

    Fabini 2017.

  105. 105.

    Ibid. p. 57.

  106. 106.

    Ibid. p. 58.

  107. 107.

    Wonders 2017.

  108. 108.

    See Pickering et al. 2015.

  109. 109.

    Gerard 2014; Gerard and Pickering 2012, 2014.

  110. 110.

    Gerard 2017; Gerard and Vecchio 2017.

  111. 111.

    My previous research has focused on the impact of policies, practices and discourses of the securitization of migration, including: documentary analysis and key informant interviews with those involved in facilitating community detention programs in Australia: see Gerard and Weber 2019. Gerard and Kerr 2016: Narrative analysis of official inquiries into the death in custody of Reza Berati on Manus Island, PNG; and tensions between the refugee protection framework and the securitisation of migration that have resulted in the pursuit of criminal justice initiatives of deterrence, detention and risk reduction in Gerard and Pickering 2013.

  112. 112.

    Gerard 2014.

  113. 113.

    Ibid. p. 29.

  114. 114.

    Gerard 2014.

  115. 115.

    Weber and McCulloch 2018.

  116. 116.

    Ibid.

  117. 117.

    Ibid. p. 14.

  118. 118.

    See for example, Bosworth and Guild 2008; van der Woude et al. 2014.

  119. 119.

    Weber and McCulloch 2018, p. 2.

  120. 120.

    Stumpf 2006.

  121. 121.

    Ibid. p. 377.

  122. 122.

    Weber and McCulloch 2018, p. 19.

  123. 123.

    Bosworth and Guild 2008.

  124. 124.

    Weber and McCulloch 2018.

  125. 125.

    Bosworth and Guild 2008, p. 715, in Weber and McCulloch 2018, p. 9.

  126. 126.

    Weber and McCulloch 2018, p. 19.

  127. 127.

    Krasmann 2007.

  128. 128.

    Ibid. p. 301.

  129. 129.

    Ibid. p. 309.

  130. 130.

    Weber and McCulloch 2018, p. 15.

  131. 131.

    See Gerard et al. 2018. And see, Chap. 3 by Boon-Kuo.

  132. 132.

    To illustrate, asylum seekers who arrive by boat unauthorised and seek refugee protection are subject to mandatory detention and other punitive practices.

  133. 133.

    Lacey 2009.

  134. 134.

    Beckett and Murukawa 2012, pp. 222–223.

  135. 135.

    Farmer 2018, p. 5.

  136. 136.

    Bosworth and Guild 2008.

  137. 137.

    Gerard and Pickering 2012.

  138. 138.

    Hartry 2012.

  139. 139.

    See Dingeman et al. 2017; Pickering and Cochrane 2012; Gerard 2017; Nayak 2015.

  140. 140.

    Pickering et al. 2014.

  141. 141.

    Pickering et al. 2014.

  142. 142.

    Barrie and Mendes 2011. For a legal-doctrinal analysis of the impact of crimmigration on unaccompanied minors, see Chap. 12 by Lelliott.

  143. 143.

    Nardone and Correa-Velez 2016.

  144. 144.

    Gerard et al. 2018.

  145. 145.

    Gerard and Weber 2019.

  146. 146.

    See, further, Chap. 7 by Anthea Vogl.

  147. 147.

    Bowling and Westenra 2018.

  148. 148.

    Ibid. p. 14.

  149. 149.

    Ibid. p. 10.

  150. 150.

    See the analysis of this character test framework in Billings 2019, pp. 7–8.

  151. 151.

    The impact on cross-border securitisation and the contagion of crimmigration is evidenced by Stanley in her account of New Zealanders being deported from Australia in Stanley 2018. The punitive effect of mandatory visa cancellations on non-citizens has been characterised by Billings 2019, pp. 16–20, as ‘double -punishment’ and in conflict with fundamental human rights.

  152. 152.

    Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW) v Koh, para. 20.

  153. 153.

    See Chap. 2 by Finnane and Kaladelfos.

  154. 154.

    Stumpf 2006.

  155. 155.

    Weber and McCulloch 2018.

References

Case Law

  • Abdullahi Elmi and Aweys Abubakar v Malta (European Court of Human Rights, Chamber, Application Nos 25794/13 and 28151/13, 22 November 2016)

    Google Scholar 

  • Chi Sun Tsui v R (1985) 1 NSWLR 308 Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW) v Koh [2015] NSWLC 24

    Google Scholar 

  • G.I.E.M. S.r.l. and Others v. Italy (European Court of Human Rights, Grand Chamber, Application No 1828/06, 28 June 2018)

    Google Scholar 

  • Guden v R (2010) 28 VR 288

    Google Scholar 

  • Hassen El Dridi Soufi Karim (C-61/11 PPU) (2011) ECR I-3031

    Google Scholar 

  • Namah v Pato [2016] SC1497 (Supreme Court of Papua New Guinea)

    Google Scholar 

  • Roberto Morales Diaz v Sate of Iowa (Supreme Court of Iowa, 15-0862, 9 June 2017)

    Google Scholar 

  • Saadi v. the United Kingdom (European Court of Human Rights, Grand Chamber, Application No 13229/03, 29 January 2008)

    Google Scholar 

Legislation

  • Constitution of the Independent State of Papua New Guinea (1975)

    Google Scholar 

  • Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees (1951) 606 UNTS 267

    Google Scholar 

  • Migration Act 1958 (Cth)

    Google Scholar 

  • Migration Amendment Regulations 1999 (No 12) (Cth)

    Google Scholar 

  • Migration Reform (Transitional Provisions) Regulations 1994 (Cth)

    Google Scholar 

  • Migration Amendment (Temporary Protection Visas) Regulation 2013 (Cth)

    Google Scholar 

  • Migration and Maritime Powers Legislation Amendment (Resolving the Asylum Legacy Caseload) Act 2014 (Cth)

    Google Scholar 

Secondary Sources

  • Aiken S, Lyon D and Thorburn M (2014) Introduction. Queens Law Journal 40(1):i-xi

    Google Scholar 

  • Barker V (2017) Nordic vagabonds: The Roma and the logic of benevolent violence in the Swedish welfare state. European Journal of Criminology 14(1):120–139

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barrie L, Mendes P (2011) The experiences of unaccompanied asylum-seeking children in and leaving the out-of-home care system in the UK and Australia: A critical review of the literature. International Social Work 54(4):485–503

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Beckett K, Murukawa, N (2012) Mapping the shadow carceral state: Toward an institutionally capacious approach to punishment. Theoretical Criminology 16(2):221–244

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Billings P (2009) Still paying the price for benign intentions? Contextualising contemporary interventions in the lives of Aboriginal peoples. Melbourne University Law Review 33(1):1–38

    Google Scholar 

  • Billings P (2019) Regulating crimmigrants through the character Test. Crime Law and Social Change 71(1):1

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bosworth M, Guild M (2008) Governing through migration control: security and citizenship in Britain. British Journal of Criminology 48:703–719

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bowling B, Westenra S (2018) ‘A really hostile environment’: Adiaphorization, global policing and the crimmigration control system. Theoretical Criminology. doi:https://doi.org/10.1177/1362480618774034

  • Brouwer J, van der Woude M, van der Leun J (2017) Framing migration and the process of crimmigration: A systematic analysis of the media representation of unauthorized immigrants in the Netherlands. European Journal of Criminology 14(1):100–119

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brown A (2007) The Northern Territory intervention: Voices from the centre of the fringe. Medical Journal of Australia 187(11/12):621–623

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brown D (2013) Criminalisation and normative Theory. Current Issues in Criminal Justice Issue 25(2):605–625

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Caisley O (2018) Czech praise for Australia’s asylum seeker policy. 17 July 2018. Available via The Australian. https://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/immigration/czech-praise-for-australias-asylum-seeker-policy/news-story/caaaaeaa56304e918432ad407f9d3f57. Accessed 10 Jan 2019

  • Castles S (2010) Understanding global migration: a social transformation perspective. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies 36(10):1565–1586

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Crock M (2015) Australian exceptionalism: Temporary protection and the rights of refugees. Melbourne Journal of International Law 16(2):1–28

    Google Scholar 

  • Cunneen C, Muncie J (2005) The globalization of crime control—the case of youth and juvenile justice: Neo-liberalism, policy convergence and international conventions. Theoretical Criminology 9(1):35–64

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cunneen C (2010) The limitations of restorative justice in debating restorative justice. In Hoyle C, Cunneen C (eds) Hart Publishing, Oxford

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Dauvergne C (2008) Making people illegal. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Dingeman K, Arzhayev Y, Ayala C, Bermudez E, Padama L, Tena-Chávez L (2017) Neglected, protected, ejected: Latin American women caught by crimmigration. Feminist Criminology 12(3):293–314

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fabini G (2017) Managing illegality at the internal border: Governing through “differential inclusion” in Italy. European Journal of Criminology 14(1):46–62

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Failla M (2016) Outsourcing obligations to developing nations: Australia’s refugee resettlement agreement with Cambodia. Monash University Law Review 42(3):638–84

    Google Scholar 

  • Fan M (2014) The case for crimmigration reform. North Carolina Law Review 92:101–169

    Google Scholar 

  • Farmer L (2018) Thinking about (hidden) criminalisation. International Journal of Crime & Justice 7(3):4–8

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gerard A (2013) Arbitrary detention without respect for human dignity. Available via Border Criminologies. http://bordercriminologies.law.ox.ac.uk/arbitrary-detention-malta. Accessed 22 March 2019

  • Gerard A (2014) The securitisation of migration and refugee women. Routledge, Abingdon

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Gerard A (2017) Contesting entrapment: women asylum seekers in Hong Kong. In: Vecchio F, Gerard A (eds) Entrapping asylum seekers. Palgrave Macmillan, London

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Gerard A, Vecchio F (2017). Entrapping Asylum Seekers. In Vecchio F, Gerard A, (eds) Entrapping Asylum Seekers. London: Palgrave McMillan

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Gerard A, Kerr T (2016) Emerging zones of legal ambiguity and lethal violence: deaths in Australia’s offshore detention centres. In: Fitzgibbon K, Walklate S (eds) Gender, murder and responsibility. Routledge, Abingdon, p, 130–147

    Google Scholar 

  • Gerard A, Pickering S (2012) The crime and punishment of Somali women’s extra-legal arrival in Malta. British Journal of Criminology 52(3):514

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gerard A, Pickering S (2013) Crimmigration: Criminal justice, refugee protection and the securitisation of migration. In: Bersot H, Arrigo B (eds) The routledge handbook of international crime and justice studies. Routledge, London, p, 587–611

    Google Scholar 

  • Gerard A, Weber L (2019) “Humanitarian borderwork”: Identifying tensions between humanitarianism and securitisation for government contracted NGOs working with adult and unaccompanied minor asylum seekers in Australia. Theoretical Criminology 23(2):266–285

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gerard A, McGrath A, Colvin E, McFarlane K (2019) “I’m not getting out of bed”: The criminalisation of children in residential care. Australian & New Zealand Journal of Criminology 52(1):76-93

    Google Scholar 

  • Ghezelbash D, Moreno-Lax V, Klein N, and Opeskin B (2018) Securitisation of search and rescue at sea: The response to boat migration in the mediterranean. International & Comparative Law Quarterly 67(2):315–351

    Google Scholar 

  • Grant, S. (2011) “Recording and Identifying European Frontier Deaths.” European Journal of Migration and Law 13(2):135–56

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Guild E, Zwaan K (2014) Does Europe still create refugees? Examining the situation of the Roma. Queen’s Law Journal 40(1):141–164

    Google Scholar 

  • Hammarberg T (2011) Report by Thomas Hammarberg, Commissioner for Human Rights of the Council of Europe: Following his Visit to Malta from 23 to 25 March 2011. Commissioner for Human Rights, Strasbourg. Available via https://rm.coe.int/16806db6e2. Accessed 27 March 2019

  • Hartry A (2012) Gendering crimmigration: The intersection of gender, immigration, and the criminal justice system. Berkeley Journal of Gender, Law & Justice 27(1):1

    Google Scholar 

  • Hedrick K (2017) Getting out of (self-)harm’s way: A study of factors associated with self-harm among asylum seekers in Australian immigration detention. Journal of Forensic and Legal Medicine 49:89–93

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hernández CCG (2013) Creating crimmigration. BYU Law Review (6):1457–1516

    Google Scholar 

  • Huysmans J (2006) The politics of insecurity: fear, migration and asylum in the EU. Routledge, London

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • International Commission of Jurists (2008) International Commission of Jurists Submission to the Universal Periodic Review of Malta. Available via https://www.icj.org/icj-submission-to-the-universal-periodic-review-of-malta/. Accessed 27 March 2019

  • Jones T, Newburn T (2002) Policy convergence and crime control in the USA and the UK. Criminology & Criminal Justice 2(2):173–203.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jupp J (2002) From white Australia to Woomera: The story of Australian immigration. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Keun Kwon AD (2016) Comment, defending criminal(ized) “aliens” after Padilla: toward a more holistic public immigration defense in the era of crimmigration. UCLA Law Review 63:1035–1108

    Google Scholar 

  • Krasmann S (2007) The enemy on the border: Critique of a programme in favour of a preventive state. Punishment & Society 9:301–318.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lexis Advance Pacific Research. Accessed 26 June 2018

    Google Scholar 

  • Lacey N (2009) Historicising criminalisation: Conceptual and empirical issues. The Modern Law Review 72(6):936–960

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lasch C (2014) “Crimmigration” and the right to counsel at the border between civil and criminal proceedings. Iowa Law Review 99:2131

    Google Scholar 

  • Macklin A (2014) Citizenship revocation, the privilege to have rights and the production of the alien. Queen’s Law Journal. 40(1): 1–54

    Google Scholar 

  • Mann T (2017) Australian law dictionary. Oxford University Press, Sydney

    Google Scholar 

  • Médecins Sans Frontières (2018) Nauru. Available via MSF. https://www.msf.org/nauru. Accessed 17 March 2019

  • Miller N (2018) ‘“No way”: Italy’s leader takes Australian cue on refugees. 24 August 2018. Available via The Sydney Morning Herald. https://www.smh.com.au/world/europe/no-way-italy-s-leader-takes-australian-cue-on-refugees-20180824-p4zzfy.html. Accessed 10 Jan 2019

  • Mr. Mustafa Abdi v. United Kingdom, Opinion No. 45/2006, U.N. Doc. A/HRC/7/4/Add.1 at 40 (2007)

    Google Scholar 

  • Nardone M, Correa-Velez I (2016) Unpredictability, invisibility and vulnerability: unaccompanied asylum-seeking minors’ journeys to Australia. Journal of Refugee Studies 29(3):295–314

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nayak M (2015) Who is worthy of protection? Gender-based asylum and U.S. immigration politics. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Pickering S (2001) Original deviance and normality: Representations of asylum seekers and refugees in the Australian press. Journal of Refugee Studies 14(2):169–186

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pickering S (2014) Floating carceral spaces. Punishment & Society 16(2);187–205

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pickering S, Weber L (2014) New deterrence scripts in Australia’s rejuvenated offshore detention regime for asylum seekers. Law & Social Inqury: Journal of the American Bar Foundation 39:1006–1057

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pickering S, Aas K, Bosworth M (2015) Criminology of mobility. In: Pickering S, Ham J (eds) Handbook of migration and crime. Routledge, Abingdon

    Google Scholar 

  • Pickering S, Bosworth M and Segrave M (2014) Guest editor introduction for special issue on borders, gender and punishment. Punishment & Society 16(2):131–134

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pickering S, Cochrane B (2012) Irregular border-crossing deaths and gender: Where, how and why women die crossing borders. Theoretical Criminology 17(1):27–48

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sassen S (1998) Globalization and its discontents. New Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith D (2018) Trump administration scrambles as outrage grows over border separations. Available via The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/jun/18/us-immigration-border-families-separated-children-kirstjen-nielsen. Accessed 18 June 2018

  • Stanley E (2018) Expanding Crimmigration: The Detention and Deportation of New Zealanders from Australia. Australian & New Zealand Journal of Criminology 51(4):519–36

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stumpf J (2006) The crimmigration crisis: immigrants, crime and sovereign power. American University Law Review 56(2):367–419

    Google Scholar 

  • Stumpf J (2011) Doing time: Crimmigration law and the perils of haste. UCLA Law Review 58:1705–48

    Google Scholar 

  • Stumpf J (2014) Civil detention and other oxymorons. Queen’s Law Journal 40(1):55–98

    Google Scholar 

  • Stumpf J (2015) Crimmigration: encountering the leviathan. In: Pickering S, Ham J (eds) The Routledge handbook on crime and international migration. Routledge, London, p 237–250

    Google Scholar 

  • Tubex H, Brown D, Freiberg A, Gelb K, and Sarre R (2015) Penal diversity within Australia. Punishment & Society 17(3):345–373

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • UN Special Rapporter (2015) Report of the Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment or punishment, Juan E Méndez. Human Rights Council A/HRC/28/68/Add.1

    Google Scholar 

  • van Berlo P (2015) Australia’s operation sovereign borders: Discourse, power, and policy from a crimmigration perspective. Refugee Survey Quarterly 34(4):75–104

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • van der Leun J, van der Woude M (2012) A reflection on crimmigration in the Netherlands. In: Guia MJ, Van der Woude M, Van der Leun J (eds) Social control and justice: Crimmigration in the age of fear. Eleven International Publishing, The Hague, p 41–60

    Google Scholar 

  • van der Woude M, van der Leun J (2017) Crimmigration checks in the internal border areas of the EU: finding the discretion that matters. European Journal of Criminology 14(1):27–45

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • van der Woude, M A, van der Leun, J P, & Nijland, J A A (2014). Crimmigration in the Netherlands. Law & Social Inquiry, 39(3):560–579

    Google Scholar 

  • Weber L (2006) The shifting frontiers of migration control. In Pickering S, Weber L (eds) Borders, mobility and technologies of control. Springer, Dordrecht, p 21–43

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Weber L, Bowling B (2008) Valiant beggars and global vagabonds: Select, eject, immobilize. Theoretical Criminology 12(3):355–375

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weber L, McCulloch J (2018) Penal power and border control: Which thesis? Sovereignty, governmentality, or the pre-emptive state? Punishment and Society 1–19

    Google Scholar 

  • Weber, L, and Sharon Pickering. Globalization and Borders: Death at the Global Frontier. London: Palgrave, 2011

    Google Scholar 

  • Weber L, Pickering S (2014) Constructing voluntarism: technologies of “intent management” in Australian border controls. In: Schwenken H, Ruß-Sattar S (eds) New border and citizenship politics. Migration, Diasporas and Citizenship Series. Palgrave Macmillan, London, p 17–29

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Welch M (2011) The sonics of crimmigration in Australia: Wall of noise and quiet manoeuvring. British Journal of Criminology 52(2):324–344

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wonders NA (2017) Sitting on the fence – Spain’s delicate balance: Bordering, multiscalar challenges, and crimmigration. European Journal of Criminology 14(1):7–26

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Charles Sturt University, Bathurst, Australia

    Alison Gerard

Authors
  1. Alison Gerard
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Alison Gerard .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. TC Beirne School of Law, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, QLD, Australia

    Peter Billings

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2019 Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd.

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Gerard, A. (2019). Crimmigration and the Australian Legal Lexicon: Reflecting on Border Control, Theory and the Lived Experience. In: Billings, P. (eds) Crimmigration in Australia. Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-9093-7_5

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-9093-7_5

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Singapore

  • Print ISBN: 978-981-13-9092-0

  • Online ISBN: 978-981-13-9093-7

  • eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation