Abstract
This chapter draws on participatory observation conducted as an outsider with two groups of about ten male asylum seekers each to explain why many asylum seekers in Hong Kong choose to live in spaces that can be defined as ‘slums’. An argument is made that asylum seekers’ choice of dwelling is a consequence of their socio-legal incarceration or confinement within a condition akin to detention, which limits and structures their identity and agency. Given structural factors that produce asylum seeker estrangement and marginalization, identity-based claims are made upon which asylum seekers act to ensure their survival. In so doing, however, they are responsible for shaping the exclusionary context that fashions their struggle to survive and gain a measure of control over their lives. A process of entrapment is thereby evinced, one in which asylum seekers are ensnared for political and economic reasons.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Notes
- 1.
Sentencing guidelines impose 15–22 months’ imprisonment on illegal immigrants and others pending removal who are caught working illegally (HKSAR v Usman Butt and others, HCMA70/2010).
- 2.
‘Asylum seeker’ and ‘refugee’ are terms used here interchangeably with preference to the former for asylum is extremely hard to obtain in Hong Kong. Further, the label refugee is traditionally associated with migration from China and Vietnam in the 1950s through to the 1990s that was believed to be largely economically motivated. In the contemporary discourse, the international usage of the label refugee can be said to be equivalent to the use of ‘genuine asylum seeker’ in Hong Kong.
- 3.
In 2004, the Hong Kong Government introduced a screening mechanism to assess non-refoulement claims of people demanding protection from torture, cruel or other inhuman treatment, following a decision to that effect of the Court of Final Appeal, Hong Kong’s highest court (Loper 2010). This mechanism has since been enhanced and expanded in scope. However, the government maintains that asylum seekers are to be considered illegal immigrants and overstayers (LegCo 2015). In fact, immigration policies can require people seeking protection to pursue their claim only after they have either entered Hong Kong illegally or their permitted period of stay has expired (CH v Director of Immigration, CACV59/2010). Consequently, asylum seekers are illegal migrants or overstayers against whom is generally handed down a removal order, which can warrant the asylum seeker detention if his or her removal is foreseeable in the short term. Most asylum seekers are detained only for the purpose of verification of their identity, after which they are released into society pending determination of their asylum claim.
- 4.
For the government assistance they receive is to be distributed in a form that should avoid creating a ‘magnet effect which may have serious implications on the sustainability of the assistance programme and … immigration control’ (LegCo 2015, p. 8).
- 5.
Asylum seekers in slums generally retain some privacy as rooms are cheaper than in urban settings, and thus they can live alone while sharing the compound common areas only.
References
Agnew, R. (1992). Foundation for a general strain theory of crime and delinquency. Criminology, 30(1), 47–87.
Bandara, K. (2015). Sri Lankan fatally burned in Hong Kong refugee slum. The Sunday Times, 4 February, viewed 5 February 2015. http://www.sundaytimes.lk/150201/news/sri-lankan-fatally-burned-in-hong-kong-refugee-slum-133282.html
Bernal, J. K. (2010). Begging for basic rights. South China Morning Post, 13 November.
Bosworth, M. (2012). Subjectivity and identity in detention: Punishment and society in a global age. Theoretical Criminology, 16(2), 123–140.
Bosworth, M. (2014). Inside immigration detention. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Bruzzone, M. (2016). On exterior and interior detention regimes: Governing, bordering, and economy in transit migration across Mexico. In D. Conlon & N. Hiemstra (Eds.), Intimate economies of immigration detention: Critical perspectives (pp. 105–119). Abingdon: Routledge.
Butler, J. (2004). Precarious life: The power of mourning and violence. London: Verso.
Cheung, K. (2016). HKFP lens: “gas them” – Activists satirise anti-refugee campaigners at competing rallies. Hong Kong Free Press, 9 May, viewed 9 May 2016. https://www.hongkongfp.com/2016/05/09/hkfp-lens-gas-them-activists-satirise-anti-refugee-campaigners-at-competing-rallies/
Coutin, B. (2010). Confined within: National territories as zones of confinement. Political Geography, 29, 200–208.
Daly, M. (2009). Refugee law in Hong Kong: Building the legal infrastructure. Hong Kong Lawyer, 9, 14–30.
Dauvergne, C. (2008). Making people illegal: What globalization means for migration and law. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Davis, M. (2006). Planet of slums. London: Verso.
Fassin, D. (2013). Enforcing order: An ethnography of urban policing. London: Polity Press.
Fung, K. (2015). Crime wave shows folly of open-door policy to refugees. China Daily, 7 October, viewed 7 October 2015. http://www.chinadailyasia.com/opinion/2015-10/07/content_15325622.html
Grzymala-Kazlowska, A. (2005). From ethnic cooperation to in-group competition: Undocumented Polish workers in Brussels. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 31(4), 675–697.
Harrell-Bond, B. (2002). Can humanitarian work with refugees be humane? Human Rights Quarterly, 24(1), 51–85.
Immigration Department [ImmD]. (2016). Statistics on non-refoulement claims, as at end of June 2016, viewed 22 September 2016. http://www.immd.gov.hk/eng/facts/enforcement.html
Jacobsen, K., & Landau, L. B. (2003). The dual imperative in refugee research: Some methodological and ethical considerations in social science research on forced migration (Rosemarie Rogers Working Paper No. 19). The Inter-University Committee on International Migration, viewed 1 June 2009. web.mit.edu/cis/www/migration/pubs/rrwp/19_jacobsen.htm
Jenkins, R. (2014). Social identity. Abingdon: Routledge.
Kapoor, I. (2013). Celebrity humanitarianism: The ideology of global charity. Abingdon: Routledge.
Koser, K. (1997). Social networks and the asylum cycle: The case of Iranians in the Netherlands. International Migration Review, 31(3), 591–611.
Lahtoo, Y. (2016). Grim prospects for Hong Kong’s South Asian asylum seekers when their own governments want them in a gulag. South China Morning Post, 14 April, viewed 15 April 2016. http://www.scmp.com/comment/insight-opinion/article/1935979/grim-prospects-hong-kongs-south-asian-asylum-seekers-when
Lam, J. (2016). Hong Kong government slammed as poverty figure hits six-year high. South China Morning Post, 15 October, viewed 16 October 2016. http://www.scmp.com/news/hong-kong/politics/article/2028422/hong-kong-government-slammed-poverty-figure-hits-six-year
Lamont, M., & Mizrachi, N. (2012). Introduction: Ordinary people doing extraordinary things: Responses to stigmatization in comparative perspective. Ethnic and Racial Studies, 35(3), 365–381.
Law, K. Y., & Lee, K. M. (2013). Socio-political embeddings of South Asian ethnic minorities’ economic situations in Hong Kong. Journal of Contemporary China, 22(84), 984–1005.
Lawshan, A. (2012). How progressive culture resists critique: The impasse of NGO studies. Ethnography, 14(4), 501–522.
Legislative Council [LegCo]. (2015). Legislative Council Panel on Security: Unified Screening Mechanism for Non-refoulement Claims, LC Paper No. CB(2)1832/14-15(03), 7 July, viewed 7 September 2016. http://www.legco.gov.hk/yr14-15/english/panels/se/papers/se20150707cb2-1832-3-e.pdf
Leung, W. S. (2014). The fragmentation, shift and adaptation of the “asylum seeker” identity in Hong Kong. VF Research Insight Series, 2.
Loper, K. (2010). Human rights, non-refoulement and the protection of refugees in Hong Kong. International Journal of Refugee Law, 22(3), 404–439.
Martinez, D., & Slack, J. (2013). What part of “illegal” don’t you understand? The social consequences of criminalizing unauthorized Mexican migrants in the United States. Social & Legal Studies, 22(4), 535–551.
Mellah, F. (2001). Clandestino nel Mediterraneo. Trieste: Asterios Editore.
Melossi, D. (2015). Crime, punishment and migration. London: Sage.
Mezzadra, S. (2011). The gaze of autonomy: Capitalism, migration and social struggles. In V. Squire (Ed.), The Contested politics of mobility: Borderzones and irregularity (pp. 121–142). Abingdon: Routledge.
Moore, K. (2013). “Asylum shopping” in the neoliberal social imaginary. Media, Culture & Society, 35(3), 348–365.
O’Malley, P. (2010). Simulated justice: Risk, money and telemetric policing. British Journal of Criminology, 50, 795–807.
On.CC. (2015, November 30). 外國快速評核免遣返聲請 港平均滯留2.7年 (Average of 2.7 years required to assess non-refoulement claims), viewed 30 November 2015. http://hk.on.cc/hk/bkn/cnt/news/20151130/bkn-20151130161257180-1130_00822_001.html
Pellegrino, V. (2012). La clandestinità come progetto trans-nazionale: Un caso di studio sulle migrazioni marocchine in Emilia (Nord Italia). Mondi Migranti, 3, 205–226.
Ramsden, M., & Marsh, L. (2013). The “right to work” of refugees in Hong Kong: Ma v Director of Immigration. International Journal of Refugee Law, 25(3), 574–596.
Refugee Union. (2016). Does race count in police profiling?. Refugee Union, 4 February, viewed 7 November 2016. http://www.refugeeunion.org/7648/race-count-police-profiling/
Saunders, D. (2010). Arrival city: How the largest migration in history is reshaping our world. London: William Heinemann.
Schierup, C. U., Hansen, P., & Castles, S. (2006). Migration: A European dilemma. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Sciurba, A. (2009). Campi di forza: Percorsi confinati di migranti in Europa. Verona: Ombre Corte.
Sigona, N. (2015). Campzenship: Reimagining the camp as a social and political space. Citizenship Studies, 19(1), 1–15.
Sun, N. (2016). To stay or not to stay? Hong Kong low-income households say rents rising faster than government subsidies. South China Morning Post, 11 September, viewed 11 September 2016, http://www.scmp.com/news/hong-kong/economy/article/2018436/stay-or-not-stay-low-income-households-say-rents-rising
Turner, J. C. (1968). Housing priorities, settlement patterns, and urban development in modernizing countries. Journal of the American Institute of Planners, 33, 167–181.
Turok, I., & Borel-Saladin, J. (2016). The theory and reality of urban slums: Pathways-out-of-poverty or cul-de-sacs? Urban Studies. doi:10.1177/0042098016671109.
Vecchio, F. (2015). Asylum seeking and the global city. Abingdon: Routledge.
Vecchio, F., & Beatson, C. (2014). Asylum seekers’ Occupy movement in Hong Kong. Race & Class, 56(2), 96–104.
Vecchio, F., & Ham, J. (2017). From subsistence to resistance: Asylum seekers and the other “Occupy” in Hong Kong. Critical Social Policy, 37(3), 1–21.
Vision First. (2013). The compound under the tree, 9 May, viewed 7 November 2016. http://www.vfnow.org/3780/the-compound-under-a-tree/
Vision First. (2014a). SWD incapable of thinking outside the box with new tender. Vision First, 8 December, viewed 9 December 2014. http://www.vfnow.org/page/3/?filterYear=2014&filterCategory=-1&filterKeyword
Vision First. (2014b). VF commend refugees for sharing stories with world. Vision First, 20 December, viewed 23 December 2014. http://www.vfnow.org/6225/vf-commend-refugees-sharing-stories-world/
Vision First. (2015). Refugees are turning to crime because of Hong Kong’s botched asylum system. Hong Kong Free Press, 25 August, viewed 25 August 2015. https://www.hongkongfp.com/2015/08/25/refugees-are-turning-to-crime-because-of-hong-kongs-botched-asylum-system/
Wacquant, L. (2004). Ghetto. In International encyclopedia of the social & behavioral sciences. London: Pergamon press.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Copyright information
© 2017 The Author(s)
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Vecchio, F. (2017). Asylum Seeker Materiality and Identity-Building: Shapers of Socio-legal Incarceration. In: Vecchio, F., Gerard, A. (eds) Entrapping Asylum Seekers. Transnational Crime, Crime Control and Security. Palgrave Macmillan, London. https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137-58739-8_10
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137-58739-8_10
Published:
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, London
Print ISBN: 978-1-137-58738-1
Online ISBN: 978-1-137-58739-8
eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)