Applied Criminology: Evaluating Immigration Removal Centers in the UK

This Applied Criminology essay examines the practices of immigration removal centers (IRCs) in the UK, focusing on the extent to which detention is grounded on differences in human beings. It details the circumstances under which individuals are detained, including entry into the UK, asylum claims, and exhausted appeal rights. The essay also identifies individuals who should not be detained based on Home Office policy, such as those with mental health issues, victims of torture, gender-based violence, modern slavery, or serious physical disabilities, and pregnant women. It highlights the financial costs of detention and the availability of more cost-effective alternatives. The author refers to several academic sources to support the arguments and provide a comprehensive overview of the topic. The essay also touches upon the ethical considerations and challenges surrounding immigration detention, emphasizing the importance of human rights and the need for fair and just policies.

Running head: APPLIED CRIMINOLOGY
Applied criminology
Name of the student:
Name of the university:
Author Note

1APPLIED CRIMINOLOGY
Understanding to what extent are immigration removal-centers grounded on
difference in human beings:
As one have the right to be present one is liable being held in the immigration detention. It
can occur at any point of time and various points are there in the immigration process and asylum as
one is more likely to get detained. Individuals detained at immigration powers are detained in the
IRC or immigration removal center or the holding facility for short time. Otherwise as they are
foreign national ex-offender completing the custodial sentence might go through to get detained at
prison. Human beings in the detention are unable leave and has consists of restricted freedom of
movement at those centers. No time-limit is there at present in UK for adult detention. One can be
found to be detained indefinitely. Nonetheless, there is the exceptional case for pregnant women.
They can just be detained till seventy-two house till extended though any approval from ministry.
Time or cause of detention:
As one never have the right to stay at UK, he is liable to get detained at any point of time.
Firstly, this cam occur as one enter UK for the first time. As one claim the asylum as the home office
categories the case as the case of non-suspensive or Dublin safe third country case. It can occur after
the screening interview. As the asylum is claimed by someone, getting refused and fall under the
category of “appeal rights exhausted”. It indicates that as one have refused and have been appealing
to First-tier tribunal and loses the appeal (Bosworth and Kellezi 2017). As one never take the scope
of appearing and never have the right for appealing one never have any sort of immigration
application or status pending. Then he is picked up through immigration through enforcement team
(Kellezi and Bosworth 2017).

2APPLIED CRIMINOLOGY
People who must not be detained as per individual policy of home office:
The “Adults at risk in immigration detention” of the home office, the policy se out the
experiences and conditions indicating that individuals should be specifically vulnerable to cause
damage in detention. They must be suffering from any sort of mental health situation or any sort of
impairment. It involves more serious level of difficulties, clinical depression and psychiatric illness
that relies on the seriousness and nature of the situation (Hughes and Forman 2017). Besides, they
have the victim of torture and the victim of gender or sexual based violence especially in the case of
females. Further, they can be victim of modern slavery or human trafficking or suffering from any
kind of post-traumatic stress disorder. The later can be or cannot be related to any one of the
aforementioned experiences. Apart from that, the woman can be pregnant and might be suffering
from any sort of serous kind of physical disability. Then they must be suffering from other kind of
serious physical health illness or conditions and is aged seventy or more than that (Turnbull 2016).
Lastly, the people can be intersex or transsexual one. Anyone who is falling with any of these
categories never necessarily indicate that they might never be detained. Besides, the policy reveals
that the detention for individuals at risk can turn to be appropriate at the stage that have immigration
control considerations outweighing the presumption. At that context it is suitable to detain people at
challenge as it is needed to remove them (Hughes 2016). One is likely to require to deliver
independent proves to fall at few of those categories. This includes as one is at the survivor of
torture, gender or sexual bases violence or trafficking. It is specially the case to be the part of the
categories formats as the core part of asylum claim as home office might never should accept the
identity as this never means they have to grant the claim of asylum (Bosworth 2019).
Apart from the sections of adults in danger listed in the study, the various unaccompanied
minors might also not get detained. Nevertheless, this can happen in exceptional situations.
However, at many times the minor can be detained wrongly through home office, since the home

3APPLIED CRIMINOLOGY
office categorize them to be adults. It must also be reminded that as per financial terms, the
immigration detention has been highly costly. Besides, the alternatives to those detentions are must
more cost-effective in nature. Again, refugees who are unlearned through efficient policies of
warehousing can lose the financial ability at high cost to future and current individual efficiency. It
comes out of the country of the asylum as they can be unable to return to the nation of origin and be
resettled in the third world country.

4APPLIED CRIMINOLOGY
References:
Bosworth, M. and Kellezi, B., 2017. Doing research in immigration removal centres: Ethics,
emotions and impact. Criminology & Criminal Justice, 17(2), pp.121-137.
Bosworth, M., 2019. Affect and authority in immigration detention. Punishment & Society, 21(5),
pp.542-559.
Hughes, S.M. and Forman, P., 2017. A material politics of citizenship: the potential of circulating
materials from UK Immigration Removal Centres. Citizenship Studies, 21(6), pp.675-692.
Hughes, S.M., 2016. Beyond intentionality: Exploring creativity and resistance within a UK
Immigration Removal Centre. Citizenship Studies, 20(3-4), pp.427-443.
Kellezi, B. and Bosworth, M., 2017. Mental health services inside immigration removal centres
(access, perceived quality of health care and the ACDT process in IRC Morton Hall).
Turnbull, S., 2016. ‘Stuck in the middle’: Waiting and uncertainty in immigration detention. Time &
Society, 25(1), pp.61-79.