Lauren Cape-Davenhill is a PhD researcher at the University of Leeds, and formerly worked for Right to Remain as the North West Organiser for These Walls Must Fall. Her research was undertaken in collaboration with the Gatwick Detainees Welfare Group.
This blog post summarises her arguments in the book chapter ‘Alternatives to Detention and the Carceral State’ in edited volume Border Abolition Now, published by Pluto Press (2024).
As campaigners against detention, we clearly want ‘alternatives’ to people being locked up for immigration purposes. However, the Home Office’s version of ‘alternatives to detention’ is just another form of immigration enforcement, extending Home Office surveillance into our communities. So-called ‘alternatives to detention’ such as reporting to the Home Office and electronic tagging are modelled directly on community sanctions and supervision in the criminal justice system. These measures do not necessarily act as ‘alternatives’ to detention, but increase the numbers of people subject to Home Office surveillance, with far more people subject to supervision in the community at any one time than would ever be detained. For example, in 2019 around 24,500 people were detained1; whilst over 90,000 people were subject to reporting requirements2.
Extending Home Office surveillance into our communities
I spoke with 22 people subject to ‘alternatives to detention’ as part of research around experiences of facing deportation. Their experiences confirm that ATDs such as reporting to the Home Office and tagging are deeply harmful, extending Home Office control into communities and everyday lives.
In-person reporting requires people to ‘sign on’ with the Home Office at regular intervals, often weekly or monthly. Home Office reporting centres are often on the outskirts of cities and far from dispersal accommodation, requiring time-consuming and expensive journeys to get there. People have to structure their lives and routines around going to report, and finding money to cover travel costs is often a challenge.
‘I’m in Nottingham, they want me to go to Loughborough, right. So where I’m at, where I live in Nottingham, yeah, I have to get a tram or a bus to the train station. If not, yeah, it will take me over an hour just to walk to the train station… And then, when I get off, yeah, in Loughborough, right, I have to walk again, yeah, about 45 minutes just to get to the place where I need to go sign.’ (Corey)
‘I used to spend 30 pounds of my money (from the Home Office) to get to the place to sign, you know. To sign, to report. And I would end up not having enough money to spend on my food.’ (Kourush)
People are often detained from reporting to try and remove them, for example in advance of charter flights to particular countries. As people can be detained from reporting, going to report is often accompanied by high levels of stress and anxiety.
‘Everytime when I go to report…I don’t know if I’m gonna to come back home, or not coming back home. It’s just stressful’ (Zed).
If people don’t go to report when they’re supposed to, this is regarded as ‘non-compliance’ with Home Office conditions, which can be punished by detention or even criminal prosecution. This means people are in an impossible situation, as they risk detention whether or not they go to report.
In the past few years, GPS tagging has become an increasingly common form of Home Office supervision. GPS ankle tags can monitor people’s location 24 hours a day. People need to keep their tag charged, and risk sanctions from the Home Office if it runs out of battery. People on tag describe mental health impacts from a feeling of being constantly watched, and the stress of needing to avoid running out of battery.
‘You have to charge it. And when you start beeping, you start panicking, like, oh, are they gonna come and call you or are they gonna do this? It’s all stress.’ (Isaac)
‘This is still a prison….This tag – they know exactly what I do every single 24 hours’ (Miguel).
They also report stigma and shame due to the association of tags with criminality, which in some cases led participants to limit exercise or other social activities.
‘…my son, I can’t even take him to the swimming pool because I don’t want him asking me questions (about the tag)’ (Lazarus).
Participants also reported physical impacts from electronic ankle tags including pain, chafing, lesions and scarring.
An indefinite and unnecessary form of detention in the community
Like detention, Home Office supervision in the community is indefinite. This means that people can be subject to reporting or tagging requirements for months or even years, and generally will only be free of these conditions if they secure their immigration status, or leave the UK. Paul has spent a staggering eleven years reporting at least once a month to the Home Office.
‘(I have to report) once in a month. After a year they will – they will just give you a letter saying continue again. That’s it.’ (Paul)
People can also be subject to reporting requirements and tagging at the same time. 64% (14) of participants had been subject to simultaneous reporting requirements and tagging, adding to the stress and burden of these conditions. Luis has spent four years both being monitored round the clock via GPS ankle tag, and required to report weekly to the Home Office, an entirely disproportionate level of surveillance. Furthermore, most people I spoke with were trying to secure their status in the UK, and emphasised that they had high levels of motivation to stay in touch with the Home Office. Many were in Home Office accommodation, raising the question of why additional surveillance is needed to establish their whereabouts.
‘…immigration – they know where to find me. I’m living in their accommodation. I am not trying to run away, I am trying to stay in the country. It’s the last thing I’m gonna do, yeah, is abscond. The last thing I wanna do, yeah, is run away… Coz I’ve got a lot to lose.’ (Corey)
New forms of digital surveillance
Recent developments bring new digital technologies even more firmly into the domain of Home Office surveillance. These include ‘non-fitted’ electronic monitoring devices which people have to carry with them at all times, which can give a sound or vibration alert at any time of the day requiring people to provide their fingerprints. ‘Digital reporting’ requires people to respond to texts or emails from the Home Office within a given time period, and may include a request for consent to record location data. This represents further expansion of state surveillance powers, and Migrants Organise, Right to Remain, Privacy International and others have highlighted major concerns around how this personal data is used, including potentially being used against people for criminal justice or immigration enforcement activities. Between September 2021 and March 2022, 94% of requests for GPS trail data from tags used for immigration purposes were from police or probation, suggesting tag data is being used to further pursue the criminalisation of migrants3.
Research findings add weight to the argument that in our campaigning against detention, we need to be clear that coercive and restrictive conditions which simply extend Home Office surveillance and control into communities and everyday lives are not acceptable ‘alternatives’ to detention. These measures are harmful, unfair and unnecessary. We’re not fighting for a world without detention centres, but where all migrants are tagged instead. The ‘Abolish Reporting’ campaign calls ‘for a world built on principles of care, not surveillance’. Care, dignity and justice are everyone affected by the immigration control are ’alternatives to detention’ worth fighting for.
- Home Office. 2020. How many people are detained or returned? Available from: https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/immigration-statistics-year-ending-december-2019/how-many-people-are-detained-or-returned ↩︎
- David Bolt, Independent Chief Inspector of Borders. 2019. A re-inspection of the Home Office’s Reporting and Offender Management processes and of its management of non-detained Foreign National Offenders. Available from: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/800638/A_re-inspection_of_the_Home_Office_s_Reporting_and_Offender_Management_processes_and_of_its_management_of_non-detained_Foreign_National_Offenders.PDF. ↩︎
- David Neal, Independent Inspector of Borders and Immigration. 2022. An inspection of the Global Positioning System (GPS) electronic monitoring of Foreign National Offenders. Available from: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1088880/An_inspection_of_the_global_positioning_system__GPS__electronic_monitoring_of_foreign_national_offenders_March___April_2022.pdf.
↩︎
Discussion: