How does a group that lacks legal status organize its members to become effective political activists? In the early 2000s, Arizona's campaign of "attrition through enforcement" aimed to make life so miserable for undocumented immigrants that they would "self-deport." Undocumented activists resisted hostile legislation, registered thousands of new Latino voters, and joined a national movement to advance justice for immigrants. Drawing on five years of observation and interviews with activists in Phoenix, Arizona, Kathryn Abrams explains how the practices of storytelling, emotion cultures, and performative citizenship fueled this grassroots movement. Together these practices produced both the "open hand" (the affective bonds among participants) and the "closed fist" (the pragmatic strategies of resistance) that have allowed the movement to mobilize and sustain itself over time.

The UK has some of the largest immigration detention facilities in Europe, holding as many as 3000 individuals at any point in time. Foreign nationals are held under immigration powers in a variety of circumstances including on arrival pending examination, whilst an asylum claim is considered in the Detained Fast Track, and pending administrative removal or deportation. The routine use of detention powers, particularly in relation to foreign national offenders, has increased dramatically in the years since 2006. Advising individuals detained under immigration powers is no longer a niche field. An increasing number of practitioners need access to a clear reference guide when faced with cases which touch on this issue. Detention under the Immigration Acts: Law and Practice is the only text to provide a comprehensive and detailed account of the statutory powers underpinning immigration detention and the limitations on those powers afforded by the common law, the European Convention on Human Rights, and the law of the European Union. It is an invaluable resource not only for those working predominantly in immigration but also practitioners whose work may touch on this increasingly complex area, whether from a civil or criminal perspective, as well as the judiciary and government officials with a need for clear legal guidance. Taking a practice-focused approach, the work addresses the procedural aspects of litigation challenging detention, from bail applications in the Tribunal through judicial review claims in the Administrative Court, to civil claims before the County Court and the Queen's Bench Division of the High Court. It offers unparalleled coverage of the many hundreds of domestic cases on the subject, saving practitioners valuable time in their legal research. It also examines, in more detail than has ever been done before, the case law of the European Court of Human Rights and the Court of Justice of the European Union and suggests arguments to challenge detention and seek damages that have not so far been used in domestic courts. Written by an author team representing both claimant and government interests, key issues are considered from a neutral perspective, providing a balanced and detailed exploration of the common law and policy based principles governing the exercise of immigration detention powers.

Internally Displaced Persons (IDPs) are persons who have been forced to leave their places of residence as a result of armed conflict, violence, human rights violations, or natural or human-made disasters, but who have not crossed an international border. There are about 55 million IDPs in the world today, outnumbering refugees by roughly 2:1. Although IDPs and refugees have similar wants, needs and fears, IDPs have traditionally been seen as a domestic issue, and the international legal and institutional framework of IDP protection is still in its relative infancy. This book explores to what extent the protection of IDPs complements or conflicts with international refugee law. Three questions form the core of the book's analysis: What is the legal and normative relationship between IDPs and refugees? To what extent is an individual's real risk of internal displacement in their country of origin relevant to the qualification and cessation of refugee status? And to what extent is the availability of IDP protection measures an alternative to asylum? It argues that the IDP protection framework does not, as a matter of law, undermine refugee protection. The availability of protection within a country of origin cannot be a substitute for granting refugee status unless it constitutes effective protection from persecution and there is no real risk of refoulement. The book concludes by identifying current and future challenges in the relationship between IDPs and refugees, illustrating the overall impact and importance of the findings of the research, and setting out questions for future research.

Immigration detention is considered by many states to be a necessary tool in the execution of immigration policy. Despite the apparently key role it plays in immigration enforcement, the law on immigration detention is often vague, especially in relation to determining the circumstances under which prolonged detention remains lawful. As a result, the courts are frequently called upon to adjudicate these matters, with scant legal tools at their disposal. Though there have been some significant judgments on the legality of detention at the constitutional level, the extent to which these judgments have had an impact at the lower end of the judiciary is unclear. Indeed, it is the lower courts which are tasked with judging the legality of detention through habeas corpus or judicial review proceedings. This book examines the way this has occurred in the lower courts of two jurisdictions, the UK and the US, and contrasts this practice not only in those jurisdictions, but with judgments rendered by the Court of Justice of the European Union, a constitutional court at the other end of the judicial spectrum whose judgments are applied by courts and tribunals in the EU Member States. Although these three jurisdictions use similar tests to evaluate the legality of detention, case outcomes significantly differ. Many factors contribute to this divergence, but key among them is the role that fundamental rights protection plays in each jurisdiction. Through a forensic evaluation of 191 judgments, this book compares the laws on detention in the UK, US and EU, and makes recommendations to these jurisdictions for improvement.