REU, Alm.del - 2019-20 - Bilag 445: Henvendelse af 9/6-20 fra Anna Maria Fjordbøge, Ellebæk kontaktnetværk, vedrørende Udlændingecenter Ellebæk

Retsudvalget 2019-20
REU Alm.del Bilag 445
Offentligt

REU, Alm.del - 2019-20 - Bilag 445: Henvendelse af 9/6-20 fra Anna Maria Fjordbøge, Ellebæk kontaktnetværk, vedrørende Udlændingecenter Ellebæk

REU, Alm.del - 2019-20 - Bilag 445: Henvendelse af 9/6-20 fra Anna Maria Fjordbøge, Ellebæk kontaktnetværk, vedrørende Udlændingecenter Ellebæk

REU, Alm.del - 2019-20 - Bilag 445: Henvendelse af 9/6-20 fra Anna Maria Fjordbøge, Ellebæk kontaktnetværk, vedrørende Udlændingecenter Ellebæk

REU, Alm.del - 2019-20 - Bilag 445: Henvendelse af 9/6-20 fra Anna Maria Fjordbøge, Ellebæk kontaktnetværk, vedrørende Udlændingecenter Ellebæk REU, Alm.del - 2019-20 - Bilag 445: Henvendelse af 9/6-20 fra Anna Maria Fjordbøge, Ellebæk kontaktnetværk, vedrørende Udlændingecenter Ellebæk REU, Alm.del - 2019-20 - Bilag 445: Henvendelse af 9/6-20 fra Anna Maria Fjordbøge, Ellebæk kontaktnetværk, vedrørende Udlændingecenter Ellebæk REU, Alm.del - 2019-20 - Bilag 445: Henvendelse af 9/6-20 fra Anna Maria Fjordbøge, Ellebæk kontaktnetværk, vedrørende Udlændingecenter Ellebæk REU, Alm.del - 2019-20 - Bilag 445: Henvendelse af 9/6-20 fra Anna Maria Fjordbøge, Ellebæk kontaktnetværk, vedrørende Udlændingecenter Ellebæk REU, Alm.del - 2019-20 - Bilag 445: Henvendelse af 9/6-20 fra Anna Maria Fjordbøge, Ellebæk kontaktnetværk, vedrørende Udlændingecenter Ellebæk REU, Alm.del - 2019-20 - Bilag 445: Henvendelse af 9/6-20 fra Anna Maria Fjordbøge, Ellebæk kontaktnetværk, vedrørende Udlændingecenter Ellebæk REU, Alm.del - 2019-20 - Bilag 445: Henvendelse af 9/6-20 fra Anna Maria Fjordbøge, Ellebæk kontaktnetværk, vedrørende Udlændingecenter Ellebæk REU, Alm.del - 2019-20 - Bilag 445: Henvendelse af 9/6-20 fra Anna Maria Fjordbøge, Ellebæk kontaktnetværk, vedrørende Udlændingecenter Ellebæk REU, Alm.del - 2019-20 - Bilag 445: Henvendelse af 9/6-20 fra Anna Maria Fjordbøge, Ellebæk kontaktnetværk, vedrørende Udlændingecenter Ellebæk REU, Alm.del - 2019-20 - Bilag 445: Henvendelse af 9/6-20 fra Anna Maria Fjordbøge, Ellebæk kontaktnetværk, vedrørende Udlændingecenter Ellebæk REU, Alm.del - 2019-20 - Bilag 445: Henvendelse af 9/6-20 fra Anna Maria Fjordbøge, Ellebæk kontaktnetværk, vedrørende Udlændingecenter Ellebæk REU, Alm.del - 2019-20 - Bilag 445: Henvendelse af 9/6-20 fra Anna Maria Fjordbøge, Ellebæk kontaktnetværk, vedrørende Udlændingecenter Ellebæk REU, Alm.del - 2019-20 - Bilag 445: Henvendelse af 9/6-20 fra Anna Maria Fjordbøge, Ellebæk kontaktnetværk, vedrørende Udlændingecenter Ellebæk REU, Alm.del - 2019-20 - Bilag 445: Henvendelse af 9/6-20 fra Anna Maria Fjordbøge, Ellebæk kontaktnetværk, vedrørende Udlændingecenter Ellebæk REU, Alm.del - 2019-20 - Bilag 445: Henvendelse af 9/6-20 fra Anna Maria Fjordbøge, Ellebæk kontaktnetværk, vedrørende Udlændingecenter Ellebæk REU, Alm.del - 2019-20 - Bilag 445: Henvendelse af 9/6-20 fra Anna Maria Fjordbøge, Ellebæk kontaktnetværk, vedrørende Udlændingecenter Ellebæk REU, Alm.del - 2019-20 - Bilag 445: Henvendelse af 9/6-20 fra Anna Maria Fjordbøge, Ellebæk kontaktnetværk, vedrørende Udlændingecenter Ellebæk

RETSPOLITISK FORENING

Bilag

Supplerende bemærkninger og anbefalinger til forbedring af forholdene

Udlændingecenter Ellebæk.

Personalesammensætning og faglighed

Aktuelt er der for få fængselsbetjente, men i det hele taget er der tale om en

personalesammensætning, der ikke løser den vanskelige og komplekse socialpsykologiske

opgave, det er at arbejde med mennesker, der er traumatiserede og bærere af massive

personlige, sociale og psykologiske problemstillinger.

Aktuelt er der stort set ikke noget civilt personale ansat. Foruden fængselsbetjentene er der

en fuldtids fængselslærer og tre pædagogiske assistenter (uden socialpædagogisk

uddannelse) til 136 frihedsberøvede udlændinge. Der er endvidere planlagt en udvidelse på

56 pladser. Det er ikke et fængsel, og der bør flyttes på flere personalemæssige balancer:

Der bør ansættes væsentligt flere socialpædagoger til grundbemandingen, suppleret med

skolelærere, sygeplejersker og socialrådgivere. Der bør være adgang til krisepsykologisk

hjælp, så de mest udtalte traumer håndteres. Det civile personale kan understøtte adgang til

skolegang, sundhed, fritidsaktiviteter og socialforsorg.

Kønsspecifikke forhold

Da CPT inspicerede Ellebæk var der efter udlændingelovens bestemmelser 136

frihedsberøvede personer i Ellebæk fordelt på 40 nationaliteter, heraf var 24 kvinder.

Kvinderne bor adskilt i afdeling 67. Almindeligvis deler 3-4 kvinder et værelse, og når der

er fyldt på afdelingen, sover kvinder på gange (klods op ad toilettet), under borde og i

køjesenge. Alt i alt uværdige forhold. Ifølge CPT´s seneste rapport, der blev offentliggjort i

januar 2020, fremgår det, at kvinderne har begrænset adgang til det fri og ingen adgang til

telefon eller internet. Dette er fortsat tilfældet. Ellebæk fungerer som fængsel og kvinderne

har fortsat meget begrænset adgang til gårdtur. Gårdturene aflyses ikke sjældent, da

kvindernes tilbud i tilfælde af personalemangel, nedprioriteres. Gårdtursarealerne har ikke

Side

REU, Alm.del - 2019-20 - Bilag 445: Henvendelse af 9/6-20 fra Anna Maria Fjordbøge, Ellebæk kontaktnetværk, vedrørende Udlændingecenter Ellebæk

nogen overdækning, så de korte muligheder for frisk luft aflyses ikke sjældent, når det

eksempelvis regner.

Kvinderne er på egen afdeling, og personalet har i løbet af dagen meget få og kortvarige

kontakter med kvinderne, idet der er en vis forsigtighed forbundet med det mandlige

personales kontakt til kvinderne. Dette resulterer b.la. i, at der er sparsom kontakt til

personalet. Kvinderne kan ringe til personalet, men tales der ikke dansk, er det langt fra

altid, at opkaldene accepteres. Sygeplejerskerne har meget travlt, så det er afgørende, at ikke

mindst kvindelig kontakt til de frihedsberøvede kvinder, opprioriteres.

I modsætning til mændene har kvinderne ikke adgang til Ellebæks arbejdspladser som

køkken og produktion. De har ikke adgang til fitness og har alene yderst begrænset adgang

til skole og de få kulturtilbud, der er i institutionen.

Blandt andet på baggrund af ovenstående kan det konkluderes, at der er brug for en særlig

og målrettet indsats over for kvinderne i Ellebæk, som store dele af dagen de facto er

isoleret på deres afdeling. Som forholdene ser ud nu, tilsidesættes det almindelige mål om

ligestilling mellem køn på en måde, som ikke blot er nedværdigende overfor kvinderne på

Ellebæk, men også er i strid med ligestillingsloven.

Fysiske forhold på institutionen

Som følge af den rejste kritik om nedslidte og uhumske fysiske forhold anbefales det, at

Styrelsen for Patientsikkerhed både uvarslet og med faste intervaller inspicerer institutionen.

Brug af indsatte som tolke

Indsatte bruges som tolk i stedet for professionelle tolke

–

amatøragtigt og efter devisen "går

det, så går den". Det bør præciseres, at dette ikke er i orden.

Sikkerhedshensyn og forebyggelse af selvmord

Af sikkerhedshensyn og til forebyggelse af selvmord kan det anbefales at implementere

Sundhedsstyrelsens anbefalinger på området.

Side

REU, Alm.del - 2019-20 - Bilag 445: Henvendelse af 9/6-20 fra Anna Maria Fjordbøge, Ellebæk kontaktnetværk, vedrørende Udlændingecenter Ellebæk

Det bemærkes, at Danmark må antages, ved ikke at rette op på disse forhold, at overtræde og handle

i strid med en række konventioner på området, både i Europaråds sammenhæng og i FN-regi.

København, d. 4. maj 2020, på vegne af Retspolitisk Forening

Bjørn Elmquist

Formand

Bettina Post

Bestyrelsesmedlem

Celina Justiva

Sekretær, bestyrelsesmedlem

Side

REU, Alm.del - 2019-20 - Bilag 445: Henvendelse af 9/6-20 fra Anna Maria Fjordbøge, Ellebæk kontaktnetværk, vedrørende Udlændingecenter Ellebæk

Bilag C:

International research perspectives on Ellebæk detention centre

Migration-related detention is a measure widely used by states to control illegalised migration,

and in particular to facilitate deportation enforcement. It is permitted under international and

European human rights law, if used restrictively and in a ‘proportionate’ manner and in

compliance with international standards (see Article 3 and Article 5 of the European

Convention on Human Rights, and the EU Return Directive 2008/115/EC). However,

researchers and international human rights organisations have repeatedly raised concerns that

migration-related detention jeopardises migrants’ fundamental rights (Flynn, Majcher and

Grange 2020; Global Detention Project n.d.; Ryo 2019), and negatively impacts their physical

and mental wellbeing (Filges et al. 2018; Robjant et al. 2009).

We are researchers based at the Centre for Advanced Migration Studies, University of

Copenhagen, who have researched asylum and detention centres and deportation processes in

Denmark, Sweden and other European countries over the past decade. Drawing on our own

research in asylum centres (Whyte, Odgaard and Kohl) and in detention centres, including

Ellebæk (Lindberg), we have compiled an overview of key findings from Danish and

international research (encompassing the fields of migration studies, public health research,

social work, criminology, law, anthropology and sociology), on how migration-related

detention negatively impacts the health, well-being and rights of detained persons.

Detention negatively impacts detained persons’ physical and mental health.

Danish

(Nielsen et al. 2008; Filges et al. 2018) and international research has shown that detainment

have long-lasting damaging effects on the physical and mental well-being of detained persons

(Bosworth 2016; Silverman and Massa 2012; Steel and Silove 2001; von Werthern et al. 2018).

Among the identified causes hereto are the uncertain duration of detention, communication

problems, pre-existing health issues (including post-traumatic stress syndrome) and inadequate

access to healthcare. These factors all contribute to the high levels of reported depression, sleep

distortion, anxiety, and post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), self-harm and suicide among

detained persons (Bosworth and Turnbull 2015; Robjant et al. 2009). For survivors of torture,

trafficking or abuse, detainment risks aggravating pre-existing traumas (Amnesty International

2013; Canning 2019; Silove et al. 2007). The harms are aggravated the longer people are held

in detainment (Gashi et al. 2019; Griffiths 2013; Hvidtfeldt et al. 2019).

Our own research has found that

protracted uncertainty and restrictions on individual

autonomy

also negatively impacts the well-being of people living in Danish asylum centres,

detention centres, or with precarious residence permit (Kohl, Whyte, Odgaard Jakobsen and

Turner 2019; Whyte 2011; Whyte et al. 2018; see also Røde Kors 2019). Similar to what has

been highlighted in the documentation compiled by Ellebæks Kontaktnetværk, our research

indicates that people who seek asylum or who are detained in Denmark often feel criminalised

and degraded in their encounters with Danish immigration authorities and have low trust in

them (Lindberg 2019; Suárez-Krabbe, Lindberg and Arce 2018). Stigmatising public and

political discourses, but also negative experiences of immigration authorities, police, and

detention staff, contribute to this atmosphere of mistrust.

In this regard, it is important to mention that research also has found that the stressful

atmosphere in detention centres

negatively affect the well-being of staff

(Bosworth 2018; Hall

2010; Puthoopparambil et al. 2015; Ugelvik 2016). Lindberg’s ethnographic research inside

Ellebæk found that prison officers experienced significant ‘moral stress’ and regular burnouts

(Lindberg 2019). Several officers reported that they lacked both material resources and training,

REU, Alm.del - 2019-20 - Bilag 445: Henvendelse af 9/6-20 fra Anna Maria Fjordbøge, Ellebæk kontaktnetværk, vedrørende Udlændingecenter Ellebæk

including language skills, to create a safe environment for the people detained and for

themselves. These conditions are also likely to aggravate the reported tensions and animosity

between staff and detained persons.

Detention punishes people who have committed no crime.

Even though people detained on

migration-related grounds have not committed any crime and their confinement is regulated

under administrative law, international research has shown that migrants often perceive

detention as a form of punishment (Aas and Bosworth 2013; Bosworth 2014). Detained foreign

nationals experience similar ‘pains of imprisonment’ as regular prisoners (Crewe 2011; Sykes

1958), including loss of liberty, autonomy, security, and social relationships. Yet in several

respects, migration-related detention is

worse than regular imprisonment:

detained migrants

have limited access to information and legal support, less resources and activities, and

importantly, do not know for how long they will be detained and when and how their detainment

will end, which aggravates the uncertainty they experience (Griffiths 2013; Hasselberg 2016;

Majcher and de Senarclens 2014).

Whereas Danish prisons are designed to punish and to rehabilitate prisoners, Ellebæk serves

none of these functions. Still,

Ellebæk has a carceral appearance, and applies prison rules

to regulate detained migrants.

This has not only been criticised by human rights monitoring

bodies (CPT 2019; Global Detention Project 2020) but has also received internal criticism. In

Lindberg’s study of prison officers working in Ellebæk, several interlocutors considered the

carceral facilities and prison rules to be inadequate for the purpose of immigration enforcement,

yet admitted that ‘if you put prison officers in charge of running a place, what you get is a

prison’ (Lindberg 2019, 65).

The study also found that the penitentiary character of Ellebæk adds to detained people’s

experience of being unjustly punished. The use of the penal state apparatus for immigration

enforcement is not only problematic because it symbolically criminalises detained foreign

nationals and adds to public stigmatisation of migrants (Dow 2007; Mainwaring and Silverman

2017). It has also raised concerns among legal scholars that detained migrants are subjected to

intransparent and arbitrary forms of

de facto

punishment

(Aliverti 2012; Sklansky 2012;

Stumpf 2013). One example from Ellebæk is the reported use of solitary confinement for

disciplinary purposes, which severely infringes on detained persons’ liberty and could amount

to degrading treatment (CPT 2019; ECRE 2020). Ellebæk’s prison-like appearance is not

purposeful from an immigration enforcement perspective and contributes to the unwarranted

and disproportionate punishment of already vulnerable people.

How should states then address the harms of migration-related detention?

Given the

vulnerable situation that detained foreign nationals are in, it is of vital importance that they are

treated with dignity, and are ensured access to information, legal safeguards and adequate

medical support, including screenings to identify victims of torture. Ellebæk represents a

punitive detention model that has repeatedly been cricitised by human rights monitoring bodies,

including the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture (2014, 2019), for failing to

fulfil minimum standards. As highlighted by Ellebæks Kontaktnetværk, several measures can

be taken to ensure that that the existing detention facilities

comply with internationally

prescribed standards

(notably Article 3 of the ECHR).

However, there is limited evidence from comparative international research that the long-

lasting, negative effects of detention on migrants’ health and well-being can be addressed and

their protection against injustice prevented solely through reformative measures (Barker 2018;

REU, Alm.del - 2019-20 - Bilag 445: Henvendelse af 9/6-20 fra Anna Maria Fjordbøge, Ellebæk kontaktnetværk, vedrørende Udlændingecenter Ellebæk

Canning 2019; DeBono et al. 2015; Gomez Cervantes et al. 2017). Research has found that

detention has an independent, adverse effect

on mental health (Robjant et al. 2009) and entails

significant risks of infringing on detained persons’ right to liberty (Bosworth 2018). What is

more, research has shown that detention for more than 1-2 months does not contribute to more

effective migration enforcement (Kalir and Cantat 2020), nor is there evidence that detention is

effective as a deterrence measure against illegalised migration (Ryo 2019). These findings

should be of concern for policy-makers interested in finding migration control measures that

fulfil their declared purpose and comply with international humanitarian principles.

Given the legal and ethical concerns associated with migration-related detention, academic

researchers, human rights organisations and practitioners therefore recommend that states

instead use

alternatives to detention

(ATDs) that allow migrants to live in non-custodial,

community-based settings while their migration status is investigated and resolved (UNHCR

2012; International Detention Coalition n.d.; Mitchell 2016).

While there are ongoing debates regarding the advantages and disadvantages of different ATD

systems, models where migrants are offered adequate access to housing, legal advice, and social

and health care services have proven most successful both in terms of compliance with the

immigration system (UNHCR 2012) and for the protection of migrants’ health (Bosworth

2018). Yet, these measures require careful design as to guarantee migrants’ right to liberty and

security as well as transparency of law enforcement measures, so that they do not merely result

in a proliferation of immigration controls among marginalised communities (ibid.; see also

Beyens 2017; Khoulish 2015).

To conclude, international research has shown that

detention on migration-related grounds

have significant, long-lasting negative effects on migrants’ health and well-being, and

infringes on the rights, liberties and dignity of already vulnerable persons.

It has also been

found

costly and ineffective

from a societal perspective and from the perspective of

immigration enforcement. In the references below, we have compiled a list of international and

interdisciplinary research in the field. These should be useful for policy-makers whose task is

to address the urgent and important criticism raised by international human rights monitoring

bodies and grassroot movements like Ellebæks Kontaktnetværk and improve the government’s

responses to contemporary migration- and human rights related challenges.

Underskrevet,

København, den 18 maj 2020

Annika Lindberg*, ph.d., post.doc. tilknyttet Universität Bern/AMIS, Københavns Universitet

Cecilie Odgaard Jakobsen, ph.d.-studerende tilknyttet AMIS, Københavns Universitet

Katrine Syppli Kohl, ph.d., post.doc. tilknyttet AMIS, Københavns Universitet

Zachary Whyte, ph.d., lektor tilknyttet AMIS, Københavns Universitet

*Email : [email protected]

Ph : 0046 733875831

REU, Alm.del - 2019-20 - Bilag 445: Henvendelse af 9/6-20 fra Anna Maria Fjordbøge, Ellebæk kontaktnetværk, vedrørende Udlændingecenter Ellebæk

References

Aas, Katja Franko, and Mary Bosworth (Eds.). 2013.

The Borders of Punishment: Migration,

Citizenship, and Social Exclusion.

Oxford, New York: Oxford University Press.

Aliverti, Ana. 2012.”Making people criminal: The role of the criminal law in immigration

Enforcement”.

Theoretical Criminology, 16(4),

417–434.

Amnesty International. 2013.

Frihedsberøvede asylansøgere i Ellebæk.

Available at:

https://amnesty.dk/media/1874/frihedsber__vede_asylans__gere_i_elleb__k_20

13.pdf (accessed 2020-05-04).

Bosworth, Mary. 2014.

Inside Immigration Detention.

Oxford: Oxford University Press.

2018. “Affect and Authority in Immigration Detention.”

Punishment &

Society.

Barker, Vanessa. 2018.

Nordic Nationalism and Penal Order: Walling the Welfare State,

Oxon: Routledge.

Beyens, K. 2017. ‘Electronic monitoring and supervision: A comparative perspective’,

European Journal of Probation.

9(1): 3 - 10.

Bosworth, Mary. 2016. “Mental Health in Immigration Detention: A Literature Review”.

Review into the Welfare in Detention of Vulnerable Persons”.

Criminal Justice,

Borders and Citizenship Research Paper

No. 2732892.

2018. “Alternatives to Immigration Detention: A Literature Review”.

Centre for

Criminology:

University of Oxford.

Bosworth, Mary and Turnbull, Sarah. 2015.

Immigration Detention and Criminalization,

Pickering, Sharon and Ham, Julie. (eds.)

The Routledge Handbook of Crime and

Migration Studies.

Oxon: Routledge.

Bosworth, Mary, and Gavin Slade. 2014. “In Search of Recognition: Gender and Staff–

Detainee Relations in a British Immigration Removal Centre.”

Punishment &

Society

16(2): 169–86.

Canning, Victoria. 2019.

Supporting Sanctuary: Addressing harms in British, Danish and

Swedish Asylum Systems.

Calverts Co-operative.

Council of Europe’s Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading

Treatment or Punishment (CPT). 2019. “Report on visit to Denmark”. Available

at: https://www.coe.int/en/web/cpt/-/council-of-europe-anti-torture-committee-

publishes-a-response-of-the-danish-authorities-to-the-report-on-the-2019-visit

(Accessed 2020-03-15).

Crewe, Ben. 2011. Depth, weight, tightness: Revisiting the pains of

imprisonment.

Punishment & Society, 13(5),

509–529.

DeBono, Daniela, Sofia Rönnqvist, and Karin Magnusson. 2015.

Humane and Dignified?:

Migrants’ Experiences of Living in a “State of Deportability” in Sweden.

Malmö Institute for Studies of Migration, Diversity and Welfare, Malmo

University.

Dow, M. (2007). Designed to Punish: Immigrant Detention and Deportation.

Social

Research, 74(2),

533-546.

ECRE. 2020. ”Denmark: Council of Europe Shocked over Conditions in Danish Detention

Centres and Threatens Legal Action”. Available at:

https://www.ecre.org/denmark-council-of-europe-shocked-over-conditions-in-

danish-detention-centres-and-threatens-legal-action/ (accessed 2020-05-04).

El-Enany, Nadine and Eddie Bruce-Jones (Eds.). 2015.

Justice, Resistance and Solidarity:

Race and Policing in England and Wales.

Available at:

http://www.runnymedetrust.org/uploads/Race%20and%20Policing%20v5.pdf

(accessed 26-04-20).

REU, Alm.del - 2019-20 - Bilag 445: Henvendelse af 9/6-20 fra Anna Maria Fjordbøge, Ellebæk kontaktnetværk, vedrørende Udlændingecenter Ellebæk

Fekete,

L. 2005. “The deportation machine: Europe, asylum and human rights”.

Race & Class

47: 64–78.

Filges, T., Montgomery, E., & Kastrup, M. (2018). The Impact of Detention on the Health of

Asylum Seekers: A Systematic Review.

Research on Social Work

Practice, 28(4),

399–414.

Flynn, Michael, Izabella Majcher and Mariette Grange. 2020.

Immigration Detention in the

European Union: In the Shadow of the “Crisis”.

Springer/Global Detention

Project.

Flynn, Michael and Matthew Flynn (Eds.). 2017.

Challenging Immigration Detention:

Academics, Activists and Policy-makers.

Edward Elgar Publishing.

Gashi, Liridona; Pedersen, Willy & Ugelvik, Thomas. 2019. “The pains of detainment:

Experience of time and coping strategies at immigration detention centres”.

Theoretical Criminology.

https://doi.org/10.1177/1362480619855989

Global Detention Project. 2020. “Denmark Immigration Detention”. Available at:

https://www.globaldetentionproject.org/countries/europe/denmark (Accessed

2020-05-04).

Gomez Cervantes, A., C. Menjivar & W. Staples. (2017). “Humane” Immigration

Enforcement and Latina Immigrants in the Detention Complex,”

Feminist

Criminology.

12(3): 269 – 292.

Griffiths, Melanie. 2013. “Living with uncertainty: Indefinite immigration detention”.

Journal

of Legal Anthropology

1: 263–286.

Hall, Alexandra. 2010. “‘These People Could Be Anyone’: Fear, Contempt (and Empathy) in

a British Immigration Removal Centre.”

Journal of Ethnic and Migration

Studies

36(6): 881–98.

Hasselberg, Ines. 2016.

Enduring Uncertainty: Deportation, Punishment and Everyday

Life.

1st ed. New York: Berghahn Books.

Hvidtfeldt, Camilla, Jørgen Holm Petersen, Marie Norredam. 2019. ”Prolonged periods of

waiting for an asylum decision and the risk of psychiatric diagnoses: a 22-year

longitudinal cohort study from Denmark”.

International Journal of

Epidemiology,

https://doi.org/10.1093/ije/dyz091

International Detention Coalition. N.d. Available at: https://idcoalition.org/alternatives-to-

detention/ (Accessed 2020-05-04).

Kalir, Barak and Cantat, Céline. 2020. ‘Fund but disregard: the EU’s relationship to academic

research on mobility – crisis’. Available at:

https://crisismag.net/2020/05/09/fund-but-disregard-the-eus-relationship-to-

academic-research-on-mobility/

(14 maj 2020).

Khoulish, R. 2015. ‘Spiderman’s Web and the Governmentality of Electronic Immigrant

Detention’,

Law, Culture and the Humanities.

11(1): 83 – 108.

Lindberg, Annika. 2019.

Governing the Deportation Limbo: State responses to non-deported

migrants in Denmark and Sweden.

Doctoral dissertation submitted to the

Institute of Sociology, University of Bern.

Mainwaring, Cetta, and Stephanie J. Silverman. 2017. “Detention-as-Spectacle.”

International Political Sociology

11(1): 21–38.

Majcher, I & C. de Senarclens. 2014. “Discipline and Punish? Analysis of the Purposes of

Immigration Detention in Europe”,

AmeriQuests,

11(2), 3–4.

Mitchell, Grant. 2016. ”Engaging Governments on Alternatives to Immigration Detention”.

Available at: https://www.globaldetentionproject.org/wp-

content/uploads/2016/07/GDP-Mitchell-Paper-July-2016.pdf (accessed 2020-

05-03).

Nielsen, S.S., Norredam, M., Christiansen, K.L.

et al.

2003. ”Mental health among children

REU, Alm.del - 2019-20 - Bilag 445: Henvendelse af 9/6-20 fra Anna Maria Fjordbøge, Ellebæk kontaktnetværk, vedrørende Udlændingecenter Ellebæk

seeking asylum in Denmark – the effect of length of stay and number of

relocations: a cross-sectional study”.

BMC Public Health

293.

https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2458-8-293

Puthoopparambil, Soorej J., Beth M. Ahlberg, and Magdalena Bjerneld. 2015. “‘It Is a Thin

Line to Walk on’: Challenges of Staff Working at Swedish Immigration

Detention Centres.”

International Journal of Qualitative Studies on Health and

Well-Being

10: 251-296.

Robjant K, Hassan R and Katona C. 2009. ”Mental health implications of detaining asylum

seekers: systematic review”.

Br J Psychiatry.

2009; 194: 306-312

Røde Kors. 2019. “Trivsel hos børn på Udrejsecenter Sjælsmark. Available at:

https://www.rodekors.dk/sites/rodekors.dk/files/2019-

04/2019.03_Sjælsmark_V09_Final_1.pdf

Ryo, Emily. 2019. ”Understanding Immigration Detention: Causes, Conditions, and

Consequences”.

Annual Review of Law and Social Science

15(1): 97–115.

Silove, D., Austin, P., & Steel, Z. 2007. “No Refuge from Terror: The Impact of Detention

on the Mental Health of Trauma-affected Refugees Seeking Asylum in

Australia”.

Transcultural Psychiatry, 44(3),

359–393.

Silverman, Stephanie and Evelyne Massa. 2012. ”Why Immigration Detention Is Unique”.

Population, Space and Place

18(6): 677–86.

Steel Z and Silove DM. 2001. “The mental health implications of detaining asylum seekers”.

The Medical Journal of Australia.175(11-12):596-599.

Stumpf, Juliette. 2013. ‘The Process is the Punishment in Crimmigration Law’, pp. 58–75 in

Aas, K.F., Bosworth, M. (eds)

The Borders of Punishment: Migration,

Citizenship, and Social Exclusion.

Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Suárez-Krabbe, Julia, Annika Lindberg and José Arce. 2018.

Stop Killing Us Slowly: A

Research Report on the Criminalization of Rejected Asylum Seekers in

Denmark.

Roskilde: Roskilde University.

Sykes, GM. 1958.

The Society of Captives: A Study of a Maximum Security

Prison.

Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Syppli-Kohl, Katrine, Zachary Whyte, Cecilie Odgaard Jakobsen og Simon Turner. 05

August 2019. ”I Danmark kommer mange flygtninge aldrig ud af lejren – det er

skadeligt for både mennesker og samfundsøkonomi”

Berlingske.

Available at:

https://www.berlingske.dk/kommentarer/i-danmark-kommer-mange-flygtninge-

aldrig-ud-af-lejren-det-er-skadeligt (accessed 2020-05-03).

Syppli-Kohl, Katrine. 2015.

Asylaktivering og Ambivalens: Forvaltningen af asylansøgere på

asylcentre,

Ph.d.-afhandling, Det Samfundsvidenskabelige Fakultet,

Københavns Universitet.

Ugelvik, Thomas. 2016. “Techniques of Legitimation: The Narrative Construction of

Legitimacy among Immigration Detention Officers”.

Crime, Media, Culture:

An International Journal. 12(2),

s 215-232.

UNHCR. 2012.

Guidelines on the Applicable Criteria and Standards relating to the Detention

of Asylum- Seekers and Alternatives to Detention.

Available at:

https://www.unhcr.org/505b10ee9.html (accessed 2020-05-03).

von Werthern, M., Robjant, K., Chui, Z.

et al.

2018. The impact of immigration detention on

mental health: a systematic review.

BMC Psychiatry

18,

382.

Whyte, Zachary. 2011. “Enter the Myopticon: Uncertain Surveillance in the Danish Asylum

System”.

Anthropology Today

27 (3): 18–21.

Whyte, Zachary, Rebecca Campbell, and Heidi Overgaard. 2018. “Paradoxical Infrastructures

of Asylum: Notes on the Rise and Fall of Tent Camps in Denmark.”

Migration

Studies

mny018.