Advanced Search

Journal Navigation

Journal Home

Subscriptions

Archive

Contact Us

Table of Contents

Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
Punishment & Society
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow References
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in Web of Science
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to Saved Citations
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Request Reprints
Right arrow Add to My Marked Citations
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Web of Science (8)
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Right arrow Citing Articles via Scopus
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Welch, M.
Right arrow Articles by Schuster, L.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Complore   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati   Add to Twitter  
What's this?

Detention of asylum seekers in the UK and USA

Deciphering noisy and quiet constructions

Michael Welch

Rutgers University, USA and London School of Economics, UK, and City University, UK, retrowelch{at}aol.com

Liza Schuster

City University, UK, l.schuster{at}city.ac.uk

Moral panic theory continues to be applied to a range of phenomena, allowing sociologists to refine our understanding of negative societal reaction aimed at people who are easy to identify and easy to dislike. Whereas the prevailing notion of moral panic rests on its noisy features, there are constructions that occur under the public radar. In such instances, government officials quietly institute policies and practices that adversely affect a targeted group. Moral panic over so-called bogus asylum seekers in the UK represents a noisy construction whereby claims making is loud and public. In the USA, however, that construction is remarkably quiet and does not resonate openly; still, much like their British counterparts, American officials have resorted to the use of confinement. This work explores the differences between the UK and the USA in the realm of moral panic over asylum seekers while remaining attentive to their shared consequences, the unjust detention of those fleeing persecution. Implications to social control and human rights in a post-11 September world are discussed throughout.

Key Words: asylum seekers • comparative approach • detention • human rights • moral panic

Punishment & Society, Vol. 7, No. 4, 397-417 (2005)
DOI: 10.1177/1462474505057117
Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Complore Complore   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati   Add to Twitter Twitter    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 Race ClassHome page
S. Khosravi
Sweden: detention and deportation of asylum seekers
Race Class, April 1, 2009; 50(4): 38 - 56.
[Abstract] [PDF]

Home page
 Social Legal StudiesHome page
M. Bosworth
Border Control and the Limits of the Sovereign State
Social Legal Studies, June 1, 2008; 17(2): 199 - 215.
[Abstract] [PDF]

Home page
 Criminal JusticeHome page
M. Welch and L. Schuster
Detention of asylum seekers in the US, UK, France, Germany, and Italy: A critical view of the globalizing culture of control
JCriminology and Criminal Justice, November 1, 2005; 5(4): 331 - 355.
[Abstract] [PDF]