This open access monograph provides sociological insight into governmental action on the administration of asylum in the European context. It offers an in-depth understanding of how decision-making officials encounter and respond to structural contradictions in the asylum procedure produced by diverging legal, political, and administrative objectives. The study focuses on structural aspects on the one hand, such as legal and organisational elements, and aspects of agency on the other hand, examining the social practices and processes going on at the frontside and the backside of the administrative asylum system. Coverage is based on a case study using ethnographic methods, including qualitative interviews, participant observation, as well as artefact analysis. This case study is positioned within a broader context and allows for comparison within and beyond the European system, building a bridge to the international scientific community. In addition, the author links the empirical findings to sociological theory. She explains the identified patterns of social practice in asylum administration along the theories of social practices, social construction and structuration. This helps to contribute to the often missing theoretical development in this particular field of research. Overall, this book provides a sociological contribution to a key issue in today's debate on immigration in Europe and beyond. It will appeal to researchers, policy makers, administrators, and practitioners as well as students and readers interested in immigration and asylum.

The Committee is pleased to note that the Home Office (the Department) has responded positively to recommendations made in a previous report (34th report, HC 620, session 2005-06, ISBN 9780215027795). The Department has implemented the New Asylum Model, whereby a case owner manages all new asylum cases from application to conclusion, at which stage the applicant is either allowed to stay in the UK or returned to their country of origin. The Department has also established a separate process to clear the backlog of 400,000-450,000 legacy cases unresolved at the introduction of the New Asylum Model. The New Asylum Model has resulted in the Department reaching an initial decision more quickly and in cases being concluded faster than in 2006. Legacy cases will be cleared by 2011. Amongst the many cases awaiting completion, there are undoubtedly many people who genuinely need humanitarian protection because they are fleeing oppression, as well as those with more tenuous claims to asylum. The Department still faces significant challenges, however, in bringing these cases to a prompt conclusion. Faster, more accurate completion of cases reduces both uncertainty for the applicant and the cost to the tax payer. Removal poses a challenge. It will be another four years before the Department has the total of 4,000 detention spaces that it needs to increase removals to optimum levels, and before its new IT system is fully operational. The Department also needs to work with the Courts, foreign governments and other bodies to bring about the legal changes and diplomatic solutions needed to resolve obstacles to removal that lie outside its control.

Few issues on the American political agenda are more complex or divisive than immigration. There is no shortage of problems with current policies and practices, from the difficulties and delays that confront many legal immigrants to the large number of illegal immigrants living in the country. Moreover, few issues touch as many areas of U.S. domestic life and foreign policy. Immigration is a matter of homeland security and international competitiveness, as well as a deeply human issue central to the lives of millions of individuals and families. It cuts to the heart of questions of citizenship and American identity and plays a large role in shaping both America's reality and its image in the world. Immigration's emergence as a foreign policy issue coincides with the increasing reach of globalization. Not only must countries today compete to attract and retain talented people from around the world, but the view of the United States as a place of unparalleled openness and opportunity is also crucial to the maintenance of American leadership. There is a consensus that current policy is not serving the United States well on any of these fronts. Yet agreement on reform has proved elusive. The goal of the Independent Task Force on U.S. Immigration Policy was to examine this complex issue and craft a nuanced strategy for reforming immigration policies and practices.

Troubled Transit considers the situation of asylum seekers stuck in limbo in Indonesia from a number of perspectives. It presents not only the narratives of many transit migrants but also the perceptions of Indonesian authorities and of representatives of international and non-government organizations responsible for the care of transiting asylum seekers. Fascinated by the extraordinary and seemingly limitless resilience shown by asylum seekers during their often lengthy and dangerous journeys, the author highlights one particular fragment of their journeys — their time in Indonesia, which many expect to be the last stepping stone to a new life. While they long for their new life to unfold, most asylum seekers become embroiled in the complexities of living in transit. Indonesia, a vast archipelago of more than 17,000 islands, is more than a location where people spend time waiting; it is a nation state that interacts with transiting asylum seekers and formulates policies that have a profound impact on their experience in transit there. Troubled Transit tries to explain the complexities faced by the transiting migrants within the context of the Indonesian government and its political challenges, including its relationship with Australia. The Australia-centric view of recent asylum seeker issues has tended to ignore the larger socio-political context of the migratory routes and the perspectives of transit states towards asylum seekers stuck in transit. This book hopes to direct the Australia-centric gaze northwards to take Indonesian policies and policymaking into account, thereby giving Indonesia more relevance as a transit country and as an important partner in regional protection schemes and migration management. Even though some Indonesian policies and practices are less than favourable for asylum seekers, and even reprehensible from a human rights perspective, more attention must be paid to ongoing developments that impact on transiting asylum seekers in Indonesia if any of the hardships they suffer there are to be alleviated.

The New Asylum Model, introduced by the Home Office in 2006 to achieve faster conclusions to asylum applications, has strengthened aspects of the asylum process. The case ownership approach, in which a single individual manages an application from start to finish, has created a strong incentive to conclude cases and applications are being concluded more quickly, and there are also signs that the quality of decision-making is improving. But the new process is not yet working to its optimum efficiency and effectiveness. The UK Border Agency has done well to improve its handling of the casework. There was a rise in the proportion of cases being dealt with within six months, peaking above the target of 40 per cent in December 2007. The backlog of decisions to be made has however more than doubled in over a year, to 8,700 in the second quarter of 2008. At the point of application, the full screening interview is not taking place in a quarter of cases, so that key information about claims could be being missed. A separate process has been established to clear, by 2011, the backlog of 'legacy cases', unresolved before the introduction of the New Asylum Model, which is put at some 335,000 cases. The Agency has made inroads but the target looks challenging. Few removals of failed applicants are being achieved, hampered by a lack of detention space and problems obtaining emergency travel documents. Throughout the second half of 2007, the gap between unfounded applications and removals increased. The Agency missed its 'tipping point' objective, which is to remove more failed asylum applicants than the number who make new unfounded applications. Unfounded applications exceeded removals by over 20 per cent.

The IDC identifies 250 examples of positive alternatives to immigration detention in 60 countries, that respect fundamental human rights, are less expensive and equally or more effective than traditional border controls.