Keywords: Illegal migration; United Kingdom; Immigration; Refugees; Asylum; Policy
1. Introduction
Interest in illegal or undocumented migration in Euro-pean states in recent years reXects an apparent growth ininternational mobility that falls outside the law. By itsnature clandestine, and therefore outside the oYcial ‘gaze’of statistical data collection, few reliable estimates of thescale of undocumented migration exist. Indeed, a recentreview of some numerous methods to estimate the size ofirregular populations concluded that most methods wereeither inaccurate or inapplicable to the United Kingdom(Pinkerton et al., 2004). Nonetheless, the estimates thatthere are, run to the millions. For example, Skeldon (2000)suggests there were 5 million undocumented migrants in theUnited States alone in 1996, as many as 3 million inEurope, and 2.7 million to countries in East Asia such asJapan, Malaysia and Singapore. Meanwhile, Cornelius
et al. (2003) suggest that the number of undocumentedmigrants in Europe is rising rapidly. Behind these unreli-able, and largely undiVerentiated statistics lie a tremendousvariety of individual stories. This paper begins to investi-gate these individual explanations, motivations and mean-ings by exploring the variety of ways in which individualsbecome illegally resident in the United Kingdom (Fig. 1).
Beyond the media focus on the supposed ‘threat’ posedby illegal immigration, there are a number of reasons whythose people who have entered, or are residing in the UnitedKingdom illegally, should be of interest and concern formore detailed research. First, although the British govern-ment increasingly recognizes the need to recruit skilledworkers, some concern still exists that immigration mayplace downward pressure on wages. This fear is particularlyfelt amongst the lower paid and less skilled: if labour supplyincreases to exceed demand, competition should causewages to decline. SpeciWcally, some trade unionists havebeen attracted to the idea that irregular migrants—who aregenerally seen as unskilled labour—drive down host coun-try wages, although some have more recently seen irregularmigrants as a fertile recruiting ground for new Union
members. For example, at the 2002 Trades Union Congressmeeting in the United Kingdom, a delegate from the UnitedStates Trade Union organisation AFL-CIO noted that hisunions should not ‘ignore the rights and plight of America’sundocumented workers and leave them as prey for low-wage, no beneWt employers.’1 Evidence for such exploitationin the UK has also emerged from recent studies of workersin the agricultural, construction and domestic service sec-tors, although it could be argued that rather than immigra-tion pressure driving conditions down, it is preciselycasualisation of the labour force and the desire for more‘Xexibility’ from employers that is attracting vulnerablemigrant workers (Anderson and Rogaly, 2005).
A further strand of literature examines the illegalmigrant as a victim exposed to danger and exploitation. In2000, the Economist magazine reported that gangs were atthat time charging around £1500 to smuggle a migrant tothe United Kingdom from Romania, £6,000–£9,000 fromIndia, and up to £16,000 for Chinese migrants (The Econo-mist, 2000). It was also reported that many arrive in debtand are forced into criminal activities such as prostitutionor as foot soldiers for smuggling gangs in order to pay oVsuch debts. Large numbers of these migrants suVer abuseand many do not survive the journey at all, with estimatesof the number of people dying each year trying to enterEurope or the United States running to many thousands(Harris, 2002). An emerging strand of writing from thepolitical left argues that such abuses result directly from thecontrols placed on migration, not least in the wake of 9/11,
1 http://www.tuc.org.uk/congress/tuc-4793-f2.cfm.
and has argued eVectively for an ‘open borders’ approach(Hayter, 2000; Harris, 2002). Not all, however, who turn tosmugglers or traYckers necessarily can be seen as victimsand the whole question of the various types of brokers whofacilitate migration is exceedingly complex.
One major diYculty in responding to such concerns isthe lack of detailed and reliable information on the condi-tions of illegal migration, and the activities carried out bythose entering or living illegally in the United Kingdom.Just as popular accounts stress the burden of illegal immi-gration on state budgets and society more generally, othersinsist that most migrants are neither seeking asylum norstate beneWts (Harris, 2002). Yet there is a relative lack ofstudies based on interviews with those who have moved to,or lived illegally in the United Kingdom, with much publiccomment based instead on speculation or ignorance. Animportant recent exception is the work of Jordan and Düv-ell (2002), whose in-depth work with irregular migrants inthe UK has produced important insights on the labourmarket experiences of such migrants, albeit on quite smallsamples. Nonetheless, given the lack of reliable empiricalevidence on types of employment and earnings, the broaderimpact of migrants working illegally on the labour marketand wider economy is far from clear. The extent to whichcompetition with local workers exists in speciWc sectors ofthe labour market in which migrants work is also largelyunknown (Ram et al., 2002).
Confusion also exists concerning the relationshipsbetween supply and demand for migrants, governmentpolicies, and the extent of abusive or coercive practices onthe part of those who help migrants to move. As Koser(2000) points out, a vicious circle is developing between
Fig. 1. Routes to Illegal Residence in the United Kingdom. Notes: ’51 Status is full recognition as a refugee under the 1951 Geneva Convention relating tothe status of refugees. T.P is Temporary Protection and covers a range of diVerent measures. At the time of research the only temporary protection mea-sure was Exceptional Leave to Remain (ELR). Since 2003 ELR has been replaced by three new categories which provide a variety of levels of temporaryprotection inferior to full refugee status.
increasingly stricter entry controls and the need for poten-tial immigrants and asylum seekers to turn to the servicesof ‘traYckers’ and ‘smugglers’. More is known about themovement of some groups—such as the Chinese—thanothers, notably other ‘new’ Xows of people from countrieswithout historic ties to the United Kingdom. In this con-text, a gap in our knowledge still exists about the natureand causes of migrants’ interactions with traYckers andsmugglers, and especially their choice of the United King-dom over other destinations.
Much of the literature that sets out to explain recent pat-terns of migration has focused on individual migrants’motivations, frequently relying on migrants own explana-tions for their migration using small numbers of qualitativeinterviews (Bocker and Havinga, 1998; Barsky, 2000; Rob-inson and Segrott, 2000). As is to be expected, these motiva-tions vary tremendously. They are extremely diYcult to pindown and analyse and they lack the theoretical underpin-ning of more established attempts to explain migration interms of clearer structural constraints. Nonetheless, thiswork is developing an increasingly reWned picture of theindividual motivation underlying patterns of migrationthat otherwise appear much more chaotic. Considerableagreement exists on the importance of social networks,though uncertainty continues as to the function of ‘weakties’ within these networks.2 Most migrants, including refu-gees, also appear to make some sort of economic calcula-tion about their prospects in their intended destination(Chimni, 2002). Of course, exceptions exist, but these canoften be linked to a more established body of theory so thatthe complexities can be more easily dealt with. Where the-ory is lacking, accounting for the existence of conXictingsources of information becomes more diYcult.
One of the most signiWcant areas of controversy is therole of policy in inXuencing the migration choices of newmigrants. Qualitative work in this area has suggested thatpolicy plays little or no role in inXuencing individuals’migration decisions (Robinson and Segrott, 2000). Policymakers typically disagree, at least with respect to those per-ceived as using asylum channels to access public welfareservices. Since the early 1990s, asylum policy in Europe hasfocused on removing perceived attractions to new migrants.Recent quantitative studies have provided mixed results,Wnding little correlation between certain deliberate deter-rence measures and reduced migration on the one hand andstrongly positive relationships between higher recognitionrates for asylum seekers and increased numbers of asylumclaimants on the other (Thielemann, 2003; Vink and Mei-jerink, 2003). These quantitative studies have, of necessity,focused on relatively few policy measures and have notdisaggregated results by the nationality of the migrants.The application of a qualitative methodology allows a
2 Since Granovetter’s (1973) original formulation of this thesis a numberof attempts have been made to determine the comparative importance offamily ties rather than more distant acquaintances (e.g. Espinosa and Mas-sey, 1999; Fong et al., 1995).
more nuanced approach, including the diVerentiation onthe basis of national origin, amongst other things.
Processes of smuggling and traYcking have also receivedmuch attention over the past few years (IOM, 2000; Kyleand Koslowski, 2001) partly due to policy approacheswhich have tended to focus on smugglers and traYckers toprovide an explanation for undocumented migration Therelationship between migrants and the traYckers andsmugglers who bring them to Europe has been character-ised as a business relationship (Salt and Stein, 1997) and asan extension to the migrants’ social network (Koser, 1997).In practice, ‘smugglers’ and ‘traYckers’ range from largebureaucratic, often criminal, organisations to small kinshipand ethnic-based groups in which the voice of the smuggledmay be taken seriously into account (Pieke et al., 2004;Staring and Engbersen, 2005). Yet the precise nature of thisinteraction remains unclear and provides the second signiW-cant focus of this paper.
A major obstacle to the gathering of information on ille-gal or undocumented migration is the diYculty of identify-ing and accessing sample populations for survey work.With this obstacle in mind, this study focuses on migrantsinterviewed while living in three out of Wve immigrationdetention centres in the United Kingdom. Clearly, thisgroup cannot be seen as representative of undocumentedmigrants as a whole, since the extent of age, class, gender orethnic bias amongst those in detention, compared with theundocumented migrant population at large is unknown. Atthe same time, interviewing migrants while they are held indetention by the immigration authorities is far from ideal interms of generating meaningful responses. Nonetheless, thisstrategy presents a relatively straightforward route to iden-tifying, selecting and interviewing this particular group. Thestudy also sought to provide an opportunity for detaineesto provide their own representations and accounts of theirexperiences in coming to the United Kingdom, and to dis-seminate these accounts to a wider audience.
2. Research methods
A number of problems are associated with the task ofinterviewing illegal or undocumented migrants, whether indetention or not. Foremost amongst these is the suspicionheld not only of researchers, but also of anyone whoappears in an ‘oYcial’ capacity. There is a risk that thoseheld in detention will either not cooperate with research, orwill provide answers to questions that are for example,aimed at securing their release. For this reason, gainingtrust and cooperation was essential in order to carry outresearch on this group of migrants, a point reinforced bythe fact that the study on which this paper is based wasfunded by the Home OYce, the major government depart-ment with responsibility for home aVairs in the UnitedKingdom (Black et al., 2005).
Beyond Wnancing the research and granting access to thedetention centres where the research was conducted, thefact that the government commissioned this study had no
R. Black et al. / Geoforum 37 (2006) 552–564 555
direct impact on the research process once initiated.Although regular contact was maintained with HomeOYce staV throughout, they required no changes to theresearch design and implementation. StaV at the detentioncentres were informed that interviewers were independentacademics, rather than Home OYce oYcials, and all inter-views began with an explanation of the aims of the researchthat stressed the complete separation between the researchprocess, and the process of dealing with individuals’ immi-gration cases. Interviewers dressed casually and engaged inwide ranging conversation with interviewees before andafter the interview. Although it is possible that the institu-tional setting encouraged the belief that the interviewershad some oYcial role, everything possible was done to dis-pel such perceptions.
The initial research plan was to visit individual detaineesat three immigration detention centres—Harmondsworth(near Heathrow), Tinsley House (near Gatwick) andCampsWeld (near Oxford) on several occasions, engaging inprogressively more formal discussions to ensure under-standing of the purpose and safeguards of the research.Although it proved relatively unproblematic to arrange andconduct interviews with detainees, it was almost impossibleto conduct repeat interviews due to mobility betweendetention centres, the removal or release of some detainees,and other reasons for unavailability. Instead, single open-ended discussions with detainees were conducted that gavespace for the presentation of their own ‘stories’.3 Eachinterview lasted between 10 min and 1 h, depending on thewillingness of respondents to answer questions, and thedetail with which they described their experiences. Someinterviews were held in English, but the majority were con-ducted in the interviewee’s own language, using an inter-preter.
The use of interpreters has raised signiWcant interest inrecent years (Borchgrevink, 2003). Although interpretersmay have an impact on research their involvement has tra-ditionally been rendered ‘invisible’ in accounts of researchin which they have participated (Jentsch, 1998). In ethno-graphic settings the role of interpreters may be primordialbut even in interview settings their inXuence may be consid-erable. In selecting interpreters care was taken to excludethose who had been involved in Home OYce migration orasylum cases, to reduce the risk of confusion amongst inter-viewees. At the level of research design, use of interpretersimposed a restriction on the selection of interviewees. Dueto the very short term residence of certain individuals in thedetention centre, interviewees could only be selected on themorning of interview, by which time suitable interpretershad been booked for the day. Interviewees then had to beselected who matched up to the language abilities of inter-preters and interviewers present and could not be based
3 Some common information was collected from all respondents to pro-vide basic quantitative data on the sample.
exclusively on the characteristics of the detained populationon that particular day.
In the interview context itself, a further probleminvolved with using interpreters, recognised by Borchgrev-ink (2003), arose on occasions when interpreters beganasking their own questions. This was sometimes necessaryfor purposes of clarifying meaning, but interpreters wererequested to translate everything they added to the initialquestion in order to situate the response correctly. A totalof eight diVerent interpreters were used for diVerent lan-guage groups. Although some attempt was made to main-tain consistency, keeping the same interpreter for allinterviews in their languages, this was not always possible.
Where the tape recording of interviews proved possible,these were transcribed into a standard format for analysisusing Nud¤ist (N5) software.4 In the case of interpretedinterviews, only the English translation was transcribed.Detailed notes were also made of each interview that wasnot recorded, and these were also imported into Nud¤ist.Each Wle was anonymised, and then coded for basic quanti-tative information, as well as qualitative descriptions ofreasons for departure and the journey to the United King-dom, arrival and living in the country.
Interviewees were selected randomly from residence listsprepared on the morning of each interview session by thestaV at each detention centre. As our intention was to inter-view those who had lived in the United Kingdom illegallyfor some time, a minimum period of three months was set.Those who had been detained on arrival and not releasedwere screened out. In total, over 200 individuals wereapproached for interview, of whom between 30 and 40declined to respond, for a variety of reasons.5 A further 85of those selected were then excluded because the interviewrevealed that they had not been illegally resident in thecountry for a minimum of three months. The vast majorityof interviews took place at Harmondsworth and TinsleyHouse, with only a small number being conducted atCampsWeld both due to its distance from the researchteam’s base, and a perception that it mainly held asylum-seekers who fell outside the target population. In the event,the proportion of interviews excluded from the sample atCampsWeld was more than at Harmondsworth, but muchless than at Tinsley House (Table 1).
The sample selected was not representative of the ille-gally resident population either in the United Kingdom ingeneral, or in detention. Several factors argued against theselection of a simple random sample. The principal objec-
4 In total, 49% of all interviews were taped and transcribed, representing82 out of 168 interviews.
5 There were three main reasons for refusal of interview. First, some in-tended interviewees expressed distrust in the research process. Second,some refused to be interviewed because they were not interested in the re-search—saying that they would rather be watching TV or had a phone callto make. Third, some refused to be interviewed because they had been toldthat the interview would be with a legal representative or an immigrationoYcer, and were upset when they were then asked to speak to a researcher.
556 R. Black et al. / Geoforum 37 (2006) 552–564
tive of the research was to examine the experience of boththe major migrant groups and a selection of some minorgroups as they entered into illegal residence in the UnitedKingdom. The very linguistic diversity of these groupsmeant that it was necessary to structure the sample bybroad regional or linguistic groups in order that interviewscould be carried out on any one day in a single language orgroups of languages for which interpretation could be pre-arranged. The research could have proceeded using a modi-Wed quota sampling technique but this was not done for anumber of reasons. First a desire to reXect the diversity ofthe illegally resident population in detention led to a slightover-representation of smaller groups. Second, since thepopulation in detention is constantly changing, it is notstrictly possible to choose respondents from a single list ofthe total population. This problem is compounded by thegeographical dispersal of centres and the rising populationin detention over the period of the study. Finally, since evena strict quota sample which delivered suYcient numbers ofeach group could not have been representative of theundocumented migrant population as a whole, thereseemed little point in sticking to strict quota targets.
Towards the end of the data collection phase, checkswere made to ensure that each regional group currently indetention was broadly represented in the sample. A table ofthose present by region of origin in each of the detentioncentres was compiled on three separate dates during Weld-work, at the beginning, the middle, and towards the end ofthe Weldwork period. This was compared with the regionalbackgrounds of the sampled respondents (see Table 2) to
South Asia 143 22 13 16West Africa 119 18 15 18East/Southern Africa 90 14 3 4Balkans 86 13 12 14Central/East Europe 65 10 17 20Caribbean 59 9 13 16North Africa 40 6 4 5China/Far East 19 3 6 7Other 30 5 0 0
Total 652 100 83 100
ensure that we had captured suYcient breadth and depth ofthe diVerent regional groups for an understanding of thesituation rather than strict statistical accuracy.
3. Routes to illegal residence
3.1. Choice of the United Kingdom over other destinations
The process of migration can be conceptualised asinvolving choices both in terms of leaving a home country,and of selecting a particular destination, in this case theUnited Kingdom (Bocker and Havinga, 1998). Respon-dents generally touched on both of these choices inresponse to the question “How did you come to migrate tothe United Kingdom?” In some cases further informationwas obtained by probing.
The main reasons given by respondents as to why theyleft their home country were connected with issues of safety.The responses included reports of actual and perceivedthreats both on the part of state authorities, and of non-state actors such as business associates, moneylenders andcriminals. A wide range of other factors was also men-tioned. Economic issues, relating to the opportunity to workand earn money, were often mentioned, although morerespondents stressed the positive economic climate outsidetheir country than speciWc problems faced at home. Otherexplanations for departure include a signiWcant group thatcited family reasons, and a rather smaller group who hadleft their country in order to further their education.
The majority of those mentioning safety as a factor hadclaimed asylum in the United Kingdom. Their accountsranged from the very general: ‘I came just to save my lifebecause there are many problems in (my country)’ to spe-ciWc and often lengthy accounts of violence, intimidationand beatings. Some overlap between those mentioningdiVerent factors and multiple responses are also possible inFig. 2. For example, one Nigerian respondent commented:
‘It [home country] is a nice country, but it is a countrythat has two diVerent kinds of people. It is either youare rich or poor. The rich gets richer, the poor getspoorer. And another thing I want to say is that ƒthere are no human rights at all.’
Fig. 2. Reasons for leaving home country. Source: Authors’ survey. Validcases D 83. Multiple responses allowed.
33
13 11 95
1015
05
101520253035
Safet
y
Family
/Per
sona
l
Econo
mic
Pull
Econo
mic
Push
Study
Other
No re
spon
se
R. Black et al. / Geoforum 37 (2006) 552–564 557
Similarly, economic push and pull can merge with politicaland security problems:
‘Since my mother was all alone, divorced, and beingthe eldest of the family, I had to take the place of thefather. So I decided to go abroad and try my luck ƒAll African countries are poor ƒ (but) since I had apolitical or military problem with (my country), I hadto move on.’ (Senegalese respondent)
Sometimes, the reasons cited were quite complex:
‘I had to go because of the diYcult conditions in (mycountry). My psychological conditions were very bad.I was relieved of a lot of things. Life was in ruins. Imet a person, we lived together, we had terrible diY-culties. We decided to leave’. (Polish respondent6)
‘One day I was at school (and I was told) “you goingto England in a week’s time”. I didn’t have any notice,just “you’re going to ƒ get your passport, and fromthere you’re going to help your cousin, who’s actuallyparalysed because she just gave birth, she’s not feelingwell, and she’s going to be paying for your collegefee.” That’s what I was told.’ (Gambian respondent,female)
However, although reasons for leaving their home coun-tries were varied and complex, it was sometimes clearer whyrespondents had chosen the United Kingdom as their desti-nation (Fig. 3). Although the safety of the United Kingdomagain comes out as the principal reason, this was cited byfewer respondents than those who described reasons fordeparture that were essentially to do with Wnding a safeplace. After security, the next most important reason men-tioned was the perceived availability of employment oropportunities to earn good money, followed by the pres-ence of family members.
Out of 46 respondents who reported using the services ofan agent, 15 said that the agent had made all the travelplans, including the choice of destination. However, onlyfour respondents reported that they did not know that they
6 It is worth noting that since the accession of Poland to the EU in 2004,Polish nationals have a right to remain in the UK, and so would no longerfall within the undocumented population.
Fig. 3. Why did you come to the United Kingdom? Source: Authors’ sur-vey. Valid cases D 83. Multiple responses allowed.
2117 16 15
7 5
19
0
10
20
30
UK is sa
fe
Job
oppo
rtunit
ies
Family
in U
K
Agent
chos
e UK
Study
opp
ortu
nities
UK imm
igrat
ion ru
lesOth
er
were coming to Britain in advance, and even those who hadleft the Wnal decision to their agent had often also requestedthe United Kingdom as a possible destination. For exam-ple, all Wve Chinese respondents had come to the UnitedKingdom using agents although only one had speciWcallyrequested the country as his desired destination because hissister was already here. Two of the other Chinese com-mented that they could only aVord to reach the UnitedKingdom, as their preferred destination, the United States,was too expensive. Meanwhile, of the four Indian respon-dents, all of whom had used agents to arrange their travel,one came to the United Kingdom because her mother wasliving here and was ill, while another came because he hadbeen living here previously. Nonetheless, three of the fourhad stopped elsewhere en route, with one claiming asylumin France, another in Hungary, and a third had worked forjust under a year at the agent’s restaurant in Germany.
More generally, there was also some overlap between thereasons cited for coming to the United Kingdom. OneAlbanian respondent commented:
‘I was really scared of going anywhere. I thoughtEngland was the best country for me. Farther awaythan Greece or Italy. I never thought of coming to theUnited Kingdom, (but) the life is better here ƒ (and)it was not my choice. I simply paid the money and didnot know the destination.’
This kind of response was particularly true for the ‘UnitedKingdom immigration rules’ category in Fig. 3. Thus of theWve people in this category, two had chosen the UnitedKingdom because they could obtain visas through familyconnections, while two more mentioned the United King-dom’s human rights record. None of the respondents whoclaimed asylum cited favourable recognition rates as a rea-son for coming to the United Kingdom to register theirclaim. Policy is clearly relevant to the migration decisionbut its eVects are most apparent through measures whichimpact on the migration process more immediately, such asthe availability or otherwise of visas. Both recognition ratesand the ease of acquiring a visa may relate to factors suchas political values to which the receiving country is sympa-thetic or previous personal or educational links with thatcountry.
In common with much of the other work in this area asigniWcant number of respondents reported that they choseto come to the United Kingdom because they had family orfriends who were already resident. Where possible, respon-dents were asked speciWcally if they had any existing rela-tives or contacts living in the country, which might explaintheir choice of destination. Data presented in Fig. 4 showthat around two-thirds of respondents did mention eitherfriends, relatives or other people who they knew to be livingin the country prior to their arrival. Within the ‘contacts’category are both friends and also others who had oVeredemployment in the UK prior to arrival, usually through anagent. DiVerentiating between family and others in this wayshows that, for these migrants, the person who helped them
558 R. Black et al. / Geoforum 37 (2006) 552–564
to come to the United Kingdom was frequently not one ofthe more central Wgures in their social network. Sevenrespondents identiWed that their job had been arrangedprior to arrival. A Chinese man had gained restaurant workthrough the agent that had facilitated his journey. Fiverespondents from Eastern and Central Europe had organ-ised farm-work before entering the country through otherformer employees in their country. These farms onlyrecruited from the same country and a female Polish inter-viewee explained that it was common in Poland for peopleto seek farm work in Britain:
INT: How did you Wnd out about this job?
RESP: Somebody who had been here before told usabout it.
INT: Did they say you would be working on a farm?
RESP: Yes.
INT: How much did you think you would be paid?
RESP: We didn’t know, because it depends on howmany Xowers you pick.
ƒ
INT: How long were you planning to stay in theUnited Kingdom?
RESP: Two months.
INT: And then what were you going to do?
RESP: Go home.
INT: And this is something quite common for peoplein your town, to work abroad for a few months?
RESP: Not only in my town, but all over Poland!
Fig. 4. Did you have friends or relatives in the United Kingdom beforeyou came here? Source: Authors’ survey. Valid cases D 83.
32
25 25
1
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
Nonementioned
Relatives Contacts Both relativesand othercontacts
Jordan and Düvell (2002) report similarly frank eco-nomic accounts of their motivation to migrate, formingpart of an emerging migration ‘tradition’ amongst Polishworkers. However, of three Polish respondents interviewedin this study, only one had a clear motive to work, with theother two citing ‘safety’ and the need to sort out a string ofpersonal problems at home as the primary reasons for themleaving Poland.
The only ‘legal’ worker in our sample who organised acontract and work permit before arrival was a Ghanaianweaver. In some cases, migrants had come to the UnitedKingdom in response to advertisements in home townnewspapers oVering jobs in Britain.
3.2. Patterns of travel to the United Kingdom
A wide diversity of travel paths to the United Kingdomwas also discovered during interviews, although some clearpatterns emerged in relation to particular countries andregions. A number of diVerent modes of transport had beenused, ranging from direct Xights (representing around athird of arrivals) to trains, boats, coaches, and lorries(Fig. 5). The majority of respondents described one modeof travel only—mostly a direct Xight or lorry journey fromtheir country of origin, with smaller numbers coming directby boat, coach or train. However, some had used multiplemodes of travel as, for example, transferring from air orcoach to lorry in order to cross the English Channel. Ofthose who had not Xown direct to the UK, around half hadspent three months or more in other countries—mostlyEuropean, including Italy (Albanians and Kosovans) andGermany (South Asians)—prior to their arrival. In Fig. 5,travelling on a cross-channel ferry inside a coach or lorry isnot considered as a separate mode of transport, but is clas-siWed as ‘coach’ or ‘lorry’, respectively.
It is interesting to explore the patterns of travel associ-ated with movement from diVerent countries of origin. Forthose coming from Jamaica, the exclusive mode of travelwas unsurprisingly by air, while the majority of West andSub-Saharan African respondents had also arrived in this
Fig. 5. How did you get to the United Kingdom? Source: Authors’ survey.Valid cases D 83.
32
19
15
54
2
6
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
Air Lorry Mix Boat Coach Train No reply
R. Black et al. / Geoforum 37 (2006) 552–564 559
way. Arrival by air can easily be controlled with visa restric-tions. Visas for West Africans were progressively intro-duced during the 1990s and Jamaicans did not require avisa to come to the United Kingdom until 2002, after thisresearch was completed. All except one respondent fromPakistan had also travelled by air, but the same was not thecase for two Bangladeshi and four Indian respondents, eachof whom had used more circuitous overland routes. Simi-larly, all of the Chinese interviewed had travelled overlandat some stage in their journey, using a variety of forms oftransport, although all had also Xown part of the way—intwo cases to Moscow, one to Frankfurt, and one to Prague.The three Polish respondents had all travelled by coachfrom Poland, reXecting the existence of a regular coach ser-vice, and the possibility of obtaining visas for entry to workor study in the United Kingdom. In contrast, all but oneAlbanian, and four of the six Ukrainian interviewees hadtravelled hidden in the back of a lorry. This was also theroute of entry for the majority of Sri Lankan asylum seek-ers interviewed in the pilot phase of the study, but excludedfrom the group for subsequent analysis.
3.3. The legality of entry, and use of agents
The mode of travel used to migrate to and enter theUnited Kingdom was also strongly related to the pattern ofentry, and the extent to which agents were used, and pay-ments made to them in order to complete the journey.Overall, the majority of those interviewed had entered thecountry illegally (Fig. 6), although once again considerablevariation by country of origin exists both in terms ofwhether their entry was legal, and whether signiWcant sumshad been paid, or an agent engaged in order to secure illegalentry.
Most obviously, all 12 out of 13 Jamaican respondentsand all three respondents from Poland had entered theUnited Kingdom legally. Of those who had entered legallyoverall, two came on student visas (from South Asia andSub-Saharan Africa), while three came on work visas (onefrom Central Europe, and two from West Africa). All of theremainder came as tourists. Four of the seven Pakistanisinterviewed had entered legally, as, perhaps more surpris-ingly, had more than half of the Africans. This reXects the
fact that a number of the Africans interviewed had arrivedprior to the imposition of visas in the mid to late 1990s. Allof the remaining respondents, with the exception of oneUkrainian and two Latvians had entered the country ille-gally (Table 3).
Almost all of those who had entered the country illegallyreported using the services of some form of agent toarrange the journey. However, this Wnding hides the diver-sity of circumstances. In eight cases, an agent was guide andcompanion during their journey to the United Kingdom.For example, Chinese agents might go as far as an easternEuropean city where a local or regional agent wouldreplace them. It was common for the agents to leave themigrants just before immigration when they would disap-pear after collecting the documents from the subjects. Thiswas the most expensive form of service provided by anagent. Thus, the Wve Chinese respondents had each paidbetween £10,000 and £22,000 to agents to facilitate theirjourney, with the money generally taking the form of a loanthat was to be repaid on arrival. However, Indian and Paki-stani respondents reported substantially smaller sums of£4000–6000, even for those who travelled by air accompa-nied by an agent. These amounts were lower than thosereported by The Economist in 2000, although one Chineserespondent contrasted the cost of entry to the United King-dom with that of the United States and mentioned the sumof $70,000 (about £50,000) for the latter journey, consider-ably higher than that reported by previous studies (Kwong,1997; Chin, 1999; Skeldon, 2000).
Fig. 6. Illegal vs. legal entry to the United Kingdom. Source: Authors’ sur-vey. Valid cases D 83.
47
33
3
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
Illegal Legal No data
Table 3Mode of entry to the United Kingdom by region of origin
Source: Authors’ survey. Valid cases D 83.
With agent False docs Hidden in lorry Hidden on ship Not checked Legal entry Unknown Total
Balkans 1 11 12East/Central Europe 1 7 1 1 6 1 17East Asia 2 2 1 1 6South Asia 5 4 4 13North Africa 1 1 2 4West Africa 1 6 8 15East/Southern Africa 1 2 3Caribbean 1 12 13
Total 8 12 24 1 2 33 3 83
560 R. Black et al. / Geoforum 37 (2006) 552–564
In contrast, no other national group reported such highsums as payment to agents, reXecting in part the diVerenttype of service on oVer. The going rate reported by anumber of Albanians and Kosovans was in the region of3000–5000 Deutschmarks (approximately D1400–2300), theequivalent of £900–1500, although one respondent reportedpaying £3500 and another £3000 for being hidden in a lorryall the way from Macedonia. All except one intervieweefrom the Balkans had entered the United Kingdom in thisway.
In general, it was cheaper simply to pay the agent forfalse documents. For example, two Ukrainians reportedfees of £1000 and £2000, respectively for false documentsand transport by lorry and one Ghanaian reported paying$1000 (about £700). However, a number of other Central orEastern Europeans and North Africans reported payingmuch lower sums for false documents—as low as 150 FF(about D22 or £15) for a false French ID card bought in aParisian suburb that was suYcient to pass British immigra-tion.7 In such cases, some respondents had been able totravel to France using their own passports, obtaining falsedocuments on arrival to continue their journey to theUnited Kingdom. This portrayal of smuggling and traYck-ing as a commercial exchange to which both smuggler andsmuggled knowingly consent supports the characterisationof migration as a business where the Wnal destination is asmuch a result of the resources of the migrant than anyother signiWcant decision (Salt and Stein, 1997; Van Hear,2003). The cost increases with the quality of the servicerequired; better documents, greater distances or increasedassurances of success.
The information in the paragraph above appears to pro-vide the most general picture of experiences of agents but asmall number of respondents reported less favourableexchanges. One Indian migrant who had spent time inGermany on route to Britain was victim of much morecoercive behaviour.
RESP: The agent had his own restaurant in Germany,in Frankfurt, and made me work in the restaurant forabout ten, eleven months.
INT: In Germany?
RESP: Yes. He didn’t pay me at all, then put me on alorry to come here.
ƒ
INT: Why was this?
RESP: He exploited my situation, because I illegalresident in the country.
This individual had clearly not planned on this when heset out, and some form of deception was clearly signiWcant.
7 This particular respondent was arrested, however, when he tried to usethis false ID card to obtain a National Insurance number at the Depart-ment of Social Security.
The business model understanding of migration wouldargue that this individual simply received a poor deal. He istherefore unlikely to recommend the services of the agent inquestion to family or friends and the agent’s business willsuVer as a result. An alternative explanation, that relation-ships with agents necessarily involve deception, coercionand intimidation, is typically favoured by governments andinternational agencies, such as the IOM. Violence andintimidation clearly occur but results from this study sug-gest that they are perhaps not as characteristic of the expe-rience of using agents as some research in the area hassuggested.
3.4. Becoming an ‘illegal resident’
Although illegal entrance to the United Kingdom wasone way in which respondents became ‘illegally resident’,it was not the only way, nor indeed the most important.Those who entered legally, but then overstayed on theirvisa comprise the largest single group of illegal residents(Table 4). Most of these had come as tourists, and mosthad never claimed asylum. The next largest groupinvolves those who entered illegally, but then immediatelyclaimed asylum, so regularising their stay. This groupthen became illegally resident either by overstaying aftertheir asylum claim was refused, or by going underground
Table 4How respondents became ‘illegal’
Source: Authors’ survey. Valid cases D 83.
Number Of whomclaimed asylum:
Became illegally resident on entry 19 9Of whom:
Used false documents 9 5Hidden on lorry 7 3No entry check 2 0Travelled with agent 1 1
Entered illegally, claimed asylum,but then became illegally resident
28 28
Of whom:Hidden on lorry 17 17Travelled with agent 7 7Used false documents 3 3Hidden on ship 1 1
Overstayed after refusal 15 15Went underground prior to decision 12 12Worked in breach of entry conditions 1 1
Entered legally, but overstayed legal visa 33 13Of whom:
Tourist visa/no visa required 28 12Work visa 3 0Student visa 2 1
Went underground 29 11In breach of entry conditions 4 2
Unknown 3 3
R. Black et al. / Geoforum 37 (2006) 552–564 561
before the outcome was known. Finally, even of those whohad entered illegally and did not immediately claim asylum,around half subsequently claimed asylum either after aperiod of living illegally, or at the point at which they weredetained. Table 3 also presents a breakdown for each groupon how they entered the United Kingdom. Although thenumbers in each category are relatively small, this analysissuggests that those who entered illegally using false docu-ments were much more likely to go underground on arrival,whereas those who were accompanied by an agent or werehidden inside a lorry were much more likely to claim asylumon arrival.
A total of 24 respondents had become illegally residentbecause they had stayed on after the period for which theywere initially allowed entry as a visitor. This group com-prised many of the Africans and most of the Jamaicans.However, within this category, many people seemed to driftin and out of legality. Fifteen claimed that their documentshad been lost in the post or misplaced by the Home OYcewhile they had been trying to legalise their status, althoughthe nature of the research meant that it was not possible tocorroborate such accounts independently. One Jamaicanrespondent explained:
Before the book was lost, I had applied and beengranted a student visa to extend the holiday visa. Butthere is no record of this and immigration don’tbelieve me when I tell them what happened. Anywaythe Jamaican High Commission gave me anotherpassport which I sent to get another visa from theHome OYce. But I did not receive it. It seems that thiswas lost in the post. But I didn’t know this and I con-tinued waiting to be contacted by the Home OYceabout my visa, and my new application for a studentvisa.
A smaller number were more obviously concerned to getinto the country using a visa in the Wrst place and fromthen establish themselves through work. This strategyincluded a Polish woman, and the one respondent fromMalaysia.
The group that claimed asylum on entry is also quitecomplex and ‘going underground’, generally meant thatcommunication between solicitor, applicant and the HomeOYce had lapsed. For one Albanian respondent, this lapsewas a direct response to the perception of becoming‘trapped’ by welfare beneWts while claiming asylum:
‘The Home OYce supported me for 2 months butthey controlled where I lived. I didn’t know anyone atthe hotel and I was very lonely and depressed. I had togo and live with my friends.’
This respondent also subsequently left the hotel and joinedthe illegal job market. However, others had continued toreceive beneWts, even though their asylum claim had beenturned down and their rights of appeal were exhausted,leading to confusion about why they were now consideredillegally resident.
As one Albanian respondent recounted:
RESP: ‘I was refused, but I never received anything tome ƒI know that I had been refused. I was getting allthe beneWts till Wve months ago. Till Wve months ago Iwas getting all the beneWts from the state.
INT: And when did they claim to have sent therefusal to you?
RESP: Two years ago.
INT: And they only stopped the beneWts Wve monthsago? [RESP nods] How long had you been in Britain?
RESP: Four years.
A similar account was given by a Kosovan respondent:
‘Then I moved to Handsworth. I didn’t tell the HomeOYce. I hadn’t heard from them but I thought theywould know because the government still paid for thehouse.’
Others had deliberately gone to ground as a strategy toavoid deportation after receiving notice of the refusal oftheir asylum claim. In some cases, this strategy was a lastattempt to stay in the country after all appeal options hadbeen exhausted, although some did not wait to hear theresult of their asylum application. In either case, this strat-egy of ‘going underground’ within the community oftendepended on assistance from others from their country oforigin. For example, the experience of a Pakistani respon-dent is not unusual, except perhaps in the degree of successachieved:
‘And then in 1998 I went underground. I went to Gill-ingham and I worked as a chef. And in 1999 myfriends started a restaurant; and I received an awardfor my work as a chef. It was very easy because I couldjust live with other people from Pakistan, rent roomsfrom them that kind of thing. Then well we looked outfor each other. And so my job was good and I waspaid in cash. But it was like a family business.’
Two respondents explained how in following the advice oftheir legal representative, they had undermined the validityof their asylum claim, causing problems later on.
‘I met a solicitor who was my mother’s friend. Shesaid I could claim asylum. She told me to give a falsename. If they know my real identity, she said, thiswould make it diYcult for my father and my other sis-ter to travel here.’ (female Indian respondent)
Yet the economic beneWts of going underground should nothide the fact that a number of respondents identiWed thefear of returning to their country as their primary motiva-tion—whether because they feared persecution or for theirpersonal safety, or because they had nothing to go back to.Often respondents described how their legal representativeand/or their friends had advised them to ‘disappear’, partic-ularly after asylum claims had been refused.
562 R. Black et al. / Geoforum 37 (2006) 552–564
In addition, a number of respondents were illegally resi-dent because considerable time had lapsed between theirirregular entry to the country and the submission of theirasylum claim. For example, one Nigerian respondent onlyclaimed asylum when a girlfriend explained that this waspossible:
RESP: Yeah, I was sleeping in the street, until one dayI saw this girl and then I beg her money. She gave mesome £5 and then later she come back and ask mewhat is my problem so, I tell her, so she said when sheWnish from college she will come speak to me so whenshe Wnish she take me with her, so, I go to her home,so that is how I started staying with her.
INT: Right, right. And she is now your... she’s yourgirlfriend?
RESP: Yeah.
INT: And did she tell you that you could claim asy-lum?
RESP: Well, she said to me that what I need to do isto go to a lawyer. So I went to lawyer, then the lawyersaid that what I should do is to claim asylum.’
Others did not claim asylum immediately because theyfeared the consequences of revealing themselves to theauthorities. As one Albanian man commented:
‘YeahƒI arrived with false identity cards from Italy. Iused to live Wve months like this. But honest work andhonest life, how you can say—I know that Englanddoes not accept this, I’m out from the rules fromEngland. If I come here and I don’t see nothing posi-tive to claim my asylum, I’m not going to do it. Theyask me, “Why didn’t you do this straight away, claimasylum? In the day when you were in police station?”And I say, “I did because you see where I am now? Isthis what I accept for asylum? If I come straight away,is going to be the same thing. They close me in deten-tion. That’s why I don’t claim straight away.” I’m notgoing to do never in my life, never. If I don’t knowthat the place is safe for me, personally, I’m not goingto claim asylum. It’s wrong.’
One category in Table 4 that encompasses relatively fewrespondents is that of people in breach of their entry condi-tions. In all Wve cases, they were working illegally in thecountry while technically legally resident. However, itshould be noted that a number of those classiWed as ‘ille-gally resident’ for other reasons (notably those asylum-seekers who had gone underground) were also workingillegally. For example, all but two respondents who hadapplied for asylum (one Moldovan and one Indian) hadworked, many of them illegally. One Nigerian woman iden-tiWed her frustration in the length of time taken by theHome OYce to decide on her asylum claim, as the majormotivation for purchasing and then working with a false
Italian identity card (even though technically she shouldhave been able to work after six months anyway):
‘I have going through the stress staying at home forfour years doing nothing I decided to work with falsedocuments [ƒ] I then went to apply for a cleaningjob. I was so pleased. When I went there they didn’task me for no identiWcation nothing. Just gave me thejob they said I should start work.’
Others, like this Ukrainian man, bought false documentsalmost immediately in order to access the job market:
‘Its diYcult to work in this country without a pass-port that has a valid visa. I needed a false passport. Sothen I went to [ƒ] market and looked around for apassport. But it was hard because everyone was veryfearful about giving out information. So I talked topeople, and then they found me. They could look atme and identify me as a Ukrainian. They got me aDutch passport which I paid a lot of money for. Itwas very expensive—because they put my photo inthe passport. I don’t remember how much I paid.Now I was ready. Ready for work.’
This strategy of seeking a European passport or identitycard was common, with diVerent respondents obtainingDutch, French and Italian identities. In contrast, norespondents recounted obtaining a false British passport,although some had used false National Insurance numbersor a friend’s bank account. One Ghanaian recounted howhe was arrested because he had been using someone else’sbank account to receive his wages,
‘We were stopped by the police because we did nothave seatbelts on. Questioned and then arrestedbecause I had told them one name, and then theyfound this other person’s bank card on me. This manhad already returned to Ghana and left the card forme (or someone like me) to use, with my friend’.
Overall, although over half of those interviewed hadentered the country illegally, many had then passedthrough a period of legal residence as an asylum seekerbefore becoming ‘undocumented’ once again.
4. Conclusion
Research such as the study reported here begs a numberof questions on how to move forward. A study of this size,the largest carried out in the United Kingdom by a consider-able margin, provides a great deal of material that can beused to reWne our understanding of the mobility of undocu-mented migrants. It is particularly valuable in exploring thediVerences between migrants coming from diVerent worldregions and home country contexts, allowing the develop-ment of a number of hypotheses about diVerence and diver-sity within the migrant population that lives clandestinely inthe United Kingdom. Yet it cannot be used to draw Wrm con-clusions about the total undocumented migrant population
R. Black et al. / Geoforum 37 (2006) 552–564 563
living in the country, nor did it provide the context of trustand understanding necessary for in-depth analysis of individ-ual cases.
It is important to consider how research on such groupscould be developed. First, the research has indicated thateven amongst a sample group of immigrant detainees cho-sen on the basis of their illegal residence rather than the factthat they might have claimed asylum, the primary motiva-tion for leaving their home country, and for choosing theUnited Kingdom, was for reasons of safety. Other principalreasons cited were the availability of work and the presenceof family and other contacts in the United Kingdom. How-ever, most did appear to have made a conscious decision tocome to the United Kingdom: only four had been broughtto a destination they had not chosen.
As is to be expected, reasons given for the choice ofcountry varied widely. Work on this area typically identiWesthe presence of social networks as a key factor. This studyalso found personal contacts to be central to the migrationdecision but, by diVerentiating between diVerent types ofcontact, suggests the importance of friends or acquain-tances that are more peripheral to the network. A strongsocial network is also essential for any migrant wishing to‘go underground’ to disappear from oYcial notice. In thiscontext they become completely embedded in their socialnetworks, relying on them for everything. Very few intervie-wees reported policy measures as a speciWc attraction ofBritain, largely due to lack of information. Policy was sig-niWcant when it presented a barrier, such as visa controls,which proved diYcult to negotiate or circumvent. It is pos-sible that quantitative studies that point to the signiWcanceof recognition rates for asylum seekers are picking up sec-ondary variables since qualitative studies systematically failto highlight them as important factors. This is despite thefact that in this study, safety was so prominent in explana-tions for migration.
Of course, the prominence of ‘safety’ as a factor maypartly reXect the fact that the majority of those interviewedhad (also) claimed asylum, and so were citing a reason thatwould be consistent with that claim. Nonetheless, ‘safety’was also mentioned as a reason by some of those who hadnot claimed asylum. In addition, a number of people citedmore than one reason for their migration. Although theinterviews conducted were fairly open-ended, they did notreally allow the time or space for further exploration of thecomplex interaction of causes of migration—an issue thatremains for further in-depth research.
Second, the majority of respondents had come to theUnited Kingdom in an irregular fashion, and many hadused the services of facilitators or agents. This strategymost commonly involved payment to be hidden in a lorry,but in some cases extended to being escorted by an agentfrom their country of origin across Europe to their destina-tion in the United Kingdom. A small group had used agentsor facilitators simply to obtain false documentation; anequally small group had pre-arranged employment throughan agent.
Much public and government concern about the activi-ties of migration agents or facilitators focuses on the perceivedcoercive or exploitative behaviour of these middlemen, reX-ected in public statements about the need to crack down on‘people traYckers’. In reality, only six respondents men-tioned ill treatment by agents who had helped them enterillegally—three Chinese respondents, one from Jamaica,one from Poland, and one from India. Indeed, the classicstereotype of ‘people traYcking’, in which vulnerable indi-viduals take on massive debt in order to pay traYckers andthen are forced to work for the traYcker, seemed to be lim-ited to three Chinese respondents and one Indian. Mostmigrants from elsewhere had paid much smaller sums toagents, and appeared much less dependent on them (or notdependent at all) once they arrived. This Wnding may ofcourse reXect the fact that those who are traYcked are lesslikely to have been detained by British authorities, sincetraYckers may take particular care to prevent their victimsfrom becoming visible in a way that they themselves mightbe arrested.
In practice, paths into illegal residence revealed in thisstudy vary. They include people who hide in the back of alorry, people who enter using false documents and peoplewho travel with the help of an agent. However, those whoare escorted by agents and those who pay to travel in lorrieswere found to be much more likely to claim asylum onarrival. This Wnding could reXect the fact that agents orfacilitators tell their clients to claim asylum on arrival,whereas those who only buy false documents do not receivethis advice. It could mean that those travelling on false doc-uments are less likely to be caught. However, it could alsobe that those Xeeing persecution are more likely to travelwith agents, or pay for travel in a lorry—as that increasesthe likelihood of arrival in the United Kingdom. Furtherresearch would be needed to explore these hypotheses.
A Wnal and key question raised by this study concernswhether a survey of residents in immigration detention cen-tres can provide valid and useful information that is repre-sentative of the illegally resident population more generally.Certainly there are some limitations on the applicability ofthis study. First, there is no clear evidence available on thelikelihood of detention for diVerent groups of illegally resi-dent migrants, though it can be observed that those indetention had often been detained in a fairly random fash-ion, and that they included many who had been in theUnited Kingdom for a long period of time, as well as somewho had only just arrived. For this reason, it is impossibleto say with certainty that the population in detention is rep-resentative of the wider population, since it is not a randomselection.
In addition, the circumstances in which the interviewswere conducted, including the location and layout of theroom, the fact that an immigration oYcer waited outsidethe interview room even if he or she could not actually hearthe interview, and the way in which people were selectedand called for interview, were not always conducive toan open, honest, in-depth interview. Yet these interview
564 R. Black et al. / Geoforum 37 (2006) 552–564
conditions were eVectively the only ones that were possiblein detention centres at all. In this regard, the opportunity toconduct repeat interviews, in order to build up trust withrespondents, might have improved the reliability of theresearch data, but proved impossible to achieve in practice.However, these interviews would still have been conductedunder time constraints, and the required cooperation withthe detention centre staV and immigration services wouldstill have left doubts about the independence of theresearch team.
Nonetheless, this study does represent a step in under-standing the situation of the illegally resident migrant pop-ulation in the United Kingdom. It is rather larger, in termsof the number of interviewees, than has been achieved bymost previous studies and the sample of migrants inter-viewed can be regarded as more representative of the ille-gally resident migrant population as a whole. Given theregular turnover of residents in detention centres, it is alsofeasible to consider the implementation of a regular surveyof these residents, although such a survey would requireresources and would need to be done with a clear purposein order to maintain the cooperation of staV and residentsthemselves. However, it remains essential to place theresults of such a study within the context of other forms ofresearch—especially ethnographic—that can help toexplore in depth those issues that cannot realistically beexplored in the detention centre context. In this sense, andparticularly given the high turnover in detention centresthat makes any ‘representative’ sample soon out of date,there may be more value in extending understanding of thedynamics of undocumented or clandestine migrationthrough in-depth case studies, than in seeking to reWne fur-ther the elusive search for a ‘representative’ sample.
References
Anderson, B., Rogaly, B., 2005. Forced Labour and Migration to the UK.Study prepared by Compas in collaboration with the Trades UnionCongress. Available from: <http://www.compas.ox.ac.uk/publications/papers/Forced%20Labour%20TUC%20Report.pdft>.
Barsky, R.F., 2000. Arguing and Justifying: assessing the Convention refu-gees’ choice of moment, motive and host country Ashgate, Aldershot.
Black, R., Collyer, M., Skeldon, R., Waddington, C., 2005. A survey of theillegally resident population in detention in the UK. Home OYceOnline Report 20/05. Available from: <http://www.homeoYce.gov.uk/rds/pdfs05/rdsolr2005.pdf>.
Bocker, A., Havinga, T., 1998. Asylum migration to the European Union:Patterns of origin and destination; Brussels: EU.
Borchgrevink, A., 2003. Silencing language: of anthropologists and inter-preters. Ethnography 4 (1), 95–121.
Chimni, B.S., 2002. Aid, relief and containment: the Wrst asylum countryand beyond. International Migration 40 (5), 75–92.
Chin, K.-L., 1999. Smuggled Chinese: Clandestine Immigration to theUnited States. Temple University Press, Philadelphia.
Cornelius, W., Martin, P.L., HolliWeld, J.F., 2003. Controlling Immigra-tion: A Global Perspective, second ed. Stanford University Press, Stan-ford.
Espinosa, K.E., Massey, D.S., 1999. Undocumented migration and thequantity and quality of social capital. In: Pries, L. (Ed.), Migration andTransnational Social Spaces. Ashgate Publishing, Aldershot, England,and BrookWeld VT, USA.
Fong, E., SalaV, J., Wong, S., 1995. Kin Networks and the plan to leaveHong Kong. In: Skeldon, R. (Ed.), Immigration from Hong Kong,Trends and Tendencies Hong Kong. Chinese Universities Press, pp.212–233.
Granovetter, M.S., 1973. The strength of weak ties. American Journal ofSociology 78 (6), 1360–1380.
Harris, N., 2002. Thinking the Unthinkable: The Immigration MythExposed. I.B. Tauris, London and New York.
Hayter, T., 2000. Open Borders. Pluto, London.IOM, 2000. Migrant TraYcking in Europe: a review of migrant traYcking
and human smuggling in Europe, IOM Geneva.Jentsch, B., 1998. The ‘interpreter eVect’: rendering interpreters visible in
cross cultural research and methodology. Journal of European SocialPolicy 8 (4), 275–289.
Jordan, B., Düvell, F., 2002. Irregular Migration: The Dilemmas of Trans-national Mobility. Cheltenham, Edward Elgar.
Koser, K., 1997. Social networks and the asylum cycle: the case of Iranianasylum seekers in the Netherlands. International Migration Review 31(3), 591–612.
Koser, K., 2000. Asylum policies, traYcking and vulnerability. Interna-tional Migration 38 (3), 91–111.
Kwong, P., 1997. Forbidden Workers: Illegal Chinese Immigrants andAmerican Labour. The New Press, New York.
Kyle, D., Koslowski, R. (Eds.), 2001. Global Human Smuggling: compara-tive perspectives. Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore.
Pieke, F.N., Nyiri, P., Thunø, M., Ceccagno, A., 2004. TransnationalChinese: Fujianese Migrants in Europe. Stanford University Press,Stanford.
Pinkerton, C., McLaughlin, G., Salt, J., 2004. Sizing the illegally residentpopulation in the UK. Home OYce Online Research Report 58/04.Available from: <http://www.homeoYce.gov.uk/rds/pdfs04/rdsolr5804.pdf>.
Ram, M., Edwards, P., Jones, T., 2002. Employers and illegal migrantworkers in the clothing and restaurant sectors. DTI Final Report.
Robinson, V., Segrott, J., 2000. Understanding the decision making of asy-lum seekers. Findings 172 Home OYce Research, Development andStatistics Directorate.
Salt, J., Stein, J., 1997. Migration as a business: the case of traYcking.International Migration 35 (4), 467–494.
Skeldon, R., 2000. Myths and realities of Chinese Irregular Migration.IOM Migration Research Series, No. 1.
Staring, R., Engbersen, G., 2005. De Sociale Organisatie van Mensensmok-kel (The Social Organization of Human Smuggling). Risbo, Rotter-dam.
The Economist, 2000. The last frontier June 22nd 2000.Thielemann, E., 2003. Does policy matter? On governments’ attempts to
control unwanted migration LSE. European Institute Working Paper2.
Van Hear, N., 2003. “I went as far as my money would take me”: ConXict,forced migration and class. Paper presented at the 8th IASFM Confer-ence, Thailand.
Vink, M., Meijerink, F., 2003. Asylum applications and recognition ratesin EU Member States 1982–2001: a quantitative analysis. Journal ofRefugee Studies 16 (3), 297–315.
