A Critical Discourse Analysis into the Policy and Debate Relating to “Adults at Risk” detained within Immigration Removal Centres in the UK

Abstract

This research uses a critical discourse analysis to explore the discourses in a UK parliamentary debate and a policy document about “adults at risk” in immigration detention. Immigration detention centres in the UK are found to negatively impact the mental health of those detained. The processes for managing mental health or “vulnerable” adults named “adults at risk” in these institutions came into practice following an independent review into the welfare of vulnerable people in detention. This study explores the discourses used by politicians and the discourses used in policy documents about these “adults at risk”. The analysis identifies 6 main discourses where detention processes are presented as fair, detention as a system is presented as a last resort and a measure of protection, people seeking asylum are spoken about in either dehumanising or humanising discourses, mental health is presented as objectively measurable, as binary or dichotomous and as intrinsic to the individual. These discourses are further deconstructed using a critical discourse analysis with a focus on the power and inequality that they perpetuate and what wider discourses and ideologies in society create the context in which these occur. Recommendations are made on what further research can be done, on what these findings can contribute and how clinical psychologists can contribute through becoming more involved in politics and policy change.