context.24 They also seem to have a lion’s share of arrests for immigration offences: 5152 (2011-2012) compared to South Yorkshire (18 arrests for immigration in 2010);25 Devon (348 in 2011);26 Suffolk (97 in 2011).27 b). Germany The institutional structure of German inland immigration enforcement differs from England. They have no special immigration enforcement unit like the UKBA. Instead, illegal residence is a criminal offence across Germany and as such, the police have the duty to investigate it.28 Furthermore, apart from a brief period under the Third Reich, policing has been federalised since 1871. Today, Germany has one federal police agency (the ‘Bundespolizei’) — responsible for border zones, airports and transportation hubs — and 16 ‘Länderpolizei’. Both are responsible for enforcing immigration control.29 The UK and Germany also differ in terms of police discretion around ID checks. Every German citizen has to have an identity card and has to retrieve it within a reasonable time frame when asked. In general, German police need reasonable suspicion of a crime in order to demand ID. However, like s.60 in the UK, a number of ‘Länder’ have nominated ‘dangerous areas’ where this is not a requirement.30 Furthermore, the federal police and all but six of the ‘Länderpolizei’ introduced checks without concrete suspicion — known as ‘Schleierfahndung’31 — within a 30km reach of a border area and in important traffic areas, like motorways, airports or train stations.32 These powers were introduced on the day that internal borders were lifted between Germany and its continental neighbours under the European Schengen agreement and are linked to the fight against cross border organised crime and illegal migration. Together, these initiatives have given German police considerable discretion to ask for identification papers and to search individuals without reasonable suspicion or specific incident (ECRI 2003). Yet again, a key question is the extent to which the police use their powers to target 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. immigration offences. The first point is that 55, 087 persons were arrested for immigration offences in 2010 by the inland police forces of Germany.33 This means a considerably higher number of illegal immigrants are identified in Germany by the police alone than illegal immigrants in the UK by the UKBA and police forces together. German ‘police criminal statistics’ reveals a northsouth divide in enforcement. Unlike the UK, where London is a hotspot for immigration action, Berlin — German’s multicultural capital, set in the north east of the country — has among the lowest arrest rates for immigration crimes. Similarly, police in the northern harbour town of Hamburg ‘rarely’ conduct street raids for immigration offences, instead using ‘dangerous area’ powers to target persons under the influence of drugs or alcohol, football hooligans and protestors. By contrast, the southern states of Hessen and Bayern have the highest arrest rates for immigration crimes. Police in Baden Württemberg are instructed ‘to conduct at least one monthly stop and a search operation targeting illegally resident foreigners’. 82 per cent of people stopped under Bayern’s checks without concrete suspicion were foreign nationals.34 Finally, in the months following the July 2005 London bombings, Hessen, Württemberg and Bayern and saw mass identity checks in the vicinity of mosques and in Muslim owned business and areas. German officials interviewed in a recent study35 were keen to emphasise that a judicial warrant is required before a raid can be conducted and say that that every raid has a casespecific evidentiary basis linked it to ‘criminal Islamic structures’. However, a counter terrorism officer admitted that ‘the main goal of these controls is to find people who are living in Germany illegally or [engaged in] other related crime.’36 Germany differs from the UK in another key respect: the legality of using skin colour as a reason for inquiring about immigration status. Recently upheld in a administrative court decision in Koblenz,37 racial profiling, Ministry of Justice. (2011) ibid. FOI. Available at: www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/arrests_for_illegal_immigration FOI 002731/12. FOI 597/11/12. 163b Strafprozeßordnung (German Criminal Procedure Code). Doomernik, J. & Jandi, M. (2009). Modes of Migration Regulation and Control in Europe. IMSCOE The Hamburg ‘Gefahrengebeit’ and the Berlin ‘Kriminal belastende Ort’ are two examples of this. See Schneider, C. et al. (2010). ‘Demokratisierung der Polizei Beiträge zu einer Fachtagung der Fraktion DIE LINKE in der Hamburgischen Bürgerschaft.’ DIE LINKE, Hamburg. Graf, S. (2006). Verdachts — und/oder ereignisunabhängige Polizeikontrollen Duncker & Humblot. Vogel, D. et al (2009). ‘Police cooperation in internal enforcement of immigration control-Germany, United Kingdom and the United States of America.’ p. 207-244 in Immigration, Crime and Justice, Sociology of Crime, Law and Deviance, edited by W. MacDonald: Emerald Publishing. Bunderministerium des Innern. Polizeiliche Kriminal Statistik 2010. (Police Criminal Statistics). Kant, M. (2000). Stops and Suspicion: Migrants caught in the centre of the investigation. Civil Rights and Police. Neild, R. (2009). ETHNIC PROFILING IN THE EUROPEAN UNION: Pervasive, Ineffective and Discriminatory. Open Society: Justice Initiative. Ibid p.66. Between 2001-2003, the German authorities also attempt to identify ‘sleepers’ of terrorist organisations by the Rasterfahndung method, i.e. the screening by the police of personal data sets of public or private bodies in order to track individuals presenting suspects’ features. The program was both ineffective (no terrorist suspects were arrested) and hugely disproportionate, with 32,000 persons identified. In 2006, the policy was found to be be unconstitutional. Administrative Court of Koblenz, judgement of 28 Feb 2010, document number 5 K 1026/11.KO. Issue 205 Prison Service Journal 31