This last factor (the prospect of resettling) and the shadow of deportation seems to have an enormous weight in judicial decisions about how and for how long to punish those who defy the boundaries of their status. As Judge Murphy confessed in the case against a Zimbabwean who could not be removed back to his country, he was not in doubt about the criminal nature of the offence — possession of a false passport. His ‘dilemma’ was ‘the nature of the punishment that must be imposed on these people’ who cannot be returned and who can neither work nor claim welfare benefits (quoted in Attorney General cit [at 22]). In addition, judges and probation staff do not usually have access to data regarding past convictions and other information that is used by the criminal justice system to routinely assess risk, as pre-sentence reports are generally not ordered. Thus, many of the people accused for immigration-related crimes, particularly those for whom identity cannot be established with certainty, are complete strangers. Conclusion The whole criminal justice procedure in cases involving immigration offences, including the decision to prosecute, the judicial decisions and the subsequent prison regime, is mediated and determined by the immigration status of the defendant. This 44 consideration, which is linked to the prospect of removal, is the key to understanding against whom and in which circumstances a criminal prosecution is initiated. It is also central for determining the type of sanction to be imposed. In prison, few or no resources are allocated to foreigners who are unlikely to be resettled in the UK and due to be expelled. This reinforcing rationale whereby people are prosecuted because they cannot be removed and are imprisoned so as to facilitate removal has no apparent beneficiaries. For those who fall foul of the hybrid criminal and immigration system the result is longer periods in detention and a criminal conviction on their records. For the government, the imprisonment of petty immigration offenders has little or no substantial effect on illegal immigration rates. Further, it has pernicious effects on prison overcrowding and on the overburdening of the criminal justice system. Instead of reducing the number of foreign nationals in prisons as the government has pledged, the policy of incarcerating immigration offenders is contributing to the growth of the prison population. Finally, the prosecution and conviction of these people is not even effective symbolically. The idea of a government targeting poor and destitute undocumented migrants barely imprints a picture of a powerful, virile state. To the contrary, the image that comes to one’s mind is that of a state unable to effectively handle mass global mobility. Prison Service Journal Issue 205