Once a monitor or the research coordinator was informed of an immigration raid, the monitor would follow the lead provided, and go to the area where it took place. They would collect the names of those detained and attempt to follow up on their cases and refer where necessary to the UCT Law Clinic and Legal Resource Centre (LRC). During the course of our investigations it became apparent that legal constraints make it impossible for any help to be given to someone that had been arrested without knowing the full name of the detainee. When not following up on raids or monitoring the Refugee Reception Office (RRO), monitors carried out informal surveys by walking through communities that had large purported numbers of immigrants. In Cape Town these communities included Capricorn, Masiphumlele, ImizamoYethu, Samora, Langa, Phillipi, Athlone and Maitland (RRO). Communities in Johannesburg included DiepSloot, the MethodistChurch, Marabastad (RRO), Yeoville, Hillbrow and busy transportation hubs (taxi ranks and bus terminals). Monitors would ask about people that had been affected by the high volume of immigration raids or those that had been arrested for documentation issues. While at first we did not expect this canvassing method to be very useful, it proved extremely effective and informative. Through word of mouth, monitors were continually referred to people that had been detained or deported. In addition, we monitored outside of Lindela Repatriation Center for three days, speaking with family members and legal representatives. The monitors also went inside on two occasions to speak with detainees in order to gain an idea of life inside Lindela, namely: access to DHA officials, medication, food, bedding and exercise. Pens, cameras and recorders are not allowed in, so interviews inside the deportation centre couldn’t be recorded. However, the content was transcribed straight after the interviewer had left the centre. v. Quantitative data In order to expand the picture gained through qualitative interviews, a survey among migrants was conducted. Quantitative questionnaires were filled out and returned by nearly 200 individuals. Predominantly quantitative for analysis purposes, the questions sought to highlight inadequacies or discrepancies between the legislation in place and the actual realities of the judicial system. The questionnaire was split into three parts: demographic, arrest and detention. Questions covered the conditions for arrest and detention, issues of environment and the demographics of other individuals that had been detained with the participant. It also covered the legal process, such as the distribution of crucial forms and duration of detention, in order to monitor the existence or effectiveness of provisions supposedly in place to prevent abuse by the DHA system. vi. Data analysis In order to analyse the data the following techniques were used: The completed questionnaires were imported into the data collection program generated by Google, Google Docs. Having transcribed the gained qualitative data we came up with codes and, subsequently, categories for most important topics which we then related to each other. This gave us the opportunity to compare and to explore inter-linkages between results from both data gathering 19