LEAVING DETENTION? A study on the influence of immigration detention on migrants’ decision-making processes regarding return. November 2011 Researcher Mieke Kox Return: not necessarily a step backward 1 IOM is committed to the principle that humane and orderly migration benefits migrants and society. As an intergovernmental body, IOM acts with its partners in the international community to assist in meeting the operational challenges of migration; advance understanding of migration issues; and uphold the human dignity and well-being of migrants. This research report is published within the framework of the project ‘Assisted Voluntary Return from Detention (AVRD) II’. The project was financed by the European Return Fund and the Dutch Ministry of Justice. Publisher: International Organization for Migration Mission in the Netherlands P.O. Box 10796 2501 HT The Hague The Netherlands Tel: +31 70 31 81 500 Fax: +31 70 33 85 454 E-mail: [email protected] Internet: www.iom-nederland.nl Copyright © 2011 International Organization for Migration (IOM) All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmit- ted in any form by any means electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise without prior written permission of the publisher. Opinions expressed in this work are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the view of IOM or cofunders. 2 PREFACE Immigration detention in the Netherlands is routinely criticised but it is still used because the Dutch government considers it an indispensible tool for the effectuation of its return policy. Through immigration detention the Dutch government tries to realize a migrant’s return to the country of origin or another country in which his (re)admission is guaranteed. Migrants in immigration detention have the opportunity to return from immigration detention to their countries of origin with assistance of the International Organization of Migration (IOM). Since 2007 IOM runs projects within immigration detention. IOM staff has been allocated in the detention centres for immigration detention to provide information and assistance to migrants to enable them to take a well informed decision on whether to return voluntarily to their countries of origin. The role of IOM in immigration detention has been criticised as well. It has been doubted whether migrants in immigration detention are sufficiently able to make voluntary and well informed decisions considering the time constraints and limited options of the migrants in detention. IOM has been well aware of these circumstances but nevertheless decided not to exclude these migrants in immigration detention from their services and support. IOM has included a study on the influence of immigration detention on the intention of migrants to leave within its project Assisted Voluntary Return from Detention (AVRD). This study makes it possible to contribute to knowledge development about the return of irregular migrants from immigration detention. The results are hopefully not just relevant for IOM but also for other stakeholders in immigration detention. I am grateful that I was given the opportunity to prepare this interesting study on the influence of immigration detention on the willingness of migrants in detention to return. Of course I could not have done this on my own. Therefore I like to take the opportunity to thank everyone who supported me in undertaking this study. First of all, I want to thank the migrants who were willing to be interviewed during their stay in immigration detention. They gave me the opportunity to map their decision-making processes regarding return and to determine the influence of immigration detention on their intention to leave. Needless to say, this study would not have been possible without the cooperation of these migrants. I cannot thank them by name, since their anonymity has been guaranteed, but I hope these well-deserved words of thanks will do. Interviewing these migrants would have been impossible without the permission of the Custodial Institutions Agency to conduct this study in the Dutch detention centres in Rotterdam, Zaandam and Zeist. Therefore, I want to thank the Custodial Institutions Agency and in particular the Directorate for Special Detention Facilities for enabling us to work on location and providing me with all the information requested; and their staff at the detention centres for their cooperation during the interviews. In addition, IOM’s Project Officers deserve a word of thanks: Eric van den Boom, Claver Ndikumana, Ard Venhuizen and Euphrem Yamuremye informed and explained the aim of the interviews to the migrants and asked them if they wanted to cooperate on this study. It took a lot of time to find a sufficient number of respondents and to fill in an inquiry form together with the migrant. It was not a rewarding task, since almost half of migrants approached were unwilling to cooperate. However, IOM’s Project Officers found a sufficient number of detained migrants who were willing to be interviewed. The interviewers cooperating in this study also deserve thanks. Zia Gulam, Solomon Desta, Karel van Driel, Daniël Hardenbol, Sanja Heric, Arjen Leerkes, Anke Lenaers, Claver Ndikumana, Hafsah Warraich, Euphrem Yamuremye and Pauline Yick conducted two or more 3 interviews and sent me their reports. I could not have conducted so many interviews on my own. Furthermore, the Immigration and Naturalisation Service deserves a word of thanks for the information they provided and their kind cooperation: this agency gave my colleague Barbara van Spaandonk and me the opportunity to consult the personal files of the respondents to obtain additional information. Therefore, I want to thank Barbara as well for her help while obtaining this information. I would also like to show my appreciation to the Repatriation and Departure Service, which provided additional information on the effects of immigration detention and the repatriation process, answered my questions on these topics and provided information on the legal status of the respondents. This created an opportunity to present the effects of immigration detention in recent years and to draw conclusions regarding the respondents’ intentions to leave and their possibilities for return. I am also grateful that Joost van der Aalst, Anne Marie Hollander, Anton van Kalmthout, Arjen Leerkes, Marian Lenshoek, Joris van Wijk and Adri Zagers were willing to read and comment on the research outline and report. Their constructive comments helped me greatly during this study. Finally, Anne Marie deserves a special word of thanks. She hired me to conduct this study, guided me through the study, gave me a lot of advice, and made sure I could focus on the research without being distracted by other tasks. So, Anne Marie, many thanks. The results of the study are presented in this research report. I hope these will contribute to the discourse on the Dutch migrant return policy. 4 TABLE OF CONTENTS Preface 3 List of tables 8 1. To leave or not to leave 9 1.1 Difficulties realizing the return of irregular migrants 9 1.2 A study on the influence of immigration detention on migrant intention to return 11 1.3 Research questions 11 1.4 Methodology 12 1.5 Constraints 15 1.6 Reading guide 16 2. Migrants’ return from immigration detention 17 2.1 Migrants’ decision-making processes regarding voluntary return 17 2.1.1 Factors in the decision-making process regarding voluntary return 18 2.1.1.1 Push factors 19 2.1.1.2 Pull factors 20 2.1.1.3 Stay factors 21 2.1.1.4 Deter factors 22 2.1.1.5 Mingling factors in individual decision-making processes 24 2.1.1.6 The role of the risk of being arrested, detained and repatriated 25 in migrants’ decision-making processes 2.2 Immigration detention as a means to realize return from the Netherlands 26 2.2.1 Immigration detention under Dutch law 26 2.2.2 Immigration detention in practice 27 2.2.2.1 The detention population 27 2.2.2.2 Detention centres 31 2.2.2.3 Regime 32 2.2.2.4 Alternatives to immigration detention 33 2.3 Possibilities for return for irregular migrants in immigration detention 33 2.3.1 Factors influencing possibilities for return of migrants in immigration detention 33 2.3.1.1 Personal factors 34 2.3.1.2 Factors related to the treatment of migrants in immigration detention 35 2.3.1.3 Factors related to the country of origin 36 2.3.1.4 Factors related to the repatriation process 36 2.4 Recommendations to increase the effectiveness of immigration detention 37 2.5 Developments regarding the possibilities for return of migrants from immigration 38 detention 2.6 The influence of governmental policies on the decision-making processes 40 2.7 To conclude 41 3. Coming to the Netherlands, ending up in immigration detention 43 3.1 Respondents’ characteristics 43 3.1.1 Respondents’ legal status 44 3.1.2 Respondents’ stay in immigration detention 45 3.1.3 Respondents’ (irregular) stay in the Netherlands 46 3.1.4 Consequences for the representativeness of the research group 48 5 3.2 Leaving the country of origin, coming to the Netherlands 48 3.2.1 Motives for leaving the country of origin 48 3.2.2 The situation in the country of origin 50 3.2.3 Reasons for coming to the Netherlands 51 3.3 Staying (irregularly) in the Netherlands 52 3.4 Ending up in immigration detention 55 3.4.1 The detention conditions 55 3.4.2 Justification 57 3.4.3 Well-being 58 3.5 To conclude 59 4. The influence of immigration detention on migrants’ intentions to leave 61 4.1 Thoughts on leaving the country prior to immigration detention 61 4.2 Thoughts on leaving the country during immigration detention 62 4.3 The influence of immigration detention on decision-making processes 63 4.4 Decision-making processes regarding leaving the Netherlands 65 4.4.1.