Abstract
In most EU countries and the United States, immigration detention is defined as an administrative, non-punitive measure to facilitate expulsion. This chapter argues that immigration detention in the Netherlands serves three informal functions in addition to its formal function as an instrument of expulsion: (1) deterring illegal residence, (2) controlling pauperism and (3) managing popular anxiety by symbolically asserting state control. These informal functions indicate that society has not found a definitive solution for the presence of migrants who are not admitted but are also difficult to expel. The analysis, which is placed against the background of the functions of penal detention, is based on policy documents, survey data, administrative data and fieldwork in a Dutch immigration detention centre.
This chapter is a revised and updated version of Leerkes, A. and Broeders, D. (2010) (Courtesy of Oxford University Press).
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
Dutch Alien Law 2000, clause 59.
- 2.
Detention may also be annulled when immigration authorities anticipate that an administrative judge will decide to annul, or when the acting immigration officer considers continued detention unlawful.
- 3.
Research by Van Kalmthout and Van Leeuwen (2004, p. 60) suggested that at least 29Â % of the administratively detained migrants have been detained repeatedly. The authors base this on the checklist used by the government to record information about the alien, filled in by the local aliens police. Out of 329 respondents who were researched by Van Kalmthout and Van Leeuwen, 95 respondents (29Â %) had been previously presented, 13 respondents (4Â %) had not and there were no data available for 221 respondents (67Â %). Repeated immigration detention is allowed if a year has expired after a former period of detention has ended, or if new facts or circumstances occur that may lead to expulsion.
- 4.
Empirical observation is crucial to avoid the fallacy of functionalism, i.e., the idea that practice Y must necessarily be functional for actor Z, given interest X, simply because Y can be expected to exert certain beneficial effects for X. It is desirable to demonstrate these effects empirically, for instance by showing that Z aimed for Y because of X (Levy 1968).
- 5.
Germany, Finland, Ireland, France, Cyprus and, since 2009, Italy.
- 6.
Source for 1994 figure: Statistics Netherlands, http://statline.cbs.nl, visited January 2010. Source 2006 figure: Dienst Justititiële Inrichtingen, http://www.dji.nl, visited April 2010.
- 7.
Source: http://www.dji.nl, visited April 2010.
- 8.
In 2007, the average costs for immigration detention per place per day were 155 €, against 197 € in regular prisons (DJI 2008a, b, p. 61). In 2008, after fierce critique by Amnesty International Netherlands, the government decided to improve detention conditions somewhat (the most important change was that multi-person cells were reduced from 6 to 2 persons). In 2010, the average costs were 193 € against 222 € in regular prisons.
- 9.
Before becoming a cabinet minister, Mr. Nawijn had a career in the Dutch civil service at the department of Justice. He held various positions in the field of immigration policy, lastly as director of the Immigration and Naturalisation Service (IND).
- 10.
In 2004, 622 unauthorised migrants participated in the survey, and in 2007 575; in 2007 the number of respondents in regular prisons was 6,020. We are thankful to the National Agency of Correctional Institution's (DJI) for making the data available to us in order to conduct secondary analyses.
- 11.
About two-third (68Â %) of the administratively detained females who participated in the Vreemdelingensurvey (2004) or Vreemdelingensurvey (2007) had a shower in their cell against halve (51Â %) of the males. About a quarter of the females (24Â %) had to share a cell with more than one person, against 46Â % of the males.
- 12.
The scale ‘material situation’ (Cronbach’s alpha = 0.74; listwise missing = 14 %) is the average of the scores for the items ‘I get enough to eat’, ‘I am satisfied about the quality of the products in the shop’, ‘I can buy in the shop what I need’, ‘Warm food has the right temperature’, ‘I am satisfied about the eating times’, ‘I think the warm food is tasty’, ‘They take religious beliefs into account for the meals’. The scale ‘hygiene’ (alpha = 0.71; listwise missing = 11 %) is the average of the scores for the items ‘It is clean on my unit’, ‘The showers are clean’, ‘the air space is clean’, ‘I can get my clothes cleaned sufficiently regularly’, ‘I can shower sufficiently regularly’. The scale ‘health care’ (alpha = 0.73; listwise missing = 18 %) is the average of the scores for the items ‘I have been well-informed in this institution about contagious diseases (such a STD’s, aids, jaundice)’, ‘I can get tested easily (for example for aids and hepatitis) if I want to’, ‘If I want to I can go to the doctor in this institution’, ‘I am satisfied about the work of the doctor’, ‘I am satisfied about the work of the nurse’. The scale ‘quality of activities’ (= 0.79; listwise missing = 21 %) is the average of the scores for the items ‘I am satisfied about the sporting facilities’, ‘I am satisfied about the library’, ‘I am satisfied about labour facilities’, ‘I am satisfied about creative facilities’. It is probable that administratively detained migrant are even more negative about the quality of activities than the scores on this scale suggest. For this scale the number of missing values among the latter migrants is quite high (35 %), which may be due to the fact that several administratively detained respondents did not have access to labour and creative facilities. The scale ‘ability to enjoy oneself’ (alpha = 0.75; listwise missing = 18 %) is the average of the scores for the items ‘I can enjoy myself in my cell’, ‘I can spend my free time with things that I like’, ‘In the evenings I have enough to do’. The scale ‘relations with staff’ (alpha = 0.86; listwise missing = 14 %) is the average of the scores for the items ‘The personnel will help me if I have problems’, ‘The personnel are friendly to me’, ‘If I am down, I can talk with the personnel’, ‘The personnel treat me in a normal way’.
- 13.
In 1991, for instance, the use of social-security numbers was barred for unauthorised migrants, which made it much more difficult for them to work in the formal economy. In 2005, the fine for employers who hired illegal aliens was raised from 900 to 8,000 € per employee, and since the late 1990s the government increasingly allocated resources to enforce employer sanctions.
- 14.
Source: Brief VNG aan de Vaste Commissie Immigratie en Asiel van de Tweede Kamer der Staten Generaal over ‘Implementatie Terugkeerrichtlijn en strafbaarstelling’. BAWI/U201100108, February 1 2011.
- 15.
The latter centres are often located in out of the way places, on industrial zones or in abandoned military complexes; this is also done to discourage societal integration in light of the fact that the majority of the asylum claims will be rejected.
- 16.
The government’s press release of 5th November 2004, which highlights the results of the Ministry’s of Justuce report Rapportage Vreemdelingenketen 2004, periode mei tot en met augustus, is a fairly typical example (see http://www.regering.nl/Actueel/Pers_en_nieuwsberichten/2004/November/05/Rapportage_instroom_asielzoekers_daalt). The press release starts with stressing the decrease in the number of migrants applying for political asylum (in the period May–August 2004 there were 34 % fewer applications compared to the same period in 2003). Later on, the release mentions the increase in the capacity for administrative immigration detention and also lists the number of deported unauthorised migrants in the period May–August 2004. The release does not—contrary to the figures on asylum applications—mention that the number of expulsions decreased since 2003.
- 17.
Source: Dutch Parliament 19637, nr. 1483.
- 18.
Source: Washington Post, August 7, 2009.
References
ACVZ (2002). Vreemdelingen in bewaring. Advies over vreemdelingenbewaring en verwijdering van ‘criminele’ vreemdelingen. Den Haag: Adviescommissie voor Vreemdelingenzaken.
Amnesty International. (2008). The Netherlands: The detention of irregular migrants and asylum-seekers. Amsterdam: Amnesty International.
Amnesty International. (2009). Jailed without justice: Immigration detention in the USA. New York: Amnesty International.
Baldaccini, A. (2009). The return and removal of irregular migrants under EU law: An analysis of the returns directive. European Journal of Migration and Law, 11(1), 1–17.
Bauman, Z. (1998). Globalisation. The human consequences. Cambridge: Polity.
Blumer, H. (1954). What is wrong with social theory? American Sociological Review, 19(1), 3–10.
Bosworth, M. (2007). Creating the responsible prisoner: Federal admission and orientation packs. Punishment & Society, 9, 67–85.
Broeders, D. (2007). The new digital borders of Europe EU databases and the surveillance of irregular migrants. International Sociology, 22, 71–92.
Broeders, D. (2009). Breaking down anonymity digital surveillance of irregular migrants in Germany and the Netherlands. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.
Broeders, D. (2010). Return to sender? Administrative detention of irregular migrants in Germany and the Netherlands. Punishment & Society, 12, 169–186.
Burke, A. (2008). Fear of security: Australia’s invasion anxiety. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Calavita, K. (2005). Immigrants at the margins. Law, race, and exclusion in southern Europe. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Carlsmith, K., & Darley, J. (2002). Why do we punish? Deterrence and just deserts as motives for punishment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83(2), 284–299.
Cheliotis, L. (2006). How iron is the iron cage of new penology? The role of human agency in the implementation of criminal justice policy. Punishment & Society, 8(3), 313–340.
Cornellise, G. (2010). Immigration detention and human rights: Rethinking territorial sovereignty. Leiden: Martinus Nijhoff.
De Giorgi, A. (2006). Re-thinking the political economy of punishment. Perspectives on post-fordism and penal politics. Aldershot: Ashgate Publishing.
De Haas, H. (2005). International migration, remittances and development: Myths and facts. Third World Quarterly, 26(8), 1269–1284.
Den Hollander, R. (2004). Uitzetcentra: vreemdelingendetentie ter fine van verwijdering. Process, 4, 159–166.
DJI. (2008a). Vreemdelingenbewaring in Nederland. Survey onder vreemdelingen naar het verblijf binnen de inrichting. DJI: The Hague.
DJI. (2008b). Annual report 2007. The Hague: DJI.
Dünkel, F., Gensing, A., & Morgenstern, C. (2007). Germany. In A. Van Kalmthout, F. Hofstee-van der Meulen & F. Dünkel (Eds.), Foreigners in European Prisons (Vol. 1, pp. 343–390). Nijmegen: Wolf Legal Publishers.
Ellermann, A. (2005). Coercive capacity and the politics of implementation. Deportation in Germany and the United States. Comparative Political Studies, 38(10), 1219–1244.
Ellermann, A. (2008). The limits of unilateral migration control: Deportation and interstate cooperation. Government and Opposition, 32(2), 168–189.
Ericson, R. (2007). Crime in an insecure world. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Feely, M., & Simon, J. (1992). The new penology: Notes on the emerging strategy of corrections and its implications. Criminology, 30(4), 449–474.
Foucault, M. (1977). Discipline and punish: The birth of the prison. New York: Pantheon Books.
Garland, D. (1991). Sociological perspectives on punishment. Crime and Justice, 14, 115–165.
Garland, D. (2001). The culture of control: Crime and social order in contemporary society. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Gibney, M., & Hansen, R. (2003). Deportation and the liberal state: The forcible return of asylum seekers and unlawful migrants in Canada, Germany and the United Kingdom. New issues in refugee research, working paper no. 77. Geneva: UNHCR.
Hailbronner, K. (2007). Detention of asylum seekers. European Journal of Migration and Law, 9(2), 159–172.
Inda, J. (2006). Border prophylaxis. Technology, illegality and the government of immigration. Cultural Dynamics, 18(2), 115–138.
Immigration and Naturalization Service (IND) (2012). De IND belicht. Jaarresultaten 2011 [The IND illuminated. Annual Results 2011]. The Hague: Ministry of Security and Security.
International Organisation for Migration (IOM) (2008). Out of sight. Research into the living conditions and decision making process of irregular migrants in the main cities of The Netherlands, Germany and Austria. The Hague: IOM.
Jesuit Refugee Service (2005). Detention in Europe. Administrative detention of asylum-seekers and irregular migrants www.detention-in-europe.org. Brussels: Jesuit Refugee Service (JRS)—Europe.
Katz, M. (1986). In the shadow of the poorhouse: A social history of welfare in America. New York: Basic Books.
Kox, M. (2011). Leaving detention. A study on the influence of immigration detention on migrants’ decision-making processes regarding return. The Hague: IOM Netherlands.
Laagland, D., Van der Leun, J., Van der Mey, A., & Leerkes, A. (2009). ‘Het strafrecht als vicieus sluitstuk van het beleid ten aanzien van criminele vreemdelingen. Het sluimerende probleem van de niet-uitzetbare ongewenst verklaarde vreemdeling. Delikt en delinkwent, 39, 697–724.
Lee, M. (2007). Women’s imprisonment as a mechanism of migration control in Hong Kong. British Journal of Criminology, 47(6), 847–860.
Leerkes, A. (2009). Illegal residence and public safety in the Netherlands. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.
Leerkes, A., & Bernasco, W. (2010). The spatial concentration of illegal residence and neighborhood safety. Journal of Urban Affairs, 32(3), 367–392.
Leerkes, A., & Broeders, D. (2010). A question of mixed motives? Formal and informal functions of administrative immigration detention. British Journal of Criminology, 50(5), 830–850.
Leerkes, A., Engbersen, G., & van der Leun, J. (2012). Crime among irregular immigrants and the influence of internal border control. Crime, Law and Social Change,. doi:10.1007/s10611-012-9367-0.
Leerkes, A., Galloway, M., & Kromhout, M. (2011). Terug of niet? Determinanten van terugkeerintenties en -attitudes onder (bijna) uitgeprocedeerde asielmigranten. Mens & Maatschappij, 86(2), 122–156.
Leerkes, A., & Kulu-Glasgow, I. (2011). Playing hard(er) to get: The state, international couples and the income requirement. European Journal of Migration and Law, 13(1), 95121.
Levy, M. (1968). Structural-functional analysis. In D. Sills (Ed.), International encyclopedia of the social sciences (pp. 21–28). New York: The Macmillan Company & The Free Press.
Matthews, R. (2005) The myth of punitiveness. Theoretical Criminology 9(2), 175–201.
Merton, R. (1957). Manifest and Latent Functions. In Social theory and social structure (pp. 19-84). Glencoe, IL: The Free Press.
Minister voor Vreemdelingenzaken en Integratie (2003). Terugkeernota. Maatregelen voor een effectievere uitvoering van het terugkeerbeleid. TK, vergaderjaar 2003–2004, 29 344, nr.1.
Ministry of Justice. (2009). Rapportage Vreemdelingenketen, periode juli-december 2010. The Hague: Ministry of Justice.
Ministry of Domestic Affairs. (2011), Rapportage Vreemdelingenketen. Periode juli december 2010. The Hague: Ministry of Domestic Affairs.
Mommers, C., Velthuis, E., & Van Zadel, E. (2010). Leaving the Netherlands. Twenty years of voluntary return policy in the Netherlands (1989–2009). The Hague: IOM Netherlands.
Morris, N., & Rothman, D. (Eds.). (1998). The Oxford history of the prison: The practice of punishment in western society. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Noll, G. (1999). Rejected asylum seekers: The problem of return. International Migration, 37(1), 267–288.
Reiner, R. (2007). Law and order. An honest citizen’s guide to crime and control. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Rusinovic, K., Van der Leun, L., Chessa, T., Weltevrede, A., Engbersen, G., & Vos, J. (2002). Nieuwe vangnetten in de samenleving. Over problemen en dilemma’s in de opvang van kwetsbare groepen. Rotterdam: Erasmus University/RISBO.
Rychlak, R. (1990). Society’s moral right to punish: A further exploration of the denunciation theory of punishment. Tulane Law Review, 65, 299–324.
Sayad, A. (2004). The suffering of the immigrant. Cambridge: Polity.
Scalia, J. (2002). Immigration offenders in the federal criminal justice system, 2000. Washington, D.C.: US Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics.
Sykes, G. (1958). The society of captives. A study of a maximum security prison. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Tweede Kamer (2002). Vaststelling van de begrotingsstaat van het Ministerie van Justitie (VI) voor het jaar 2003. Kamerstuk 28600 VI. The Hague: Tweede Kamer.
Van Kalmthout, A. (2005). Vreemdelingenbewaring. In E. Muller & P. Vegter (Eds.), Detentie. Gevangen in Nederland (pp. 321–343). Kluwer: Alphen aan den Rijn.
Van Kalmthout, A. (2007). Het regiem van de vreemdelingenbewaring. Justitiële Verkenningen, 33(4), 89–102.
Van Kalmthout, A., & Van Leeuwen, K. (2004a). Terugkeermogelijkheden van vreemdelingen in de vreemdelingenbewaring. Deel 1: de vreemdelingenbewaring in Tilburg en Ter Apel; het dossieronderzoek. Nijmegen: Wolf Legal Publishers.
Van Kalmthout, A., & Van Leeuwen, K. (2004b). Terugkeermogelijkheden van vreemdelingen in vreemdelingenbewaring. Deel 2: Evaluatie terugkeerprojecten. Nijmegen: Wolf Legal Publishers.
Van Kalmthout, A., & Hofstee-van der Meulen, F. (2007). Netherlands. In A. Van Kalmthout, F. Hofstee-van der Meulen, & F. Dünkel (Eds.), Foreigners in European prisons (Vol. 2, pp. 623–660). Nijmegen: Wolf Legal Publishers.
Van Kalmthout, A., Hofstee-van der Meulen, F., & Dünkel, F. (2007). Comparative overview, conclusions and recommendations. In A. Van Kalmthout, F. Hofstee-van der Meulen, & F. Dünkel (Eds.), Foreigners in European prisons (Vol. 1, pp. 7–88). Nijmegen: Wolf Legal Publishers.
Van der Leun, J. (2003). Looking for loopholes. Processes of incorporation of illegal immigrants in the Netherlands. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.
Van der Leun, J. (2004). Lokale solidariteit met illegale migranten. In H. Entzinger & J. Van der Meer (Eds.), Grenzeloze solidariteit. Naar een migratiebestendige verzorgingsstaat (pp. 73–85). Amsterdam: De Balie.
Van der Welle, I., & Odé, And A. (2009). Omvang gemeentelijke noodopvang aan uitgeprocedeerde asielzoekers [Size of municipal relief for asylum seekers who have exhausted all legal remedies]. Amsterdam: Regioplan.
Wacquant, L. (1999). Suitable enemies. Foreigners and immigrants in the prisons of Europe. Punishment & Society, 1(2), 215–222.
Wagner, D. (2005). The poorhouse: America’s forgotten institution. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.
Walters, W. (2002). Deportation, expulsion, and the international police of aliens. Citizenship Studies, 6(3), 265–292.
Weber, L., & Bowling, B. (2004). Policing migration: A framework for investigating the regulation of global mobility. Policing & Society, 14(3), 195–212.
Welch, M., & Schuster, L. (2005). Detention of asylum seekers in the US, UK, France, Germany and Italy: A critical view of the globalizing culture of control. Criminal Justice, 5(4), 331–355.
Wijkhuijs, L., Galloway, M., Kromhout, M., Van der Welle, I., & Smit, M. (2012). Pardon? Evaluatie van de Regeling afwikkeling nalatenschap oude Vreemdelingenwet [Pardon? Assessment of the Regulation Settlement Legacy Old Aliens Law]. The Hague: WODC/Ministry of Security and Justice.
Acknowledgments
Arjen Leerkes is supported by a VENI research grant from The Netherlands Organization for Scientific Research (NWO).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2012 Springer Science+Business Media New York
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Leerkes, A., Broeders, D. (2012). Deportable and Not so Deportable: Formal and Informal Functions of Administrative Immigration Detention. In: Anderson, B., Gibney, M., Paoletti, E. (eds) The Social, Political and Historical Contours of Deportation. Immigrants and Minorities, Politics and Policy. Springer, New York, NY. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-5864-7_6
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-5864-7_6
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, New York, NY
Print ISBN: 978-1-4614-5863-0
Online ISBN: 978-1-4614-5864-7
eBook Packages: Humanities, Social Sciences and LawPolitical Science and International Studies (R0)