Advertisement

Deportable and Not so Deportable: Formal and Informal Functions of Administrative Immigration Detention

  • Arjen Leerkes
  • Dennis Broeders
Chapter
Part of the Immigrants and Minorities, Politics and Policy book series (IMPP)

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.

Keywords

Asylum Seeker International Social Survey Program Detention Centre Informal Function Immigration Detention 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Notes

Acknowledgments

Arjen Leerkes is supported by a VENI research grant from The Netherlands Organization for Scientific Research (NWO).

References

  1. ACVZ (2002). Vreemdelingen in bewaring. Advies over vreemdelingenbewaring en verwijdering van ‘criminele’ vreemdelingen. Den Haag: Adviescommissie voor Vreemdelingenzaken.Google Scholar
  2. Amnesty International. (2008). The Netherlands: The detention of irregular migrants and asylum-seekers. Amsterdam: Amnesty International.Google Scholar
  3. Amnesty International. (2009). Jailed without justice: Immigration detention in the USA. New York: Amnesty International.Google Scholar
  4. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bauman, Z. (1998). Globalisation. The human consequences. Cambridge: Polity.Google Scholar
  6. Blumer, H. (1954). What is wrong with social theory? American Sociological Review, 19(1), 3–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bosworth, M. (2007). Creating the responsible prisoner: Federal admission and orientation packs. Punishment & Society, 9, 67–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Broeders, D. (2007). The new digital borders of Europe EU databases and the surveillance of irregular migrants. International Sociology, 22, 71–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Broeders, D. (2009). Breaking down anonymity digital surveillance of irregular migrants in Germany and the Netherlands. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Broeders, D. (2010). Return to sender? Administrative detention of irregular migrants in Germany and the Netherlands. Punishment & Society, 12, 169–186.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Burke, A. (2008). Fear of security: Australia’s invasion anxiety. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Calavita, K. (2005). Immigrants at the margins. Law, race, and exclusion in southern Europe. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  13. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Cornellise, G. (2010). Immigration detention and human rights: Rethinking territorial sovereignty. Leiden: Martinus Nijhoff.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. De Giorgi, A. (2006). Re-thinking the political economy of punishment. Perspectives on post-fordism and penal politics. Aldershot: Ashgate Publishing.Google Scholar
  17. De Haas, H. (2005). International migration, remittances and development: Myths and facts. Third World Quarterly, 26(8), 1269–1284.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Den Hollander, R. (2004). Uitzetcentra: vreemdelingendetentie ter fine van verwijdering. Process, 4, 159–166.Google Scholar
  19. DJI. (2008a). Vreemdelingenbewaring in Nederland. Survey onder vreemdelingen naar het verblijf binnen de inrichting. DJI: The Hague.Google Scholar
  20. DJI. (2008b). Annual report 2007. The Hague: DJI.Google Scholar
  21. 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.Google Scholar
  22. Ellermann, A. (2005). Coercive capacity and the politics of implementation. Deportation in Germany and the United States. Comparative Political Studies, 38(10), 1219–1244.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Ellermann, A. (2008). The limits of unilateral migration control: Deportation and interstate cooperation. Government and Opposition, 32(2), 168–189.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Ericson, R. (2007). Crime in an insecure world. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  25. Feely, M., & Simon, J. (1992). The new penology: Notes on the emerging strategy of corrections and its implications. Criminology, 30(4), 449–474.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Foucault, M. (1977). Discipline and punish: The birth of the prison. New York: Pantheon Books.Google Scholar
  27. Garland, D. (1991). Sociological perspectives on punishment. Crime and Justice, 14, 115–165.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Garland, D. (2001). The culture of control: Crime and social order in contemporary society. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  29. 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.Google Scholar
  30. Hailbronner, K. (2007). Detention of asylum seekers. European Journal of Migration and Law, 9(2), 159–172.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Inda, J. (2006). Border prophylaxis. Technology, illegality and the government of immigration. Cultural Dynamics, 18(2), 115–138.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Immigration and Naturalization Service (IND) (2012). De IND belicht. Jaarresultaten 2011 [The IND illuminated. Annual Results 2011]. The Hague: Ministry of Security and Security.Google Scholar
  33. 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.Google Scholar
  34. 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.
  35. Katz, M. (1986). In the shadow of the poorhouse: A social history of welfare in America. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  36. Kox, M. (2011). Leaving detention. A study on the influence of immigration detention on migrants’ decision-making processes regarding return. The Hague: IOM Netherlands.Google Scholar
  37. 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.Google Scholar
  38. Lee, M. (2007). Women’s imprisonment as a mechanism of migration control in Hong Kong. British Journal of Criminology, 47(6), 847–860.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Leerkes, A. (2009). Illegal residence and public safety in the Netherlands. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Leerkes, A., & Bernasco, W. (2010). The spatial concentration of illegal residence and neighborhood safety. Journal of Urban Affairs, 32(3), 367–392.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 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.Google Scholar
  43. 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.Google Scholar
  44. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 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.Google Scholar
  46. Matthews, R. (2005) The myth of punitiveness. Theoretical Criminology 9(2), 175–201.Google Scholar
  47. Merton, R. (1957). Manifest and Latent Functions. In Social theory and social structure (pp. 19-84). Glencoe, IL: The Free Press.Google Scholar
  48. Minister voor Vreemdelingenzaken en Integratie (2003). Terugkeernota. Maatregelen voor een effectievere uitvoering van het terugkeerbeleid. TK, vergaderjaar 2003–2004, 29 344, nr.1.Google Scholar
  49. Ministry of Justice. (2009). Rapportage Vreemdelingenketen, periode juli-december 2010. The Hague: Ministry of Justice.Google Scholar
  50. Ministry of Domestic Affairs. (2011), Rapportage Vreemdelingenketen. Periode juli december 2010. The Hague: Ministry of Domestic Affairs.Google Scholar
  51. 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.Google Scholar
  52. Morris, N., & Rothman, D. (Eds.). (1998). The Oxford history of the prison: The practice of punishment in western society. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  53. Noll, G. (1999). Rejected asylum seekers: The problem of return. International Migration, 37(1), 267–288.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Reiner, R. (2007). Law and order. An honest citizen’s guide to crime and control. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  55. 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.Google Scholar
  56. Rychlak, R. (1990). Society’s moral right to punish: A further exploration of the denunciation theory of punishment. Tulane Law Review, 65, 299–324.Google Scholar
  57. Sayad, A. (2004). The suffering of the immigrant. Cambridge: Polity.Google Scholar
  58. Scalia, J. (2002). Immigration offenders in the federal criminal justice system, 2000. Washington, D.C.: US Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics.Google Scholar
  59. Sykes, G. (1958). The society of captives. A study of a maximum security prison. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  60. Tweede Kamer (2002). Vaststelling van de begrotingsstaat van het Ministerie van Justitie (VI) voor het jaar 2003. Kamerstuk 28600 VI. The Hague: Tweede Kamer.Google Scholar
  61. Van Kalmthout, A. (2005). Vreemdelingenbewaring. In E. Muller & P. Vegter (Eds.), Detentie. Gevangen in Nederland (pp. 321–343). Kluwer: Alphen aan den Rijn.Google Scholar
  62. Van Kalmthout, A. (2007). Het regiem van de vreemdelingenbewaring. Justitiële Verkenningen, 33(4), 89–102.Google Scholar
  63. 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.Google Scholar
  64. Van Kalmthout, A., & Van Leeuwen, K. (2004b). Terugkeermogelijkheden van vreemdelingen in vreemdelingenbewaring. Deel 2: Evaluatie terugkeerprojecten. Nijmegen: Wolf Legal Publishers.Google Scholar
  65. 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.Google Scholar
  66. 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.Google Scholar
  67. Van der Leun, J. (2003). Looking for loopholes. Processes of incorporation of illegal immigrants in the Netherlands. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. 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.Google Scholar
  69. 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.Google Scholar
  70. Wacquant, L. (1999). Suitable enemies. Foreigners and immigrants in the prisons of Europe. Punishment & Society, 1(2), 215–222.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Wagner, D. (2005). The poorhouse: America’s forgotten institution. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.Google Scholar
  72. Walters, W. (2002). Deportation, expulsion, and the international police of aliens. Citizenship Studies, 6(3), 265–292.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Weber, L., & Bowling, B. (2004). Policing migration: A framework for investigating the regulation of global mobility. Policing & Society, 14(3), 195–212.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. 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.Google Scholar
  75. 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.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Erasmus UniversityRotterdamThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations