Advertisement

Changing Practices Regarding the Implementation of Entry Bans in Belgian Migration Policy Since 1980

Chapter

Abstract

In this chapter, we will address the implications of the latest milestone in Belgian migration policy depicting the increasing political interest in managing irregular migration: the implementation of the Return Directive 2008/115/EC. Until 2012, irregular migrants had to represent ‘a threat to the public order or national security’ under the Foreigners Act of 1980 in order to be eligible for an entry ban (of 10 years). Whereas the number of entry bans remained relatively low over time, this relative leniency was more recently reversed and revived in numbers due to the implementation of the Return Directive 2008/115/EC in the Belgian Foreigners Act. As a result, under the umbrella of representing a “threat to the public order or national security,” the possibility to implement both short-term as well as long-term entry bans was eased up. Hence, the legal framework created on the European level gave the Belgian government the opportunity to meet the long-promised political but foremost symbolic goal of strengthening migration policy.

Keywords

Criminalization Entry ban Expulsion Irregular migration Return Directive Threat to the public order or national security 

References

  1. Act of 15 December 1980 on the entry, stay, settlement and expulsion of irregular migrantsGoogle Scholar
  2. Albrecht H-J (2002) Fortress Europe? Controlling illegal immigration. Eur J Crime Crim Law Crim Justice 10(1):1–22Google Scholar
  3. Aliverti A (2012) Exploring the function of criminal law in the policing of foreigners: the decision to prosecute immigration-related offences. Soc Leg Stud 21(4):511–527CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bergans K, Cruysberghs W et al (2010) Het verwijderingsbeleid. In: Foblets MC, Vanheule D (eds) Migratie- en migrantenrecht. Recente ontwikkelingen. Brugge, die Keure, pp 69–197Google Scholar
  5. Bigo D (2008) Globalized (In)Security: the field and the Ban-opticon. In: Bigo D, Tsoukala A (eds) Terror, insecurity and liberty. Illiberal practices of liberal regimes after 9/11. Routledge, Oxon/New York, pp 10–48Google Scholar
  6. Bouckaert S (2007) Documentloze vreemdelingen. Grondrechtenbescherming doorheen de Belgische en internationale rechtspraak vanaf 1985. Maklu, Antwerpen–ApeldoornGoogle Scholar
  7. Broeders D, Engbersen G (2007) The fight against illegal migration: identification policies and immigrants’ counterstrategies. Am Behav Sci 50(12):1592–1609CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Caestecker F (2010) Vluchtelingen en de transformatie van het vreemdelingenbeleid in België (1860–1914). Belgisch Tijdschrift voor Nieuwste Geschiedenis (3):345–381Google Scholar
  9. Clandestino Project (2009) Size and development of irregular migration to the EU. Counting the uncountable: data and trends across Europe. http://irregular-migration.net//typo3_upload/groups/31/4.Background_Information/4.2.Policy_Briefs_EN/ComparativePolicyBrief_SizeOfIrregularMigration_Clandestino_Nov09_2.pdf. Accessed 30 July 2014
  10. De Bock J (2008) De vreemdelingenwet van 28 maart 1952. “L’étranger doit être parfait”. BTNG/RBHC:159–200Google Scholar
  11. De Ceuster J (1982) De invulling van de blanco-term “openbare orde” in de verblijfsregeling: het huidige beleid. Tijdschrift voor Vreemdelingenrecht (20):105–112Google Scholar
  12. Ellerman A (2010) Undocumented migrants and resistance in the liberal state. Politics Soc 38(3):408–429CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Engbersen G, Broeders D (2011) Fortress Europe and the Dutch Donjon. Securitization, internal migration policy and irregular migrants’ counter moves. In: Truong TD, Gasper D (eds) Transnational migration and human security. The migration-development-security nexus. Springer, HeidelbergGoogle Scholar
  14. European Migration Network (2014) Good practices in the return and reintegration of irregular migrants: Member States’ entry bans policy and use of readmission agreements between Member States and third countries. http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/home-affairs/what-we-do/networks/european_migration_network/reports/docs/emn-studies/emn_study_reentry_bans_and_readmission_agreements_final_december_2014.pdf
  15. European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights (2011) Fundamental rights of migrants in an irregular situation in the European Union. Publications Office of the European Union, LuxembourgGoogle Scholar
  16. Fekete L (2011) Accelerated removals: the human cost of EU deportation policies. Race Class 52(4):89–97CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Foblets M-C, Van den Eeckhout V (1999) Migratiecontrole, sancties en dwangmaatregelen in het Belgische vreemdelingenrecht. Panopticon:420–457Google Scholar
  18. Herreman J, De Groot T (1967) De vreemdelingenreglementering. UGA, Kortrijk-HeuleGoogle Scholar
  19. Huysmans J (2000) The European Union and the securitization of migration. J Common Market Stud 38(5):751–777CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Leerkes A, Broeders D (2010) A case of mixed motives? Formal and informal functions of administrative immigration detention. Br J Criminol 50(5):830–850CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Migration Administration (2014) Activity report 2013. Migration Administration, BrusselGoogle Scholar
  22. Mitsilegas V (2013) The changing landscape of the criminalization of migration in Europe. In: Guia M, Van der Woude M, Van der Leun J (eds) Social control and justice: crimmigration in an age of fear. Eleven International Publishers, The HagueGoogle Scholar
  23. Van Der Leun J, De Ridder S (2013) Het cumulatief punitief karakter van het migratierecht. Orde van de dag. Criminaliteit en samenleving (61):29–36Google Scholar
  24. van der Woude MAH, van der Leun JP, Nijland J (2014) Crimmigration in the Netherlands. Law Soc Inq 39(3):560–579CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Weis K (2011) Gevangenisstraf voor negeren uitwijzingsbevel niet conform terugkeerrichtlijn. Juristenkrant 13(229):2Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of CriminologyVrije Universiteit BrusselBrusselBelgium
  2. 2.Research Group ‘Crime & Society’ (CRiS)BrusselBelgium
  3. 3.Department of Criminal LawInstitute of Criminal Law & Criminology at Leiden Law SchoolLeidenThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations