Mastewal Bitew
May 11, 2021
This brief report compiles insights from webinar on Migrant Detention and Return, that was jointly organized by Global and Regional Civil Society Network. It was specifically organized by Migrant Forum in Asia (MFA), the Global Research Forum on Diaspora and Transnationalism (GRFDT), the Cross Regional Center for Refugees and Migrants (CCRM), the Civil Society Action Committee (CSAC), Alianza Americas, the Platform for International Cooperation on Undocumented Migrants (PICUM) and the Climate Migration and Displacement Platforms (CMDP).
The panel was moderated by Helena Olea, Associate Director for Programs, Alianza Americans. The panels were Marta Gionco, Advocacy Officer, Platform for International Cooperation on Undocumented Migrants (PICUM), Michael Flynn, Executive Director, Global Stention Project, Pablo Ceriani Cernadas, Coordinator, Migration and Asylum Program, Institute for Justice and Human Rights, National University of Lanùs (UNLA, Argentina), Sumitha Shaanthinni Kishna, Directorm our Journey, Wayne Ncube, National Director, Lawyers for Human Rights (LHR).
Helena highlighted that the normalization of detention and extradition of immigrants are taken as a standard policy solution of deterring the inflow of immigrants in the host countries. Thereby the host countries have deprived the liberty of immigrants irrespective of the immigrant’s social category as it is defining the current migration securitizations regimes. This time detention and extradition have been taken as a prior immigration deterrence strategy as well as a form of punishment to discourage irregular immigrants. In most countries, migrants in detention centres do not have the right to look for the attorney nor do they are claiming to be seen by the judges. Deportation has been also taken as a standard policy option taken by the host countries to deter the entrance of irregular immigrants to their legal territory. As a result, the deportees are experiencing psychological trauma and family separation as well as deprived the right of children to grow up with their biological families.
Having said that the moderator asked the panelists to share their experiences, facts on the ground and the way forward regarding to the status of detention and deportation of irregular migrants and migrants in general. Then, the first question went to Michael Flynn who is an Executive Director of Global Stention Project. He was asked about the possibilities and the strategies of global civil society advocacy against detention of migrants. Michael on his part acknowledged the existence of good things with regard to addressing immigration detention as well as the protection of human rights. He rightly said that “addressing immigration detention is a direct move towards a particular campaign which is about alternatives to detention”. He appreciated the fact that one side solution to the existent problem is not always effective given the complexity of the problem.
Michael also emphasized that “immigration detention is not merely an administrative procedure” as the case in Zambia where migrants are subjected to ill-treatments and other human violations when they are crossing the country’s territory. He also added that “the right of liberty as an inherent human right should be a global strategy that could potentially complement the detention of immigrants”. He recognized the importance of looking at the right of liberty in the context of each legal regime because there seems to be a handful of global approach to address the problems associated to immigration detention.
Michael proposed alternative frameworks in order to decide the best approach to address immigration detention. For that, he listed the specific questions that would suggest alternative frameworks for the management of immigrants in the host countries. The first question is that “does the country apply immigration detention measures? If it does, how does the country is taking the measures?” The second question is “does the country have the laws that prohibit to detain any specific group? Thirdly, he asked that “is the country emigration, transit or destination country?” Fourth, “does the country have time limit for immigration detention procedures? So that we could have a broader context about what we meant by immigration detention at a global level.
Helena also forwarded a question regarding to the situation and strategies of immigration detention in Malaysia to Sumitha. The panelist acknowledged the fact that detention of migrants started with the criminalization of labour migrations. Sumitha claimed that the advocacy which currently in use is not enough to challenge the government to decriminalization of migration in general. For this, she proposed that there must be a strategy to use the judiciary to challenge detention procedures by focusing on the bail remedies to unlock unlawful detention and challenge the obstacles that hinder the migrants to work in the country of destination. She exemplified her argument with the case of Nigerian migrant who married a Malaysian woman has been sentenced with death penalty who found to be drunk driving on March 15, 2021. However, with the help of Family Frontiers’ advocacy and assistance, his detention found to be unlawful.
Sumitha is of the view that numbers of migrants are unlawfully detained without seeing the judiciary for several months. Worrisomely, migrants spent longer time in jail because of the COVID-19 pandemic without appearing to the court. However, given the existent problems the migrants are facing, the case of the Nigerian national and other efforts paves the way forward to challenge the unlawful detentions.
Sumitha was also asked about how she is challenging the unlawful detention of labour migrants in Malaysia. She confirmed that foreign nationals in Malaysia is seen as a threat to national security regardless of the legal status of migrants. So, any measures taken by the government is considered as saving the country from foreign threats. In an attempt to convince the common people and the state apparatus, she said that “we have been working to ensure that all migrants are not a national threat”. She also added that “despite the immigration policy is so securitized, we are using available means to challenge the policy which is enforced against migrant workers”.
The same question also forwarded to Marta, Advocacy Officer, at PICUM. She was asked to elaborate the context of Europe regarding to returning migrants with regard to the no policy of return. Marta started her talk by mentioning the three draft proposals regarding to return directives at the EU level. The first return directive is being enforced since 2008 and it is recast in 2018 and given that issue is controversial, the parliament considers more than 700 amendments. The second reform is on the European Boarder and Coast Guard Agency (FRONTEX) and the reform is being done by increasing power and the numbers of tasks to be accomplished by the agency. The agency considers hiring more than 100, 000 staffs in 2027 and it is empowered to work on the voluntary returns as well as returnee counseling. The third reform is on EU asylum and migration which is VISA proposal that is published on September 2020 which is being discussed by the parliament and the council of the EU.
Marta said that the measures taken by FRONTEX found to be violating the fundamental human rights of the immigrants. The status of migrants is not also clearly known once they are returned to their country of origin as well as little research is conducted to know their situation. So, the return of migrants and asylum seekers is interpreted as the violation of fundamental human rights, no matter the return is voluntary or forced. The major challenge of the EU migration policy is that the increasing return is taken as part of the migration policy at the EU level as well. Th EU migration policy problem is also relied into the two binary migratory policy options. Migrants are forced to put into two categories whether their case is admissible for further admission procedures (deserving category) or subjected to deportation under the securitization of migration policy (underserving category).
Helena also asked Wayne, Director of LHR about the extent and status of detention in the South Africa context. He said that some of immigrants are detained for several days or months even without appearing them to the court which is against the legal procedures and principles of the country. Wayne said that one of the major activities they are doing is that challenging the systemic issues that the law is not enforced in light with the domestic legal rights which is enshrined in the document. As a result, it is confirmed that there is a significant reduction in terms of migrant detention and deportation and the incidence of the detention of vulnerable people is also significantly dropped since a couple of years. He said that due to the advocacy of the ministry of justice and other stake holders, the numbers of detained individuals are able to move to low-risk police centres and the numbers of unlawful detentions are also reduced significantly. However, it seems that the strategy created numbers of backlashes when it comes to undocumented migrants.
Wayne was also asked to share the strategies they are employing towards family unification and the impact of the returnees they are facing in their country of origin in the case of South Africa. He underlined that despite the decrease in the numbers of deportation cases in the last three years, there has been 1300 deportation cases since the outbreak of the pandemic. As a result, deportees are faced with persecution in countries like DRC (Democratic Republic of the Congo) in last three years. There also some reports that indicates over 13,000 migrants and potential asylum seekers are subjected to deportation onboard in the beginning of this year.
Mastewal Bitew is currently studying Joint Master program in ‘Transnational Migration’ in the Erasmus Mundus scholarship program in three European Universities since September 2019. He studied ‘migration and cultural diversity at Free Brussels University from the beginning of September 2019 to the end of January 2020. Given also that it is a joint master’s degree, He moved to the University of Wroclaw, Poland to specialize in ‘intercultural communication and mediation’ from mid of February 2020 to the end of June 2020. He also studied ‘International relations’ at the University of Szeged, Hungary beginning of September 2020 to the 20th January 2021. He is currently back in the University of Brussels to finish his internship obligation and writing thesis work. Twitter ID: @mastiman1abawa