Belgium bans child immigration detention amidst broader legislation
New legislation is a step forward for the protection of children’s rights in Europe
BRUSSELS
Belgium has enacted a new law that prohibits child immigration detention, preventing the detention of children in closed centers. This positive move comes as part of a broader set of migration reforms that also include stricter measures on forced returns, family reunification and mandatory health testing.
The prohibition of child immigration detention in Belgium is a very positive step forward. The move aligns with international law, which clearly states that immigration detention is never in the best interest of the child and that it is a form of violence against children. The new law now ensures that children in Belgium, whether accompanied or alone, will not be subjected to the harmful and unnecessary experience of detention related to their immigration status.
But while the new law ends detention of children in closed centers, it still allows children to be kept in so-called ‘return houses’ — semi-closed facilities housing migrant families who are awaiting a decision on their asylum case, their removal from the country or voluntary return.
Belgium’s migration policy changes also contain problematic new measures. Alongside the ban on child detention, the reforms introduce policies aimed at increasing the rate of forcible deportations, curtailing family reunification and enforcing mandatory health testing.
While the ban on child detention is a very welcome step forward, these new measures are worrying, and risk infringing on the human rights of migrants and refugees. IDC and its members in Belgium will continue engaging with the government of Belgium to further improve protections for children and to develop alternatives to detention that safeguard all migrants and refugees.
A welcome development
IDC welcomes the ban on child detention and urges other countries to follow Belgium’s example. Executive Director, Carolina Gottardo, praised the move as a crucial step towards protecting children’s rights.
“Belgium has set a powerful example to other countries in Europe and beyond by ensuring that no child will face the trauma of detention due to their immigration status. This is a significant step forward in protecting the fundamental rights of children. It is even more powerful within the context of the new Migration and Asylum Pact, which increases the likelihood of child immigration detention.
“Belgium is going in the right direction while Europe is going backwards. We urge other countries to take immediate action to abolish child immigration detention and follow Belgium’s lead in upholding international human rights standards.
“Every child, everywhere, needs to be treated with dignity and respect.”
A global concern
The issue of child immigration detention is a pressing concern globally, with hundreds of thousands of children affected by immigration detention practices each year. Despite international condemnation, many countries still detain children, either alone or with their families, leading to significant psychological and developmental harm — and the practice is currently prevalent in Europe.
Belgium’s decision comes at a time when the European Union is preparing to implement its new Migration and Asylum Pact, a contentious new policy framework that will likely increase the use of detention — including child detention — across Europe.
IDC and other human rights organisations are calling on the EU to ensure that children’s rights are at the forefront of its migration policies, and that international human rights laws and standards are upheld. It is clear under international law that there is never any justification for child immigration detention. Belgium’s move to ban child detention is a positive development in the protection of children’s rights, setting a precedent for other nations.
As countries around the world grapple with migration policy, the call for humane and rights-based policies remains urgent. Belgium’s example shows that progress is possible, but also highlights the need for vigilance in ensuring that the fundamental human rights of all people are upheld, regardless of their immigration status.
Combatting xenophobia and creating social cohesion
Exploring the influence of media and public narratives on xenophobia, and the role of local authorities and education in combating xenophobia and fostering social cohesion.
In every region where IDC is present, we observe the crucial role public narratives play in shaping attitudes towards people on the move. Unfortunately, in most cases, we see how media and online platforms are weaponised to promote xenophobia and undermine cohesiveness. It is often the case that migration narratives are politicised and people on the move are used as scapegoats.
IDC, alongside our members and partners in Malaysia and Thailand have collectively identified that negative public perception, often amplified or shaped by negative media reporting, is a critical impediment to transformative change, as this can either incentivize or discourage governments in progressing reforms. For example, during COVID-19, heightened anti-refugee and migrant sentiment enabled the Malaysian government to take harsh action against these communities. Amidst a wave of xenophobia towards refugees and migrants, large-scale immigration arrests took place in 2020, including of women and children. Images of immigration raids in Malaysia in 2021 have sparked public criticism of lack of adherence to social distancing SOPs and the risk of creating further COVID-19 clusters. Soon after, the government introduced discriminatory policies prohibiting refugees from working in specific areas, or levying criminal and financial penalties on landlords who rent property to undocumented persons. In Thailand, online hate speech against Myanmar refugees and migrants was intensified as COVID-19 cases grew, with calls for the government to tighten enforcement of immigration rules and punish those in an irregular immigration status in Thailand.
Negative public sentiment also has the potential to jeopardize recent policy wins in Thailand and Malaysia (for example, the Thai 2019 intergovernmental MOU on ATD for children, the Thai National Screening Mechanism, and the Malaysian Cabinet approval of an ATD pilot); these are not embedded in legislation and can be reversed if political incentives to progress these are weakened. We have seen the impact that public sentiment and media reporting can have on government decisions in Thailand and Malaysia, for example the #SaveHakeem campaign in Thailand, and the increased call for an end to child immigration detention in Malaysia. We have also seen strong grassroots movements emerge in the form of the #migranjugamanusia campaign in Malaysia. These provide an important opportunity to consolidate learnings and test new strategies that would move beyond the traditional echo chambers in which many NGOs and refugee led organisations currently operate in Malaysia and Thailand.
IDC and Sidekick published a study on public perceptions on refugees and migrants in Thailand entitled The Study of Thai Public Perceptions towards Migrants and Refugees with interesting results in terms of what parts of the population hold positive or negative views in terms of migrants and refugees. The study found that the majority of the Thai public are not aware of refugee and migrant issues. However, many, specially mass media consumers, find comfort in shared experiences, especially shared hardship. Despite not knowing much about the issues, the stories of individual refugees and migrants inspired these consumer groups to not just learn more but to also want to share and engage others with the cause. Meanwhile, for those representing middle class and urban consumers (quality news media and online news magazine consumers), knowing more about the issue provokes even greater resentment. Negativity surrounds the topic and the existence of any form of migration worries them personally, physically and financially. However, the condition of the urban middle class matters more than its size. Their proximity to decisionmakers forces us to continue to find ways to engage and communicate with them. Existing communication and engagement methods used by advocacy groups, institutions and organisations have only managed to reach a handful of individuals thus far throughout the years in Thailand, and do not resonate with either the mass public or the urban middle class audience. Therefore, if a shift in perception and attitude towards migrants and refugees is to be achieved, new and creative approaches need to be developed to bring all groups and demographics closer to the plight of refugees and migrants.IDC is currently working with media and other outlets and with the Thai government in addressing these perceptions.
We observe interesting trends in Mexico. The pioneering work of Mexican civil society organizations and collectives, including IDC’s members and partners, has put a spotlight on institutional discrimination and racism that has also influenced public perceptions in many respects. For several years, racial profiling was permitted and documented in immigration apprehension, detention, and enforcement until civil society advocates exposed the abuse and deportation of Mexicans by immigration agents, and a campaign led by IMUMI in 2019 contributed to a Supreme Court ruling that declared the permissive provisions unconstitutional.
Furthermore, Mexico´s southern and northern borders have become points where communities such as Haitian and Venezuelan migrants and refugees, in particular, have often become stranded or more visible due to difficulties in accessing protection procedures and integrating in the local communities. In this respect, we see civil society organizations and collectives that have documented the discrimination and xenophobia experienced by Haitian migrants, the highest population of asylum seekers in Mexico – for several years – and in particular Haitian women – and the disproportionate impact this has on their ability to access protection and exercise their rights.
A 2021 report by IMUMI (Institute for Women in Migration) and the Black Alliance for Just Immigration showcases stories of resilience in the face of racial discrimination and violence in anti-black racism on migrants of African descent on Mexico’s southern border. It also highlights how racial bias creates widespread discrimination, racial violence, and diminished access to the resources that do exist for migrants, refugees, and asylum-seekers, as well as lack of recourse from state authorities in the face of racial violence from non-state actors.
In 2022 a collective that included Racismo Mx, Centro de Derechos Humanos Fray Matias de Cordoba, Haitian Bridge Alliance and other organizations, published a report on Haitian migration studied in the border cities of Tapachula and Tijuana with findings that expose the degree of racism and violence against this population and racial profiling practices that lead to destruction of documents and deportation. The report called for more integration support in local services such as education and health, and showed linkages between xenophobia and extreme marginalization of this migrant population.
Advocates have also identified evidence of media and public discourse that tends towards anti-immigrant narratives as having an impact on the implementation of policies and practices that respect and protect migrant and refugee rights. In 2023, 3 media outlets in Tapachula, Chiapas were monitored as part of a border detention site visit with legislators organized by the Migration Policy Working Group (Grupo de Trabajo sobre Política Migratoria), Action Group to End Detention of Refugees (Grupo de Acción Por la No Detención de Personas Refugiadas) and the Colectivo de Observación y Monitoreo de Derechos Humanos en el Sureste Mexicano. The findings showed not only the discrepancy in narrative depending on the perspectives considered by the media, but also highlighted the critical importance of directly hearing the voices of lived experience to further more balanced and factual reporting in complex border immigration contexts.
In Europe, in recent decades, migration has become one of the key topics in right-wing and conservative campaigns, creating a narrative that frames migration as a security concern. The way migration is represented in public discourse contributes to societies’ polarisation.
A recent MIDEM study showed respondents across Europe choosing “immigration” as the most divisive issue in their society. While some argue that immigration promotes diversity and tolerance, facilitates innovation, and compensates for labor shortages, others contend that it produces effects such as growing social competition, rising crime rates and an erosion of shared values. The conflicts accompanying such differences of opinion seem to be having a direct impact on social cohesion and on the political stability and future of the European Union. For example, the rise of far-right and right-wing populist movements in several European countries has been fuelled to a considerable extent by anti-migrant sentiment.
Tensions over migration have also strained relations between EU member states in recent years. Political scientist Cas Mudde points out that this change of narrative is fairly recent. He points out that in the 1990s, discourse on Balkan migrants was mainly focused on logistics: how to accommodate many people coming within a short period. Overall Europeans saw refugees as vulnerable and in need of protection. He points that since then and especially in the wake of 2015 refugee arrivals, the media has adopted narratives that favour the far right, leading to these narratives taking over and becoming mainstream. Mass migration of Ukrainians to the EU gave rise to solidarity and support narratives initially, however as time passed, divisive narratives emerged in host societies that highlighted the cost in public money of hosting refugees and blamed them for local structural problems or even for imagined problems. For instance, studies in Poland uncovered a series of social media campaigns financed by Russia’s proxies where Ukrainian refugees were falsely accused of burglaries, assaults, and rapes. Similar cases were observed in Germany. Divisive narratives fuelling hate and preventing social cohesion do not always come from external actors. For instance, in Romania, the domestic right-wing party AUR is behind online xenophobic and hate-inflicting campaigns against Ukrainian refugees. Despite these campaigns, it seems that attitudes to Ukrainian refugees in Europe are still much more positive than toward other groups of refugees. A survey conducted by ECFR in 12 EU countries showed that while only 9% of respondents see Ukrainians as a major threat, refugees from the Middle East are seen as a major threat by 34%, and refugees from Africa are seen as a major threat by 27% of the population.
Civil society and the donor community have identified right-wing interventions in the narrative space as a problem and made several efforts to address that problem through training on disinformation, fact-checking, by developing toolkits for discussing migration, research projects, and by artistic and cultural interventions. It does not seem, however, that these efforts have had a significant impact on the narrative space, where conservative voices who see migration as a threat dominate and shape national and EU-level policies. We know, however, that civil society-led efforts to shift narratives can be effective. For instance, America’s Voice, a coalition of pro-immigrant movements in the US, states that 14 years of work led to a 25% increase in public support for migration.
The Migration Communication Campaign Database of the EUI Migration Policy Center includes 300 campaigns conducted during the last 10 years in Europe and shows that the number of campaigns has grown substantially over the past three years. Most of the campaigns (one-third) are implemented by civil society. It seems, however, that most of the campaigns are too small in scale, or too short in duration (or both) to make a real impact. Another limiting factor is that the campaigns do not seem to be based on research findings. While the evidence shows that sadness is not the emotion to appeal to when discussing migration, most campaigns focus on exactly that.
A comparison of America’s Voice’s effective campaign and less impactful campaigns in Europe shows the following differences:
· Campaign duration (14+ years in the US versus 6 months to 1 year campaigns in the EU).
· The comprehensive nature of the campaign where the public communication strategy is aligned with community organizing and movement building.
Another conclusion that one could draw from looking at public communications related to migration is that when civil society or state actors design strategies to fight xenophobia and proactively fight for positive narratives on migration, they often lack the resources to address the issue comprehensively. While many governmental actors in Europe choose to use xenophobic language towards migrants in the hope of attracting voters, those who choose to do otherwise are overwhelmed by the task. IDC’s contacts with the government of Romania, while reflecting on the complexity of the perception of Ukrainian immigration in the country, mentioned that the government thought that the issue was so dangerous and explosive that the decision was made not to comment and not to inform the public on the details of the policy. IDC members in Italy have also observed that the opposition to the Meloni government while being pro-migrant and willing to combat xenophobia and racism, communicates on the subject in a manner that alienates supporters. Additionally, IDC’s contacts with other governments through advocacy efforts shows that in some cases governments have lost control on public narratives on specific issues related with migration (eg unwanted links between migration and crime) and have tended to respond with more hostile policies, even when knowing that these are ineffective. We have more information on this available.
Role of local governments
As the level closest to the citizens, local government is, in principle, in a much better position than the central government to deal with matters that require local knowledge and regulation on the basis of local needs and priorities such programs that integrate migrants and host communities. In Kenya, the Turkana County Government (local government), the national government, and UN entities developed the Kalobeyei Integrated Socio-Economic Development Plan (KISDEP), a framework and tool to manage over 180,000 refugees (40% of the population of Turkana West) in a manner that benefits refugees and the host community.
Local governments can adopt laws and policies within their mandate to prevent and eradicate xenophobia. Specialized capacities can be developed through targeted programmes, which can include training, awareness-raising and learning activities, and the provision of guidance tools for State Officials on addressing and eradicating xenophobia and its impact on the rights of migrants and their families, and other non-citizens affected by racial discrimination. In Zimbabwe, the Department of Local Governance Studies at Midland State University has introduced a new course on human rights and local governance in their curriculum with the support of the Raoul Wallenberg Institute of Human Rights and Humanitarian Law. Through its technical assistance and capacity-building mandate, OHCHR has supported the strengthening of the capacities of local government officials, including in Madagascar, Tunisia and Uganda.
Another interesting example are the holistic initiatives developed by local authorities in Colombia in light of growing xenophobia against Venezuelans. Two efforts that can be highlighted are the inclusion campaigns and communication messages developed in the cities of Bogota and Barranquilla.
Within their local competencies, local governments should ensure meaningful and inclusive participation of migrants in local decision-making processes, ensure that the right to vote and be elected can be enjoyed without discrimination and ensure equal access to public service, so that institutions can be inclusive and representative of the diversity of the local population. That is critical for ensuring that the needs of those at risk of being left behind are taken into account. In that context, local governments have been developing many innovative practices such as in Mauritius and South Africa, where legislation regulating local elections sets quotas to ensure women’s representation.
Addressing xenophobia in the field of education
Addressing xenophobia in education is essential for cultivating inclusive and cohesive societies. Educational institutions play a pivotal role, requiring a multifaceted approach to both eradicate existing xenophobic attitudes and prevent such attitudes in future generations. Different educative materials and curricula adopted in national school systems are still disseminating racist knowledge that indirectly normalizes xenophobic behaviour and attitudes in the minds of children.
To eradicate xenophobia at schools, it is crucial to revisit the current curriculums and develop an inclusive curriculum that reflects the history, contributions, and experiences of diverse cultures and ethnic groups. This integration helps students appreciate the value of diversity. Furthermore, fostering critical thinking and media literacy is vital, empowering students to assess information critically and resist xenophobic rhetoric. Adding content about the importance and the positive impact of migration and the historical reality of migratory society throughout human civilisation, could be among the critical tools to change negative perceptions of migrants and limit the scope for xenophobic attitudes towards migrants and refugees.
Professional development for educators is also key. Schools should offer regular training in cultural competence, conflict resolution, and anti-bias teaching methods. Supporting educators with resources and community-building opportunities enhances their ability to address xenophobia effectively. School policies should strongly support anti-discrimination, with clear, well-communicated rules protecting all students. Indeed, including migrant children in national public school systems and providing a space for national majority and migrant children to interact should be adopted as way to reinforce cultural richness and promote social coexistence while supporting the presence of the migrant communities in the community setting.
Digital technology, detention and alternatives
The use of technology in immigration detention and alternatives to immigration detention could lead to the erosion of migrants and refugees’ human rights, or it could enable greater freedom and dignity. Originally published in Forced Migration Review, this article explores the complexities of this issue.
The use of technology in immigration detention and alternatives to immigration detention could lead to the erosion of migrants and refugees’ human rights, or it could enable greater freedom and dignity. This article explores the complexities of this issue.
Whether we like it or not, when it comes to migration governance, digital technology is here to stay. From customer service portals to collection of biometric data, forecasting models to face recognition tools, use of algorithms for decision making to use of technologies in border management, over the past two decades governments across the world have increasingly used such technologies in the conception and design of their migration systems and as a migration governance tool. The COVID-19 pandemic further accelerated this trend.
Yet, these types of technology are never neutral. There is no such thing as a technical ‘fix’ to complex and multifaceted challenges, and efforts by some to portray digital technology as the solution to human bias are, at best naïve and at worst dangerous. Employing Artificial Intelligence (AI) and digital technology is a political choice. But the people making decisions over these technologies rarely experience their impacts themselves. People on the move, as well as their families and communities, often in vulnerable situations, are finding themselves at the ‘sharp edges’ of policies and practices over which they have no control and little to no agency in shaping.
Technology and (alternatives to) immigration detention
The use of technology in immigration detention and alternatives to immigration detention (ATD) has been less explored than the use of technologies in border management situations, but there are many examples of technologies being introduced. For instance, ‘Smart Prisons’ are now being adopted in the context of immigration detention in different regions of the world. Meanwhile, technologies such as electronic tagging and monitoring, and facial and voice recognition, are being used or explored by a growing number of governments, ostensibly as part of their efforts to move away from the widespread use of immigration detention. While this may seem like progress, these trends raise serious concerns for the International Detention Coalition (IDC) and other organisations advocating for an end to immigration detention.
Information surrounding the use of tech in ATD – and its impacts on people – is largely confined to data from a few key countries (namely Canada, the UK and the USA). However, we know that an increasing number of governments are contemplating employing such tech, if not already actively using it. In the European Union, for instance, Denmark, Hungary, Luxembourg and Portugal have all established the use of electronic tagging in law or administrative regulations. Türkiye, meanwhile, has included electronic monitoring on a list of authorised ATD included within amendments to the Law on Foreigners and International Protection made in 2019 (but yet to be implemented). At the end of 2023, Australia passed laws that will place strict curfews and ankle monitoring devices on dozens of people seeking asylum who were released from immigration detention following a High Court ruling that indefinite detention was unlawful.
IDC members across the world, working with communities and people affected by detention or at risk of detention, are increasingly expressing concerns about the use of such technologies in the immigration detention space. People at risk of immigration detention are particularly vulnerable to the misuse of digital technology, and they have little ability to assert their rights or to access justice if technology is abused.
In response to these growing concerns and trends, International Detention Coalition (IDC) has launched a new work stream focused specifically on the use of digital technology in immigration detention and ATD. Currently, we aim to examine the multifaceted impact of these technologies on individuals’ lives, well-being and futures to ensure our advocacy is driven by the experiences and insights of IDC members, particularly leaders with lived experience of detention and community organisers. Through this work stream, we aspire to identify how the indiscriminate use of technology can potentially harm people on the move, and to explore if and how it can contribute to positive and meaningful engagement. This article outlines the components of this work and the themes that have emerged.
Alternative forms of detention and de facto detention
Research to date has focused on how states have used digital technology to further restrict people’s liberties, undermine their human rights and increase surveillance and enforcement. This has been labelled ‘techno-carcerality’ in the context of the Canadian government’s ATD programme, and represents “the shift from traditional modes of confinement to less traditional ones, grounded in mobile, electronic, and digital technology.” A report on the Intensive Supervision Appearance Programme (ISAP) in the USA stated that its electronic monitoring components amount to “digital detention.”
IDC considers the use of electronic tagging and monitoring as an alternative form of detention rather than an alternative to detention (ATD). Alternative forms of detention – which are de facto deprivation of liberty, are simply detention by another name – there is potential for the term ATD to be co-opted and used as a smokescreen for such initiatives. Regarding electronic tagging, a recent IDC report states:
“[electronic tagging] substantially curtails (and sometimes completely denies) liberty and freedom of movement, leading to de facto detention. It is often used in the context of criminal law and has been shown to have considerable negative impacts on people’s mental and physical health, leading to discrimination and stigmatisation.”
More broadly, electronic monitoring devices pose a threat to personal liberty because of heightened surveillance and indiscriminate data collection. They have connotations of criminalisation, both for the individual mandated to wear the device and for the community that sees the device. We know, too, from research and accounts from our members, that voice and facial recognition technologies have questionable accuracy, especially for communities that experience racial discrimination. This can lead to mistakes that have serious and irreversible consequences – including detention, deportation, and the separation of families and loved ones.
The applications of new technologies are emerging at an alarming rate, with limited analysis available on the ethical, logistical and broader social and individual impacts. Questions around privacy, human rights, dignity, bias, and whether existing legal frameworks apply to decisions taken by AI need to be addressed to manage potential risks. Alongside risks, there may also be opportunities for migrants to use digital technology in a way that benefits them or to use digital technology to advance their rights.
Tech as a way to improve engagement?
IDC has noted anecdotal reports that the use of digital technology in ATD can have some benefits for people on the move. One example is the shift in the UK from in-person reporting to telephone reporting. This approach was originally tested during the COVID 19 pandemic and then adopted on a more permanent basis following sustained advocacy from campaign groups. Those affected have told IDC that this shift has helped ease in-person reporting requirements that were onerous, expensive and disruptive to their livelihoods and schooling. Moreover, places such as police stations and reporting centres often cause people increased anxiety that they will be re-detained. Limited physical contact with such places is likely to have a positive impact on mental health and wellbeing.
Of course, as one of the groups campaigning for this change stated, “Telephone reporting itself could be equally burdensome if implemented without care.” It is essential that people are provided with the means to report in this way (for instance, with support to buy a telephone and credit), and that the consequences for missing a call are not harsh. Otherwise, this type of reporting can have negative impacts on people. Moreover, whilst the use of phones is a relatively rudimentary form of technology, it is important that tools such as voice or face recognition are avoided for the reliability reasons mentioned above.
Lived experience of tech-based ‘ATD’
IDC’s main impetus for launching its new work stream on technology, immigration detention and ATD has come from our members across the world and, in particular, the experiences and insights of leaders with lived experience of displacement and community organisers on the ground. Through this work stream, we hope to explore the impact that this technology is having on people’s lives, wellbeing and futures. Since our founding almost 15 years ago, IDC has been advocating for rights-based alternatives to detention. Crucially, we want to ensure that people on the move have the agency and the ability to meaningfully engage with migration governance systems and that their rights and dignity are upheld.
We hope to understand not only how tech can be harmful to people on the move, but also if and how it can help to increase positive, dignified and meaningful engagement. This will help IDC to better assess how to partner with others to push back on certain types of technologies and also where innovations might open up opportunities for people with lived experience of detention, or at risk of detention, in terms of improvements to services, information provision, communication and more effective implementation of community-based ATD. This will include looking at the impact of digital technology through an intersectional lens and in a gender responsive manner, understanding that people’s diverse and intersecting identities mean that their experiences of such technologies vary greatly.
Accountability and due process
The question of accountability – and the distinct but related issue of due process – is one that we are hoping to explore through this programme of work. Where restrictions are imposed, including those linked to digital technology, these should be subject to rigorous review and include the right to appeal.
When technology is used to increase people’s freedom of movement and ability to access information, as well as to increase their agency and support their empowerment, it has the potential to uphold key human rights and standards and to increase wellbeing. However, when the primary purpose of digital technology is to expand surveillance and enforcement-based monitoring, it has the opposite effect and leads to the curtailment of rights and freedoms. Unfortunately, given the increasing tendency of many states across the world to adopt migration governance systems based on criminalisation, coercion, control and deterrence, their growing use of technologies without a rights-based risk assessment could exacerbate the already restrictive, harmful and opaque nature of these systems.
Conclusion and next steps
As we navigate the intricate landscape of technology’s role in immigration detention and Alternatives to Detention (ATD), the opportunities for positive change and informed decision-making are both evident and pressing. We are exploring the possibility of conducting further collaborative research with partners like the University of New South Wales Kaldor Center. Opportunities like this will allow for further insights and case studies to be examined, ensuring an evidence base of promising best practice policy recommendations. Our ambition is that, by getting to grips with this issue, we can support the growing movement to ensure that the use of technology in the immigration detention and ATD space does not lead to further criminalisation and the erosion of human rights and dignity for communities of migrants, refugees and people seeking asylum.
More research is needed to build a comprehensive understanding of the impact of digital technology in immigration governance. By exploring the experiences and perspectives of individuals across different regions, we can ensure that our insights are nuanced and reflective of the diverse intersections of identity that shape these experiences.
While international and regional legal frameworks and safeguards are imperative, the most meaningful and impactful change often takes place at the national level. Establishing robust national legal frameworks is therefore essential to safeguard the rights of those affected and at risk of detention and ensure accountability in the implementation of technology in immigration detention and ATD.
Looking forward, the potential positive outcomes of digital technology in ATD can be realised through a conscientious and rights-focused approach. By incorporating technology into migration governance systems with a steadfast commitment to justice, fairness, intersectional approaches and the protection of human rights, we can pave the way for more compassionate and effective practices.[1]
[1] IDC would encourage anyone interested in collaborating on this work stream to get in touch with us; we look forward to connecting with others on this crucial issue.
Alternatives to detention in transit migration contexts
In Mexico, just one year after the publication of the General Law on the Rights of Children and Adolescents (2014), IDC promoted a pilot program that saw the release of unaccompanied children and adolescents who were deprived of their liberty in immigration detention centres and their reception and care in community-based civil society programs. In collaboration with the National Migration Institute and the organizations Casa Alianza and Aldeas Infantiles, this experience was pioneering as a strategy to shift perspectives and open possibilities for structural change. It provided evidence to strengthen the advocacy that later, in 2020, enabled legislative reform of the Migration Law to prohibit the detention of children and adolescents for migration-related reasons. This is particularly important considering that Mexico is a country that traditionally receives transit migration.
IDC has found that there is evidence from other countries in the world where they have implemented alternative to detention (ATD) measures aimed at various populations -such as women, families or refugees-, in migration contexts commonly referred to as "transit" or that could be applied in contexts with these characteristics. Regardless of the political category assigned to the migratory context (transit or destination), IDC promotes the adoption of ATD in response to international commitments to move towards ending immigration detention. To this end, IDC acknowledges and promotes the efforts of governments and civil society to build migration governance systems that guarantee dignity and human rights.
"Most critically, immigration detention has detrimental effects on individuals, communities and entire societies."
Why is it important to systematise and share good practices of ATD around the world?
While there has been progress in adopting ATD around the world, immigration detention continues to be a widespread response to international migration, not only in Mexico, but in other countries as well. Disseminating the actions that governments can take in a manner that respects human rights, while strengthening community participation and contributing to transparency and efficiency in the use of public resources, is a task that seeks to inspire stakeholders in charge of protecting the rights of people on the move.
Although there are specific challenges and common questions about the application of ATD in contexts with "transit migration", IDC has worked on research that helps to clarify concepts, myths, arguments and experiences in order to provide useful elements to advance its implementation in these contexts. On the one hand, it allows us to break down some key concepts (such as "transit migration" itself) as well as the factors that encourage the use of immigration detention. In addition, it provides answers to the main questions related to the application of ATDs in contexts with "transit migration" and some considerations on how and when ATDs can be useful as a strategy for those who work in advocacy and design or operation of public policies that prioritise freedom.
To this end, IDC has explored experiences in Australia, Bulgaria, Cyprus, Egypt, France, Greece, Jordan, Libya, Malaysia, Mexico, Poland, Switzerland and Thailand and systematized the most relevant ones.
To learn more:
We invite you to read our publication Alternatives to Immigration Detention in Transit Migration Contexts for more practical examples and recent developments in the field of ATD, in order to highlight promising practices and encourage further progress in this area.
Immigration detention as an exceptional measure of last resort
Since the adoption of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in 1948, the right to personal liberty has been taken up in various international treaties. This right is one of the main frameworks for addressing the arbitrary detention of people on the move.
As part of migration management, governments around the world carry out various actions as part of state policy, one of which is detention.
IDC has documented the various detrimental effects of immigration detention, including the criminalisation of migrants (including those in need of international protection), psychosocial effects on individuals and their communities, human rights violations, as well as high costs to governments.
"Irregular migration is not a choice of the people, but a consequence of the policies and actions of the state.”
Therefore, international standards support the elimination of immigration detention, and one of the strategies to achieve this is to limit its application only as an exceptional measure of last resort. This principle has been taken up in various countries and is enshrined in their legal frameworks; however, there are several challenges in its implementation.
How can the principle of last resort for immigration detention be applied?
In order to ensure that states gradually eliminate and put a complete end to the use of immigration detention, there are some key advocacy actions that can be taken up by legislative actors, public officials or civil society organisations themselves.
Several international instruments prohibit immigration detention for various groups, such as children and adolescents, asylum seekers or people in vulnerable situations, such as pregnant women, nursing mothers, elderly people, people with disabilities, LGBTQI people, or survivors of human trafficking, torture and other serious violent crimes.
In the Global Compact for Safe, Orderly and Regular Migration, States have committed to prioritise non-custodial alternatives consistent with international law, and to adopt a human rights-based approach to any detention of migrants, where detention is only used as a last resort.
The exceptionality of detention must be based on an individual and context-specific assessment, an analysis of all options, and the decision to opt for detention must be lawful and demonstrate a legitimate aim.
Based on the experiences of its members and partners, IDC set out to compile promising practices in the application of the principle of last resort around the world, including examples of national legislation and its possible effect on the use of detention as an immigration control measure.
Find out more:
We invite you to read our briefing paper – Immigration Detention as an Exceptional Measure of Last Resort – to learn more about the international standards in which the principle of last resort is raised, as well as some promising practices, in order to encourage further progress on this issue.
An interview with IDC's Carolina Gottardo
This interview was first published by the European Programme for Integration and Migration (EPIM)
In this Civil Society Spotlight interview, we hear from Carolina Gottardo, the Executive Director of International Detention Coalition (IDC). Carolina guides the global network of 275+ organisations, individuals, and community members from around the world to advocate for the human rights of those affected by immigration detention. Through strategic collaboration with civil society, UN agencies, and governments at various levels worldwide, IDC works to build movements and shape legal, policy, and procedural changes aimed at reducing and ultimately ending immigration detention and promoting rights-based alternatives globally.
Carolina is a migrant lawyer and economist with over 20 years of human rights experience specialising in migration, asylum, and gender. Carolina has previously held leadership roles at the Jesuit Refugee Service Australia and Latin American Women’s Rights Service, among others.
EPIM has supported IDC’s work with the European Alternatives to Detention (ATD) Network, which brings together NGOs running case management-based alternatives to detention pilot projects in seven European countries (Belgium, Bulgaria, Cyprus, Greece, Italy, Poland, and the UK) with regional-level and international organisations.
1. Can you tell us about IDC’s scope of work and how it has evolved since you started working in the organisation in 2020?
IDC is a global network with members in more than 75 countries that advocates for the rights of migrants, refugees and people seeking asylum, aiming to reduce and ultimately end immigration detention and implement rights-based, non-custodial alternatives to detention.
IDC approaches ATD as a systems change strategy working towards ending immigration detention while building migration governance systems that ensure dignity and human rights for people on the move in the community and out of immigration detention. In partnership with civil society, UN agencies, and multiple levels of government, we strategically build movements, and influence law, policy, and practices, putting the voice of people with lived experience at the centre.
Over the last few years, IDC’s mission has evolved from initially aiming to reduce immigration detention to ending immigration detention. We have also fine-tuned our approach to alternatives to detention as systems change strategy for migration governance systems that do not involve the use of immigration detention.
2. Over the past years leading the European ATD network, can you talk about some of the major wins for the network?
The ATD pilots and initiatives coupled with the advocacy around these at national and regional levels, have resulted in several impactful developments.
These have included: formal government-civil society partnerships established to provide case management based ATD; the development of institutional capacity for ATD in government departments; the establishment of working relationships with government departments and local authorities, the development of evidence-based evaluations on the impact of the ATD pilots, as well as increased awareness and expertise among government institutions, parliamentarians and increased interest and understanding in ATD among local NGOs, academia and the media.
For example, the Association for Legal Intervention (SIP) in Poland signed an MOU with authorities whereby people with specific vulnerabilities who are at risk of detention would be referred to their pilot instead of being put in detention.
In Cyprus, The Cyprus Refugee Council established an unofficial partnership with the national migration department allowing people were released into their ATD pilot. This also later led to the appointment of a dedicated ATD officer.
In Belgium, the Immigration department begun the deployment of Individual Case Management coaches to support undocumented people to resolve their cases in the community with JRS Belgium.
CLA in Bulgaria is working with the national government on ATD programmes and local authorities in Italy, including Rome and Torino, are working closely with CILD, Progetto Diritti and Mosaico on ATD implementation.
3. One of the criticisms we hear about ATD, is that there the political atmosphere currently is not conducive to them – is that true? What then has the work achieved? And is there a future for ATD in Europe?
While the political climate indeed poses challenges for ATD, it is not novel, and the atmosphere has never been straightforward to navigate.
In addition to recent restrictive policies and criminalization trends nationally, the EU Pact on Migration and Asylum is likely to lead to a concerning increase in the detention of migrants, including children and families.
Some governments across the political spectrum recognise that immigration detention is not an effective solution to migration management and does little to support case resolution or deter those hoping to make the journey to Europe. There is evident enthusiasm from some states on ATD, which is clear from the rise in promising practices in European countries and the increased visibility of detention and ATD in a number of international fora. There is also a global momentum on ending child immigration detention that needs to be advanced, and potential opportunities for ATD implementation at national levels despite the forthcoming Pact. Peer learning approaches and the exchange of promising practices have also attracted the attention of states, with some such as Portugal, willing to function as ATD “champions” and connect national, regional, and global efforts.
4. What have IDC and the pilot partners learnt about relationship building over these past years? How does this support advocacy for a long-term end to detention?
Relationship building has been an essential component of the pilots’ success and the effective advocacy of the network.
The development of working relationships and informal agreements with relevant national and local authorities have been successes by themselves and have also led to increased awareness, knowledge and understanding of ATD and some authorities have incorporated and implemented the concept at the government level.
Establishing formal agreements with governments has been particularly important when it comes to scaling up case management-based approaches. The resources required to lead to meaningful and long-term change in migration governance systems are far greater than those that can be provided by civil society alone, and partnerships and multi-stakeholder governance on migration are key to addressing this gap.
In addition to the importance of collaborating with authorities, and seeing the more significant impact it can have, we have learnt that through forming partnerships with like-minded organisations, the Network can extend its advocacy efforts and facilitate change on a larger scale. Expanding partnerships beyond migration-oriented civil society organisations and beyond civil society is important, such as collaborating with local authorities. This can lead to dialogue with policymakers and can allow for case management-based approaches to emerge in other contexts.
5. In terms of migration and integration in Europe today, what change do you see that makes you the most hopeful?
It is challenging to be hopeful when witnessing the increased criminalization of migration and the new Asylum and Migration Pact.
That said, recent regularization programmes like the one in Ireland, or the framing of migration and regularisation in Portugal have been a positive development and recent progress on ATD that focuses on solutions, including government-civil society collaboration are interesting.
The response to the situation in Ukraine has been hopeful, clearly illustrating that coordinated responses, not based on criminalization, could work when there is political will. Additionally, the work of local authorities in different cities across Europe that are championing welcome and integration for people on the move, also gives us hope. Another promising area is joining national, regional, and global efforts and increasing peer learning opportunities to share promising practices.
Other interesting developments include the increased momentum on lived experience leadership and the enhanced solidarity of global civil society working on migration in a more intersectional manner.
6. Knowing what you know now, what would you advise practitioners entering the field today?
After over two decades of working on advocacy issues on human rights, migration, and gender and being a very motivated and idealistic person to begin with, these are my takeaways:
You are there for the long haul. Systemic change does not happen overnight and requires time, tactical approaches, and different actors. Systemic change is not linear either.
Do not lose hope. Sometimes advocacy work could be a thankless effort, particularly in such a politicised issue such as migration. However, migrant rights practitioners and advocates have a key role to play.
Social change is a collective effort requiring multiple actors working at various levels and changing tactics according to different contexts. You cannot achieve change by yourself, but you can put in your grain of sand towards social change and rights-based approaches, and your efforts certainly matter.
The work of civil society is crucial for pursuing change through migration-related advocacy. However, limited funding is one of the main challenges that limits civil society efforts and impact. Additional resources for this work are essential and we need to be creative about fundraising.
Focus on solutions and not only problems. This is an effective way of engaging with decision makers and presenting palatable ways to move ahead. I have found it helpful to go beyond criticism, although denouncing and criticism also have an essential role to play.
-Effective advocacy efforts require different tactics, and there is room for insider and outsider advocacy, lobbying, campaigning, strategic litigation, and movement building. The challenges we face with the criminalization of migration are significant, and these approaches complement each other. Every organization can build on their strengths and work closely with others.
7. What have you unlearned since working with IDC?
To think differently about engagement and to leave stereotypes behind.
I have worked with civil society for over two decades in different countries and contexts. The work with IDC has been one of the most impactful I have been involved with because it is focused on solutions-based approaches.
This implies getting out of traditional ways of thinking and stereotypes and working hand in hand with others, including government officials at various levels and other stakeholders.
Governments are complex entities made of distinct levels and different departments. They do not all think the same, so understanding closely how they operate is critical. Often, as part of civil society, we sometimes oversimplify governments. However, many champions within governments could be allies for the change we want to make. Even if the aspirations are different, common ground could be sought. We need to scale up our efforts and increase our impact. Negative or fixed stereotypes do not help us to achieve this.
One of the most important aspects of working with IDC has been exploring diverse ways of working and thinking outside-the-box. Collaborating with the right allies both within and outside of governments could help us to advance our cause, of course always ensuring that there is no risk of co-option, and that the promotion of migrants’ rights is always at the very heart of all our efforts.
Psychosocial Impacts of Immigration Detention
For decades, civil society organisations and human rights defenders have denounced the poor conditions of immigration detention spaces and how they foster human rights violations against people in contexts of mobility in Mexico and the United States.
In recent years, it has been increasingly recognised how important it is to focus conversations on this issue on affected people themselves, especially on the consequences that deprivation of liberty has on their wellbeing and the various ways in which it affects their mental health and relationship with their environment.
For this reason, IDC promoted research on the psychosocial impacts of immigration detention on people who have been detained or who have been at risk of being deprived of their liberty for immigration reasons in Mexico and/or the United States. The objective of these efforts is to make relevant information available to governments in order to advance the design and implementation of programs and/or public policies aimed at mental health care and the promotion of alternatives to detention.
This work considered the documentary review of other related research or reports, in addition to conducting focus groups with people in mobility contexts in Mexico.
What are the psychosocial impacts of immigration detention?
In Mexico and the United States, immigration detention is used as a generalised measure to deprive people of their liberty while their immigration case is being resolved, which in itself has a negative impact. Especially in Mexico, detention is usually made invisible when it is shielded by the use of euphemisms such as presentación ("presentation") or alojamiento ("housing"). This deprivation of liberty is accompanied by other immigration containment measures, such as roadblocks, greater restrictions or requirements for entry, militarised responses and criminalisation, among others.
Research shows that both people who have been detained as well as those who are or were at risk of being detained may face similar impacts. This is because the possibility of being detained by the authorities means that people are forced to take more dangerous routes, are exposed to risky behaviours that facilitate their entry across borders and are more vulnerable to criminal actors.
Psychosocial impacts have two dimensions, one individual and the other community. On an individual level, people may experience fear, anguish, uncertainty and worry, which is expressed in sleeping difficulties, sadness and hopelessness. It is worth mentioning that, even after release, fear persists in the face of the possibility of being detained again.
On the other hand, at the community level, the consequences of detention have an impact on families and communities, both those of origin and those of destination. Anguish and uncertainty are also effects that the families of detained persons may experience, especially when they have limited information about the situation of their family member or little certainty about what is going to happen.
From the focus groups, we learned of cases in which the effects and damage to mental and emotional health continued after people were released, in addition to the fact that the time factor was not necessarily proportional to the effects – i.e., a person who was in detention for a week can present the same effects as someone who was detained for months.
Finally, our research also showed how damage can occur in adolescents who remain in a shelter or social assistance centre when the models of these spaces do not allow exits (closed-door models), and in effect, the adolescents are deprived of their freedom.
"I did not process what I went through until I got out of there."
"My body could no longer resist, I became anxious."
"I am so afraid of being caught again."
– Phrases from focus group participants.
What role do Alternatives to Detention (ATD) play in counteracting these effects?
Alternatives to detention are synonymous with freedom. According to international treaties on the subject, immigration detention should be exceptional and be used as a measure of last resort, so we call on States to apply alternative measures that guarantee the freedom of people in contexts of mobility.
When people have access to an alternative measure in the community, not only do they avoid the effects of deprivation of liberty, but they are also freed from the human rights violations that usually occur in places of detention. At the same time, the evidence that IDC has through its work with ATD shows that these measures contribute to people's confidence in their administrative and/or legal processes, translate into the follow-up of their actions (i.e., they do not abandon their procedures) and facilitate their integration into the host communities, as they are certain of their options and what they can expect for themselves and their families.
To learn more:
We invite you to read our publication Alternatives to Immigration Detention in Transit Migration Contexts for more practical examples and recent developments in the field of ATDs to highlight promising practices and encourage further progress in this area.
Alternatives as fiction? What the EU Pact on Migration and Asylum means for Alternatives to Detention
In June, EU Ministers responsible for Justice and Home Affairs met in Luxembourg to discuss, amongst other issues, reform of the EU’s approach to asylum and migration. Their discussions resulted in an agreement on two key files – the asylum and migration management regulation and the asylum procedure regulation. Almost three years since the European Commission published its proposal for a New Pact on Migration and Asylum, progress on moving forward the proposals contained within the Pact has been uneven. Following lengthy discussions within the European Parliament, a Roadmap published by the co-legislators in September 2022 set out their joint commitment to adopt the legislative proposals within the Pact before the end of the 2019-2024 legislative period. Sweden, which held the Presidency of the Council of the European Union from January to June 2023, expressed its intention to “advance the negotiations on a Pact on Migration and Asylum.” It now looks like an agreement may be in sight.
In recent months, Linklaters LLP and International Detention Coalition (IDC) undertook an analysis of the provisions laid out within the Pact in order for IDC to better understand the implications when it comes to the viability of alternatives to immigration detention (ATD), should the provisions outlined be agreed upon and implemented. Given the recent movement made on the Pact, we set out below IDC’s summary of findings based on that legal analysis, in order to shed light on the consequences of the Pact for the continued viability of ATD in the EU. You can access the original research report undertaken by Linklaters LLP for IDC here.
Detention in the Pact proposals
The effect that the Pact is likely to have on the use of detention in the EU is already well-documented. The International Commission of Jurists has pointed out that “prolonged immigration detention will inevitably result as a practice”, and the Platform for International Cooperation on Undocumented Migrants has concluded that the proposals set out within the Pact will result in “more detention, fewer safeguards.”
Detention within the Pact is largely set out within the Screening Regulation and the Amended Asylum Procedures Regulation. These two instruments outline a new screening process for individuals at external borders and establish border procedures for processing asylum applications and facilitating returns.
The European Commission itself has affirmed that border procedures “imply detention.” The new Pact proposals therefore undermine the principle that detention should only be applied as a measure of last resort; instead, depriving people of their liberty at the borders is set to become the default approach.
For those who are refused asylum, the border procedure may mean being detained for up to 6 months at the EU’s borders and, in exceptional situations, procedures can be extended – meaning that people may spend up to 10 months in detention at the border.
The proposed changes serve to deny people full access to their rights by creating a situation whereby they are not considered to have legally ‘arrived’ in an EU Member State despite being physically present on the territory – a practice dubbed the ‘fiction of non-entry’. Moreover, the proposed border procedures will likely apply to children aged 12-18, meaning that children will also be detained. This is in direct conflict with the commitment set out within the Global Compact for Migration (GCM) – signed by the majority of EU Member States – to work towards ending immigration detention of children.
These proposals are not without their critics, and indeed have been sticking points during the long negotiations in the European Parliament. During an early debate in Parliament, MEPs raised concerns around border procedures and in particular pointed to the likelihood that border procedures would resemble policies implemented in Greece that have led to widespread deprivation of liberty or de facto detention.
Viability of ATD within the Pact proposals
The table below outlines the key aspects of the proposed legislative instruments contained in the Pact (as of June 2023) which are of relevance to the viability of ATD.
Whilst the Pact’s legislative instruments do not expressly refer to ‘alternatives to detention’, some references are made to ‘less coercive’ and ‘less coercive alternative’ measures. This reflects existing language in the Return Directive and Reception Conditions Directive. Moreover, it is implied that immigration detention will continue to be used only as a last resort, in line with regional and international legal standards, and that alternatives will be considered before detention.
However, despite this intention it is difficult to see how the provisions of the Pact – as currently drafted – would allow for community-based ATD in practice.
It is particularly difficult to envisage how Member States will be able to implement ATD while ensuring the “fiction of non-entry” is upheld – after all, how can states place migrants within the community if they do not acknowledge their legal presence in the country? ATD will be particularly challenging if other Member States follow the approaches already being taken in Greece (given apparent similarities between Greek national law and the Pact), Italy and Spain, where border procedures have resulted in de facto detention as standard. Indeed, according to the European Parliament Research Services Study on the Pact:
“the blanket non-entry policies for all migrants (during screening, thus including refugees), or particular categories of migrants (in case of the mandatory border procedure or for rejected asylum seekers in the return border procedure), makes it impossible to ensure compliance with the guarantees in the Reception Conditions Directive and the Return Directive.”
Simply put, the fact that an individual can physically arrive in a country without being considered to have legally arrived, will inevitably result in considerable restrictions on freedom of movement and access to services – and this deprivation of liberty is at odds with the idea of ATD.
Ensuring meaningful alternatives to immigration detention
Enshrining ATD in legislation and policy provides an important safeguard against the use of detention. At present, EU Member States can only detain migrants if effective alternatives are not available – this serves to ensure that governments are not detaining individuals in a manner that is arbitrary, unnecessary and disproportionate.
Yet in the current framework of the EU Pact on Migration and Asylum, which by its very nature is likely to introduce widespread and indiscriminate detention of people in the context of expanded border procedures, it is difficult to see how such procedures will function without resorting to de facto detention. In this context, legal requirements to use ATD will be unlikely to work in practice.
With the Council position on the Pact now clear, trilogue negotiations are beginning in earnest as the co-legislators aim to reach a conclusion by early 2024. It is vital that the negotiations keep existing regional and international legal standards front and centre, particularly when it comes to the right to liberty. In order to do this, ATD must be included as a meaningful way to ensure that immigration detention is only ever a last resort, with concrete possibilities for community-based ATD identified.
Our analysis shows that this will be challenging, but the alternative – large-scale, de facto detention at the borders for extended periods of time – is unthinkable.
OCC & ECDN Call on Malaysian Government to Release Children from Immigration Detention & Implement ATD
Versi Bahasa Melayu di bawah
PRESS STATEMENT
Sydney, 20 June 2023- On World Refugee Day, the Office of Children Commissioner (OCC) and the End Child Detention Network (ECDN) join hands to urge the Malaysian government to take immediate action towards ending the detention of children in immigration facilities and implementing effective Alternatives to Detention (ATD).
It is deeply concerning that as of 15 May, 11,068 people including 969 children, including refugee children, are held in immigration detention in Malaysia. These children have fled violence, conflict, and persecution in their home countries, seeking safety and protection in our nation. It is our moral obligation to ensure their well-being and safeguard their rights.
We call upon the Malaysian government to embark on the following crucial steps:
- Begin releasing children from immigration detention into an Alternative to Detention (ATD) program, and ensure the inclusion of all children, regardless of their migration status.
- Ensure that ATD projects are implemented in good faith to achieve its primary objective, which is to resolve the issue of arrest and detention of children.
- Urgently present the working paper on shifting children out of immigration detention depots in Cabinet, a vital document currently being developed by the Home Ministry.
- Develop a comprehensive legal framework for refugees that grants them legal status and access to employment, health services, education, and social, and public benefits. This framework is crucial in protecting refugee children and building an environment for their healthy development.
- Grant United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) unrestricted access to immigration detention centres. This will allow for the continued registration of persons of concern and the subsequent release of all individuals registered with UNHCR, facilitating their integration into the community.
- Take immediate steps to enact legal and policy changes to halt the immigration detention of children, including all refugee and asylum-seeking children.
- Conduct a comprehensive review of immigration detention policies and practices to ensure they align with international legal and human rights standards. This review is imperative to safeguard the rights and well-being of all individuals at risk of immigration detention, particularly children.
By taking these significant steps, Malaysia will not only fulfil its international obligations but demonstrate its commitment to protecting the rights and dignity of every child, regardless of their migration status. We firmly believe that these measures will bring us closer to a society that respects human rights, embraces diversity, and upholds the principles of compassion and justice.
As OCC and ECDN, we stand ready to collaborate with the Malaysian government and other stakeholders to develop and implement effective ATD solutions that prioritise the best interests of all children in Malaysia, including refugee and asylum-seeking children.
Together, let us work towards a future where no child is subjected to the harmful impacts of immigration detention, and where every child can thrive and realise their full potential.
About OCC: The Office of Children’s Commissioner (OCC) is an independent office within the Human Rights Commission of Malaysia, tasked with promoting and protecting the human rights of all children in Malaysia.
About ECDN: The End Child Detention Network is a coalition of 21 civil society organisations and individuals working to ensure that no child is detained in Malaysia due to their immigration status.
For more information, please contact: Hannah Jambunathan - End Child Detention Network (ECDN) Coordinator & Asia Pacific Programme Officer, International Detention Coalition, [email protected]
KENYATAAN MEDIA
OCC dan ECDN Menyeru Kerajaan Malaysia untuk Membebaskan Kanak-kanak daripada Tahanan Imigresen dan Melaksanakan Alternatif kepada Penahanan
Sydney, 20 Jun 2023- Pada Hari Pelarian Sedunia, Pejabat Pesuruhjaya Kanak-kanak (OCC) dan Rangkaian Penghapusan Tahanan Kanak-Kanak Malaysia (End Child Detention Network - ECDN) berganding bahu untuk menggesa kerajaan Malaysia mengambil tindakan segera ke arah menamatkan penahanan kanak-kanak di depot imigresen dan melaksanakan Alternatif kepada Penahanan (ATD) yang berkesan.
Angka yang membimbangkan setakat 15 Mei 2023 iaitu sebanyak 11,068 individu termasuk 969 kanak-kanak, termasuk kanak-kanak pelarian ditahan dalam tahanan imigresen di Malaysia. Kanak-kanak ini telah melarikan daripada keganasan, konflik, dan penindasan di negara asal mereka, dan mencari keselamatan dan perlindungan di negara kita. Adalah menjadi kewajipan moral kita untuk memastikan kesejahteraan mereka dan menjaga hak mereka.
Kami menyeru Kerajaan Malaysia untuk melaksanakan langkah penting seperti berikut:
- Memulakan proses untuk mengeluarkan kanak-kanak dari tahanan imigresen kepada program Alternatif kepada Penahanan (ATD), dan memastikan semua kanak-kanak, tanpa mengira status migrasi mereka dimasukkan ke dalam program tersebut.
- Memastikan bahawa program ATD dilaksanakan dengan bersungguh-sungguh untuk mencapai objektif utamanya, iaitu menyelesaikan isu penangkapan dan penahanan kanak-kanak.
- Membentangkan dengan segera di Kabinet kertas kerja berhubung pemindahan keluar kanak-kanak dari depot tahanan imigresen, yang merupakan dokumen penting yang sedang dibangunkan oleh Kementerian Dalam Negeri.
- Membangunkan sebuah rangka kerja undang-undang yang komprehensif bagi pelarian untuk memberikan pelarian status sah dari segi undang-undang dan akses kepada pekerjaan, perkhidmatan kesihatan, pendidikan, dan faedah sosial dan awam. Rangka kerja ini penting dalam melindungi kanak-kanak pelarian dan membina satu persekitaran yang menyokong perkembangan mereka dengan sihat.
- Memberikan akses tanpa had kepada Pesuruhjaya Tinggi Bangsa-Bangsa Bersatu untuk Pelarian (UNHCR) untuk masuk ke pusat tahanan imigresen. Hal ini akan membolehkan pendaftaran berterusan individu yang terkesan dan pembebasan seterusnya semua individu yang berdaftar dengan UNHCR, yang akan memudahkan integrasi mereka ke dalam komuniti.
- Mengambil tindakan segera untuk menggubal pindaan undang-undang dan polisi untuk menghentikan penahanan imigresen terhadap kanak-kanak, termasuk semua kanak-kanak pelarian dan pencari suaka.
- Menjalankan semakan menyeluruh ke atas polisi dan amalan penahanan imigresen untuk memastikan perkara tersebut sejajar dengan piawaian undang-undang dan hak asasi manusia antarabangsa. Semakan ini adalah penting untuk melindungi hak dan kesejahteraan semua individu yang berisiko ditahan imigresen, terutamanya kanak-kanak.
Dengan mengambil langkah penting ini, Malaysia bukan sahaja akan memenuhi kewajipan antarabangsa Malaysia, tetapi juga menunjukkan komitmen Malaysia untuk melindungi hak dan maruah setiap kanak-kanak, tanpa mengira status migrasi mereka. Kami amat percaya bahawa langkah-langkah ini dapat membawa kita menjadi negara yang menghormati hak asasi manusia, menerima kepelbagaian, dan menegakkan prinsip belas kasihan dan keadilan.
OCC dan ECDN bersedia untuk bekerjasama dengan kerajaan Malaysia dan pihak berkepentingan yang lain untuk membangunkan dan melaksanakan penyelesaian ATD yang berkesan, yang mengutamakan kepentingan terbaik semua kanak-kanak di Malaysia, termasuk kanak-kanak pelarian dan pencari suaka.
Marilah kita bersama-sama berusaha ke arah masa depan yang tiada kanak-kanak terdedah kepada akibat buruk daripada penahanan imigresen, serta semua kanak-kanak boleh berkembang maju dan merealisasikan potensi penuh mereka.
Mengenai OCC: Pejabat Pesuruhjaya Kanak-kanak merupakan sebuah pejabat bebas di Suruhanjaya Hak Asasi Manusia Malaysia yang bertanggungjawab dalam mempromosi dan melindungi hak asasi kanak-kanak di Malaysia.
Mengenai ECDN: Rangkaian Penghapusan Tahanan Kanak-Kanak Malaysia (ECDN) adalah gabungan 21 organisasi masyarakat sivil dan individu yang bekerja secara kolektif untuk memastikan tiada kanak-kanak ditahan di Malaysia kerana status imigresen mereka.
Untuk maklumat lanjut, sila hubungi: Hannah Jambunathan - Koordinator, Rangkaian Penghapusan Tahanan Kanak-Kanak Malaysia (ECDN) & Pegawai Program Asia Pacific, International Detention Coalition, [email protected]
Peer Learning: A Methodology Towards Sustaining & Scaling Up Promising Migration Governance Practices
Written by Silvia Gomez, IDC Global Advocacy Coordinator
Since its inception, IDC has prioritised supporting the development of communities of practice using peer learning as a methodology that facilitates the sharing of ideas, experiences, knowledge, and challenges towards developing, sustaining and scaling up alternatives to immigration detention.
Through more than a decade of sustained collaboration with government actors, civil society organisations, IDC members and the UN, IDC has witnessed how peer learning supports change, accelerates progress, and consolidates rights-based solutions to complex migration governance challenges, as well as encourages ongoing support among stakeholders.
As a global coalition, IDC supports and facilitates several peer learning platforms on alternatives to detention at local, national and regional levels, as well as cross-regional and global levels. The success of this methodology in supporting government actors at different levels has led to consolidating peer learning as a methodology of work in several fora, including as part of the global architecture on migration. The IMRF Progress Declaration, agreed upon by the UN General Assembly in 2022, includes peer learning as one of the key lines of work to advance implementation of the Global Compact for Migration (GCM) (see paragraph 72).
IDC’s History of Peer Learning at the Global Level
In the aftermath of the adoption of the GCM in 2018, IDC, in collaboration with UNICEF, started exploring and testing with a group of champion States and stakeholders how a cross-regional peer learning platform could support in accelerating change and progress in ending child immigration detention at the national level. The 2020 UN Secretary General Report on Implementation of the GCM highlighted this pioneering initiative (see paragraph 48).
Partially as a result of this process, and since 2020, the UN Network on Migration, through its Work Stream on Alternatives to Detention, co-led by IDC, UNHCR and UNICEF, has hosted 3 global peer learning exchanges in collaboration with the governments of Portugal, Thailand, Colombia, Ghana, and Nigeria. These exchanges, held under Chatham House rules, have been attended by 36 governments across regions and gathered representatives from the relevant technical and decision-making departments (see further information in the reports of the global peer learning exchanges). With a clear focus on national level change, and under the leadership of IDC, the Work Stream has also facilitated peer learning discussions to showcase how successful collaboration between governments and civil society on the ground looks like.
IDC has been able to observe how peer learning helps to:
- increase States’ confidence to discuss approaches towards migration governance without immigration detention and to work on alternatives to detention by showcasing promising and best practice, sharing challenges and learnings, co-creating solutions and identifying opportunities for change and progress
- create multi-stakeholder dialogue in a space of trust between governments, local authorities, civil society, UN actors, IDC members, grassroots and experts with lived experience (whole of society)
- support government structures in connecting relevant technical and decision-making governmental departments and actors (whole of government)
- identify areas where specific support and collaboration are needed, as well as opportunities for capacity building, training, and site visits
- foster partnerships, develop a community of practice and build a global network of experts and practitioners
- create further peer learning discussions among specific countries with similar interests at regional or cross-regional level
IDC’s History of Peer Learning at the Regional Level
In Asia Pacific, IDC co-leads the Regional Peer Learning Platform and Program of Learning and Action alongside the Centre for Policy Development (CPD). This Peer Learning Platform was first proposed at the seventh meeting of the Asian Dialogue on Forced Migration (ADFM) in Bangkok in November 2018, where participants identified a regional grouping on this issue as being beneficial to advancing practical progress towards alternatives to detention in the region. Since then, a number of peer learning events, both in person and online have been convened on the topic. Participants are drawn from policy and implementing agencies within the governments of Australia, Indonesia, Malaysia, New Zealand and Thailand, as well as key civil society actors and international organisations. The Regional Platform has been operating from 2022 and last met in October in Kuala Lumpur. The feedback about the Regional Platform has been very positive including: “There is no perfect country but we can all learn from each other” and “It’s been eye-opening and exciting to see what’s been going on in other countries.To see how we are all rising to prioritise this issue."
In the Americas, IDC successfully facilitates peer learning exchanges among local authorities working to end child immigration detention in Mexico, and in August 2022 IDC connected some local authorities that were not previously connected. In the MENA region, IDC facilitated a peer learning workshop alongside UNICEF MENA engaging government actors from relevant technical and decision-making departments from Djibouti, Egypt, Jordan, Kuwait, Libya, Morocco, Saudi Arabia and Sudan.
IDC is currently developing in partnership with the Uppsala University and with the support from the World Health Organisation (WHO) a peer learning platform between host, transit and countries of origin across Europe, the Middle East and North Africa and the Horn of Africa/East Africa. Such a platform would be an opportunity for countries across different regions to come together to share experiences, challenges and good practice. The forum will aim to build cross-regional trust, cooperation and synergies when it comes to addressing migration challenges on shared routes, facilitating collective problem solving and testing new approaches.
Moving Forward
IDC, alongside our members and partners, will continue to connect local, national, regional and global agendas and actors by integrating the learnings from the above initiatives at local, regional, cross-regional and global level. In doing so, IDC will continue facilitating and coordinating strategic peer learning spaces, centering the leadership of people with lived experience of detention in all of our efforts working towards migration governance systems without immigration detention.
In particular, the recently launched UN Network on Migration Workplan 2022-2024 already includes plans for three upcoming peer learning exchanges (see Work Stream on Alternatives to Detention workplan activities, page 14) - the first, on 24 May 2023, will focus on ending child immigration detention, later this year on alternatives to detention in transit settings, and early next year on prevention of pre-entry detention of migrants.