IDC Impact Assessment of the International Migration Review Forum 2026
Migration governance is often discussed as a policy issue to be negotiated and managed. But its consequences are lived in much more immediate ways: whether a child is kept out of detention and with their family; whether a woman who has fled violence can access safety, services and protection; whether people crossing borders are treated as rights-holders, rather than risks to be managed.
That is why the 2026 International Migration Review Forum is fundamental to International Detention Coalition (IDC) and our partners advocating for migrant rights around the world. It is an opportunity to influence the global commitments, accountability mechanisms, changes at national levels and implementation pathways that shape how governments respond to migrants in practice.
IDC participated with clear strategic objectives: to secure concrete policy and practice change at national, regional or international levels that could have an actual impact on the lives of migrants.
As a result, IDC helped secure important advances on the mission to end child immigration detention, strengthening alternatives to detention, advancing gender-responsive migration governance and preventing backsliding, and embedding rights-based safeguards on digital technologies in migration systems.
For IDC, the IMRF – held between 4th and 8th May in New York City, – represented the culmination of around nine months of sustained advocacy, targeted engagement, and relationship-building with governments, UN agencies, civil society, and regional actors.
IDC’s strategy focused on advancing rights-based migration governance, particularly around alternatives to detention (ATD), ending child immigration detention, safeguarding gender-responsive migration policies and non-regression on this topic, and ensuring that emerging approaches to migration governance – including the use of digital technologies and the concept of the route-based approach – follow a rights-based approach.
IDC adopted a two-pronged approach, focusing on engagement with States and other relevant actors on the content of the Progress Declaration, and supporting key national governments and regional bodies with the development of pledges, mainly related to objective 13 of the GCM and to our key priorities.
Throughout the IMRF process, IDC worked to ensure that the Progress Declaration reflected practical commitments rather than broad political rhetoric. This work started with long-term advocacy and relationship building in capitals, Geneva and New York, and evolved through continuous engagement with States and stakeholders, demonstrating a long-term advocacy strategy rather than ad hoc participation.
One of IDC’s most significant achievements, in partnership with colleagues from UNICEF and the Migration Youth and Children Platform (MYCP), was influencing the language of the Progress Declaration, particularly related to ending child immigration detention and strengthening references to alternatives to detention.
The final declaration separated ATD language from broader border management approaches, an important distinction for IDC’s advocacy. Even more significantly, paragraph 53 requests the UN Secretary-General to assess progress, challenges, and develop practical recommendations on ending child immigration detention and child-sensitive alternatives to detention in the context of migration. IDC considers this provision a major advocacy win because it creates an ongoing international accountability mechanism for concrete policy follow-up.
For children and families, follow up on paragraph 53 can support practical shifts away from immigration detention and towards community-based alternatives that protect family unity, education, mental health and children’s rights. This work needs to continue until no child is detained for immigration-related reasons.
IDC and partners from Women in Migration Network, FeMig, UN Women, OHCHR and DESA under Roundtable 4 of the UN Migration Network also successfully defended and advanced gender-responsive migration governance language throughout the negotiations. At a time when migrants’ rights and women’s rights are under threat and when gender-related commitments are increasingly backsliding in multilateral spaces, IDC and our partners helped prevent regression and secured strong language reaffirming meaningful participation of women in migration governance and protection against all forms of violence against migrant women and girls.
IDC and our partners also helped set up the IMRF Informal Gender Network with membership from key States, helping coordinate advocacy and maintain political momentum around gender responsiveness in the IMRF.
In practical terms, this work will help migration policies better reflect the risks faced by migrant women, girls and gender-diverse people, including violence, exploitation, family separation, pregnancy-related needs, care responsibilities, trafficking risks, and barriers to healthcare, justice and documentation.
Another important outcome was the inclusion of rights-based safeguards on the use of digital technologies in migration governance, working closely with OHCHR. This was particularly important for IDC given the growing use of surveillance technologies and other digital tools within detention, ATD and border governance contexts. Clear safeguards will help to ensure that these tools do not deepen discrimination, expand surveillance and make harmful decisions that seriously affect the rights of migrants.
IDC identifies limitations in the final IMRF outcome document, but we also recognise that this is a political process and that balanced language needs to be reached – we congratulate the co-facilitators for achieving some of this balance.
Another central component of IDC’s advocacy was to leverage long-term relationship building to secure concrete pledges from governments and regional bodies, IDC and our partners supported the development of key pledges and supported governments to translate policy priorities into implementable commitments that can have an actual impact on the lives of migrants. Examples include a pledge from the Government of Malawi, outlining clear steps towards ending child immigration detention with a clear timeline, and another from the Regional Conference on Migration in the Americas about piloting the Vulnerability Screening Tool, which will prevent the detention of people in vulnerable situations at borders.
IDC was also very active at the IMRF and participated in 12 side events, directly co-organising seven of them on detention, gender and digital technology, and speaking as part of the others. See list here. We also contributed substantively to shaping broader policy debates during the IMRF week. IDC’s active presence across the IMRF helped ensure that discussions on detention, children’s rights, gender, technology and routes remained connected to the realities faced by migrants in practice.
During Roundtable 2, IDC highlighted the increasing politicisation and criminalisation of migration globally and reiterated that child immigration detention is never in the best interests of the child and constitutes a form of violence against children. We also provided feedback from a Roundtable IDC co-organised with UNICEF, UNHCR, IOM, MYCP and the SRSG on Violence against Children with member states that are taking steps toward ending child immigration detention and promoting alternatives, showcasing that it is possible to achieve this goal and some states are doing it.
IDC also addressed both the opportunities and risks of the emerging “route-based approach” during the IMRF Policy Debate, explaining how the route-based approach is important to increase cooperation, and could be used to strengthen asylum systems, expand regular pathways, promote casework and support access to services for migrants.
However, it cannot become a tool for border externalisation or for prioritising an agenda focused mainly on returns. IDC also participated as a speaker in the Multistakeholder hearing held on 4th May.
IDC’s engagement in the IMRF demonstrates that sustained, strategic, and grounded advocacy can influence multilateral outcomes beyond the negotiating room. By combining long-term relationship-building, practical support, and targeted advocacy – and by working with others, including governments – IDC was able to leverage a global advocacy space into a mechanism for impacting international, regional and national processes. The task now is to ensure these commitments are implemented in law, policy and practice, so they lead to real change for children, families, women, and all people affected by immigration detention and migration enforcement.
Find out more
IDC statement on the EU Returns Regulation: Council position marks further regression
On 8 December 2025, the EU Council adopted its negotiating position on the proposed Returns Regulation. This step signals a troubling and yet more punitive EU approach to migration governance.
In April, IDC warned that the Commission’s proposal to replace the 2008 Returns Directive risked expanding detention, narrowing voluntary return, introducing third-country “return hubs,” increasing the use of electronic monitoring and weakening procedural safeguards. Those concerns remain urgent.
The Council’s position appears to deepen the most harmful elements of the earlier draft. In particular, it moves toward a major expansion in the use and length of immigration detention, reportedly extending maximum periods beyond the Commission’s proposal of 24 months to 30 months, for adults and children. The Council proposes even longer detention in “security” cases. It also broadens grounds for detention linked to an expansive concept of “risk of absconding,” including factors that may penalise poverty and social exclusion, and risks further normalising detention of children.
At the same time, the Council continues to endorse returns to third countries through return agreements, raising serious questions about enforceable safeguards, individualised assessment and meaningful access to remedy. The overall direction focused on externalisation of borders and reinforces coercion over due process and dignity.
IDC raises the following concerns regarding the Council`s proposal:
- More people, including children and other vulnerable individuals, risk being detained for longer; electronic monitoring and other intrusive measures are promoted as “alternatives” despite functioning in practice as alternative forms of detention;
- Third-country “return hubs” are further normalised without meaningful guarantees of safety or accountability; and
- Mutual recognition of return decisions between Member States is advanced in a way that risks overlooking changes in people’s circumstances and undermining access to effective remedies.
- At the same time, procedural safeguards and genuinely voluntary return options remain weak, increasing the likelihood that people will be removed before their rights and protection needs are fully and fairly examined.
IDC remains deeply concerned that the proposed Returns Regulation, as now reinforced by the Council’s position, moves the EU towards a more coercive and detention-focused migration system, rather than one grounded in rights, fairness and protection.
IDC reiterates its call for the European Parliament and Council to reject any further expansion of detention, externalisation and forced returns. The EU should instead invest in rights-based, community-led alternatives that are more humane, effective and affordable.
Peer learning: five years of change
How peer learning can help curb child immigration detention in the Asia Pacific
Peer learning brings people together to solve problems by sharing ideas, experiences, and practical solutions. It helps people learn from each other, making it especially powerful for tackling complex challenges like child immigration detention.
Every year, thousands of children in the Asia Pacific region are held in immigration detention, causing serious harm to their physical and mental wellbeing. Detention is unnecessary and harmful, especially for children, and proven alternatives exist. Community-based alternatives to detention (ATD) allow children and families to live safely in the community while resolving immigration issues, prioritising dignity, wellbeing and human rights.
The Regional Peer Learning Platform on Alternatives to the Detention of Children in the Asia Pacific was set up in 2019 to bring together governments, civil society, academics and international organisations to share knowledge and strategies for implementing these alternatives.
Co-convened by the International Detention Coalition (IDC) and the Asia Dialogue on Forced Migration (ADFM) Secretariat, the Platform provides a space for collaboration and innovation. It supports reform, builds leadership, strengthens partnerships and ensures efforts align with international goals like those in the Global Compact for Migration.
Since its launch, the Platform has brought together 157 people working on this issue from five countries — Australia, Indonesia, Malaysia, New Zealand and Thailand — to tackle this pressing issue. This summary reflects on five years of progress, challenges and lessons learned to guide future work in ending child immigration detention.
Key outcomes
Achieved national reform by uniting government departments, civil society, and other organisations to share ideas, build trust and help participants improve their national systems. For example, Thailand has made significant progress, introducing measures to protect migrant children and ending detention in many cases.
Developed policy champions by supporting mid-level officials and civil society leaders to become champions of reform and use new knowledge and connections in practice. For instance, in Malaysia, a government official used lessons from the Platform to push for a pilot program offering alternatives to detention for children.
Strengthened government-civil society collaboration by equipping governments and civil society to work together more effectively, with civil society now trusted as partners in shaping policies. This approach is designed to enable more inclusive decisions and co-created policies that work in practice.
Enhanced regional cooperation by enabling governments to learn from each other, making it easier to adopt successful practices from neighboring countries and align with broader frameworks like the ASEAN Declaration on the Rights of Children in the Context of Migration.
Key elements for success
Expert partnerships with co-organisers International Detention Coalition, which brings deep knowledge of alternatives to detention and expertise in bringing people together for policy discussions, and the Asia Dialogue on Forced Migration, which specialises in regional migration governance and convening high-level policy dialogues.
Choosing the right participants to ensure diverse and constructive perspectives, including mid-level government officials, civil society leaders, academics and international organisations.
Creating space for dialogue, with meetings held under the Chatham House Rule and supported by detailed briefings and live interpretation during sessions to ensure everyone can participate fully.
Incorporating site visits and lived experience, which allows those working on these issues to see how policies affect real people. Participants visit programs where alternatives to detention are already working and hear from people with direct experience of detention and alternatives to detention.
Thoughtful agendas combine presentations, group discussions and informal time to encourage creativity and collaboration. Flexibility ensures they address participants’ priorities and foster problem-solving.
Challenges
Balancing different needs of diverse national contexts and varying participant expertise levels remains a challenge.
Maintaining engagement between meetings is made more difficult by limited resources.
Resource constraints pose a risk to the Platform’s sustainability. Convening requires significant funding and organisational capacity.
Meaningful and safe participation of lived experience leaders continues to be an area for growth.
Towards ending immigration detention for refugees in Mexico
Why this is an achievable goal for the incoming government
MEXICO
Mexico is a country that historically has a tradition of asylum. However, in recent years, migration policies have been characterised by a focus on containment rather than humanitarian reception and inclusion.
As a result of excessive militarisation and the focus on detention in immigration review and enforcement, several negative effects have been documented, such as misinformation, delay or lack of access to procedures for the recognition of refugee status and legitimate self-defense, as well as deprivation of liberty of people in vulnerable situations.
At the psychosocial level, people often feel anguish, uncertainty and fear as a result of the lack of information, lack of communication with their families or support networks, as well as the hopelessness caused by confinement, in addition to other effects on their physical health.
The new federal administration, headed by President Claudia Sheinbaum, has an opportunity to build a new migration policy with a rights-based approach that prioritises human security.
“I hadn’t done anything wrong, we were fleeing, but we didn’t do anything wrong, I didn’t deserve to be there in that immigration station, which was worse than a prison. When I got out I even smiled again. Now my husband and I are refugees, we are calmer and we already have jobs.”
“Rebeca”, refugee woman, Mexico 2023.
Improvement opportunities include eliminating immigration detention, prohibiting deprivation of liberty for persons in need of international protection, and creating institutional guidelines for people seeking asylum, children and adolescents in migration, racialised persons, indigenous people, people with disabilities, pregnant women, gender diverse persons, and other populations at greater risk of vulnerability.
Another key opportunity is strengthening institutions that guarantee rights, such as the Mexican Commission for Refugee Assistance (COMAR), the National System for the Protection of Children and Adolescents (SIPINNA), the Office of the Attorney General for the Protection of Children and Adolescents, the Ministry of Education, the National System for Comprehensive Family Development (SNDIF), the Ministry of Health, among others.
The new government has an opportunity to take firm steps towards eliminating immigration detention for people seeking asylum. One way forward is to promote the use of alternatives to detention that are respectful of rights, shifting the response to migration flows in favour of humanitarian reception and building welcoming communities, to mention a few possible paths.
IDC has developed a series of recommendations that we will present to the new government. In this way, we aim to promote collaboration towards building a new migration policy, together with other civil society organisations and networks, that puts migrants and refugees at the centre, and allows for the development of policies that prioritise human rights and long-term solutions.
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.
Urgent protections needed to prevent child detention in Europe
IDC calls on states to introduce safeguards in advance of the new EU Migration Pact
EUROPEAN UNION
With preparations underway for the introduction of the EU’s new Migration and Asylum Pact, IDC condemns the lack of safeguards for human rights in the new legal framework. IDC joins UN experts in calling for states to implement critical protections for migrants and refugees, — and particularly for children — in preparation for the implementation of the EU Pact on Migration and Asylum.
The EU’s new Pact on Migration and Asylum is a contentious new policy framework that sets out a plan for how to manage migration in countries across the EU. It is IDC’s view that the Pact undermines the fundamental rights of refugees and migrants.
It introduces expedited border procedures and extensive detention measures, which could lead to inadequate processing of asylum claims and increased risk of human rights abuses, like arbitrary detention and forced returns. And the pact’s focus on externalising border controls through partnerships with non-EU countries also raises concerns about reduced access to asylum and increased incidents of pushbacks, potentially endangering lives and human rights.
Recent IDC research conducted with Linklaters reveals that, despite the pact’s assertion that detention should be a measure of last resort, structural changes such as the ‘fiction of non-entry’ policy could make alternatives to detention (ATD) less viable and increase the likelihood of detention across the European Union.
The ’fiction of non-entry’ allows migrants to be physically present in an EU state while not being legally recognised, significantly restricting their freedom and access to services. This approach can be particularly detrimental as it is likely to increase immigration detention in the European Union and it will also affect children — mandatory border procedures will also apply to them, potentially leading to widespread detention. This is in direct conflict with international law, which clearly outlines that immigration detention is never in the best interest of the child and that it is a form of violence against children.
IDC is concerned that the Pact implies a serious deterioration in child protection standards and a breach of children’s rights. IDC’s research underscores the profoundly negative effects of detention on children, including severe harm to their mental and emotional health and disruption to their family life and development.
IDC’s Executive Director, Carolina Gottardo, says:
“The new pact is likely to expand immigration detention across European borders and will have devastating consequences on migrants and refugees, particularly on children. The Pact takes us a long way backwards in terms of rights and protection in Europe.
“We must protect the inherent dignity and rights of all children and uphold our international obligations. Member states in Europe need to ensure that they are not detaining children. There is simply no excuse to detain children for immigration-related reasons.”
Based on our analysis, IDC’s position is that the EU Pact may lead to prolonged and extensive use of detention with diminished safeguards, especially for vulnerable groups.
However, IDC emphasises that viable alternatives exist. Since 2017, the European Alternatives to Detention Network has been working with migrants and people seeking asylum to enable them to live freely in the community while their case is processed, rather than in immigration detention.
An evaluation of the pilot programs conducted by the European Alternatives to Detention Network in Bulgaria, Poland and Cyprus in 2020 showed very high rates of engagement, increased case resolution, improved mental health and very low rates of absconding. The programs were also shown to be a fraction of the cost r of immigration detention. s Independent evaluations of community-based pilots in the UK — led by the Action Foundation (2022) and the King’s Arms Project (2023) — showed similar positive results. The success of these community-based programs shows that there are kinder, safer and more cost-effective alternatives to detention, which benefit host communities, governments and individuals.
IDC calls on EU Member States to reform their policies in line with these findings and to ensure that the rights of children, migrants and refugees are fully protected in their migration procedures. We stand ready to assist in the development and implementation of policies that prioritise human rights and the well-being of all migrants.
A practical guide to co-producing research with people who are experiencing vulnerability in migration, including refugees and stateless people
Around the world, academics, advocates, community organisations, governments and think tanks are seeking new ways to enable people from the community to inform the collective decisions that shape their lives.
Coming after many years of declining trust in institutions established to ‘fix’ disenfranchisement, this surge of engagement with deliberative, participative and meaningful partnerships between organisations and people with lived experience renews hope that societies can develop consensus and innovative solutions to long-term and complex challenges.
This is particularly true in the field of migration, where conversations are increasingly about how to hand power back to people who have experience of migration, particularly those in vulnerable situations.
One such example of innovative and collaborative approaches is the launch of the ‘Guidelines for Co-Produced Research with Refugees and Other People with Lived Experience of Displacement’.
Developed with input from people with lived experience of being a refugee, academics and representatives from NGOs and intergovernmental organisations, these guidelines provide clear strategies for people and organisations looking to undertake, support or learn more about research that is co-produced with refugees and other people with lived experience of displacement.
At the International Detention Coalition (IDC), we consider this research to be an important tool offering pragmatic guidance grounded in everyday reality and experience. In our strategic plan, IDC highlights the need for people with lived experience of detention to have more power, influence and leadership in the movement to end immigration detention.
We act on this vision in practice. In partnership with Akar Umbi Society in Malaysia, IDC implemented the refugee self-advocacy programme, the Azalea Initiative, a women’s leadership development programme that aims to empower young refugee women to become changemakers within their communities. In Europe, we are scoping to develop an advisory committee made up of people with lived experience. In the Americas, we are piloting a youth lived experience leadership curriculum. In MENA this curriculum is being enhanced and adapted to MENA contextual realities and translated into French and Arabic.
The release of these guidelines will provide further support and practical tools to ensure people with lived experience are included not only in research, but in decisions around advocacy priorities and alternatives to detention programming.
Key principles underpinning authentic collaboration
The guidelines introduce a set of key principles that should underpin co-produced research, paving the way for more inclusive and respectful practices.
Joint ownership: This principle advocates for the open discussion of power relations within research teams and methods that enable collective control of key decisions, ensuring that those with lived experience have a meaningful say in the research process.
Inclusion and respect: Co-produced research disrupts the conventional understanding of academic expertise and recognises and values diverse forms of knowledge, such as experiential, relational and local knowledge.
Benefits for all involved: The guidelines stress that everyone involved in the research should benefit in some way. This can manifest as access to social, financial or intellectual capital. Furthermore, it extends to the communities that participate in the research. Ensuring that everyone benefits creates a mutually rewarding environment, where participants feel that their contributions are valued.
Safety: All researchers must reflect on the possible consequences of research and devise appropriate strategies to safeguard against harmful effects.
Transparency and trust: Researchers are encouraged to speak openly about their feelings and develop trust during the research process. This includes being sensitive to different ways of working and cultural understanding.
Common issues faced in co-production
Co-produced research, while empowering and transformative, also presents several challenges and common issues that researchers need to address, and the guidelines offer practical advice on how to navigate these challenges effectively. This advice covers issues such as how to set the research agenda, when to choose this methodology,recruitment processes and data management.
The guidelines are not just theoretical; they also include practical training exercises. These exercises can help research teams implement the principles and recommendations in a real-world setting, fostering a deeper understanding of co-produced research practices.
Find out more:
Answering the what, why and how of co-produced knowledge, this video from UNSW Kaldor Centre for International Refugee Law introduces new Guidelines for Co-producing Research with Refugees and Other People with Lived Experience of Displacement. Najeeba Wazefadost and Tristan Harley step through key considerations for any stakeholders involved.
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.