In this episode of ‘In conversation with’ we are interviewing dr. Amalia Campos Delgado about her research on migration and border control in Mexico.

In the Netherlands, immigration detention is classified under administrative law. More precisely: it is a form of administrative coercion. But immigration detention is also deprivation of liberty, or a habeas corpus measure. This makes it the most far-reaching form of administrative coercion you can think of. The regime and house rules of immigration detention differ just a little from those of criminal deprivation of liberty. The draft bill on the Return and Detention Act provides some improvements. For asylum seekers that cause nuisance, there is the Enforcement and Supervision Location, where the foreign national is given an area restriction and must remain within the municipal boundaries. Due to the liberty restrictions, immigration detention should always be the last resort.

Qualitative research in an immigration detention center in the Netherlands shows that detained unauthorized migrants consider the entry procedure in Immigration Centre Rotterdam procedurally just. These migrants are generally positive on the fairness of the entry procedure as their safety and welfare are guaranteed and existing procedural justice criteria are respected. However, they believe that immigration detention in itself is illegitimate and that they do not deserve to be detained. This shows that the focus on procedures and interactions is insufficient to understand the perceived legitimacy of immigration detention if shared values and consent with the legal basis of immigration detention are lacking.

This article focuses on some key features of immigration detention. It contains information about the Return Directive, the Reception Directive and the Dublin Regulation. By doing so, this article aimes at providing an overview of immigration detention in a European law perspective. Furthermore, it adresses some recent developments in Dutch case law.

Judgements rendered in the accused’s absence form a special category of criminal judgements that undoubtedly do not provide for the same safeguards that would be in place when a judgement is rendered in the accused’s presence. Nonetheless, provided that strict conditions are adhered to, trials in absentia can be compatible with the accused’s right to be present. This article examines the standards that have been developed under international human rights law, providing for the normative framework, to see to what extent the trials in absentia of foreign terrorist fighters in the Netherlands and Belgium comply therewith. By pointing to analogies and contrasts, this article wishes to contribute to finding answers to this dilemma.

In the Netherlands, the penalization of human smuggling has become broader and more severe. This development is part of a crimmigration trend that describes an increase of immigration-related criminal offenses. Currently, the provision does not include a financial component, nor does it exclude acts with a humanitarian motive. The validity of such severe prohibitions, especially those including acts that are not morally reprehensible, is questioned through the concept of ‘humanitarian smuggling’. Moral reprehensibility is one of the criteria for criminalization that provide a framework for the reflection on the Dutch prohibition of human smuggling that is conducted in this article.

In recent years, migration has been at the centre of European debates and the number of migrants trying to cross the Mediterranean remains alarming. To this day, hundreds of people continue to risk their lives crossing the Mediterranean on small boats in order to flee conflict zones, persecution or extreme poverty. However, due to the lack of legal alternatives, migrants engage in dangerous journeys and find themselves helpless in the hands of smugglers. This article will address the growing pattern of criminalisation of migration and humanitarian assistance throughout Europe and consider the extent to which national, European and international anti-smuggling laws affect the work of civil society actors.

The dangerous asylum seeker easily captures the public's attention. Policies increasingly focus on strong repercussions for asylum seekers who cause disturbances or can be considered dangerous. This article distinguishes between categories of asylum seekers based on the kind of disturbance or danger they cause in the view of the general public. It is argued that EU law provides a strong basis for denying or withdrawing the residence rights of asylum seekers based on public order considerations. In practice however, it seems difficult to meet the threshold of the public order criteria developed by the Court of Justice.