Return - IOM Publications - International Organization for Migration

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Return Migration: Policies and Practices NOTES 1. Meetings between IOM officials and the Refugee Commission, December 2002. 2. Interview with Mr Andrew Seychell, Assistant Commissioner responsible for the Immigration Division. * UN Convention Against Transnational Organized Crime and its Smuggling and Trafficking Protocols: Malta signed the UN Convention Against Transnational Organized Crime on 14 December 2000, and ratified the Convention on 24 September 2003. It signed the Trafficking Protocol on 14 December 2000, and ratified the Protocol on 24 September 2003. Malta also signed the Smuggling Protocol on 14 December 2000, and ratified this Protocol on 24 September 2003. 252
THE NETHERLANDS 1. INVOLUNTARY RETURN 1.1 POLICY 253 THE NETHERLANDS The Netherlands has traditionally attracted large numbers of foreigners, many without a legal right of entry or residence. This has given rise to considerable public debate about migration in recent years and a stronger focus by successive governments on return migration. The authorities have for some time been concerned with the need to return failed asylum seekers and other migrants in irregular circumstances to their countries of origin or safe third countries. In 2000, the government introduced the Aliens Act 2000 1 to reform the legal status of migrants through more stringent and shortened procedures for asylum seekers. The aim of the revision was to simplify and accelerate the processing of asylum applications, in order to reduce stateprovided benefits and reception costs. Since then, policy-makers have tried to effectively enforce the Act through removal and repatriation of illegal aliens from the territory, and have anticipated a complementary integration programme for select asylum seekers in 2004. The current government is pursuing a more tightly managed asylum process by announcing new legislation to enable it to deport a large number of long-staying asylum seekers not approved for resident status over the next three years. Before 2002, the Netherlands experienced several years of high economic growth, which resulted in significant social changes and also saw a reduction in economic activities. Rising public anxiety about immigration, coupled with an insufficiently funded police force, were key determinants of the Dutch immigration policy. In the aftermath of the 11 September 2001 attacks in the USA, and the threat of public security posed by terrorists, public debate on immigration became more radical, and certain categories of immigrants were perceived as potential terrorists. In the run-up to the general elections in 2003, there were heated public debates on immigration policy, which some critics attributed to an over-emphasis in Dutch immigration law and policy on control, security and restriction, rather than on assessing actual immigration needs. The stricter immigration policy approach, particularly towards irregular migrants, aims at discouraging potential migrants from entering the Netherlands in the first place and encouraging those who wish to return to repatriate to their countries of origin or to a third country. In 2000, the Netherlands was the fourth biggest asylum receiving country. Since then, stricter immigration policies have led to progressive reductions in asylum applications. The number of asylum requests in 2001 was 32,579; in 2002, 18,667 and in 2003, 13,400. The asylum approval
Page 1 and 2:
Return Migration Policies & Practic
Page 3:
Return Migration: Policies and Prac
Page 7 and 8:
TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction 7 Ex
Page 9 and 10:
INTRODUCTION 7 INTRODUCTION This re
Page 11 and 12:
9 INTRODUCTION EU-funded capacity b
Page 13 and 14:
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 11 EXECUTIVE SUMM
Page 15 and 16:
13 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY In some cases,
Page 17 and 18:
15 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Most returning
Page 19 and 20:
17 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY There may equa
Page 21:
NOTES 19 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1. Readm
Page 24 and 25:
Page 26 and 27:
Page 28 and 29:
Page 30 and 31:
Page 32 and 33:
Page 34 and 35:
Page 36 and 37:
Page 38 and 39:
Page 41 and 42:
BELGIUM 1. INVOLUNTARY RETURN 1.1 P
Page 43 and 44:
41 BELGIUM measure, persons who col
Page 45 and 46:
43 BELGIUM agreement concerns natio
Page 47 and 48:
Re-entry is possible, if the migran
Page 49 and 50:
2. ASSISTED VOLUNTARY RETURN 47 BEL
Page 51 and 52:
49 BELGIUM Recognized refugees can
Page 53:
NOTES 51 BELGIUM 1. Amendment of th
Page 56 and 57:
Page 58 and 59:
Page 60 and 61:
Page 62 and 63:
Page 65 and 66:
CZECH REPUBLIC 1. INVOLUNTARY RETUR
Page 67 and 68:
65 CZECH REPUBLIC Aliens and Border
Page 69 and 70:
67 CZECH REPUBLIC The Czech Republi
Page 71 and 72:
69 CZECH REPUBLIC The Czech Ministr
Page 73 and 74:
2.2 STATISTICS ON VOLUNTARY RETURN
Page 75 and 76:
DENMARK 1. INVOLUNTARY RETURN 1.1 P
Page 77 and 78:
Administrative Expulsion Orders 75
Page 79 and 80:
77 DENMARK The same provision appli
Page 81 and 82:
79 DENMARK exemption of passports f
Page 83 and 84:
81 DENMARK Fingerprints Law No. 291
Page 85 and 86:
83 DENMARK An assisted return progr
Page 87 and 88:
85 DENMARK In 2002, 170 persons dep
Page 89 and 90:
87 DENMARK • Co-funding in EU pro
Page 91 and 92:
ESTONIA 1. INVOLUNTARY RETURN 1.1 P
Page 93 and 94:
91 ESTONIA Obstacles to the impleme
Page 95 and 96:
93 ESTONIA administrative arrest or
Page 97 and 98:
95 ESTONIA In addition, Estonia has
Page 99 and 100:
1.4 STATISTICS ON INVOLUNTARY RETUR
Page 101 and 102:
99 ESTONIA All returns were carried
Page 103:
NOTES 101 ESTONIA 1. A day’s mini
Page 106 and 107:
Page 108 and 109:
Page 110 and 111:
Page 112 and 113:
Page 114 and 115:
Page 116 and 117:
Page 118 and 119:
Page 121 and 122:
FRANCE 1. INVOLUNTARY RETURN 1.1 PO
Page 123 and 124:
121 FRANCE The new legislation also
Page 125 and 126:
Judicial Order of Expulsion 123 FRA
Page 127 and 128:
Removal 125 FRANCE The legal basis
Page 129 and 130:
127 FRANCE These provisions are not
Page 131 and 132:
129 FRANCE France does not use the
Page 133 and 134:
131 FRANCE notice subsequently (for
Page 135 and 136:
133 FRANCE If a migrant leaves the
Page 137:
NOTES 135 FRANCE 1. Circular No. no
Page 140 and 141:
Page 142 and 143:
Page 144 and 145:
Page 146 and 147:
Page 148 and 149:
Page 150 and 151:
Page 152 and 153:
Page 154 and 155:
Page 156 and 157:
Page 158 and 159:
Page 160 and 161:
Page 162 and 163:
Page 164 and 165:
Page 167 and 168:
GREECE 1. INVOLUNTARY RETURN 1.1 PO
Page 169 and 170:
167 GREECE Rejected asylum seekers
Page 171 and 172:
1.3 ADMINISTRATIVE AND PROCEDURAL A
Page 173:
171 GREECE After completion of the
Page 176 and 177:
Page 178 and 179:
Page 180 and 181:
Page 182 and 183:
Page 184 and 185:
Page 186 and 187:
Page 188 and 189:
Page 190 and 191:
Page 192 and 193:
Page 194 and 195:
Page 196 and 197:
Page 198 and 199:
Page 201 and 202:
ITALY 1. INVOLUNTARY RETURN 1.1 POL
Page 203 and 204: Quota System The Italian Quota Syst
Page 205 and 206: 203 ITALY The new immigration law a
Page 207 and 208: 205 ITALY respite is one week from
Page 209 and 210: 207 ITALY The main state-funded vol
Page 211 and 212: 209 ITALY Sustainability of Return
Page 213 and 214: LATVIA 1. INVOLUNTARY RETURN 1.1 PO
Page 215 and 216: 213 LATVIA “detention” as used
Page 217 and 218: 215 LATVIA Comparable to the French
Page 219 and 220: 217 LATVIA Chartered Flights Latvia
Page 221 and 222: 219 LATVIA A refugee, who does not
Page 223 and 224: Operational Steps for Voluntary Ret
Page 225: NOTES 223 LATVIA 1. Section 2 of th
Page 228 and 229: Return Migration: Policies and Prac
Page 277 and 278: NORWAY 1. INVOLUNTARY RETURN 1.1 PO
Page 279 and 280: 277 NORWAY Lack of the necessary tr
Page 281 and 282: 279 NORWAY The Immigration Director
Page 283 and 284: 281 NORWAY tion database for finger
Page 285 and 286: 283 NORWAY There is no specific leg
Page 287 and 288: 285 NORWAY general repatriation ass
Page 289 and 290: Lessons Learned 1.4 BEST PRACTICES
Page 291: NOTES 289 NORWAY 1. Proposal to the
Page 304 and 305:
Page 307 and 308:
PORTUGAL 1. INVOLUNTARY RETURN 1.1
Page 309 and 310:
307 PORTUGAL Is perceived as a thre
Page 311 and 312:
309 PORTUGAL The 1994 Law on Provis
Page 313 and 314:
311 PORTUGAL Beyond this generic as
Page 315 and 316:
313 PORTUGAL Programme Services •
Page 317:
NOTES 315 PORTUGAL 1. Decree Law Nu
Page 320 and 321:
Page 322 and 323:
Page 324 and 325:
Page 326 and 327:
Page 328 and 329:
Page 331 and 332:
SLOVENIA 1. INVOLUNTARY RETURN 1.1
Page 333 and 334:
331 SLOVENIA The European Conventio
Page 335 and 336:
333 SLOVENIA Instructions governing
Page 337 and 338:
335 SLOVENIA most frequent problems
Page 339 and 340:
2.3 BEST PRACTICES AND LESSONS LEAR
Page 341 and 342:
SPAIN 1. INVOLUNTARY RETURN 1.1 POL
Page 343 and 344:
2001 and expected to run until 2004
Page 345 and 346:
343 SPAIN centre for refugee minors
Page 347 and 348:
345 SPAIN The Inter-ministerial Com
Page 349 and 350:
2. ASSISTED VOLUNTARY RETURN 347 SP
Page 351 and 352:
Framework Agreements with Countries
Page 353 and 354:
SWEDEN 1. INVOLUNTARY RETURN 1.1 PO
Page 355 and 356:
353 SWEDEN enforcement, may refuse
Page 357 and 358:
355 SWEDEN Swedish legislation make
Page 359 and 360:
357 SWEDEN time after receiving the
Page 361 and 362:
359 SWEDEN Prisons are only used fo
Page 363 and 364:
2. ASSISTED VOLUNTARY RETURN 361 SW
Page 365 and 366:
363 SWEDEN In 2002, 116 people appl
Page 367 and 368:
2.4 BEST PRACTICES AND LESSONS LEAR
Page 369:
NOTES 367 SWEDEN 1. Asylum Applicat
Page 372 and 373:
Page 374 and 375:
Page 376 and 377:
Page 378 and 379:
Page 380 and 381:
Page 382 and 383:
Page 384 and 385:
Page 386 and 387:
Page 388 and 389:
Page 390 and 391:
Page 392 and 393:
Page 394 and 395:
Page 396 and 397:
Page 398 and 399:
Page 400 and 401:
Page 402 and 403:
Page 404 and 405:
show all

Return - IOM Publications - International Organization for Migration

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?