Return - IOM Publications - International Organization for Migration

Return Migration: Policies and Practices
In 2003, the Netherlands instated special detention centres for rejected asylum seekers pending
expulsion at Amsterdam’s Schiphol Airport, and two more at Ter Apel. These centres serve to
detain illegal migrants and refused asylum seekers, who can be expelled in the short term.
The period of detention is not limited and can be imposed repeatedly. The option to repatriate or
to leave the Netherlands for an unknown destination rarely appeals to rejectees, understandably,
as they have come to the Netherlands to stay and not to return. 16 Thus, the Netherlands faces a
growing number of rejected migrants who continue to reside without authorization. A side effect
of the stricter asylum policy and the ordered return has been an increase in the number of homeless
asylum seekers and a growth in the irregular job market. 17
Critics of the principle of placing sole responsibility for return on the rejectee argue that the
asylum seeker is also made responsible for the unwillingness of the country of origin to readmit
its nationals. Although countries of origin are obliged under international law to re-accept their
nationals, in practice some rejectees are often not readmitted because of missing identification
and travel documents. In light of this, the Dutch authorities have tried to cooperate with relevant
countries of origin on the readmission of failed asylum seekers and irregular migrants.
Detainees without sufficient financial means are provided with free legal counsel.
Framework Agreements with Countries of Origin or Transit
The Netherlands does not usually conclude repatriation and readmission agreements independently
and often negotiates them either as part of the Benelux or as part of the EU.
In 2002, the Benelux countries prepared readmission agreements with Algeria, Armenia,
Azerbaijan, the Czech Republic, France, Georgia, Hungary, India, Kyrgyzstan, Macedonia,
Nigeria, the Slovak Republic, Switzerland, and Yugoslavia. They eventually signed readmission
agreements with Hungary, the Slovak Republic, and Yugoslavia, although the ratification procedure
was not finalized by the end of 2002. 18
An overview of other agreements can be found in Annex 1.
The need for such agreements has arisen out of obstacles presented by the repatriation process,
e.g. the reluctance of some counties to accept their returning nationals and cooperate in providing
travel documents, where lacking. This process proves to be difficult especially in cases
where rejected asylum seekers have committed a serious criminal offence. Some diplomatic
missions of countries of origin have expressly stated their unwillingness to assist with forced
returns.
Sometimes, the problem arises because of a reluctance of the person to cooperate in establishing
his/her identity. This is not only attributable to an unwillingness to leave the country, but also a
reluctance to return to the country of origin. Difficulties also arise because of ineffective population
registration systems in the country of origin or missing population records. According to
MoJ, these persons are subsequently difficult to be removed and actual repatriation impossible,
if the provisions of the European Convention on Human Rights and the Convention Against
Torture are to be respected.
260