Make a Submission
No. XLVI/1 (2024)
Articles

Behind the desk: Examining the decision-making and legitimation practices of immigration officials in return procedures in Belgium

Za biurkiem. Badanie praktyk podejmowania decyzji i ich uzasadniania przez urzędników imigracyjnych w procedurach powrotowych w Belgii

PDF
  • Laure Deschuyteneer,
  • Lars Breuls
Laure Deschuyteneer
Vrije Universiteit Brussel
Lars Breuls
Vrije Universiteit Brussel

Published 2024-09-30

Keywords

  • immigration officials,
  • administrative decision-making,
  • desk work,
  • legitimacy,
  • legitimation work,
  • crimmigration
    • ...More
    Less

Copyright (c) 2024 Laure Deschuyteneer, Lars Breuls

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

How to Cite

“Behind the desk: Examining the decision-making and legitimation practices of immigration officials in return procedures in Belgium: Za biurkiem. Badanie praktyk podejmowania decyzji i ich uzasadniania przez urzędników imigracyjnych w procedurach powrotowych w Belgii” (2024) Archives of Criminology, (XLVI/1), pp. 15–36. doi:10.7420/AK2024.04.
Crossref
Scopus
Google Scholar
Europe PMC

Abstract

Scholars have highlighted the crucial role that immigration officials play as “street-level bureaucrats” in the implementation of restrictive immigration policies. This study describes the working and decision-making practices of immigration officials in return procedures in Belgium, based on observations, expert interviews, and an analysis of case law. We demonstrate that their work primarily involves desk work and writing justifications in their decisions. Their decision-making is characterized by a heavy sense of pragmatism and standardization, primarily focusing on “what holds up in administrative court.” In return procedures, Belgian immigration officials therefore experience little need for legitimation work: from their perspective, legitimation primarily entails meeting administrative burdens of proof. Our analysis indicates that this distanced administrative system disadvantages the affected migrants, especially considering that the appellate body evaluates procedural aspects of the decision-making rather than conducting in-depth case (re-)evaluations.

PDF

References

  1. Aas K.F. (2013). Globalization and Crime. Los Angeles: Sage.
  2. Aas K.F. (2014). ‘Bordered penality: Precarious membership and abnormal justice.’ Punishment & Society 16(5), pp. 520–541.
  3. Act of 15 December 1980 on the entry, stay, settlement and expulsion of foreign nationals. Belgian Gazette 31 December 1980, 14.584.
  4. Barker V. (2012). ‘Global mobility and penal order: Criminalizing migration, a view from Europe.’ Sociology Compass 6(2), pp. 113–121.
  5. Barker V. (2017). ‘Penal power at the border: Realigning state and nation.’ Theoretical Criminology 21(4), pp. 441–457.
  6. Bauman Z. (2013). Globalization: The Human Consequences. Hoboken: Wiley.
  7. Belgian Council of State [BCS] (2006). October 27, 2006, No. 164.171.
  8. Belgian Council of State [BCS] (2007). June 27, 2007, No. 172.821.
  9. Belgian Council of State [BCS] (2016b). April 26, 2016, No. 234.511.
  10. Belgian Council of State [BSC] (2001). December 7, 2001, No. 101.924.
  11. Belgian Council of State [BSC] (2016a). February 3, 2016, No. 233.719.
  12. Belgian Council of State [BSC] (2017). February 28, 2017, No. 237.502.
  13. Bonta J. and Andrews D.A. (2017). The Psychology of Criminal Conduct. London, New York: Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group.
  14. Borrelli L.M. (2018a). ‘Whisper down, up and between the lanes: Exclusionary policies and their limits of control in times of irregularized migration.’ Public Administration 96(4), pp. 803–816.
  15. Borrelli L.M. (2018b). ‘Using ignorance as (un)conscious bureaucratic strategy’. Qualitative Studies 5(2), pp. 95–109.
  16. Borrelli L.M. and Lindberg A. (2018). ‘The creativity of coping: Alternative tales of moral dilemmas among migration control officers.’ International Journal of Migration and Border Studies 4(3), pp. 163–178.
  17. Borrelli L.M. and Lindberg A. (2019). ‘Paperwork performances: Constructing legitimacy in and of the migration control apparatus.’ Journal of Legal Anthropology 3(2), pp. 50–69.
  18. Bosworth M. (2011). ‘Deportation, detention and foreign-national prisoners in England and Wales.’ Citizenship Studies 15(5), pp. 583–595.
  19. Bosworth M. (2012). ‘Subjectivity and identity in detention: Punishment and society in a global age.’ Theoretical Criminology 16(2), pp. 123–140.
  20. Bosworth M. (2013). ‘Can immigration detention centres be legitimate? Understanding confinement in a global world.’ In K.F. Aas and M. Bosworth (eds.) The Borders of Punishment. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 149–165.
  21. Bosworth M. (2014). Inside Immigration Detention. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  22. Bottoms A. and Tankebe J. (2012). ‘Beyond procedural justice: A dialogic approach to legitimacy in criminal justice.’ Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology 102(1), pp. 119–170.
  23. Breuls L. (2022a). Vreemdelingendetentie in de Lage Landen: Een etnografisch onderzoek naar uitvoeringspraktijken van vreemdelingendetentie in België en in Nederland [Immigration detention in the Low Countries: An ethnographic study of immigration detention practices in Belgium and the Netherlands]. The Hague: Boom Criminologie.
  24. Breuls L. (2022b). ‘Werken aan terugkeer in vreemdelingenbewaring? Een blik op de werkpraktijken van terugkeerfunctionarissen en hun interacties met opgesloten personen’ [Working on return in immigration detention? A look at the practices of return officers and their interactions with detainees]. Justitiële Verkenningen 48(2), pp. 70–95.
  25. Broeders D. and Engbersen G. (2007). ‘The fight against illegal migration: Identification policies and immigrants’ counterstrategies.’ American Behavioral Scientist 50(12), pp. 1592–1609.
  26. Brouwer J. (2020). ‘Bordered penality in the Netherlands: The experiences of foreign national prisoners and prison officers in a crimmigration prison.’ Punishment & Society 22(5), pp. 703–722.
  27. Council for Alien Law Litigation – Belgium [CALL] (n.d.), Rvv-cce.be. Available online: https://www.rvv-cce.be/ [07.05.2024].
  28. Council of Immigration Law Litigation (Dutch) [CILL] (2014a). June 20, 2014, No. 152.856.
  29. Council of Immigration Law Litigation (Dutch) [CILL] (2014b). June 24, 2014, No. 126.158.
  30. Council of Immigration Law Litigation (Dutch) [CILL] (2018a). December 10, 2018, No. 213.716.
  31. Council of Immigration Law Litigation (Dutch) [CILL] (2018b). September 28, 2018, No. 210.344.
  32. Council of Immigration Law Litigation (Dutch) [CILL] (2020). March 3, 2020, No. 233.519.
  33. Council of Immigration Law Litigation (Dutch) [CILL] (2023a). April 27, 2023, No. 288.221.
  34. Council of Immigration Law Litigation (Dutch) [CILL] (2023b). January 10, 2023, No. 282.949.
  35. Council of Immigration Law Litigation (Dutch) [CILL] (2023c). January 12, 2023, No. 283.102.
  36. Council of Immigration Law Litigation (Dutch) [CILL] (2023d). January 12, 2023, No. 283.103.
  37. Council of Immigration Law Litigation (Dutch) [CILL] (2023e). January 16, 2023, No. 283.195.
  38. Council of Immigration Law Litigation (Dutch) [CILL] (2023f). January 26, 2023, No. 283.879.
  39. Council of Immigration Law Litigation (Dutch) [CILL] (2023g). January 27, 2023, No. 283.961.
  40. Council of Immigration Law Litigation (Dutch) [CILL] (2023h). January 27, 2023, No. 283.973.
  41. Council of Immigration Law Litigation (Dutch) [CILL] (2023i). January 27, 2023, No. 283.975.
  42. Council of Immigration Law Litigation (Dutch) [CILL] (2023j). January 30, 2023, No. 284.041.
  43. Council of Immigration Law Litigation (Dutch) [CILL] (2023k). July 18, 2023, No. 292.150.
  44. Council of Immigration Law Litigation (Dutch) [CILL] (2023l). July 19, 2023, No. 292.169.
  45. Council of Immigration Law Litigation (Dutch) [CILL] (2023m). March 31, 2023, No. 287.038.
  46. Council of Immigration Law Litigation (Dutch) [CILL] (2023n). October 30, 2023, No. 296.475.
  47. Council of Immigration Law Litigation (Dutch) [CILL] (2023o). September 18, 2023, No. 294.249.
  48. Council of Immigration Law Litigation (Dutch) [CILL] (2023p). January 26, 2023, No. 283.881.
  49. Council of Immigration Law Litigation (Dutch) [CILL] (2023r). January 26, 2023, No. 283.874.
  50. Council of Immigration Law Litigation (French) [CILL] (2014c). August 21, 2014, No. 128.207.
  51. Council of Immigration Law Litigation (French) [CILL] (2018c). December 20, 2018, No. 214.435.
  52. Council of Immigration Law Litigation (French) [CILL] (2023s). October 31, 2023, No. 296.544.
  53. Council of Immigration Law Litigation (French) [CILL] (2023t). September 29, 2023, No. 294.890.
  54. Dahlvik J. (2017). ‘Asylum as construction work: Theorizing administrative practices.’ Migration Studies 5(3), pp. 369–388.
  55. Eule T.G. (2018). ‘The (surprising?) nonchalance of migration control agents.’ Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies 44(16), pp. 2780–2795.
  56. Eule T.G., Borrelli L.M., Lindberg A., and Wyss A. (2019). Migrants Before the Law: Contested Migration Control in Europe. Cham: Springer International Publishing.
  57. European Court of Justice [ECJ] (2012). November 22, 2012, C-277/11, MM v. Ireland.
  58. European Court of Justice [ECJ] (2013). September 10, 2013, C-383/13, PPU M.G. and N.R.
  59. European Court of Justice [ECJ] (2014a). November 5, 2014, C-166/13, Mukarubega v. France.
  60. European Court of Justice [ECJ] (2014b). December 11, 2014, C-249/13, Boudjlida v. France.
  61. Hannah-Moffat K., Maurutto P., and Turnbull S. (2009). ‘Negotiated risk: Actuarial illusions and discretion in probation.’ Canadian Journal of Law and Society 24(3), pp. 391–409.
  62. Hertoghs M. (2023). ‘Suspicious compassion: On affect and state power in the Dutch asylum procedure.’ Ethnography (published online ahead of print 30 June). https://doi.org/10.1177/14661381231185943.
  63. Houte M. van, Leerkes A., Slipper A., and Breuls L. (2021). ‘Globalised citizenship and the perceived legitimacy of immigration control: Narratives and acts of resistance in immigration detention.’ Migration Studies 9(3), pp. 1269–1291.
  64. Huysmans J. (2000). ‘The European Union and the securitization of migration.’ Journal of Common Market Studies 38(5), pp. 751–777.
  65. Immigration Office (2022). Activiteitenverslag 2022 Dienst Vreemdelingenzaken [2022 Activity report of the Immigration Office], Dofi.ibz.be. Available online: https://dofi.ibz.be/sites/default/files/2023-07/2022%20Activiteitenverslag%20NL_1.pdf. [07.05.2024].
  66. Jubany O. (2017). Screening Asylum in a Culture of Disbelief: Truths, Denials and Skeptical Borders. Cham: Springer International Publishing.
  67. Kalir B. and Wissink L. (2016). ‘The deportation continuum: Convergences between state agents and NGO workers in the Dutch deportation field.’ Citizenship Studies 20(1), pp. 34–49.
  68. Kraatz M.S. and Block E.S. (2008). ‘Organizational implications of institutional pluralism.’ In R. Greenwood, C. Oliver, R. Suddaby, and K. Sahlin (eds.) The SAGE Handbook of Organizational Institutionalism. London: Sage, pp. 243–275.
  69. Krasmann S. (2007). ‘The enemy on the border: Critique of a programme in favour of a preventive state’. Punishment & Society 9(3), pp. 301–318.
  70. Leerkes A. and Kox M. (2017). ‘Pressured into a preference to leave? A study on the “specific” deterrent effects and perceived legitimacy of immigration detention.’ Law & Society Review 51(4), pp. 895–929.
  71. Legomsky S.H. (2007). ‘The new path of immigration law: Asymmetric incorporation of criminal justice norms.’ Washington and Lee Law Review 64(2), pp. 469–528.
  72. Leitner H. (1997). ‘Reconfiguring the spatiality of power: The construction of a supranational migration framework for the European Union.’ Political Geography 16(2), pp. 123–143.
  73. Leun J. van der and Ridder S. de (2013). ‘Het cumulatief punitief karakter van het migratierecht’ [The cumulative punitive nature of immigraton law]. Orde van de Dag 61, pp. 29–36.
  74. Lipsky M. (1980). Street-Level Bureaucracy: Dilemmas of the Individual in Public Services. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
  75. Macq C. (2018). ‘Le point sur le retrait du droit au séjour et l’éloignement pour motifs d’ordre public des étrangers en séjour légal’ [Update on the withdrawal of the right to stay and deportation of legally resident foreigners on public order grounds]. Revue du Droit des Etrangers 198, pp. 179–221.
  76. Mascia C. (2021). ‘How bureaucracies shape access to rights: The implementation of family reunification in Belgium.’ Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies 47(9), pp. 2127–2143.
  77. Masocha S. (2014). ‘We do the best we can: Accounting practices in social work discourses of asylum seekers.’ British Journal of Social Work 44(6), pp. 1621–1636.
  78. Miaz J. (2017). ‘From the law to the decision: The social and legal conditions of asylum adjudication in Switzerland.’ European Policy Analysis 3(2), pp. 372–396.
  79. Miaz J. and Achermann C. (2022). ‘Bureaucracies under judicial control? Relational discretion in the implementation of immigration detention in Swiss cantons.’ Administration & Society 54(4), pp. 629–659.
  80. Miller T.A. (2002). ‘Citizenship and severity: Recent immigration reforms and the New Penology.’ Georgetown Immigration Law Journal 17, pp. 611–666.
  81. Pratt A. (2010). ‘Between a hunch and a hard place: Making suspicion reasonable at the Canadian border.’ Social & Legal Studies 19(4), pp. 461–480.
  82. Rodrigues P. and Woude M. van der (2018). ‘Preventieve politiecontroles en interne grenscontroles in het Schengengebied’ [Preventive police controls and internal border control in the Schengen Area]. Crimmigratie & Recht 2(1), pp. 17–29.
  83. Schultz C. (2020). ‘Ambiguous goals, uneven implementation – How immigration offices shape internal immigration control in Germany.’ Comparative Migration Studies 8(10), pp. 1–18.
  84. Stumpf J. (2006) ‘The crimmigration crisis: Immigrants, crime, and sovereign power.’ American University Law Review 56(2), pp. 367–420.
  85. Thompson D.F. (1980). ‘Moral responsibility of public officials: The problem of many hands.’ American Political Science Review 74(4), pp. 905–916.
  86. Turnbull S. and Hasselberg I. (2017). ‘From prison to detention: The carceral trajectories of foreign-national prisoners in the United Kingdom.’ Punishment & Society 19(2), pp. 135–154.
  87. Ugelvik T. (2016). ‘Techniques of legitimation: The narrative construction of legitimacy among immigration detention officers.’ Crime, Media, Culture: An International Journal 12(2), pp. 215–232.
  88. Ugelvik T. (2017). ‘The limits of the welfare state? Foreign national prisoners in the Norwegian crimmigration prison.’ In P. Scharff Smith and T. Ugelvik (eds.) Scandinavian Penal History, Culture and Prison Practice. London: Palgrave Macmillan UK, pp. 405–423.
  89. Wilsher D. (2004). ‘The administrative detention of non-nationals pursuant to immigration control: International and constitutional law perspectives.’ International and Comparative Law Quarterly 53(4), pp. 897–934.
  90. Wittock N., Cleton L., Vandevoordt R., and Vershraegen G. (2023). ‘Legitimising detention and deportation of illegalised migrant families: Reconstructing public controversies in Belgium and the Netherlands.’ Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies 49(7), pp. 1589–1609.
  91. Woude M. van der (2019). ‘Criminalisering van migratie en grensmobiliteit als een legitieme zorg voor de publieke criminologie’ [Criminalization of migration and border mobility as a legitimate concern for public criminology]. Tijdschrift voor Criminologie 61(4), pp. 405–420.

Similar Articles

You may also start an advanced similarity search for this article.