|
(7 October 2011) -- In a speech to the general public, Philip Amaral of JRS Europe argued that Europe "shouldn't use detention to welcome migrants into our society". The speech, given at the University of Antwerp on 22 September, argued also for alternatives to detention to be put into place.
In his speech entitled, "Migration detention in Europe: Necessary evil or unjustifiable breach of human rights?", Amaral discussed the primary motivations of governments to detain, and the restrictions they face in their wish to detain.
"From a state's perspective, detention is a necessary component of a viable migration policy - to ensure that migrants without a legal status do not run from the authorities, and that they can be removed from the territory at the state's behest."
"But states do not have carte blanche. They must adhere to strict criteria and conditions based in law. Detention must be necessary ... arbitrary detention is forbidden. Detention must also be reasonable and proportional."
According to Amaral, the use of detention comes at a high cost to state finances. However, the most serious costs are incurred by the individuals who are subject to detention.
"Oxford University projected the costs for operating one detention centre to be £8.5 million per year, or €9.7 million."
"If the financial costs of detention are high, then I would argue that the human costs are excessive. The negative consequences of detention and its harmful effects on individual persons are disproportionate to their actual situations -- in that they have committed no crime."
"It is unnecessary to detain persons and thus make the vulnerable to harm because non-custodial alternatives to detention exist."
Amaral described the latest study by the International Detention Coalition, There Are Alternatives, citing their findings that alternatives bring up to 90% cost savings to governments, while ensuring a maximum degree of cooperation from migrants. Indeed, the study shows that migrants who are placed in community-based settings, provided with information and left without major restrictions are more likely to cooperate with a state's migration policy, even if the outcomes for the migrant are negative.
|