seriously, and designing responses that may convince
is discussed in chapter 6. But it is noteworthy that
political leaders and policy makers, that alternatives to
detention for identity assessment ought not to be an
detaining child refugees, asylum seekers and irregular
assumed requirement. As the IDC has documented
migrants will gain currency.
elsewhere, ‘[m]any countries house asylum seekers in open accommodation centres while undertaking
POLICY
identity confirmation.’ 62
The detention of irregular migrants, including children, seeks to achieve a number of policy ends.
Similarly, health and security assessments can be
These policy objectives range across the migration
complicated and resource intensive activities for states
experience – from deterring irregular migrants before
to undertake. However, it is possible to conduct
they arrive, to ensuring identity, health and security
these assessments without recourse to detaining
checks can be completed on arrival, and to prevent
children. Some states have developed robust screening
absconding and facilitate the removal of non-citizens
mechanisms, including vulnerability, need and risk
who have no right to remain within a state.
assessments, to ensure accurate decision making while keeping children out of detention. These are discussed
Children are also detained on the premise that it is
in greater detail in chapter six.
not in their best interests to separate them from their detained parents. The primary focus should however be on the child’s dual rights to not be detained and
Absconding and return Immigration detention is further justified by states
their right to have their parents and family reside with
as a means of ensuring that non-citizens do not
them in the community. Importantly, this requires
abscond and that they are available for removal if they
that states focus on the needs and rights of children
are found to have no right to remain within the state.
(and not just their adult caregivers), and not treat
It is reasonable for states to expect that non-citizens
the children as mere appendages of their parents or
who enter their territories without prior approval will
families.
not ‘disappear’ into the community. Likewise, it is reasonable for states to expect those who have no
Identity, Health and Security assessment
entitlement to remain, do leave the territory, while
Immigration detention is justified by states as a
ensuring that all protection, humanitarian and best
necessary means to check the identity of irregular
interest considerations are weighed up.
migrants and to ensure they do not pose a health or security threat to their citizens. These are important functions of states. It is not always easy for states to verify the identity
While the data is limited, there is evidence that refugees, asylum seekers and irregular migrants who are in supported alternatives to detention processes
of refugees, asylum seekers and irregular migrants.
are very unlikely to abscond. 63 The common factors
There are a number of general reasons for this:
contributing to higher compliance rates of asylum
because individuals may have come from situations
seekers and other migrants outside of detention
of protracted conflict where identity documentation
include:
was unavailable, or from situations where, because of
• treating asylum seekers and other migrants with
the need to leave in undue haste, it was not possible
dignity, humanity and respect throughout the entire
to obtain identity papers, or because smugglers
status determination procedure;
ordered them to destroy their documentation. In the
• the provision of clear, concise information
case of minors, or people claiming to be minors, there
regarding asylum seekers’ and other migrants’ rights
is an added complication for states in determining
and duties under alternatives to detention and the
their identity, namely assessing whether or not they
consequences of non-compliance;
are the age that they purport to be. Age assessment
• referral to legal advice at an early stage and
33