Talking about return. Governmental caseworkers' regulative, normative and cultural‐cognitive strategies during “return conversations” with irregularised migrants
| Published date | 01 February 2023 |
| Author | Michael Sinnige,Marieke Houte,Arjen Leerkes |
| Date | 01 February 2023 |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1111/imig.13051 |
1Erasmus School of Social and Behavioural
Sciences, Erasmus University Rotterdam,
Rotterdam, The Netherlands
2Maastricht Graduate School of Governance,
UNU-MERIT, Maastricht, The Netherlands
Correspondence
Arjen Leerkes, Erasmus School of Social and
Behavioural Sciences, Erasmus University
Rotterdam, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
Email: leerkes@essb.eur.nl
Funding information
Erasmus University Rotterdam
Abstract
Caseworkers of the Repatriation and Departure Service
(DT&V), responsible for enforcing return orders in the Neth-
erlands, systematically orchestrate “return conversations”
with rejected asylum seekers and apprehended irregular
migrants in hopes of realising the return of their “clients” with-
out physical force. Based on semi-structured interviews, we
analyse which strategies the caseworkers use under which
conditions and what they think about their strategies' (in)
effectiveness. The analysis is informed by Scott's institutional
theory and Lipsky's concept of street-level bureaucracy. Our
results show that caseworkers prefer regulative strategies
but are under organisational pressure to also use normative
and cultural-cognitive strategies, especially when migrants
cannot be deported. According to the caseworkers, these
cases are often the most labour-intensive and the normative
and cultural-cognitive arguments used are considered rarely
successful. Also, these arguments seem to conflict with their
social norms and cultural-cognitive beliefs. We develop
three hypotheses which can be used in future research.
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Talking about return. Governmental caseworkers’
regulative, normative and cultural‐cognitive
strategies during “return conversations” with
irregularised migrants
Michael Sinnige1 | Marieke van Houte1 | Arjen Leerkes1,2
DOI: 10.1111/imig.13051
Received: 8 July 2021 Revised: 21 June 2022 Accepted: 1 August 2022
288
This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs License, which permits
use and distribution in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited, the use is non-commercial and no modifications or
adaptations are made.
© 2022 The Authors. International Migration published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of International Organization for Migration.
Int Migr. 2023;61:288–303.wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/imig
GOVERNMENTAL CASEWORKERS’ STRATEGIES289
INTRODUCTION
Over the past three decades, the return of rejected asylum seekers and (other) migrants without legal permission
to stay has been high on European political agendas (European Union, 2021; Gibney, 2008; Noll, 1999). However,
enforcement of return is complicated due to (1) the resistance of migrants who prefer living in marginal circumstances
over returning to countries where the structural conditions are unfavourable in terms of civil rights (Kibreab, 2003),
societal safety or economic opportunities (Leerkes et al., 2017) and (2) the reluctance of some countries of origin to
readmit their citizens, especially in case of forced return (Noll, 1999).
The Dutch Repatriation and Departure Service (Dienst Terugkeer & Vertrek, DT&V) were set up in 2007 as a
national governing body to coordinate enforced return, both through assisted return—mostly carried out by the
International Organisation of Migration (IOM) or NGOs offering similar services, but, if necessary, carried out by
the DT&V itself—and forced return—carried out by the (military) police. Asylum seekers receiving a negative deci-
sion, apprehended migrants who are found to be illegally present in the Netherlands, and migrants who have been
convicted of a deportable crime, 1 are all subject to an order to return and become part of DT&V's caseload. All clients
are thus “irregularised migrants” who do not, or no longer, have permission to stay in the Netherlands. In a series of
return conversations, DT&V caseworkers are expected first to try to convince their “clients” to comply with assisted
return, sometimes also called soft deportation by academics (Kalir, 2017; Leerkes et al., 2017). If that does not work,
they must attempt to organise (hard) deportation. 2 As street-level bureaucrats (Lipsky, 2010), the caseworkers have
considerable discretion in conducting return conversations. Nevertheless, they are supposed to use an organisational
methodology for motivational interviewing and are required to continue the return conversations until the migrant
returns, absconds or (re-)obtains legal stay.
The Netherlands has, since the 1980s, developed one of the most comprehensive migration enforcement
regimes in Europe (Leerkes & van Houte, 2020). However, most migrants who enter the DT&V's caseload do not
leave the Netherlands; in 2019, only an estimated 39 per cent 3 of those who were ordered to leave demonstrably
left the country through assisted or forced return (calculations based on Ministerie van Justitie en Veiligheid, 2020).
In addition to regulative strategies that focus on coercion and rewards (Scott, 2013), the DT&V is therefore experi-
menting with strategies based on shared norms and beliefs, in which caseworkers try to convince migrants that their
return is appropriate and legitimate. There is some evidence that such normative models promote compliance to
some extent (Pryce, 2019; Scott, 2013), including in immigration enforcement (Ryo, 2013; Van Alphen et al., 2013).
This suggests that cultural-cognitive mechanisms, which impact behaviour by tacitly framing social reality in specific
ways, are also being used.
While various studies have analysed how enforced return is implemented (Cleton & Chauvin, 2020; Eule
et al., 2019; Kalir, 2017; Khosravi, 2009), existing studies tend to focus on either regulative, normative or
cultural-cognitive mechanisms. This study aims to take a more comprehensive look. It aims to identify strategies
across all three of the beforementioned mechanisms and looks at how caseworkers, acting as street-level bureaucrats,
determine which strategy to use when and what they think about the effectiveness of their strategies. This paper
reports on an explorative study aimed at filling this knowledge gap. We pose the following question: “What strategies
do government caseworkers use to convince irregularised migrants to return, which factors determine these strategies, and
what are the effects of the strategies according to the caseworkers?” The analysis is based on interviews with 13 DT&V
caseworkers (out of a total of approximately 250 caseworkers) conducted in the first half of 2019.
The study also has policy and public relevance. Given that liberal states in particular favour assisted return over
forced return for several reasons (Gibney, 2008), it is important to know more about the use and (in)effectiveness of
strategies of immigration control that do not rely directly on physical coercion. Independently gathered knowledge on
these strategies, making what is usually an opaque field more transparent, contributes to informed, evidence-based
public and policy discussions on immigration control. It also helps governmental organisations like DT&V, as well as
civil society organisations that are conducting assisted return counselling, to reflect on the usefulness and desirability
Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI
Get Started for FreeStart Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting