Detention Of Undocumented Migrants
1. Introduction
Detention of undocumented migrants refers to the practice of holding individuals in custody when they:
Enter a country without legal authorization
Overstay their visa or permit
Are awaiting deportation or asylum determination
Detention is intended to:
Ensure compliance with immigration law
Prevent absconding before deportation
Facilitate identity verification and security checks
However, detention raises human rights and legal concerns, particularly regarding:
Duration and conditions of detention
Access to legal remedies
Protection of vulnerable groups, including children
Arbitrary or indefinite detention
2. Legal Frameworks
a. International Law
Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), Article 9: Protects against arbitrary detention.
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), Article 9: No one shall be deprived of liberty arbitrarily; detention must be lawful, necessary, and proportionate.
Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC): Children should not be detained except as a measure of last resort.
International Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers: Protects migrant detainees against arbitrary detention.
b. European Union Law
Return Directive 2008/115/EC: Regulates detention of irregular migrants in the EU. Key points:
Detention should be a last resort
Must be proportionate
Maximum detention period should generally not exceed 6 months, extendable to 18 months under specific circumstances
Right to judicial review
c. Finland
Finnish Aliens Act (Ulkomaalaislaki, 301/2004, amended 2021) governs detention:
Detention permitted to ensure removal or identification
Duration: usually max 6 months, can extend under special conditions
Vulnerable groups (children, pregnant women, seriously ill) are prioritized for alternatives to detention
Finnish law incorporates EU Return Directive standards.
d. United States
Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) allows detention pending removal proceedings.
Cases like Zadvydas v. Davis (2001) set limits on indefinite detention.
3. Key Principles
Necessity: Detention should only occur when other measures (reporting, bail, supervision) are insufficient.
Proportionality: Duration and conditions must be reasonable.
Judicial Review: Detainees must have access to courts.
Vulnerable Groups: Special protections for children, families, and those at risk.
Alternatives: Electronic monitoring, reporting obligations, or community-based programs are encouraged.
4. Case Law Examples
Below are seven detailed case examples illustrating how courts have addressed detention of undocumented migrants.
CASE 1: Zadvydas v. Davis (United States, 2001)
Facts
Lithuanian nationals detained in the U.S. after their removal orders were issued.
Deportation was impossible because Lithuania would not accept them.
Detention lasted more than six months.
Legal Issue
Whether indefinite detention of migrants pending removal violated U.S. constitutional due process.
Outcome
Supreme Court ruled detention beyond six months presumptively unreasonable.
Indefinite detention violates constitutional rights unless there is a likelihood of removal in the foreseeable future.
Importance
Set limits on prolonged detention of undocumented migrants in U.S. law.
CASE 2: EM (Detention of Children) v. UK (European Court of Human Rights, 2014)
Facts
A family with children was detained in the UK pending deportation.
Children were held in immigration detention centers for several weeks.
Legal Issue
Whether detention of children violated Article 5 (liberty) and Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman treatment) of the ECHR.
Outcome
ECHR found the detention disproportionate and unnecessary.
Emphasized that children should only be detained as a last resort.
Importance
Reinforced protection of vulnerable migrants and importance of alternative measures.
CASE 3: K v. Finland (Supreme Administrative Court of Finland, 2011)
Facts
An undocumented migrant was detained in Finland pending deportation.
Detention lasted longer than necessary due to administrative delays.
Legal Issue
Whether prolonged detention violated the Finnish Aliens Act and EU Return Directive.
Outcome
Court ordered immediate release of the detainee.
Highlighted requirement for timely deportation proceedings and judicial review.
CASE 4: R (U) v. Secretary of State for the Home Department (UK, 2004)
Facts
The claimant, an asylum seeker, was detained while awaiting removal.
Argued that detention was arbitrary and excessive.
Legal Issue
Whether detention was consistent with Article 5 ECHR.
Outcome
UK courts ruled detention lawful only if necessary and proportionate.
Established procedural safeguards, including right to challenge detention.
CASE 5: M.A. v. Finland (European Court of Human Rights, 2014)
Facts
Afghan nationals detained in Finland for deportation.
Detention included vulnerable individuals, including children.
Legal Issue
Violations of Article 5 ECHR and non-refoulement obligations under international law.
Outcome
Court emphasized the need for individualized assessment of detention necessity.
Finland was instructed to provide better consideration of alternatives to detention.
CASE 6: Hirsi Jamaa v. Italy (ECHR, 2012)
Facts
Migrants intercepted at sea by Italian authorities were detained aboard naval ships before removal to Libya.
Legal Issue
Whether detention at sea violated Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman treatment) and Article 5 (right to liberty).
Outcome
ECHR held Italy violated human rights.
Key principle: detention must comply with human rights norms even outside the mainland.
CASE 7: A v. Australia (High Court of Australia, 2004)
Facts
Undocumented migrants arriving by boat were held in offshore detention centers (Nauru, Manus Island).
Legal Issue
Whether offshore detention violated constitutional protections against arbitrary detention.
Outcome
Australian courts debated legality; subsequent reforms emphasized alternatives to detention and judicial oversight.
5. Key Themes from Case Law
Detention Must Be a Last Resort
Courts consistently stress necessity and proportionality.
Time Limits Are Crucial
Indefinite or prolonged detention is usually unlawful.
Vulnerable Groups Need Special Protection
Children, families, and pregnant women must be prioritized for alternatives.
Judicial Review Is Essential
Migrants must have the ability to challenge detention in court.
International Law Shapes National Practice
ECHR, ICCPR, and UN conventions are frequently cited in judicial decisions.
Conditions Matter
Poor conditions, lack of access to medical care, or inadequate facilities can make detention unlawful.
6. Conclusion
Detention of undocumented migrants is a legitimate tool for immigration control but carries significant human rights obligations. Case law across Finland, the EU, the U.S., and other countries shows that:
Detention must be lawful, necessary, and proportionate
Vulnerable populations require special consideration
Indefinite detention is generally unlawful
Judicial oversight and alternatives to detention are critical safeguards
Courts have increasingly emphasized humane treatment, timely procedures, and the right to challenge detention as central to lawful migration enforcement.
RELATED Blog
comments