Nov 15, 2011
The case of Mauro Manuel and the deportation of de facto Dutch citizens
We are delighted to welcome this second guest post from Anne Neylon. Anne is a PhD candidate at University College Cork. She is currently a Visiting Research Fellow at the Refugee Studies Centre at the University of Oxford.
On October 31st last, eighteen year old Angolan Mauro Manuel, who arrived in the Netherlands aged 10 as a separated child seeking asylum was told by the Dutch parliament that he may not remain in the state now that he is an adult. Although Mauro Manuel now sees the Netherlands as the only state with which he identifies, this attachment has not been deemed sufficient to allow him to stay on an indefinite basis. The case of Mauro Manuel raises questions about what citizenship really means and how the advance of globalization has acted to challenge the way in which one’s identity and ability to acquire citizenship is constructed.
In the Netherlands, the current government policy is to permit separated children seeking asylum to remain in the care of the state until such a time as they reach their 18th birthday. This is the case even if the child in question is not recognised as having refugee status. However, once the child turns 18, all of these protections are removed. At least this is what the outcome of the case of Mauro Manuel appears to indicate.
Kromhaut notes that since 2001, stricter policies with respect to separated children seeking asylum who have not been recognised as refugees or beneficiaries of subsidiary protection.[1] A number of policies introduced between 2001 and 2006 that were aimed at encouraging separated children seeking asylum to be returned home after their refugee claim had failed. One such measure was an initiative to prepare the separated child for return directly after she had filed her claim for asylum. Kromhaut observes that the overall effect was a drop in the number of asylum applications filed by separated children.
Prior to 2001, separated children whose asylum claims had failed were entitled to a residence permit which could be extended beyond their 18th birthday. This provision has however since been abolished as part of a general “crack-down” that occurred after September 11th 2001. Now, once a separated child seeking asylum reaches 18 in the Netherlands, she faces the possibility of deportation. Although separated child asylum seekers whose claim had failed were not entitled to a residence permit after 2001, in effect, they were still protected from removal until they had reached the age of 18, and though not officially, beyond that age.
Yet all of the policies that were introduced by the Dutch government appear to not have had an effect on the number of ultimate removals. Although, as noted, policy documents of the Netherlands government suggest that the separated children seeking asylum who are in the Netherlands for longer than three years while they are under 18 should be entitled to stay, the case of Mauro Manuel indicates that there has been a significant shift in policy, where the time spent in the Netherlands is not considered as a justification for permitting the individual to remain.
The decision relating to Mauro Manuel will affect all separated children seeking asylum in the Netherlands who are about to turn 18. While the Dutch House of Representatives has voted that Mauro Manuel cannot be allowed to stay in the Netherlands, they have also indicated that he will be granted a temporary student visa in the Netherlands for a period of four years. Whether he would be allowed to remain after this period remains unclear.
Many arguments that are made for the non-removal of separated children seeking asylum by organisations who act as advocates for separated asylum seeking children are silenced at the point at which a child turns 18. Overnight, a separated child such as Mauro Manuel becomes a failed asylum seeker. Yet, this fact alone does not necessarily legitimate his removal from the state and this is something that has been implicitly acknowledged by the Dutch government. The reluctance to physically remove Mauro Manuel from the territory of the Netherlands represents the ethical issues that the Dutch government is faced with when it encounters a case such as that of Mauro Manuel. By using its discretion to grant Mauro Manuel a temporary residence status, the Netherlands has effectively admitted to having a moral obligation to him. It is a moral obligation that would be violated if he was actually removed to Angola. It is a moral obligation that can most closely be compared with the relationship between state and citizen, since the deportation of the citizens appears to be the last remaining taboo in terms of removals in many Western states.
For all intents and purposes, Mauro Manuel considers himself to be a Dutch citizen. His final plea to the House of Representatives exemplifies this:
“Against my will I have become a symbol for all young, unaccompanied asylum seekers in the Netherlands. I would much rather be a symbol of integration in Dutch society,”
“I was put on a plane completely by myself when I was nine years old. I was very sad and frightened … Happily I came to live with good people who are now my mother and father.
“I want to celebrate Queen’s Day every year and, as a footballer myself, I want the Dutch team to be champions.”
“I promise I will always try to be an asset to the Netherlands. Please let me stay here forever. My future is in the Netherlands. I would like to be an example to others and work for Dutch society all my life.”
By both disassociating himself with other asylum seeking children and demonstrating his loyalty to the State, Mauro Manuel emphasises his transformation from separated child seeking asylum to Dutch citizen. While this transition to citizen has occurred on a subjective level, it does not meet the standards that have been set for acquiring formal citizenship in the Netherlands. While Mauro Manuel would almost certainly pass the integration criterion for the acquisition of Dutch nationality, as well as the language requirement and “good character” element of the application, his status up to this point would effectively void such an application. Therefore, although citizenship in the Netherlands has been conceived as a “tool of integration”, one cannot claim integration as the basis for being entitled to citizenship. This inequality has previously been noted by Baubӧck when he described the position of the state as opposed to the individual applying for membership, and how denial of that membership affects the individual in a far more significant way than when a state loses a citizen who rejects their original citizenship in order to acquire another citizenship.
The fact remains that Mauro Manuel has no meaningful connection to any state other than the Netherlands. There is no way that the government could contend that he has such a connection with Angola, which, if he was to be deported, is likely where he would be removed. However, the case of Mauro Manuel represents a general toughening of immigration and asylum policy in the Netherlands. Separated children who have not settled as well as Mauro Manuel in to Dutch society and who do not have as much support from their foster families as well as from the wider public will no doubt receive even less sympathetic responses from the state to their pleas to remain. What now appears to be happening is that the Netherlands will deport people who have grown up in the state and formed attachments as a result of a government policy to not deport separated children under 18 whose asylum claim has failed. At that point, the Netherlands will have established itself as a state which demands integration from anyone who enters the state as an immigrant yet deports those immigrants who have achieved complete integration but whose status has become irregular. The policy on enfranchisement in the Netherlands has acted to disenfranchise a part of its population.
[1] M. Kromhout, ‘Return of Separated Children: The Impact of Dutch Policies’, International migration, (2009).
