The story behind finding some of Europe’s invisible people

Although hundreds of thousands of stateless people live in Europe, finding them can be a challenge at times. An important part of the ENS campaign to improve protection of stateless persons in Europe is helping to take away the invisibility of the issue of statelessness in Europe. As part of this campaign, testimonies of stateless individuals in Europe have been collected in an effort to give statelessness a ‘human face’.

Contributing to this campaign, the Statelessness Programme at Tilburg University has been gathering stories of stateless persons in the Netherlands since September 2013. The Netherlands has not established a statelessness determination procedure, which means that it is unclear how many stateless persons there are in the country. In 2010, over 85,000 people were registered with Dutch municipalities as stateless or “nationality unknown” – many of the latter may also be in fact stateless. In this blog post I would like to take you through the journey, the challenges and surprises, of giving a ‘human face’ to statelessness.

Identifying stateless persons

Many individuals, non-profit organizations and NGO’s find the phenomenon of statelessness very confusing or do not have a full understanding of what it means. So where does one begin in first locating and then trying to identify an individual as stateless?  At first, it seems like looking for a needle in a haystack, but after seven months of work I was able to meet 15 stateless persons and families, all with different backgrounds, which helped painting a clearer picture of the countless situations which exist for a person to be or end up stateless in the Netherlands.

In the first two months I had contacted 200+ organizations across the country that in some way deal with (irregular) migrants, and many of them had questions about how to identify stateless people. They felt unable to distinguish stateless people from other non-nationals: in their eyes, many of the irregular migrants they assist face the same issues, including being unable to return to their country of origin and the inability to prove their nationality or to acquire identity documents. Nonetheless, with help from students at Tilburg University, fellow colleagues and interns at the Statelessness Programme but also lawyers, volunteers at non-profit organizations and religious institutions I was able to get in touch with stateless people who would be willing to share their story.

I have met stateless persons from as young as 3 months right up to 80 years of age from different countries including Myanmar, China, Congo, Ukraine, Viet Nam, Macedonia, Iraq, Azerbaijan, and Palestine but also children born stateless in the Netherlands. Some have never been recognized as a national of any state while others had their nationality withdrawn for a variety of reasons and are unable to reacquire their nationality.

Challenges faced by stateless people in the Netherlands

Some of the stateless persons I met possess a residence permit, often based on an immigration amnesty law which was adopted in 2007. They face the problem that they are now unable to naturalize because of their inability to prove their statelessness. I also met stateless people who are staying irregularly in the Netherlands. The lack of a statelessness determination procedure is causing inadequate protection for these people. As a matter of fact, more than half of all persons I met have never even acquired a residence permit, even those that have been living here in the Netherlands for over 15 years. As a result, they have been completely dependent on interim-aid from, for instance, shelters and churches. I noticed a common wish shared amongst them – to return to their homeland and if that is not possible to be somewhere in the world where their statelessness is acknowledged. For many of them, what seems like such a simple wish is accompanied by countless procedures, a web of requirements they are unable to meet, and the lack of proper documentation.

Many people live in fear of being detained because of their residence status and, therefore, live in loneliness and some have not left the city or village in which they have lived for years. Others have been traumatized from being detained multiple times for not possessing identity documents, not only in the Netherlands but also abroad, and struggle with psychological and physical health issues due to stress, about the constant worry about their legal procedures and their desperate hope to acquire a regularized stay and feel human again. This was prevalent, especially amongst the young adults, many of whom mentioned that they do not have any prospects for realizing their future plans such as studying, working, having a family or being able to travel. Hopes and ambitions shared amongst many of their peers. They say not to have any form of control over their own lives because all they can do is wait, wait for a residence permit which enables them to have a normal life.

It has really been an eye-opening experience for me to see the poor conditions that some of these stateless persons are forced to live in here in the Netherlands. Some of them are living in real poverty, moving between makeshift shelters such as the ones which have been constricted in a parking garage with little access to running water and electricity, or inside a former prison, knowing that in three months it will be time to pack up again and look for a new ‘home’. My first reaction to this was: how is it possible that people have to live in such circumstances in what is a so-called ‘first-world country’?

As mentioned, I also met stateless people who possess a residence permit and their human rights are, contrary to those who are irregularly in the Netherlands, much better protected. It has been very interesting to see their perspective on the phenomenon of statelessness, especially after meeting the stateless persons who do not have a legalized stay in the Netherlands. According to them, not having a nationality disadvantages them in some ways, such as not being able to vote or to travel to some countries but most of them are studying at a university and they are all determined to make a good living. They refuse to let the fact that they do not have a nationality keep them from their ambitions and dreams to better themselves - instead it is just a personal circumstance that requires more administrative work for them and more bureaucracy.

Some reflections

In the past eight months I have been able to get to know only 15 of the 600,000 stateless persons in Europe a little better. One of the challenges with this storytelling project was, at first, building trust with some of the stateless persons and letting them know that they will not get in trouble for sharing their story and giving insights of what it is like to being stateless and living in a European country. After spending some time with the stateless persons, they actually truly appreciated that someone is taking the time to talk with them and listen to their story.

What upsets me the most is to know that these persons, who are just a few faces in the crowd of thousands of stateless persons in Europe, do not receive adequate protection from the country in which they currently live. When they explain to me how statelessness affects their daily lives, I can see sorrow and confusion reflected in their eyes, along with a faint spark of hope when they express their wishes for the future. I can feel that they are tired and frustrated of being stuck in legal limbo. Yet they acknowledge that it is important to share their story in order to raise awareness for the issue of statelessness, knowing it will not help their individual case at this point.

More attention is now being paid to statelessness in Europe, including thanks to this ENS campaign. Last month, Greg Constantine visited the Netherlands on the invitation of ENS and the Statelessness Programme. Working with Greg and seeing his dedication as a human rights photographer to make the issue of statelessness visible is admirable. For the past eight years, Greg has devoted his career to meeting stateless people worldwide but had yet to meet stateless people in a Western European country. During his visit here, he took his time really getting to know the stateless persons I had been speaking to and was able to capture the stories of these unique individuals through photographs. Afterwards, everyone was genuinely happy to have met Greg and found it an opportunity they would not want to miss. Besides telling their own stories, they were curious to hear more about Greg’s work. For instance, a stateless Rohingya from Myanmar said: ‘I am so happy to have met Greg. He has been to Myamar and Bangladesh several times and it feels good to talk about my situation with someone who understands and knows from experience what it is like there’. A photo essay with these stories will be ready by September, in time to be exhibited at the First Global Forum on Statelessness in The Hague and to be used as part of the ENS campaign.

It is also fantastic news that more than 3500 people have already showed concern and signed the ENS petition to protect statelessness in Europe since it was launched three weeks ago. However, more signatures are needed to show leaders of Europe that the issue of statelessness cannot be ignored.

Sangita Jaghai, Intern at the Statelessness Programme

Note that this blog post first appeared on the website of the European Network on Statelessness, here: http://www.statelessness.eu/blog/story-behind-finding-some-europe%E2%80%99s-invisible-people.  

Locked up abroad after the creation of an independent South Sudan

“Your identification, please”. I hand over my passport to the security guard of the former prison while I think of the irony of this place, as most of its residents have been detained because they lack identification papers. I am visiting Thomas Philip Guya (39) at the ‘Vluchthaven’ in Amsterdam, where over a hundred people with rejected asylum claims seek refuge until they find a durable solution.

  

Thomas was born in a small village in what is currently South Sudan, and lived there until civil war forcefully displaced him to the north of the country at age thirteen. He lived in relative peace until violence once more forced him to leave his home. Eleven years ago he fled to the Netherlands for protection. Yet, his asylum claims were rejected “because I failed to prove I was fleeing from Sudan”. As an illegal immigrant, Thomas lives on the margins of society where he is unable to work or build a future. Tired of being an outcast, he now wishes to return to his native place, despite the civil and political instability.

Yet, the creation of an independent South Sudanese state in 2011 complicates Thomas’ ability to return home. When new states are created, the newly drafted nationality laws are often limited in scope, incompatible, or may use tight deadlines. As a result, people may fall through the cracks and are at risk of becoming stateless. Indeed, an amendment to the nationality act of Sudan provides that those who “de jure or de facto” acquire South Sudanese nationality automatically lose their Sudanese nationality, irrespective of a person’s connection to either country. There are no explicit laws for individuals who wish to retain their Sudanese nationality. This poses a particular threat to those living outside the newly created state, as “southerners” had to regularise their nationality status within nine months after the independence of south Sudan.

At this point, Thomas went to see the Sudanese Ambassador in The Hague. “I wanted to go back to Sudan, but the Ambassador of the Republic of Sudan told me I was no longer Sudanese, because South Sudan became an independent country”. Recently, Sudan announced that a decision will soon be made to activate the pending four freedoms agreements, which provides freedom of residence, movement, work and ownership in South Sudan and Sudan. Yet, there remains a lack of political will to resolve the nationality of people who have a connection to both Sudan and South Sudan. A curious face peeks around the colourful sheet that hangs from Thomas’ small bedroom doorframe. “This one is from Sudan,” Thomas explains. “We are friends, but our countries refuse to work together. It’s all just politics”.

Ever since South Sudan set up an Embassy in Brussels, Thomas has been trying to acquire a document to travel back to his native place, of which he only holds vague childhood memories. Yet, the ambassador rejected him, because he didn’t have his identification documents anymore. Thus, neither Sudan nor South Sudan is willing to accept Thomas as its citizen. This suggests that Thomas has become a stateless person. And as a stateless person, you are denied one of the most fundamental rights associated with nationality: the right to return.

Thomas shows me around the Vluchthaven, where he cooks, washes and plays football with his friends. The city of Amsterdam gives him thirty-five Euros per week for food and medication. He explains that he needs medicines for his stomach. He picks up a little jar and shakes it: “There is only one pill left”. When I ask him about his condition, he explains how stress made him sick when he was detained. “They took me from the asylum centre, because I didn’t have any papers”. He was released after fourteen months, and joined the We Are Here movement, which pleads for better treatment of asylum seekers in the Netherlands. He explains that “illegals are not part of the Dutch system. We have no rights, no home, and no job. We have nothing”. He picks up a pile of papers with quotes from politicians and human rights lawyers advocating for better treatment of illegals in the Netherlands. I read the first: “The obligation to carry your ID card forces illegals to live their lives in invisibility to make sure they will not get detained”. Indeed, Thomas explains that inside the Vluchthaven he feels safe, but “when I am out on the streets I am scared. I fear the police because I am illegal. They may detain me again”.

Earlier this month Thomas received some hopeful news. The Embassy of South Sudan in Brussels is willing to provide him with a laisser passer travel document which he can use to return to South Sudan within three months of its issuance. Thomas explains that he doesn’t want to be in the Netherlands any longer. He picks up a recent newspaper article about the fighting in South Sudan, and continues: “…But the situation in South Sudan is also really difficult”. It is also questionable whether Thomas will actually be granted citizenship upon return. “Do you think I should go?” he finally asks me. I hesitate, but respond by asking him where he feels like he belongs in the world. He shakes his head. “There is no home for me in this world. There is only one home, an ideal home, and it is there in my head”.

Roselinde den Boer, Statelessness Programme Research Clinic participant 2013-2014

Growing support for establishment of statelessness procedure in the Netherlands

At the end of 2011, UNHCR published the findings of a mapping project which looked at the situation of stateless people in the Netherlands. While the country has been a party to both UN conventions on statelessness for several decades, this study uncovered a number of gaps in the implementation of these international norms. Perhaps the strongest recommendation to come out of the research conducted was the need for the establishment of a statelessness determination procedure, which is currently lacking in the Dutch context. Due to this gap, the report suggested, it was unclear whether the Netherlands was meeting its international commitments towards stateless people. Indeed, there were indications that - for some stateless people at least - the protection fell some way short of the international standard. 

When the Netherlands mapping study was launched, it attracted some interest from the national media and subsequently also an official response from the Dutch Cabinet to the recommendations made. However, the former was short lived and the latter was in the form of a confidential letter directed to UNHCR, so there was no further public debate on the way forward. Now, one year on, there is a renewed effort to generate discussion on what legal or policy measures are needed to improve the protection of stateless people in the Netherlands.

On 13 December 2012, a symposium entitled “International developments in the field of statelessness and the situation in the Netherlands” was held at Tilburg University. It was convened by the Statelessness Programme of Tilburg Law School, in cooperation with the universities of Leiden and Maastricht and the office of UNHCR in the Hague. The programme offered participants the opportunity to learn about and reflect on the many currently unfolding developments relating to statelessness across the globe and, in particular, those elsewhere in Europe. On the specific issue of statelessness determination procedures, three international experts offered different perspectives on the value and the various practical considerations of establishing such a mechanism:

-          Inge Sturkenboom, Statelessness Protection Officer for Europe with UNHCR, explained what the approach to this question is in the recently established UNHCR guidelines on statelessness, which provide authoritative interpretation of how the 1954 Convention relating to the Status of Stateless Persons is to be implemented in practice.

-          Gábor Gyulai, Chairman of the European Network on Statelessness, demonstrated some of the ways in which statelessness determination procedures have taken shape across Europe and discussed some of the pros and cons of different approaches.

-          Tamás Molnár, Senior Legal Advisor for the Hungarian Ministry of Interior, offered a government’s perspective by describing the process by which a determination procedure was adopted in Hungary and how it functions in practice.

During the afternoon, the symposium participants divided into a number of workshops to discuss the situation in the Netherlands in greater detail. Two of the groups dealt specifically with the question of when and how statelessness is currently established in the Dutch context and debated whether there is a need for a dedicated procedure.

The first of these workshop sessions took a closer look at the procedure for establishing a person’s nationality for the purposes of registration with the municipal authorities. A consensus was quickly reached that the Dutch municipalities do not currently have clear guidelines on the establishment of statelessness for individuals who approach the office for registration, nor are the municipalities the most suitable site for statelessness determination. The participants - who included civil servants from several municipal authorities and lawyers with many years of experience in dealing with relevant cases - raised a variety of concerns. These included doubts as to the level of expertise and the tools available to municipal officials for the purposes of statelessness determination, as well as the observation that there is already a wide divergence in practice when it comes to registering a person’s nationality.  

The second workshop to consider the question of statelessness determination procedures was that focusing on the Dutch ‘no fault’ policy. The Statelessness Programme has been conducting research over the past few months on the functioning of this non-statelessness specific protection mechanism, which offers an avenue to protection (and a residence status) for some stateless people, but on the basis of a finding that they cannot be expelled from the country rather than specifically on the ground of statelessness. One of the main findings of the analysis of ‘no fault’ case files that was presented during the working group was the fact that statelessness appears to be neither a matter for investigation during this procedure nor of influence on its outcome. Thus, as the workshop participants from the Migration Policy Department of the Dutch Ministry for Security and Justice confirmed, the ‘no fault’ procedure does not lead to the determination of statelessness. The Statelessness Programme researchers pointed out that this makes it difficult to draw conclusions as to the effectiveness of the ‘no fault’ policy as a means for securing protection for stateless people.

Meanwhile in one of the other workshops, where the European Court of Human Rights’ role in addressing statelessness was the subject of debate under the guidance of Prof. Egbert Myjer (former Dutch judge at the ECtHR), the issue of determination procedures also came up. Participants questioned whether the lack of an evident procedure for claiming recognition as a stateless person in order to enjoy the specific entitlements that are attached to that status – such as access to a travel document or to facilitated naturalisation under Dutch law – could be deemed a violation of the European Convention guarantees relating to the right to an effective remedy.  

The various discussions during the symposium and the aforementioned workshops highlighted the need to re-open the discussion on the establishment of a clear procedure for the determination of statelessness in the Netherlands. On the occasion of the symposium, the Netherlands Institute for Human Rights made a call, echoing the recommendation from last year’s UNHCR report, that effort be made to remedy this significant gap in Dutch law. The Institute points out that effective statelessness determination is of great importance both to the individual who is seeking to enjoy a minimum standard of living and to the Dutch state which has made specific commitments to the protection of stateless people through its ratification of the 1954 statelessness convention. The Netherlands Institute for Human Rights therefore called for the establishment of a dedicated statelessness procedure that incorporates all necessary due process guarantees.

The Statelessness Programme will continue to follow this debate closely and provide an update on any relevant developments through this blog. In the meantime, some snapshots and video extracts of the 13 December symposium can be found on our facebook page: www.facebook.com/StatelessnessProgramme.

Laura van Waas, Senior Researcher and Manager, Statelessness Programme

GUEST POST: Stateless in the Netherlands - Stuck in paradise?

The Netherlands is a splendid country in many ways. Despite amusing political bickering, it’s a stable democracy. Despite the occasional judicial mishap, there’s a strong and independent legal system. Despite austerity and budget cuts, poverty is scarce and social security broad. And, contrary to popular belief, most trains run on time. In short, for most Dutch people life is a breeze – relatively speaking of course. However, entry to this paradise is notably restricted. In this case, citizenship is the key to get in.

According to the Central Bureau for Statistics, more than 2.000 stateless persons live in the Netherlands. Government offers them little to no support or opportunities, in either practical or procedural terms. Another staggering 83.000 people are of ‘unknown nationality’, referring only to those people that are actually registered with their municipality. Surely this is a curiously high figure for a state that can pinpoint with eerie precision what my income is, or how many people in the country are called Jan. But when it comes to our thousands of stateless persons, or the tens of thousands of ‘unreturnables’ for that matter, statistics are at a loss. What’s more, the human consequences of statelessness are shrouded in even more uncertainty. This blog, however fleetingly, seeks to shed some light on this.

In 2011 we interviewed 25 stateless and unreturnable persons for a UNHCR report about statelessness in the Netherlands. The diverse and mostly dispiriting stories feature a number of similarities, but one issue really stood out: the pervasive incidence of lengthy, repeated and hopeless periods of detention. Numerous respondents independently described the Kafkaesque practice of being detained for months, in a regime no different from or worse than criminal prisons and without any indication as to when they would be expelled or let go, only to be released because a judge ruled that ‘the perspective of deportation was absent’. In an especially wry display, interviewees were then given notice to leave to country within 24 hours, though how exactly they were to arrange this without travel documents or, for that matter, a nationality, remains vague.With no means or right to either stay in or leave the country, most respondents were arrested a second or third (and in some cases even fourth and fifth) time  and then sent back to alien detention awaiting deportation. Usually, not being able to present identification documents caused the arrest in the first place. Obviously, while in custody no country offers consular protection or advocates for a stateless person’s rights. This vicious cycle, and the general sense of dehumanisation that goes along with it, has a tremendously detrimental effect on the mental state of stateless persons, who often do not dare to leave their house or shelter at all anymore: “we are going to bed fearing that they can come and arrest us at night, we are scared of any car parked under our window, of any knock on our door, we are scared of any minivan with tinted glass”, a couple from from the former Soviet Union commented.

Another problem faced by stateless people in the Netherlands pertains to the difficulties in accessing healthcare that should by law be available to all residents of the country (legal status is irrelevant!). Various interviewees have indicated that they were either refused essential care, or postponed potentially important check-ups for fear of being “discovered”. Other elemental needs, a roof over one’s head in particular, are similarly difficult to access. Various respondents are homeless, and scrape a living on the streets. For those who have found shelter, eviction poses a constant threat. To add insult to injury, a majority of respondents struggles with psychological issues, often PTSD and depression related. These mental issues are either a token of traumatic experiences in the past, or have been caused or aggravated by the disheartening judicial cul-de-sac most find themselves in. Feelings of uselessness, of worthlessness and of stupefying boredom are their greatest enemies. As one man from the rarely-recognised nation of South-Ossetia recalled: “two weeks ago I called a volunteer centre, asking them how I could help – time is all I’ve got. When I told them I do not have a nationality, they said they could not hire me, as I couldn’t be insured. I can’t even work for free”. He then added: “it would be nice to be considered a human being. After all, nobody is born with a passport”. Many of the interviewees complained about the lack of procedural solutions to their plight. Due to the absence of a dedicated statelessness procedure in the Netherlands, stateless persons end up ‘hopping’ from one ill-fitting (asylum) procedure to another. This is particularly pointless, since many stateless persons do not even wish to apply, or even consider themselves eligible, for asylum. Indeed, various interviewees displayed no desire whatsoever to stay in the Netherlands, either because of a longing to return home or because of profound disillusionment with life in exile. As Igor Skrijevski commented: “we are buried alive in the Netherlands, and we never wanted to be here in the first place”.

A final point: no homogeneous stateless population exists in the Netherlands, nor does it in most of Europe. This is not just a demographic trivium, but has as a consequence that the potential for collective action is severely diminished. Many other countries faced with challenges related to statelessness feature a specific and coherent group at particular risk (say, Nubians in Kenya, Crimean Tartars in Ukraine or Rohingya in Myanmar). Indeed, as Brad Blitz and Maureen Lynch already concluded, “findings from Kenya and Ukraine suggest that large stateless populations have considerable agency and may set agendas for reform”. However, the Dutch stateless population is diverse, dispersed, unorganized and thus in reality not a “population” at all. Both the action-inhibiting heterogeneity of stateless people in the Netherlands as well as the presently ill-defined policy towards them, increase the need for external pressure and advocacy. Because the way things stand now, stateless people find themselves in a paradise lost.


A detailed preparatory research report on statelessness in the Netherlands, which includes a number of case studies, can be found online here.

Karel Hendriks, Statelessness research consultant


This Blog originally appeared on the website of the European Network on Statelessness (www.statelessness.eu), a civil society alliance committed to address statelessness in Europe, of which the Statelessness Programme is a founding member.

Stateless and detained in the Netherlands

On December 16, the UNHCR brought out a report on statelessness in relation to the Netherlands. Reading it, it is quickly apparent that much improvement is needed in the interest of effectively addressing statelessness in this country and the report indeed makes a number of valid recommendations. What struck me most about the findings of the study however, are the often degrading and inhumane conditions that stateless people who find themselves here may be faced with. In particular the lack of a specific procedure to determine statelessness contributes to this situation. The result is that many stateless people have nowhere to go after being through every procedure possible. In many cases, according to the report, these people end up in illegal detention.

If a stateless person is not able to prove that his/her stay in the Netherlands is legal, this person can be detained. The detention is a vicious circle: detention, no prospect of deportation, with a release command to leave the country, arrest and potential declaration of undesirability for illegal presence, again detention. Before 2010, when the EU Return Directive took effect, there was not even a legal restriction on the maximum duration of detention. Despite the Directive, today it is still possible to continue the detention for up to 18 months. Arguments for this are often that "the third country national concerned does not cooperate," or that "the necessary documentation from third countries has been delayed.

Of the 24 interviewees in the report, 20 have gone through this disturbing process. They describe the detention conditions heavier than or similar to criminal detention. The idea of not having an outlook on deportation or knowledge of the length of detention causes psychological disturbance. Even when one is released, the anxiety becomes so great that the person does not dare to leave the shelter or the house. As an identification requirement exists since 2004 – meaning that everyone is expected to carry an official form of identification and proof of legal status with them at all times - further discouraging people from leaving the house, because the risk is greater to be detained again.

The issue is if a stateless person is not regarded as stateless he/she cannot effectuate the rights preserved in the 1954 Convention. A stateless person has great difficulty in proving his/her status as a stateless person due to several factors. An IND document that indicates citizenship may not be accepted as valid, or the state where the person comes from does not provide assistance in the clarification of nationality. The Dutch state also does not provide the necessary help, creating a tunnel without light for the stateless person.

In the Netherlands there is not a particular procedure that determines statelessness. Because of the lack of a procedure like this stateless individuals are always placed in the wrong corner.  A frequently made mistake is that stateless persons are put in the category of "unknown nationality”. Only after it becomes clear of what nationality the person is, their status is modified. But the burden to prove the nationality – or indeed statelessness - is entirely on the shoulders of the stateless individual. At present, the no-fault procedure offers a solution for some by recognising them as “non-removable”. While doing this you can claim a residence permit, it is no substitute for a statelessness determination procedure because it does not formally recognize stateless people as stateless. It is only a temporary solution, because the state cannot remove people who have nowhere to go, plus the procedure has a high burden of proof that can be very difficult for people to satisfy.

The absence of a legal process to determine statelessness creates degrading and inhumane conditions. To prevent more people ending up in a hopeless situation with psychological problems, to which the current Dutch government policy contributes, it is important to intensify measures to protect stateless persons. At the very least, a temporary residence permit could offer a solution until a statelessness determination procedure has been completed. In this way, at least the waiting will go by in acceptable humanitarian circumstances.    

Moshgan Wahedi, Intern, Statelessness Programme