In recent decades, practices of immigration control have attracted growing attention from criminologists and penologists, particularly due to their punitive features and negative impact on the lives of migrants. This article explores how people without residence rights experience three important administrative decisions in Belgium’s return policy: the return order, immigration detention, and the entry ban. Based on ethnographic fieldwork conducted in two Belgian immigration detention centres and 47 semi-structured interviews, the article examines how these measures are perceived in terms of their punitiveness and legitimacy. Findings show significant variation in the salience – or (perceived) impact – of these decisions, depending on migrants’ administrative-legal status, personal circumstances and future aspirations. Measures that intrude most deeply into (future) daily life and expectations tend to be perceived as least justifiable. It is argued that perceived illegitimacy fuels resistance, casting doubt on the long-term efficacy of overly restrictive migration enforcement strategies.