Finding Agreement in Return

Millions of people in Europe live without secure legal status — caught between return policies that rarely work and pathways to regularisation that remain tightly closed. Fewer than one in five non-European nationals ordered to leave the EU actually do so, whether voluntarily or through deportation. The rest stay on in uncertainty, with significant human and economic costs.

The Finding Agreement in Return (FAiR) project, led by Erasmus University Rotterdam, explores how the EU can govern return migration more effectively and legitimately. Current approaches often struggle for public and political support, and for practical cooperation with countries of origin. FAiR investigates why — and what might make return policies, and alternatives to return, more viable and widely accepted.

During this research project, we bring together researchers, policymakers, and civil society actors from Europe, Africa, and the Middle East. By placing non-EU perspectives at the centre, the project aims to generate fresh evidence and dialogue on how legitimacy is built, contested, and sustained in the governance of migration.

More
More
More
More
More
More


Findings & Recommendations

  • Return Migration and Foreign Policy

    Key findings:

    • The quality of internal coordination influences the effectiveness of international cooperation
    • Informal and multi-issue arrangements are on the rise—at the cost of accountability and transparency
    • Many negotiations fall short of delivering mutually beneficial outcomes
    • Strong relationships are the foundation of successful negotiation
    Working paper: Extra-European Return Diplomacy

    Policy Recommendations:

    • Strengthen coordination across government branches
    • Combine broader, balanced frameworks with transparency and oversight
    • Build win-win solutions through co-determined negotiations
    • Prioritise stable relationships over rapid negotiation gains
    Policy Brief: Return Diplomacy in Practice

  • Returnees’ Lived Experiences and Reintegration

    Key Findings:

    • European migration discourse emphasises security, while non-EU countries focus on development and humanitarian aspects.
    • Perceived fairness of return policies influences compliance.
    • Social media plays a key role in shaping migrant resistance strategies.
    • Diaspora communities develop hybrid narratives on return.
    • Migrants use various forms of resistance, from legal loopholes to remigration.
    Working Paper: Migration discourses and enforced return policies

    Policy Recommendations:

    • Strengthen legitimacy-based approaches to return and reintegration.
    • Ensure governments in non-EU+ countries take responsibility for reintegration.
    • Address social media’s dual role in resistance and information-sharing.
    • Include returnees and civil society for more inclusive policymaking.
    • Shift narratives from security to development-oriented approaches.
    Working Paper: Policy Stances and Legitimacy of Returns

  • Return bureaucracies and implementation practices

    Key Findings:

    • Return policy functions as both an enforcement and a reclassification mechanism.
    • A disconnect exists between the EU’s normative return policy goals and its enforcement instruments.
    • Securitisation dominates policy thinking, despite limited success in enforcement.
    • The return rate as a statistical indicator reduces the complexity of frontline implementation and disregards the stakes of Global South countries.
    • Cooperation on the frontline is fundamentally shaped by dependency on the readmitting country and wider geopolitical constellations.
    • The impact of readmission agreements in implementation varies; informal working arrangements and personal relationships are deemed more important.
    • Cooperation on the frontline is established through material incentives (which are short-term solutions) and norm-shifting (which is deemed important for longer-term success).
    Full paper: EU Return Policy Since 2000

    Policy Recommendations:

    • Rethink not solely enforcement mechanisms, but the securitisation paradigm influencing return policy goals, and instead explore alternatives, such as recognising the labour market contributions of irregular migrants.
    • Accept that balancing enforcement with regularisation and non-enforcement measures is both necessary and beneficial, and send this message to European citizens.
    • Enable Global North officials to maintain relationships with Global South counterparts
    • Acknowledge Global South countries’ leverage in return, and equip frontline workers in the Global North to fulfil needs.
    • Further integrate return in foreign policy (including negotiating Mobility Partnerships)
    • Ensure dignity and post-return assistance as preconditions for cooperation
    • Redefine what “effectiveness” means in return cooperation away from numbers of enforced return orders only.

  • Alternatives Return Policies

    Key Findings:

    • Many European countries informally tolerate irregular migrants due to labour market needs.
    • Regularisation policies vary, with some countries emphasising economic benefits and others opposing them as incentives for irregular migration.
    • A gap exists between political rhetoric on irregularity and the realities of migrant integration.

    On Return Gap

    • Only ~23% of return orders enforced
    • Hundreds of thousands remain in prolonged non-return (legal, humanitarian & practical barriers)

    On Diverse National Responses

    • Germany, Italy → Regularizations (labor/integration-based)
    • Poland, Switzerland → Humanitarian/hardship provisions
    • Netherlands → Shelter + case management (LVV)

    On Benefits of Inclusive Policies

    • Better well-being & rights (housing, healthcare, work)
    • Social stability & public order
    • Economic contribution (reduce exploitation, fill labor shortages, increase tax compliance)
    • Politically viable when framed as pragmatic

    On Limitations & Risks

    • Narrow/complex eligibility → many excluded.
    • Temporary permits → risk of falling back into irregularity.
    • Heavy reliance on NGOs/local actors → uneven access.
    • Policymakers reluctant to acknowledge non-return → fear of backlash despite little evidence.
    Working Paper: Inventory of existing alternative to returns policies

    Policy Recommendations for Civil Society Organizations (CSOs):

    • Promote the mutual benefits of regularisation, emphasising economic and social contributions.
    • Highlight success stories to counter negative political narratives.
    • Challenge misleading portrayals of irregular migration.

    For Policymakers:

    • Simplify regularisation procedures and legal pathways.
    • Ensure regularisation applicants are not at risk of deportation.
    • Consider family ties and social integration in regularisation policies.
    • Provide stable legal status options to prevent recurring irregularity.
    • Recognise Non-Return:
      • Treat as structural reality, not policy failure.
      • Enable evidence-based debate on costs/benefits.
    • Improve accessibility:
      • Simplify & broaden eligibility.
      • Create clear routes to permanent residency.
    • Empower local actors and NGOs:
      • Formalise roles of municipalities, NGOs, employers.
      • Provide funding & consultation platforms.
    • Develop EU minimum standards
      • Harmonise shelter, healthcare, legal aid, pathways.
      • Reduce “waterbed effects” across states
    • Invest in Evidence
      • Study real impacts (labor markets, integration, pull factors).
      • Replace assumptions with data for public trust.
    Policy Brief: Alternatives to return policies

  • Legal Standards and Human Rights in Return Processes

    Key Findings:

    • Returns remain high-risk due to the externalisation and informalization of EU migration control
    • Monitors often face restricted access, limited resources, and procedural obstacles, undermining the effectiveness of existing safeguards
    • Assisted Voluntary Return and Reintegration (AVRR) programs lack consistent human rights monitoring across EU Member States
    • There is no systematic follow-up specific to the human rights conditions of returnees, including rejected asylum seekers and people in vulnerable situations, after arrival in their countries of origin, leaving potential human rights violations undetected
    Working Paper: Legal Review of Fundamental Rights in Return Processes
    Improved Return Monitoring Guidelines

    Policy Recommendations:

    • Reinforce independent human rights monitoring across both forced and voluntary return processes
    • Ensure monitors can observe and have full access to all stages of forced-return operations, and that monitoring systems are adequately resources 
    • Establish EU-wide human rights monitoring for AVRR programs
    • Establish complaint mechanisms and independent oversight to address potential human rights abuses for all return procedures
    • Develop an EU framework to implement EU-coordinated post-return monitoring to detect rights violations and complement assessments of their reintegration.
    Policy Brief: Introducing human rights monitoring in AVRR

  • Data-Driven Insights on Return Policies

    Key Findings:

    • A new dataset consolidates return enforcement and policy data across EU+ and non-EU+ countries (2008-2024).
    • Return enforcement depends primarily on bilateral relations, as embassy presence (20%-30% higher) and colonial ties (15% higher) are the strongest predictors.
    • Formal policy instruments and domestic pressures have limited or inconsistent effects. These include readmission agreements, economic leverage (aid, trade), and domestic political-economic conditions (GDP growth, unemployment, far-right strength, public opinion).
    • Return modalities (forced vs. voluntary) respond to different factors. Forced returns are linked to destination-country government effectiveness, while voluntary returns are more likely when the origin country has Schengen visa​ waiver and higher government effectiveness.

    Policy Recommendations:

    • Support origin-country governance and institutional development. Government effectiveness predicts voluntary return cooperation. As governance improvements unfold over years, this is a long-term capacity-building agenda; It cannot serve as a quick fix.
    • Embed return cooperation within broader bilateral relations. Embassy presence consistently predicts higher returns across all modalities. Promote sustained diplomatic presence and relationship-building, which are also essential for negotiating formal agreements. 
    • Leverage mobility regimes as positive incentives: Visa waiver shows robust associations with voluntary return cooperation (15-30% higher). Link return cooperation to visa facilitation and mobility partnerships rather than coercive conditionality on aid or trade.
    • Improve data infrastructure for evidence-based policymaking. Address existing data limitations: implement cohort identifiers to link returns to specific orders; eliminate rounding; and standardize reporting practices. Support cross-national evaluation to identify implementation barriers and facilitate policy learning.


Updates and news

Human Rights Monitoring in European Return Procedures
Video

Human Rights Monitoring in European Return Procedures

This video presents research from the FAiR project examining return procedures across Europe, with a…

150 150 News & Resources
What We Say Shapes What We Do: Discourses of Return and the Silence of Returnees
Video

What We Say Shapes What We Do: Discourses of Return and the Silence of Returnees

Returnees are rarely given a voice in migration policy. Instead, they are talked about as…

374 210 News & Resources
When it comes to return migration, what comes to mind for most people in Türkiye?
Video

When it comes to return migration, what comes to mind for most people in Türkiye?

What comes to mind when you hear "return migration" in Türkiye? Most people immediately think…

376 212 News & Resources
Close
Start Typing