Findings & Recommendations

  • Key Findings:

    • Return migration is now central to European foreign policy, shaping relations with non-EU states.
    • Return diplomacy has increased, relying on informal cooperation rather than formal agreements.
    • European states vary in prioritization and coordination of return policies.
    • Return diplomacy lacks transparency and civil society involvement.
    • Non-EU countries often have little interest in return agreements and view forced returns negatively.

    Policy Recommendations:

    • Ensure negotiations are balanced and mutually beneficial.
    • Focus on long-term, practical cooperation beyond formal agreements.
    • Improve coordination across government departments.
    • Recognize and address partner countries’ political sensitivities.
    • Prioritize trust-building over strict return quotas.
  • Key Findings:

    • European migration discourse emphasizes 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.

    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 in policymaking.
    • Shift narratives from security to development-oriented approaches.
  • Key Findings:

    • Return policy functions as both an enforcement and reclassification mechanism.
    • A disconnect exists between EU return policy goals and actual outcomes.
    • Securitization dominates policy thinking, despite limited success in enforcement.

    Policy Recommendations:

    • Rethink the securitization paradigm and explore alternatives, such as recognizing the labor market contributions of irregular migrants.
    • Accept that balancing enforcement with regularization and non-enforcement measures is both necessary and beneficial.
  • Key Findings:

    • Many European countries informally tolerate irregular migrants due to labor market needs.
    • Regularization policies vary, with some countries emphasizing 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.

    Policy Recommendations for Civil Society Organizations (CSOs):

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

    For Policymakers:

    • Simplify regularization procedures and legal pathways.
    • Ensure regularization applicants are not at risk of deportation.
    • Consider family ties and social integration in regularization policies.
    • Provide stable legal status options to prevent recurring irregularity.
  • Key Findings:

    • Return processes pose significant human rights risks, particularly due to externalization and informalization of EU migration law.
    • Forced return monitors face operational challenges that limit effectiveness.
    • Assisted Voluntary Return and Reintegration (AVRR) programs lack consistent human rights monitoring.

    Policy Recommendations:

    • Strengthen human rights monitoring in forced and voluntary return processes.
    • Ensure forced-return monitors have full access to all stages of return operations.
    • Develop EU-coordinated human rights monitoring for AVRR programs.
    • Establish complaint mechanisms and independent oversight for return procedures.
  • Key Findings:

    • A new dataset consolidates return enforcement and policy data across EU+ and non-EU+ countries.
    • Bilateral and EU-wide return frameworks significantly impact return rates.
    • Economic conditions and migration networks shape return outcomes alongside legal frameworks.
    • Non-enforcement policies influence migration flows and irregular migrant stocks.

    Policy Recommendations:

    • Refine return agreements based on effectiveness and humanitarian considerations.
    • Improve data collection and analysis for evidence-based policymaking.
    • Address non-policy drivers, such as economic conditions, in return strategies.
    • Balance enforcement with alternative return mechanisms.
    • Foster cross-border research collaboration to improve policy development
Start Typing