The Migrant Return Policy Index (MIREX)

MIREX General Patterns

Findings show that while most countries largely promote voluntary return, national policies still rely heavily on punitive enforcement measures and indirect deterrence. Detention policies vary widely, with numerous countries allowing long, extendable detention periods, broad grounds for detention and few alternative measures. The findings reveal systemic gaps in the protection of returnees’ fundamental rights, including the use of detention for children, insufficient anti-discrimination safeguards and the lack of independent and systematic monitoring mechanisms. The majority of countries have not implemented regularisation programmes, and access to regularisation mechanisms is often only partial due to restrictive eligibility criteria and limited access to rights and services for migrants undergoing regularisation. Finally, stakeholders’ involvement across policymaking, implementation, and monitoring remains very limited, with civil society, migrant associations, and countries of return largely excluded. Across all dimensions, average scores range between 31 and 70, indicating varying degrees of alignment with human rights standards.

• Voluntary Returns: This dimension records an average score of 70/100. Most countries have policies promoting voluntary return on paper, with structured procedures and broad eligibility criteria.
• Assistance to Returnees: With an average score of 58/100, this dimension highlights that countries provide basic assistance to returnees, such as transport costs and interpretation services, relatively widespread, but more substantive measures, such as reintegration training, community group involvement, and targeted programmes for vulnerable groups, are largely absent.
• Detention: Detention policies vary widely, with an average of 50/100. Some countries have safeguards, alternatives, and monitoring systems, while others allow long or extendable detention periods and broad grounds for detention.
• Human Rights: Uneven level of protection across countries, with an average of 46/100. While some countries provide some formal protections, systemic problems such as detention of children, lack of independent oversight and poor accountability of authorities reveal significant shortcomings in ensuring that return policies respect fundamental rights.
• Enforced Return: Significant weakness, averaging 41/100. Some countries adopt punitive, hostile policies that offer limited protection to individuals without a legal right to stay.
• Alternatives to Return: Alternatives to return score poorly overall, averaging only 37/100. Strict and narrow eligibility criteria, short permit durations, high administrative barriers, and the absence of additional integration support or monitoring mean that only a few states offer more sustainable pathways to stability.
• Stakeholder Involvement: Weakest area, with an average of 31/100. Non-governmental organisations (NGOs), migrant associations, civil society, and countries of return are largely excluded from policymaking, implementation and monitoring.

Risks and Concerns

Key risks in the assessed return policies include reliance on punitive enforcement measures, harsh detention policies, and gaps in the protection of fundamental rights. Limited alternatives to return and minimal stakeholder involvement raise concerns about the legitimacy, inclusiveness, and long-term sustainability of return policies.

Policy Implications

The report urges a move toward holistic, rights-based, and legitimate return policies. Key recommendations include expanding access to voluntary return and support for returnees; rethinking enforcement strategies and promoting alternatives to detention; improving regularisation pathways; safeguarding human rights; and ensuring meaningful stakeholder involvement in policymaking and monitoring across all stages of return.