Returning and Deporting Irregular Migrants: Not a Solution to the ‘Refugee Crisis’

Abstract

This article questions whether the presentation of the return and deportation of irregular migrants as a solution to the so-called ‘refugee crisis’ is ethical. Legally, the return of irregular migrants may be a legitimate activity by the state, but the current pressure by the European Commission on member-states to increase the current 40 percent rate of effective returns can lead them to operate returns below minimal human rights standards in a bid to increase the rate. Detailed knowledge of the impact of returns – including deportation from and to different countries – on migrants’ welfare and human rights is scarce. Based on studies on returns from EU member-states to different countries, I make three arguments. First, due to the complexity of the return process, statistics need to be unpacked better. Second, there are key conceptual problems underpinning current EU returns policy. Third, research strongly indicates that returns can render people vulnerable. In the absence of in-depth knowledge on the effects of return on migrants, I conclude with an appeal for returns to be treated with caution and their linking to the refugee crisis to be avoided.

Examining the Global North Migration Policies: A “Push Out – Push Back” Approach to Forced Migration

“…This does not mean, however, that their implementation has been abandoned, as their existence also plays an important political role and is supposed to show citizens how governments act in order to protect societies against the influx of unwanted migrants (Welch, ). As a result of these practices, migrants are held in the middle of their journey and forced to continue “living in limbo” (Betts et al., 2016; De Bono, ). They are left in between – pushed out of a country that poses a threat to their life and pushed back from another one that could become a place of asylum.…”

“…Another active measure used by the countries of the Global North is the expulsion of migrants who are deemed unnecessary or unwanted. The return policy is currently one of the EU's most commonly used policies and it is presented as a solution to the refugee crisis (De Bono, ). The EU and its Member States are trying to circumvent, in a variety of ways, the obstacles to the deportation of persons of certain nationalities by signing agreements with other countries that are willing to accept them on their territory, such as Mauritania: since 2003, nationals of Mali and Senegal have been returned from Spain (Fekete, : 152–153).…”

“…This fear is not unfounded, given the huge disparities in the way in which individual EU Member States grant protection to citizens of some countries, such as Afghanistan, Iraq or Iran (Guild, ). And although in accordance with the principle of non‐refoulement people who are in danger in their country of origin cannot be sent back, and officially such practices do not take place, still none of the countries monitors the situation of the returnees, even though at least some of them face various forms of persecution upon their return (see: De Bono, ; Alpes et al., ).…”

Deportation and forced return

“…However, while the threat of hard deportations may increase the uptake of soft deportations, undocumented migration continues apace and many of those deported re-migrate ( Schuster and Majidi, 2013 ), leading us to question the justifi ability and utility of deportation, and with De Bono (2016) to argue that this presentation of returns as a necessary element of the solution to the refugee crisis is problematic because it is based on misconceptions about the experience of those returned, because there is no evidence to support the core deterrent argument and because so little is known about what happens post-deportation.…”

“…Aside from the constraints in EU states, there is also the lack of cooperation with countries of origin, which make returns diffi cult. There is little cooperation from some states in verifying the nationality of those to be deported (De Bono, 2016). For some states, there is little benefi t to be gained from facilitating the forced return of their citizens, in particular when their families rely on remittances.…”