What drives ‘soft deportation’? Understanding the rise in Assisted Voluntary Return among rejected asylum seekers in the Netherlands

Abstract

States experience difficulties in realizing the return of rejected asylum seekers, but migration control policies are becoming increasingly sophisticated. Against this background, we consider explanations for the increase in Assisted Voluntary Return from the Netherlands in the 2005–2011 period. Both macro‐level factors (source country societal conditions and characteristics of the Dutch “deportation regime”) and individual‐level factors (applicants' demographic characteristics and variation in status determination time) are examined. The study, which is based on a unique multilevel dataset (N = 15,682) with data from governmental and other sources (including International Organisation for Migration), is the first to quantitatively test assumed Assisted Voluntary Return determinants and contributes to the study of policy effects in migration studies. We find that states are capable of increasing return rates by expanding the use of “hard” and “soft” power. We propose the term “soft deportation” as a way to go beyond the dichotomy of “voluntary” and “forced” return.

Beyond the deportation regime: differential state interests and capacities in dealing with (non-) deportability in Europe

“…Without further evidence, however, we take these figures as indicating significant differences in the mode of returns on top of the rates of return. Next to all the differences, we observe one important regularity: even in host countries with the highest return rates, the majority of the migrants not obtaining international protection do not demonstrably leave the territory, a finding that confirms existing research (Koser and Kuschminder 2015;Leerkes, Van Os, and Boersema 2017). We interpret these patterns in the next section, focusing on the six focal countries.…”

“…Returns to a third country from 12 EU+ countries Figure 1 shows the estimated percentage of asylum seekers not obtaining international protection in the 12 EU+ countries in 2013-2017 who were 'returned to a third country' in this period, specified for the six nationalities. Asylum seekers' return rates vary considerably by nationality of origin (also see Leerkes, Van Os, and Boersema 2017), but that is not the main focus here. 3 Table 2 then shows estimates of the average enforcement rates, which is the (unweighted) average of a host country's rate for the six nationalities.…”

“…The power of the rule of law and the judiciary system may similarly affect interests and capacities. Countries with a strong commitment to the rule of law will not only have a strong interest to regulate migration within national and international legal frameworks, they also have the strongest capacity to do so using less forced forms of return: arguably, migrants and other relevant actors, such as immigration lawyers and the authorities of countries of citizenship, are more likely to comply with immigration law if they perceive it as transparent and fair (Ryo 2015;Leerkes, Van Os, and Boersema 2017).…”

Supporting the Effective Reintegration of Roma Returnees in the Western Balkans

“…Chapter 3 Leerkes et al 2016). The limited understanding of AVR uptake motivators is not surprising given the lack of and discrepancies in data collection, but a better grasp of these factors is key to promoting effective policies.…”

The economic effects of refugee return

“…3 Leerkes et al (2017) into the labor market and the host economy are often significant and typically take many years to materialize. It follows that from the economic perspective their return after a short stay may represent a far costlier option than continuing to invest in their successful integration.…”