Panel: Return Migration amidst Normative Concerns, Asylum Crisis and Resilience

Abstract

The panel discussion aims to contextualize the return migration policies in relation to the nested global crises, normative issues, human agency and existential resilience. In an era marked by the rise of populist politics and multiple crises (e.g. global pandemic, climate change, food crisis, displacements and protracted conflicts), we are witnessing alarming policy initiatives aiming at speeding the return of refugees, rejected asylum seekers and irregular migrants from borders, transit and destination locations to origin countries or elsewhere. Returns (deportation) increasingly stand at the forefront of politics. Policies and practices raise normative concerns about existing protection and asylum regime(s) at national, regional and global levels on the one hand, the discrepancy of interests between host and origin states on the other. Against this background, this panel is to problematize return issue, contextualize it in a broader scope and go beyond the bias of treating returns as unilateral, formal and technical policies of destination countries.The panel discussion aims to contextualize the return migration policies in relation to the nested global crises, normative issues, human agency and existential resilience. In an era marked by the rise of populist politics and multiple crises (e.g. global pandemic, climate change, food crisis, displacements and protracted conflicts), we are witnessing alarming policy initiatives aiming at speeding the return of refugees, rejected asylum seekers and irregular migrants from borders, transit and destination locations to origin countries or elsewhere. Returns (deportation) increasingly stand at the forefront of politics. Policies and practices raise normative concerns about existing protection and asylum regime(s) at national, regional and global levels on the one hand, the discrepancy of interests between host and origin states on the other. Against this background, this panel is to problematize return issue, contextualize it in a broader scope and go beyond the bias of treating returns as unilateral, formal and technical policies of destination countries.

We invite discussants to address one or more questions on the following non-exhaustive list. 

1-What are the main challenges that you see in existing return policies?

2- How do policies and politics of return intertwine with other broader issues (e.g. financial, political and geopolitical interests;  power asymmetries, inequalities and racialization, populist discourses)?

3-Why including more normative and legal perspectives (or critical reflections) on returns is of importance at this point (due to the intensification of pushbacks and informal readmission deals)?

4-How can we identify and understand the dynamics that contribute to resilience among returnees?

5- In your opinion, what are the main parameters of a (sustainable) migration (and return) regime?

A short summary of the GAPs project.

GAPs: De-centring the Study of Migrant Returns and Readmission Policies in Europe and Beyond

EU and its Member States face political, normative, and operational challenges regarding returning rejected asylum seekers and ‘irregular’ migrants to their origin or third countries. The ‘efficiency’ of returns is under scrutiny because of ‘low’ return rates. Only about one-third of rejected asylum seekers in the EU return to their country of origin – of which fewer than 30 per cent do so voluntarily (Atlas of Migration, EU, 2020). In several reports published by various EU institutions, the shortcomings in return policies are attributed to a set of internal and external factors, including inconsistent interpretation of EU rules, absence of proper links between return and asylum policies; lack of policy harmonisation among MSs; and problems in implementation, coordination, and cooperation (ECA 2021; EC 2020; EC COM 2018). To address these problems, the European Commission (EC) with the New Pact on Migration and Asylum (EC 2020: 2) has called for responsibility-sharing for ‘swift and effective returns’ promoting an ‘EU-coordinated approach to returns’. However, the problem is what precisely comprises effective returns and coordinated approach, for whom, and how effectiveness and efficiency will (or can) be measured. Policy work and scholarly research show that the EU needs to cooperate with transit and origin countries as well as migrants to fulfil its return and readmission policy objectives. However, third countries often show unwillingness to cooperate with the EU and its Member States, notably in signing readmission agreements. From the migrants’ perspective, too often policies do not focus on their concerns, experiences, and dynamics of migration journey. So, there exist gaps between the dynamics of migration processes, return policies’ priorities, and the interests of parties that are expected to cooperate.

We thus dubbed this project ‘GAPs’ because its overarching objective is to examine the disconnect between expectations of EU return policies and their actual outcomes. GAPs aims to decentre the dominant and policy-driven understanding of return migration governance by bringing multiple perspectives into play and by studying complex interactions between the actors involved. GAPs scrutinizes the shortcomings of the EU’s governance of returns with both its internal and external dimensions; analyses enablers and barriers of international cooperation, sheds light on the perspectives of migrants themselves to understand their knowledge of return policies, aspirations and experiences. By taking a close look at governance, cooperation and the agency of various actors, the project is able to suggest new avenues for international cooperation, develop recommendations for stakeholders and explore alternative pathways to returning migrants.

GAPs aims to achieve its goals via a multi-disciplinary, qualitative and quantitative comparative research in 12 countries in Europe (Germany, Sweden, Poland, Greece), Africa (Nigeria, Tunisia, Morocco) and the broader Middle East (Turkey, Iraq, Jordan, Afghanistan). The particular data collection involves desk research as well as ethnographic work, survey studies in the selected case countries.

Given the extensive nature of the GAPs consortium with 17 partners, Uppsala University and Bonn International Centre for Conflict Studies (BICC) will share the coordination. The project will officially start in March 2023, and continue until March 2026.