Simona Schreier| PhD Candidate, Danube University Krems
What is return migration?
Return migrants are a diverse group that includes specific groups such as failed asylum seekers, migrants protected under temporary schemes, refugees after the termination of their asylum status, irregular immigrants, migrants with an expired temporary work permit, and legal migrants who aspire to return to their country of origin (EMN, 2007). On the policy level, return constitutes a central element of the EU migration management tool which has pushed for increased cooperation with third countries in the area of returns and readmission as one of the key political solutions in responding to what was framed as a refugee crisis in 2015 (Carrera, 2019). The return of unauthorised migrants, in particular, is seen as an important factor in the attempt to reduce irregular migration and as essential to the common EU migration and asylum policy, as well as the credibility of national policies (Flauhaux, 2017). The process for return can be instigated by either the migrant themselves or the host state. The host state determines the return options available to the migrant through their policies such as options for assisted voluntary return (AVR).
The situation in Europe
An increasing number of politicians across Europe implement antagonistic narratives towards irregular migrants and applaud swift removals as the solution to the problems brought by irregular migration (DeBono, 2016). Each EU member state has their own AVR programme in which they determine which migrants are eligible or not for participating in the programme. In other words, in one EU member state an individual may be eligible for AVR, but in a different member state they may not be eligible for a similar programme, due to differences in requirements for AVR. Each EU member state offers different AVR packages, so reintegration assistance may also differ. This has also led to views and policy concerns that asylum seekers may purposively shop for AVRR in countries which offer the highest financial packages. There is, however, no evidence to suggest that this is ever the case and research more commonly demonstrates that return is only viewed as an ultimate last resort of asylum and rejected asylum seekers (Kuschminder, 2017).These differences, nevertheless, highlight the lack of consistency across EU member states AVR policies.
There is no uniform, worldwide accepted definition of return migration and returnees, especially given that the term is often related with the (involuntary) return of rejected asylum seekers back to their home country. As Cassarino (2020) recently state the meaning of return migration has become so dominant in policy discourse that a reference to return implies a form of pressure or coercion utilised by the state and its law enforcement agencies.
In general, there is a greater need of putting in place monitoring and evaluation systems on a programmatic level to assess how successful an AVR and/or AVRR programme really can be. This would also permit to collect data into perhaps one database, which in turn would also permit to carry out comparative analysis. This is also based on the EU and the initiative, the Irregular Migration Management Application (IRMA), which is a restricted and secure information exchange platform developed by the European Commission which connects EU member and Schengen states, the European Commission, the European Border and Coast Guard Agency (Frontex) and the relevant EU funded programmes at operational and practitioner level. The aim is to facilitate the planning, organisation and implementation of return and readmission activities with the objective of making return procedures more effective (European Commission, 2017). And yet, we still don´t really know what the impact has been as this is not open to the public.
There would also be a further need to also concentrate on the policies in the country of origin as this is more often than not less known and less likely to be considered in a research. In order to have a more comprehensive view on return and reintegration it would also be important to understand the policies and the trends on return and reintegration in the country of origin and not just focus on Eurocentric policies. After all, it is important to understand the dynamics of return and reintegration, if the current programmes in place are to be successful. Academic studies are important, as they would then feed into policies of reintegration, which play a central role in supporting the returnees and facilitating their social, economic and cultural reintegration.
Finally, nowadays, we cannot ignore the impact the pandemic may have on migration and mobility in general. Thus, the question is: what does the future hold for return programmes in the current environment of pandemic? As Mananashvili (2020) recently stated, supporting countries of return in building up their health infrastructure and capacities of their relevant (health) institutions will be a powerful component for the success (or failure) of any genuine return partnership.