The Mixed Migration Centre has carried out research on the experience of returning migrants in Asia, Africa, Latin America, the Middle East, and Europe, since 2017. Download the briefing paper ‘Mixed Returns: return migration and reintegration dynamics’ for an in-depth view on our key messages.
Here are eight things we learned from this research:
1. The diversity of return experiences of migrants is often overlooked
Migrants return for varied and complex reasons, yet policy discussions typically focus on specific return types like ‘deportations’ or ‘assisted voluntary returns’, rather than acknowledging the range of return situations and experiences. This narrow focus neglects the full spectrum of return experiences and their impact on reintegration.
2. The distinction between ‘voluntary’ and ‘forced’ returns is not always clear
Voluntary returns involve the free and informed movement of migrants back to their country or area of origin, in safety and dignity. This can include migrants who engage in assisted voluntary returns processes (AVR) with state support. Forced returns involve sending migrants back involuntarily to their origin, transit or a third country.
However, the distinction between voluntary and forced returns isn’t always clear. Many migrants feel pressured to return due to socioeconomic factors, legal status, or coercive environments, challenging the notion of “voluntary” return.
3. Forced returns have become a corner stone of externalised migration policy, but they remain ineffective in curbing irregular migration.
These policies, often enshrined in international agreements between destination, transit and origin countries, can result in expulsions, deportations, pushbacks, pullbacks and interceptions at sea. Destination countries also frequently tie regular migration pathways and incentives to the cooperation of transit and origin countries in accepting the return of migrants with rejected asylum claims or irregular status. This approach prioritizes forced returns over the expansion of regular migration pathways, treating them as bargaining chips rather than essential components of migration policy.
Ultimately, this strategy not only pushes migrants towards more perilous routes, but also reveals a lack of genuine commitment to expanding regular migration pathways – an approach crucial for effectively addressing and reducing irregular migration.
4. Dispelling the myth: non-refoulement protects all migrants, not just refugees
There is a pervasive misconception that the principle of non-refoulment – which protects individuals from being returned to a country where they face harm – applies exclusively to refugees and asylum seekers. However, this principle applies to all migrants within the context of mixed migration. Upholding non-refoulement is essential for any dignified and sustainable returns process, protecting refugees and asylum seekers, but also other migrants who may face torture, cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, or other irreparable harm if returned.
5. Inadequate pre-departure preparation impacts migrants’ return journeys and their reintegration prospects.
Migrants returning without personal savings or who have incurred large debts because of their migration, are in need of financial assistance to support their return. Information is also necessary, with many returning migrants interviewed by MMC stating they did not have enough access to information that would have aided them in their return journey and upon arrival. Migrants who are detained may face more barriers to prepare due to the potential rights deprivations associated with their detention. The provision of impartial, independent, and non-coercive returns counselling is a crucial component of inclusive, dignified, and sustainable returns procedures. This includes psychological support, and the provision of knowledge and information about their own situation, and the different choices and possibilities they may have.
6. Rights violations and abuse are commonplace on many return journeys and impede successful reintegration.
According to interviews conducted by MMC with returning migrants, the impact of the use of force leads to greater emotional distress, such as anxiety, depression, and trauma, as well as economic challenges, and difficulty accessing livelihoods upon return. In some instances, migrants return to insecure and volatile environments, where they are at risk of facing more abuse and violence.
7. Debt, feelings of failure, shame, and social stigma are major barriers to reintegration, highlighting the critical need for comprehensive support.
According to returnees MMC interviewed, those who are forcibly returned tend to fare worse economically compared to those returning through voluntary return pathways. For many migrants, particularly those who are forcibly returned, debt and migration often go together. Debt is a significant barrier to reintegration but is not always considered by returns programming. Reuniting with family and friends can be challenging: many returnees interviewed by MMC report frequently experiencing feelings of failure and shame. Returnees can also struggle with social discrimination, particularly for those who adopt different behaviours or values from destination countries that are not in line with their country of return. For many returnees interviewed by MMC, in addition to unconditional cash support, employment opportunities, business and skills training are among their primary assistance needs.
8. Without addressing root causes, unsustainable returns practices can lead to remigration.
Migrants often return to the same or worsened conditions, highlighting the need for strengthened return and reintegration practices alongside addressing systemic migration drivers. Without adequate support remigration may be a primary viable option. Those without the resources to migrate will be left in situations of involuntary immobility.