The European Commission is pressing ahead with its new Common European System for Returns. This legal framework would make returns of immigrants quicker but also more punitive, with longer detentions, stricter conditions, and the creation of “return hubs” in third countries.

But do these proposed measures reflect the views the people who implementing them – the police officers, judges, prosecutors and social workers? Our research shows that the new system is not only ineffective in achieving its aims, it also aggravates the situation for those affected, and violates their human rights.

The Commission’s rhetoric of ‘efficiency’

The European Commission’s main argument, as stated by its president Ursula von der Leyen, is that the current system is inefficient, with only 20% of deportation orders actually carried out.

However, the Commission’s view of efficiency is limited to a simple question of how many deportations are completed. This means it prioritises enforcement over protection and encourages forced returns, disregarding both human rights and alternative, more viable solutions.

Starting from this blinkered definition of “efficiency”, the EU’s response to “inefficiency” consists of toughening up the system through restrictive, punitive rules. These include:

  • Increasing the number of forced returns with a common European system

  • Expanding the use of detention

  • Establishing deportation zones in third countries.

However, a crucial component is missing. Before proposing legislation with such potential for social, economic and political impact, the European Commission has not presented concrete evidence based on research. It has not justified the urgency with which it wants to pass the legislation, nor has it quantified how effective its punitive and restrictive proposals will be in achieving their aims.

Leer más: Europeans have more flexible views on how to respond to irregular migrants than policymakers think – new research

Stories from the ground

Our research comes at a key moment because it focuses on something that is absent from many policy-making debates: the perspectives and experiences of those who actually implement these policies – the police officers, judges, prosecutors and social workers.

Although the study was conducted in seven EU countries (Germany, Belgium, Slovenia, Spain, Greece, Italy, and Sweden) and the United Kingdom, the findings we present focus on Spain. They reveal why deportations and detentions are ineffective, even for those who carry them out.

In Spain, the percentage of completed expulsion orders is similar to the European average. Nevertheless, as the anti-immigrant far right gains further traction and traditional right-wing parties follow their lead, some parties are calling for more restrictive immigration controls that limit regularisation and prioritise the deportation of migrants.

But the story on the ground is very different. Our study reveals a deep frustration on the part of those who actually enforce migration policy. They are ignored by politicians who, neither in the debates nor in policies, account for the experiences and viewpoints of the people who work with migrants facing administrative irregularities:

“I think this could all be resolved by asking the people actually doing the work, but they’re never consulted. They’re never asked: "Is this feasible? Can this be done?” (Police: ES-FG1-P4).

Among all border agents, our analysis revealed universal discontent with detention and deportation being the primary response to irregular migration, though the reasons differed between groups. Indeed, the interviews show that many of them do not see deportation as a tool of migration control, but as a punishment:

“Our work is not to deport foreigners. Our focus is on foreign criminals. Criminals. We don’t have any issue with foreigners” (Police: ES-FG1-P1).

The above view suggests that deportation be used primarily in penal cases, not as a general response to administrative irregularity. Even in exceptional cases, deportation is considered excessive because there is already a well-equipped penal system for dealing with crime. This raises the question of whether detention and deportation are ever proportional or necessary.

Lastly, agents emphasise that greater investment in detention and deportation measures will not solve structural problems. They consider the bureaucracy to be excessive, and highlight the contradictions between deportation and migrants’ rights, which are supposed to be guaranteed by both the state and international agreements:

“The way expulsions work is as if I had to do a job, but my hands are tied.” (Police: ES-FG1-P5).

Regularisation is the key

So what is the alternative to deportation? One answer, which is absent from the Commission’s proposal, would be to reduce deportation orders and create legal channels for people facing administrative irregularity.

Contrary to the dominant political rhetoric, border agents themselves see regularisation as the most effective way to confront irregularity. Some Spanish national police officers even acknowledge that irregularity is more a question of politics than policing:

“The problem we have here cannot be resolved. We have to regularise them, that’s the key” (Policía: ES-FG1-1).

In practice, agents prefer not to order deportation in response to irregularity. Our fieldwork with at-risk migrants confirms this dynamic: although they fear confrontation with the authorities, the fear of being deported is often outweighed by other uncertainties, such as unstable access to housing and employment.

Today, many people under deportation orders end up spending years of their lives in a legal limbo, with limited access to rights and services. Our research points to alternatives such as work and residence permits, which grant rights to people who have proven social, economic or family links to the country. In Spain this is known as “regularización por arraigo”, literally “regularisation by rooting”.

Far from being “a pull factor”, as conservative parties repeatedly say, these measures benefit general society as much as migrants – they reduce participation in the informal economy and strengthen social cohesion.

The evidence is clear: deporting, whether to countries of origin or third countries, is expensive, inefficient, and often incompatible with protecting human rights. The failure of deals such as EU-Turkey and Italy-Libya, as well as more recent pacts such as Italy-Albania and UK-Rwanda have proven this time and time again.

A judge we interviewed summarised the situtation succinctly:

“From a judicial perspective, and an approach rooted in human rights, […] deportation can only be materially justified in cases where serious or very serious crimes have been committed. Irregularity should not be handled through judicial channels. It should be done through regularisation policies and proper migratory policy, not by criminalising migration” (Judge: ES-IA-7).

A weekly e-mail in English featuring expertise from scholars and researchers. It provides an introduction to the diversity of research coming out of the continent and considers some of the key issues facing European countries. Get the newsletter!

This article is republished from The Conversation, a nonprofit, independent news organization bringing you facts and trustworthy analysis to help you make sense of our complex world. It was written by: Olga Jubany, Universitat de Barcelona and Sevda Tunaboylu, Universitat de Barcelona

Read more:

Olga Jubany receives funding from the European Union's Horizon Europe programme for the MORE project: Motivations, experiences and consequences of returns and readmissions policy: revealing and developing effective alternatives (GA101094107).

Sevda Tunaboylu has received funding from the Spanish Ministry of Science, Innovation and Universities, cofinanced by the European Union, as a Juan de la Cierva postdoctoral researcher.