National and International Responses to Readmission and Reintegration of International Migrants

This piece summarizes and validates a webinar that focused on the Global Compact of Migration’s (GCM) Objective 21: “cooperating in facilitating safe and dignified return and readmission, as well as sustainable reintegration of migrants”. The webinar was facilitated by the Global Research Forum on Diaspora and Transnationalism (GRFDT), Migrant Forum in Asia (MFA), Cross-Regional Center for Refugees and Migrants (CCRM), and Civil Society Action Committee (CSAC), on February 16, 2021. This piece discusses the key issues from the webinar within the context of scholarship on readmission and reintegration of migrants. It also brings to the attention of readers how countries (through international laws) are responding to the readmission and reintegration of international migrant returnees.

According to Mezzadra (2011), for migrants, migration is not a mere response to economic and social malaise but also a result of the creative forces that surround their subjective practices, desires, expectations, and behaviors[1]. As such, various factors often coalesce to influence an individual’s decision to migrate. Once they have decided to migrate and arrived in the host country, some settle well.
However, a significant number of others are either voluntarily returned or subjected to forced repatriation. According to Huysmans (2000), the refoulment of migrants can be often characterized by the securitization of the current migration regimes[2] in the host countries.

Refoulement and safe returns are put in force in agreement with the home and host country authorities and international laws. Beyond voluntary return, it is frequently reported that significant numbers of international migrants are subjected to forced repatriation. For example, third-country migrants and asylum seekers in the European Union are subjected to forced repatriation when their cases are not enough for admission in light of Articles 3; 34, and 37 of the Human Rights Convention[3]. Asylum seekers have the right to nonrefoulment, and they are protected by international law if they have no ‘relatively safe areas’ to return to or do not have protection from ‘real or perceived threat’ in the country of origin[4].

Through intranational laws, the host and home country authorities, as well as various actors, are encouraging the voluntary return of migrants despite the few instances where migrants are subjected to forced return to their country of origin. However, there needs to be provisions and assistance from the authorities as well as societies to encourage voluntary returns of migrants before they are subjected to expulsion. In this regard, one of the webinar panel members, Dr. Raj mentioned that there are aspects and actions which must be done in compliance with Objective 21 of safe return and reintegration of migrants their country of origin.[5]

Safe return and reintegration of migrants should be implemented in compliance with a set of actions as well as the bilateral and multilateral cooperation frameworks and various readmission programs. Both the host and home country authorities, as well as consulates, should be involved in cooperative plans for the safe return of migrants. The safe return program must be implemented in
agreement with gender-responsive, children sensitive as well as taking into account the successful reintegration of unaccompanied minors. Careful cooperation must be set out in terms of identification of nationals as well as issuing travel and national documents.

Home country authorities working at both the consulates of the host countries as well as those working in the home country should play a significant role in identifying potential migrants who are voluntarily returning to their home country. During the process, authorities and various actors working in migration control-oriented organizations should identify the migrant’s native language, where they come
from, and issues related to the group they are belonging to[6]. However, in practice, it is commonly known that the responsibility to reintegrate and readmit migrants to their place of origin has been heavily reliant on the shoulders of the home country. This is even though host countries appear to be subsidizing and facilitating migrants’ safe return.

However, it must be borne in mind that migrants are not obliged to return to their country of origin if they believe and if there is well-founded evidence of the real risk(s) they are facing in their country of origin. For example, asylum seekers, as well as migrants who make a plausible case that they have well-founded reasons or believing that, if expelled, they will run a real risk of being subjected to torture or other cruel or degrading treatment or punishment, are protected by the international law[7].

Considering the above, Dr. Raj accentuated that there are legal ways to regularize the safe return of migrants to their home country. She said that before sending migrants back to their country of origin, there needs to be a discussion with home country authorities to guarantee their safe travel and right to be protected from torture and other human rights violation in their country of origin. However, against such international treaties and laws, some migrant returnees are subjected to torture and ill-treatment once they have arrived in their country of origin. Dr. Raj substantiated her claim by citing evidence provided by Amnesty International which – through case studies of Sudanese and Venezuelan return migrants – reveals that most voluntary returnees and deported migrants are subjected to torture. In this regard, civil society organizations, trade organizations, other NGOs, and state-based organizations must be resilient to
protect the violation of the rights of return migrants not only in the host but also in the home country. These sets of actors must make sure that migrants are protected from ill-treatment and various abuses in their country of origin.

Dr. Raj also claimed that most of the responsibility for readmission and reintegration of migrants’ rests on the home country, but the host country can facilitate and contribute financial support for the voluntary return. However, given the fact that home countries have no clear and successive reintegration plans as well as frameworks, the returnee migrants are aspiring for further migration in most cases. Most returnee migrants would likely not plan for further migration if the host countries were implementing clear, gender-responsive and children and unaccompanied minors’ sensitive admission and integration frameworks. She gave an example of some Caribbean nationals who returned from North America and Canada but commuted for further migration because the host countries have no clear and responsive admission and reintegration plans. It is also illustrated among the Filipino migrants’ returnees. Sustainable readmission and reintegration are unlikely to encourage new unsafe migrations. For this reason, the cooperation and participation of civil society, state actors, governments, and the origin and host countries are essential for the implementation of Voluntary Return and Integration of Objective 21 of the GCM.

[1] Mezzadra (2011); The Gaze of Autonomy. Capitalism, Migration and Social Struggles
[2] Huysmans (2000); The European Union and the Securitization of Migration
[3] European Court of Human Rights (2007); Case of Salah Sheekh V. The Netherlands, Third Section
[4] The European Court of Human Rights; Aliens Act 2000, the Aliens Decree 2000, the Regulation on Aliens 2000, and the Aliens Act Implementation Guidelines 2000.
[5] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-7D3f2rGkm0
[6] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-7D3f2rGkm0
[7] The European Court of Human Rights; Aliens Act 2000, the Aliens Decree 2000, the Regulation on Aliens 2000, and the Aliens Act Implementation Guidelines 2000.