Between 'voluntary' and 'forced' return: Erasmus University Rotterdam research project looks at deportation policy in the Netherlands

What determines whether rejected asylum seekers leave the Netherlands - or stay? Researchers Arjen Leerkes and Laura Cleton (ESSB) are challenging assumptions about return migration policies and shedding light on how personal characteristics shape return outcomes.

When asylum seekers are denied legal status in the Netherlands, the government faces a challenge: how to ensure their return to their country of origin. While "voluntary return" is often presented as the preferred option, and forced removal as a last resort, the reality is far more nuanced. 'The line between "voluntary" and "forced" is more blurry than people think', says Dr. Laura Cleton, a postdoctoral researcher at Erasmus University Rotterdam. 'Rejected asylum seekers are not just passive subjects in this process - they have agency, and the return outcomes that Dutch government data shows are crucially shaped by personal factors, and not just policy.'

Cleton collaborates with Prof. Arjen Leerkes, Lead of the FAiR (Finding Agreement in Return) project, an EU-funded research project to rethink the governance of return migration. FAiR’s research reveals that forced return outcomes are influenced less by policy measures and more by factors like family ties, economic conditions, and the safety of the home country.

A spectrum of (in)voluntariness

The recent studyOpens external published by Sinnige, Cleton, and Leerkes challenges the traditional dichotomy of voluntary versus forced return. Instead, the researchers assume and test a spectrum of (in)voluntariness, where personal and contextual factors play a decisive role. For example, a rejected asylum seeker from a country with improving economic conditions is more likely to return, whether voluntarily or forcibly. Similarly, families with children attending school in the Netherlands are far less likely to leave - 41% less likely to return “voluntarily” and 67% less likely to be forcibly removed - compared to single individuals.

'Attachments matter', explains Leerkes. 'When children are involved, families often resist returning, and their communities - neighbours, classmates, teachers - can mobilize to support them. This makes the policy process much more complicated.'

The limits of policy

One surprising finding of the study is that policy measures, such as EU agreements or faster decisions on residence permits, have a relatively small impact on deportation outcomes. 'Policy - related factors do play a role, especially in forced removals', says Cleton. 'But personal and contextual factors - like age, safety, and economic conditions - are more influential.'

Even if governments were to intervene in such contextual factors, the overall effect would be minimal. For instance, relocating a rejected asylum seeker from an urban to a non-urban residence area might slightly increase the likelihood of forced removal, but only to a negligible extend. 'Even in the most favorable scenarios, the majority of rejected asylum seekers either stay in the Netherlands or migrate onward', says Leerkes.

Rethinking migration policies

The FAiR project’s findings have significant implications for migration policy. Currently, EU governments invest heavily in agreements with non - EU countries to facilitate returns, look to set up so-called “return hubs” and seem to prioritize forced removal in their new Common European System for ReturnsOpens external. However, 'governments are only partially in control of return outcomes', says Cleton. 'Factors like social attachments and economic conditions are much harder to influence through such policy measures, while these explain return outcomes better.'

The study highlights the plight of the 79% of rejected asylum seekers in the Netherlands who neither return voluntarily nor are forcibly removed. 'These individuals often live in limbo, with limited access to basic services and no pathway to integration', says Leerkes. 'We thus need to seriously consider alternatives, like humanitarian legalization and work permits, to address this reality.'

A human - centred approach

At its core, the FAiR project advocates for a more humane and realistic approach to migration governance. By centring the perspectives of migrants and non - EU states, the researchers hope to foster policies that are not only efficient but also just. 'Migration is a deeply human issue', says Cleton. 'We need policies that reflect that complexity and prioritise dignity over enforcement.'

As the EU continues to propose new measures to enforce returnOpens external, the FAiR project offers a timely reminder: 'Behind every deportation statistic is a human story, shaped by personal struggles, hopes, and resilience', says Leerkes.