Returning home

Irregular immigration is a phenomenon that is constantly growing: there are some 5 million in Europe, half the number of those in the USA. This growth is in spite of restrictive policies and the beefing up of frontier controls. So why not provide incentives for voluntary and assisted repatriation – hitherto reserved only for those displaced by humanitarian emergencies (for example in Kosovo), the victims of trafficking and workers in difficulty – and extend such schemes also to irregular immigrants? The proposal is made in a book presented in Rome in recent days, “Return migrations: the Italian case”, the third European pilot study of the European Migration Network project, edited by the IDOS Study Centre in collaboration with the Caritas/Migrantes Immigration Dossier. VOLUNTARY AND FORCED REPATRIATION IN EUROPE. The study, which examines the specific Italian situation, also reports some data on voluntary and forced repatriation in some European countries, referred to 2005: In the period between 1991 and 2006, in Italy there were 7,223 voluntary and 26,985 forced repatriations (or forced expulsions, for those found in a clandestine situation); in the Netherlands respectively 5,966 and 20,274; in Belgium 3,741 and 7,968; in the UK 3,655 and 54,560; in Austria 1,406 and 6,640; and in Ireland 335 and 1,899. The leading countries of origin are Romania, Albania, Nigeria, Angola, Iraq, Serbia Montenegro, and Bosnia Herzegovina. EXTENDING ASSISTED REPATRIATION. The presence of 5 million irregular immigrants in Europe, in spite of stringent immigration policies and the toughening up of border controls, leads the editors of the volume to conclude that “repressive actions alone are not enough and more realistic policies of admission and integration of immigrants are increasingly needed”. Irregularity is therefore, at once, “a pathology of the migratory phenomenon and an indicator of possible remedies”. “When the area of irregularity is too extensive – says the study -, the host society is less amenable to acceptance and integration; however, the presence of irregularly resident foreigners, if carefully analysed, is able to indicate approaches that could be followed so that the flow of workers takes place in a more orderly fashion”. The book thus recommends that “a new framework of assisted repatriation” be promoted, “both by boosting voluntary repatriations and by promoting new categories of beneficiaries, even including, on certain conditions, irregular immigrants”. ALSO BECAUSE IT COSTS LESS. “We need to realise that always sending away irregulars by force, escorted by the security forces, involves serious negative effects – say the editors of the research -, because such operations need more money than is available and these forced repatriations in any case risk being counter-productive, if they are not limited by precise conditions”. To confine ourselves to the Italian case, for example, the costs for voluntary repatriation vary between 2000 and 5000 euros per person and cover preparatory activities prior to departure, the return journey itself and programmes of re-insertion on arrival, through the provision of micro-finance to enable the recipients to start up their own business. This is followed by final monitoring. Assisted return, by contrast, “would cost a quarter of forced repatriation”, which cost Italy roughly 316,000 euros per day in 2004. PROVIDING EUROPEAN GUIDELINES? “Expelling irregular immigrants by force – stressed Monsignor VITTORIO NOZZA , Director of Italian Caritas, in his address to the meeting – presents negative effects and subtracts resources from integration policies. While underlining the necessary strictness in dealing with traffickers and exploiters, why, he suggested, not think of helping such irregulars voluntarily to re-insert themselves in their home country or take account of them in subsequent quotas?”. In Nozza’s view, with regard to the “delicate” question of clandestine immigration, what’s needed is “farsightedness” and “a spirit of enterprise”. PETER SCHATZER , head of the mission of the International Migrations Organization in Italy, described the benefits of assisted repatriation with the aim of “reducing the migratory pressure and offering a humanitarian option”. The benefits include those of “avoiding forced expulsion and fostering a more human and dignified approach”. Schatzer cited some positive examples in various European countries (including that of Great Britain, which gives a sum of 5000 euros to those who voluntarily return to their country of origin). He also thinks discussion would be advisable “at the European level to formulate common guidelines”. “Provision could also be made – he suggested – for the suspension of the provision of expulsion including the ban on re-entry for many years”.