Deportations to Harm is an ongoing investigation where we combine methods familiar to investigative journalism with approaches borrowed from more academic research.
collaborative investigation
For years now, the European debate over migration has been dominated by one key theme: return. Amid deep divisions among EU member states on virtually every aspect of migration policy, returning migrants – sending them back to their countries of origin – stands out as the sole point of near-unanimous agreement. States on the frontlines such as Italy and Greece repeatedly voice grievances over what they consider an unfair burden, while nations like Hungary and Poland warn of an “invasion.” Meanwhile, countries like Germany and Sweden have appealed for a fairer redistribution of asylum seekers. Despite years of talks, efforts to overhaul Europe’s asylum system have stalled, leaving return policies to spiral into increasingly inhumane practices.
This investigation exposes how the relentless focus on return policies has driven the EU into dangerous deals with regimes known for human rights abuses and instability. Behind the rhetoric, Europe has struck returns and readmission agreements with countries where deported individuals are not only at risk but frequently subject to abuse, harsh treatment, and neglect. From the case of Sudan – where deported asylum seekers are handed over to notorious security services at the airport – to Nigeria, where tens of thousands of migrants are forcibly repatriated from Libya under dubious training and reintegration schemes, Europe’s deportation machine appears to be a system designed for harm.
In Afghanistan and the Western Balkans, similar patterns are emerging, as EU policies mix forced deportations with so-called voluntary returns, all under the guise of reintegration. Through a mix of investigative journalism techniques, Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests, local fieldwork, and interviews with deportees, human rights activists, and policymakers, this report uncovers the human cost behind Europe’s one-track migration policy.
Policy by Return: The European Consensus
The Politics of Return
Despite stark differences on migration policy, EU member states have managed to converge on one shared goal: returning migrants to their countries of origin. The reasoning behind this consensus is straightforward. Countries that are first confronted by the arrival of asylum seekers – like Italy and Greece – argue that, for decades, they have been overwhelmed by the logistics and costs of managing migrant flows. By pushing for mass returns, they aim to relieve themselves of what they deem an unfair share of the burden.
However, this consensus masks a worrying reality. An insistence on return has forced the EU into striking controversial bilateral and multilateral deals with regimes that have little regard for human rights. These arrangements often bypass the rigorous asylum procedures designed to safeguard vulnerable individuals. Instead, they prioritize a quick, cost-effective removal of migrants, regardless of the subsequent treatment they receive in their destination countries.
The Return Imperative
The policy stance is epitomized by the idea that the EU must “spend whatever it takes” to ship migrants back home. In practice, this means financing return flights, reintegration programs, and diplomatic deals. But beneath the surface of these initiatives lies a growing crisis. The mechanisms designed to manage returns are frequently disjointed, under-resourced, and critically flawed. The result is a deportation system that not only fails to protect those being returned but actively places them in harm’s way.
Returns and Readmission Deals: A Closer Look
Sudan: A Case of Direct Hand-off
One of the most egregious examples of the EU’s deportation strategy can be seen in its treatment of Sudanese asylum seekers. In a deal that reflects the darker side of return policies, EU officials have been known to hand over deportees directly to Sudan’s notorious National Intelligence and Security Service (NISS) at Khartoum’s airport.
According to testimonies gathered from deportees who have managed to survive the ordeal, these individuals face immediate abuse upon arrival. Reports document instances of beatings, cigarette burns, and other forms of physical violence inflicted upon the deportees before they even set foot on Sudanese soil. Interviews with human rights defenders in Sudan paint a grim picture of the aftermath, where many deportees live in constant fear, forced into hiding or ending up in exile within their own country.
Such practices not only violate basic human rights but also betray the very principles upon which the EU claims to be founded. Instead of offering protection and shelter, the continent’s asylum system is being repurposed into a mechanism that expedites the return of vulnerable people into environments rife with danger and repression.
Nigeria: The Labyrinth of Returns from Libya
In Nigeria, the situation is equally complex and troubling. Tens of thousands of Nigerians, many of whom had spent years in Libya – often under the pretext of work or escape from poverty – now find themselves forcibly returned through an EU-financed initiative. This project, touted as a program that combines training and reintegration, is anything but benign.
Investigations reveal that returnees are subjected to processes that ostensibly aim to “sanitize” the migration system. Instead of addressing the root causes of migration or providing genuine support for those returning, the initiative appears geared toward preparing large-scale deportations in the future. Reports from local NGOs and in-depth interviews with returnees highlight a pattern of neglect, where promised reintegration efforts fall far short of what is needed to help individuals rebuild their lives in Nigeria.
The repercussions are profound. Returnees, often already traumatized by years of uncertainty and exploitation abroad, are thrust back into environments where economic hardship and violence are the norm. The promise of reintegration remains unfulfilled, leaving many with a sense of betrayal and hopelessness.
Afghanistan and the Western Balkans: The Emerging Frontiers
While Sudan and Nigeria represent the most well-documented cases, emerging investigations in Afghanistan and the Western Balkans indicate that the issues with Europe’s return policies are far from isolated. In Afghanistan, deportations have been complemented by programs labeled as “voluntary returns” – a euphemism that obscures the coercion often involved.
Local activists in Afghanistan report that the so-called voluntary return programs are marred by insufficient funding, lack of proper follow-up, and an absence of meaningful support structures. Many returnees struggle to reintegrate into communities that have been deeply scarred by years of conflict. The failures of these programs not only undermine the credibility of European policy but also contribute to a cycle of displacement and instability in the region.
Similarly, in the Western Balkans, return policies have created significant tension between local populations and migrants. The region, already grappling with its own issues related to migration and integration, now faces the additional burden of managing returnees who may have nowhere safe to go.
Methods and Investigative Approach
To build a comprehensive picture of Europe’s return policies and their repercussions, this investigation employed a multi-layered research approach:
- FOIA Requests: We submitted numerous Freedom of Information Act requests to various EU institutions to obtain internal communications, policy documents, and meeting minutes related to deportation practices.
- Field Investigations: Local networks, particularly in Sudan and Nigeria, played a crucial role in tracing deportees and gathering their firsthand testimonies. These on-the-ground investigations provided invaluable insights into the immediate human consequences of the EU’s return policies.
- Longitudinal Tracking: We tracked the post-deportation outcomes of several cohorts over medium-term periods. This allowed us to observe patterns of reintegration, the recurrence of trauma, or further displacement.
- Structured Interviews: In-depth interviews were conducted with a range of stakeholders, including deportees, local NGO representatives, human rights advocates, EU officials, and legal experts. These interviews added vital context and personal narratives to the data collected.
- Data Compilation: An ongoing database of “returns to harm” was developed, mapping organizations involved in monitoring post-deportation outcomes across EU member states and beyond.
This combination of academic rigor and grassroots reporting has enabled us to uncover systemic failures and expose the human toll of policies that, on paper, are meant to secure borders but in reality, inflict lasting harm on millions.
The Human Face of Deportation
Testimonies from Sudan
Deported Sudanese asylum seekers provide some of the most harrowing accounts of Europe’s return policies. One individual recounted the moment of transfer at Khartoum airport: “They passed me directly into the arms of the NISS. I was beaten, burned with cigarettes – I still carry the scars.” Such testimonies underscore the brutal reality faced by those who are handed over with little regard for their safety.
The physical and psychological trauma experienced by deportees is compounded by the precarious situation they find upon arrival. Without access to adequate medical care, legal assistance, or rehabilitation services, many find themselves abandoned by the very systems that purportedly provided them shelter. As one human rights activist in Khartoum noted, “The return process is not about reintegration; it’s a form of state-sponsored violence.”
The Plight of Nigerian Returnees
In Nigeria, the returns experiment has left many migrants caught in a legal and social limbo. Despite promises of training and assistance, many returnees report that the reintegration programs are little more than bureaucratic formalities. Interviews with former migrants describe a process of intense disillusionment: “We were told we would be helped to start a new life. Instead, we returned to poverty and isolation,” one returnee lamented.
The lack of cohesive support infrastructure not only leaves returnees vulnerable but also undermines any long-term efforts to reduce migration pressures. When individuals are returned without adequate support, the cycle of emigration and deportation continues unabated, perpetuating a system where human lives are treated as mere statistics in a flawed policy.
Institutional Accountability and the Void of Oversight
EU and Member States: A Question of Responsibility
The fundamental flaw in Europe’s deportation machine is its lack of accountability. EU member states often shift responsibility to one another, and international agreements on returns and readmission tend to obfuscate who is ultimately liable for the resulting human suffering.
For instance, the deal with Sudan that facilitates immediate handover to the NISS effectively absolves EU officials from any subsequent responsibility. Similarly, Nigeria’s return program, financed through EU channels, is structured in such a way that the burdens and costs are externally imposed, leaving domestic agencies to deal with the fallout.
Loopholes and Weak Monitoring
Another critical issue is the paucity of effective monitoring mechanisms. Although public declarations emphasize environmental, social, and human rights standards, in practice, oversight is minimal. The tools intended for continuous evaluation of reintegration outcomes are either underfunded or bypassed entirely. As one former official from a public development bank confided, “There’s a severe disconnect between policy rhetoric and on-the-ground reality. Once a return package is approved, follow-up is virtually non-existent.”
This regulatory vacuum facilitates a system where harmful practices can continue unchecked. Without stringent monitoring, there is little to no penalty for failing to meet even the basic human rights standards that underpin international law.
The Economic and Social Costs
Financial Burdens on European Taxpayers
Beyond the undeniable human cost, the economic implications of these policies are substantial. The return and reintegration schemes, heavily subsidized by European public funds, represent a significant financial outlay. For many EU taxpayers, the idea that their money is being funneled into schemes that result in further human suffering is deeply troubling.
Moreover, the inefficiencies inherent in a poorly regulated system lead to cost overruns, legal disputes, and recurring expenses related to managing the fallout of failed reintegration efforts. The moral and fiscal costs are intertwined: when individuals are returned to harmful environments without sufficient support, the long-term expenses – both human and financial – continue to accumulate.
Social Implications: A Cycle of Displacement
The social repercussions extend well beyond financial analyses. For communities in countries of origin, the return process often signals the end of any hope for genuine reintegration. Migrants arrive with expectations of support, only to be met with hostility, economic instability, and, in many cases, continued violence.
This cyclical pattern of displacement not only exacerbates existing social tensions but also undermines any efforts to foster stability and growth in regions already devastated by conflict, poverty, or political repression. The return process, far from offering a pathway to a better life, often reinforces the precariousness that forces so many to seek refuge in the first place.
Political Reactions and Calls for Reform
Criticism from Human Rights Organizations
The revelations uncovered in this investigation have sparked widespread criticism from human rights organizations, legal experts, and ethical policymakers. International bodies have questioned the legitimacy of deals that knowingly subject migrants to inhumane treatment, calling for urgent reform in EU policies on returns and readmission.
“Europe’s return policies are fundamentally at odds with its professed commitment to human rights and dignity,” stated a representative from a major international human rights organization. This sentiment resonates across the spectrum, as activists argue that the system not only fails those it is meant to protect but also inflicts new forms of harm.
EU Institutional Response
In response to mounting pressure, some EU institutions have signaled their intention to reevaluate current practices. Proposals for improved monitoring, greater transparency in the evaluation of readmission agreements, and enhanced oversight of reintegration programs are currently on the table. However, these initiatives face significant resistance from member states and entrenched bureaucracies.
Critics argue that the proposed reforms are largely cosmetic unless accompanied by a fundamental rethinking of the European migration paradigm. Until accountability is embedded at every stage – from the initial decision to return a migrant to post-deportation monitoring – the returns machine will continue to operate in a manner that is both costly and inhumane.
The Need for an Overhaul of the Asylum System
The persistent focus on return policies at the expense of comprehensive asylum reform remains the crux of the problem. A reformed asylum system that balances the genuine protection needs of migrants with the responsibilities of host states is long overdue. Experts emphasize that without such a holistic approach, the current return mechanisms will only further entrench the cycle of exclusion, violence, and displacement.
Moving Forward: Recommendations for Change
Institutional Reforms
To address the manifold issues identified in this investigation, several key reforms are urgently needed:
- Strengthened Monitoring and Accountability:
There must be robust, independent monitoring of deportation and reintegration programs, with clear accountability mechanisms for when the process results in harm. - Improved Legal Safeguards:
EU return and readmission deals should include legally binding guarantees that protect the rights and safety of deportees, ensuring that handovers to third-party regimes do not translate into human rights abuses. - Enhanced Transparency:
All agreements, environmental assessments, and post-deportation tracking data should be made publicly available, reducing the opacity that currently shields harmful practices from scrutiny. - Holistic Asylum Reform:
A comprehensive overhaul of the EU’s asylum system is required. This should not only address the processing of asylum claims but also fundamentally reconfigure how returns are managed and how responsibilities are shared among member states.
Policy Adjustments
On a policy level, the EU must critically examine the rationale behind its current emphasis on returns. Instead of a myopic focus on deportation, policymakers should prioritize:
- International Cooperation:
Engaging with countries of origin to build supportive frameworks for voluntary return and sustainable reintegration, rather than simply offloading the burden. - Human-Centered Approaches:
Ensuring that every decision taken respects the inherent dignity and rights of the individual, thus shifting the narrative away from one of exclusion and towards genuine protection. - Long-Term Investment in Integration:
Supporting migrant integration within the EU, where feasible, rather than relying on a system of returns that ultimately fails to provide a secure or dignified future for those displaced.
The investigation into Europe’s deportation practices reveals a policy machine that, in its quest for uniformity on returns, has sacrificed the safety and dignity of countless individuals. The process, far from being a benign administrative function, has become a mechanism of harm – a costly, inhumane system that not only burdens those forced to leave their homes but also undermines the European commitment to human rights.
Through direct testimonies from deportees, on-the-ground reporting in Sudan and Nigeria, and a comprehensive review of policy documents, this report has shown how the relentless focus on return has created a framework where human lives are treated as expendable. The consequences are not merely political or economic; they are deeply personal, with each act of deportation leaving scars that extend far beyond borders.
Europe’s current migration policies, with their emphasis on swift returns and readmission deals, demand an urgent reexamination. Without substantial reforms aimed at establishing robust oversight, ensuring accountability, and rethinking the core principles of asylum, the system will continue to inflict profound harm on vulnerable populations.
For the EU, the challenge is not only to safeguard its borders but also to uphold the human rights it champions. The time has come for a migration policy that balances security with compassion—a policy that recognizes that every return must guarantee safety, dignity, and the possibility of a better future. Until then, the returns to harm will persist, leaving a legacy of pain and injustice for generations to come.