Behind every return decision is a person

In the intensity of Europe’s political debate over migration and return, an essential truth risks being overshadowed: behind every decision is a person, not an administrative outcome. States have legitimate authority to regulate immigration and to expect people with rejected applications to return, but the human experience of that process is far more complex and personal than current debates acknowledge.

For those affected, a negative decision is rarely just administrative. It can mean the collapse of long-held hopes and a deep intensification of the fear, grief and uncertainty carried throughout their journey. Guled, a mother from Iraqi Kurdistan shared, “It was hardest for my son. Everything was turned upside down for him.’’

Across Europe, National Red Cross Societies meet people upon arrival and accompany them through the administrative process, facilitating access to essential services and ensuring their protection. Red Cross staff and volunteers witness the emotional toll of navigating an unfamiliar system, the feeling of powerlessness and the struggle to build a sense of safety and stability. In some countries, they are also alongside individuals when they receive a negative asylum decision, offering counselling in moments marked by heightened stress and fear.

The ongoing reform of EU return rules is unfolding in a climate of urgency, with a growing risk that the focus shifts to removals at any cost – even when this undermines the safeguards required under human rights law and the principle of non-refoulement. Without these protections, returns cannot be dignified, humane, or sustainable.

Systems that balance authority with compassion by offering clear information, predictable procedures, and support that acknowledges the emotional and practical challenges of return do more than uphold rights. They strengthen trust and demonstrate that Europe is committed to managing migration in ways that treat people with dignity.

Promote voluntary return and reintegration, not coercion 

In the current reform, voluntary return risks being stripped of its meaning. What should be a free, informed and dignified choice is increasingly framed as compliance with an obligation to leave. But humane, and durable return cannot be forced. It can only work when people are supported before and after return: when they feel safe, informed and accompanied, not pressured.  

Detention must not become the default

The proposal’s direction on detention is particularly concerning. Immigration detention is already increasingly used as a means of control to prevent absconding and ensure people remain available for removal. For some, fear of police intervention, sanctions or detention shapes the decision to accept return. As Guled recalled: “I said I didn’t want to go back, but they told me I had to go. If not, we’ll force you. And they took my daughter into detention for a month.”

The proposed Return Regulation risks normalising this approach by expanding grounds for deprivation of liberty and allowing detention for up to 24 months, while weakening the obligation to consider alternatives first. This reverses a long-standing principle: detention must remain a last resort, not a routine measure.

This shift comes despite clear evidence of the harm detention causes, even over short periods, including severe impacts on mental health and well-being. Expanding the scope and duration of detention risks making it broader, harsher, and less accountable.

Return everywhere is return nowhere

Efforts to return people to third countries or “return hubs” where they have no existing ties create significant risks. The proposal lacks clarity on the rights, safeguards and conditions in such facilities, raising serious concerns about accountability and protection, exposing people to greater uncertainty. 

Sustainable return depends on voluntary decisions, meaningful links to the country of return, and real opportunities for reintegration. Returning people to places where they have no family, language skills, or support networks increases vulnerability and undermines prospects of a dignified outcome.

“I don’t have any friends here. No job. No school. Nothing,” said Ibrahim, a young man from Kosovo.

Lower safeguards mean higher human costs

The belief that harsher conditions accelerate returns or deter migration is misguided. Weakening procedural safeguards, such as the suspensive effect of appeals, undermines a person’s right to an effective remedy – a cornerstone of European legal systems. Restricting access to basic services for those awaiting return also creates hardship, especially when return is not immediately feasible. 

These policies increase stress, erode social cohesion, and ultimately make return more difficult in practice. Protecting basic rights and meeting essential needs is not an obstacle to return; it is what makes return possible in a way that is humane, dignified, and sustainable.

Return is not an end in itself

Return is not a goal in itself but a process that tests the values on which Europe is built. Policies that prioritise speed, deterrence and weakened safeguards may appear effective but often deepen harm and reduce sustainability. A system that respects rights, provides support and enables informed decisions reflects the kind of society Europe chooses to be. One that does not turn away from vulnerability but responds to it with fairness and humanity.

Because behind every return decision, there is a person - and how we treat them defines us all.