Return in Mobile Trajectories - WP7 Synthesis Report
Executive Summary:
This report explores return aspirations and trajectories of migrants by examining the governance of returns and migrants’ perspectives and experiences on return from Turkey, Morocco, Poland, and Greece. These countries were selected because they can be seen as transit zones - not just as “transit countries” within migration chains, but also frequently in migrants' own accounts of where they are on a mobility trajectory. The report investigates how these countries' return migration governance influences return dynamics, outlining trends in migration, policy evolution, issues in host societies, and socio-political conditions. Additionally, it highlights migrants’ strategic agency in navigating restrictive legal, social, and economic conditions, as well as their experiences in host contexts and their perceptions about further mobility (including return).
Migration Trends and Policy Shifts
Turkey, Greece, Morocco, and Poland's migration governance reflects broader geopolitical shifts in global migration politics. These four countries, positioned at key intersections of international migration pathways, have transitioned from transit states to host countries, adopting diverse approaches to governing migrant returns. Turkey and Morocco, historically considered transit states, now host significant migrant populations, with Turkey accommodating large numbers of Syrian and Afghan migrants and Morocco hosting African and Arab migrants. Greece has been a primary entry point into Europe, particularly since 2015, while Poland has received labour migrants from Ukraine for several years. Migration policy in these countries is shaped by EU pressure, security concerns, and domestic political factors. Notably, nationality-based differential treatment is evident in both Poland and Turkey, where reception and return policies vary depending on migrants' origins and legal statuses.
Return Migration Governance and Agency
Return migration has become central to migration policy across these four countries, influenced by international agreements and domestic political priorities. Policies range from voluntary return programs to forced deportations and pushbacks:
● Turkey encourages "voluntary" returns for Syrians amid political pressure while forcibly deporting Afghan migrants and enforcing border pushbacks with Iran.
● Greece has intensified pushbacks and forced returns, raising human rights concerns.
● Morocco coordinates voluntary return programs with the IOM while selectively deporting certain groups.
● Poland maintains a dual approach, sheltering Ukrainian forced migrants (with temporary protection status) while increasing pushbacks at the Belarusian border.
Despite these restrictive policies, migrants exercise significant agency, strategically navigating legal restrictions, economic constraints, and security risks in pursuit of safety and dignity. The threat of deportability does not simply immobilize migrants but generates complex and creative responses, such as onward migration, invisibility strategies and use of social networks. Migrants thus challenge state control over migration, even without formal opposition. Economic capital remains a decisive factor in determining migrants’ agency, with limited legal pathways often forcing them into precarious alternatives.
Barriers to Return Migration
Despite policy efforts encouraging return, multiple structural and individual deterrents prevent migrants from going back. Key barriers include:
Security threats: Fear of persecution, war, forced military recruitment, and repression in origin countries.
Economic instability: Poor job prospects, lack of social services, and exploitative working conditions in countries of origin, lacking infrastructure (in terms of housing, work places) due to hostilities.
Informal, unprotected work conditions: Low wages, exploitation, and unsafe workplaces, exacerbated by rising living costs and financial burdens, creating instability yet not necessarily incentivizing return.
Legal insecurity: Migrants face restrictive, costly, and uncertain legal systems, with permit delays, cancellations, and exploitative conditions. Deportability—through detention, raids, and forced relocations—creates a climate of fear, job insecurity, and psychological distress, shaping economic opportunities and daily decision-making.
Psychosocial costs: Return is often seen as a personal failure after significant financial and emotional investments in migration. This psychological burden, along with uncertainty about reintegration, discourages return.
While some migrants—particularly aging communities in Poland, Greece and Morocco—view return as an option due to family or health needs, most remain in precarious situations, unable to return yet struggling to move forward.
Onward Migration and Return Options
For most migrants, return is not the preferred choice; rather, onward migration remains a strong aspiration. Motivations for secondary migration include:
● Legal stability and security: Greater possibilities for naturalization in Western European countries such as Germany and Sweden and clearer policies related to asylum seekers in terms of stability, access to job market and social support systems.
● Better economic opportunities: Western Europe is perceived as offering more stability and higher wages.
● Social exclusion and discrimination: Migrants facing marginalization in their current host countries often seek more welcoming environments.
However, restrictive migration policies, economic constraints, and the physical dangers of irregular migration significantly hinder onward mobility, often leaving migrants trapped in legal limbo or precarious survival strategies.
One of the main contributions of the report is that it identifies several shared trajectories, even amidst the varying national and social contexts across Greece, Morocco, Poland, and Turkey. These intersecting migration trajectories reveal agentic lives shaped by limitations, adaptations, and changing aspirations. Across differing policy contexts, these transit states create highly convergent mobility patterns—ranging from trapped and insecure statuses to strategies to settle - urging analysts and policy-makers to move away from rigid, state-centred typologies towards more migrant-centred, situational analyses.
Return policies in Turkey, Greece, Morocco, and Poland are increasingly restrictive, shaped by security concerns, political pressures, and international agreements. Migrants face structural barriers—security threats, economic instability, and legal constraints—preventing return. The psychological burden of return as failure further deters mobility. Parallels between reasons for departure and reluctance to return challenge traditional definitions of return. Future research should examine return in shifting political contexts, the impact of transnational links, and the effectiveness of “go-and-see” policies. Sustainable return policies must address root causes, ensuring voluntariness rather than relying on deterrence, which risks re-migration and policy failure.
Please find the entire DOI report by clicking the button below: