Report 2020:1 Those who cannot stay Implementing return policy in Sweden Those who cannot stay Implementing return policy in Sweden Henrik Malm Lindberg Report 2020:1 The Migration Studies Delegation Ju 2013:17 Delmi report 2020:1 Order: www.delmi.se E-mail: [email protected] Printed by: Elanders Sverige AB Stockholm 2020 Cover: Ruben Rubio, Free-Photos, Pixbay ISBN: 978-91-88021-47 We promote the opportunities of migration by running a project co-financed by the Asylum, Migration and Integration Fund Foreword Many asylum seekers have come to Sweden during the last decades. However, since the year 2000 over 300 000 people have been denied asylum and have re- ceived a decision to return. It is not surprising that the issue of return migration has received a great deal of attention in the public debate. Even if it is hard to tell with certainty how many have returned, data from the Swedish Migration Agency show that around 60 percent of the decisions have been enforced. The legislation con- cerning the issue is clear, the person who has had their asylum application rejected will have to return within a given time frame. Both the ruling parties as well as the opposition parties have stressed the importance of having decisions enforced to a higher degree. How is it then that the difference between ambition and turn-out is so striking in the area of return policy? The issue of return is relatively unexplored within academia and existing research often has the migrant as the core of analysis. Few academic studies exami ning the issue have done so from a perspective of governance and implementation. While this Delmi-report approaches the issue with a broad perspective, it pays special attention to questions of implementation and in doing so contributes to new and relevant understandings of the matter. The following questions have guided the analysis: How does the implementation of return policies work in practice in Sweden today? What does the burden sharing look like between the responsible actors, primarily the Police and the Swedish Migration Agency, but also other agen- cies and public actors that meet returnees? What obstacles stand in the way of a successful implementation? This study is the first in a series of studies on return migration that Delmi will be publishing. In the forthcoming part two of the series, the focus is shifted to those who have returned, their experiences from the process of expulsion and reintegra- tion, and the support systems in the countries where rejected asylum seekers are sent to. This report is a translation of the previously published Delmi-report 2020:1 iii “De som inte får stanna: Att implementera återvändandepolitik”. The translation of this report and its publication was funded by the Asylum Migration and Integration Fund (AMIF). The report is authored by Henrik Malm Lindberg, research coordinator at Delmi and Associate Professor at Uppsala University. Constanza Vera Larrucea, research coordinator at Delmi, has assisted in the formulation of the purpose and research problem as well as the methodological framework of the study. Constanza has also contributed to the collection of quantitative and qualitative data such as interviews and statistics. In addition, she has been responsible for the data pro- cessing and has assisted in the authoring of the policy recommendations. The project was initiated by Caroline Tovatt, Deputy Head of Secretariat, with support from Iris Luthman. Research coordinators André Asplund and Sara Thalberg have held responsibility over the internal review. Delegation member Åsa Carlander Hemingway has throughout the process contributed with valuable insights. Linus Liljeberg and Raoul Galli have done data processing and proof reading. The report has also received contributions in the form of transcription and proof reading from Delmi’s interns: Simone Msghina, Eleonor Nakunzi, Freja Skytt, Amanda Wenzer, Jens Willgård and Emelie Woodhouse. The report and project has had a reference group consisting of the following mem- bers: Chair Åsa Carlander Hemingway (member of the Delmi board and Head of unit at the Migration Agency), Simon Andersson (Uppsala university), Mikaela Eriksson (Ministry of Justice), Sepideh Erfani/Helena Wihlborg (Stockholm City Mission), Martin Johansson (County Administrative Board in Stockholm), Arja Kallo (Stockholm City), Marie-Anne Karlsson (National Board of Health and Welfare), Viveca Kittredge/Carina Bindzau, (The National Association of Guardians for un- accompanied children RGMV), Åsa Petersson (Border Policing section NOA), Eva Qvarnström (Prison and Probation Service Transport Service NTE), Kjell-Terje Torvik/Kristina Rännar (the Migration Agency) and Caroline Tovatt (The Migration Studies Delegation). The report has been reviewed by external researchers. Sara Kalm (Associate Professor in Political Science) and Anders Sannerstedt (Professor in Political iv Science), both from Lund University, acted as opponents at the internal scien- tific seminar. At a later stage, the report has been reviewed by Grete Brochmann (Professor in Sociology at Oslo University) and Jonas Hinnfors (Professor in Political Science at the University of Gothenburg). Initial findings from the report has been presented at a couple of conferences and seminars, namely: ETMU in Åbo (November 2018), Svenska Historikermötet in Växjö (May 2019), IMISCOE in Malmö (June 2019), and OECD Workshop (December 2019). The author is fully responsible for the report’s contents including its conclusions and recommendations. Stockholm, January 2020 Joakim Palme Kristof Tamas Chair, Delmi Director, Delmi v Summary Over the past two decades, Swedish authorities have decided on more than 300 000 returns, an average of almost 20 000 per year. Most of these decisions were taken in the later part of this period. All of those who have not been permitted to stay are expected to return voluntarily, but we know from experience that many do not do this. At the political level, issues concerning return policies are said to be prioritized in appropriation directions and through various legislative efforts and other initiatives. Against this background, this Delmi report aims to examine the work with return from a governance and implementation perspective. The main research question for the study is: Why is there such a large discrepancy between goals and outcomes in the area of return policies? This discrepancy has to do with how instruments of governance are used in the implementation of these policies. This report is based on around 40 semi-structured interviews with officials and front-line bureaucrats, i.e. people in the field, at the Swedish Migration Agency, the Police and the Ministry of Justice, as well as other public agencies and civil so- ciety organizations. Several observations and phenomena have been systematized by using interviews, compiling internal reports and other documentation from rele- vant public agencies and Government inquiries. The analysis is built on an implementation model with three questions in focus: How to build an understanding, an ability and a willingness to implement return policy? The point of departure is that the authorities charged with implementing the objectives set by politicians for efficient, legally certain and humane return are characterized as ‘street-level bureaucracies’. At these public agencies, front-line bureaucrats create their own procedures and methods to handle their tasks, while also being governed by rules and the constitutional state’s ideal of equal treatment. The results of the study show that return issues in themselves contain significant conflicting objectives that are difficult to manage. One such conflict exists between the three values that are supposed to permeate return policy, namely efficiency, vii Henrik Malm Lindberg legal certainty and humanity. The goal of efficient return in terms of many and swiftly enforced decisions (preferably on a voluntary basis) must be set in relation not only to the other two goals, but also to objectives in other political areas – such as rapid entry to the labour market. The goal of swiftly enforced decisions in the area of re- turns often must take a back seat to other goals. The starting point is that people who are in an asylum process can be expected to not only want to stay in that country, but also to have little confidence in those agen- cies that have a different mission. The mission and intention of the agencies is to refuse entry and to expel people with legally binding rejection decisions and irreg- ular migrants from the country. This is to be done as quickly and (cost-)effectively as possible, but also under humane and legally certain forms. The constitutional state’s ideal of the right to individual assessment and that humanitarian consid- erations should also apply in this area constitute a certain inherent restriction on the effectiveness target. Yet the authorities organize their work around the goal of voluntary return, which means lower costs for both the individual and for socie- ty, as well as a less traumatic experience for all parties. It is therefore preferable that individuals with return orders return voluntarily after arranging the necessary travel and identity documents and that they are complaisant and accommodating throughout the process. In exchange, financial assistance is offered in the form of various types of return support, in-kind or cash assistance. When neither carrots nor sermons help, there is the stick, in the form of detention and assistance enforc- ing the decision from the Police and the Swedish Prison and Probation Service’s Transport Service. The tools and policy instruments used, in the form of sticks, car- rots and sermons, which are meant to provide incentive to return and not to remain in the country, are not always effective. The asylum process contains several different tracks and possibilities that send signals through the system that a no is not always a no. The possibility of changing tracks, including the possibility of appealing, offers a new chance to get to stay in the country and is linked to the policy’s objectives concerning entry to the labour market.