Alternatives to Return: An Ideal-Typical Categorization of State Responses to Non-Repatriated Irregular Migrants

Abstract

While return occupies a central position in European migration policy discourse, it remains a loudly announced, weakly implemented, and strongly contested aspect of migration governance. The enduring “return gap,” the divergence between policy commitments and actual removals, underscores the limitations of a control-oriented framework. Drawing on a comparative study of 11 EU+ countries, the article develops an ideal-typical categorization of state responses to non-return, here termed “alternatives to return” to denote the full spectrum of formal and informal responses implemented when return does not occur, a governance reality that inevitably follows non-return. Organized across three axes, inclusive/exclusionary, explicit/implicit, and active/passive, these six governance forms reveal the coexistence of coercive and accommodating logics, challenging the assumption that return constitutes the normative endpoint of irregular migration control in Europe.