Ambrosini, MaurizioInce-Beqo, Gül2026-07-232026-07-232026-06-24Ambrosini, M., Ince-Beqo, G. Alternatives to Return: An Ideal-Typical Categorization of State Responses to Non-Repatriated Irregular Migrants. Int. Migration & Integration (2026). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12134-026-01406-w1874-6365https://doi.org/10.1007/s12134-026-01406-whttps://hdl.handle.net/10315/43824This article is published under a Creative Commons CC-BY license.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.Attribution 4.0 Internationalhttp://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Irregular migrationReturnAlternative to returnImmigration policyArticle