This paper investigates the effects of externalization policies on unauthorized migration flows, focusing on the effects of the 2016 EU–Turkey Statement on unauthorized border crossings to Europe.
Externalization policies ostensibly seek to stop unauthorized migrants en route to their desired destinations. The EU-Turkey Statement provided for: (1) the transfer of 6 billion euros to Turkey to support its humanitarian efforts for Syrian refugees; (2) the promise of visa liberalization for Turkish nationals traveling to the Schengen Area; and (3) the establishment of a mechanism by which Syrians who cross into Greece from Turkey without prior authorization would be returned, while for each person returned, a Syrian refugee would be resettled from Turkey into Europe. In exchange, Turkey would stop individuals from leaving its territory without prior authorization.
The analysis draws on data on irregular/illegal border crossings from Frontex and data on first instance asylum acceptances/rejections by nationality across 31 European destination states from Eurostat. The authors categorized irregular/illegal border crossings into likely refugees and likely irregular migrants, across time on an annual basis (2009–2020) and across nine migration routes. They then estimate the effects of the 2016 EU–Turkey Statement on unauthorized border crossings to Europe and measure how the policy shaped which categories of individuals traveled on which routes.
Main findings:
- The four main migratory routes to Europe (Western, Central, and Eastern Mediterranean, and Western Balkans) account for the vast majority (94.5 percent) of identified irregular border crossings between 2009 and 2020.
- Most irregular/illegal border crossings are likely refugees. Overall, during peaks in flows, and most strikingly during the crisis of 2015, most irregular/illegal border crossings (75.5 percent) are estimated to be likely refugees. Spikes in flows—primarily refugees—also tend to affect specific migratory routes at specific times, namely the Central Mediterranean in 2014 and 2017, the Eastern Mediterranean and Western Balkans in 2015, and the Western Mediterranean in 2018.
- Likely refugees tend to be concentrated on a single, primary route to Europe, while likely irregular migrants are more dispersed across multiple routes. This suggests that refugees, driven by immediate need for safety, often choose the most direct path, while irregular migrants may be more adaptable in their route selection.
- Overall, the EU–Turkey Statement had a deflecting effect on individuals seeking to reach Europe. The EU–Turkey Statement was followed by a decrease in the aggregate number of irregular/illegal border crossings on the Eastern Mediterranean route and an increase on the Central Mediterranean route.
- The EU-Turkey Statement had a distinct impact on different migrant categories. The policy led to a significant deflection of likely irregular migrants from the Eastern Mediterranean route to the Central Mediterranean route, while likely refugees were either blocked or continued to traverse despite reduced asylum possibilities.
- The largest deflection of likely irregular migrants occurred among those from countries located far from the Eastern Mediterranean and Central Mediterranean routes. Likely irregular migrants from “close” countries of origin also deflected but to a lesser extent. This suggests that distance plays a role in the ability of irregular migrants to adjust their routes in response to policy changes. Likely refugees exhibit limited deflection regardless of proximity.
This research raises concerns about the effectiveness and ethical implications of externalization policies. While these policies aim to curb irregular migration, they often fail to achieve this goal, instead diverting migrants to alternative routes. At the same time, they trap refugees in transit, hindering their access to asylum and potentially exposing them to further harm. The authors argue that externalization policies are not only ineffective but also violate the legal obligations of destination states to provide humanitarian assistance and contradict their own domestic asylum policies.