Refugees wait for German Chancellor Angela Merkel and EU officials’ arrival behind the fences at Nizip Refugee Camp in Gaziantep, Turkey, 23/4/16. Uygar Onder Simsek / Moku/Press Association. All rights reserved.Agreed on 18 March 2016, the EU-Turkey deal drew a line in the sand, after
which all migrants and refugees who crossed from Turkey to the Greek islands,
and who did not apply for asylum in Greece or whose claim was refused, would be
returned to Turkey.

The EU-Turkey deal has not lived up
to its promise of ending irregular migration and has, in the meantime, caused
enormous suffering. People are languishing in horrible conditions across the EU,
record numbers of people still die
at sea, or
are trapped in Turkey, Libya and beyond. Over 60,000 people have been left in
limbo in Greece, and a further 8,000 stranded in Serbia. Relocation numbers remain
simply pitiful, with less than 10,000 relocations from Greece as of March 2017. Levels of trauma, depression and
suicide among migrants and refugees have increased.

In a recent case brought before the
European Court of Justice, the EU even argued that it cannot be held
responsible for any consequences of the deal because it was “just a press
release”. So essentially, a document of “no legal value” is causing unjustifiable human
cost, drastically changing policy and promising billions of euros to Turkey for keeping its end of
the deal.

What is even more worrying is that
the EU seems set to continue down this path. The European Commission’s recent
recommendations to member states on detention and returns promise “new measures for an efficient and
credible EU return policy”, yet they do nothing more than ramp up use of current and outdated
practices that have been shown to be ineffective and inhumane.

This includes the recommendation to member
states to lock people up for as long as possible, by applying the maximum
detention period. Countries that apply shorter periods are targeted as “bad
examples”. Likewise, member states that in principle do not lock up children
because it is harmful and never in their best interests are urged to change
their laws. The Commission also encourages governments to deport people,
including families with children, even while they are trying to appeal a
decision. There
is no evidence that immigration detention or forced removal has a deterrent
effect.

The EU’s new plan relies on the
false notion that detaining people for long periods of time will somehow help to
increase the number of returns and that expulsions will deter more migrants in
the future from attempting to reach Europe. There is no evidence that
immigration detention or forced removal has a deterrent effect, or that it is
sustainable. This was also highlighted in a recent report by Peter Sutherland, former UN Special Representative
on Migration to the UN Secretary General, based upon his eleven-year term.

Evidence points to the long-term
negative effects of immigration detention on health, as well as the stated goal of
migration management. Detention is an extremely harmful practice that has
long-lasting severe physical and mental health impacts and significantly
increases the risks of suicide. It actually discourages cooperation and
decreases the motivation and ability of individuals to work with the
authorities. Alternatives to detention, such as the case management approach, have
produced better outcomes for both individuals and governments. Likewise,
re-emigration rates among returnees are high and there is no evidence proving
that forced removal lowers the migration aspirations of the people directly
affected or others in their communities or elsewhere.

The Commission and member states are
understandably afraid of tough rhetoric from the far-right. But instead of defending
EU values and the rights of migrants, policy makers end up catering to voters who
fear and oppose migration and hold views frequently based on misconceptions. If EU policymakers
really want to find solutions, they need to stop focusing on such quick fixes.

If EU policymakers really want to
find solutions, they need to stop focusing on such quick fixes and move their
attention to the added value that migrants bring to our societies and the needs
of our labour markets. To this end, we need to create more and diversified
opportunities for migrants so that people at different skills levels and with
different backgrounds can come to live and work in Europe in a regular manner.

We also need an EU that holds firm
to its commitments to human rights and the rule of law, and that promotes the
implementation of the highest human rights standards – not the lowest level – in
its legislation. If the EU and national governments invested properly in
improving the administration of migration and making good decisions that
respect rules, rights and reality, we would be a lot closer to an orderly and
well managed migration system that works for everyone.