For a year and a half, the research team at Ca’ Foscari University has closely studied Italian return and readmission policies as part of the MORE – Motivations, experiences and consequences of returns and readmissions policy: revealing and developing effective alternatives, led by Professor Fabio Perocco and Research Grant Holder Francesca Cimino from the Department of Philosophy and Cultural Heritage.
The preliminary results of the project – which, in addition to Ca’ Foscari’s Laboratory for Social Research LARIS [ITA], involved the University of Barcelona (European Social Research Unit); the Free University of Brussels (Centre Metices); PICUM (Platform for International Cooperation on Undocumented Migrants); the Mirovni Institut (Slovenia); Kentro Merimnas Oikogeneias Kai Paidiou (Greece); the University of Oxford (COMPAS, School of Anthropology); Red Barnet (Denmark); Linköping University (REMESO Institute for Research on Migration, Ethnicity and Society, Sweden); the University of Göttingen (Institute of Anthropology, Germany); and the Centre for European Policy Studies (Belgium) – were presented on 26 March at the European Parliament.
“We examined readmission agreements with third countries, the evolution of administrative detention practices, assisted voluntary return programmes, and the sensitive issue of so-called ‘non-removable’ migrants,” explained Francesca Cimino. “We also analysed opinion polls on immigration and returns from the past fifteen years and conducted empirical research into the ‘return chain’ – the various stages of the return process, including the individuals and structures involved, such as social and healthcare workers, detention centre staff, airline personnel, and the Centri di Permanenza per il Rimpatrio (CPRs).”
The analysis also covered the CPRs themselves, which interviews describe as “pathogenic” environments on multiple levels. On 10 April, the lecture Inferno CPR [ITA] will address the living and detention conditions of migrants in these centres, focusing particularly on physical and mental health as well the internal functioning of the CPR system. The lecture will feature Nicola Cocco from the Italian Society of Migration Medicine and Lorenzo Figoni, author of Gorgo CPR, and will be open to the public.
We spoke with Fabio Perocco and Francesca Cimino to learn more about the project’s progress.
By definition, it is impossible to quantify the number of people with irregular administrative status. However, the most recent estimates from the MIRREM project and ISMU suggest that there are between 458,000 and 500,000 irregular migrants in Italy – a figure that has remained largely unchanged for the past twenty years. This number reflects the structural presence of a significant informal economy in Italy.
Several key points have emerged. When the so-called Return Directive (Directive … on common standards and procedures in Member States for returning illegally staying third-country nationals) was adopted in 2008, Italy already had a more restrictive legal and operational framework than the Directive required, particularly regarding voluntary returns, administrative detention, and re-entry procedures. In the years that followed, the Directive – which aimed to establish a “humane and effective" return policy – has been interpreted increasingly restrictively by member states. Our research indicates that immigration legislation itself is a primary cause of the irregularisation of migrants, which in turn leads to a greater reliance on return mechanisms and, more significantly, on administrative detention as a routine migration management tool.
A central feature of return and readmission policies is signing agreements with third countries. Over the past 25 years, Italy is estimated to have signed 35 such agreements, more than half of which remain unpublished or were only disclosed under pressure from civil society. This lack of transparency and the informal nature of many agreements lead to numerous violations of the rights of those affected and severely limit opportunities for monitoring. In addition to significantly higher costs compared to voluntary or assisted voluntary returns (AVR), the research – which involved actors implementing return procedures – confirmed that living conditions in CPRs are dire. Detainees encounter significant barriers in obtaining legal assistance and effective remedies, and their rights are greatly limited. CPRs do not guarantee the right to healthcare and, according to interviewees, are “pathogenic environments” that worsen the physical and mental health of those detained – in other words, people enter healthy and become ill while there.
CPRs are administrative detention centres for non-EU nationals without a residence permit. Currently, there are nine active CPRs in Italy: Milan, Gradisca d’Isonzo, Rome–Ponte Galeria, Palazzo San Gervasio–Potenza, Macomer, Brindisi, Bari, Trapani, and Caltanissetta. The CPR in Turin, closed in 2023, is due to reopen.
The law permits a maximum detention period of 18 months, intended solely for the purpose of return and applicable only in specific situations (e.g., when no alternative measures are possible or in cases of escape risk). Being held in these places should be a last resort, not a common practice.
During interviews with those involved in implementing returns, we encountered widespread feelings of disorientation, confusion, and, at times, discouragement. In addition to a frequently complex and unclear legal framework, the implementation of return policies appears to be poorly understood by both the actors involved and, above all, by those targeted by these policies. A consistent theme was the lack of information – cited both as a reason for failed regularisation processes and as a major issue in the execution of return policies.
Together with our MORE project partners, the Ca’ Foscari research team participated in a meeting at the European Parliament on returns and readmissions. The event was attended by MEPs and a representative of the Directorate-General for Migration and Home Affairs (DG HOME).
The European Commission has recently proposed a new European Return Regulation, and negotiations with the Parliament will soon commence. As the MORE consortium, we presented our preliminary findings, highlighting key issues – particularly concerning the new proposal. We discussed its likely impact on undocumented and underdocumented migrants, access to services and rights, and potential alternatives to return. At Ca’ Foscari, our focus was on the issue of the so-called “non-removable” individuals.
‘Non-removable’ (inespellibili, non-retournable) refers to individuals who have received an expulsion order but cannot be returned for practical, humanitarian, or legal reasons. There is limited statistical data on this group, making it challenging to determine their numbers. Nevertheless, our research indicates that they are ensnared in administrative limbo, living in extremely precarious conditions: they lack a residence permit and have an expulsion order, yet cannot be deported. Their presence is tolerated but not legally recognised, leaving them with minimal rights and no pathway to regularisation. Their lives are effectively on hold – as if trapped in quicksand.
The MEPs showed great interest in the MORE project findings and were open to dialogue. There is a desire to continue discussions and to follow the upcoming results of the research.
We presented empirical evidence on trends, issues, social risks, and alternatives to detention and return. We hope our contribution was useful and that it might, in some way, influence forthcoming political decisions. We’ll see what happens.
We are currently conducting the second phase of empirical research involving organisations that support undocumented migrants and individuals with irregular status at risk of deportation. This phase will be followed by research in countries of origin to investigate the final stage of the return process and what happens post-return. The final part of the project will focus on identifying alternatives to administrative detention and forced return.
