Which EU countries deport the most irregular migrants and how?
Executive summary
Across the EU, the countries that carry out the largest numbers of returns are those with the biggest migration enforcement apparatus or the highest irregular arrivals — notably Spain, Italy, Germany and France — as measured in Eurostat return statistics and discussed in reporting on return trends and policy shifts [1] [2] [3]. Returns are executed through a mix of voluntary assisted returns, administrative forced removals, detention prior to removal, and growing externalisation strategies such as third‑country “return hubs” and bilateral readmission deals supported by Frontex and the Commission [4] [5] [6].
1. The hard numbers: who registers the most orders and effective returns
Eurostat’s regular returns datasets show variation across member states: larger states and frontline arrival countries typically record the most orders to leave and the highest counts of effective returns, a pattern visible in Eurostat’s quarterly and annual returns tables and the Migration and Asylum interactive publications [1] [2] [7]. Independent fact‑checks using the same Eurostat snapshots emphasize that small states such as Slovakia and Slovenia rank at the bottom for absolute numbers of returns, underscoring that totals are driven by scale of arrivals and national enforcement capacity rather than legal design alone [8].
2. How returns actually happen: voluntary, forced and assisted channels
EU reporting and Eurostat distinguish voluntary assisted returns — programmes that provide administrative, logistical or financial support for returnees — from forced removals carried out after an order to leave; both are counted in “returns” statistics but operate differently in practice and in cost and rights implications [4]. Media and policy coverage note that many returns still depend on negotiated readmission agreements with third countries, diplomatic cooperation and logistical capacity to escort people home, factors that limit returns even when orders are issued [5] [9].
3. Frontline and large‑destination states: Spain, Italy, Germany and France
Countries with high arrival numbers or large irregular resident populations — notably Spain and Italy for sea arrivals and Germany and France as major destinations — show up in Eurostat and Frontex‑linked analyses as responsible for a substantial portion of EU returns, both because they issue many orders to leave and because they have larger operational capacity to carry out removals [3] [10]. Reporting also highlights that spikes on routes (e.g., Spain’s Canary and Balearic arrivals) have shaped national return activity and political pressure to increase deportations [10].
4. New tools and the politics of enforcement: externalisation, technology and limits
EU institutions have been rolling out technical measures (EES/ETIAS) and legal reforms under the Migration and Asylum Pact to speed processing and enable more returns, while governments push for offshore processing and “return hubs” to fast‑track deportations — strategies reported as likely to increase returns but contested on legal and human‑rights grounds [11] [9] [5]. Frontex’s expanding role, and internal EU policy pushes toward militarised border control, further signal member‑state incentives to boost removals using external partners and biometric systems [6].
5. The enforcement gap and dissenting narratives
Despite higher numbers of orders in some states, several sources note a persistent enforcement gap: political statements and reporting suggest only a minority of expulsion decisions lead to effective removals overall, a point used by critics and hardline governments to argue for tougher measures (an oft‑cited figure is that roughly 20% of rejected applicants leave, reported in policy coverage) [11] [12]. Civil‑society reporting warns that faster returns and offshore solutions risk human‑rights abuses observed in certain partner countries, an argument advanced by Amnesty and human‑rights advocates cited in coverage of EU cooperation with Tunisia and elsewhere [13].
6. What the data cannot say without deeper drilling
Eurostat and EU publications provide the core comparative metrics (orders to leave, returns executed), but cross‑country comparisons require care: differences in legal definitions, use of voluntary vs forced returns, bilateral readmission capacity and counting conventions affect totals, and available reporting does not always disaggregate these operational modalities consistently across states, limiting definitive ranking without consulting the raw Eurostat tables and national breakdowns [1] [2].