“How voluntary is a voluntary return?”

In Belgium, “voluntary return” has for years been presented as a more humane alternative to forced deportation. Migrants who are unable to remain in the country are offered guidance, support and, in some cases, financial assistance to return to their country of origin. The government frames it as a compassionate, non-coercive choice. Yet anyone who looks more closely at how this policy operates in practice soon realises that the reality is far less straightforward. Laure Deschuyteneer, a criminologist at the Vrije Universiteit Brussel, studies how Belgium’s return policy is evolving — and, crucially, how subtle forms of power and bureaucratic pressure can shape migrants’ supposedly voluntary decisions. Her conclusion is clear: full voluntariness is often an illusion. “They are guided by subtle forms of pressure and power,” says Deschuyteneer. This pressure does not take the form of overt coercion, but is embedded in procedures, documents, conversations, language, and what the authorities themselves describe as an “engagement-based approach” — a policy whereby migrants are closely monitored and actively encouraged to consider return once no legal avenues to stay remain. “This engagement-based approach is also legally embedded,” she emphasises.

Deschuyteneer is not the first scholar to question the notion of voluntary return. In international literature, the phenomenon is increasingly described as “soft deportation”: a form of migration control in which no handcuffs are used, yet the outcome — departure — is still largely steered. Her doctoral research forms part of a broader project funded by the Research Foundation – Flanders (FWO), examining the rise of such “soft power” in migration governance.

The ‘scrap of paper’
One of the most striking elements in Deschuyteneer’s findings is the role of documents. In her article in Panopticon, she analyses so-called “paper trails”: the administrative pathways migrants must navigate and the decisions imposed upon them — such as an order to leave the territory — even when they wish to depart voluntarily. These documents are not merely administrative; they function as both symbolic and practical instruments of state power. They define a person’s legal status, impose time pressure, demand decisions, and determine which options remain available. In her own words: “The order to leave the territory — or the ‘scrap of paper’, as it is sometimes referred to in political debate — has become more significant than is often assumed. Migrants who wish to leave voluntarily and make use of the support offered by Fedasil must now first report to the Immigration Office (Belgium) and obtain such an order.”

From hard power to soft power
According to Deschuyteneer, this illustrates how Belgium’s return policy has broadened over the years. Alongside repressive instruments such as detention and forced return — prominent since the 1980s — there is now a growing emphasis on softer forms of guidance, including mandatory registration, follow-up interviews and home visits. “The ‘soft’ aspect lies in the dialogue with the migrant,” she explains. “But the power lies in the fact that this dialogue takes place within a framework determined by the state.” This shift towards greater dialogue in return policy has been partly inspired by the Dutch model, where the Repatriation and Departure Service (DT&V) has long conducted interviews with migrants about their potential return. However, international research — including that of Laura Cleton at the Erasmus University Rotterdam — shows that such processes are rarely fully voluntary and are often accompanied by subtle forms of pressure. At the same time, this does not mean that migrants are merely passive actors. “Soft power is not absolute,” Deschuyteneer stresses. “Migrants develop strategies of resistance in these conversations, for instance by invoking their rights or human rights.”

No judgement, but insight
Laure Deschuyteneer herself refrains from passing judgement on the policy. “Personally, I cannot say whether the engagement-based approach is good or bad. What matters is that return policy complies with human rights standards,” she says. Her contribution lies elsewhere: in uncovering how the policy operates, what effects it produces, and what tensions it generates. Deschuyteneer demonstrates that the line between voluntariness and coercion does not run between two clear-cut extremes, but rather through a grey area in which the state observes, steers and persuades — and in which migrants attempt to navigate a system that offers both opportunities and constraints.