fr.euronews.com
EU Undocumented Citizen Numbers Fall 27.4% in 2024 Amid Increased Returns and Border Refusals
Eurostat reports a 27.4% decrease in undocumented EU citizens in 2024, partly due to a 19.3% increase in third-country national returns (Georgia: 11,585; Turkey: 7,910; Albania: 7,810; Moldova: 4,970), with 53.8% voluntary and 46.2% forced. Border refusals increased slightly to 123,655, mainly impacting Ukrainians, Albanians, and Moldovans.
- What is the overall impact of the stricter return policies on the number of undocumented citizens in the EU in 2024?
- In 2024, the number of undocumented citizens in the EU decreased by 27.4%, according to Eurostat. This decrease is partly due to a more active return policy, with a 19.3% increase in the number of third-country nationals returned compared to the previous year. Germany, France, and Italy account for over half of the undocumented.
- What are the main nationalities among those returned and refused entry into the EU, and what are the primary border crossing points used?
- The decrease in undocumented citizens is linked to increased returns of third-country nationals. Georgia had the highest number of returns (11,585), followed by Turkey, Albania, and Moldova. 53.8% of returns were voluntary, while 46.2% were forced; however, Italy reported all returns as forced.
- What are the long-term implications of this decrease in undocumented individuals, considering the different approaches to returns (voluntary vs. forced) across EU countries?
- While the number of undocumented citizens decreased, border refusals slightly increased by 0.3% to 123,655. The majority of refusals occurred at land borders (57%), particularly in Poland, Croatia, and Romania. Ukrainians, Albanians, and Moldovans constituted the largest groups refused entry.
Cognitive Concepts
Framing Bias
The headline and opening paragraph emphasize the decrease in irregular migrants, framing the situation positively from the perspective of border control. This prioritization of declining numbers overshadows other aspects of the issue. The focus on returns, particularly the number of Georgians returned, reinforces a narrative of successful border management rather than offering a broader context.
Language Bias
The language used is largely neutral, using descriptive terms like "irregular migrants" and "returns." However, phrasing like 'a more active return policy' carries a slightly positive connotation, subtly suggesting that such a policy is desirable.
Bias by Omission
The article focuses on the decrease in irregular migrants and returns, but omits discussion of the reasons behind irregular migration, such as economic hardship, conflict, or persecution in their home countries. It also lacks information on the support systems or integration processes provided to those who are allowed to stay. The overall perspective is heavily weighted towards the statistics of border control and returns rather than the human element of migration.
False Dichotomy
The article presents a false dichotomy by highlighting the voluntary vs. forced nature of returns, implying a simplistic choice rather than acknowledging the complex pressures migrants may face in deciding to return. The narrative implicitly suggests that voluntary return is a positive outcome, neglecting to address potential difficulties migrants face upon returning home.
Gender Bias
The article lacks any gender-specific data or analysis. There is no mention of how gender affects migration patterns, experiences of irregular migrants, or outcomes of border control measures. This omission contributes to an incomplete picture and potentially perpetuates gender biases.
Sustainable Development Goals
The decrease in the number of irregular migrants and the increase in returns, while raising concerns about human rights, also contribute to better management of migration flows and border security, which is essential for maintaining peace and strong institutions. The data on voluntary returns suggests a potential for improved cooperation with countries of origin.