Are you considering returning to Syria? In the Netherlands, many organizations now help Syrians navigate bureaucratic hurdles and facilitate a “safe” return home. Yet, for many Syrians, the term “safe” feels bitterly ironic, as European policymakers increasingly view Syria as stable enough to warrant repatriation—a stance fueled by the rise of the far-right in both public opinion and legislation across Europe.
Syrians top the list of refugee groups European countries aim to repatriate, with plans to act swiftly before shifting political landscapes change the narrative on Syria’s security status. European discussions on Syrian repatriation remain controversial. Countries like Denmark regard Damascus and select areas as “relatively safe,” while others, citing ongoing human rights abuses and security instability, vehemently oppose this classification.
The Dutch government is now considering “return centers” for rejected asylum seekers in “safe” countries, compensating host nations financially. Meanwhile, countries like Austria and Italy call for migration policy reforms, citing concerns over rising refugee numbers. However, organizations like the United Nations caution that Syria remains unstable due to armed groups and ongoing conflict, making repatriation unsafe.
The Netherlands and other European nations are exploring new strategies for voluntary returns. While the Netherlands proposes a plan similar to Britain’s (which previously sought arrangements with Rwanda, facing legal and financial challenges), Germany and Italy are considering agreements with non-European countries to manage rejected asylum seekers.
Countries cannot legally force refugees to return, but many incentivize voluntary return to ease strain on national asylum systems. Financial aid packages, travel assistance, and reintegration support are offered, alongside programs to boost economic prospects for returnees. At the same time, welfare reductions—affecting residency, job opportunities, and social services—discourage long-term residency, potentially pushing refugees toward voluntary departure.
Despite these policies, Syria’s security and economic challenges deter many Syrians from returning. Large swathes of the country face safety issues, economic hardship, and scant infrastructure, particularly in areas ravaged by war. Reports also reveal returnees facing arbitrary detention, forced recruitment, and local reprisals, especially in government-held regions.
For many, neighboring countries like Turkey, Jordan, and Egypt appear more viable than Syria, offering established social support networks and familiarity. However, the recent conflict in Lebanon has further complicated matters for Syrians contemplating return, given the economic turmoil and regional instability impacting both countries.
Though there have been calls for Syrian repatriation, widespread deportations remain improbable. European countries generally adhere to the principle of “non-refoulement,” which prohibits sending refugees to areas where their lives may be at risk. However, this is conditional upon refugees respecting European laws and avoiding activities that contradict their status as asylum seekers. Visits to Syria, for example, undermine the perception of Syria as a conflict zone and complicate refugee claims.
Human rights groups continue to warn that Syria’s severe economic and security issues render it unsuitable for repatriation. Despite Denmark’s controversial designation of certain areas as “safe,” most European nations, such as Germany, are cautious about returning refugees, citing concerns for their safety and well-being.
Ultimately, the decision to return remains fraught with personal and political implications. While some areas in Syria have stabilized, the country is far from meeting international standards of safety. For now, many Syrians may continue seeking alternative options, including resettlement in third countries, rather than facing the uncertainty of returning home.
This article was translated and edited by The Syrian Observer. The Syrian Observer has not verified the content of this story. Responsibility for the information and views set out in this article lies entirely with the author.
