Migrant destination states of the Global North generally seek to stem irregular migration while remaining committed to refugee rights. To do so, these states have increasingly sought to externalize migration control, implicating migrant origin and transit states in managing the movement of persons across borders. But do externalization policies actually have an impact on unauthorized migration flows? If yes, do those impacts vary across different migrant categories given that both asylum seekers and other migrants can cross borders without prior authorization? We argue that these policies do have an impact on unauthorized migration flows and that those impacts are distinct for refugees and other migrants. Using data on “irregular/illegal border crossings” collected by Frontex, the Border and Coast Guard Agency of the European Union (EU), we first find that the geographical trajectories of refugees and other migrants who cross EU borders without authorization are distinct. Using a novel method to estimate whether individuals are likely to obtain asylum in 31 European destination states, we find that “likely refugees” tend to be concentrated on a single, primary migratory route while “likely irregular migrants” may be dispersed across multiple routes. Through an event study analysis of the impact of the 2016 EU–Turkey Statement, a paradigmatic example of externalization, we show that the policy primarily blocked likely refugees while deflecting likely irregular migrants to alternative routes. Our findings ultimately highlight how externalization policies may fail to prevent unauthorized entries of irregular migrants while endangering refugee protection.

中文翻译：

---

旋转门：外部化政策如何阻止难民并使其他移民偏离移民路线


北半球的移民目的地国通常寻求阻止非正常移民，同时仍然致力于难民权利。为此，这些国家越来越多地寻求将移民控制外部化，让移民原籍国和过境国参与管理人员跨境流动。但外部化政策真的会对未经授权的移民流产生影响吗？如果是，鉴于寻求庇护者和其他移民都可以在未经事先授权的情况下跨境，这些影响是否因不同移民类别而异？我们认为，这些政策确实对未经授权的移民流动产生了影响，而且这些影响对于难民和其他移民来说是不同的。利用欧盟边境和海岸警卫队Frontex收集的“非正常/非法过境”数据，我们首先发现未经授权跨越欧盟边境的难民和其他移民的地理轨迹是截然不同的。使用一种新颖的方法来估计个人是否有可能在 31 个欧洲目的地国家获得庇护，我们发现“可能的难民”往往集中在单一的主要移民路线上，而“可能的非正规移民”可能分散在多个路线上。通过对 2016 年欧盟-土耳其声明（外部化的典型例子）的影响进行事件研究分析，我们表明该政策主要阻止了可能的难民，同时将可能的非正规移民转向其他路线。我们的研究结果最终凸显了外部化政策可能无法防止非正规移民未经授权入境，同时危及难民保护。