Charles Walsh | YPFP Member | March 23, 2025 | Photo Credit: Flickr
In the weeks following the lightning offensive launched by Syrian rebel forces, led by the Islamist group Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS), which toppled Bashar al-Assad’s regime, the world has watched the consequences of the sudden and unexpected end to a nearly 15-year-long civil war. Now, Syrian refugees living abroad, particularly in Europe, face a choice: return home to rebuild a country ravaged by a decade of war or remain in European nations where they are increasingly unwelcome. While the opportunity may seem tempting, European governments should resist the urge to exploit the apparent end of the civil war to push for a mass exodus of Syrians from Europe. Instead, governments should support those looking to return to Syria while also embracing and recognizing those who choose to stay as integral parts of their European societies.
The UN Refugee Agency estimates that approximately 13.1 million people have been displaced by conflict since the onset of the war in 2011, both internally in Syria and worldwide. While most Syrians displaced abroad reside in countries neighboring Syria, Europe is home to about 1 million Syrians, with the largest host countries being Germany and Sweden. Who respectively host 59% and 11% of Syrians living in Europe. The collapse of the Assad regime has marked a watershed moment regarding the issue of Syrian refugees. On one hand, over 100,000 refugees residing in countries bordering Syria have already returned to their homeland.
On the other hand, many Syrians have grown accustomed to their new lives in Europe and are either waiting to see what new regime emerges in Syria or planning never to return at all. However, governments across Europe have begun to implement measures to restrict Syrian refugees. Beginning the day after the fall of Assad, several European countries announced new restrictions on applications from Syrian refugees. Some states, like Austria, have halted new asylum claims and initiated preparations to deport Syrians already living in Austria. It is important to highlight that these measures, while currently mild, contradict long-established rights to asylum for refugees fleeing persecution and war, as outlined in Article 14 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and other relevant treaties.
European governments have recently trended towards appeasing anti-immigrant political parties on the issue of immigration, including Syrian refugees. However, this is a mistake. A strategy focused solely on removal will only lead to failure and suffering, hurting refugees and damaging future economic potential. Instead, governments should implement dual-track policies regarding Syrian refugees. For those who wish to return to Syria, governments should provide financial assistance to facilitate the journey back and allow returnees to reestablish themselves upon arrival. A new initiative by the government of Austria to offer returnees 1,000 euros serves as a potential model for such a policy. However, the amount provided would need to be higher to cover expenses accurately. For refugees wishing to stay in Europe, states should lower naturalization standards across the board, especially for children and young adults who may have little to no connection to Syria. While there have been challenges regarding the integration of refugees into the societies of host countries, the solution is not to undertake the dehumanizing process of deporting immigrants who wish to stay, but rather to invest in their potential as economically and socially valuable assets to the country. Deportation is also an expensive process, with the United Kingdom’s controversial “Rwanda Plan” reportedly costing the country close to £1 billion to deport only a handful of migrants. In another example, a joint Italian-Albanian scheme to reroute migrants crossing the Mediterranean Sea included the construction of two processing centers with a combined cost of €650 million.
These policies should be coordinated and centralized through EU institutions. This approach enforces fairness and equality through the consensus of member states, thereby protecting the dignity and rights of refugees, regardless of their host country. It would also serve as a bulwark against actions taken by countries with far-right governments that seek to deport refugees irrespective of the refugees’ personal desires and human rights. While it may be tempting to view immigration policies as domestic issues, the interconnectedness of European economies and the ease of cross-border travel make the EU the ideal platform for crafting and coordinating policies so that all states can reap the benefits. This would also not be necessarily an overextension of the authority the EU possesses over domestic policy. As shown by the recently announced “Common European System for Returns,” the EU is willing and able to take action in the realm of immigration policy to standardize the often opposing and fragmented systems of the individual member states.
This combination of policies will help address the Syrian refugee situation by both “lessening the load” of how many refugees are in Europe and making it easier for those who stay to integrate successfully into the societies of their host nations. Much of this debate hinges on how the situation in Syria develops. However, as the country stabilizes and peace returns, more and more Syrians living as refugees around the world are likely to feel compelled to return. This choice should be left to the individual, free from government coercion. Europe’s migrant issue will not be resolved through deportation but rather through coordinated efforts to support those wishing to return and to integrate those who wish to stay.
Charles Walsh is the Transnational Repression Project Coordinator at the New Lines Institute for Strategy and Policy. He holds a degree in International Affairs from the University of Mary Washington.
Charged Affairs 