The first criticism relates to the definition of “illegal immigration” contained in all readmission agreements; Subsequently, the required state must leave behind any person who does not comply with or no longer complies with the conditions of entry or residence in force in the territory of the requesting state. Conversely, the non-review of the situation of asylum seekers paves the way, on a case-by-case basis, for a serial return to another country. This means that EU procurement agreements create the necessary conditions for deportation where a country brings people back to places where human rights are not guaranteed. This is called the “domino effect.” The term “every person” is problematic in that it makes no difference between immigrants who find themselves in an illegal situation in the host country, with the potential to fundamentally undermine the principle of non-refoulement, which is designed to protect refugees and asylum seekers. European readmission policy does not distinguish between foreigners who find themselves in an illegal situation, whose legal status should be protected, and those who do not. The European Union (EU) readmission agreements allow for the re-appointment of nationals of their own nationals and nationals of other countries – “foreigners” – who are in an irregular situation on the territory of another state.  These agreements quickly became an important issue for the EU in its relations with neighbouring countries. The readmission agreement between the EU and Turkey is not an isolated case. The example of Turkey can be applied in the same way to all countries that negotiate and/or have readmission agreements with the EU.
1. Readmission agreements between the EU and a third country replace EU Member States with the same country, although this is not the case for DK and possibly for IE and the Uk, since these EU Member States may choose not to participate in the relevant EU agreement.2. More information is available on the European Commission`s readmission website. a reciprocal agreement between the European Union (EU) and/or an EU Member State with a third country, which establishes rapid and effective procedures for the safe and safe identification and return of persons who do not meet or no longer meet the conditions of entry, presence on the territory of the third country or one of the EU Member States, and facilitates the transit of these persons in a spirit of cooperation. This is an extremely dangerous provision, given that the majority of foreigners crossing Turkey are Afghan, Syrian or Iraqi asylum seekers fleeing persecution in their home countries. Oktay Durukan, director of the NGO Refugee Rights Turkey: “A significant proportion of the returnees [under the EU-Turkey readmission agreement] will be refugees in need of international protection, which is not granted by EU countries. … Turkey risks deporting migrants one after the other.  The implementation of the readmission agreements has sparked a debate about their compliance with international law, in particular provisions relating to the protection of refugees and asylum seekers. This human rights legal vacuum, which characterizes the structure of readmission agreements, reflects the growing emphasis on the security aspects of the management of illegal immigration, to the detriment of a broad approach based on the principle of shared responsibility and characterized by an emphasis on the humanitarian aspect of regulation of this very complex phenomenon.
In addition, the EU encourages the domino effect when it invites its partners bound by EU readmission agreements to enter into the same agreements with other countries of origin, thereby creating a readmission network that can help broaden the scope of the forced return of “illegal immigrants”, including asylum seekers, who are at risk of being sent back to persecution.