It’s controversial, but to lessen the migrant exodus that flooded their cities two years ago, several west European governments are employing one creative idea: Pay the migrants to go back where they came from.

France, Austria, Britain, Sweden and Norway have some form of pay-to-go programs. Probably because it let it more migrants than any other European country, Germany is leading the way. Families can get up to $3,540 to cover rent or resettlement costs back in their home countries.

The so-called “voluntary return” programs for asylum seekers are not new; they have been around for at least 20 years. But recently there has been a significant softening of previous proposals due in part to Angela Merkel’s efforts to silence criticism of her open-door border policy. As she fought for her political life, the chancellor tried to win back support ahead of her challenging re-election bid in September. She won, but in the process Merkel was forced into a U-turn over her plan, which allowed 1.2 million migrants to flock to the country during Europe’s migration crisis in 2015. In vowing to send many of the refugees back home after receiving them with open arms, she is offering cash handouts worth millions of dollars for migrants to leave Germany.

The decision helped Merkel win an election, there doesn’t appear to be any harm done and both sides look like they are in a win-win situation. But is this really an ethical approach? Governments using the voluntary return system are accused of trying to bribe their way out of a situation they created, of trying to entice people to give up their rights without outright appearing to do so. And there are questions whether these schemes should be described as voluntary at all when participants may be destitute and unable to work legally in their host country. In the case of Germany, after years of being too lax, the authorities seem to be overcompensating, pressuring migrants to go home - voluntarily yes - but with tactics that effectively amount to coercion.

In deciding whether or not to take part in such programs, migrants must consider the costs and benefits of staying in their host countries versus returning to their countries of origin, where jobs may be even scarcer. Home countries often lack adequate housing, job opportunities, workforce development systems and other infrastructure to support returnees if they were to come home en masse.

While voluntary return programs can provide relief to unemployed individuals who see the program as a good incentive to return to their country of origin, eligible migrant workers may be unwilling to leave because they have established strong local ties and feel at home in their host country.

In addition, critics say that because pay-to-go programs target specific immigrant populations, they serve to expel, not integrate culturally distant populations or groups subject to social prejudice. As such, the programs are characterized as anti-immigrant in nature and make remaining and prospective immigrant groups feel at risk and unwelcome.

Host countries can offer attractive packages but they cannot always guarantee the success of migrants in their home countries. At the same time, it’s cheaper to help asylum seekers leave than to house them in immigration centers.

Meanwhile, home countries do not always welcome returnees, particularly when their economies are in bad shape. Home-country governments often worry that the return of migrants will diminish remittance flows. Some nations refuse to take back their citizens without solid proof of identity.

European governments are wary of airport scenes if vast numbers of migrants are suddenly sent packing via mass deportations. Forcing distressed migrants onto planes in handcuffs makes for great TV news but can be politically damaging.