Contextualizing and conceptualizing reintegration processes in the context of return

Abstract

Research on processes of reintegration in the country to which migrants return has significantly increased over the past decade. It has widened and challenged our understandings and conceptualization of the meaning, the processes and returnees' experiences of reintegration. The growing literature demonstrates and recognizes that reintegration is a challenging process occurring across different life domains (Flahaux, 2013;Koser & Kuschminder, 2015;Ruben et al., 2009). It is multi-phased, long-lasting and impacted by a multiplicity of factors at the individual, social and structural level (Cassarino, 2008;Kuschminder, 2017a;Markowitz & Stefansson, 2004). Moreover, research has pointed at the strong symbolic and instrumental value that reintegration, and more broadly return migration, holds within community discourses and migration policy (Cassarino, 2008;Lietaert & Van Gorp, 2019).Yet, it remains unclear how these complex processes of reintegration should be conceptualized and analysed, how returnees may interpret their own reintegration processes, and finally, how reintegration takes different shapes in different contexts.The rise in reintegration literature reflects the growing importance of the need to understand reintegration processes, both as observable phenomenon and as a discursive project. When return migrants are unable to reintegrate, they may become vulnerable members of society or create additional precarities for their society. They may risk ostracization or feeling the need to migrate in unsafe contexts. It is possible that returnees unable to reintegrate are the same individuals that re-migrate to destinations wherein they are unable to obtain residency and must live irregularly, placing them again in a context of high vulnerability. Creating an enabling environment for successful reintegration and mitigating policies and factors that further complicate reintegration processes is important globally in order to prevent precarization of particular migrants, returnees and communities. This special issue was initiated as a result of a symposium on 'Reintegration processes and differentiated reintegration support measures' at the first annual conference of the Centre for the Social Study of Migration and

How (re) integration success and (re) integration failure is conceptualised in different contexts for women trafficked for the purpose of sexual exploitation

“…The social component refers to the social relationships a person has developed, but also to the possibilities for new social ties in the environment in which they return. Finally, there is an emphasis that (re) integration is multi-dimensional, encompassing domains such as the sociocultural, psychosocial, political and physical (Lietaert and Kuschminder, 2021). Tizazu et al (2021) also focus on (re) integration of migrants more generally and in particular the economic and social aspects of the process.…”

“…Lietaert and Kuschminder (2021) discuss four components of (re) integration of migrants generally. The spatial component refers to a physical return to the society in which the person was living in prior to a migration experience, with an emphasis on not assuming that they were fully integrated in the past.…”

A Generational Divide? Coping With Ethnic Prejudice and Inequality Among Romanian Roma Transnational Returnees

“…Others look at returnees as agents of change beyond economic aspects, examining how they use social remittances (White, 2022;White & Grabowska, 2019) and are able to vernacularize-so that new ideas are accepted by their communities of origin (Kushminder, 2017). While returnees are often in favourable positions (Massey et al, 1994), there are also cases where returning is a challenging process (Lietaert & Kushminder, 2021;Markowitz & Stefansson, 2004). For instance, when migrants do not maintain transnational relations with-or do not visit-their countries of origin, they may experience adaptation difficulties upon return.…”

Pathways to reintegration in Senegal and Nigeria promoted by Italian Assisted Voluntary Return programmes

“…Whilst over the years, there has—at least in Europe—been growing attention at both the political and scientific levels on Assisted Voluntary Return (AVR) programmes and, at the scientific level specifically, over the last 20 years, the research into return migration has come on in leaps and bounds (King & Kuschminder, 2022: 1); however, the outcomes of pathways to reintegration that are often supported and funded within the framework of AVRR programmes still remain insufficiently explored (King & Kuschminder, 2022: 11; Lietaert & Kuschminder, 2021: 141). Not only this, but the very idea of reintegration itself changes according to the characteristics of the returnee, such as whether they had migrated for study or work, for example, or as a refugee (Kuschminder, 2022: 200), and AVR undoubtedly constitutes a very particular form of return migration.…”