‘Knocking on doors that never open’: examining discourses of rejected asylum seekers from Kosova

Abstract

This qualitative study examined the experiences of rejected asylum seekers from Kosova in order to contribute to the paucity of literature on rejected asylum seekers. Grounded in postcolonial theory and through a Critical Discourse Analysis of interviews with rejected asylum seekers and Kosova's Repatriation Strategy, the study examined dominant discourses which shape the repatriation process in Kosova. The main findings illustrate the European Union (EU)-Kosova power imbalance and the pervasiveness of the EU as 'exclusive' discourse is crucial in shaping experiences of repatriation and the identities of rejected asylum seekers. These findings add to the body of existing repatriation literature and provide important implications for reparation policies as well as social work theory, practice, and education.

A social pedagogy lens for social work practice with return migrants

“…Beyond social work's historical emphasis on rapport and trust building (Leach, 2005), social pedagogy introduces critical dialogue as a possible way forward. In contrast to the prominence of needs assessment in social work with migrants, critical dialogue invites social workers to contextualise the experiences of return migrants within the historical and social hierarchies maintained by forces such as colonialism, neoliberalism and globalisation, which impact migration experiences and reintegration (Kusari, 2019;Rosner, 2016). As Zembylas (2018) summarises, critical dialogue allows social workers to approach return as 'historicized rather than psychologized' (p. 104).…”

“…Contrary to the preference for repatriation, research suggests that repatriation is neither durable nor the end of the migration journey (Chimni, 2004;Ighodaro, 2002;Zieck, 2004); instead, it poses unique challenges for migrants (Carr, 2014;Chimni, 2004;Davies, Borland, Blake and West, 2011;Kusari, 2019). Returnees fare much worse in health and integration measures when compared to those who never left or those who resettled in host countries (Davies et al, 2011;Zhang, Liu, Zhang and Wu, 2015).…”

“…Since 2015, when the number of displaced peoples reached an all-time high, the heightened focus on the experiences of refugees has largely portrayed displaced peoples as a homogeneous group, silencing the multiplicity of their experiences and identities (Kusari, 2019). The diversity of experiences of return migrants, such as former refugees and/or those who were never granted refugee status, have not been examined partly because the UNHCR considers the return to one's home country as satisfying all conditions for the cessation of refugee status and has adopted repatriation, or the right of displaced people to return to their country of origin, as the preferred solution to the migration crisis (Chimni, 2004;Ighodaro, 2002;Poggiali, 2006;UNHCR, 1996;Zieck, 2004).…”

“…The politicised status of returnees and the logistical difficulties in reaching this population are among the factors leading to their exclusion from research (Humphries, 2004;Siriwardhana, 2015). Moreover, most research comes out of the Global North, although forced returnees largely return to countries in the Global South (De Bree, Davids and De Haas, 2010;King, Desmarais, Lindsay, Piérart and Tétreault, 2014;Kusari, 2019). These gaps within social work scholarship can be considered a social justice issue because it leads to lack of preparedness for practice with forced returnees (Humphries, 2004;Masocha, 2014).…”

“…Kosova also ranks among the top 10 countries of origin for returnees (Hart, Graviano and Klink, 2015;Sacchetti, 2016). Thus, the return of Kosovar rejected asylum seekers provides a chance to examine the psychosocial needs of this population and identify adequate interventions (Kusari, 2019).…”