Returnees' Perspectives on Their Re‐migration Processes

Abstract

The return of refugees and migrants back to their country of origin is an important topic on the agenda of Western European governments, as return is considered as the most “durable solution” for the “refugee problem”, and as an instrument with which to tackle “illegal” migration. However, these migration policies generally lack a clear evidence base, as little studies have focused on returnees' current living situations and on their perspectives on the re‐migration process. In this paper we therefore try to listen to returnees' voices, through in‐depth interviews with four Nepalese migrants both before (in Belgium) and after (in Nepal) their return, and with 16 returnees after their return to Nepal. The interviews show how most returnees start with a disadvantageous “point of departure” to realize a “successful” return: mostly, they do not really depart “voluntarily”, and they only have limited possibilities for preparing their return and setting realistic expectations. But also, back in the “home country”, most returnees judge their current economic, social and political living situation as bad, meeting little of the expectations that they set before they returned. The participants consider the support they received through the NGOs' return programmes as minimal, because they are mostly limited to a small amount of financial support, and thus of little significance in these returnees' efforts to rebuild their lives in their “home” country. If return programmes want to make a difference in returnees' lives, they should have two extensive components in the “home” and the “host” country, incorporating in both components an integral approach, including economic, political, social and psychological aspects. Viewing these findings, it is not surprising that most interviewees eventually evaluate their return as unsuccessful, and many returnees consider re‐emigration, all of which clearly questions the current basis of worldwide migration policies.

From Social Instrument to Migration Management Tool: Assisted Voluntary Return Programmes – The Case of Belgium

“…Moreover, local partners in the home countries also indicated that the allocated reintegration budget for individual returnees was insufficient, certainly when the support was aimed at setting up a business or at providing assistance to vulnerable people (Caritas ), a picture confirmed by individual returnees (Lietaert et al . ). The evaluation further concluded that access to the support was inadequately regulated.…”

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

“…Despite the adoption of repatriation as a durable solution to global migration crisis, research exploring the repatriation process is scarce (Kibreab, 2003;Lietaert et al, 2013;Ruben et al, 2009). Gillespie, Peltzer, and Maclachlan (2009) outline the three main reasons for the dearth of research on repatriation:…”

“…Of specific concern, many repatriation programs provide limited information about living conditions in the country of origin. Further, most programs focus on financial assistance, paying little attention to the psychosocial needs of returnees (Lietaert et al, 2013;Ruben et al, 2013). This narrow definition of what returnees need means that NGOs and public agencies can only "play a modest role in facilitating social cohesion upon return" (Ruben et al, 2009, p. 929).…”

“…This contact also shapes the attitudes of the local community towards returnees. A negative attitude of the local community towards returnees is detrimental to reintegration, resulting in feelings of estrangement among returnees, who report being discriminated against (Carr, 2014;Lietaert, 2013;Setrana & Tonah, 2014;Stefansson, 2004). Returnees report feeling judged for leaving and are often accused of betraying those who stayed behind.…”

“…Social divisions are further increased when returnees are expected to come back from exile with wealth that can be distributed to relatives (Carr, 2014;Lietaert et al, 2013;Setrana & Tonah, 2014). In fact, returnees report feeling overwhelmed when expected to make unrealistic financial contributions towards social gatherings, community projects, as well as helping any relatives experiencing economic hardship (Setrana & Tonha, 2014).…”