The Reversal of Migratory Family Lives: A Cape Verdean Perspective on Gender and Sociality pre- and post-deportation

Abstract

Deportation, as a coerced and involuntary mode of return migration, contradicts common assumptions and understandings of transnational livelihoods. This can be felt particularly strongly in the realm of the family-the social sphere where migration is facilitated and enacted. Drawing on anthropological fieldwork in Cape Verdean transnational social fields, this paper applies a gendered perspective in examining how deportation affects individual positions within transnational families. It studies how female and male deportees try to re-establish their social and affective lives after their return and also takes into account the perspective of family members who continue to live in the (former) destination country and who have to cope with the absence of a deported relative. These findings reveal power relations and social inequalities produced by state removal, unfolding not only between states and non-citizen residents but also among family members whose lives are divided involuntarily by state borders. The article comes to the conclusion that deportation not only 'reverses' the position of migrants in their (alleged) countries of origin but also that these processes of 'reversal' extend to all achievements of migratory family lives-both in the migrants' country of origin as well as in the country of destination.

Deportation Stigma and Re-migration

“…It may be tempting to see deportation as the end of the stigmatising process, the point at which the person tainted by irregular migration status is expelled from 'normal' society. Our interviewees indicated that, in certain circumstances, deportation continues the process of stigmatisation and leads to the deported person being discounted and treated as tainted by failure (Drotbohm 2014), as no longer normal. As we will show, this is particularly the case where deportation challenges a shared understanding (and shared expectations when migration is a collective decision) in the communities to which people are returned, one that people are anxious to hold onto.…”

“…More recently, as the literature on deportation has expanded significantly, authors have examined the stigmatisation of those who are deported (Drotbohm 2011a(Drotbohm , 2014Galvin, 2014;Peutz 2006Peutz , 2010Brotherton and Barrios 2009;Zilberg 2004). Brotherton and Barrios suggest that 'the experience of stigma is probably the most difficult social and psychological issue confronting deportees ' (2009, 43).…”

“…Because of the consequences of discovery, including detention and deportation, undocumented migrants (i.e. deportable migrants) are forced to separate themselves from 'normal' citizens or to take great care to hide their status (Bloch, Sigona, and Zetter 2009;Alpes 2012;Drotbohm 2014), and may end up being physically separated in detention centres. As such, undocumented migrants are subject to 'the full execution of disapproval, rejection, exclusion and discrimination' (Link and Phelan 2001, 367), which in some cases leads to their physical expulsion from a state.…”

“…Link and Phelan (2001) conclude that stigmatisation is entirely contingent on access to social, economic and political power that allows exclusion and discrimination. In the case of certain categories of migrants, labels such as 'illegal' are applied, and characteristics such as criminality associated with them (Khosravi 2009;Palidda 1999;Den Boer 1998;Drotbohm 2014). Because of the consequences of discovery, including detention and deportation, undocumented migrants (i.e.…”

“…The notion of stigma recurs in a number of studies on deportation (Brotherton and Barrios 2009;Galvin, 2014). In some cases, in particular those deported from the US, those who are forcibly returned are tainted with the stigma of criminality (Brotherton and Barrios 2009;Hagan, Eschbach, and Rodriguez 2008;Drotbohm 2014), but in the case of those deported from Europe, it seems the stigma is more likely to be that of failure.…”