JHR 425 -RETURN MIGRATION; MOTIVATIONS, CHALLENGES AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS

P a g e | 1

RETURN MIGRATION: MOTIVATIONS, CHALLENGES AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS

1. INTRODUCTION TO RETURN MIGRATION

Return migration, also known as return movement, can be defined as the act of immigrants

moving back to their country of origin after spending a long time in the destination country.

Migration is one of the most significant and multifaceted processes that affects not only the

countries of origin but also the countries that receive migrants. Exploring return migration

necessitates analysis of what pushes the individuals to return back, what hurdles they encounter

when they return and finally what policies are available to ensure they reintegrate in their places

of origin in a sustainable manner.

Some of the primary reasons why immigrants go back to their home country include; family

issues, failure to assimilate with the host society, better economic opportunities back home,

retirement, nationalism or because of visa expiry or deportation. The decision to go back home is

usually made based on a number of factors that are economic, social, political as well as

emotional. For many, challenges of integrating and feelings of displacement are push factors, and

better economic opportunities, homesickness, or family obligations are pull factors.

Multiple hurdles present themselves when a refugee decides to return; these are economic,

social, and psychological reintegration challenges. Challenges in the areas of employment, social

contacts, and skills, health care, education for children, or other services present themselves in

terms of economic and social reintegration challenges. The return migrants may as well

experience psychological problems in transition to the new scenario back home after had been

living abroad for long. To overcome these multidimensional barriers, there is a need for

appropriate policy measures at both sending and receiving country levels.

P a g e | 2

Effective policies for the reintegration of returnees needs to have policy frameworks that are

supported by the necessary resources and research. Some of the policy recommendations include

career support services, investment and entrepreneurship for economic reintegration, harnessing

skills and resources to support development, social welfare services for returnees, relevant

government civil society partnerships, data collection and monitoring to inform policy. It is a

mutual interest and responsibility of both the origin and the destination countries to promote a

dignified, safe return and facilitate sustainable reintegration.

a) Definition and types of return migration

Return migration involves the movement of people back to their home country after spending

relatively long time away from the country. This type of migration is still not well researched in

migration literature, while it has significant economic, social and cultural implications that

should be researched further. Broadly speaking, return migration can be divided into three main

types: These are the temporary, seasonal, and permanent types of jobs that are available in the

market today. This involves brief visits to the country of origin periodically to attend to some

issues, visit relatives or friends but still have a job, valid visa, and residence in the destination

country. Such a form of circulatory migration gives rise to what scholars refer to as

transnationalism, where migrant’s lives cut across borders and cultures. Return migration occurs

either due to crop seasons or tourism related activities, and most of the migrants tend to move up

and down in search of a job. Seasonal migration means that people go to live in the regions of

origin for more prolonged time after several years living in other countries.

These types of return migration can also be grouped based on the reasons for return migration.

Some of the push and pull factors include family connection, homesickness, integration problems

in the new country, changes observed back home, employment opportunities, change in the legal

P a g e | 3

status, retirement, or forceful expulsion like deportation. As suggested by the theory how

migrants prepare and decide on return is equally conditioned by environmental circumstances of

the places of destination and origin. For instance, the reintegration process is easier when the

migrants are those with tight transnationalism. In general, it is quite difficult to distinguish

between different forms of return as migrants tend to travel back and forth several times over the

course of their lives.

Further studies are thus required in order to understand the dynamics of the patterns of return and

their implications. Reintegration difficulties are typical for long-term returns of migrants who

may experience social and cultural isolation in their home country after years in another, that is

political social and economic capital that has been gotten from the host country. However, return

also comes with brain drain and divided families as some of the consequences that people have

noted. Analyzing such complex flows and processes necessitates policies that can address

cyclical and lifelong migration, migrants’ transnational activities in the post-return context, and

data instruments that capture circular migration. Given the globalization of migration cycles

around the globe, the final phase of migration as return migration requires further research

attention in the academic and policy domains.

b) Historical context and global trends

Return migration is not new but is associated with the general patterns of migration in the world

today. For most of the history, migration was in the form of circular migration rather than

permanent one. It was common to have temporary migration, usually for trade, for job seeking

during certain seasons, or for fleeing from famine or conflict with the view of going back after

sometime. Some of the major historical events and forces that have affected international

migration flows and return flows are the world wars, depressions, imperialism, post colonialism

P a g e | 4

and globalization. For example, the Age of Exploration in the 15th century saw more people

voluntarily moving to colonies in foreign lands and the forced movement of enslaved people who

eventually migrated back to their homeland. Modernization and urbanization processes

stimulated both internal migration from rural to urban areas and international European

emigration to the overseas territories such as the Americas, Australia and New Zealand. Similar,

natural disasters, wars, and revolutions also displaced people and other groups repatriated after

the crisis occurred. Post-WWII decolonization and dissolution of the Soviet bloc also entailed the

repatriation of settlers, aliens and wage-laborers. Evolving globalization process contributes to

maintaining circular migration circuits in the skilled and unskilled labor markets. Recent years

observed a trend in return flows of immigrant retirees, the second generation of diaspora seeking

their roots, and forced return of asylum seekers rejected refugee status. In the future, escalating

climate change effects coupled with a reduction in more liberal immigration policies will create

additional refugees and force people to engage in circular migration as coping mechanisms.

Further polarization of the Global North and South may also encourage more precarious forms of

temporary labor migration to regions of better opportunities. Therefore, throughout history and

up to the contemporary epoch, counterflow of return migration continues to be symbiotic with

other macroeconomic, geopolitical, and geodemographic and geo-ecological determinants of

migration, including forced context.

c) Theoretical frameworks for understanding return migration

Although the experience of migrants returning to their countries and places of origin is not novel,

the scholarship on theorizing about and modeling return migration only began in the 1970s and

developed further in the 1990s. Several theoretical perspectives have been applied in an attempt

to explain the reasons, factors and consequences of migration decisions regarding returnees.

P a g e | 5

Neoclassical migration theory grounded in microeconomic framework regards return migration

as the natural climax of a “rational action” on the part of the migrants, who go abroad to earn a

higher income, which is either remitted back home or accumulated and taken back home later.

The new economics of labor migration theory is similar to this framework only that it introduces

the household or the family as the unit of analysis as opposed to the individual. While from

structuralist point of view more emphasis is put on the macro-structural factors that may coerce

or incentivize return such as the state of the labor market, immigration policies, business cycles

and political climate in both home and host countries. Newer theories of transnationalism and

social network have shed light upon how migrants continue to be connected with the socio-

cultural webs that exist between countries of origin and destinations and how they build the

social capital that supports return migration even as they live in the new country. The very idea

of return migration has therefore expanded from exclusive and straightforward permanent return

migration to include other forms of temporary migration, circular migration, and seasonal or

pendulum type of mobility between destinations and places of origins. Scholars have demanded

for a conceptual integration that can embrace cross-level and cross- unit analysis of the

individual, households, social networks, communities, regions and nation-states in transnational

social fields in order to obtain a multi-dimensional theory that can effectively address the

complexity of the return migration phenomenon. With the trend of return migration remaining

persistent in different countries, sound theoretical frameworks will remain relevant to support

policies and frame future research on the effects of return on migrants, families, and societies of

destination and origin.

P a g e | 6

d) Relationship to broader migration cycles

Return migration could therefore be understood as one of the movements in a cycle of migration

whereby people move back to their places of origin after spending some time in other areas. As

scholars have come to realize, people do not migrate in a one-off, one-way, or even linear basis,

but in cyclical or circular manners; that is, migrants move from one region to another temporarily

and may return at some point to their original place of residence. Micro mobility of individuals

may be iterative or cyclical, while at macro level, the stock of migrants in a country, for instance,

may have return movements to the source region even though overall movement from source to

recipient is considered. It is therefore important to understand the position of return migration on

the continuum of circular migration.

This decision is arrived at after migrants weigh the prevailing conditions and opportunities in the

place of origin against those found in the destination country or region over time. Specific events

or changes may take place in either area that cause return considerations, such as major social,

economic, or political changes, life cycle factors, family, and retirement. In this regard, to study

return migration it is also important to explore the migrants’ continuing linkages and how these

linkages may influence migration choices within the overall global migration flows. It also

involves the dynamic process of migrants’ integration and the gradual disconnection at the

destinations accompanied by the long-lasting or revived affective bonds with the places of

origin.

From a policy perspective, acknowledging these multi-directional movements shifts concerns

regarding typologies of permanent, temporary and circular migration. Critics have noted that

these differences do not always reflect the real processes of transnational migration. Finally,

seeing migration as circulatory also questions policy approaches that view return as a failure and

P a g e | 7

that conceive of migration as a process leading to settlement. In a broader perspective, dealing

with the cyclical aspect of migration calls for effective policies that address the entire migration

cycle, starting from the pre-migration stage up to re-migration if it is the case. It is still crucial

for maintaining migrant aid and leveraging the positive impact of migration on development at

origin and destination countries.

e) Data sources and measurement challenges

Measuring return migration is quite challenging and fraught with data and methodological issues

that hinder research on this topic. Firstly, the data collected by most national systems are

insufficient to cover the data on emigration and return migration. Administrative sources such as

population registers can give valuable information on overall immigration and emigration

patterns but may not include information on the specific country of origin or socio-economic

status of migrants. Self-administered questionnaires can be complemented by cross-national

surveys, but the latter faces challenges in tracking the surveyed migrants across the countries and

in their willingness to participate. Thus, current resources are not comprehensive in reporting the

return migrant populations. Just ramping up efforts to collect more presents challenges, as return

migrants, especially those who were forced, have reasons to hide, and measurement is skewed

accordingly. Measuring motivations for return also poses some level of difficulty since drivers

are complex and the process of interpreting the result would involve obtaining migrants’

perceptions together with other externally induced factors that influence returns. Challenges also

exist in determining post-return experiences since impacts are thought to vary with unobservable

counterfactuals of migrants had they remained in the host country. Due to the aforementioned

limitations, it is necessary to establish new methods to produce more systematic and

representative findings. Similar future approaches could use some recent techniques from

P a g e | 8

machine learning and data science to derive enhanced information from usual sources.

Governments and international agencies may also want to conduct additional surveys solely for

those who have recently returned to the country. Nonetheless, the present state of research offers

a starting point for the analysis of the decision to return migrate and post-return experiences that

can be complemented as data collection is increased and new methods are applied, thus

contributing to the development of sound evidence-based evaluations of return migration policy.

f) Case studies of major return migration flows

The most important patterns of return migration often have multiple and mixed

causes. Examining major historical cases give clues to key factors. Following the end of the

Second World War, it is estimated that about 13 million ethnic Germans had evacuated or were

forcibly removed from Eastern Europe in one of the largest migration waves in the European

history, with the majority of them going to Germany and Austria. Their return was a forced one

and mostly politically motivated with the affected individuals being expelled often by force.

Germany also had return of the refugees and displaced citizens and prisoners of war. Subsequent

migrations were more mandatory but still highly politicized as was the case with the Aussiedler,

the ethnic Germans from the Soviet Union who endured prejudice. There are also second order

and economic factors that explain the situation. The oil shock-induced economic recession saw

many Turkish and Moroccan workers, who were employed in the European countries, return to

their home countries. The more recent cause is the global financial crisis that erupted in 2008,

this resulted to fewer labor market opportunities in the developed countries for the migrants from

Latin America and Asia hence resulting to return flows. Other major return flows that occurred

include those of Lebanese citizens who relocated during the civil war that ended in 1990.

Sociocultural factors also play a role here as well. Due to the concerns of civil liberties and

P a g e | 9

cultural identity, there was an emigration increase after the handover in 1997, although some

who later return did not find it as bad as they thought. Since the 1980s, China and India have

become more prosperous, encouraging ‘sea turtles’ to return home due to better lifestyles and

economic prospects there are greater political freedoms and stability now that seen in Tunisia

after the Arab Spring. Major return flows are hence catalyzed by an array of factors, including

economic, sociocultural, and political factors, which may complement, compete, or possibly

even interfere with each other and their study offers a fine-grained insight into the return decision

that is made under certain conditions. Examining diverse circumstances in migration in the last

few decades enriches insights on the nature of changes in the primary migration trends.

2. MOTIVATIONS FOR RETURN

There are several reasons why people are encouraged to go back to their countries of origins after

living in other countries for a long time. These motivations can be broadly classified into three

groups namely Familial/Personal, Economic and Patriotism. Most of the migrants make this

decision out of family or personal related issues. Some of these are to go back to take care of

aging parents, to meet friends and families, to get married or to bring up children in their own

cultural background and community. In essence, the social support, a hope that their children will

grow within an extended family, and the need to retain a cultural identity compel migrants to

return home. Another major factor that contributed to this is the economic factor. They come

home with the aim of reinvesting the wealth, experience and education acquired in the foreign

land into business ventures, companies and other projects in their home country. Returnees feel

more economic activities, improved quality of life, owning of houses or land, and application of

global human capital in their home country. Such sentiments as patriotism also compel some of

these migrants to return to the home country in order to make their respective countries better

P a g e | 10

and more developed. Some are pulled by national pride, to counter ‘brain drain’ by utilizing their

talents to foster advancement of the home country after years learning in other nations. Apart

from those three main reasons, there are other reasons as follows; It is hard to integrate into

foreign societies; One reaches retirement age and wishes to retire back home; One feels that he

has obligations to oversee ancestral lands and properties; or simply because one is homesick and

misses the communities and kin after years of living in foreign countries. Regardless of the

reasons, the decision is not always rational, but rather a mix of personal needs, family obligations

and loyalty. To ensure safe, sustainable and impactful return of every returnee, they should be

prepared for the challenges they are bound to encounter during their reintegration process as well

as how to maximize their time abroad.

a) Economic factors (e.g., job opportunities, retirement)

Factors that include economic factors at macro and micro level play a central role in influencing

return migration amongst migrants. At a national level, the economic condition and availability

of employment in the homeland influences the repatriation decision more than in other

circumstances. This is because with increased economic development and the subsequent

creation of better professionalism remunerations, higher status jobs in the home country of the

emerging markets in developing countries entice the human capital holders to return home.

Further, during the periods of economic downturn or even a slow growth in host countries, the

unemployed migrant is left with no option but to think of repatriation given the lack of social

support systems. The global financial crisis of 2008 made many immigrant workers lose their

jobs in industries of US and UK, which led them to reconsider their economic status abroad thus

increasing the return rates. At the microeconomic level, migrants take into account lifetime

earnings, employment or self-employment probability, likelihood of investing remittance

P a g e | 11

income, and existence of retirement benefits when thinking of a permanent return migration.

Analysis of the push factors may also reveal that high relative wages and long term income

earning prospects in home countries, adequate savings, the need to start business back home,

inability to claim pension as non-citizen and job loss are the key economic factors that compel

migrants to engage in rational cost-benefit analysis that may lead to permanent return home after

years or decades working abroad. It is therefore evident that across the migrant skills gradient

cyclic return migration systems are stimulated by economic factors where migrants return home

for periods of time after seeking employment in other more productive markets to achieve the-

target level of economic remuneration and secure better economic future.

b) Family and social ties

One of the most important reasons why migrants go back to their countries of origin is the family

and social relations that are still associated with the home country. Having been able to build up

savings and resources while in the diaspora, the return migrants may see going back as a chance

to go and take care of aging parents, a spouse or children or young siblings who were left behind

to take care of the household. Employment obligations and family familiarities attract many

people due to the longing to re-acquaint oneself with a familiar social setting where interpersonal

relationships, traditions and social support structures have been defined. This can be especially

true for female migrants who were compelled to leave children in the care of family members

while working abroad – at times, the physical and emotional costs of separation can become

burdensome enough to propel a decision to return.

Habits of transnational relations can also be maintained across the borders to facilitate later

return migration. Migrants continue to engage in cultural or religious organizations, Hometown

associations and communicating with friends in their home countries through technological

P a g e | 12

advancement, travelling and sending remittances, thus they remain socially connected to the

sending societies. Long-term, these diverse and complex relations to the native social structure

might affect a willingness to repatriate on a permanent basis. In other circumstances singular

events back home, which induce return can be; family health problem, need to attend to sick or

elderly parents, the arrival of grandchildren, or even bereavement. The pull of these family

responsibilities and the need to return to the native land with a familiar social and religious

structure after years in foreign lands still defines migrations ‘home’ for the settled migrants of

different color, origin and culture all over the world.

c) Cultural identity and nostalgia

For migrants who have spent several years in a foreign country, this is likely to push them to

return home since they are homesick. Migrants who have assimilated their new country better

still can be seen salivating for the elements of the original culture of their native country; this is

basically a scientific theory advanced by the media scholar Hamid Naficy known as nostalgia of

the diasporic or exile is not for the real home but for the home that is imagined to have contained

all the finer things. This longing is closely tied to cultural identity: when a person is a migrant in

a new culture, he or she is likely to have remnants of the initial culture or recalls the first culture

as earlier on.

The loss of cultural markers–celebrating culturally important events, small daily practices,

speaking the native language, consuming familiar foods, and engaging in traditional practices–

can build up to stir a desire for returning ‘home’ even though the migrant may not have migrated

for that reason, they may have moved as labor migrants, as refugees, as family migrants, or for

some other reason, those who live in-between two worlds are inevitably forced to confront the

Return migration is, to some extent, an effort at re-ethnicization—although, when they get there,

P a g e | 13

some may discover that the home they have been longing for does not exist. However, this form

of nostalgia-induced return is rooted in the desire to regain complete cultural membership and

acceptance in terms of the signifying codes of the home society. Therefore, it is a highly

personalized psychological inducement for returning there that for some can be more powerful

than prospects of greater economic returns in the foreign country. The authorities deciding on

tentative measures to boost return migration may find that appeals to cultural pride and

sentimental longing for home constitute the kind of ‘pull’ factors that may well outweigh other

incentives for migration to remain in the new country.

d) Political changes in home country

Chen and colleagues also noted that political changes in the countries of emigration can become

a driving force that leads to the return of migrants. Political liberalization and democratization in

various countries create new avenues for returnees to engage in reopened political processes that

was closed to the returnees in the past. For instance, change in political systems from

authoritarian or single-party systems to multi-party democracies with regular and competitive

elections for instance compel some migrants to return to their home country in order to be able to

take advantage of new opportunities for leadership, activism and voting. On the other hand,

declines in political rights, civil liberties or insecurity in origin countries because of political

transitions or internal conflicts or other sources of instability more often lead to forced return, as

refugees who run away from violence have no option than to be repatriated when the policies

change or options in host countries reduce.

Modifications of citizenship policies, electoral laws and regulations concerning external voting

and dual nationality rights in the origin country could also contribute to the emergence of

enabling or constraining factors affecting migrants’ decision and capacity to politically reengage

P a g e | 14

on their return. These reforms are particularly attractive to countries of origin if they provide

extraterritorial voting privileges or allow dual citizenship because they offer migrants powerful

reasons to come back with the assurance that whatever political rights to vote and participate,

they acquired in the new country they can easily regain if they return. Policies on multiple

citizenship and external voting in specific have undergone changes in the migrant-sending states

in Latin America, Africa, Asia and Eastern Europe in the last two decades with the objective to

keep the migrants connected to their home country and symbolizing their citizenship even when

they are living outside their home country.

e) End of conflict or crisis situations

The first reason why the individuals move back to his or her country or region of origin is when

the conflict or the crisis that led to their migration in the first place comes to an end. People carry

out a forced displacement when they are forced to escape their country because of acts of

violence, political oppression, natural calamities, or other forms of crises with an intention of

going back to their country when the situation becomes conducive again. For instance, during the

Salvadoran Civil War in the 1980s and 1990s, more than a quarter of the total population of

Salvador fled to other countries with the majority seeking asylum in neighboring countries as

well as the United States. When the war was over and the peace-building processes consolidated

a sustainable peace in El Salvador during the 1990s, there was the phenomenon of the so-called

‘back home’ wave, with hundreds of thousands of refugees and asylum seekers returning to the

communities of origin. Possible reasons for this kind of post-crisis return migration might

include the desire to join family members, recover property, re-establish social relations, re-enter

economic activities and social life paused due to the conflict or simply to help build the

homeland. Thus, the decision to return is not simple. Any residual economic, security and social

P a g e | 15

problems that were caused by the initial crisis may reduce the enthusiasm of people in returning

to their homes or enhancing successful reintegration. However, refugees and other displaced

minorities may still be culturally marginalized to a non-fully citizenship status within their

national identity that may deter return or impact the decision to re- emigrate again. Thus, there is

a constant desire to return to a presumably safe and calm homeland; however, as evident from

crises and conflicts, return migration or repatriation continues under development and affects

individuals’ decisions to return to a familiar home or move yet farther away to another new

home.

f) Forced return and deportation

Migrants suffer deportation and involuntary repatriation, which is the forced return to their

countries of origin against their wishes. Large-scale forced returns can also happen due to

hostage-taking incidents and political changes in the host country. Kidnappings by terrorist

organizations have precipitated huge deportation processes with regard to migrant workers due to

governments’ attempts to fulfill kidnappers’ demands in a bid to avoid future occurrences, for

instance, Libya expelled thousands of Tunisian and Palestinian workers in 1990 after 21 Tunisian

workers were kidnapped. Again, even those who are residing legally or have been residing for

several years may be affected by such retributory deportations once the public feels that certain

foreign nationals are a nuisance. Besides such circumstances, changes in policies due to

economic difficulties, security threats, or nationalist governmental agendas are other frequent

triggers of waves of forced returns through deportations as well as promoting voluntary return

through making life in the country unwelcoming for the migrants. As illustrated in the case of

Dominicans of Haitian origin who were recently deprived of Dominican nationality in 2013,

such transformations of policies alter the legal status of migrants to an irregular one and compel

P a g e | 16

them to go back to countries they may hardly have any relations with. Such forced repatriations

whether through formal deportation or informal exclusion where life becomes unbearable,

illustrate the marginal existence of migrants, a condition that can be reversed by a change of

political heart. Forced returnees generally face challenges in countries of origin they are no

longer familiar with and most of them lack decent employment opportunities. Because returnees

have spent years, if not decades, in other countries, they are disadvantaged socially, and unable

to compete for jobs, housing, and services in countries of origin that do not consider them as

nationals. Such barriers are even more apparent as far as second and third-generation migrants

born in a foreign country who may not possess citizenship, language, and cultural orientation

towards the country of origin. This leads to the economic and social exclusion of people on one

side and then anger and more instability on the other side. Therefore, forced return usually leads

to negative consequences for migrants and the governments and economies of the countries of

origin since it results in the formation of a socially excluded group of returnees. In general,

voluntary return has its advantages, while forced returns cause instability on the individual and

societal levels rather than addressing migration issues.

3. ECONOMIC CHALLENGES AND OPPORTUNITIES

Return migration is a phenomenon that has its advantages and disadvantages for the migrants

considering that it calls for a balance between the economic benefits and risks. One of the

significant issues that can be discussed is the reintegration into the workplace, that is, the

problem of finding a job for the employee. People who have spent many years living and

working in a different country may discover that their skills and experience do not fit the

employment opportunities in their home country. Education or training earned in the foreign

country may not be in sync with the organization’s hiring standards. Returnees may not have the

P a g e | 17

professional contacts that would enable them to find employment. This can also have

psychological implications when one moves to a new workplace and has to start adapting to the

new organizational culture and climate since the previous one was quite different. Such

employment barriers result in under-employment or unemployment and strains on the economic

status of return migrants.

On the opportunity side, some returnees are in a position to exploit skills, capital, and networks

that they have acquired in the foreign countries to engage in business back home. This may refer

to a business operating for profit, a social business venture that looks to fill development deficits,

or a technology-based start-up business that hopes to capture local markets. Governments can

encourage such returnee entrepreneurship to get the necessary support through business

mentorship programs, grants and loans for start-ups, and special economic zones. Return migrant

entrepreneurs are a source of employment and skills development for the domestic populace and

they also transact with international companies.

Another economic opportunity is the money sent by migrants back to their home countries while

working in foreign countries. These remittances are frequently used to meet consumption

expenses of families in the country of origin. But some of them may reinvest their savings and

remittances made in their home country after being employed in another country. These diaspora

investments can be used to finance small and medium sized business, property development,

construction of infrastructures, and improvement of the standards of health and education in the

country of origin. This turns remittances into transformative investments in the economic growth

of both the nation and the community.

Lastly, return migration; which can be of doctors, teachers, engineers or IT experts can go a long

way in addressing acute human resource needs in crucial sectors. This helps to compensate for

P a g e | 18

talent deficits as earlier studies indicated very high outward mobility of skilled nationals. It also

saves countries the costs of having to train expensive foreign students and send them back home

to meet domestic skill deficit area when such needs can be replaced by the skilled returning

migrant. Therefore, policies that promote return migration can be associated with positive

economic advantages on the sending countries.

a) Labor market reintegration

Family care migrants are likely to experience difficulties in labor market reintegration once they

return to their home countries. Through their working experience overseas, returnees gain human

capital, gain new knowledge and learn different conditions of labor markets. But this human

capital can be a challenge to translate into economic opportunities in the home country. Possible

causes of suboptimal labor market performance can be attributed to individual, structures, and

policies. On an individual level, they may learn the wrong behaviors that disqualify them in local

markets back home. Their social networks may decline during the migration cycle and they lose

the sense of community to find work. At this structural level there could be some factors such as

labor market rigidities and uncertainties about the availability of information. Entrepreneurship

opportunities can also be limited by credit constraints and poor business environments. From a

policy perspective, elaborate administrative processes regarding recognition of qualifications and

work permits acquired in foreign countries often hinder proper matching of talented returnees

with available employment opportunities. Programs aimed at the labor market reintegration

include those in the following three categories: Orientation exercises before migration can assist

potential migrants to possess a proper expectation of the export market for human resource after

return to the home country and hence make an informed decision on the acquisition of skills. The

following are the positive impacts of diaspora networks: Diaspora networks are useful in availing

P a g e | 19

information on employment opportunities. Other policy initiatives that can be expected to pay off

include those that seek to liberalize and deepen labor markets and free up constraints to new

business start-ups. Special pre-employment assistance for return migrants has been found

effective in some cases offering consultancy services in job search, allow returnees to undergo

training to fill gaps and engage directly with employers for placements. In this case, the

management of returnee human capital is best done in a systematic and coordinated manner

involving all the stakeholders in both the countries of origin and destination. Understanding the

migrant’s life cycle, it is possible to reverse some of the challenges of reintegration into the

economic benefits for the migrant and his community. For such complex endeavors, political will

and support are critical for the effective roll out of such programs. Thus, countries of origin are

able to avoid piecemeal and reactively formulated policies on return migrants’ positive impact on

the socioeconomic development of the given country.

b) Skill transferability and brain gain

This is the case of return migrants who acquire new skills and education while in the foreign

country that can be of significance to the home country on their return. This “brain gain” through

the improvement of human capital offers economic chances, if and only if the returnee is capable

of translating the acquired knowledge into the labor market in the country of origin. Through

overseas experience, even the low-skilled worker can gain valuable technical knowledge,

linguistic skills, training, certification, education, etc. However, these competencies can only be

transferred under receptive circumstances. Even highly educated return migrants may find it

difficult to secure employment commensurate with their education and professional

backgrounds. Likewise, those with technical skills relevant to the foreign industries and their

regulation might not find suitable employment opportunities in their home country. Thus, the

P a g e | 20

ability to effectively build on enhanced human capital depends on the openness and flexibility of

local labor markets. There is need for integration policies that support transferability coupled

with training and development programs targeting returnee skills and competencies as well as

linkages between those trained overseas and the need at home and collaboration between

government ministries to acknowledge foreign experience and qualification. Destination

countries also contribute by limiting temporary labor migration schemes to skills that are

relevant for the home country after contracts expire. However, high-skill returnees such as

doctors, engineers and IT professionals may continue to make their livelihoods by starting their

own businesses or working remotely through networks overseas. Therefore, brain circulation

networks, diaspora organizations and virtual return can continue to facilitate a flow of interaction

between talented return migrant and their former host countries. Many also acquire hard

technical skills, Cultural competencies, language abilities, specialized expertise etc., which are

beneficial for domestic employers to compete in today’s globalized economy. In conclusion,

developing human capital overseas means economic opportunity when the talent is repatriated,

but to realize these talent benefits depends on the openness and adaptability of home country

labor markets and institutions. However, if return migration is to be beneficial in terms of

economic returns, then the policy focus should not be on brain gain alone, but on the ability to

transfer skills.

c) Entrepreneurship and business creation

Having worked and lived in other countries, return migrants are able to start their own businesses

and become small business people when they come back home. As returnees acquire new skills,

contacts and capital from their overseas work and study experiences, they consciously strive to

invest these resources into starting new enterprises in their home countries. Such return

P a g e | 21

migration therefore provides the ability to create employment through enterprise development

for the improvement of weak economies and from transforming the talent exporting countries to

talent circulating nations. For instance, a study conducted in rural India revealed that returned

migrants started more profitable and wealth generating businesses than non-migrants.

Nevertheless, new venture creation by returning émigrés in LEECs is constrained by structural

and regulatory factors. Political instability, trade barriers regulatory hurdles in terms of licenses

and credit, and corruption are still significant challenges for return migration-based

entrepreneurship in developing environments. Still, returnees can turn to digital platforms and

diaspora contacts in foreign countries to get information about the market and financing for their

businesses. The literature indicates that complementary investments in return migrant

reintegration, and business enabling policies may assist localities to capture the skills, capital that

returnees bring and have a net positive effect on job creation in depressed regions. Where some

communities that rely on remittances are experiencing a decline in overseas income as a result of

political instabilities or economic downturns in the host countries, migrant entrepreneurship and

returnee SMEs can help other but equally fragile communities to diversify their sources of

income. Therefore, the key message of this paper is that with proper capital and institutional

supports return migration promotes entrepreneurship that has a multiplier effect on absorptive

capacity, economic diversification and building of resilient communities through job creating

enterprises especially at times when no other streams of incomes like migration or remittances

are possible. Thus, countries with weak entrepreneurial base or hostile to regulation would

benefit from the process of implementing the policies of providing for the returnees to establish

enterprises as a viable way of making a living at home; direct their financial human and social

P a g e | 22

capital for the creation of enterprises which could provide for other return migrants, and also

uplift the standards of living for other marginalized groups in the society.

d) Impact on local and national economies

Hypothesis 2 posits that return migration affects both local and national economy in different

ways as shown below: In the process, migrants can reverse the brain drain by bringing back

skills, networks, and capital to invest in their home countries and create employment. For

instance, researches on return migrants in India, China and other countries indicate that these

people are more involved in entrepreneurship and formation of business than other individuals.

These two factors meet human and financial demands that local markets have in terms of labor

force, bring new forms of business from other countries, and also offer employment

opportunities.

However, the degree of positive economic effects depends on a number of conditions. If return

migrants do not manage to align themselves with their education and experience acquired in the

foreign country, they undergo deskilling and downward mobility, which hampers their ability to

contribute to the economy. Absorptive capacity of local labor markets also interacts with and

moderates the effects. While the positive effects of return migration are exemplary when the

migration is from high-skill jobs, the results are not as promising for rural areas. Other factors

that contribute to success of returnees include: macroeconomic environment, credit and technical

support for potential business starters, the presence of diaspora networks.

From a national angle, governments wish that the return of these migrants will help push forward

the economic growth and development of a nation in aggregate. However, empirical evidence

shows a somewhat different picture. Many migrants from other developing countries such as

P a g e | 23

India and China return to their home countries to seek better opportunities which are however

available in the already developed areas hence the issue of spatial polarization. Although

returnees participate in productive investment and job creation, effects on such factors as GDP

may not be significant at the national level. Nevertheless, through diaspora outreach programs,

governments continue to encourage people to come back home and attempt to steer talent to

areas of demand.

In conclusion, therefore, return migration is economic viable particularly for the local

community of origin but it all depends on the endowment of the characteristics and resources

attained by the return migrants and the socioeconomic environment they return to. Further

research is required in order to better understand these multifaceted reciprocal relationships

between return migrants and regional and national economies. There are still many questions

unanswered when it comes to optimally achieving positive economic effects on the one hand and

avoiding negative effects on the other hand. Promising yet warranting further research are policy

solutions aimed at encouraging return and realizing the developmental benefits of return migrant.

e) Remittances and investment patterns

The return migrants also remit considerable amounts of money from the country during their

period of stay in the foreign country. These remittances could be significant sources of income if

well exploited. The money remittances are channeled into human capital like education and

health care for the family members which increases the incomes of the household in the long run.

They also utilize remittances for the acquisition of homes and to establish micro businesses

particularly in trading, transport, farming or services. The impact of return migrants on local and

community economic development focuses on the investment behavior of return migrants. When

remitted funds are channeled into productive ventures, they lead to job creation and have

P a g e | 24

multiplier impacts. But these can also lead to increased inequality if the remittance money is

used unproductively for instance in conspicuous consumption. As for the impact of return

migration on savings and investments of remittances, the authors noted that there is some

evidence that return migrants are more probable to save and invest their remittance income in

assets, businesses, and properties than non-migrants. Governments can design policies that direct

remittances to infrastructure development, schools, funds for vocational training and

concessional funds for start-up which can boost the multiplier effect. Promoting return migrant

entrepreneurship through business registration, start-up incubation schemes and P-P partnerships

will create an enabling environment for the use of remittances for economic development for

everyone. However, there is still a number of economic issues as well too. Return migrants

especially women find it hard to access credit to expand businesses. Remittance flows may also

crowd out local bank lending for investment if it is considered more secure. It can cause

volatility when the money comes with changes in the economic cycles of the countries of origin.

It is therefore essential to develop policies to correct information asymmetry in credit market,

train local banks and establish social amenities for immigrants. If properly harnessed through

appropriate policies and measures, however, money transfers can become engines of growth

through financing capital formation, boosting total demand, promoting skills development, and

empowering women. However, when investments are spread across the economy, the economic

effects also trickle down to non-immigrant clans through the multiplier effect. Governments

therefore need to actively engage in formulating such return migrant sensitive economic policies

that can ensure the most productive use of remittances as well as their development externalities

for long run growth.

P a g e | 25

f) Economic policies to support returnees

Economic factors that are associated with returnees include the fact that people who have lived

in other countries come back home with huge economic burdens. They require help to get back

to the local labor market, obtain loans for entrepreneurial purposes, cope with bureaucracy and

many other things. To this effect, there should be policies and favorable macroeconomic

environment that assist the returnees to exploit opportunities. A crucial starting point is

understanding returnees’ ability to generate income with the skills, knowledge, networks, and

assets that they obtained during their time abroad. A welcoming posture also helps to engage.

There are policies that could assist returnees in finding employment in industries relevant to their

qualifications. This entails simplified processes of assessment and recognition of foreign

credentials such as degrees, credentials and work experience. Governments could subsidize

salaries for a period so that firms can gamble with hiring the returnees. Publicizing jobs to

diaspora abroad, recruitment fair, and online talent source can guide returnees to appropriate job

vacancies. The idea of matching returnees with individuals in the local community in their field

of practice enables skills transfer to meet companies’ needs. Facilitating returnees to translate

their capacities benefits the economy.

As important as the above policies are the policies that support returnee entrepreneurship. To

encourage the returnees to startup businesses, the governments could possibly avail small

business grants, low interest loans as well as venture capitals. Importing equipment, inventory

and tools for manufacturing without paying duty reduces costs. There should have been easy

access to cheap, well-equipped production premises or industrial estates for returnee ventures.

Special ‘one-stop shop’ for business registration, licensing, permits and taxes are also provided to

P a g e | 26

assist returnees in dealing with complex bureaucracies. These enterprises create employment,

trade and come up with new products in the market.

Other worthy causes that would require support from the government include localized panels of

returnee entrepreneurs. These mentoring programs help potential business owners on how to

develop sustainable businesses; how to finance them and how to export. Offshore contacts,

cultural capital and language proficiency put returnees in a position to trade internationally. It

can therefore be concluded that with some targeted assistance, returnee entrepreneurs can

catalyze export-led economic growth.

Economic reintegration of returnees mobilizes significant potential for home countries. It does

require targeted policies to assist returnees to apply overseas experience. Providing funding for

suitable employments and enterprising along with the capacity building and bureaucratic support

enables returnees to drive prosperity. Thus, it is possible for governments to turn the economic

issues of returnees into the breakthrough moments by using the right policies.

4. SOCIAL AND CULTURAL REINTEGRATION

The social and cultural readjustment difficulties make returnees experience struggles in their

origin countries whenever they are back. These cultural attitudes, behaviors, values and ways of

life are subsequently applied when the returnees return to their home country making it difficult

for them to adjust to the new environment after living abroad for a very long time. For example,

those who move back to less developed countries and got used to better roads, electricity and

water supply, organized bureaucracy and transportation, etc., find themselves in a different

environment.

P a g e | 27

Apart from physical conditions, migrants have to get used to the social structure and standards of

behavior in the home communities after being exposed to the cultures of other nations. New role

expectations in relation to gender, family, manners, language and other unspoken social

relationships may also lead to reverse culture shock in some of the returning migrants. For

example, women migrants who became more empowered and independent in the receiving

country may have issues adapting to the authoritarian, male dominant families in the country of

origin. Child migrants or those who return as adults may find it hard to find their siblings who

have been left behind and have grown close as a result.

Within the psychological aspect or personal consequences, one can be read stranded, unhappy,

depressed or even experience other related psychological illnesses. At a wider societal level, it is

also capable of perpetuating social class divide between ‘successful’ returnees who have

migrated back in after gaining better economic status in the host country and the original

community who never had similar diasporic experience. It can also lead to worsening of income

disparities, conflict between classes, trends of people with education migrating in search of better

jobs, and disruption of traditional social bonds.

Hence, it is advisable that policymakers focus on building effective state structures, measures,

and assets to help returning migrants reintegrate into society and culture. This could include

social welfare, community projects, programs for reintegration into society, mental health

services, employment support, micro loan funds for small businesses and business incubators,

and local social networking to reconnect residents with returnees. A more people-centered

approach would also not only look at the economic benefits of return of migrants but also their

mental health as well as their reintegration into society after a tumultuous phase of transnational

displacement.

P a g e | 28

a) Readjustment to home society norms

Many migrants face the major issue of social and cultural transitions when they are adjusting to

the social and cultural realities of the home society after they have migrated to a new country.

When they come back after some time, they spend outside their home country they find

themselves in a new social structure which they feel is oppressive compared to the one outside

the country.

Gender norms and expectations of roles in the family serve as good examples. For example,

females who come back to countries with highly sexist societies after being exposed to more

liberal societies of the developed countries will always have problems readapting to societies

where women are almost confined to the kitchen and are subjugated by men. This “re-

traditionalization” can lead to conflicts in families as women seek to transform or reject norms

that defined their pre-migration lives. Male immigrants and refugees who come home after many

years in other countries also struggle with patriarchal scripts that award men for their ability to

provide and provide economically at that, thus, those who find work but cannot immediately

secure steady employment will be stressed.

In addition to family-oriented settings, returnees may experience social isolation while

interacting with friends and acquaintances formed before their departure. The process of

reintegration is complicated by the fact that the prisoners have to reconcile with the home culture

by adapting new political ideas, new habits, and new general outlooks on the world. This notion

of ‘living in a foreign country’ is due to the fact that the individuals grow into different selves

during their respective times overseas before experiencing the shock of coming home. New

friending or joining return migrant organizations assists in mitigating such isolation.

P a g e | 29

At a macro level, the sending country governments have a central role to play in sociocultural

reintegration processes. Lack of state support initiatives raises chances for disillusioned return,

when migrants face reintegration difficulties and fail to determine whether staying overseas

would have been more advantageous. These are important and effective economic and social

reintegration policies — although unfortunately often entirely missing in many large origin

countries. In sum, while the migratory experiences necessarily alter the returnees through skill

development and perspective-gaining, the struggles often experienced in re-entering the social

systems they once belonged to should not be overlooked.

b) Changes in family dynamics

Family structures are one of the most significant aspects of life that change during migration, and

returning migrants have to deal with this aspect most of the time. It becomes quite challenging

for migrants who left behind families, especially children and spouses, to adapt to being a parent

or a partner again as they are bound to miss most of the crucial developmental years of their

children or their partner. A child may feel that he or she barely knows a parent. Husbands or

wives who have been charged with the responsibility of managing the home may not be willing

to change their roles. Even those who came as families and friends may find relations tested – the

ordeal of adjusting to a new culture as a group does not automatically translate to easy

readjustment.

These interpersonal difficulties are based on changes in gender roles and expectations. Women

left behind equally benefit by acquiring financial power and the ability to make decisions within

the home should their husband come back. Some men may find themselves facing opposition as

they expect to go back to their former dominant role in the household. Conflict can also occur

when those who have lived in a more liberal country come home expecting to change their

P a g e | 30

families’ ways of doing things. Besides, relations within the nuclear families are not the only

ones affected; relations with other extended relatives and members of the community are also

dynamic in the course of the migration cycle as perceptions change.

From the policy point view, it will be important for the programs that helps migrants with social

reintegration to include family counseling and dialogue sessions within the communities. These

can assist in conflict solving and share the perception of how everybody felt during the time of

separation. Other measures to facilitate change include public education campaigns in migrant-

sending areas to prepare potential return Migrants to think about household changes. Another

group of children who may require support are children of returning migrants who may have

identity crises, and could possibly be victims of trauma. Schools can ensure that these children

receive counseling and community programs that make them feel powerful in their half-caste

worlds.

Finally, it is imperative to assert that, just as societies evolved in the period of mass labor

migration streams, families also changed on a deep ontological level within cycles of

transnational migration. Return migration is much more than the physical reunion of close ones,

but the process of rewinding the severed human relationships that diverged for some time due to

various circumstances. It requires the opposite of all parties and especially the families to

compromise, to be expressive of understanding and to communicate as they discover the

meaning of living together again after they went through all the struggles that they faced while

seeking better lives elsewhere.

P a g e | 31

c) Reverse culture shock

Social and cultural reintegration, including reverse culture shock, is a substantial yet still

unresearched phenomenon of migration. Explained as the individuals’ reintegration process into

their home culture after having been exposed to another culture for a long time, reverse culture

shock is a tricky phenomenon for those who expected to resume their lives and find familiar

faces and familiar ways of doing things.

Where classical migration theory had taken migration as permanent and one way, the

phenomenon of temporary and circular migration has highlighted the question of returnees.

Return is always painted in rosy terms as a joyful return home, but what is challenging is the fact

that culture change at home overwhelms the reverse culture shock that one experiences when at

home after being in another country. Lack of speech, lack of social norms with home society,

lack of support.

The emotional and psychological consequences of reversed culture shock affect migrants’

reintegration in the economic, social and civil spheres. As employers do not recognize foreign

qualifications and experiences, employment or dwelling becomes a challenge thus weakening

financial reintegration. The breakdown of social networks is hampered by a lack of contact with

the local culture and cues. Thus, disillusionment with home governance or social injustice leads

to cynicism as opposed to active citizenship.

While some of the returnees may use their experiences, capital, connections and perspectives

gained in the diaspora to transform societies and organizations, majority will need to be

supported with reintegration services. More studies should be carried out to guide policy action

on skill mobilization, psychosocial health, asset transfer, and enhancement of diaspora linkages.

Community programming can also aid returnees in validating each other’s altered perspectives

P a g e | 32

and balancing on two or more cultural contexts. Thus, return preparedness becomes another

essential factor that plays a significant part in the increase of temporary migration and, as a

result, influences positive reintegration outcomes. There is the chance for forward-looking policy

to transform the potential trauma of reverse culture shock into a triumphant return that reaffirms

returning migrants as drivers of development.

d) Social networks and capital

One of the biggest issues that face many migrant returnees is the social and cultural assimilation

into the societies in their home countries after having been away for several years. Another

critical determinant that may affect reintegration is the social networks and capital. Social

relations mean the connections, interactions, associations, bonds, and links existing among

people. Such may refer to relatives, friends, business associates, and relationships with

government or community personalities. Social capital therefore encompasses all the tangible

and intangible commodities that accrue from these networks; information, power, emotional

support, cash, opportunities, etc.

In the past, when people migrated from their native countries, many of them cut off relationships

with friends and families back home thus a weakening of social capital. When people come back

from working abroad for many years where they were able to establish new networks, they find

no networks to come back to. Coming back to one’s hometown/city or developing a new social

network is not always easy. Inability to tap into these networks means that the community gets

limited access to jobs, goods and services, political influence etc., thus affecting their ability to

integrate into the new culture and economy. Others may fail to find jobs or housing, lead lives of

poverty, suffer from social isolation, or feel so discouraged that they feel they should not have

gone home leading to cases of re-migration.

P a g e | 33

Another way that returnee integration could be fostered was by homeland governments or

community organizations ensuring that returnees are connected to necessary social networks

such as services, leaders, diaspora groups etc. through official programs. Policy solutions could

include business incubators to provide information, funding, and potential business partners for

the returnee entrepreneurs to assist them in their reintegration into the workforce. In the long run,

merely attending community or religious activities can gradually assist migrants in building new

relations and capital – but effective reintegration interventions can enhance this networking

potentiality and let the human capital accumulated in the host country contribute to home country

growth more rapidly. Finally, social networks and capital are significant sources of emotional and

economic support for return migrants during the most challenging phase of the cultural

transition. Ensuring returns have access to hometown social capital is therefore necessary for any

government keen on making repatriation a sustainable long-term reality.

e) Identity issues and belonging

Resident immigrants who go back to their home countries after years in other countries tend to

have challenges of identity crises on their return. After spending a long time within the context of

another country with different culture, norms, values and ways of living, most returnees feel out

of place and are unable to readjust comfortably. This could result into feelings of isolation,

becoming lost and confusion and identity issues. The return migrants feel like they don’t belong

to the culture they picked up while living in the foreign country, and at the same time, they feel

strangely out of place in their own culture back home.

Causes behind these identity issues and belongingness crises are quite diverse and may be rooted

in multiple aspects. Years spent in foreign countries influence one’s perceptions of the world and

oneself as well as ways of speaking, eating, listening to music, dressing, and choosing a life path.

P a g e | 34

The longer an individual is present in the host culture, the more the culture inculcates itself in

their developing personality. Efforts to just revert to their home country and culture as if they

were never away can be shocking and unsettling. The familiar is eerie; social cues once

instinctively grasped are now empty. Return migrants encounter difficulty in social reintegration

as they have little in common with friends who stayed behind and fail to fit in the local

community standards. Feelings of isolation and purposelessness overwhelm returnees as they are

pressured into living out roles that no longer suit them.

There is a need to acknowledge policy interventions to support social and cultural reintegration

for return migrants who undergo identity loss and fragile social relationships. These issues can be

addressed with counseling services, self-help groups and an assimilation training program to help

the returnees cope with the situation. Governments also require improved and more sophisticated

immigration policies that would consider the intricacies of returnee identity crises rather than

perceiving anyone who comes back as a completely different entity who is easily re-

institutionalized. Through empathy and research-backed initiatives to tackle identity crises and

regained belongingness, the usually devastating experiences that come with the return migration

can be lessened.

f) Generational differences in adaptation

Upon deciding to return to the countries after years or even decades of living in another country,

reintegration into social and cultural life is not easy, let alone in the same family with different

generations. Older returning migrant may be more resistant to change and thus may find it

difficult to embrace the cultural practices that prevailed while they were in the host country, on

the other hand, young generation who is born in the host country may be able to acculturate more

easily.

P a g e | 35

For instance, second generation migrant youths who have been educated in another country tends

to be proficient in their parents’ native tongue and culture. On their return, they quickly regain

their fluency in local languages and cultures, school and community interactions and values.

These first-generation immigrants, on the other hand, struggle more when it comes to letting go

of the cultural assumptions that they had internalized over years of living in a different society.

Their reintegration challenges worsen if return happens at a later age in life.

The second generational difference is that, economic opportunity seekers among the returnees in

the younger generation are more prepared to live in new cultural environments, interact and

interface with different people and society regeneration. In contrast, the returnees who carried

out strong diaspora identity emotionalizations of the homeland unwillingly relinquish hybrid life

styles, social intermingling beyond the diaspora circle, and giving back development equities

earned in the country of residence.

Such value differences may cause intergenerational family conflicts, particularly over which

cultural paradigms elders should inculcate in the descendants born in the overseas but were

raised or relocated in the formatively or pre-adult years. Selection pressures also are different, for

example young migrant is under pressure to integrate in the society to get job or house while the

old migrant does not feel the same pressure due to the fact that probably he or she is expected to

live less years.

Poli cybernetically, the governments interested in soften the returnee reintegration could focus on

the fact that the first-generation elderly immigrants are the vulnerable group who need to

overcome cultural re-dislocation by targeted services rather than family support. Likewise,

measures to advance economic opportunities and chances for the civically active younger

flexible returning cohort can boost national development. Care has to be taken though for

P a g e | 36

intrafamilial units with balance between adaptation pressures, cultural loyalty-conflict and

clashing socioeconomic realities upon return.

5. PSYCHOLOGICAL ASPECTS OF RETURN

From the psychology point of view, return migration is not a simple process and is characterized

by the existence of various aspects. Emotions and mental states of migrants who decide to go

back to their native countries after having stayed in foreign countries for years can be complex.

On the one hand, the decision to return is often driven by the wish to meet beloved ones, to get

closer to Afro-American culture, and to live till the end of their days in a country where the cost

of living is considerably lower. It can therefore carry a positive connotation and make people feel

warm, nostalgic, and excited about the idea of going ‘home’. But the process of moving and

adapting to the new environment also poses certain psychological problems. Thus, it is

significant to note that return migrants experience what is referred to as ‘re-entry shock’ in an

effort to reintegrate in the society. Time has inevitably altered them and they may feel estranged

from the country in which they were raised, or, there might be tensions because of the

relationships with people who remained in the country. The financial stress and anxieties can also

be seen in the psychological aspect, where most of the migrants come to terms with the fact that

their financial resources such as; savings, pension or assets earned in the foreign countries place

them lower standard of living back at home. In addition to financial issues, the returnees may

also suffer from identity crises and loss of rank or role upon coming back from their professional

positions abroad. In the worst-case scenario, some of the migrants suffer from such extensive

culture shock and loneliness that they get clinical depression or anxiety. For policy making, the

countries desiring skilled return migrants could incorporate provisions for psychological

counseling, peer support and other assimilation facilities to reduce some of the psychological

P a g e | 37

pressures that come with return migration. Due to this organizational failure in managing

expectations and realities all through the return process, returnees also require suitable pre-

departure training that will prepare them for the psychological aspects of such a life transition.

As much as the idea of returning ‘home’ may seem noble in theory, there is the need to provide

adequate care to the returnees to ensure that they reintegrate into society and enhance social

stability of countries hosting returnees. If psychosocial conditions are favorable, psychological

dimensions of return can be turned into strengths rather than threats of psychological suffering.

a) Mental health challenges

As the migration experience is associated with various mental health problems, the psychological

process of repatriation can be significantly influenced by them. Return migrants are known to go

through hardships such as identity crises, PTSD, depression, and anxiety upon their return.

Acculturation is a multifaceted process; the Social Self that people develop in the host country

should be integrated with the new sociocultural environment in the country of origin. This leads

to an identity crisis and culture shock. Problems in getting a job or obtaining work experience or

certification from another country can also contribute to psychological problems. The dream of

many returnees was to come back to a beautiful country and find that it is NOT what they

expected.

This social demotion or status loss that most returning migrants go through can trigger severe

mental disorders. Family members who financially remit money for others in the family from

other countries may feel a loss of purpose when they are no longer able to do so. Another type of

psychic pain is discrimination due to the stigma of having lived abroad for years. The

dismantling of social relations developed outside the country and the weakening of family bonds

through long-term separation further intensifies feelings of loneliness and isolation among

P a g e | 38

migrants. Those without viable social support are more challenged on their return and have

higher difficulties in their reintegration.

Something also depends also on the voluntariness of the return. This is particularly the case with

forced returns because of deportation, conflict or humanitarian crises which have been observed

to cause sharper dip in the mental health status of the affected individuals. Forced return

migrants have a higher prevalence of major depressive disorder among other disorders. It is

suggested that pre-migration trauma might combine with post-return difficulties and increase

psychiatric distress. In other words, those who come back after retirement overseas are generally

healthier and enjoy better re-employment prospects. Additional psychological resources are

required to address different categories of returnees with mental health issues because otherwise,

they are unable to re-integrate and be productive members of society. Stigma conscious testing

and support services that are appropriate for returnees may assist in making challenging

reintegration processes easier.

b) Coping strategies and resilience

Psychologically there are many difficulties that return migrants encounter as they seek to

reintegrate into their country of origin. When people move to another country, they are exposed

to new ways of doing things, facing new people and have to demold themselves into the society

when they see that things have changed when they go back to their home country. These

psychological pressures can affect the health and coping capacity of persons who choose to

return to their countries of origin. Managing the stress is therefore the next important step.

Some of the ways through which migrants psychologically manage to cope with challenges of

returning home include: mobilizing social support from other family members or friends who

P a g e | 39

also went through similar processes of social adjustments, engaging in cultural tourism activities

that reconnect migrants with cultural practices of their origin, praying or seeking spiritual

guidance especially when struggling with issues of ethnic identity or experiencing a sense of

crisis and seeking professional counseling services where available and when necessary.

Concerning the issue of migration, the protectable factors that can enhance ability to cope with

the stress and challenges that come with transition back include flexibility in the roles and

responsibilities particularly within the first years of migration, engaging in stress reduction

practices such as exercise and meditation and finally, utilizing any transferable skills that one

might have gained while in the foreign country or while in the migrant community to enhance

socio-economic status and security back in the country of origin.

In the context of migrant households, positive communication, interactions, and understanding

between the migrating and the non-migrating family members promote positive psychological

well-being and resilience at the family system level. In the social-cultural aspects, employment

opportunities secured through community and government support, social reintegration other

forms of support that embrace returning migrants, anti-discrimination activities and home-

coming celebrations all go a long way in demystifying the challenges of return and reducing

marginalization that heightens mental health issues.

Studies on coping, mental well-being, and psychological resilience indicate that although return

migration presents numerous psychological adversities, there are many psychological assets and

resources that are available and can be mobilized by migrants. If properly prepared, and with

prolonged exposure to biopsychosocial services that maintain functioning, returning migrants as

individuals and migrant households can indeed build the coping mechanisms to not only endure

but to ideally flourish upon repatriation.

P a g e | 40

c) Expectations vs. reality of return

Migrants who go back to their home countries are often shocked by this disjuncture between the

ideal situation they had envisioned and the conditions they encounter. Many a time, return

migrants come back with expectations of re- integration into their home society without many

hitches, with investment capital ready to invest in business ventures or for starting up lives and,

dreams of joyful reunion with families, friends and communities who will welcome them back as

successful adventurers. When people come back to their native countries, they dream about

themselves as superheroes who are going to bring money, work, and joy to everybody in their

hometowns. However, many fail to integrate into societies that have evolved forward and left

them behind. They get shocks from changed home ties or feel out of place by core cultural

transformations. They can have few opportunities of employment, experience investment

difficulties and lack realizations of ventures conceived overseas. Sociocultural transitions lead to

frustrations for failed relationships, lack of access to money earned while away to improve home

societies for successful personally rewarding careers.

The severe mental hardship that arises from broken dreams exposes returnees to negative

emotions such as depression, anger and bitterness. This psychological conflict can lead to

negative actions such as domestic abuse, inter-community conflicts, and scapegoating by

returnees who get a distorted picture of homecomings. Hostile feelings may also produce

remigration intentions and cyclical migration patterns that aggravate root economic issues. On

the other hand, managed expectations could help many of the returnees to assimilate into the new

culture and increase the probability of sustainable reintegration. Therefore, policies aimed at

addressing expected integration challenges before the prospective returnees go back to their

home countries could be of great help to their psychological well-being as well as their

P a g e | 41

reintegration. Counselling services and financial advice for returning migrants before and after

their return may also reduce psychological shocks due to unfulfilled expectations. In conclusion,

the precedented disparity between potential benefits of returning back home and real-life

experiences on the ground

Knowing the probable challenges of integration, the migrant is able to build up coping

mechanisms, social support, and realistic strategies that may assist their reentries. Expectation

management tools to fit the realities on the ground will be important for realizing returns

migration for development for individual, families and communities. With mentality shifts and

adequate adjustment assistance, returnees may reinvest human capital obtained overseas, start

businesses in home country, transfer skills to career opportunities in home country and support

households without subjecting them to psychological turmoil of unfulfilled dreams which may

lead to negative impact or compulsion to migrate again overseas. Therefore, policies that aim to

avoid painful gaps between expectations and realities can enhance the possibilities of successful

resettlement and capitalization of the resources return migrants bring to the home country.

d) Impact on children and families

The consequences of return migration on the psychological aspects of children and families are

numerous. He explained that children who grow up in foreign countries have difficulties in

adapting to a new country, which is their parents’ country of origin for them. They have problems

in acclimatization to schools that have different curricula and organizational cultures. They

experience a split identity since they are a part of two different cultures. These are some of the

challenges families face and they have to face them collectively. Learned from this case that

many migrant parents have high expectations when they return from overseas and they do not

consider the difficulties that their children have to face. It may be possible to find that their

P a g e | 42

parenting practices are incongruent with the homeland culture. For example, some migrant

parents allow children to be unsupervised and independent when they are in other countries.

Upon returning, they cannot recreate the community and are more likely to have conflicts with

family due to their differing values. Married partners can also have issues, develop marital

difficulties when they are reunited because they may have drifted apart due to the time they spent

apart.

As for social life, returnee children are more likely to have mental health problems such as

depression, anxiety, and low self-esteem. They also experience acculturative stress in an effort to

adapt to new customs, attitudes and norms in the homeland community. These problems are

likely to be compounded by experiences of marginalization and discrimination due to their

perceived ‘otherness’ where return migration is precipitated by deportation. Another challenging

experience that returnee families encounter is stigmatization and breakdown of social support

systems. Inability to exchange educational or professional credentials also leads to downward

social mobility, a situation that causes psychological stress. These stressors increase vulnerability

to domestic violence and child abuse. Social support is one of the key protective factors, but

often, these resources are not available, or are out of reach. To address the re-acculturation

demands that affect vulnerable families of returnees, there is a need for appropriate counseling

and community integration services. Therefore, when the proactive policies related to social

protection and mental health of the individuals are in place, the disruption of return migration

can pave way for new opportunities.

e) Counseling and support services

Accordingly, returning migrants experience many psychological problems that Counseling and

other support services can assist. The present study reveals that most of the migrants develop

P a g e | 43

unrealistic expectations about return that make adjustment a complicated affair. It is important to

offer advice regarding realistic expectations regarding employment, relationships, and lifestyle

before going back to prevent problems in the future. On return, other services such as career

counselling can help immigrant job seekers who are challenged with matching their acquired

skills from the host country. The use of the existing remittances or pensions can be advised on by

financial advisors in order to promote sustainable reintegration.

Interpersonal counseling is also important when relationships with family members have altered

due to time spent apart. They get isolated from their friends back home or relatives expect them

to change after returning home after living in a foreign country. Counselors encourage free flow

of communication and assist in establishing realistic expectations with those involved. Group

therapy entails the reunification of returnees with similar integration challenges, thus enhancing

their interactions. Counseling is important in ensuring that migrants who experience culture

shock find a way of mourning for the life that was left behind as well as finding ways of coping

with the new norms that exist back at home.

Support should be provided to returning groups, especially those who are most endangered.

Migrants who have been trafficked require facilitators to link them with legal, housing,

healthcare and employment services after being repatriated. After conflict, this counseling

focuses on appropriate management in cases of trauma while determining the security and

protection requirements. Older returnees require geriatric care referral to receive pensions in

other countries and age-appropriate services in their countries of return. For all these groups,

anti-stigma mental health outreach calls for availing counseling to address the re-acculturation

stressors.

P a g e | 44

Some of the issues include access and affordability, but policy actions indicate that returns

counseling is gaining importance. Pre-departure orientation prepares migrants with psychosocial

assets to alleviate their vulnerability and isolation when they get home. Referral is the process by

which diaspora organizations and community mental health systems collaborate. Counseling

claims can be submitted under bilateral social security agreements across two countries.

However, the most successful approaches occur at the community level, where counselors are

aware of returning refugees’, contextual factors influencing their emotional well-being.

Conclusively, considering policies that enhance the reintegration of migrants puts emphasis on

the importance of counseling concerning the assistance required by the returnees in order to

succeed in their home countries.

f) Long-term psychological outcomes

In the context of return migration, the psychological factors involved are numerous and can be

described as intricate. After having lived in the host country for some time, migrants may decide

to come back to their home country, the process goes through a reintegration process that has

long term psychological consequences. One of the significant areas of influence relates to the

psychological dimension of migrants and the issues of identity and social inclusion. More time

spent in the foreign culture and society entails that these students feel they no longer fit into their

own country or the country they came from, but do not quite comprise the new country either.

This can result in experiences of exclusion, loneliness, or stigmatization. In a similar vein, it is

not uncommon for migrants to face a change in their cultural orientation and values after

exposure to different cultures of the world. One of the problems is the clash between accepting

new universal cultural values and maintaining their specific cultural selves.

P a g e | 45

Interpersonally, there may be conflicts with the family and friends because after sometimes of

separation people realize that they do not have anything in common. Some may have outgrown

friends and cannot relate to them as before after migration, or the love they found abroad could

conflict with the family or marriage norms back home. Enduring those relational disruptions

requires considerable psychological change. At a community level, return migrants may

experience prejudice, labeling or rejection by fellow nationals because of their exposure or new

behavior while in the foreign country. Psychological distress is higher when one is rejected by

his or her own people. The effects of differential treatment in access to resources can also impact

an individual psychologically.

The economic domain continues influencing psychological results within returnees as well. Most

people find it difficult to meet financial expectations of themselves, their families, and other

social groups after they have either lived or earned higher income in another country. Failure to

meet economic needs after remigration may cause shame, grief, anxiety, or depression. Other

structural factors that have been found to lead to frustration include the inability to apply foreign

credentials or skills within the country. In the same way, return migrants with more financial

capital and opportunities may encounter change stressors pertaining to privilege or guilt when

they return to a community that continues to experience poverty.

In other words, people go through countless changes in terms of personal identity, relationships,

skills, and so on, while migrating and remigrating. The continued bargaining for these changes

during the process of reintegration when one is repatriated back to his or her country of origin

has profound psychological implications in the long run. This more complex understanding of

the personal, interpersonal, and structural impacts of return migration undoubtedly forms a

significant area of focus within return migration debates.

P a g e | 46

6. POLICY FRAMEWORKS FOR RETURN MIGRATION

Homing as described by the movement of immigrants back to their native countries for either

temporary visits or permanent stay entails many policy implications that need to be understood

by governments and institutions. Appropriate policies to govern and harness return migration can

create value not only for the migrants and the host and home countries. Among the issues that

should be reflected in policy frameworks are the promotion of temporary circular migration,

investment in remittances, reintegration of migrants, brain circulation networks, and

entrepreneurship.

Promoting circular migration enables the migrants who wish to spend half of the time in the host

and origin countries to avoid assimilation in the foreign countries but continue to contribute

through the circulation of brain resources Multiple-entry visa, considerations for dual citizenship,

and the flexible system of residency reduce barriers. The diaspora bonds, programs of the

hometown associations, and strategic alliances with remittance service providers are some of the

remittance investments that play the role of kick-starting development of infrastructure or

expansion of housing, education, or health sectors in the origin communities. Employment

support: Returnees are offered tax credits, entrepreneurial grant, recognition of qualifications,

and up-skilling/reskilling training to meet their economic and social reintegration needs.

Organizations providing professional links between diaspora abroad and home country

counterparts facilitate ‘brain circulation’ to enhance circular mobility of knowledge.

Entrepreneurship policies that support startups or innovation networks enable returnee migrants

from diverse countries to utilize their skills and global perspectives for local development.

Thus, a competent RM policy agenda ought to address various objectives and interests in the

labor market demand, preferred patterns of return and migration, development and reintegration

P a g e | 47

goals. However, the rising profile of return migration in the global context means that getting

policy right could yield major returns. Of course, preventing problematically high migration in

the first instance by means of better governance, opportunity expansion, conflict avoidance and

climate change adaptation at origin should, of course, be the necessary prerequisite as well.

a) International agreements on return and readmission

Return and readmission agreements represent one of the primary foreign policies that countries

use to enable and regulate the returns. These binding bilateral or multilateral agreements define

the terms of cooperation between countries, mainly in terms of readmission of own citizens

having no legal right to stay in the territory of the receiving state. Re-admission regulation

describe the processes and coordination mechanisms to enable the countries to recognize and

deport those not having a legal permit to stay. Besides making return arrangements more

institutionalized, these agreements are intended to avoid secondary movement where rejected

asylum seekers or any other people who have entered irregularly try to move to other countries.

Today, there are over 700 readmission agreements worldwide, making a dense patchwork of

returns agreements as governments strive to achieve legal certainty and efficient administration

of returns. The European Union has been active in driving this international framework through

the inclusion of standard readmission clauses in partnership and cooperation agreements with

countries of origin of migrants. Sanctioning systems inherent in these EU partnerships compel

reluctant partners with potential issues on the sustainable reintegration of the returnees to adhere

to set agreements. There are also similar multilateral mechanisms for member states to repatriate

the aliens to their route or countries of origins across South America, Africa and South East Asia.

P a g e | 48

Essentially, international readmission system is built on the readiness and ability of the

signatories to work constructively on the political hot potato issues of return and integration and

border security. As a result, there has been a tendency for the goals of the agreements to be set at

much higher levels than what can be implemented on the ground. Nonetheless, in providing

opportunities for organized and humane return policies for migrants, the formal readmission

agreements can enhance the bilateral cooperation between the states as they equally pursue the

control of temporary labor mobility and the irregular immigration in the context of marked

power inequality. As return ratios enhance which are well received by electorates in destination

countries, cultivation of effective international partnerships on readmission becomes increasingly

relevant in the international cooperation even as populist anti-immigrant sentiments rise across

developed states.

b) National return migration policies

Recent years have witnessed that national governments have employed a number of policy

measures aimed at return migrants. These national return migration policies are meant to

promote, enhance and provide assistance to the return and reintegration of emigrants to their

home countries. Some of these policies are to bring domestic labor shortage skilled workers who

have moved to other countries back home, mobilize financial capital, technology and knowledge,

encourage the returnees to venture into business and lastly to maximize on the opportunities of

return migration for the development of the country. Policy measures applied across countries

include legal safeguards and rights of returned migrants, tax reliefs on imported personal effects,

tools of business, cars, access to Kick-start capital, affordable credit and return entrepreneur

funds, transferability of social security benefits across borders, facilitation by government

agencies and speeded up immigration procedures, housing support, employment services,

P a g e | 49

recognition of qualifications earned abroad, counselling services, psycho-social support, career

development programs for students returned after higher studies

As with return migration policies, there remains uncertainty in policy possibilities, including

policy formulation, inter- and intra-organizational cooperation between ministries and

departments, and policy execution and outcome assessment over time. There are also theoretical

controversies as to whether there is the need for specific return migration policies or if it is better

to integrate provision for the returnees into mainstream general labor market, immigration, social

welfare, development and other policies. Other access barriers that affect some return migrant

groups, especially those who are forced to return from other countries after their immigration

attempts failed, also require specific assistance policies. The politics of return migration also

influence national policies for example some members of a given diaspora feel jealous of

preferential treatment offered to co-nationals who returned home as immigrants. Finally, return

migration policy discourses involve diverse arguments in support of state national interest, the

rights and needs of return migrants or both. In the future, to optimize and sustainably make the

best of return migration, these multiple policy goals have to be managed.

c) Reintegration assistance programs

Reintegration assistance programs are critical features of policies aiming at promoting

sustainable return migration. Since Migrants Homecoming experience numerous economic,

social and psychological problems when they return and settle in their countries of origin after a

long time, reintegration programs can be of immense assistance. These are the services offered to

the clients; for instance, training and vocational education, credit facilities, employment services,

advice and information, civil and legal rights and recognition of learning and foreign

qualifications. For instance, the International Organization for Migration runs community

P a g e | 50

assistance programs in several countries that are primarily delivered through referrals, support

groups as well as job fairs that help link returnees to employers in the local markets. It is also

important to note that countries of origin can work with destination countries in organizing pre-

departure reintegration programs as seen between Japan and Brazil informing returnees about

prospects at home as they still are in the destination countries. Exploiting these key motivations,

decisions and risks unique to return migrants may be significantly different from those among

other populations is crucial for effective programming. Those who come back against their will –

because of deportation, job loss or expiration of visa, achieving the desired savings level, or

deterioration of health – may have more pressing and real-life questions related to shelter,

papers, medical requirements and work. On the other hand, those returning more voluntarily for

family, patriotism, business, language and culture, quality of life or retirement may require help

with post migration social reintegration concerning property, pension, belonging and status.

Again, gender, ethnicity, age, social class, duration of stay, qualification, family status, disability,

sexual orientation, internal migrant status, and reason for initially emigrating result in diverse

reintegration support requirements. Reintegration policy must also weigh sustainability, meaning,

coordinated capabilities across sectors: i.e., physical infrastructure, economic development, and

sound legal-institutional systems in the target countries. Programming viewed still in solely the

manner of infusing aid thereby entrenching dependency; sound policy enables the returning

migrants to leverage on the experience to enhance the positive changes in the ladder of

socioeconomic mobility were they to ascend.

d) Circular migration policies

Circular migration policies are those that seek to allow the mobility of the people within the

country of origin and the country of destination contrary to the permanent relocation to the

P a g e | 51

foreign country. With continued rise in return migration around the world, there has been a rise in

the focus by policymakers on circular migration schemes where migrant workers can work in

other countries before returning home. When individuals move back, properly developed circular

migration policies can allow countries of origin to benefit from transfers of skills and financial

capital and they also benefit from being able to meet labor market demands without having to

make permanent changes to the population.

There is a variety of policies that can promote circular migration rather than a permanent

settlement of the worker, such as some categories of visas for temporary contractual work,

bilateral/international arrangements on transfer of social security benefits, and retraining and

skills development programs for the migrants upon their return. Bilateral labor arrangements are

crucial here in ensuring circular migration through setting the hiring mechanisms, work

entitlements, and reintegration support. For example, the Philippines has entered into

memorandums with some of the Middle East and East Asian countries to ensure the orderly

deployment of Filipino workers to meet demand in labor market. Employees can migrate without

losing their rights and benefits.

To the origin countries, circular migration offers socioeconomic benefits in terms of remittance,

capital, technology, and human capital as those migrants return home in the end. Returnees

contribute improved human capital that also alleviates the ‘brain drain’ of skilled workers

through permanent migration. Cultural tensions, which are characteristic of a long stay of

immigrants, are also not a concern for destinations. At the same time, employers still acquire the

necessary work force without extra expenses of providing benefits and supporting families. As

such, when properly managed, circular migration therefore turns return migration into a win-win

situation for all parties.

P a g e | 52

However, design of effective policies has been a complex issue. Fears over temporary migrant

worker abuse and absence of safeguards during their time in other countries represent challenges.

Prolonged and complicated administrative measures that surround circular migration routes deter

employers in search of labor and migrants who are not prepared to deal with such formalities.

However, permanent settlement remains a common choice among migrants and especially if the

initial wages and living conditions in the foreign country are higher than in the home country.

However, given the potential for a triple win, it is expected that policies relating to circular

migration will remain a work in progress based on these factors.

e) Dual citizenship and political rights

The real migrants are those who return to their countries of origin after having lived in their host

countries long enough to have been naturalized, hence making them dual citizens. This has a

very important consequence in respect to the political rights of these individuals in their

countries of origin as well as in their countries of return. A survey conducted among the origin

countries reveals that there are differing perceptions towards this issue of dual citizenship for the

return migrants. Some are open, which enable returnees to retain their dual citizenship and the

related privileges such as voting or owning property in the home country. This enables migrants

to be reintegrated and maintain their connection with the country in case of repetitious or circular

migration. Some other countries do not allow dual citizenship at all. Upon return, returnees

might have to surrender the adopted nationalities, thereby restricting their future rights and

freedom of movement.

From a policy point of view, the voting rights of return migrants with dual citizenship has been

associated with enhanced remittances, investment, skills and diaspora participation in home

countries. Organizing voting for dual citizens outside the country is useful for maintaining the

P a g e | 53

active citizenship of people who moved away from their countries. However, some of the critics

claim that external voting is unconstitutional and leads to excessive influence of the international

community in internal affairs. Some studies also show that those who go back home with

citizenship from highly developed democracies have higher political expectations and activities

upon their readjustment. This can help to bring about sociopolitical transformation but at the

same time destabilize power relations concerning returnees in homesteads.

The frameworks permitting dual citizenship for return migrants entail complicated balancing

between the gain of connective advantage and intrusion of exterior influence. These factors

should be balanced depending on the situation in individual origin countries when establishing

nationwide policies. However, it should be more careful to ensure consistency between the

inbound citizenship regulations and the political rights for dual national returnees. Ensuring that

the voting rights of citizens are not going to be restricted helps to promote the more sustainable

reintegration rather than relapse due to vulnerable rights in other countries.

f) Coordination between origin and destination countries

The policy regimes to support return migration constitute a complex process that requires

extensive cooperation between origin and destination countries. The origin countries on the other

hand require support in helping the migrants to reintegrate economically and socially into the

society while the destination countries wish to have the returns to fit some of their domestic

policy goals and it is therefore important that communication and collaboration is fostered

between different governments.

One of the fundamental areas that need the combined effort of the two institutions is in skills

matching and recognition. Destination countries have useful information about new skills that

P a g e | 54

migrants have acquired, information that could be of benefit in ensuring that the origin state

matches its returnees with suitable employment opportunities. Legalization of credential

appraisal and employment facilitation can help to guarantee that returning migrants can leverage

their potential. Destination governments can provide more specific evaluations of the demand for

migrants’ skills and experiences before return; origin countries can help place returnees in similar

positions or training programs that address documented shortages of documented workers.

It also facilitates exchange of information on prospective volumes and profiles of returnees

which in turn assists origin countries to prepare for recipients. If there is sufficient advance

notice of the types of skills anticipated and quantity, sufficient economic EC and social services

can be marshalled. Shared information also allows for the simultaneous observation of migration

routes to determine the possibility of orderly return aid.

Last but not least, coordinating reintegration funding assistance promotes efficiency in the

distribution of resources between destination and origin states. The countries of origin that are

the primary beneficiaries of managed returns may contribute financial resources to the

diplomatic counterpart for sponsoring of essential economic and social programs. Contribution

matching schemes may apportion the costs effectively to ensure the proper integration of

returnees into their home country economies and avoid the need for subsequent remigration.

Structural aid and trade benefits for origin states that bear the reintegration burden may also

encourage continued program commitment. Thus, coordinated co-financing is beneficial when

there are numerous funding priorities as it allows for the best transnational budget distribution.

It is crucial to enhance bilateral relations as well as communication and data exchange systems

and change economic policies by designing policy cooperation with an emphasis on the

reintegration of migrants into the countries of origin. The process of return migration is highly

P a g e | 55

intricate and requires cooperation between the destination and origin state across all phases of

planning.

7. DEVELOPMENT IMPACT OF RETURN MIGRATION

Return migration can also significantly affect development in the source countries of the

migrants. Migrants take with them from the host country new skills, knowledge, financial

capabilities and social capital, and they bring it back home to their country. This human and

financial capital can in many ways enhance growth if well utilized. For instance, returnees may

engage in entrepreneurship and establish business ventures that results to employment creation,

paying taxes and encouraging innovations. The research done on Tunisian returnee entrepreneurs

showed that they possess better technical skills and management experiences acquired from

overseas that made their venture more efficient. Likewise, in Afghanistan, returnee entrepreneurs

formed firms that were primarily information technology based recruiting skills developed

internationally. Except for business venturing, migrants can also contribute to development

through social remittance which refers to the diffusion of ideas, knowledge, skills, values and

practices from the host country to the home country. During their stays abroad, migrants gain

diverse forms of knowledge about themselves and the world – health, education, technology, and

governance, to name a few. In addition, new cultural norms and systems that the migrants

encounter influences their attitude and behavior. On their return, migrants bring this human

capital back to their home communities in the form of new and productive agricultural practices,

advocating for girl child education, embracing democracy, and so on. They may also give back

through undertaking activities such as free medical missions or civic projects for people.

However, there are certain limitations to their ability to contribute to development; they may

even face difficulties in the process of rebuilding their lives after returning home, such as

P a g e | 56

reintegration or finding sufficient and proper jobs. Therefore, policy has a significant part to play.

Governments and international organizations can coordinate reintegration programs that will

enable returnees to start their own businesses and obtain recognition of their educational

credentials; facilitate the exchange of know-how and mobilize financial capital for productive

purposes. Other policies that help to facilitate finance, training, property rights, bureaucracy, and

social security are crucial to support returnees. With regard to returnee needs, if policies are

designed in an integrated manner they can enhance the development effects of migrant skills,

capital and worldview.

a) Knowledge and skill transfer

While living and working in the host country, returnees acquire new skills, ideas, and financial

capital that can positively impact their home country’s development. Return migrants also bring

other forms of human capital acquired in the foreign countries such as technical skills in STEM

fields, managerial and entrepreneurial skills to venture into business activities and a broader

professional services perspective. This brings in new skills across occupations and industries

necessary for the introduction of new technologies and practices which are crucial for

productivity development in the emerging markets. For example, returnees have engaged in new

approaches to farming or established new production facilities to assist firms in the community

to produce better-quality products at a faster rate. This is because most developing countries are

experiencing scarcity of health professionals, and nurse and doctor returnees are bringing back

better medical knowledge they obtained in some of the best world-class hospitals globally which

they can pass to the next generation as well as more patient-oriented approaches that would help

improve care delivery. Returnees contribute positively to the economy by providing scarce

P a g e | 57

technical skills and expertise across all sectors, thus contributing to structural development aside

from merely increasing output.

However, the level and type of knowledge transfers, as well as their impact on development,

depend on the stock of human capital of the returnees upon their arrival and the complementary

inputs and reforms in the origin economy. Thus, if those return migrants possess low skills with

limited exposure or if they encounter conditions where they are unable to apply their enhanced

knowledge due to lack of finance, equipment, institutional hurdles etc., the prospects of valuable

K knowledge spillovers from return remains unrealized. In the following sections, policy is seen

as playing a significant part. In the context of return migration, possible measures include

returnee skill mapping, business incubation support, better credit terms for start-up financing,

recognition of foreign qualifications, and access to professional networks to counter information

failures. Even though the development and economic growth impact of knowledge flows

accruing to return migrants might be immeasurable, in the medium to long run, such transfers are

likely to be crucial for the structural transformation that fosters productivity in developing

countries.

b) Entrepreneurship and job creation

Ideally, return migrants invest their acquired skills, financial capital, human capital and social

capital for business ventures upon returning back home. This in turn has been seen to create

employment and economic growth in their home countries as well. According to the global

survey conducted in 2018, 44% of returnees to Afghanistan engaged in self-employment,

especially in construction, trade, and transportation industries. Likewise, migration academic

studies conducted in 2021 suggested that 50-70% of the Moroccan and Tunisian return migrants

engage in business by establishing small businesses. The funds invested by returnee

P a g e | 58

entrepreneurs enhance the output levels in the home economies. For instance, a study

commissioned by the World Bank for Southern and Eastern Europe found that return migrant

investment had boosted firm performance significantly. Besides offering employment directly in

their own businesses, returnee entrepreneurs generate demand and additional employment in

other businesses through forward and backward linkages. When returnees start their companies,

they provide jobs to local people, get services from local suppliers and also their products

become available to more people in the local population. For instance, a 2020 study that was

conducted on the employment effect of FDI in the manufacturing sector of Ethiopia pointed out

that every new FDI job in the foreign-owned firms generated approximately 1. 7 new jobs in the

local economy. Such multiplier effects imply that returnees’ entrepreneurial activities have broad

employment repercussions. What has been acquired by returnees during their employment in

foreign countries may also help in the technology transfer and technology improvement of

domestic firms. A cross-sectional survey conducted in 2012 revealed that skilled returnees had

brought in new production technologies learnt in the developed countries to the garment

manufacturing sector in Ghana. Such productivity advancements help local firms to become

more competitive and access export markets further enhancing creation and growth of jobs.

Therefore, returnee entrepreneurship contributes to economic progress through the roles of

capital stock, production network connections, and technological dissemination. However, there

are challenges such as difficult business environments, poor access to finance and lack of social

capital in home countries which limit the capabilities of returnees to achieve their entrepreneurial

visions. Therefore, to achieve optimum development impact, it is crucial that a policy agenda

must be geared towards enhancing the ease of doing business, access to credit and linking the

returnee investors with appropriate government officials. In conclusion, return migrant

P a g e | 59

entrepreneurship is a positive phenomenon but there is still potential to do more to support them

and their ability to create jobs and, for this reason, intervention by policy makers would be

helpful.

c) Social remittances and cultural exchange

Those who go back to their home countries after spending some years in other countries are very

much aware of different social standards, behaviors, selves, and concepts. These migrants take

back what scholars have described as social remittances, which entail skills, knowledge, ideas,

behaviors, identities and social practices that circulate from the receiving to the sending

societies. Return migrants encourage the flow of culture through better human capital resulting

from overseas working experience and through links with the members of their transnational

networks. Such an exchange alters social relations, subjectivities and cultural tastes in the

migrants’ home societies. For instance, the returnees’ understanding of social practices in the

democratic nations or the gender conventions in the host nations may slowly seep into the social

systems back in the home countries. Spending time abroad may also help to change returnees’

attitudes regarding certain issues within the country, such as children’s education or women’s

rights. Such people are actually ‘agents’ of change, bearers of new knowledge when they return

to their home communities. They represent the cosmopolitan attitudes that conflict with

traditions or lifestyles. In the long term, the social circulation of ideas and practices as well as

biannual mobility and communication patterns that link migrant populations to their origin

cultures can dramatically alter the sending communities’ values and behaviors. This transfer of

social remittances may help development by altering perceptions or refashioning portions of the

origin cultures. Nonetheless, it is also important to note that social remittances might cause a

breakdown of traditional orders and values or instigate social conflict between the returned

P a g e | 60

migrant and the non-migrant. Further studies are necessary to capture these cultural exchange

dynamics and develop policies based on the socio-cultural positive of return migration while

avoiding negative externalities of importing foreign ways of thinking in the emigration country.

In sum, positioning return migrants as carriers of new ideas and identities captures the multiple

ways in which return migration is developmentally resourceful – beyond the simple economic

remittances and human capital they bring back home, but also as vehicles of bilateral and

generational cultural and social transformations.

d) Impact on rural development

The effect of return migration in influencing rural development is complex in nature. If migrants

go back to their home communities with skills, financial resources and perceptions of the wider

world, then significant social and economic change is possible. They reinvest their savings into

the business ventures such as business entities, buildings, farm implements or other assets that

create employment in the region. Research conducted in rural China showed that return migrant

households possessed 00 of assets more and earned 12 percent more than non-migrant

households. Besides contributing to the remittance money, the returnees also help in transferring

knowledge and technology back to their homeland. For example, the New Zealand returnees

from Tonga brought with them new varietals of fruit trees and technological changes in animal

husbandry. In Moldova, the returning migrants were able to use skills in farm management,

customer services, and marketing to develop wine and eco-tourism businesses.

However, the positive changes pinned on development differ with the gender of the beneficiaries.

A study conducted in India shows that male returnees without restrictions from culturally

imposed patriarchy regain employment in rural employment markets or become employers.

Women experience higher barriers when it comes to credit, agricultural services, input and output

P a g e | 61

markets information. They still heavily depend on the conventional source of income such as

farming for sustenance. This observation implies that when there is no support from the

government, families in rural areas cannot benefit optimally from returnees’ new human capital.

Consequently, governments should offer special programs for supporting women returnee

entrepreneurs and increasing women’s engagement in the agribusiness value chain.

On the macro-level, return migration can also affect shifts in consumption patterns and the

development of a rural middle class. From overseas, returnees introduce urban tastes and

lifestyles, which change the rural demand structure. Research evidence indicate increased

spending on consumer electronics, packaged foods, restaurant meals, private transport among the

migrant households. That is why they build retail facilities, entertainment centers and tourism-

related facilities in response to demand for lifestyle goods. This multiplier effect extends the

economic impact of remittances. Critics however argue that return migrant consumptions drive

further development of an exclusive elite economy that does not empower the poorer segments.

This has also led to increased conversion of agricultural land into commercial use and residential

areas especially in secondary towns and villages due to returnees which is posing some

sustainability challenges.

e) Gender dimensions of return and development

Gender aspects of return migration and its relation to development are therefore diverse and can

in fact encompass a wide range of factors. Available literature suggests that while women and

men engage in migration for various reasons and purposes, they also experience different

outcomes and challenges when they return home. Female migration is often due to family related

issues while male migration is more for career and economic prospects. Therefore, women

returning migrants could find it harder to reintegrate if their migration was based on a spouse or

P a g e | 62

some family members who are still in the host country. If coming back alone, they could be

faced with issues of loneliness or stigmatization. Other factors include the origin country’s

patriarchal social norms that hinder women returnees from accessing resources, services and

leadership opportunities that can foster development.

But women returning migrants also have potential to contribute towards development in a special

way. Research has revealed that they contribute home more remittances and spend more in

health, education and small businesses that impact on families and societies. This migration

experience mostly assists women in acquiring skills, ideas, resources and networks. On their

return, this can prepare them to start social enterprises, share skills and knowledge, or become

leaders and mentors to champion change and development. Efforts that are made in policy to

support these women through provisions of financial capital, human capital and social capital can

enhance these positive development effects.

Sociocultural adjustments are easier for men returning migrants than economic adjustments

especially if the migrant’s migration stint was short or intermittent. They move in search of

employment which makes them vulnerable especially when the jobs or visas in the foreign

nations are cut. Back to imperfect job markets and weak social security, their monetary, skill and

credential capital may depreciate rapidly. Engaging the men to access the labor market, skills

match and business on return could enhance their effectiveness in spurring up development

through investment, employment generation and skills transfer. Here also, there is need for

gender sensitive assistance in order for men to support their families and the societies.

In the last analysis, it is possible to argue that migration, return and development are highly

interconnected in terms of gender both from the economic, social and cultural perspectives.

Interventions in policy need to be directed to the enhancement of resource mobilization and

P a g e | 63

wellbeing of both women and men involved in migration throughout the migration process so as

to have sustainable and equitable development impacts. Empowering returnees to achieve their

full potential empowers not only households but also communities through enterprise creation,

poverty eradication, knowledge dissemination, innovation, technology transfer and human

capital development. Within that lies the potential of return migration as a development

intervention if it is deployed strategically and with people at heart.

f) Measuring the development impact of return

Evaluating the development impact of return migrants can be difficult, but it is necessary to get

right, these impacts range from the economic, social, political and cultural aspects.

Economically, the repatriated individuals may reinvest the remittance savings into enterprises

that create employment, promote innovation and circulate capital within the economy. Measuring

such impact involves tracking factors such as the number of new businesses, number of people

employed, wages paid to employees and source of investment. However, there are a number of

pitfalls associated with the use of FDI for development and these include the fact that a country

cannot reap the benefits of FDI without supporting investments in health, education,

infrastructure and institutions. Returnees can also provide solutions for shortage of labor in

necessary fields such as health care and education. Surveys of return migrant occupations assist

in valuing such social inputs. Politically, returnees may promote policies that were observed in

other countries with improved governance, participation, rights and freedoms. This form of

social remittances is useful for the long-term development and is hard to systematically count

beyond monitoring cases of returned migrant occupying political position and it is also very

important to note that return migrants also contribute to cultural change by keeping in touch with

their host countries, bringing in new cultural practices, attitudes, and broadening the perspectives

P a g e | 64

of their native societies. Annual cross-sectional surveys gauging return migrant investment,

occupation, political participation, and transnational linkages provide such data to assess

temporal changes in such development outcomes. Longitudinal data can also evaluate differences

in development effects with regards to gender, educational attainment, country of residence

overseas, and duration of time abroad. There is still no universally acceptable framework to

measure development contribution in terms of economic, social, political and cultural

development. The qualitative and ethnographic approaches must be taken to the next level. In the

last place, all the quantitative assessments and policy interventions must flow from the returned

migrants’ lens to foster responsible and moral development as opposed to the top-down

imagination.

8. CHALLENGES OF FORCED RETURN AND DEPORTATION

Forced return and deportation are among the greatest hurdles that migrants and their families

face, as well as policymakers. The primary reason for forced returns is to limit the number of

migrants which political leaders argue is vital for national security, public safety or protection of

the domestic labor market. But few of these policies take into account the problems that

deportees encounter upon their arrival back home. First, deportees experience an economic

vulnerability because they may lack resources, employment, or contacts in the country they have

been deported to after living in another country for years leading to increased resentment and in

turn more cases of irregular migration. Thirdly, on returning to their home country, these

migrants may be socially ostracized or discriminated against as they are regarded as criminals or

strangers in their own land. Thus, family separation due to deportation also brings about

significant levels of psychological trauma and long-term suffering. Children, who were left

behind, need to survive foster care, and deported parents face challenges with their relationships.

P a g e | 65

However, health problems compound these challenges since deportees with prior health

complications cannot access treatment on their return. Other problems include housing instability

and homelessness.

From a policy standpoint, there is limited collaboration between origin and destination countries

while there is need for better cooperation to facilitate safer and sustainable return. The

destination countries spend a lot of money on immigration enforcement while the amount of

money spent on reintegration assistance in the origin countries is insignificant. The destination

countries need to evolve toward providing migrants the opportunity to arrange their affairs before

being removed unlike the rushed expulsion. After deportation, counseling services as well as

temporary shelters should be provided for deportees. On the other hand, origin countries should

ensure that these forced migrants have the necessary economic opportunities and social

entitlements after their return; and that they are safeguarded from any forms of abuse and could

also be useful to adopt bilateral labor migration agreements that envisage circular migration

options to help avoid forced returns turning into permanent ones. In conclusion, using voluntary

return and reintegration where ever possible and restricting the practice of forced deportations to

the worst of cases will complement enforcement goals with the consideration of the interests of

the migrants. Forced return therefore leads to long-term vulnerability that fuels the migration

cycle unless there are radical changes to the multifaceted issues deportees encounter in migration

management. Ensuring child-friendly return processes, strengthening the safeguarding of

populations at risk, and aligning return policy with development and reintegration frameworks

are critical foundational measures to address the multifaceted harm of forced return.

P a g e | 66

a) Human rights concerns in forced return

Some of the most significant issues arising from forced return and deportation of migrants and

asylum seekers are human rights issues that involve the possibility of the returnees being

exposed to political persecution or discrimination or encountering dangers upon their

deportation. That forced return and deportation is forced against the will of the asylum seekers

means it inherently violates their rights to safety, dignity and freedom of movement.

Furthermore, lack of screening and due process in deportation in some countries implies that

returnees may be deported to countries where they are at real risks of facing violent acts or

discrimination, imprisonment or death. Vague or severe anti-immigration laws can force

governments to repatriate people to unsafe nations such as Afghanistan, Iraq, or Syria, where

returned immigrants are likely to face human rights abuses. Often, there is a lack of time and

efforts and limited resources to provide proper attention to the details of each asylum seeker’s

cases, histories, and dangers of deportation. The expulsions that are normally entailed by such

laws are normally very swift which are more a reflection of political expediency rather than the

liberty, safety and autonomy of migrant and asylum seekers. Other legal changes that target

asylum seekers and demand that they be credible and have reasonable fear of persecution or

torture also violate human rights by making people recount their trauma and abuse. Violations of

the right to physical integrity and ethical treatment are also common in deportations that are

conducted by immigration enforcement agencies or the police. Forced return it should be viewed

as the last resort after thorough due process from many organizations, and the programs and

resources for successful resettlement of refugees within the host countries, and voluntary

repatriation programs. It is crucial to remember that migrants and asylum seekers’ basic human

rights should not be overshadowed by policy concerns. In the future, forced return and

P a g e | 67

deportation policies and programs should take into consideration the impact on human rights first

by involving policy makers, political scientists and human rights organizations.

b) Reintegration challenges for deportees

It is evident that deportees experience significant economic, social, and psychological barriers

when they reintegrate into their countries of origin. In terms of economy, most face difficulties in

getting a job once deported. Deportees have spent several years in foreign countries, and hence

they do not have connections in the local employment market; they are discriminated against by

employers for their time spent abroad or criminal records. Also, some deportees lose their

pensions, assets, properties and savings they obtained in foreign countries upon deportation.

Some cannot bring to reality their business dreams due to lack of start-up capital. In terms of

social issues, there is stigmatization of deportees when they return from countries like the US or

the UK in some of these origin communities. They believe that deportation is a sign of personal

failure and criminality, and people are excluded from society. When young people are deported

as children and spend their formative years in another country, they cannot reintegrate into the

society because of language and cultural differences. Other psychological impacts include

trauma, anger, depression, and a general sense of dislocation. Fear of persecution remains high

among asylum seekers whose applications were rejected even when they are faced with dangers

in their home country. Some of them get to experience “reverse culture shock” after having

adapted to the foreign culture. The other factor that brings about changes in deportees’ mental

health is family separation arising from dissimilar citizenship between couples in binational

households. The challenges faced at the reintegration point affect the vulnerable groups including

women, children, the elderly and the persons in the LGBTQ. Available government and civil

society support structures for deportees’ reintegration are scarce, understaffed, and underfunded

P a g e | 68

across the origin states. Local corruption and discrimination also prevent external help from

reaching the needy through access barriers. All these economic, social, and psychological

difficulties result in rather unstable reintegration trajectories for many forced returnees. To

ensure safe, sustainable and dignified return of increasingly deportees to their origin state, this

paper examines how the common challenges of deskilling, stigmatization, trauma and

disfranchisement can be addressed through origin state policy frameworks.

c) Impact on families and communities

Forced return and deportation have multiple effects on families and communities, as shown in

this paper. At the family level, it leads to stress, demoralization, and even financial strain due to

forced separation. Couples may be separated single mothers may lose their sources of income

and means to support their children who are also as likely to be disturbed and confused as the

parents. They may also have symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder, depression, anxiety, and

fear of being left alone. They may experience social isolation and exclusion when relatives are

deported due to a criminal offence of which people learn about. When at the community level,

mass forced returns due to changes in immigration policies, conflicts, or disasters will strain the

social services, humanitarian response, and employment opportunities in receiving areas. This

can cause tension between the two groups of populations especially when there is competition

for employment and any form of help. It can also result to erosion of community cohesiveness

whenever the forcibly returned are perceived to be politically persecuted persons or groups.

Third, in contexts of chronic violence or unrest, forced returns may expose vulnerable

individuals to further violence, thereby creating waves of instability within and across borders.

All societies that experience forced migration flows, whether those in the origin or destination

countries, face challenges in demography and social cohesion, as well as struggles for power,

P a g e | 69

authority, and justice. Impacts of policy decisions on forcibly displaced and forcibly returned

population are human impacts that cannot be dismissed by policy makers. Adopting the goals of

security, capacity, values, and ethics requires unlearning in the externalization of forced

migration issues and realizing that community resilience is a shared global responsibility. It

points to the need for commitment to evidence-based policymaking and local leadership and

participation that does not view returns as well as community integration as short term and one-

off policy achievements. With thought through, collaborative policies that seek to uphold human

rights, the difficulties of forced return can be addressed at individual and family levels.

d) Health and mental health implications

It is apparent that issues of health and mental health are closely linked with forced return and

deportation. On a basic level, the rupture of social ties, isolation from family and community,

and lack of a stable livelihood that deportees experience can be considered as sources of

psychosocial stress. Such stressors are known to affect mental health consequences; more so for

mood disorders, substance use disorders, PTSD, and suicide ideation and attempts. Another

major issue is the lack of retention of public health care insurance coverage. Individuals who

were deported from countries with access to universal health care may find themselves, in the

less developed home countries, with no access to affordable care, medications, and treatments.

Groups that could be most at risk include those who depend on continuing medical treatment for

chronic diseases, and their health may become critically compromised. Regardless of obstacles to

healthcare, the effects of forced return and deportation are compounded by systemic factors

within home countries. For example, return to areas with high rates of violence and civil unrest

increases risk of trauma and injury. Going back to poor health facilities and malnourished food

chains reignite the incidences of spreadable diseases. Stigma against deportees may also deter

P a g e | 70

many displaced persons from being able to reintegrate safely into their home society and access

health needs. When taken together, these numerous health problems explain why forced return

and deportation cause significant physical and mental health losses at an individual and a

population level. Given human rights to health and to be free from C, I, D treatment and harm,

the possibility of serious health consequences has to form core in finding just, humane solutions

and alternatives to deportation. More investigations should be conducted on the prevalence,

intensity and geographical patterns of health effects for different categories of deportees and the

factors that mediate these effects in order to design specific prevention, detection and control

strategies for these effects.

e) Economic consequences of forced return

Generally, forced returnees to the receiving countries are supposed to face stringent economic

hurdles as soon as they arrive. The respondent said ‘some have been working in foreign countries

for years or for decades, and may have very few persons they can request back home’. Their

credentials can be difficult to decode and the majority of them are rendered jobless and do not

get employment that matches with the training they underwent or the wages they used to receive.

Forced return also has huge economic consequences on the persons in question, legal charges,

detention expenses, transport and initial acclimatization visas. They may also have been rendered

homeless and lost their belongings before they got deported. Families are also separated across

borders, therefore such income avenues such as remittances meant for the returnees are

unavailable to them. Accommodation issues and challenges on service delivery; policies that

prolong service delivery to the returnees may complicate their right path to economic steadiness.

All these concerns preserve the vulnerability that was earlier prompting many to migrate and

demonstrate the aspect of complexity of forced return. Available literature is enough to suggest

P a g e | 71

that re-migration rates are higher among forced than the voluntary returnees, but the option for

re-migration is dwindling as borders around the globe are closing down. Unfortunately, many of

the forced returnees find themselves in an unfavorable position and the lives of these individuals

are characterized by additional vulnerability and instable situation.

f) Legal and policy responses to forced return

Forced return and deportation of migrants who do not want to go back to their countries of origin

is a complicated policy option that governments have to undertake. Challenges are due to

tensions between population management and security imperatives, migration control,

humanistic and human rights principles. Most states make policies targeting to deport irregular

migrants, denied asylum seekers or foreign criminals. However, forced returns are questionable

due to ethical concerns regarding autonomy and potentials threats to the person’s wellbeing.

There are also physical barriers when deportees do not possess citizenship or other documents

for re-entry into their home country.

This policy provides a structure for how laws and regulations related to migrant detention,

removal orders, deportation procedures, and ways to avoid expulsion are created by legal and

administrative authorities. However, all legislation does not provide a satisfactory balance or

prioritization of humanitarian protection consideration against immigration enforcement goals.

Therefore, unlawful forced returns often continue despite anticipated dangers to deportees who

are repatriated to volatile countries or severed family connections in other countries. This is

because, persons with vulnerabilities such as health conditions, economic difficulties or

belonging to the persecuted minority groups experience higher levels of injustice whenever they

are subjected to forced repatriation.

P a g e | 72

Responses under policy focus on different concerns depending on the destination country

scenarios. Some of the measures include; There are extremes that include the deportation

campaigns aimed at combating the practice of human trafficking to migration control efforts

taken to discourage individuals from engaging in the process. Public attitudes and government

capabilities determine the readiness to accept people with unauthorized migratory status more so

than the readiness to evict them. Where voluntary returns are promoted, policy measures consist

of informative campaigns, reporting obligations, restrictions on social entitlements, additional

repatriation and resettlement incentives. Forced deportation entails a more significant number of

resources for migrant detention, legal processing, documentation, and physical deportation which

reduces state appetites beyond targets deemed to be serious security threats.

Managing return migration entails balancing between the conflicting policy objectives on one

hand. Governments claim rights and duties to regulate borders and decide the legal status of

foreigners in their respective countries; exercising such authority through force negates humane

principles and ignores dynamics inherent in migrants’ life paths. It has been possible to build

other more ethical and complex legal approaches and enforcement policies on forced return and

deportation within broader frameworks of immigration. However, there is still the need to

balance conflicting issues to enhance safety for vulnerable people while at the same time

addressing the needs of the country of destination.

9. RETURN OF REFUGEES AND DISPLACED PERSONS

Refugee and IDP repatriation is a multifaceted process, which involves resolving the causes of

displacement, but also the problems faced by individuals, who have returned to their homes after

living in other places for some time. One of the most compelling reasons that refugees and IDPs

might return to their homes is the need to rebuild security and stability in their regions of origin

P a g e | 73

after conflict or a disaster that had made them leave in the first place. This enables them to get

their belongings back, find their loved ones who may have been left behind and begin afresh

where they once felt secure.

However, refugees and IDPs who decide to return to their homes also have some problems as

well. Their homes, communities, and sources of income may have been lost or significantly

impacted during the time of displacement. Hospitals, schools, and transportation networks and

links can no longer be critical since they can no longer perform or need reconstruction. Other

challenges include legal and social issues to do with property ownership or acceptance in the

community upon the return. They have few jobs and little capital to help them reintegrate into

society after being released from prison.

These challenges highlight the need for proper policies and supportive measures to facilitate

sustainable reintegration processes. Ensuring the returnees have security assurances when

returning to their homes or settlements, legal advice on property issues, temporary

accommodation, and access to health care and education facilities are other policy obligations of

the government. Another important area is the cooperation with humanitarian aid organizations

to provide grants, vocational training, tractors, or cattle to help the returnees rebuild their income

sources. In addition to the moral support that helps the individuals adjust to the community,

material support for the returnees from the assistance programs could also help decrease

discrimination.

In making decisions regarding refugees’ right of return, it is imperative to address the incentives

guiding this type of migration as well as the ability of refugees’ home countries to guarantee their

safe return and adequate reintegration conditions. In this case, sustainable return can only be

obtained through solving the root causes of displacement, reconstruction of damaged

P a g e | 74

infrastructure, rights to property and an effective support to integration of strong communities

that will enhance the social-economic reintegration of refugees.

a) Voluntary repatriation programs

Voluntary repatriation programs are intended to encourage refugees and Internally Displaced

Persons (IDP) to go back to their home areas whenever conditions become favorable. These

programs come in handy when conflicts are over or when there is a change of political regimes

as they help in the supply of the logistical, financial and social needs of the returning

populations. This can be between the host countries, home countries, UN organizations such as

UNHCR and humanitarian organizations. The support provided comprises of transport to regions

of return, basic accommodation and food hampers upon arrival, provision of core household

needs, working tools and cash support to revive. For instance, after many years of civil strife, it

was in the last decade that Angola officialized repatriation operations to Zambia, Namibia and

DRC with support from UNHCR. In addition, reintegration measures may also be employed for

the purpose of demobilization as part of wider peacebuilding processes that entails return to

normalcy, restoration of social order, access to land, property, services and employment. These

can offer accommodation, legal representation, compensation, vocational training and education,

job opportunities for the unemployed, and other community projects for development. For

instance, UNHCR has enabled the formation of local peace committees and vocational training

for the reintegration of IDPs in Colombia to enhance voluntary return initiatives.

Controlling and preventing relapses of displacements to achieve sustainable returns also rests on

the improvement of the working on causes of flight and the reestablishment of the State

structures, the rule of law in the areas of origin. Hence efforts are normally focused on securing

the safety of the returning groups as well as their political participation, non- discrimination and

P a g e | 75

ability to access justice once they get back home together with issues to do with their

repatriation. Enabling conditions for voluntary return are frequently unclear as to which state and

which institution is responsible for them, however, which hinders outcomes. There is a need for

more effective legal frameworks and better allocation of liability. Likewise, the quest to balance

interest around restoration of land and property continues to be a contentious issue. Support

programming must also be mindful not to inadvertently create incentives or dependency that

leads to early return or increase tensions within the communities between those that stayed

behind and those that fled. Accountability is also facilitated by proper monitoring mechanisms in

place. In that way, offering a genuine voluntary choice to displaced persons who want to regain

citizenship rights without fearing persecution, while organized repatriation is a crucial

component of refugee problem-solving through diplomacy.

b) Post-conflict reconstruction and return

Post-conflict reconstruction and return of refugees and internally displaced persons are

challenging tasks that require consideration of political, economic, social and security factors.

When conflict ceases and agreements reached for peace, one has to consider post-war

reconstruction, economic recovery, the provision of security and state structures together with

demobilization and repatriation. Physical assets are looted or occupied, incomes non-sustainable,

security tenuous for returnees. Reconstruction programs should thus focus on compensation,

construction of houses, demining, reconstruction of electricity and water supplies, psychological

support, as well as other forms of community reconstruction. To manage sustainable returns, one

must also understand motivation – some people return on their own after conflict, while others

need encouragement and guarantees. Political and security stability, the provision of basic needs

namely shelter, water and health services, and helping communities recover and rebuild also

P a g e | 76

inform return decisions. If possible, it is advisable to permit go-and-see visits before returns

because of evaluating the condition on the ground. Phased returns may also continue the process

where initial relatively small returns are used to test conditions. In addition, supporting local

integration or resettlement should stay as options where dangers persist – forced repatriation in

safety and with dignity should inform procedures. This means that obligations towards displaced

persons are not limited by the start of returns. Sustainability means having long-term dedication

to stabilization, economic growth, social restoration and governance renewal. Discrimination,

nonrecognition of rights, minority and economic exclusion and resource limitations and ethnicity

could still lead to conflicts and secondary displacements. Policies should promote equal

opportunity and impartiality and ensure the provision of the necessary support for individuals’

socio-economic integration and political enfranchisement. It might be necessary for other, more

vulnerable, groups to be provided with targeted assistance programs. Finally, post-conflict

displaced persons return policies should address diverse political, social, and economic factors

for reconstructing stable, non-violent societies.

c) Property restitution and land rights

The question of property restoration and land ownership, which is the key to the large-scale

return of refugees and internally displaced persons (IDP), refers to the issue. Refugees and IDPs

who have been displaced due to conflict or disaster have their legal status eroded and become

deprived of their homes, land and property they were forced to leave behind. Fear of being

denied the right to return to their homes and lands is one of the reasons why IDPs cannot go back

to their areas of domicile voluntarily and with protection. Refugees and IDPs also lose their lands

and properties during displacement and are hence at a high risk of suffering from different forms

of loss or dispossession through expropriation, occupation or even destruction of properties.

P a g e | 77

Therefore, gaining land and housing rights through restitution programs is crucial in addressing

this hurdle to the implementation of the right to return to those displaced. Effective property

restitution systems afford symbolic acknowledgement to returning families of their entitlement to

property rights they had to forfeit. At the same time, it poses a big problem, as such programs

meet implementation challenges, including weak economic base, poor governance and rule of

law in P/C nations and the absence of documentary proof to prove ownership of properties.

These overlapping issues also contribute to a challenge of deciding property rights for refugees

as against current occupants. It also raises fears of distorted restitution policies if due to legal

property rights besides equitable principles and not to the victims of violence but to the violent

persons. It is therefore important that policymakers address the legal, technical and social options

and costs, for the budget and time horizon of the optimal timing and scope for the

implementation of the property restitution rights to practically enable refugee return movements

without creating new negative sentiments or insecurity among the targeted groups. Further

research is particularly required on context-specific strategies on how to foster pro-poor, gender-

sensitive property solutions for ensuring equal rights to land for returning refugee women where

discrimination based on gender is often entrenched under customary law systems in most

societies. Finally, the realization of property restitution rights depends on the restoration of the

rule of law and an ability to gain effective access to justice for the resolution of disputed land

claims by returnees in post-war societies as a long-term process in migration transition societies.

d) Security and reconciliation issues

The process of return and reintegration of refugees and internally displaced persons (IDPs)

occurs once there is conflict and this often happens in conflict afflicted areas where there are

many security and reconciliation issues. It is often the case that the preservation of one’s own life

P a g e | 78

and physical integrity is paramount and a motivating factor for returnees. This means not only

protection from physical violence or persecution but protection in regard to housing, land,

livelihoods, and basic services. Restoring the trust between the conflicting parties is also another

important factor since the conflicts are common along the ethnic, religious or other social

cleavages. Stress may persist, past conflict regarding homes and property ownership might arise

again, and there are possibilities that the clients may be persecuted or the conflict rekindled. This

implies that reintegration programs must embrace conflict-sensitive strategies and establish the

fundamentals for reconciliation.

Reconciliation between returnee and resident communities can thus be supported by efforts that

aim at rebuilding confidence, for example through joint civil society projects or by involvement

of peace committees in conflict-solution with regard to local disputes. Legal and physical returns

package and procedures for restitution or compensation where access to housing and land is an

issue may reduce some risks and sources of conflict. It may also be necessary for there to be

some regional security measures such as peace keeping forces or international monitoring

missions to allow for orderly returns in some situations of post conflict instability. Pardons of

some sorts of crimes and other transitional justice instruments like truth commissions, despite

their contentious nature, are also sometimes employed to enable reconciliation between warring

factions.

Finally, the success and sustainability of return is therefore measured by the ability to overcome

security challenges and lack of trust between the two communities. Ensuring physical security

facilitates the first movements of return, while the longer process of permanency requires the

reestablishment of social capital and protection to housing, property, and forms of livelihood.

Programming should ensure that aid to returnees and residents is properly planned in order that it

P a g e | 79

does not create or appear to create inequality. It also requires addressing past violence and

mechanisms for the resolution of conflicts between communities. Mitigating these complex

security and reconciliation issues is crucial if post-war return and reintegration are to become

sustainable in the long term.

e) Role of international organizations

A crucial role in the return and reintegration process belongs to the international organizations

concerned with refugees and internally displaced persons (IDPs). It is the return that requires

conducive environment to be facilitated by organizations like the United Nations High

Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) in collaboration with governments, non-governmental

organizations and civil society groups. One of them is determining when it is possible and

appropriate for refugees and internally displaced persons to return to their homes through

monitoring missions and reports. International organizations also lobby with the national

governments to dismantle legal and bureaucratic hurdles of return that may include matters of

documentation, property rights and service delivery.

When conditions are ascertained to be favorable, the international agencies help in organizing

transportation and other essential services in the area of return. Over the years and particularly

since the early 1990s, UNHCR has assisted more than 15 million refugees to return voluntarily

and reintegrate through its repatriation and reintegration programs. Some of these organizations

include the International Organization for Migration (IOM) which promotes returns through

providing transport and operating reception facilities for providing initial support to the

returnees. Providing dignified returns that respects rights and caters for basic needs of the

returnees is also important.

P a g e | 80

Moreover, the international organizations have a significant role in promoting sustainable

reintegration of the returnees. Programs that deal with access to livelihoods, income generation,

housing, education, and psychosocial support are carried out in cooperation with governments

and other local stakeholders. Developing institutional and human capital for service delivery and

socioeconomic reintegration is also promoted. Supervision of the returnee communities enables

the organization to continue pressing for support to the affected souls where necessary, and point

out the existing deficiencies to the relevant authorities. Effective reintegration programs and

follow-up are regarded as critical to making returns effective and to prevent cyclical

displacement. In this way, through different interventions ranging from the preparation of the

environment for return to reintegration assistance, international agencies perform an invaluable

function of supporting and facilitating the process of return of refugees and IDPs.

f) Long-term integration vs. re-migration

When refugees and displaced persons travel away from their home countries, they are confronted

with the question of whether to try and assimilate into the new society of the host country, or to

seek to go back to the country that they came from. Long-term integration entails refugees’

permanent settlement in new locations and establishing permanent citizenship while re-migration

is the process where refugees return to the original country to take back their belongings,

relatives or to engage in post-war reconstruction. Host countries and humanitarian agencies

continue to discuss the best course of action, with the options being the expensive process of

local integration or the equally complicated process of large-scale return movements.

The following are some of the key host country initiatives that define long-term integration:

Legal residency and citizenship, family reunion, employment, education, health as well as

housing. However, even generations born in other countries, they can experience discrimination,

P a g e | 81

poverty, language, and cultural issues that limit their integration. On the other hand, the refugees

who are thinking of re-migration may find that security has improved but economy,

infrastructure and social order remain bad while they make their decisions. Similarly, when

property rights are ill defined, citizenship laws are a hindrance and violent situations bring

secondary displacement, return and reintegration are also affected.

Simultaneously, refugee rights and needs compete with domestic labor requirements and

community recovery goals, and, therefore, the policymakers search for the opposite strategies

ranging from the promotion of the asylum seekers’ full naturalization to the provision of

temporary shelter with the aim of repatriation. Given that the typical refugee situation is now

over one decade, receiving countries with ageing populations endeavor to retain the refugee

workers while sending countries start the process of mobilizing the international communities to

lure the diaspora members to return home with skills and capital. Therefore, both academic

research and humanitarian discourse goes on to look at under what conditions, for which

refugees, and within what period of time, attempts at local integration are more or less preferable

than attempts at facilitating refugee returns.

10. SECOND GENERATION RETURN MIGRATION

Second generation return migration can be defined as a process whereby children of immigrants

migrate back to their parents’ country of origin. This emerging trend thus gives rise to questions

on motivation, difficulty, and policies. While first generation immigrants may have come to the

United States for economic or fear of violence, second generation youth may return to the home

country for social and personal issues regarding identity. Such youth that are brought up in two

cultures separated by geographical boundaries may feel the urge to embrace their culture and at

P a g e | 82

the same time may feel alienated in the new country they have grown up in. It may lead to a

drive of going back to the original country in order to investigate more on one’s heritage.

It is not easy for this second generation to reintegrate and establish a life in a country they have

never been in. In contrast to their parents, these youths are likely to lack connections or other

support in their parents’ country of residence. Another barrier is Discrimination because the

people of the country may not get along with them as if they are not one of them. The lack of

employment opportunities can also be another structural impediment, despite possessing

education and skills attained in the countries of origin. Socio-psychologically, second generation

returnees might have high self-expectations or high expectations from the outside world

regarding their ability to connect to the culture. Besides personal difficulties, there can be state-

level problems, such as the absence of legislation allowing them to be integrated into society.

Return migration policy usually targets first generation migrants not the children of immigrants

who may move independently in search of origin. Policy makers will have to search for specific

strategies that can ensure second generation youth engagement and successful integration in the

economic, political, social and cultural lives of the societies. This involves helping people get

jobs that are related to their abilities, financing new businesses, helping people to get homes,

advocating for equal opportunities, and supporting community-based organizations to offer

support services. Help is needed in the reintegration process; otherwise, they are frustrated and

lonely to return to their home country again. If managed at the policy level, the returning second

generation could also help developing countries by introducing new skills, ideas and

transnational networks acquired in the developed countries. More research is still needed to

develop a policy framework for this emerging population and chart the potential effects for both

the source and destination countries.

P a g e | 83

a) Motivations for "ancestral return"

There are some important factors that have led to this new phenomenon of return migration

among the second-generation youth and young adults. Compared to earlier waves of return

migration being temporary or only based on economic reasons, there is an increased focus on

identity and lifestyle in ancestral return today. Technological advancements in transport and

communication have enabled the diaspora to keep abreast with their original roots. This allows

the second generation – who are raised in both cultural worlds – to cultivate what scholar Peggy

Levitt calls a “transnational identity”. This means that ancestral homelands have a strong cultural

and psychological pull. These dual identities push many to make return moves for an authentic

experience of the culture and country of origin by living it.

Lifestyle motivations are the second most important factor; these are quality of life perceptions

or perceptions of life beyond identity quests. Second generation returnees are dissatisfied with

the societies they have been raised in – citing concerns such as materialism, injustice and lack of

belongingness. On the other hand, the nostalgic beliefs about the essence of their native countries

offer closer-knit families and communities, cultural vibrancy, less stress, and a sense of

belonging. And indeed, helped by economic and educational opportunities associated with

migration background, this generation is capable of achieving such a lifestyle after return

through creative industries, entrepreneurships, tourism based on cultural heritage etc. With the

help of technology, these returnees are able to live in two homes and lead transnational lives. The

interdependence of host land and homeland is therefore maintained in the long run.

b) Identity and belonging for second generation

Second-generation migrants have a rather ambiguous identity and often feel that they do not

belong to either the country of origin or the country of residence. First-generation migrant

P a g e | 84

parents are individuals who deliberately chose to live in a new country, but second-generation

migrants are individuals who were born between two or more cultures. It is found that for some,

such a mixed-up status proves to be a boon, as they can select the best from both the indigenous

and immigrant culture they belong to. For some, there can be severe problems with such

questions as alienation, discrimination, or lack of acceptance from both the white society and

their own ethnic group.

Such questions related to identity and belonging are particularly well captured when thinking

about second-generation return migration. While the parents have not fully severed their ties with

the countries they left by staying connected through money remittances, communication, and

property ownership, the second generation’s connection is fairly abstract based on their

childhood memories and family stories of the country they left behind. For those who have been

raised to feel like outcasts or have not had opportunities for socio-economic advancement in their

country of residence, the prospect of going back to the ‘motherland’ is presented as an

opportunity to embrace complete acceptance. Nevertheless, the first-generation returnees are

often seen by the extended family and other members of society in the origin country as being

foreigners with a different culture and coming from a higher socio-economic background. To

assimilate into the unknown ancestral culture, there is need for a significant amount of

psychosocial adjustment in order to overcome these integration barriers.

Hence, the need for more detailed ethnographic work that moves beyond the macroeconomic and

policy understandings of return migrant typologies to explain the extremely individualized

experiences of identity and citizenship among the second-generation youths who undertake

reverse migration. It disrupts the traditional cultural understandings of ‘home’ and elicits various

class-related practices in resolving the internal conflicts of their hyphenated identity. Through

P a g e | 85

these multifaceted layers of cultural citizenship and integration processes within the different

local and national contexts, the need and the developmental path of this new emergent group can

be better addressed by the right set of policies in both origin and destination countries.

c) Language and cultural challenges

Second generation migrants who travel back to the parents’ countries of origin find themselves

struggling with language barriers as well as cultural barriers. The second-generation returnees

who were born and brought up in the destination country may not speak their mother-tongue

fluently or have adequate knowledge regarding the cultural practices and preferences of the

receiving country. This may lead to problems in social adjustment and in the establishment of

social relations.

Education in the parents’ native language, particularly English, remains a challenge for many

second generation return migrants. While they may understand simple things after hearing their

family members use such words at home, the words and grammar that is needed to conduct a

detailed conversation is often missing. Expression in social, academic, and even professional

domains is constrained. The mundane chores of life such as shopping, making appointments, and

dealing with authorities can become a chore if one lacks the linguistic ability. This deficiency

keeps person away from interact and make meaningful connection with the locals. It prevents the

formation of relationships that are crucial in determining the psychosocial health of an

individual.

Lack of knowledge on cultural practices and norms also plays a role in worsening culture shock.

Return migrants who were not frequently visiting their country of origin during their childhood

or youth do not have much first-hand experience of the culture. The complex experience of

P a g e | 86

living tends to be grasped only through complete enculturation. Such factors as greetings,

dressing codes, food traditions, media and other social relations surprise the returnees if they

adjusted only to the culture of their birth country. Such unfamiliar environments cause

disorientation and emotional stress while adjusting. Getting over it enough to avoid social

discomfort or offending someone’s ethics takes a lot of time. Until then, return migrants are in a

state of despair owing to the fact that they do not feel accepted.

Therefore, there are two disadvantages that second generation returnees must face when

undertaking the process of repatriation. The former results from their limited mastery of the

English language and the latter from their lack of exposure to the culture of the country, which

gives rise to quite predictable yet still rather troubling challenges. Enhanced orientation

programs provided to targeted groups and periodic reintegration support could go a long way in

easing out the transfer process. The ability to understand and interpret cultural norms through

support from the community helps the new arrivals to get back on their feet. Such backing

enables return migrants to shift their attention towards re-establishing their lives in the homeland

which they may feel a compelling urge to be in yet find difficult to understand after the initial

migration. With assistance addressing language and cultural barriers, successful integration

becomes more possible.

d) Education and labor market integration

Educational attainment and labor market integration among the second-generation migrants

present special difficulties where the young people decide to return to the country of their

parents. Second generation people being born and raised in other countries and being educated

there, they do not have effective social and cultural capital which is required for the reintegration

despite ethnic origins. Foreign education, language and culture do not easily transfer, denying

P a g e | 87

them professional employment despite their educational achievements. For instance, more than

80% of the second-generation Afghans, who have returned to Afghanistan from other countries,

are struggling to gain employment in the Afghan labor market because their qualifications are not

recognized in foreign countries and they are discriminated against if they behave in a

Westernized manner, and, as a result, they are forced to re-emigrate. Consultation prior to return

to work could also reduce this burden as could vocational preparation.

Another major challenge is integration with school especially in cases where returning children

do not have a strong grip with instructional language of their origin country. For instance, for

second generation Mexican and Moroccan youths, who migrated to the US and Europe

respectively, they face difficulty in learning in Spanish or French as they have previously learnt

in English. The challenge of adjusting to new curriculum and teaching methods increases their

drop-out rate, sacrificing long-term employment and possibly contributing to marginalization. It

could be useful to offer remedial language or bilingual education programs that would be

addressed specifically to the needs of the returnee students.

Employment measures such as preferential treatment of returnees in labor market, skills instead

of credentials, or temporary wage subsidies can encourage employers to hire qualified second-

generation returnees. Other useful measures include speeding up nostrification, increasing the

opportunities of education and training in compliance with the demand of the labor market, and

supporting the programs of practicing with experienced employees for the returning specialists.

Improved communication of in-country opportunities in the growth sectors such as technology,

business process outsourcing, and digital media that value English proficiency and technological

competencies also builds on second-generation capabilities. It will continue to be difficult for

P a g e | 88

return, but these policy responses can help to produce positive education and labor market

outcomes for the second migrant generation in origin countries.

e) Transnational ties and networks

This may include relationships that the second generation of immigrants cultivate with their

parents’ home country which serves as a motivating factor for their return migration. In contrast

to the parents who immigrated at an adult age and may not have had as much social and personal

connections in the destination countries, the second-generation immigrants develop roots in the

countries that they were brought up in or born in. But through their immigrant parents and ethnic

communities, they also build sentimental and utilitarian connection to the old country which are

long-lasting and transnational. These transnational affiliations and relationships enabled by cheap

phone calls, messaging apps, and social networking sites help second generation youth to stay

connected with people and cultures overseas throughout their upbringing in the new country.

Research that follows transnational activities reveal that many transnational families have daily

contact with their close relatives and some even travel to their parents’ villages of origin at a

tender age.

Lifelong transnational relationships built right from childhood may also encourage second

generation adults to return migrate and be more actively involved with that aspect of their

cultural capital. Some migrate on own arrangement personal preference of affinity, an intention

to help boost the economic base of the station, curiosity to go to the ancestral home they hear so

much about from their parents or simply to try life there. Others seek education and economic

opportunities such as admissions to universities in the origin country or employment with new

generation firms owned by origin country transnational entrepreneurs of their ethnic backdrop.

Instead of being confined to their birth country, second generation individuals’ skill sets,

P a g e | 89

educational achievements and work experience make them sought after by industries and

institutions in other countries where their transnational hybridity can be of optimum

organizational utility. However, not all second-generation immigrants have the desire or the

financial, occupational and linguistic capacity or family permission to make a solo return

migration. Therefore, transnational romances and marriage between second-generation diaspora

recipients and their counterparts from the home country constitute yet another cross-sectional

route that leads to couples migrating continuously for an extended time or progressively between

the origin and host countries.

Through the cultivation of these multifaceted transnational relationships that encompass

economic participation, cultural affiliation, and personal relationships, second generation

immigrants integrate partially in both the country of origin and the country of birth before

thinking of permanent return. These practical interpersonal ties or what may be referred to as

‘social capital,’ then offer reasons and resources for possible migration that is different from first

generation immigrants who are likely to have a more clearcut disruption from context of origin.

In other words, while second generation individuals are ethnically foreign-born, their continued

transnational linkages undermine rigidities to move across borders and challenge the very notion

of ‘return’.

f) Policy implications for receiving countries

When first generation immigrants who were born and raised in receiving countries or came at a

tender age contemplate returning to their parents’ countries, it has implications for policymakers

in the receiving countries. One factor is the brain drain effect whereby many skilled and educated

second generation immigrants may decide to leave. The hosting nations have spent a lot of

resources in educating and training these immigrants, and their decision to leave is a loss to the

P a g e | 90

hosting nations. This also means the loss of young workers and taxpayers that might exert

pressure on social security and labor markets. Some policy measures for preventing this brain

drain can be making changes to visa policies in order to encourage circular migration, allowing

second generation immigrants to have dual citizenship, and establishing links with the emigrants

through diaspora organizations. Second generationers leaving may also leave critical niche

occupations in the receiving countries for the sending countries to fill up. It will often help them

in their trade, diplomacy as well as cultural interactions by virtue of cultural endowment and

bilingualism. These connections can be lost and this leads to a deterioration in the international

business and diplomatic relations. Policy measures may shift to promoting short-term migration

for purposes of education and networking, which would be advantageous to the destination

country when the second generation returns with larger and more connected networks. While

second generation immigrants consider identity questions when calculating the utility of return

migration, cultural accommodation policies and inclusive nationalist discourses within receiving

states may be less rigid about the management of multiple loyalties. This could impact decisions

to stay put instead of searching for acceptance elsewhere. In general, there are several important

policy considerations for receiving countries as they try to reconcile the value of individual

migrant decisions with national economic and social priorities. Balanced policies that permit

circular migration, dual citizenship and non-fixed conceptions of identity can help the receiving

countries of second-generation integration to have the benefits of well appreciated human

capital.

11. TECHNOLOGY AND RETURN MIGRATION

Due to changes in technology, communication and its influence on migration flows or even the

‘return migration’. Internet and social media give the migrants abroad a better connection with

P a g e | 91

their families and friends back at home. It helps them keep abreast with social economic and

political developments that may affect their decision on when to return home. This technology is

also affecting job prospects in most of the developing countries; although it has led to the

creation of more skill intensive jobs in IT, BPO and Telecommunication. This demand for human

capital can help to lure migrants back home it is a growing demand.

Governments are also using technology in diaspora engagement and return migration policies.

Today, some have set up specific ministries or agencies on diaspora affairs that employ

mechanisms such as websites and databases to enhance their engagement with their citizens

residing in different foreign countries. These foster more exchange of knowledge, skills and

resources. Some countries also provide financial and logistical support programs online to

facilitate the return of diaspora members or to start business or to do skills swap for a short

period.

Nevertheless, return migrants face challenges of readjusting to their societies because much has

changed socially. Others may struggle upon return to have to start anew in their careers if

national labor markets cannot appropriately reward skills and experience earned in other

countries. It may also lack some essential services that are vital for the functioning of the

community in the required capacity. Technology offers solutions in form of online networking

sites that are designed to assist returnees to find opportunities in their home countries again. ICT

also facilitates working from home and other arrangements that would suit return migrants who

are able to apply skills gained in foreign countries in the global ICT sector, and reside in their

home countries.

Concerning the technology and return migration, there are some gender dimensions which

require consideration. Male migrants may have better ability than their female counterparts to

P a g e | 92

leverage on ICT connectivity to cultivate business interests at home from afar. However, these

tools can also open up new employment opportunities for women return migrants such as

freelancing and e-commerce micro-entrepreneurship from the home, due to social restrictions

regarding women’s mobility and domestic responsibilities. Further study is needed regarding the

ways, in which returnees utilize technology for their effective reintegration in terms of economic

and social life.

All in all, the provision of technology as well as innovation reformulates return factors and

repatriation impressions. It is useful as it can enhance diaspora relations with home countries,

crucial for awareness necessary in the decision to return. ICT tools also help the policymakers in

the process of addressing the diasporas. On return, technology assists returnees in economic and

social integration to their respective communities. Future research should also delve into the

relationship between technology and gender roles in relation to return migration in order to

inform the right policy measures.

a) Role of social media in return decisions

It was also found that social media platforms play a critical role in determining migrants’

decision to return to their countries of origin. It is through social media that the migrants are

actively connected with families and friends back home, news and current developments, and get

practical information about opportunities, housing, jobs which define the thoughts and process of

moving back.

Some past research has examined how people apply social networking sites to seek out targeted

information from reliable contacts about situations and opportunities in countries of origin. This

kind of informal, subjective knowledge, which is accumulated through constant and active

P a g e | 93

interaction with the first-degree personal contacts via technological media, is more authoritative

than the formal information that helps to minimize the uncertainties and develop the logistic plan

concerning the relocation. For instance, a study conducted on Polish migrants in the Netherlands

used face to face interviews to discover that the participants helped friends and relatives back

home to seek on insights on the Polish job market, the quality of houses to build among other

factors that the Polish expatriates considered when planning to return back home.

Besides information exchange, social media also plays a role in return intentions through the

social connectedness and ties with the culture of origin. It was also found that migrants who are

more synchronized and connected with family and friends through the applications like

WhatsApp and Viber have increased likelihood to consider migration back due to increased

emotional closeness and bonding. The freedom of being able to talk with friends and family

members on a regular basis and not feel that one is being forgotten and left alone behind

contributes to documented desire to travel back to one’s country voluntarily.

Altogether, in multiple ways to enable further engagement in home country network, social

media is reshaping the temporal distance and transnational disconnection that once discouraged

or postponed return trips. With the ongoing modernization of information and communication

technologies as well as increased global accessibility, the conditions for participation in virtual

networked migration may turn out to be a key element in the creation of new opportunities and

the desire to return even among those with few resources or dual citizenship. Comprehensive and

changing dynamics of social media factors should be a subject to incorporating while developing

policy in regard to return migration in both origin and destination countries.

P a g e | 94

b) Digital platforms for reintegration support

With the evolving communication technologies, there are new technologies and platforms that

are being developed to enhance the reintegration of the returning migrants. Hence there are

various smartphone application, websites, and online forums to support the returning migrants in

terms of information, services, opportunities, and community. For instance, the International

Organization for Migration (IOM) has created MigApp, an application for smartphones that

contains useful information on how to return home, how to transport personal belongings, and

where to find a job. The app also directs returnees to IOM reintegration service for matters such

as business enterprise, education, health, and psychological support. Likewise, host countries are

developing Internet-based reintegration websites, for instance, Sweden’s www. atervandring. se

which provides returnees with documents, contacts, checklists, and interactive tools to facilitate

the return planning.

In addition to information, digital networks provide returning migrants with professional and

social capitals to facilitate reintegration. The diaspora groups have now found their place on

LinkedIn where they can freely engage in discussions and seek employment in their home

countries. Facebook groups do the same for the returnees offering information and support. The

kind of digital contacts described above assists returnees in mobilizing social capital and

reconstructing professional personas in their homeland. Other forms of digital professional

support include online mentoring platforms such as the GlobalScot for the returning migrants in

Scotland.

There are some digital platforms that are created for some categories of returnees like women or

refugee returnees with trauma. For example, the charity organization, Refugees International,

created a mobile application named NAWA for offering Psychosocial support to Syrian refugee

P a g e | 95

returnee women who are suffering from displacement, loss, and abuse. This kind of targeted apps

provides crucial reintegration support for these vulnerable groups.

With long-term cross-border migration becoming a trend, the digital reintegration platforms will

further develop with big data, automation, and personalization. It may be possible for host

countries to soon offer return support through automated feedback generated from the

algorithms. And the possibility of machine learning through chatbots on reintegration platforms

could help with constant support. Tools like these would enable provision of individualized

assistance to each returnee through the use of artificial intelligence. As technology advances

further, social media will become an essential structure to support migrant reintegration across

the globe.

c) Remote work and digital nomadism

It can be noted that the evolution of technology has been a major driver for the growth of remote

work and digital nomadism over the last few decades and its implications for return migration

and policy. Fast internet connection, video conferencing software, cloud-based applications and

collaboration tools have made possible to work from home leading to the emergence of digital

nomads – mobile knowledge workers and teams who use technology to work and live.

That is why today, many migrants are no longer considering the process of repatriation as their

new way of life is much more dynamic and flexible and they become digital nomads. From first-

generation skilled emigrants who can return to their home country after years in another nation

or diaspora migrants who may wish to shuttle between different regions, remote work enable

temporary or circular migration without losing a job. For example, an IT employee from India

may travel to Silicon Valley for work but works remotely from Bangalore for few months in a

P a g e | 96

year due to the tech platforms to remain in the same employment status. Likewise, a college

graduate from Eastern Europe who is studying in France could consider going back to his/her

home country as a digital nomad to work as a freelancer since there are now various freelance

markets across the globe.

Leaders expect longer length of stay through teleworking and reinvestment of remittances into

local innovation hubs. However, managing digital nomads present some issues such as

ambiguous visa categorizations. Emphasis is on drawing the digital nomads through specific

visas, capacity building for digital knowledge and development of physical infrastructure such as

co-working facilities and broadband connections. Currently, countries such as Barbados, Estonia,

Iceland and many others have adopted digital nomad visas. Some countries, for example, Egypt,

Pakistan and Philippines have established collaborations between emigrant communities and

universities to re-train professionals in the areas that are in demand such as AI, data science, and

online freelancing.

Hence, technology driven remote working and mobility is making return migration more circular

and temporary than before due to the integration of global technology. It is, however, doing so to

harness such patterns for development even as it struggles with the new waves of migration.

Proper policy reactions can further enhance such advantages as knowledge exchange and

grassroots capitalization without compromising sustainability and ethicality.

d) Maintaining transnational connections

As migration researchers have pointed out, improved transportation, communication, and

information technologies in the last few decades enable migrants to develop and sustain copious

connections between both the host and home communities – creating ‘transnational social

P a g e | 97

spaces. But for returnees, it is difficult to maintain these significant transnational links – which

are based on physical linkage and social relationships with contacts abroad. And so,

communication technologies have a critical role in reintegrating the returnees and enable them to

maintain connections. For example, research conducted among returnees from the countries of

Southeast Asia, East Africa, and Eastern Europe reveals that income generation relies heavily on

foreign cash transfers, investments, and business connections – which is why frequent digital

communication is financially crucial. In addition to economic cues, communication technologies

sustain relationships that are crucial for both identity management and political organization as

well as strong interpersonal connections.

Applications like Skype, Smartphones and Messengers facilitate everyday transnational

communication between relatives and friends living in different spaces – to overcome feelings of

loneliness and continuity interruptions during repatriation. Through the family WhatsApp

groups, the returnees are able to be virtually present during important occasions. Through such

sites, relocated migrants get updates on their home town news from expatriates still in the

country. Apart from the interpersonal connections, other structural connections are made through

online platforms to connect the returnees to the diaspora organizations where they help in

supporting development projects ‘back home’. Therefore, different forms of Internet interactions

foster a ‘connected presence’ for groups that are separated geographically. As much as persistent

contacts continuously remind people of homeland belonging in line with the Nordic America

Dream, the same contacts equally reposition people’s visions and perceptions – because, as

returnees, people also develop new cultural frames and class sensibilities. They may sever long-

standing relationships or alter the nature of their lives to adapt to changing native social relations.

Therefore, communication technologies have mixed and sometimes negative effects that are at

P a g e | 98

the heart of returnees’ fine line between here-and-there relationships that are essential for

integration.

Although there is the constant use of technologies, not all the Diasporas can afford to actively

engage in transnationalism upon returning to their home country – depending on their financial

abilities, and the level of ICT literacy and physical accessibility. The exclusivity compounds the

vulnerability of returnees with frail assets – such as elderly immigrants who return with little

money or those who have been forcibly expelled and cut off from essential support networks

upon their return. Knowledge of such differential, stratified impacts can enable migrant-sending

state policies that address the gaps, such as digital literacy for returning elderly migrants or

organizations that help involuntary returnees reintegrate. Given the dynamic nature of these

technological infrastructures and patterns of migration, their sociocultural imprints on return

migrants’ transnationality deserve further empirical examination – to maintain relevant

governance frameworks that address their connectivity requirements and prevent inequality.

e) Technology transfer and innovation

Looking at the factors that make return migrants to be important in transferring technology and

innovation back to their home countries. Most migrants are able to secure employment in the

knowledge economies of the receiving countries and they get acquainted with new technologies

and form of working that may be rudimentary or nonexistent in their home countries. In the

process, return migrants, who possess modern technical skills and education, bring in human

capital back to their country of origin. It is important to point out that research on high-skilled

return migrants to Bangalore showed that 60% of the respondents who were asked about their

activities after returning to India started their own companies and brought new products and

processes learnt in Silicon Valley while working for technology firms. While some go back due

P a g e | 99

to discouragement in handling various challenges in workplace across the globe, others go back

home with advantages of gaining new opportunities equipped with advanced skills. In addition to

the formation of enterprises, returnees pass on technical expertise through patents, publishing

papers, partnering with local universities, teaching peers and joining boards of science and

technology councils that advise national governments. Their previous exposure to norms and

sociocultural characteristics in their home countries also enhances the ease of transfer and

adoption of technologies compared to direct FDI by foreign firms. For instance, Chinese

government funded schemes such as ‘Thousand Talents’ offers research funding and laboratory

space to technically trained professionals who have moved back from western countries to

achieve dedicated work breakthroughs, relevant to the Chinese strategic sectors, including

telecommunications and biotechnology. Nevertheless, bringing effective innovation ecosystems

home is not without its difficulties. Return migrants previously trained abroad receive reverse

adjustment shocks regarding local institutional environments that are not similar to Western ones

they learned in foreign countries. The bureaucracy and corruption prevalent in several emerging

economy make it a challenge to register an IP or obtain investor capital. Thus, legacy social

networks are beneficial for reintegration here. Governments can also come up with specific

policies enhancing the working environment. In summary, return migrants are fundamental

enablers of technology transfer and enterprise creation that link developing home countries to

GVCs in FDI source countries. This ‘immersion–emersion’ cycle caused by working in foreign

environments then returning to native settings leads to both gradual and revolutionary

improvements. Despite a formidable structuralist framework this reuse of technologies through

high-skilled returnees allows the emergent economies to reap the benefits of productivity

increase, to shift up the value chain and to alleviate the effects of brain drain.

P a g e | 100

f) Digital divide challenges for returnees

The general observation about return migrants is that they try to deal with the high rate of

technology change in their home countries. Returnees may be faced with what is commonly

referred to as the ‘digital divide’ or the difference between having access to, and the ability to

use, new Information Communication Technologies ICTs on one hand and having no, or very

little, access or skills on the other. This split has significant implications as the future becomes

more and more reliant on technology.

For instance, the returnees who want to engage in entrepreneurship or seek job opportunities in

their home countries may have limited knowledge of the requisite digital technologies in areas

such as e-commerce, finance, and marketing and others. While technology adoption might have

been needed by these companies in their previous host nations in virtually all sectors, this may

not hold true in their home countries. Therefore, returnees may feel they are less qualified and

less relevant than their peers who have remained in the home country. Also, low levels of human

capital, as well as inequalities in knowledge, can lead to return migrants’ economic

marginalization and the issue of brain drain if their existing knowledge and skills are

underemployed.

To overcome such challenges, collaborative strategies include infrastructure supports, enhanced

digital literacy, educational and training programs for the workforce among others. Governments

need to facilitate the availability of technology to everyone; in contrast, academics and NGOs

need to design specific integration tools for highly technical and experienced movers. OP:

Community technology centers can also afford important spaces for return migrants to acquire

new ICT skills side by side with locals who seek to close gaps.

P a g e | 101

Closing these gaps can help returnees to a much greater extent provide efficient repatriation of

financial, human, social and other capital and also contribute to the overall technology-facilitated

development. Technology competent return migrants can comprehend local context dynamics

and bring modern instruments capable of yielding novel solutions for enduring development

challenges. This potential will be necessary to meet long term objectives.

12. FUTURE TRENDS AND POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS

Looking into the future of the next decades, it is expected that the return migration will be even

more significant due to the changes in migration around the world. There are indicators that more

rate of return migrants will exist worldwide in the future. First, refugee camps in many migrant-

sending countries are becoming less appealing to return to due to improved economic conditions

and job opportunities. For instance, China, India, and some Latin American and Southeast Asian

nations have experienced economic growth and development. Return migrants are in a position

to apply the knowledge, skills, networks and capital acquired in the developed countries and use

them to exploit the favorable business conditions in their home countries. Furthermore, the

majority of countries worldwide are pursuing diaspora engagement policies and incentives aimed

at the repatriation of the talent and financial resources of the diaspora. Governments are giving

incentives such as tax credits, access to credit, and business accelerators and other initiatives to

ensure that the process of returning home is easy. Some returnees are also attending to personal

and family obligations like taking care of sick or ageing parents at home. On the other hand,

instabilities and shaky economic situations in some countries hosting migrants may force

individuals to return home involuntarily. These factors point to the fact that return migration is

now on the rise and is definitely going to be a significant phenomenon over the next half century.

P a g e | 102

Consequently, the immigration as well as emigration countries require reformulating their policy

by taking into consideration the new trends in return migration. Sending nations have to create

favorable circumstances that include employment opportunities, social security, business

resources, and accommodation that can help in resettlement and absorption of the migrants.

Positive economic and social adjustment enhances the possibilities of return and transform the

probabilities of returnees into positives such as business development, skills enhancement, and

transfer of technology back home. The sending countries which aim at benefiting from reverse

migration may employ ministries to assist the returnees and enhance the cooperation among

states to promote circular and temporary migration instead. Failed return migration also poses a

problem to receiving countries as they too have an interest in the health of return migration. For

countries to remain open to foreign employees, students and families, native citizens require

assurance that such immigrants will someday go back to their countries of origin. It provides the

non-sustainable nature to temporary migration programs and avoids the idea of large-scale and

unwanted settlement. Therefore, host countries should ensure they create environments where

maids can easily return home through policies such as job placement and financial policies that

allow maids to remit money and invest back in their home countries. As the age of mobility

progresses, it is imperative to support constructive return migration so as to promote the ideas of

nation, state and citizenship. To this end, both the migrant sending and receiving countries must

collaborate.

a) Climate change and environmental return migration

Climate change and environmental degradation have emerged as important factors that influence

movements, including return migration. With increasing climate effects, some of the migrants

may possibly go back to their home country either through force or by choice. Climate change

P a g e | 103

impacts such as seawater level fluctuations, desertification, flooding, drought or scarcity of

water, and other climate changes may make living in specific areas impossible. This may

encourage migrants to return to home countries considered less threatened. For instance, the

Bangladeshi migrants who have migrated from the Middle East have been known to cite heat

stress and water stress as some of the determining factors. Some individuals whose homes are

threatened by rising waters due to global warming are also contemplating return. However,

return under distress from environmental factors can have socio economic impacts. They have no

money, jobs, homes, and other needs – particularly if environmental decline has also damaged

infrastructure in returnees’ home areas.

Governments should come up with progressive policies that would enhance the return of climate

migrants. The needs and capacities of returnee destination areas should be enhanced and

improved where necessary. This includes disaster risk reduction measures, climate resilient

infrastructure development, sustainable livelihood development, and affordable and sustainable

finance. Governments of origin countries can collaborate with governments of destination

countries to address obstacles to circular or seasonal migration. It also results in dual integration

in both the destination and the origin environments, fosters the facilitation of remittances, and

reduces the demand for large-scale, permanent return due to natural disasters. Any government

policies addressing the issues of climate change should ensure that human rights and dignity of

climate vulnerable migrants are protected including the right to freedom of movement. Increased

resource mobilization is needed for origin and destination countries to effectively co-finance

climate smart adaptation, resilience and disaster risk reduction – as well as for addressing climate

displacement impacts.

P a g e | 104

b) Aging populations and return

Based on demographic forecasts of declining birth rates and the ageing population in many

developed countries in the next decades, return migration of retirees will potentially become an

important phenomenon. Those who migrated during the young adulthood to attend school or

seek employment may desire to go back to their home country in the later years. This is due to

various reasons such as low cost of living, need to connect with families and friends, and

culture.

An aging population structure suggests a high probability of the number of retirees that are likely

to be supported by the working population will increase significantly. This puts fiscal burdens on

pension and healthcare. Return migration can be advantageous to the origin countries in terms of

the financial capital that the migrants bring, the health care they spend and the skills they also

bring from the host countries they used to work in. Governments can use specific incentives to

encourage return flows, for instance retirement visas or improved citizenship for those who once

left the country to improve their citizenship situation or programs which help to resettle returnees

and assist in setting up business. The demand for increased healthcare will be required to support

a larger elderly population.

Nevertheless, Aging returnees experience problems of social integration and poverty upon their

return to country of origin as they left when development was not radiant. Lack of

companionship. If families are moved then there is a lack of companionship or people to interact

with. Most also have challenges in acquiring shelter and medical care. Origin countries should,

therefore, enhance support to elderly care services and facilities for the elderly. NGOs can also

offer other community spaces and related offerings for returnee seniors. Pensions that can be

expected to help welfare of the poor returnees are the social pensions to the poor.

P a g e | 105

Apart from social service implications, ageing populations with return migration patterns will

impact origin countries’ political economy in general. Withdrawals by returnees augment the

pension funds of domestic financial institutions. On their healthcare spending and age specific

consumption, it is argued that they establish new consumption markets. It also affects the

composition of households and intergenerational transfers. Governments should be aware of

increasing dependency ratios and ensure that they prepare for this by developing adequate

policies and programs to support families who are providing care through tax credit or care giver

allowance that may be financed by taxing back pensions received by retired persons from foreign

countries.

c) Post-pandemic return migration patterns

The COVID-19 pandemic significantly affected global migration leaving many migrants to be

repatriated to their countries of origin either willingly or compelled. While the pandemic persists,

it has the effect of slowing down return migration and changing its patterns in unpredictable

ways as the pandemic draws to a close and recovery starts. Also, policy makers together with

researchers require accurate models to forecast new trends, so that they can formulate

appropriate policies regarding re-migrants’ assimilation, re-migration probability, job market

shortages, and many other issues.

Preliminary studies show that a significant number of returnees who were repatriated due to

COVID-19 employment loss or health issues may re-migrate in the post-pandemic period on

business and social conditions. However, some of the return migrants especially families may

prefer to stay in the origin country instead of going through risky and expensive repeat

migration. As travel and hiring continues, destination countries might look to bring back

essential workers in healthcare, agriculture, abattoir and other industries that were most

P a g e | 106

impacted. There will also be the increases in circular migration as flexible visa arrangements are

developed. Observing trends in occupational concentration of re-emigrants can help to identify

vocationally relevant investments needed in origin countries. Greater availability of social

protections – health care, unemployment benefits, pensions – could also help secure the

permanent integration of certain segments of return migrants in home countries.

Ad hoc polls, panel surveys and data exchange cooperation between countries of origin and

destination will be instrumental in explaining short and long-term post COVID return intentions

across migrants’ skill, employment, age and family status. Such data can be useful in feeding the

predictive models and enable more targeted policies on reintegration funding, small business

funding, labor quotas and the likes. Specifically, the roles of return migrant forecasts to disaster-

prone regions are crucial for policymakers as climate change gains pace and increases in

severity, ensuring the availability of capacity and resources. In emerging and dynamic mobility

systems, sound data should guide policies in every country of origin and destination to harness

the social and economic benefits of return migrants internationally.

d) Enhancing data collection on return migration

Systematic and accurate information on return migration is still limited, which hinders policy

interventions. Analyzing databases and developing life-course perspectives is still beyond the

capabilities and financial endowment of many states. International databases, which offer relative

figures are also scarce. It is therefore incumbent upon governments to prioritize the improvement

of data collection on return migration flows.

In particular, national statistics agencies have to enhance the methods of assessing the totals of

immigration and emigration within the frames of data collection. For instance, border surveys at

P a g e | 107

airports and other crossing points that involve questions about the migration intentions of

travelers. It is also possible to include questions concerning prior migration history and future

plans in the labor force and household surveys to accommodate data on potential returnees.

Immigration and emigration data about the migrant population can be obtained by collaboration

between governments of sending and receiving countries.

Equally important however is the longitudinally follow migrants for months or years. There

should be more countries that have integrated identification systems, and there should be a single

national identifier for every citizen that tracks their global activities. Sender and recipient

countries may also come together to merge databases affiliated to migrants to produce a

composite background of migration.

As such, there is also a need to gather improved qualitative information on the return process per

se through questionnaires and interviews. These should include: purpose of return, post-

resettlement difficulties, reintegration successes in social and economic spheres, and assessment

of government initiatives for returnees. Engagement with migrant stakeholders, civil society

organizations, diaspora associations, and universities can extend to other migrants elsewhere in

the world.

Enhancing the existing quality and coverage of basic data will enable the identification of the

extent, composition, and requirements of return migrants. It will assist governments to forecast

return flows, provide the right reintegration support, transfer remittances and promote Diaspora

investment, and assess policy dynamics. Accurate information on return migrants is essential for

informed policymaking to enhance reintegration and to harness return migration for

development. Intensified support for development of human and financial capacities from

international organizations facilitates origination as well as destination countries’ advancements.

P a g e | 108

e) Best practices in reintegration policies

Therefore, as migration flows are expected to change in the next decades, it is crucial to ensure

adequate reintegration support for return migrants. A brief examination of current programs has

identified a number of practices that should be followed more closely in future. First,

policymaker should enhance the discretion in the funding and the delivery of reintegration

services. This suggests that return migrants are a diverse population in terms of socioeconomic

status, skills, financial capital, and reasons for returning, which means that a one-size-fits-all

approach is not satisfactory. Allowing returnees some level of self-governance over how they

engage with available reintegration services through presented lists of options offers them the

best services. These could involve vocation training, micro-enterprise development, employment

search services, counselling or any other form of special support. Second, governments need to

improve coordination in reintegration efforts among different agencies. Various ministries such

as those of immigration, development, health, education, and local governments are involved in

the proper integration of returnees to society. Task forces or liaison positions that consolidate

expertise across institutions are more effective at breaking down walls and avoiding

redundancies. In the same vein, countries for enhanced bi-lateral cooperation in order to confirm

and transfer social security or professional qualifications acquired in other countries.

Third, it is crucial for policymakers to allocate more money to reintegration efforts that are

targeted at the community level. To prevent host communities from developing feelings of

hostility to returnees as economic ‘interlopers,’ returnees need help in reintegration into local

communities and societies through social participation in community activities such as

development projects and programs that offer educational training and employment to both the

non-migrants and returnees. Last but not the least, governments and NGOs should allocate more

P a g e | 109

money for the improvement of the methods of the evaluation of the effectiveness of the

reintegration programs that are being implemented at the present stage. Unfortunately, a

significant number of existing programs do not have standardized measures or systems for data

gathering to evaluate the effectiveness of services at different points in time. The enrolment of

short and long-term sociocultural, economical, and psychosocial reintegration challenges and

success will help in identifying the future policy changes required for the future migration

environment. As returns are expected to rise, whether voluntary or involuntary, there are pressing

but not simple challenges for developing countries to help individuals who want to reintegrate

into society after being separated from their families and communities overseas. Only through

the coordinated cooperation of governments, bilateral partners, local communities, and returnees

themselves based on available evidence, can societies effectively adapt reentry systems and

transform returns into a development advantage instead of a disruption.

f) Ethical considerations in return migration management

With time and as return migration continues to expand in its nature and size, issues of ethics

relating to the handling of these migration streams will act as a growing concern. Thus, the

framework of the rights-based approach, which focuses on the dignity and agency of returnees,

should be surrounded. Exit should always be willing, not forced. Government should make sure

that the migrants have adequate information to make the right decisions and have access to

resources that will enable them to reintegrate in the society. Migrants’ data such as health records

as well as biometric data should be protected to minimize discrimination or stigmatization.

Increased climate change impacts and disasters mean that policies for voluntary return have to

consider the environmental carrying capacity and state of infrastructure to enable returnees to

immediately reconstruct sustainable lives. It is therefore important to help women, children, the

P a g e | 110

disabled and the elderly among other vulnerable groups through organizations offering protection

and assistance, employment opportunities, child care, shelter and health services respectively.

Since many migrants return home empty handed, policies should allow them to recover their

wages, insurance, pensions, and properties left behind to counteract exploitative employers and

reverse the injustice done to migrants. The threat of fraudulent recruitment and trafficking may

persist on return, demanding ethical recruitment policies and inter-country cooperation for

rescues, investigations, and prosecution of offenders at the same time. This specifically applies to

virtual counseling, job-matching online or cash transfer technologies that should be responsibly

developed for effective large-scale return implementation that does not violate privacy and

consent. To prevent or reduce xenophobia it is important to launch information campaigns which

would prevent negative attitudes to turn into discriminative actions towards returnees seeking for

housing, jobs, education or healthcare. These returns involve multi-state cooperation between

origin, transit, and destination countries; such arrangements should not be based on the concept

of immigration enforcement but rather the humanitarian consideration. It also means that

cooperation in the areas of logistics, funding, data and service provision should be done openly,

and in compliance with ethical standards to enhance the protection and sustainable reintegration

of returnees around the world. In sum, prioritizing justice and welfare of vulnerable migrants

over political calculations or financial gain will be the key to ethical handling of return migration

in the decades to come.

JHR 425 -RETURN MIGRATION; MOTIVATIONS, CHALLENGES AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS

Students also viewed