Post-return experiences

Holistic studies of the reintegration experiences of returnees are rare, but those that take into account all the various integration dimensions introduced earlier in this chapter (structural, social, cultural, civic and political participation dimensions), and analyse the interrelations between them, are even scarcer (see Kuschminder 2017). In the following section, I will incorporate the literature related to the various aspects of the reintegration of migrants into their communities of return, which will later inform my case study.

When considering the structural dimension of reintegration, which implies access and participation in local institutions, literature has focused more on the experience of returned refugees than that of economic or labour migrants. Therefore, the literature is largely concerned with issues such as access to rights, protection, property restitution, reconciliation and peace building, restoration of livelihoods, monitoring access to basic needs such as food, water, and sanitation, or to essential services such as health and education (Davies 2004 in Kuschminder 2017:9; see Long and Oxfeld 2004). With regard to economic migrants’ access to and participation in local institutions, some studies focus on the experience of returnees in accessing education or the labour market (see Lulle 2017; Medina and Menjívar 2015; Román and Hamann 2014; Sheehan and Riosmena 2013). However, apart from a few exceptions (Kuschminder 2017), these studies do not systematically consider the wider access of returnees to their basic needs and rights. Presumably, this is because it is assumed that non-refugee returnees are not in situations of vulnerability upon return and that ‘economic’ migrants return with sufficient resources to enable them to independently meet their own needs. As Kuschminder (2017) and other authors show (see also Erdal and Oeppen 2017; Hasselberg 2013; Miller 2012), this assumption is not always correct as deportees, rejected asylum seekers, and low-skilled migrants can all return in situations of vulnerability wherein they need support in order to be able to meet their basic needs and struggle for equal access to rights.

Reintegration involves creating and negotiating new relationships as well as re- establishing earlier ties (Miller 2008:66-68; Phillips 2004:157). Unsurprisingly, connections between returnees and the ‘home’ communities are often complex as usually both sides

experience changes (to a certain degree), and develop a set of expectations which have to be negotiated over time. Issues related to political orientation, religious and cultural beliefs and practices, as well as gendered social interactions are only a few of the many areas in which returnees and their communities of origin may come into conflict or undergo transformation (Cerase 1974; Gmelch 1980; Hammond 2004; King 1977; Smith 2006). Therefore, having strong social networks or regaining access to them upon return has been considered as a key aspect for reintegration (Boccagni 2011; Davids et al. 2009; Kuschminder 2017; van Houte and Davids 2008; van Metereen et al. 2014). Specifically, van Houte and Davids assert that the extent to which a returnee can benefit from their social capital depends on the type of social networks he or she has. They specify that it is not so much the size as the meaningfulness of returnees’ social networks that matter. Both in terms of emotional and material support, the possibility of relying on social relationships is crucial for returnees to become reintegrated (2008:1418). As we will see later in this thesis, this aspect is particularly important in those cases where the state support is non-existent or inadequate, as in the case of Mexico.

King, among other authors, has concluded that, aside from individual motivations, there are cultural, political and social factors that determine migrants' decisions to return or not to return ‘home’ (2000). Return is often motivated by a change in local politics that presumably can lead to greater socio-economic stability and a safer environment in post-conflict states (Kuschminder 2017:59). In other cases, return is encouraged as part of a political strategy where governments issue policies that actively promote return (see Boccagni 2011). Moreover, political reintegration refers to returnees’ active participation in the civic and political processes of the country. As will be discussed later in this thesis, returnees’ active participation in the civic and political spheres depends not only on the social capital developed in the host countries, but also on how much they identify with and feel part of their communities of return. Furthermore, their possible contributions to development depend on the positions of authority and power that they hold in their communities (Ammassari and Black 2001:34) as well as on the contexts into which they integrate (Cassarino 2004). In other words, when the macro conditions and structures in the ‘home’ country are not propitious, returnees remain on the side-lines of civic and political participation and often their capital acquisitions remain underutilised.

In order to analyse the cultural dimension, researchers often consider returnees’ participation in religious or cultural events, and to what extent they follow the norms and

values of the society of the community of return (see Smith 2006:242). Often authors define returnees’ cultural experiences upon return as a ‘reverse cultural shock’, where returnees’ new ideas and customs may make them stand out and clash with the ‘non-migrant culture’, making it difficult to adjust and feel at ‘home’. This process often results in the social exclusion of returnees and in the development of a ‘return identity’ and, in some cases, even the creation of return ‘enclaves’ wherein returnees only interact with each other (Kuschminder 2017:22; Stefansson 2004). As an example of how important culture is in the daily life of returnees, Lulle analyses the experience of teenagers who returned to Latvia and how their inability to speak the language negatively affected their reintegration experience and wellbeing (2017). On the other hand, researchers’ findings suggest that migrants who were ‘homeland’ oriented while living abroad, often realise upon return that they have a more traditionalist approach to culture than non-migrants. Therefore, it is common for them to feel disappointed upon return (see King and Christou 2010). As stated previously in this chapter, and as we will see in the following chapters, cultural reintegration also depends on various factors such as sociodemographic characteristics (age, gender, education and occupation), life course, time spent living abroad and the opportunities of integration in the host country.

Most existing studies of return migration seem to conclude that returnees, more often than not, experience unhappiness and dissatisfaction as an outcome of their post-return experiences (King 2000:19). This makes us wonder why, despite this disappointment, people do not re-migrate. One of the answers proposed by King and Christou, from their research with second-generation returnees to Greece, is that if people did not re-migrate despite their disappointment it was because leaving the ‘homeland’ would “fundamentally undermine their lifelong sense of who they are (ethnic Greeks above all) and where they ultimately belong (in the Greek homeland)” (2010:117).

Identity and sense of belonging are intimate and fundamental aspects of people’s lives. According to Kuschminder, returnees’ sense of belonging can overlap, and the notion of ‘home’ can have multiple meanings to them (2017:123). This sense of belonging and meanings of ‘home’ are often products of an individual evaluation of the various aspects of the reintegration experience. At the same time, this evolving sense of belonging plays a significant role in the process of reintegration (Vathi 2017:9). In other words, the evolving sense of belonging and the reintegration experience reciprocally feed into each other and are closely intertwined.