Post-return experiences

A second group of studies focuses on returnees’ post-return situations: they highlight the way returnees manage or struggle to reintegrate and build up their

26

lives in the country of origin, and study issues of identity, home and belonging among returnees.

Scholars indicate that returning ‘home’ or returning to the ‘homeland’ is not a simple homecoming or an easy return to a familiar and comfortable context one belongs to (D’Onofrio, 2004; Eastmond, 2001; Ghanem, 2003; Hammond, 1999).

Changes in the home country, changes in the attitudes and perspectives of returnees due to their migration experience, and socio-political and economic challenges in the country of return, all constitute a return process as an arrival at a new place (Hammond, 1999; Ruben, Van Houte, & Davids, 2009), which is sometimes experienced even more difficult than the initial migration (Black &

Gent, 2006; Markowitz & Stefansson, 2004). Further, return does not necessarily mark the permanent end of people’s migration process (Black & Koser, 1999;

Black et al., 2004; Ruben et al., 2009), but needs to be conceived as a phase in a dynamic and ongoing process (Eastmond, 2006; King, 2000; Ruben et al., 2009).

Therefore, return processes should not be conceptualized as ‘natural’,

‘unproblematic’, or ‘static’ phenomena, but as multi-phased, multi-layered, complex and contested processes and experiences (Black et al., 2004; King, 2000;

Markowitz & Stefansson, 2004; Ruben et al., 2009), which require time (Cassarino, 2014) or sometimes never end (Ghanem, 2003). Moreover, returnees are a very heterogeneous group in terms of their migration experiences, length of stay abroad, patterns of resource mobilization, legal status, motivations and post-return projects, and consequently, large differentiated reintegration processes and post-return realities can be expected (Cassarino, 2004).

In the following section, we take a closer look at the return preparedness theory of Cassarino (2004, 2008) which is the only theoretical model that explains different reintegration processes and differences in returnees’ post-return situations across different contexts (Van Meeteren et al., 2014). Subsequently, we summarize the available empirical evidence on the post-return experiences of ‘voluntary’

returnees (those returning without physical force) who had a precarious residence status in the host country.

1.4.3.1 Return preparedness

Cassarino (2004, 2008) introduced a theoretical model of ‘return preparedness’, which attempts to explain the plurality of post-return conditions faced by returnees and their various patterns of reintegration (see figure 1.2).

The author defines this concept of ‘return preparedness’ as, firstly, the free will of migrants to choose to return (willingness to return), and, secondly, the readiness to return, particularly the abilities to collect resources (i.e., tangible resources, intangible resources and social capital) that are needed to return. Both elements

27 are, according to Cassarino, strongly influenced by circumstances in host and home country, and influence the outcomes of the return process.

Figure 1.2: Return preparation (Cassarino, 2004, p. 180)

By highlighting possible variations in migrants’ willingness and readiness to return, this model captures that return is not always a voluntary act. Further, its emphasis on the process of resources mobility stresses the need to view return as on ongoing process. As such, the model can include the return of various types of migrants, also of migrants returning with AVR programmes. The theoretical model of Cassarino classifies rejected asylum seekers and undocumented migrants as returnees with an interrupted migration cycle due to their precarious residence status, which renders their level of preparedness very low, or even non-existing, and hampers their abilities to reintegrate (Cassarino, 2004, 2014).

However, empirical evidence on the return and reintegration experiences and lived realities of returnees who had a precarious residence status in the host country is scarce (see 1.3.2; Black et al., 2004; Carr, 2014; Cassarino, 2008;

Zimmermann, 2012). The available, but still limited, studies on the post-return situations and wellbeing of this group of returnees are discussed below.

1.4.3.2 Post-return situation and wellbeing of returnees with a precarious residence status in the host country

The main part of empirical research on the post-return situations of returnees who had a precarious residence status in the host country and who are returning voluntarily, both with and without governmental support, investigates whether these post-return situations are ‘sustainable’ (Black et al., 2004; Riiskjaer &

Nielsson, 2008; Thiel & Gillan, 2010) or ‘embedded’ returns (Carr, 2014; Ruben et al., 2009), as reflected in different life domains and measured through both socio-economic indicators and returnees’ subjective perspectives (Black et al., 2004;

Returnee’s preparedness

Tangible resources

Intangible resources

Social capital

Circumstances in host and home

Resource mobilisation Willingness to

return

Readiness to return

28

Davids & Van Houte, 2008; Thiel & Gillan, 2010). These studies, all based on cross-sectional data, both quantitative and qualitative, sketch a rather negative image.

First, returnees’ primary challenge concerns establishing a material base of living (Pedersen, 2003), a process that often turns out to be difficult. Ruben and colleagues (2009) analyse the situation of 178 returnees in six different countries and conclude that only a few returnees were capable of creating an independent livelihood. A vital factor influencing returnees’ post-return situations is the context of the home country. The poor political, economic and social infrastructures in the country of origin, the lack of access to housing facilities and employment, and feelings unsafety owing to material insecurity and instability all complicate the return process (Black et al., 2004; Riiskjaer & Nielsson, 2008; Thiel

& Gillan, 2010; Van Houte & De Koning, 2008). According to Pedersen (2003), also returnees’ access to transnational resources, may enable returnees’ establishment of a material home, however, the transnational connections of migrants returning with a precarious residence status remain largely understudied.

Second, many returnees lack or lose access to local social ties after return (Riiskjaer & Nielsson, 2008; Thiel & Gillan, 2010), inhibiting returnees’ ability to create a home and to feel accepted after returned, since social networks are indispensable sources of material and emotional support (Pedersen, 2003; Ruben et al., 2009; Thiel & Gillan, 2010). Yet, Davids and Van Houte (2008) argue that these social networks often only give emotional support, and that only returnees from privileged socio-economic backgrounds have access to social relations which can help to create a livelihood, such as employment (Pedersen, 2003; Van Houte &

De Koning, 2008).

Accordingly, questions arise about returnees’ feelings of belonging to the country of origin; yet the empirical evidence is less consistent here. According to Pedersen (2003), returnees’ primary concerns relate to their material living conditions, and questions of identity and belonging only gain importance once a material base of living is well established. In contrast, other scholars point to the primary importance of feelings of non-belonging amongst returnees (Riiskjaer & Nielsson, 2008), or, in contrast, indicate that the material hardships returnees are confronted with do not prevent the majority of the returnees from feeling at home after their return (Van Houte & De Koning, 2008).

However, most of these empirical studies on returnees’ post-return situations draw on pre-constructed domains that are important for a successful return (Black et al., 2004; Riiskjaer & Nielsson, 2008; Ruben et al., 2009; Thiel & Gillan, 2010). Hence, these methods possibly overlook the subjective significance of different elements in returnees’ post-return lives. Besides, although the conceptualizations of return migration stress that return is a multi-locational and

29 ongoing process which requires time, there has not been any longitudinal research on the post-return realities of these returnees. Cross-sectional studies, in one place and at one moment, cannot fully capture the complex and dynamic character of the return process (Alcock, 2004). This reveals the need for longitudinal research on these migrants’ return processes, incorporating returnees’

perspectives on their post-return situations and what they identify as crucial impacting factors.