Pre-return experiences

Various authors assert that understanding migrants’ post-return experiences requires a holistic approach whereby experiences and living conditions during previous migration phases are considered (Lietaert et al. 2017, see also Gualda and Escriva 2014; van Houte and Davids 2008). Some of the pre-return aspects that authors have highlighted in the literature as relevant for the reintegration process are motivations to emigrate and life in the host country, including the length of stay abroad and immigration status. In terms of migrants’ motivation to emigrate, NELM theorists state that when emigration is motivated by an economic strategy with a specific goal, return migration constitutes the logical outcome of the established project. Therefore, reintegration is expected to happen smoothly as migrants have calculated the acquisition and accumulation of sufficient resources (savings and remittances) to guarantee a successful reincorporation into life back ‘home’ (Cassarino 2004:255). As we will learn from this research, more often than not migrants do not have definite return plans as they often emigrate on a trial basis, letting their decision of whether or not to return and when to return be guided by the opportunities they find in the new society (Gmelch 1980:138). Therefore, as seen earlier in the literature review of the Mexican case, return happens spontaneously and is motivated by aspects related to life in the host country or unresolved situations back ‘home’ (e.g. being deported or having an ill parent in need of care). Furthermore, the ability to reintegrate relies on the (limited) preparedness of the returnee and the support available in the country of origin.

In relation to life in the host country, Gmelch (1980) asserts that if the duration of stay abroad is short, the migrant can reintegrate easily into the strong networks still available to them, but if the period of absence is extensive, returnees may be alienated from their original society, or they may be of an older age at which reintegration is improbable. Somewhere in between, an optimum length of absence might be found whereby the absence is sufficiently long to have influenced the migrant and allowed him/her to absorb certain experiences and values, and yet sufficiently short that he or she still has time and energy upon return to utilise

newly acquired skills and attitudes (King 1986:19). As we can see from these early overviews by Gmelch and King, migrants’ integration experiences in the host country (which are linked to migrants’ immigration statuses) and the transnational links maintained with the country of origin are also key in the reintegration process.

More recently, Cassarino (2004) introduced important other aspects that may influence returnees’ ability to reintegrate. This author argues that the propensity of returnees to be able to reintegrate into their communities depends on their return preparedness, which includes their readiness (ability to mobilise material and social resources), and willingness to go back home (Cassarino 2004:271, 2008). In short, this author argues that the extent of returnees’ preparation will be inherently linked to their ability to reintegrate.

More recently, Cassarino (2016) proposed the concept of the migration cycle to further elaborate on two aspects of return, migrants’ preparedness and agency. This author specifies that the migration cycle is composed of three phases: emigration, immigration and return, and describes three possible ways in which these cycles culminate, these being complete, incomplete and interrupted. According to Cassarino, a complete cycle is when the person assesses their situation and decides to return; an incomplete cycle is when the migrant intended to stay abroad for longer but it is not possible for them to do so and he/she is forced to return; and in the interrupted cycle the person also had the intention to stay for longer but something disturbed their plan and, after evaluating the situation, he/she decides to go back. The difference between the incomplete and interrupted cycles is that in the interrupted cycle, the individual has a certain degree of agency as the person can evaluate the situation and subsequently decide to return. This assessment process does not happen in the incomplete cycle. Cassarino’s concept of migration cycle is particularly relevant while researching migrants’ (‘voluntary’, compelled and forced) return to Mexico because it allows us to better understand how even a marginal use of agency can make a difference to the emotional readiness of migrants, and therefore to their general wellbeing.

Based on Cassarino’s framework, it might be assumed that migrants for whom it is not possible to prepare their return (forced return) experience negative reintegration outcomes, and those who are better able to decide and prepare (compelled and voluntary return) experience more positive reintegration outcomes; however this is not always the case. Several authors have concluded that those who have had (to a certain extent) more agency in the ability to decide to return may have higher expectations, and therefore they may be more likely to feel disappointed by their actual return experience (Erdal and Oeppen 2017;

King and Kılınc 2014; Muggeride and Dona 2006; Oeppen 2013). In other words, preparedness for return does not necessarily have a positive effect on returnees’ ability to reintegrate as migrants’ post-return conditions, experiences and the impact of these aspects on migrants’ wellbeing, must also be considered.