Undocumented migration and its implications for return and reintegration

While the initial intention of this research was to have a balance between documented and undocumented migrants, following the fieldwork phase I realised that a great majority of my research participants migrated and returned without documents39 _{and this fact had a} profound effect on all their migration phases (emigration, settlement, return and reintegration). While there has been a growing interest in the return of undocumented migrants, researchers argue that the focus has been on deportees, particularly government policy and the deportation process itself, and much less attention has been given to the post- deportation experience (Hasselberg 2013:18). One of the few exceptions is a study by Pohl that focused on the experience of Chechen and Ingush people being deported to Kazakhstan. Through this case study, Pohl concluded that forced return had long-lasting effects that went beyond the actual removal of individuals and affected their reintegration process (2002) as well as their wellbeing.

From the few studies available, researchers recognise that some of the difficulties forced returnees face during reintegration are similar to those that migrants face when arriving in the host countries, for example a lack of knowledge of the language, history and culture, as well as being uninformed about the local lifestyle and relevant networks (Drotbohm 2015). Pohl’s findings coincide with those of previous researchers cited in this text, who concluded that reintegration difficulties will worsen depending on the length of time spent abroad and the age of migration (Cassarino 2004; Erdal and Ezzati 2015; King 2000). In relation to the structural dimension, Lietaert et al. (2014:145) assert that forced returnees’ ‘new lives’ (in an old and undeveloped context) are often challenging due to their inability to prepare, and mobilise financial and human capital. Returnees’ ability to meet their basic needs (e.g. shelter) and access to job opportunities, could be limited, thereby forcing them to live in precarious conditions and preventing them from attaining a sustainable livelihood (Black et al. 2004; van Houte and Davids 2008). Moreover, due to their unpreparedness and (often) unwillingness to return, emotional problems may arise and render it difficult to cope with economic adversity (Ghanem 2003; Ghazaryan et al. 2002; van Houte and Davids 2008). As for the social dimension, several studies highlight the fact that returnees face rejection from their peers. Due to the social significance of return, many migrants only return under

39 _{54 out of 60 of my participants travelled with no documents, four travelled with tourist visas and}

overstayed and only two reported travelling with residency permits. While in the USA, access to documents was impossible for a great majority except for two who became citizens. This will be explored in detail in the following chapters.

adequate conditions, for example when they are able to afford a certain ‘style of return’, which would in many parts of the world imply the distribution of money and gifts and the hosting of friends and family with drinks and food (Baldassar 2001; Drotbohm 2012, 2015:659). Drotbohm highlights that people who are forced to return cannot always meet these expectations, which can therefore this give rise to a negative reception by their ‘home’ communities. Forced returnees are often seen as failed immigrants and a disappointment to those related to them. As explained by Lietaert et al. (2014), a migrant returning empty- handed to his country of origin will usually face financial difficulties. However, Drotbohm highlights that returnees’ relatives and friends on both sides of the border may also suffer financially as a result (2015:659) and they are therefore considered as an ‘economic burden’. Moreover, when migrants become immobile in their countries of origin and have to receive remittances sent from their loved ones who ‘remain behind’ in the USA, established norms and hierarchies as well as common expectations become dislocated (Drotbohm 2015:667).

Another reason for the rejection of forced returnees is highlighted by Schuster and Majidi (2015), who assert that individuals in immigrant-producing societies want to maintain their fantasies that migration is a pathway to progress (see also Wright 2012b). Therefore, they are more likely to stigmatise deportees as failures than to attribute deportation to conditions in the country from which deportees were removed. All of the above-mentioned factors can differ for men and women. For example, contrary to the case of women, men more often face deportation but women who are deported are more commonly stigmatised than men. In the words of Drotbohm, “…not only is gender significant in the way in which migration is seen in the context of the deportees’ origin, it also structures the experiences of deportation and post-deportation life” (2015:660).

Studies have highlighted that in the case of female deportees, in comparison to males, they struggle with a particularly bad reputation as a result to their deportation. The image of a deported woman goes against common expectations people have of migrant women (and mothers), who are expected to live morally impeccable lives and dedicate themselves to earning money to send back to the families they left behind. Therefore, their deportation many times is considered unforgivable, leaving them with little support from their families and social networks. In contrast to female deportees’ experiences, men can even draw positively on their criminal experiences and their reputations as ‘bad hombres’ (Drotbohm 2014:662) portraying themselves as adventurous, tough and strong men.

Generally speaking, these studies conclude that returnees do not reintegrate successfully to the ‘home’ society to which they have returned and, overall, they experience an unstable living situation and as a consequence, high percentages of these returnees intend to re- migrate (Davids et al. 2009; Ghazaryan et al. 2002; van Houte and Davids 2008). This re- migration is particularly challenging for undocumented Mexican migrants, hence the majority of what were intended to be ‘temporary’ returns ultimately become ‘permanent’. Therefore a ‘forced’ return also becomes a ‘forced stay’, or in the words of Carling (2002) ‘involuntary immobility’, which affects the readiness but particularly willingness of migrants to reintegrate. Hence they often remain in a type of protracted limbo that is detrimental for individuals, families and whole communities.