Pasar al contenido principal

Return and reintegration – Types and strategies using the example of Turkey, Georgia and the Russian Federation

2013, T. Baraulina, A. Kreienbrink, BAMF, Return and reintegration – Types and strategies using the example of Turkey, Georgia and the Russian Federation
Tipo
Informe
País
Georgia, Federación de Rusia (la), Turquía
Región
Europa Sudoriental, Europa Oriental y Asia Central
Organización
Bundesamt für Migration und Flüchtlinge (BAMF)
Año
2013
Authors
T. Baraulina, A. Kreienbrink

The fourth volume of the series entitled "Beiträge zu Migration und Integration" (Contributions to Migration and Integration Studies) focuses on return and reintegration of migrants to Turkey, Georgia and the Russian Federation.

In this project, various groups of returnees were interviewed regarding the circumstances and motives of their decision to return, their reintegration strategies and their plans for onward migration. The results of these analyses can provide insights for the further development of return and reintegration policies.

The analysis shows that concerns about not having the same opportunities for participation in Germany form an important motive for return. However migrants decide to return not only because of dissatisfaction. The self-assessment of opportunities for participation in their countries of origin is of crucial importance for the return decision. Support by family, friends and other relevant social networks ease the return decision. A return decision is more difficult for migrants in disadvantageous situations, as they assess their perspectives in the country of origin negatively. Return policies should take into account the disadvantageous situation of returnees with limited economic, professional and social resources.

Reintegration success depends on how returnees are able to use their skills and qualifications, as well as capital that they have saved, and their social support networks. Reintegration policies should encourage returnees to use existing skills and qualifications in order to ensure their livelihood, and should foster returnees’ social inclusion.

The return sustainability cannot be evaluated according to the criteria of long term settlement or long term immobility of the returnees. Unsuccessful as well as successful returnees may develop onward migration plans. Economic resources and cross-border social contacts facilitate the realization of further forms of mobility.

The analysis presented here is based upon 90 interviews with returnees and their relatives.