A Presentation By Kristjan W. K.

Mann

International Migration:
Historic Perspectives

Between the 18th century and the late 20 th century migration was generally thought of as a one-way and singular occurrence in ones lifetime, most often from Europe or Asia, to North America. Between 1815 and 1914 roughly 30 million people left Europe bound for the United States alone. * The phenomenon of Return Migration is noted as early as 1885 by Ernest George Ravenstein, in his book The Laws of Migration.

Each main current of migration produces a compensating counter-current E. G. Ravenstein

* Source: Oxford Atlas of World History, Oxford University Press, 1999. General Editor Patrick K. O'Brien. (p. 211)

The Study of Return Migration:

Early Problems

Little research was done into the causes and effects of return migration until the early 1980. A dominant rural-urban analytical framework, in part, led to a focus on unidirectional migration within the social sciences. A migration bibliography published in 1970 which contained 2051 titles listed only 10 articles, or less than half of one percent, which were related to return migration.

Systematic Factors
The return period within migration cycles often happens outside of the temporal boundaries of formal studies. Governments rarely keep extensive records related to repatriation.

Analytical Models
Old and New

Rural/Urban Model with Return/Remittance Pool. Contemporary Model of Return Migration in the Caribbean

Identity and Terminology

Return migration is known by many names: repatriation, homeward migration, and remigration to name a few.

Identities of return migrants are subjective, with individual circumstance and motivation playing a key role in determining the typology of a return migrant.
This is largely due to the variable nature of temporal and structural conceptions thereof. i.e. How long must one have emigrated for to be considered a return migrant? and Under what circumstances does one return?. Return migrants are typified based on their structural and personal motivations, and then grouped into one of three categories: 1) Those who always intended to return, 2) those who were forced to return, and 3) those who chose to return. Return migration is defined as the movement of emigrants back to their homelands to resettle - George Gmelch 1980

Typologies
Those Who Always Intended to Return

Returnees who intended temporary migration have the time of their return set by a predetermined timeframe or objective(s) which they hope to achieve through migration.

This group can include, but is not limited to: Refugees who have been waiting to return to their homeland. Migrant, or Seasonal, Workers. International Students. Contract Employees.

Typologies
Those Who Were Forced to Return

Returnees who intended to migrate permanently but were forced to return due to structural or relational factors are marked by a preference to remain abroad, with their return determined by external factors.

This group may include amongst others: Refugees whose repatriation is forced. Under and unemployed persons, as well as those displaced by mechanization. Those with personal obligations in their home country; ex. Ailing relatives, young children, family debt etc

Those who leave due to socio-economic pressures such as racism and discrimination.

Typologies
Those Who Chose to Return

Returnees who intended to migrate permanently but then chose to return. This can be due to failure to adjust or failure to meet objectives, as Gmelch notes, however, one could also choose to return in order to pursue socioeconomic advantages or as a result of changing political or socio-cultural landscape.

Some members of this group may be: Immigrants who are generally homesick. Those who fail to learn, and/or adjust to, the native language or customs. Those who return to pursue a socio-economic advantage gained through their migration. Those who were in states of self-imposed exile due to a previously untenable situation at home.

Returning Home:
Issues and Opportunities

Perceived socio-economic advantages may not be as great as anticipated, due to demographic, economic, or cultural factors.

Returnees may have trouble readjusting to life at home as familiar people and places may have changed since their initial departure.
Infrequent trips home may exacerbate eventual readjustment. Life at home may been idealized during these trips due a vacation mentality. Life at home may seem backward or too slow in pace compared to life abroad.

On the Other Hand

Returnees may achieve a increased social status due to their travels.
Innovations may be brought back from abroad and incorporated into home life.

Contemporary Issues
Surrounding Sexuality

When individuals migrate for emotional reasons, in other words to pursue a relationship, the potential breakdown of said relationship could lead to a forced repatriation, or a need for return migration due to a loss of housing, the right to work, etc. Women, in particular, may experience a greater degree of difficulty in obtaining work after migrating either to their home, or to their partners home, especially if it is in a rural area.

In some cases female emigrants may be returning to regions where they are differentially discriminated against based on their gender. This is especially problematic in cases of forced repatriation.

Contemporary Issues
Surrounding Globalization and Mobility

The progressive ease of global mobility has led to an increase in international migration worldwide. Conversely, it also makes return migration more accessible as well. Ever improving global communication networks feed diaspora and help maintain emotional and informative ties to the immigrants homeland. The importation of, often skewed versions, of ones culture via global networks may fuel homesickness. Alternatively, the importation of ones culture could also fuel diaspora by acting as a barrier to full immersion in the native culture. Trips home, which can now take place in mere hours, often increasing ones homesickness.

Contemporary Issues
In Ethnographic Studies

It is not always clear at the time of initial departure whether ones migration is to be temporary or permanent, especially when considering the increasing ease of international mobility. In order to get a full picture of return migration, ethnographically speaking, great spans of time must be incorporated into field studies. Some individuals may subsequently re-emigrate after returning home.

Conclusion:
Summary

Return migration is a certainty for migrants who always intended to return, however it is also a very real possibility for those immigrants who may choose, or be forced, to return to their home in the future. While the implications of sexuality on return migration may only become informed with further study, some of the effects of contemporary issues of globalization and mobility on return migration are readily apparent. In terms if sexuality, It would appear that women who return to rural locales may experience a differential degree of difficulty at finding employment as opposed to their male counter-parts. In terms of globalization and mobility, it would seem that with an increase in international migration we will see a corresponding countercurrent of return migration.

The success or failure of these migrations is largely subjective, and will be determined by personal issues with those who chose, or are forced, to return, and by systematic issue with those who always intended to return.

Conclusion:
Questions

How long must one have migrated for in order to be considered a return migrant upon deciding to return home?

Can issues of Success or Failure within return migration studies be objectively determined, or quantified?
What are some possible methodologies, or adjustments therein, which could be used to surmount temporal constraints within return migration studies?