糖心网页版

If you look at the return programs organized by European governments (usually in partnership with the IOM) you will notice that return and reintegration are often mentioned together, as if they always coincide. However, reintegration (however it is defined) does not automatically follow return. Also, how 鈥榮uccess鈥� in reintegration assistance is defined differs: is it where those assisted do not re-migrate? Or, as I would argue, reintegration is a multi-dimensional process that involves (re)negotiating membership in a variety of different spheres of society (economic, political, social, and cultural). In a high mobility society like Afghanistan, with a 鈥榗ulture of migration鈥�, further migration may actually be an indicator of successful reintegration into socio-cultural norms (i.e. doing what everyone else is doing), rather than a 鈥榝ailure鈥� of reintegration.

Fieldwork for the project (amongst other research) suggests that Afghans in Norway and the UK only sign up for Assisted 鈥榁oluntary鈥� Return programs when all other options of staying in Europe have been exhausted and they are 鈥榲olunteering鈥� to take assisted return rather than be deported. Consequently, I agree with those who only use the term voluntary returnee with regard to people who have the option of a regularized stay in Europe as an alternative to return.

I consider 鈥榤igration鈥� to be an umbrella term that encompasses many different types of mobile people, including refugees. Policy-makers, however, often see contemporary Afghans travelling abroad as migrants as opposed to refugees. UNHCR points out that this might be difficult for many refugee advocates to accept. Whilst I鈥檓 all for recognizing the reality of mixed migration flows, until there is a 鈥榤igrant鈥� category that offers regularized mobility to people fleeing the kinds of complex webs of poverty and insecurity that many Afghans experience, then I鈥檓 very wary of seeing the terms 鈥榤igrant鈥� and 鈥榬efugee鈥� separated in the Afghan case.