Return and patterns of reintegration

In accordance with the definition of “returnee” which was adopted in the context of the MIREM survey, the sample includes migrants having returned to their country of citizenship in the last ten years (Tab. E1). This definition is explained in the methodological approach.

It is worth highlighting that nearly 65% of the interviewees gathered some information before returning to their homeland and that the main source of information were family members and friends. As was to be expected, the migrants who were forced to return are recognizable by the high percentage of cases who never gathered any information before their return (Tab. E3). This factor reflects the abrupt interruption of the migration experience and is closely related to the fact that most of the migrants who were forced to return had never or “very seldom” referred to the desire to return, before going back forcibly to their homeland (Tab. D13), in contrast with the general average of the sample showing that 46.7% had “often” spoken about returning home.

The factors that motivated the return journey are multifarious. The migrants who decided individually to return to their origin country mentioned three main reasons for their return journey: the first is the wish to enjoy retirement in the homeland; the second is the desire to achieve some business projects in the origin country; the third is homesickness (Tab. E6). As expected, these motivations are in contrast with the reasons suggested by the migrants who were forced to return. They actually refer to exterior hindrances to their migratory itinerary, such as the removal order or the forced return issued by the host country’s administrative bodies, the non-renewal of the residence permit and family problems (Tab. E7).

This same contrast also comes into sight when migrants are asked about their present financial situation compared with the previous situation in the host country. Whereas 47% of the migrants who decided individually to return to their origin country consider that their financial situation has been improving since their return journey, 47.2% of the migrants who were forced to return answer that their financial situation in the origin country worsened in comparison with the previous situation in the host country (Tab. E4).

The two categories of returnees show significant discrepancies also in regard to the housing status. In fact, the number of migrants who were forced to return owning their home is much smaller than the migrants who decided individually to return to their homeland (Tab. E5).