Conceptual Blurriness in Paid Voluntary Return, Remigration, and Repatriation

• In Event: International Organization, Human Rights, and Migration Policy

Abstract

There are various mechanisms to pay “migrants” and their families to leave host countries. Government sponsored repatriation of guest workers initially began in Europe in reaction to the 1973 oil crisis. The International Office for Migration (IOM) since 1979 has facilitated “Assisted Voluntary Return and Reintegration” (AVRR) or paid voluntary return for failed asylum seekers, stranded, trafficked, and destitute migrants. The IOM, a UN agency in 2016, acknowledges a variety of paid voluntary return programs and many governments contend this is more cost effective and humane than forced deportation. Why do countries use the terms paid voluntary return remigration, or repatriation? Why do some countries establish these policies or programs independent of the IOM? The paper aims to 1) correctively intervene into the blurriness of the concepts of paid voluntary return, remigration, and repatriation (Korner and Mehrlander 1986; Black et al. 2011; Plewa, 2012; Milly, 2014; Ródenas, et al 2017) and 2) demonstrate how this emerging international norm can be used to signal categories of national inclusion and exclusion while simultaneously adhering to international standards. It is important to critically assess this developing international norm and disentangle these concepts and the implications for national belonging and membership.

Author

• Michael Orlando Sharpe, CUNY-York College/Graduate Center