Content uploaded by Nausheen H Anwar
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Nausheen H Anwar on Jun 26, 2015
Content may be subject to copyright.
Contents
Foreword
1 Introduction
Return Migration/the Returning Migrant: To What, Where and Why?
Michiel Baas
2 Neither Necessity nor Nostalgia
Japanese-Brazilian Transmigrants and the Multigenerational
Meanings of Return
Sarah LeBaron von Baeyer
3 The Fluidity of Return
Indian Student Migrants’ Transnational Ambitions and the Meaning
of Australian Permanent Residency
Michiel Baas
4 Resident ‘Non-resident’ Indians
Gender, Labour and the Return to India
Amy Bhatt
5 ‘It’s Still Home Home’
Notions of the Homeland for Filipina Dependent Students in Ireland
Diane Sabenacio Nititham
6 Looking Back while Moving Forward
Japanese Elites and the Prominence of ‘Home’ in Discourses of
Settlement and Cultural Assimilation in the United States, 1890-1924
Helen Kaibara
7 Return of the Lost Generation?
Search for Belonging, Identity and Home among Second-Generation
Viet Kieu
Priscilla Koh
8 ‘A Xu/Sou for the Students’
A Discourse Analysis of Vietnamese Student Migration to France in
the Late Colonial Period
Cindy A. Nguyen
9 ‘The Bengali Can Return to His Desh but the Burmi Can’t
Because He Has No Desh’
Dilemmas of Desire and Belonging amongst the Burmese-Rohingya
and Bangladeshi Migrants in Pakistan
Nausheen H. Anwar
Contributors
Bibliography
Index
Foreword
The seeds to compile a volume on the role and the meaning of return in
the lives of mig rants and transnationals were planted during a panel at the
joint ICAS A AS conference held in Honolulu between March31 and April3,
2011. The initial aim of the panel was to revisit the ‘myth of return’ in light
of the transnational turn in migration studies. We soon started discussing
what ‘return’ actually means to (transnational) migrants and whether it
was possible to give the ‘question of return’ a more central place in our
research. The chapters in this volume all engage with what the ‘question
of return’ means to (groups of) migrants and how it inuences their (daily)
lives and lifestyles. I would like to thank all authors for their contributions
to this volume.
Over the period of time it took for this volume to come out a number of
other people were of crucial importance to the project. I would like to thank
the following persons in particular: Barak Kalir and Nel Vandekerckhove
for their involvement and inspiring input at an early stage of this project;
Maureen E. Hickey, whose comments on individual chapters and the over-
all structure greatly beneted the volume; and Mary Lynn van Dijk and
Paul van der Velde for making this publication possible with Amsterdam
University Press. Finally I would like to thank the Asia Research Institute
(National University of Singapore) and Nalanda University (Rajgir, India)
for providing a more than inspiring and collegial environment to work on
this project.
Michiel Baas
Asia Research Institute, National University of Singapore
1 Introduction
Return Migration/the Returning Migrant: To What, Where
and Why?
Michiel Baas
Introduction
Most migrants will be intimately familiar with the question of return. The
question of returning ‘home,’ to the ‘homeland,’ the ‘country of origin,’ ‘the
place left behind’ is something that is intrinsically linked to the migration
decision itself and how the migration trajectory ultimately is experienced.
The way individuals deal w ith the question of ‘return’ often seems to re ect,
or be in dialogue with, the reasons for leaving in the rst place, rang ing from
the economically and/or politically motivated to more personal ones that
often seem infused with socio-cultural expectations. Whether migration
is permanent or temporary or something in-between – temporary at rst,
perhaps perma nent in the long ru n – where one comes from, what one leaves
behind, is likely to continue to in uence the way the migration process is
experienced even well into a ‘settled’ life elsewhere. While the question of
return thus shapes and gives meaning and direction to a migration trajec-
tory it also demands an answer not just at ‘some point’ but also at regular
interva ls. More than ever before ‘return’ has become a regu larly ‘returning’
feature of having migrated abroad. In some cases the frequency of return
has become such a regular feature of a migrant’s life that we have come
to speak of a transnational lifestyle; one characterized by being ‘here’ nor
‘there,’ or maybe exactly the opposite: ‘being in both,’ maintaining social
and/or business relations in one’s country of origin as well as settlement,
and thus rmly rooted in multiple locations.
What does ‘return’ mean to migrants? This is the central question
this volume puts forward. What does ‘return’ mean for diferent groups
of (Asian) migrants – temporary and permanent; voluntary and forced;
international and internal; skilled and unskilled; and those that fall into
in-between categories? How do they strategize towards, discuss, negotiate
and perhaps also avoid the question? The case studies presented in this
volume take a migrant-centred approach in that they examine the ques-
tion from the perspective of migrants themselves. In doing so these case
studies difer considerably from the majority of studies examining ‘return
10 Michiel BAAs
migration’ which explore the question of return mostly as a traceable and/
or predictable ow or process that requires and thus also ‘predictably’
provides clear-cut answers in terms of composition (Who returns?), factors
(Why return?), duration (When did they return?), and impact (What are
the consequences of retu rn?). While these studies have clearly proven their
value providing important statistical/quantitatively informed evidence of
migration ows, the case studies in this volume show from the perspec-
tive of the individual or group of migrants what return actually means to
them, and how it inuences them in terms of giving shape and meaning
to (individual) migration trajectories.
In this volume, ‘return’ is primarily formulated as a question. As such it
seeks to draw attention to the idea that for migrants, return is not only an
actual process but also imbues what could be conceptualized as a thought
process. Return is a question that connects to other questions which relate
to leaving and staying, home and belonging, moving and settling. While
a ‘permanent’ return may never happen, as evidenced by many studies
bringing to the fore the mythology of return (e.g. Brettel 1979; Walton-
Roberts 2004; Bolognani 2007), it is likely to continuously shimmer in the
background one way or the other; as a possibility, something that may
‘one day’ happen, or as unavoidable, something that comes with little to
no choice. The contributions to this volume are particularly interested in
how the question of return is dealt with on a day-to-day basis. Yet they
also explore how ideas and notions of return change, mutate and acquire
diferent meanings over a longer period of time. However, chapters in this
volume also investigate what it means to actually have returned as well
as the opposite: how one deals with the knowledge that one might never
be able to return. With regards to this, questioning expectations seems
particularly important; not just for individuals or groups of migrants but
also from the perspective of the nation-state and related ‘interest’ groups.
How do individuals or groups of migrants engage with such ‘expectations’
and how do these subsequently permeate the way people deal with and/
or strategize towards return? Return, in that sense, is not just a personal
choice, a desire that binds a group or an inevitability that informs daily
life, it is also something that comes with specic politics and discourses
that are tied to larger processes both on national and international levels.
The case studies in this volume address the question of return within a
regionally and temporally d iverse context, ranging from Karachi (Pakist an)
to Bangalore (India’s Silicon Valley) and from contemporary rural India
to early-twentieth-century Vietnam. The migrants that take centre stage
in these case studies are far from a homogeneous group either, including
inTroducTion 11
international students, highly skilled professionals, lowly skilled workers
and refugees. By presenting such diferent case studies this volume brings
to the fore the relevance of the question of return for diferent groups of
migrants who nd themselves in a diverse range of situations. It highlights
the diversity of answers that the question of return tends to generate and
as such it makes an important case for giving ‘return’ in both actual and
imaginary terms a more central place in migration research.
The Problem of Non-Return and Brain Drain
‘Return’ as a question of scholarly interest in relation to migration ows,
patterns and processes has known a long and winding history. In 1885
E.G.Ravenstein (1885) formulated a number of migration laws in an article
for the Journal of the Statistical Society. One of these laws holds that each
main current of migration produces a compensating counter-current. With
this ‘law’ he was the rst to draw attention to what since then has come to
be referred to as simply ‘return migration.’ It cannot be argued, however,
that return migration featured high on the research agenda in the decades
afterwards. This is in a sense surprising considering that more recent
scholarly work suggests that the numbers for returning migrants some-
times equalled or even surpassed those heading for new shores (Guarnizo
1997: 284). However, analyses of the experiences and meaning of return
remained la rgely absent from the early literature. If a migrant ‘returned’ to
his countr y of origin it generally made sense considering the circumstances
(usually economic) and as such did not require further investigation. In
this period, transatlantic migration was understood, to a large extent, as a
one-way phenomenon, something imbued with a certain irrevocableness;
migrants left not to return (see Gmelch 1980). Iconic images of this period,
of ocean steamers lled with migrants, remaining family members and
friends on the quay waving them of, certainly conjure t he feeling of a ‘ nal
goodbye.’ Naturally, such images are infused with romantic notions of loss
and longing, and as such are an almost mandatory ingredient in the Great
American novel and the stuf of movies. Migration being ‘permanent’ and
thus ‘return’ mostly associated with economic downturn and/or failure was
fur ther informed by developments of mass urbanization at the time, leading
to large-scale rural-to-urban migration, another movement mostly thought
of, at the time, as one-directional (Rhoades 1979). While internal migration
thus vectorially descr ibed a one-directional process f rom rural to urba n, its
international variant signi ed a one-way movement from underdeveloped
12 Michiel BAAs
(economical ly stagnant) countr ies to developing/emerging ones, invariably
the US though also to a lesser extent Australia and Canada.
Studies on return migration became more prominent from the 1960s
onwards, in particular driven by concerns of non-returning international
students and related issues or ‘expectations’ of brain dra in, non-development
and even the threat of communism (see Cassarino 2004: 254). Although the
popularity of studying abroad started taking of from the late nineteenth
century, it remained a largely elitist afair till the Second World War (Rao
1979; Ritterba nd 1968; Saford 1972; Singh 1963). Many former colonies gained
independence and, as it was perceived in the West, were at risk of falling
in the hands of communism. According to Rao (1979), Western nations
approached this problem by concluding security pacts, forming military
alliances and also by directly encouraging social and economic develop-
ment, all with the goal of inducing political stability. The recruitment of
international students who would study in the West and then return was an
important aspect of such plans. It was expected that these students would
‘return home’ after completing their studies in order to aid the further
development of their countries and by doing so deepen intercultural links
as well. The Colombo Plan, a plan for co-operative economic development
in Southeast A sia signed in 1950 after a meet ing of Commonwealth Foreign
Ministers, is a prime example. Basically, the plan could be divided into two
separate components, one that revolved around providing economic aid,
the other relating to the provision of technical assistance. In the eld of
economic aid, developed countries made gifts to beneciary countries in
the form of equipment and capital goods. Technical assistance, however,
meant the provision of trained personnel, sometimes directly provided by
developed nations but in far greater numbers this concerned ‘able young
men’ who were sent to developed nations where they were trained and who
would subsequently return ‘home’ to put to use what they had learnt there
(see Sauer 2001; Oakman 2004).
‘Return’ was thus an indispensable element of such plans. From the 1960s
onwards, however, studies start to show that ‘non-return’ was actually
becoming an issue (see, for instance, Tanenhaus & Roth 1962). Charles
Ritterband (1968), grappling with the problem of non-return among Is-
raeli students in the US, argues that the likelihood of such students not
returning to Israel after having completed their studies is over whelmingly
predetermined prior to arrival in the United States. Cortés (1969), writing
on non-returning Filipino students, frames th is in a term called ‘anchorage.’
His study shows that migration of high-level persons from the Philippines
to the United States could be linked to the person’s basic attitudes towards
inTroducTion 13
the Philippines, although personal characteristics and circumstances also
play a role. Cortés summarizes that persons weakly ‘anchored’ or loosely
committed or attached psychologically and socially to the home country,
tend to emigrate and/or not return. It is at the time of these studies that
the concept of brain drain becomes more prominent, in particular with
relation to the medical brain drain, triggered by an increase of foreign
medical g raduates, particularly from Latin America, who either migrated to
the US directly after graduation or stayed on af ter completing their studies
there (Margulies 1969).
Scholarly interest in the topic of brain drain and related issues of non-
retur n started to abate somewhat by t he 1980s but it clearly left its mark on
the way ‘ret urn’ would be approached in the decades to come. In recent years
however, with the arrival of so-called ‘talent migration’ schemes, often the
direct product of specic migration programs devised by nation-states to
attract the best and brightest from elsewhere to provide a solution to vari-
ous skills crises, as well as the development of highly specic recruitment
schemes aimed to streamline labour migration (construction, health and
domestic workers, in particular), interest in the concept of ‘brain drain’ –
and related terminology such as ‘brain gain’ and ‘brain waste’ – has been
reawakened. Ronald Skeldon (2009: 3), zooming in on the case of health
workers, for instance, argues that the debate on brain drain has ‘taken
on greater urgency in the context of a globalizing economy and ageing
societies.’ Recent studies, for instance, have investigated the reverse ow
of technologies/knowledge as well as the motivations and considerations of
highly skilled professionals and scientists to return (see for China, Zweig,
Chung and Vanhonacker 2006; for Africa, Logan 2009; and for the UK and
India, Harvey 2009). In that sense these more recent studies built directly
on the concerns that informed earlier mentioned ‘brain drain’ studies and
as such ‘making sense’ of (non-) return remains an important question
throughout.
Making Sense of Return Migration: Push and Pull Factors
In very general terms it can be argued that when it comes to ‘return
migration’ scholars were and continue to be mainly interested in two
interlinked questions: what are the reasons for return, and what impact
(socially, economically, politically) do migrants have once they return?
Such questions are directly informed by a neoclassical approach to migra-
tion in which push-and-pull-related factors feature prominently. Within
14 Michiel BAAs
these approaches, migration needs to be, and in fact can be, explained
in rational terms; and thus, naturally, the same is assumed to hold up
for what motivates or triggers an eventual return. While a decision to
migrate often seems in uenced by negative factors at home (pushing the
migrant across the border) and positive ones pulling a migrant abroad,
the reverse is assumed to hold up for ‘return.’ It is perhaps not surprising
that ‘failure’ in various ways and forms (to make it, to adapt, etc.) seems to
permeate many studies. An inuential article in this regard is Francesco
P. Cerase’s (1974: 249-251), in which he discusses four types of (Italian)
return migration from the Unites States. The rst is the most commonly
encountered in other studies of return migration as well; it concerns ‘return
of failure.’ Cerase laments on those – a minority – who fail in their attempt
to make it in the US, and who start thinking ‘sadly’ of retur ning, especially
when they still have a family and a home to return to. ‘What remains
of their experience in the new society is a sense of sufering, fear, and
abandonment, mixed with the memory of “marvels,” incomprehensible
“great things,” seen through amazed eyes’ (Cerase 1974: 249). But return
can also be a matter of conservatism, he argues. At some point a migrant
will have to make a decision where to spend his hard-ea rned money: in the
country of settlement, increasingly separating him from home conditions
or towards a better life once he returns home. The third form of return
(‘the return of innovation’) Cerase discusses is somewhat related to this
dilemma. It involves migrants who are unwilling or unable to ful l their
position in the new societ y. Reasons may be myriad, but Cerase notes that
generally these migrants start subsequently detaching themselves from
their host society and at some point thoughts of returning ‘home’ become
more prominent. ‘[T]he immigrant sees in his return home the possibility
of a greater satisfaction of his needs and aspirations’ (Cerase 1974: 251). But
Cerase makes a point to note that aspirations to return home are diferent
from the intentions the migrant had departed for the US with; it is the
experience abroad itself that has inuenced this. The nal ‘return’ is one of
retirement. The combination of getting older with other dissatisfactions in
the host countr y can cause real sufering making a retur n home inevitable
at some point. ‘That desire for a piece of land returns now in the image of a
comfortable house, perhaps with a garden, where he can quietly spend his
old age’ (ibid.). The Italian migrants Cerase studies hailed mostly from the
rural parts of Italy, at the time ‘on record as a country of emigration’ (ibid.:
245). Although migration was no longer thought of as a once-and-for-all
decision, returning home was certainly no easy decision as it was by nature
almost always a permanent one.
inTroducTion 15
In subsequent years studies would frequently point out that although
migrants often discuss a possible return, perhaps with the kind of savings
and related increased status Cerase also a lludes to, actually returning home
is rarely anticipated. This would be captured in the infamous ‘myth of
return’ or the lesser known ‘ideology of return’ (Anwar 1979; Brettel 1979;
Rubenstein 1979; Schierup 1990; Walton-Roberts 2004; Bolognani 2007;
Sinatti 2011; see also Guarnizo 1997: 286), evoking a certain melancholic
longing and sadness, only marginally compensated for by a submergence
in the local diaspora, providing a home away from home where old tradi-
tions – sometimes long out of fashion in the homeland – continue to live a
vibrant though slightly essentialized life.
In relation to this ‘myth’ or ‘ideology’ of return it is interesting to note
the many studies that have attempted to predict the statistical likelihood
of migrants’ return over the years. The number of articles delivering im-
pressive calcu lations, building upon complex statistical and mathemat ical
formulations, the product of household and other kinds of questionnaires,
datasets and related sources of quantitative material, far exceeds articles
tak ing a qualitative a nd/or historical approach (see for instance: Fangmeng
& Zhongdong 2006; Falkingham et al. 2012; Martin & Radu 2012; Lianos &
Pseiridis 2013). In such calculations migration is often reduced to a simpli-
ed mathematical equation in which mostly rational and logical factors
determine the outcome. The ‘income variable’ is said to play an important
role in return migration since ‘[t]he proportion of return migrants is likely
to vary negatively with the state of the labor market’ (Vanderkamp 1971:
1013). However, analyses of ‘optimal migration duration’ through statistical
models are also able to argue that migrants do ret urn home despite continu-
ously increasing wages in the host country (Dustmann 2003: 353). Another
variable that is argued to play a key role in predicting or understanding
return migration is ‘savings.’ In regards to this it is frequently noted that
migra nts, in particularly temporary ones, save more than native-born ones,
possibly with the intention to invest in the home country or to support
family members (Galor & Stark 1990; Dustmann 1997: 295-296). Savings are
also recurrently analyzed in terms of return migrants’ entrepreneurialism
especially with an eye on the probability of these returnees contributing
positively to the development of their countries (see for instance Diatta &
Mbow 1999 for Senegal; McCormick & Wahba 2003 for Egypt).
Employability is another factor often added to the statistical mix. Lind-
strom, for inst ance, argues that migrants from economically dynamic areas
in Mexico are less likely to return since opportunities for employment
and small-scale investments are comparably better than in economically
16 Michiel BAAs
stagnant areas where savings can be less productively used. As a reason
migrants coming from economically stagnant regions are less likely ‘to
withstand the psychic costs of separation from family and friends than do
migrants from economically stagnant areas in Mexico’ (Lindstrom 1996:
357). Zhao shows that in the case of rural China, which has experienced
substantial outmig ration, return mig ration is of limited scale but that return
migra nts invest signi cantly more in product ive farm assets yet a re no more
likely to engage in local nonfarm activities than, for inst ance, non-migrants
(2002: 376). With regards to Eastern and Centra l European countries Martin
and Radu argue that expected labour market opportunities along with
community ties, discounted costs of resettlement, and the eligibility to
benets in both the home and the host country are stronger predictors of
return than actual nancial incentives and other government programs
that are aimed to attract returnees (2012: 125).
Age, children, and other family members are also weighted into various
analyses. In a study which compares Switzerland, Germany and France
it is argued that the propensity to return increases with the age of entry
but decreases with the number of years of residence, the latter a result of
strong assimilation in t he host countr y (Dustmann 1996: 214, 240). Concern
about children back in the home country also afects the likelihood of
return but the role of gender is likely to play a role in this. ‘[C]oncerns
about detrimental, or benecial efects of remaining in the host country
on the child’s future welfare may difer according to whether the child is
a boy or girl’ (Dustmann 2003: 816). In an article dealing with migratory
ows between Tonga, Papua New Guinea and New Zealand it is, however,
argued with respect to these countries that return migration is actually
less strongly linked to income opportunities than to family and lifestyle
reasons (Gibson & McKenzie 2011: 18). While these studies reach important
conclusions, they also have serious shortcomings, which will be addressed
in the next section (and in this volume as a whole).
Practicalities Aside: Towards a More Inclusive Perspective
This volume argues for an inclusive and integrated approach towards
(return) migration that not only draws upon ex isting theory and methodol-
ogy but also dares to think beyond existing paradigms especially where
it concerns explaining ‘return.’ It is useful to briey revisit an inuential
article by Cassarino (2004) here in which he posits that (return) migration
has basically been subjected to four diferent kinds of approaches. The neo-
inTroducTion 17
classical approach views migrants mainly in terms of pro t maximization,
the migration decision clearly inuenced by push-a nd-pull factors and thus
as a result making sense. Return is mainly a matter of failure in nancial
sense, something the second approach, New Economics of Labour Migra-
tion, clearly difers on as it views ‘return’ as the logical and thus expected
outcome of a calculated strategy. Return is thus most of all a matter of
success (see Constant & Massey 2002). However, Cassarino also points out
that the success/failure paradigm that was central to the studies discussed
earlier cannot fully explain return migration. The structural approach is
helpful here. Referring also to Cerase’s article on Italian return migration
to the US, Cassarino holds that whatever returnees expected to get out of
their return, local realities and traditional vested interests in countries of
origin of ten stand in the way of innovative capacities. A structural approach
thus lays bare limiting contextual factors standing in the way of migrants’
successes. At t he same time such a proposition clearly hark s back to the core
versus periphery dichotomies that understand mig ration typically as a ow
from traditional and underdeveloped nations to modern, developed ones.
Problematic of course, is that as a result it assumes a model where there is
little communication, knowledge or socio-cultural inuence between the
two worlds.1 At the time of Cerase’s study such a model might have had
some merit – though scholars have also criticized this assumption – but
faced with ongoing globalizing inuences the structural model makes
increasingly little sense. The fourth ‘transnational’ approach is clearly an
improvement here, as it assumes the migration story to continue. Guarnizo
argues in this regard that being a transnational, ‘implies becoming habitu-
ated to living more or less comfortably in a world that encompasses more
than one national structure of inst itutional and power ar rangements, social
understandings, and dominant political and public cultures’ (Guarnizo
1997: 310).
Cassarino mentions social network theory as a nal approach, one that
‘views returnees as being the bearers of tangible and intangible resources’
(2004: 264). Return migrants are social actors involved in what Cassarino
phrases as ‘a set of relational ramications’ (ibid.). An analysis of how
migrants are members of networks and thus also how they operate in the
context of such networks might shed light on the multiple involvements
and the way this inuences their behaviour. Additionally it is likely that
diferent network structures produce diferent opportunities (depending
1 Cassa rino refers here speci cally to Rachel Murphy (2002), a erce opponent of the str uc-
tura l model.
18 Michiel BAAs
on the context) with diferent orientations and strategies as a consequence.
While Cassarino seems particularly taken by the nal, network-oriented
approach, it needs to be noted that some more recent research – including
my own (2010) – indicates the absence of clear networks making migration
an increasingly ‘individual’ afair. Networks that do play a role are often
commercial operations functioning strict ly on a paid-for and prot-oriented
basis. This is not to argue against Cassarino’s network-oriented focus but
such considerations do underline the call for a more integrative perspective
on return migration itself. It is crucial that such an approach works beyond
the need to explain and/or predict (return) migration yet clearly draws from
the perspectives discussed above in order to capture how migrants engage
with t he question of return and how they give shape and meaning to ‘return’
trajectories. In relation to this it seems particularly important to examine
critically the bifurcation between temporary and permanent migration
and the expectations from the perspective of the state as formulated in
policy documents and related analyses (see Gmelch 1980; Dustmann 1997;
Guarnizo 1997; Dustmann & Weiss 2007). Whereas it has been argued that
the bipolar model (permanent versus temporary migration), as Guarnizo
(1997: 289) puts it, simply won’t do when examining transnational processes,
a question rarely engaged in is the permanency or temporariness of trans-
nationalism itself. Although studies often present transnational lifestyles
as the follow-up phase of migration trajectories, the question remains for
how long migrants/transnationals intend or imagine living such ‘lives.’ And
with regards to this it should be noted that, as Gmelch already did 30 years
ago, migrants often simply do not have denite plans. Instead they go on
a trial basis and let their decisions (to return, continue, etc.) be guided by
opportunities in the host country (1980: 138).
As the contr ibutions to this volume show, ‘return’ is imbued with mean-
ing that goes well beyond what statistical models, structural approaches,
or even a focus on the complexity of networks can lay bare. Emotional
processes clearly plan an important role in this (see Holmes & Burrows
2012; Svašek 2012; Teo 2011) but brought in as a factor has a tendency of
introducing a certain ‘murkiness’ which typically tends to stand in the
way of a rational analysis of migrants’ intentions. The integrated approach
towards (return) migration that this volume calls for should by denition
be one that is open to the idea of migration as ‘murky.’ As such we need to
start thinking of migration as a process, not simply as one that travels in a
unilinear direction, halting briey at a preset number of staging posts and
then moving for ward as intended, but also as one that is allowed to meander,
be uid, to veer of course and to behave, in a sense, irrationally, outside
inTroducTion 19
the parameters of clearly denable (push-and-pull) factors. This thus also
means that we should not only focus on migrants’ agency in migration
decisions and trajectories but also to allow for this agency to be irrational,
illogical, bipolar even. Our methodology should be open to this; only then
can we capture what (return) migration means on an individual level in
an increasingly (transnationally) mobile world where once-and-for-all
decisions are never quite that anymore.
Return Migration and This Volume
In this volume we consider ‘return migration’ as a shorthand for a variety of
terms that in essence deal w ith the same phenomenon: migrants retur ning
to where they (initially) came from. Such terms include those that Gmelch
already catalogued more than 30 years ago ranging from reux migra-
tion, homeward migration and remigration to return ow, second-time
migration, repatriation, retromigration, and circular migration (1980: 36).
However, more recent terms such as transmigration, transnationalism,
or even (transnational) mobility could be thought of as sharing a similar
narrative of return as well (see Sinatti 2011). Taking this into consideration,
the contributors in this volume stress that the nality that once imbued
the way ‘return’ was approached is something that is central to their re-
examination of what return migration actually entails. We argue that the
‘transnational turn’ in studies of migration in that sense not only proves
relevant for recent cases of (transnational) migration but that it also opens
up scope to re-examine or reinterpret historical cases of migration in terms
of the way these migrants ex perienced and gave shape and meaning to their
own mig ration trajectories. Terms like tem porary migrati on and permanent
migration which habitually divided migration into two neatly separate
realms in the past, especially where it concerned the question of return,
are now up for discussion in terms of the way migrants t hemselves juggle(d)
with, negotiate(d) and perceive(d) these terms. The same goes for dividers
such as voluntary and forced, economic and political, and internal and
international migration (see Ma 2002; Wang & Fan 2006; King & Skeldon
2010). When it comes to ‘return,’ what needs to be at the forefront of the
discussion is that return is often a highly personal, individual decision and
that the compartmental ization into arti cially created sub elds obfuscates
a muddling but exceptionally interesting overlap that brings us much closer
to an understanding of the way migrants engage with their own migration
trajectories.
20 Michiel BAAs
This volume builds upon the above and presents a variety of papers
dealing specically with the ‘return’ of migrants to countries in Asia. The
chapters are not ordered based on overlapping themes but follow each
other in such a way that the diversity, uidity and complexity of ‘return’
gets highlighted. In t hat sense the chapters follow a certain thought process
with the aim of showcasing not just the many diferent ways that migrants
and related actors and bodies deal with the question of ‘return’ but also to
provide an open-ended discussion that aims to encourage fur ther research
that builds upon the ndings and ideas presented in these chapters.
The rst case study explores three diferent threads of return for Brazil-
ians of Japanese descent which, as Sara LeBaron von Bayer shows, weave
into the broader tapestry of transmigration that currently exists between
Brazil and Japan. According to LeBaron von Bayer, up until now, scholarly
focus has mainly been on the experiences of so-called Nikkei-Brazilians
either in Brazi l or in Japan. Her resea rch, however, engages with ex periences
of return and/or back-and-forth movement to Brazil, and the way diferent
generations of Nik kei-Brazilians negotiate t heir positioning between home
and host society. She argues that what unites diferent generations of so-
called Nikkei-Brazilians in a transnational eld is their desire to be global,
mobile and exible citizens. Return means diferent things to diferent
generations of Nikkei-Brazilians, and as such, rarely signi es a nal arrival
or stopping point in people’s life trajectories. While return often channels
Nikkei-Bra zilians’ lives, it is not so much in the forefront of people’s minds as
much as the desire to move exibly across borders in ways usual ly reserved
for a more mobile, global elite. Finally for Nikkei-Brazilians of all genera-
tions, return often means ‘What next?’ as well as ‘Where to?’
In the following chapter Michiel Baas makes a comparable case for In-
dian st udent migrants in Australia. Although the prevalence of application
for permanent residency (PR) after graduation is relatively high, actually
permanently staying in Australia is often not the objective. Instead a PR
is imagined to facilitate transnational mobility. By taking a long-term
perspective on the cases of a number of Indian student migrants, Baas
is able to examine the ambivalences and less-than-straightforwardness
that comes with the trajectory from student to migrant. As a result Baas
critically exa mines the study of migration’s engagement with the agency of
its would-be-migrants and the assumptions and expectations that inform
and infuse skilled migration programs. While Indian student migrants
enter Australia as ‘temporary migrants’ they often do so with the ambition
to become ‘permanent’ ones; however, this ‘permanency’ is layered with
temporariness in that an Australian PR actually facilitates ‘temporary’
inTroducTion 21
stays in both Austra lia as well as India. ‘Return’ thus also takes on a double
meaning; ‘return’ refers to the option to retur n to India (either temporarily
or permanently) yet also to the freedom of returning to Australia at any
time.
Highly skilled migration is also the topic of investigation in A my Bhatt’s
contribution on the way Indian IT workers fashion themselves as circu lating
subjects beyond would-be citizens or immigrants living in diaspora. Bhatt
draws attention to the way return migration is a gendered phenomenon
that impacts not only workers but also their family members. In particular
she looks at the efects of return migration on the women that accompany
IT workers as they travel between India’s largest cities and locations in
the West. A question she puts at the centre of her analysis is how return to
India impacts gender roles and social relationships. And by doing so, she
asks: is this truly ‘return migration’ or are new patterns of transnational
movement and community formation emerging? Building upon eldwork in
Seattle and Bangalore from 2008-2010, she demonstrates that the pathway to
reintegration in India is often fa r from smooth and that it has a diferential
impact on women compared to men. She fur thermore points out that whi le
retur n migration boosts Indian economic development, patriarcha l gender
roles, expectations regarding taking care of (often complex) households,
as well as a ‘reverse culture shock’ complicates women’s reintegration into
India. As such Bhatt raises the question whether ‘return’ is truly possible,
‘particularly as geographically disperse modes of work, family life, and the
pursuit of opportunity overtake the material and symbolic importance of
geographic or national ties (p.56).’
Return takes on a rather diferent meaning in the next chapter in which
Diane Nititham examines the experiences of Filipinas who have come to
Ireland as dependent students but who have faced complications in ‘stay ing
on’ afterwards. Nititham examines the liminal position of two Filipinas in
order to come to a deeper analysis of notions of return and the intersections
of everyday experiences, which are engendered by social policy and the
dynamics of migration. For these Filipinas, the meaning of home is not
necessarily rational or consistent; in fact home does not even denote one
speci c space or place. Instead, home signi es a complicated landscape that
exist s in many spaces and has diferent faces. It is a place of comfort as well
as con ict that cannot produce a singular experience. Nititham argues that
people use their orientat ions in order to feel at home and although t his home
can have ma ny locations it is not to be said that her informants are without
roots. Yet, she adds that whet her ‘home’ is envisaged as rooted in the countr y
of origin or destination or as having one’s family nearby, or having constant
22 Michiel BAAs
comfort, home is eeting, always remaining out of reach. She stresses that
striving for a sense of home ‘should not be seen as a binary of being “fully
at home” on one end and feeling “complete dislocation/alienation” at the
other, but rather as a continuum, where multiple circumstances a fect how
one experiences life.’
Helen Kaibara’s exploration of the case of early-twentieth-century
Japanese migration to the US reveals that ‘return’ to Japan was in fact dis-
couraged and Japanese migrants were highly encouraged to treat the US as
their ‘new home.’ The Japanese Association of America’s (JAA), appalled by
the treatment of fellow Japanese country men in the US, believed that alter-
ing the behaviour of Japanese migrants, pushing for cultural assimilation,
curbing ‘immoral behaviour’ and advocating permanent settlement could
aide towards i mproving t he image and welfare of this group. Kaibara argues
that this was less about a genuine desire to become ‘good Americans’ or to
deal with ‘yellow peril’ sentiments and much more out of reverence for the
homeland itself. The study draws attention to the complexities informing
ideas of retur n (in this particular case, a desired non-return) and by adher-
ing to this by paying homage and reverence to the homeland.
While return was not a ‘desired’ option for Japanese migrants in the
early twentieth centur y, Pris Koh’s study highlights the ‘desire to retu rn’ of
second-generation Viet Kieu or overseas Vietnamese. Following the com-
munist takeover of South Vietnam in 1975, they left Vietnam as children,
but are now planning to ‘return’ to a country still governed by the political
regime their parents once ed. Their motivations for ‘retu rning’ to Vietnam
are not only multifaceted, but also mutually related a nd reinforcing, as Pris
Koh elegantly demonstrates. Issues of alienation and marginalization foster
a need for Viet Kieu to create, as Koh puts it, webs of belonging that produce
a fragile sense of belonging. This sees itself counteracted upon return to t he
‘parental’ homeland, which enables Viet Kieu to come to terms with their
past and their conicted identities. However, Koh stresses that ‘return’
does not necessarily need to constitute an end of the migration cycle itself.
‘In the view of individuals who have multistranded ties and networks in
diferent national settings and cultural communities, the migration story
likely continues (p.133).’
The idea of home also plays an important role in Cindy Nguyen’s chapter,
which zooms in on Vietnamese student migration from 1900 to the end of
the 1930s. The complex social and ideological pressures these youth faced,
caught in a transnational, colonial relationship of personal belonging,
revolve around the question and meaning of return. Nguyen is particularly
interested in the physical and emotional experience and representation
inTroducTion 23
of this group, both at home and abroad. Her chapter considers ‘how the
discourse of “the student” was shaped both by the obligation to return to
Vietnam and the students’ rejection of that cultural world.’ Nguyen demon-
strates how shifting dimensions of the home (familial as well as national)
relates to the symbolic power and responsibility carried by young educated
Vietnamese. The limited options to pursue studies in the homeland at
the time meant that the opportunity to study in France was layered with
notions of empowerment both for the individual as well as the community.
Carefu lly examining the experiences and related discourses of Vietnamese
student migrants, Nguyen brings to the fore ‘the intricate ideological and
emotional interrelationships of students and their sending communities,
relationships that are constructed, rejected, and reinscribed against the
socio-cult ural ch anges of early-twent ieth-cent ury colonial Vietnam (p.155).’
In the nal chapter Nausheen An war delves into the quest ion of a (forced)
return to a land which may not necessarily be considered home anymore.
Through the narratives of two groups, Burmese-Rohingya refugees and
Bangladeshi immigrants, Anwar attempts to understand these migrants’
ambivalence about belonging and aspirations to return. Both groups dis-
cussed share common cultural characteristics, reside mainly in K arachi and
arrived with about ten years of each other (the Burmese-Rohingyas in the
late 1960s and the Bangladeshis in the late 1970s). For these undocu mented
populations, recent shifts in the norms for Pakistani citizenship have had
considerable consequences. While Anwar acknowledges that there are
major diferences between immigrants and refugees displaced by political
crises, research has show n that both interpret their stay ‘abroad’ in terms of
it being temporar y. However, especially for the Burmese-Rohing yas, the idea
of ‘return’ to Burma is not only no longer possible but also not desirable. As
Anwar a rgues: ‘for them the idea of return can only exist in the imagination
and be idealized from a distance (p.176).’