Blog: Whose Voices Counts in Return Migration?

Centering Returnees’ Voices in Policy and Practice

In this blog, we share insights from the FAiR project which  centres on the voices of returnees to rethink how return migration policies are designed. This blog draws from the working paper “Policy Stances and Legitimacy of Returns”, a joint research effort by Samuel Hall and Koç University under the FAiR project. By Samuel Hall Staf

Return policies developed in ‘donor capitals’ or countries that fund or support return programmes, often overlook the complex reality of return. Going back can mean arriving in a place that no longer feels like home or one that isn’t ready to receive you or your hopes for the future. With the EU introducing tougher return measures under its New Pact on Migration and Asylum, it’s even more important to ask: whose interests are these policies serving and who is included in the process?

Our multi-country research for the Finding Agreement in Return [FAiR] consortium shows that returnees are still too often seen as ‘aid recipients’ or as ‘problems to be solved’; rather than people with rights, voices, and futures, whose insights can shape much stronger policies and investments. There can be a situation where all interests are met; but first we need to hear from the returnees.

Unpacking the Language of Return: A Discourse Analysis Approach

What sets this research apart is its pioneering use of discourse analysis. This is a method used to study language around a specific topic. It goes beyond what is said, to examine how it is said, who is saying it, and what that reveals about power, intention, and underlying assumptions. This approach is especially useful for unpacking how return migration is framed.

For instance, in this research we treat ‘return’ not just as a policy or logistical process, but as a social phenomenon shaped by language, assumptions, and power. Instead of focusing solely on outcomes or institutional procedures, we examined the words, metaphors, and motivations used by different actors to justify return practices.

Why does it matter? Because how return is talked about shows who is in charge, whose needs are being prioritised, and who is being left out. Discourse analysis allowed us to uncover the hidden power dynamics that shape return, exposing the deeper narratives that influence decisions, shape perceptions, and ultimately impact people’s lives.

We analysed how return was framed by looking at how it was described, justified, and presented by conducting 92 interviews with policymakers, donors, international organisations, and NGOs; 11 focus group discussions with returnees; 30 life stories; and a review of 150 policy documents, institutional publications, and public multimedia documents, including social media statements in 4 country contexts: Georgia, Iraq, Nigeria and Türkiye.  This included the use of corpus analysis, a method that examines large collections of written and spoken texts to identify recurring terms, framings, and discursive patterns. It allowed us to map how return is publicly constructed.

Our analysis looked at several key indicators:

• Justifications and motivations for return
• Assumptions about who returnees are and what they need
• Language: how migration, legitimacy, responsibility, control, and aid are talked about
• Voices of returnees through their stories, hopes and actions
• Perceptions of different actors on the position returnees—as ‘beneficiaries’, ‘burdens’, ‘citizens’.

Through this analysis, we identified seven dominant narratives that are shaping how return is understood and implemented. These narratives influence how resources are allocated, how programmes are evaluated.

Seven Narratives in Non-EU Discourses on Return and Reintegration[1] [2]

1. National Responsibility Narrative: “The government is responsible”Return is framed as a duty of the country of origin, regardless of whether systems are prepared or conditions are safe. This logic was especially prominent among state actors
2. Assistance Narrative: “Assistance is necessary”
   Return is often portrayed as a humane gesture when accompanied by short-term aid. But for many returnees, this assistance barely scratches the surface.
3. Legitimacy Narrative: “Forced return is not fair”
   This narrative questions whether return is fair or safe when it is forced, rushed, or lacks proper support. Even if not said directly, people often raise concerns about return practices that are unclear, not truly voluntary, or happen in places still facing conflict or instability. “It’s really a bit of a sensitive and political issue. So they don’t discuss it that much in the media or inside the government as well, because the government, up to now, they don’t have that much capacity to support returnees,” said one key informant in Iraq.
4. Impact Narrative: “Return is beneficial for the country”
   Return is often framed as a contribution to national development. Returnees are described as bringing back skills, experiences, and potential. As noted in the brief: “Returnees come back with skills and experiences, and can contribute to social and economic development.”  But this framing can place undue pressure on individuals to ‘give back’ without the support structures in place to help them succeed.
5. Dehumanisation Narrative: “Returnees are numbers”
   This narrative reduces returnees to data points; stripping them of their stories, needs, and identities. As a key informant from Georgia added: “returnees cannot really influence these discourses and representations because these discourses are phrased by other people, not returnees. It is needed that returnees tell their stories
6. Experience Narrative: “Return is difficult”
   This narrative was most strongly voiced by returnees themselves. It reflects the emotional, social, and material challenges they face which is often overlooked in policy conversations. “If you want to return them [returnees] to their home they will say no, they will rather choose another place where they are not known because many things have been associated with returnees,” said one key Informant from Nigeria
7. Transnationalism Narrative: “The nation extends to the diaspora”
   This narrative speaks to belonging and identity beyond borders and is particularly visible in places like Iraq. It paints a return as a natural continuation of diasporic connection. As the brief describes: “The vocabulary associated with this narrative focuses on identity and belonging and refers to diasporic imaginaries.” But for many returnees, especially those returning after long periods abroad; this idea of seamless reintegration can feel disconnected from their daily realities.

What Needs to Change?

Our discourse analysis showed that return migration policy is too often built on narratives that focus on national priorities—control, deterrence, and formal responsibility—while sidelining the lived experiences of returnees. These narratives shape what is valued, measured, and funded. To build policies that are just and effective, we must shift the discourse itself and challenge the power dynamics it reflects. This research then culminated in a policy brief which gives us a more complete picture, helping us to understand how return is talked about in policy, how it’s experienced in practice, and what this means for people’s dignity, agency and inclusion.

Questioning the narratives that dominate the return conversation leads us to the following policy recommendations:

1. Make policy processes inclusive: Listen to returnees not as subjects, but as decision-makers: Beyond consultation, returnees need real participation.  This means moving beyond consultation and ensuring that returnees have a real say in shaping the policies that affect them. Their participation can take the form of representation on advisory boards, partnerships with returnee-led organisations in programme design, and involvement in monitoring and evaluation.
2. Reframe return away from punishment and deterrence:  Pursue justice, not just management: Current narratives often reinforce shame, failure, or blame. Policies should instead promote dignity, care, and agency. Return must not be used to criminalise migrants or dissuade mobility, but to offer genuine opportunities for rebuilding lives.  For example, Samuel Hall’s study for IOM under the ORION project in Senegal, Morocco, and Guinea found that personalised mentoring significantly improved returnees’ psychosocial and economic outcomes. The findings support more sustainable, evidence-based reintegration programming.
3. Hold governments accountable and strengthen coordination: Accountability should apply to both host and return countries to implement inclusive policies and ensure coordination between agencies, civil society, and returnees themselves.

Applying these principles into Action Research

This is exactly what LLEARN (Local Leadership East African Return and Reintegration Network is working towards.

1. A locally-led regional initiative: LLEARN is led by Samuel Hall in partnership with local organisations across Kenya, Somalia, Ethiopia, Uganda, and South Sudan. It places leadership in the hands of those closest to the challenges of return and reintegration.
2. A diverse and inclusive network: Funded by the European Union and contracted by International Centre for Migration Policy Development (ICMPD) through the MMD III Grant Facility,  the initiative brings together returnees, municipalities, civil society organisations, research institutions, and refugee-led organisations; building a broad coalition of actors driving change from the ground up.
3. A shift in narrative and practice: At its core, LLEARN empowers local actors to co-create reintegration solutions that are inclusive and sustainable, shifting the narrative from exclusion to participation, and from mere management to one rooted in dignity.