The Croatian population has been subjected to violent ethnic conflicts during the war in the 1990s and has more recently experienced large‐scale irregular and refugee migrations, as well as a notable increase in regular labour migration. Using data from the most recent wave of the European Social Survey, we have conducted an analysis of Croatian attitudes towards immigrants. Our study found that, despite Croatia's history of ethnic conflict and ongoing changes in its migration system, the Croatian population still exhibits relatively low levels of negative attitudes towards immigrants compared to other Eastern European countries. With regards to individual determinants of attitudes, one of the biggest surprizes is that political party preferences play a minor role in explaining attitudes towards immigrants. We discuss our findings and conclude that there is an urgent need for better theoretical and empirical framework for understanding illiberal tendencies in Eastern European societies, particularly within the current context of rapidly worsening security situation in Europe.
{"title":"Public attitudes towards immigrants: A curious case of Croatia","authors":"Zan Strabac, Marko Valenta, David Andreas Bell","doi":"10.1111/imig.13341","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/imig.13341","url":null,"abstract":"The Croatian population has been subjected to violent ethnic conflicts during the war in the 1990s and has more recently experienced large‐scale irregular and refugee migrations, as well as a notable increase in regular labour migration. Using data from the most recent wave of the European Social Survey, we have conducted an analysis of Croatian attitudes towards immigrants. Our study found that, despite Croatia's history of ethnic conflict and ongoing changes in its migration system, the Croatian population still exhibits relatively low levels of negative attitudes towards immigrants compared to other Eastern European countries. With regards to individual determinants of attitudes, one of the biggest surprizes is that political party preferences play a minor role in explaining attitudes towards immigrants. We discuss our findings and conclude that there is an urgent need for better theoretical and empirical framework for understanding illiberal tendencies in Eastern European societies, particularly within the current context of rapidly worsening security situation in Europe.","PeriodicalId":48011,"journal":{"name":"International Migration","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.9,"publicationDate":"2024-10-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142488660","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Exequiel Cabanda, Brenda S. A. Yeoh, Kristel A. F. Acedera, Margaret Walton‐Roberts
Many scholars have used neoliberalism as an analytical framework to examine the Philippines' labour export policy. While neoliberalism entails a retreat of the state in favour of market reforms, evidence shows that state intervention of the market becomes larger and stronger over time. This paper utilises liberal neo‐statism as an alternative framework to understand the Philippines' nurse labour export by explaining that the state's role is larger than and goes beyond labour brokerage. Following the historical institutionalism approach, we show the significant timing, sequence, and path dependence that affect the emergence of institutions that govern the Philippines' nurse labour export. Our paper reveals how specific policies and regulations in labour export are tucked within the disguise of market reforms, but which are manifest within a larger state's control. These policies serve as the state's apparatus for remittance generation and protection of migrant labour rights and welfare.
{"title":"Neoliberalism in question: The Philippines' nurse education and labour export as liberal neo‐statist development agenda","authors":"Exequiel Cabanda, Brenda S. A. Yeoh, Kristel A. F. Acedera, Margaret Walton‐Roberts","doi":"10.1111/imig.13339","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/imig.13339","url":null,"abstract":"Many scholars have used neoliberalism as an analytical framework to examine the Philippines' labour export policy. While neoliberalism entails a retreat of the state in favour of market reforms, evidence shows that state intervention of the market becomes larger and stronger over time. This paper utilises liberal neo‐statism as an alternative framework to understand the Philippines' nurse labour export by explaining that the state's role is larger than and goes beyond labour brokerage. Following the historical institutionalism approach, we show the significant timing, sequence, and path dependence that affect the emergence of institutions that govern the Philippines' nurse labour export. Our paper reveals how specific policies and regulations in labour export are tucked within the disguise of market reforms, but which are manifest within a larger state's control. These policies serve as the state's apparatus for remittance generation and protection of migrant labour rights and welfare.","PeriodicalId":48011,"journal":{"name":"International Migration","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.9,"publicationDate":"2024-10-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142486799","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"Bandyopadhyay, Sekhar and Basu Ray Chaudhury, Anasua. 2022. Caste and partition in Bengal: The story of Dalit refugees, 1946-1961. New York: Oxford University Press. pp. 288.","authors":"Prosanta Sarkar","doi":"10.1111/imig.13329","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/imig.13329","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":48011,"journal":{"name":"International Migration","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.6,"publicationDate":"2024-09-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142244889","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
<p>Today, we live in an era of superdiversity and ethnoracial heterogeneity. Walk the streets of any European city and bear witness to diversity brought by people with immigrant family backgrounds. Visually it is striking: from hipsters to hijabs and baseball caps to sharp suits. This transition towards diversity is importantly driven by demographic transformations and new immigration that over time has resulted in increased ethnic, racial and religious mixing and blurring of group boundaries (Alba & Foner, <span>2015</span>; Statham & Foner, <span>2024</span>). But listen to dominant political debates or mainstream news about integration problems in European countries and the story is completely different: It depicts societies pulling themselves apart conflictually along cultural dividing lines. While race is the main fault line in the USA, the politicized public debates in Europe focus primarily on Muslims and Islam. This is the popularized version of the influential “clash of civilizations” thesis (Huntington, <span>2002</span>): that European societies are basically cleaved into two conflicting camps, with “White Christian” majorities pitched against the alien culture and values of Islam imported by people who are Muslim of immigrant origin.</p><p>Given the high salience of this viewpoint, it is perhaps surprising to point out that 25 years ago, “Muslim” was a relatively unused category for studying integration. Instead, ethnonational categories “Pakistani,” “Turk” and “Moroccan,” were used, and even “black” or “Asian” in the UK, due to state sponsorship of racial categories. Of course, minorities have several overlapping, intersecting and competing identities, and may at times and within different contexts, hold one of multiple ethnonational, religious or racial identities to be the most important. How they self-identify as groups is constructed in their meaningful social interactions—<i>us</i> and <i>them</i> boundary-marking—with members of dominant majority populations, state institutions and other minorities, but also importantly by how these <i>others</i> see and categorize <i>them</i>. So, how did “Muslim” become the predominant category in Europe for grouping this factually heterogenous and diverse set of people?</p><p>The simple explanation is politicisation. Post 9/11, a “War on Terror,” a global Islamic resurgence, and seemingly endless multicultural controversies over Islam, the presence of Muslim minorities in Europe was increasingly politicized as a general cleavage over culture, religion, values and belonging to the national community. Multicultural politics was increasingly propelled by intense debates over the assumed need for Muslims to identify more with their settlement countries, and to accept their core “liberal democratic values,” regarding democracy, separation of church and state, and gender equality (Statham & Tillie, <span>2016</span>). Policies targeting these groups shifted from goals combatting discri
尽管如此，此类强调 "自由价值观 "冲突的研究仍然十分突出且具有影响力，尽管多年前诺里斯和英格尔哈特（Norris and Inglehart，2004 年）在学术上以强有力的实质性实证理由对其提出了质疑，他们发现穆斯林与非穆斯林之间的差异主要在于社会习俗，而非 "自由民主价值观"。 有趣的是，我的研究表明，从穆斯林的角度来看，几乎没有迹象表明他们不太可能在民主价值观上进行文化适应。然而，当我们观察边界的另一侧时，非穆斯林多数人却认为他们与穆斯林之间在 "自由民主价值观 "方面存在着更大和更显著的差距（Statham, 2024: 216-7; 223-4）。换句话说，似乎有相当一部分多数人口接受了政治和媒体的主流信息，认为穆斯林是对民主生活方式的威胁。事实证明，阻碍文化融合的一个重要问题在于一部分非穆斯林多数群体的顽固态度及其对穆斯林的看法。任何有关所谓 "自由民主价值观 "所面临威胁的讨论都应关注多数群体中极右翼和白人至上主义的少数群体，而不仅仅是伊斯兰原教旨主义。与此相关的一个重要问题是，人们在谈论融合和文化适应过程时通常会假定，融合或文化适应越深入，有关多样性的冲突就越少（Alba et al.）显然，事实并非如此--这不是一场零和游戏。相反，我们今天看到的是，穆斯林越是适应并融入欧洲社会，他们的存在就越是遭到相当一部分非穆斯林人的反对和冲突。换句话说，我们生活在一个穆斯林和非穆斯林之间的人口多样性、混杂性和文化适应性日益增强的时代，但城里最主要的政治故事却是两个对立的民族宗教阵营之间的冲突。民粹主义者煽动这些分歧，而这些分歧与我们周围正在出现的社会现实是背道而驰的。我提出这些发现的主要目的并不是要提供明确的答案，因为我们离答案还很遥远，而是要证明有必要重新提出问题，即我们作为研究人员，在设计有关欧洲穆斯林的调查和研究时，在界定类别和问题时需要更多的社会学想象力和反思性。还需要更多的交叉思维。这将使研究有可能开始承认多样性和混杂性，而这种多样性和混杂性正在模糊少数群体和多数群体内部和之间的群体界限。这需要跳出固有的思维模式，而不是简单地追随在公众辩论中引起共鸣的关于伊斯兰教争议的主流说法。宗教信仰往往是从政治辩论中摘取的简单答案。研究人员需要认识到将 "穆斯林 "作为一个类别的高度政治化背景。这并不意味着回避使用 "穆斯林"，因为在特定的社会背景下，"穆斯林 "仍然是一个有效而突出的实践范畴，但在使用 "穆斯林 "作为分析范畴时，需要有更强的反思性和意识。本评论所表达的观点仅代表作者本人，并不一定反映编辑、编辑委员会、国际移民组织或 John Wiley & Sons 的观点。
{"title":"Re-thinking how we study Muslim minorities in Europe—A call for de-Muslimification","authors":"Paul Statham","doi":"10.1111/imig.13333","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/imig.13333","url":null,"abstract":"<p>Today, we live in an era of superdiversity and ethnoracial heterogeneity. Walk the streets of any European city and bear witness to diversity brought by people with immigrant family backgrounds. Visually it is striking: from hipsters to hijabs and baseball caps to sharp suits. This transition towards diversity is importantly driven by demographic transformations and new immigration that over time has resulted in increased ethnic, racial and religious mixing and blurring of group boundaries (Alba & Foner, <span>2015</span>; Statham & Foner, <span>2024</span>). But listen to dominant political debates or mainstream news about integration problems in European countries and the story is completely different: It depicts societies pulling themselves apart conflictually along cultural dividing lines. While race is the main fault line in the USA, the politicized public debates in Europe focus primarily on Muslims and Islam. This is the popularized version of the influential “clash of civilizations” thesis (Huntington, <span>2002</span>): that European societies are basically cleaved into two conflicting camps, with “White Christian” majorities pitched against the alien culture and values of Islam imported by people who are Muslim of immigrant origin.</p><p>Given the high salience of this viewpoint, it is perhaps surprising to point out that 25 years ago, “Muslim” was a relatively unused category for studying integration. Instead, ethnonational categories “Pakistani,” “Turk” and “Moroccan,” were used, and even “black” or “Asian” in the UK, due to state sponsorship of racial categories. Of course, minorities have several overlapping, intersecting and competing identities, and may at times and within different contexts, hold one of multiple ethnonational, religious or racial identities to be the most important. How they self-identify as groups is constructed in their meaningful social interactions—<i>us</i> and <i>them</i> boundary-marking—with members of dominant majority populations, state institutions and other minorities, but also importantly by how these <i>others</i> see and categorize <i>them</i>. So, how did “Muslim” become the predominant category in Europe for grouping this factually heterogenous and diverse set of people?</p><p>The simple explanation is politicisation. Post 9/11, a “War on Terror,” a global Islamic resurgence, and seemingly endless multicultural controversies over Islam, the presence of Muslim minorities in Europe was increasingly politicized as a general cleavage over culture, religion, values and belonging to the national community. Multicultural politics was increasingly propelled by intense debates over the assumed need for Muslims to identify more with their settlement countries, and to accept their core “liberal democratic values,” regarding democracy, separation of church and state, and gender equality (Statham & Tillie, <span>2016</span>). Policies targeting these groups shifted from goals combatting discri","PeriodicalId":48011,"journal":{"name":"International Migration","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.6,"publicationDate":"2024-09-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/imig.13333","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142244993","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"Migration, race and the racializing strategy of borders","authors":"Nicholas De Genova","doi":"10.1111/imig.13331","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/imig.13331","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":48011,"journal":{"name":"International Migration","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.6,"publicationDate":"2024-09-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142244992","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"Andrikopoulos, Apostolos. 2023. Argonauts of West Africa. Chicago: University Chicago Press. pp. 201.","authors":"Valentina Mazzucato","doi":"10.1111/imig.13324","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/imig.13324","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":48011,"journal":{"name":"International Migration","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.6,"publicationDate":"2024-09-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142244445","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
<p>In 1995, I became one of two editors of the journal <i>Ethnic and Racial Studies</i>. At the time, there was a clear commitment by the journal to publish high quality research on race and ethnic relations and related fields of scholarship. These fields included research on migration, nationalism and ethnic conflict. At the time, this was a common starting point for scholars like me, since we tended to see ourselves as working on issues at the intersection of race, migration and ethnic relations. There was a kind of taken for granted assumption that studies of race relations and immigration were inextricably linked together. It is important to note the that as the sociology of race emerged as a field of research from the period of the 1970s and 1980s the study of what came to be called race relations in countries such as the UK grew out of research on immigration and the political and social responses to the arrival and settlement of racial and ethnic minorities. Thus John Rex's early attempt to define the study of race relations highlights the positioning of migrant labour as an underclass, unusually experiencing harsh class exploitation, strict legal intergroup distinctions and occupational segregation, differential access to power and prestige, and cultural diversity and limited group interaction (Rex, <span>1970</span>: 5–6).</p><p>In the past decades that I have worked on the journal, however, it has become evident that there has been a divergence between studies of race, ethnicity and racism and the work of scholars who see themselves as working on migration. This is evident in the growing role of specialised journals on migration and refugee studies, the work of professional bodies such as IMISCOE, and the growing number of books and edited collections focused on migration (Pisarevskaya et al., <span>2020</span>). In some ways, this growing separation between these fields of scholarship can be seen as inevitable, given the pressures in the academy to specialise and to carve out a specific niche for the purposes of career development and promotion. But, it is also the product of efforts to conceptualise migration in non-racial terms, particularly at a time when questions about race remain deeply contested in many parts of the world.</p><p>Perhaps, one way to begin addressing this separation is to seek to understand the focus of studies of race and racism as compared to studies of migration. The study of race and racism has a historical focus as well as a contemporary research agenda. In particular, it developed out of efforts to understand the social significance attached to social groups that differ in terms of physical attributes that are defined through a language of race (Collins & Solomos, <span>2010</span>; Solomos, <span>2023</span>). Thus, we have seen a range of studies for over a century now about the social significance of race in the U.S.A. both during the period of slavery and in the century and a half since its abolition
{"title":"Linking the study of race and migration","authors":"John Solomos","doi":"10.1111/imig.13332","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/imig.13332","url":null,"abstract":"<p>In 1995, I became one of two editors of the journal <i>Ethnic and Racial Studies</i>. At the time, there was a clear commitment by the journal to publish high quality research on race and ethnic relations and related fields of scholarship. These fields included research on migration, nationalism and ethnic conflict. At the time, this was a common starting point for scholars like me, since we tended to see ourselves as working on issues at the intersection of race, migration and ethnic relations. There was a kind of taken for granted assumption that studies of race relations and immigration were inextricably linked together. It is important to note the that as the sociology of race emerged as a field of research from the period of the 1970s and 1980s the study of what came to be called race relations in countries such as the UK grew out of research on immigration and the political and social responses to the arrival and settlement of racial and ethnic minorities. Thus John Rex's early attempt to define the study of race relations highlights the positioning of migrant labour as an underclass, unusually experiencing harsh class exploitation, strict legal intergroup distinctions and occupational segregation, differential access to power and prestige, and cultural diversity and limited group interaction (Rex, <span>1970</span>: 5–6).</p><p>In the past decades that I have worked on the journal, however, it has become evident that there has been a divergence between studies of race, ethnicity and racism and the work of scholars who see themselves as working on migration. This is evident in the growing role of specialised journals on migration and refugee studies, the work of professional bodies such as IMISCOE, and the growing number of books and edited collections focused on migration (Pisarevskaya et al., <span>2020</span>). In some ways, this growing separation between these fields of scholarship can be seen as inevitable, given the pressures in the academy to specialise and to carve out a specific niche for the purposes of career development and promotion. But, it is also the product of efforts to conceptualise migration in non-racial terms, particularly at a time when questions about race remain deeply contested in many parts of the world.</p><p>Perhaps, one way to begin addressing this separation is to seek to understand the focus of studies of race and racism as compared to studies of migration. The study of race and racism has a historical focus as well as a contemporary research agenda. In particular, it developed out of efforts to understand the social significance attached to social groups that differ in terms of physical attributes that are defined through a language of race (Collins & Solomos, <span>2010</span>; Solomos, <span>2023</span>). Thus, we have seen a range of studies for over a century now about the social significance of race in the U.S.A. both during the period of slavery and in the century and a half since its abolition","PeriodicalId":48011,"journal":{"name":"International Migration","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.6,"publicationDate":"2024-09-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/imig.13332","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142244888","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"Díaz de León, Alejandra. 2023. Walking Together: Central Americans and Transit Migration through Mexico. Tucson, AZ: The University of Arizona Press. pp. 192.","authors":"Priscilla Solano","doi":"10.1111/imig.13330","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/imig.13330","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":48011,"journal":{"name":"International Migration","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.6,"publicationDate":"2024-09-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142244891","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"Surak, Kristin. 2023. The Golden Passport: Global Mobility for Millionaires. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. pp. 325.","authors":"Evren Balta","doi":"10.1111/imig.13311","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/imig.13311","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":48011,"journal":{"name":"International Migration","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.6,"publicationDate":"2024-09-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142244444","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
The return of Egyptian migrants to Egypt following the onset of crisis in Libya in 2011 raises important questions about their classification as “returnees.” This article demonstrates the impact of the crisis on Egyptians' livelihoods. Field research conducted in Egypt in 2016 reveals that, at least in part, from 2011 onwards Egyptians were engaged in circular migration to and from Libya as a livelihood strategy because of failed reintegration in Egypt. The Egyptian government, intergovernmental and non‐governmental organisations provided varied levels of protection and assistance in evacuating migrants; however, they lacked awareness about returnees' socio‐economic needs. Egyptians were largely unsupported by state and non‐state institutions upon their return and therefore remained reliant on families and social networks. Initiatives aimed at providing aid to returnees, such as those introduced in Ghana and Niger, were generally absent in the Egyptian context. The absence of support had other unintended consequences, including increased levels of domestic violence and reduced educational opportunities for children in households hosting returnees.
{"title":"Circular and return migration of Egyptian migrant workers in Libya","authors":"Mohamed Elsayeh","doi":"10.1111/imig.13334","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/imig.13334","url":null,"abstract":"The return of Egyptian migrants to Egypt following the onset of crisis in Libya in 2011 raises important questions about their classification as “returnees.” This article demonstrates the impact of the crisis on Egyptians' livelihoods. Field research conducted in Egypt in 2016 reveals that, at least in part, from 2011 onwards Egyptians were engaged in circular migration to and from Libya as a livelihood strategy because of failed reintegration in Egypt. The Egyptian government, intergovernmental and non‐governmental organisations provided varied levels of protection and assistance in evacuating migrants; however, they lacked awareness about returnees' socio‐economic needs. Egyptians were largely unsupported by state and non‐state institutions upon their return and therefore remained reliant on families and social networks. Initiatives aimed at providing aid to returnees, such as those introduced in Ghana and Niger, were generally absent in the Egyptian context. The absence of support had other unintended consequences, including increased levels of domestic violence and reduced educational opportunities for children in households hosting returnees.","PeriodicalId":48011,"journal":{"name":"International Migration","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.9,"publicationDate":"2024-09-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142171272","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：