Return Programmes and Diaspora/Migrant Organizations: Projections and Realities - Research Digest (WP7)

This study critically examines the tensions between state-led return migration policies and the responses of diaspora/migrant organizations (DO/MOs) in Sweden and Germany. While policymakers increasingly frame diasporas as “key partners” in facilitating voluntary returns, empirical evidence reveals a stark disconnect between policy rhetoric and DO/MOs’ realities. Through inductive analysis of interviews with migrant-led organizations, we identify five discursive patterns shaping engagement: disengagement, conditional support, pragmatic acceptance, alignment (with criminal deportations), and direct opposition. These positions reflect ethical dilemmas, structural constraints, and strategic negotiations within an increasingly securitized migration landscape Key findings include: ● The evidence of policy initiatives in both Sweden and Germany highlights a gap between the intended policy objectives and the actual experiences encountered in mobilising diaspora organisations for development and return policies. Despite institutional frameworks such as the EU’s Global Diaspora Facility (EUDiF) and national strategies, concrete connections between diaspora engagement and return policies remain unclear. Efforts to link diaspora engagement with return and readmission policies—such as programmes and projects aimed at inviting diaspora organisations—are still ambiguous and lack concrete results. Initiatives are often ad hoc, underfunded, or misaligned with diaspora priorities. ● Migrant and diaspora communities are increasingly concerned about the growing politicisation of migration issues, the anti-refugee stance, and the pro-deportation discourse in both countries, which in turn influences their discursive and behavioural patterns. They are navigating an “ontological mismatch” that arises out of contradictions from the involvement in return-related activities with the foundational principles of many MO/DOs that prioritize integration and transnational protection issues. ● Diaspora organizations have different perceptions about returns (both voluntary and involuntary) and discursive positions, as well as differentiated practices in their engagement with return policies and development work. This study identifies five discursive positions: disengagement, conditional support, pragmatic acceptance, alignment (with criminal deportations), and direct opposition. These diverse responses reflect tensions between state objectives and migrant communities’ lived experiences, with many organizations focusing on integration or transnational development, not on return facilitation. Many MO/DO representatives interviewed show little interest in the topic of return and do not engage in any related activities or policies, which we try to capture by describing a discursive pattern of disengagement.