Making Migrant Return and Reintegration Sustainable: Lessons from two continents

This transcript was generated using AI and may contain inaccuracies. If you notice an error, feel free to email [email protected].

[00:00:01.12] - Ravenna Sohst

Hello everyone and welcome to this webinar, Making Migrant Return and Reintegration Sustainable: Lessons from Two Continents, hosted by the Migration Policy Institute Europe. This webinar is part of MPI Europe's Community of Practice on Voluntary Return and Sustainable Reintegration, an EU-funded initiative supported by the Migration Partnership Facility. My name is Ravenna Sohst. I'm a policy analyst at MPI Europe and I'll be moderating today's conversation. Over the next hour, we'll explore return and reintegration from a comparative perspective, drawing on experiences from both Europe and Central America. Across both continents, the return of migrants without a legal right to stay is, of course, a top priority for policymakers. At the same time, the effectiveness of reintegration programming is coming under increased scrutiny. Scrutiny both in Europe and in Central America. In Europe, the longstanding model of offering individual return support, such as small cash grants or in-kind support for individual reintegration measures, remains in place. But in an effort to make reintegration more sustainable, some policymakers are beginning to rethink this model. We're seeing a shift towards more coherent development-based support in countries of origin. Support that can include, for instance, capacity building and strengthening of national services for employment or health, for instance.

Meanwhile, Latin American countries, some of which are facing deportations from the United States, are grappling with how to provide meaningful reception and reintegration support, often within tight financial and institutional constraints. So in today's discussion, we'll explore how both these regions are responding to these evolving challenges. We'll look at emerging models, recent policy shifts, and any potential lessons learned. I'm delighted to be joined today by 3 experts who bring deep experience and insights from different corners of this conversation. I'm delighted to have Camilla Hagström, Deputy Head of Unit for Migration and Forced Displacement at the Directorate General for International Partnerships at the European Commission, DG INTPA, with us. As well as my colleague María Jesús Mora, Associate Policy Analyst with the Latin America and Caribbean Initiative at the Migration Policy Institute, and Rossy Antúnez, Transnational Families Advocate at the Instituto para las Mujeres en la Migración, IMUMI, in Mexico. With that, let us get started, and I will start with Camilla to begin the discussion. The EU has been supporting reintegration efforts for many years, but more recently, DG INTPA is placing growing emphasis and funding on longer-term structural support in partner countries. This shift aims to strengthen national institutions and promote local ownership in delivering services for returning migrants and their host communities alike.

Could you share more about the thinking behind this shift and what this approach looks like in practice across the different partner countries that you're working with?

[00:03:15.09] - Camilla Hagström

I certainly can. Thank you very much. I hope everybody can hear me well. Yes, indeed. I wanted to start a little bit looking back. Return and reintegration at the EU level became really a super high priority in 2015. Before that, we had been engaged, but in a more scattered way, on return and reintegration. But in 2015, we had what is sometimes called the migration crisis in Europe and the Valletta Summit. On migration took place in 2015. And here, of course, return and reintegration became one of the priorities in the EU response. And I also have to say, a big focus was on Africa, Sub-Saharan Africa. And as I said, even if we had been involved sporadically on return and reintegration before, in 2015 we launched for the first time a very substantial program, support program, from our development funding. It was called the Migrant Protection and Reintegration Program for Sub-Saharan Africa, and it was worth around €500 million. So it was really something huge and big and new for us, and this is 10 years ago. It, it, the program had, has been implemented, it's over by now. It had concrete results, more than 300,000 individuals were supported under the program for return, for reintegration, etc.

But having said that, I think one of the main issues is also that it allowed us to learn a number of lessons. It was a relatively new area for us to engage in, and in positive terms, there were lessons. We were able to develop relations with African countries of origin or countries of return. We were able to explore different modus operandi of operating reintegration and mutual understanding of what return and reintegration support could look like between us and our partners. So that was positive aspects, but of course, as with all experiences, there were also some challenges we faced. And one of the main issues we noted was indeed the limited local ownership of these programs, the capacities in the countries of return, were not always at par with, you know, what was needed. Another big lesson learned was the difficulty of coordinating across with different stakeholders, different actors from the European side, but also, of course, from the local side in the countries we worked in. So these were issues we really took at heart Another thing I should mention was also the limited use of referrals to existing services in the countries. So it was very, very much— these first experiences were very much done in parallel to, let's say, existing systems and existing services that were already there in the countries.

And all of that, of course, also resulted in a main concern from our side, and it was the limitations in terms of sustainability. And this is something from a development perspective we always have to have in mind when we address any type of support. So with this experience in mind, and now I'm trying to look a bit more into the future, in 2021 it was a quite important year for us. We had a new strategy, an EU strategy on on voluntary return and reintegration. And this new policy from the EU puts a strong emphasis on sustainability, and it was highlighting that countries of origin are really the best placed to create the conditions and the prospects for their nationals returning. So this for us was also an eye-opener and something we had to take into account. In this context, in 2022, we developed, if I may say, the next generation of return and reintegration program for Sub-Saharan Africa. The focus was still very much on Sub-Saharan Africa, and again, with a quite massive financial allocation, we launched the program on migrant protection, return, and reintegration in 18 countries in Sub-Saharan Africa. Again, in terms of very concrete outcomes until now, so 3 years, a high number of returning migrants have been supported through the program.

And I think we also started to see some achievements in, in terms of developing more national or supporting more national systems. So, um, I think with this new generation, if I may call it, it's still ongoing program, we took one step further, I think, in terms of shaping a new or shifting our approach. Having said that, we are certainly not fully there yet. It is definitely an area where a lot of work needs to be done. Looking ahead from now and how we are trying to address the limitations that we see. It's clear for us that return and reintegration will remain a priority for the EU. This is absolutely crystal clear in having listened to our president's announcements. However, it's also very clear that, and let's face it, we are in a period of budget cuts and competing priorities. It really remains critical, more critical than ever to accelerate our efforts to redefine the approach to make it more sustainable. And this is also because of cost-effectiveness. I don't want to hide, it's extremely expensive. These type of operations are extremely expensive. As I said, we are also seeing the risk of cutting development aids among EU member states, possibly also at EU level.

We will know in in 2 years' time. But this is, of course, why we really need to accelerate our efforts. So, just to— I know I'm taking a bit too long, but I think our— in terms of our new approach, I think at the center is really to enhance the ownership and the capacities of the origin countries and the local actors in the countries we are working in. We find it rather problematic that currently All or many reintegration programs are heavily depending on donors, and this is very risky, I think. So this is something we really want to contribute to, to try to contribute to a more sustainable system for the future. From our side, we are really in a transition period. We are not fully there. What we have done is, apart from this more regional overall program, support, continuing to support individual reintegration, we are also launching simultaneously national programs to strengthen the capacities in a number of countries in parallel to, in a progressive manner, be able hopefully in a certain time to be able to take over, let's say, the services that are needed. Because once again, we really think that they are best place to do that for their own nationals and their own citizens.

And I think, having said that, I really don't want to pretend that we have a perfect system, not at all, but we are very mindful and we are really putting a lot of effort in trying to shape sort of a more commonsensical and inclusive, I would say, support for reintegration in the future. Thanks.

[00:11:46.18] - Ravenna Sohst

Thank you very much, Camilla, to walk us through this thinking and the shifts that are happening, and of course also to point to both the ongoing nature of these things that are still evolving and the challenges such as tight budgets and so on. I'm turning now to my colleague Maria Jesus, who unfortunately is facing some connection issues. That's why she will not have a a video with her. But Maria Jesus, as the Trump administration is aiming to deport large numbers of unauthorized migrants from the United States, attention has been turning to Mexico and Central America more broadly. Can you tell us what have been the responses of other countries in the region, namely Mexico, El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras? In terms of the reception and reintegration planning in this context.

[00:12:41.09] - María Jesús Mora

Yes, thank you, Ravenna. And I'm very sorry to keep the video off, but as Ravenna said, I'm experiencing internet connection issues. I think it's important to note that the issue of return migration is not new for Mexico and Central America. And countries have had reception and reintegration infrastructure that predate the current juncture that we're in. These countries are home to an estimated two-thirds of the 13.7 million unauthorized migrants living in the United States. And according to MPI estimates, these countries received about 319,000 returnees in 2024 alone. But now, under the renewed threat of mass deportations from the United States, Mexico, El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras are taking more strategic and proactive steps in anticipation of rising numbers, which is important to note that have yet to materialize. Governments are scaling up their reception and reintegration strategies. We're seeing this shift clearly in the rollout of new national plans in Mexico's Mexico Embraces You program, Guatemala's Return Home program, Honduras' Brother Come Home program. These initiatives represent a new phase in migration governance and one with a stronger focus on structure, coordination, and clearly designated roles and responsibilities, and also a focus on longer-term integration and community development plans.

For example, Guatemala's integration model is divided into 3 coordinated phases. First, consular protection managed by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Second, the National Migration Institute supporting migrants upon arrival. And third, and importantly, local governments leading long-term reintegration through community-based strategies. Mexico is also strengthening its coordination across national institutions with 34 federal agencies involved in the plan and providing services and coordinating with states receiving returnees. Another critical shift that we're seeing across all countries is a stronger emphasis on profiling returnees, understanding their skills, backgrounds, future aspirations. This is essential because the profile of returnees is changing. Many are no longer recent border crossers, but long-term U.S. residents with deep ties, including U.S.-born children, homes, and businesses. Guatemala, for example, has informed us that over half of the thousands of returnees they have received this year had lived in the US for many years, which is a clear difference from returnees that they were receiving in previous years. Guatemala, for example, established a new reception center offering centralized support services. However, Guatemalan officials also note that work needs to be done to encourage migrants to make use of these centers because they haven't had the desired uptake yet.

This is also an issue in some other countries in the region. Another key change is that the private sector's role is increasing, which is key given when the funding cuts and to the changing profile of returnees. For example, Mexico's Business Coordinating Council reported that under the program and in close coordination with the national government, they have accumulated more than 70,000 vacancies from almost 400 companies. The vacancies are for various job profiles ranging from operational to technical to specialized and more professional positions. Guatemala is also having public-private working groups to match labor demand with returnee profiles. And Honduras is planning outreach to business chambers to tackle stigma. Importantly as well, Governments are also investing in better consular outreach and adapting their services for this new context of great fear within immigrant communities in the US. Mexico has expanded its consular services, increased digital communication tools. Guatemala has developed online tools and apps as well, increased outreach in immigration detention centers, and removed appointment requirements. And it also plans to open new consulates in cities that are facing heightened immigration, immigrant anxiety. And this is, for us, really important because studies have shown that better pre-departure preparation increases returnees' likelihood to meaningfully integrate into the communities that they return to.

So just to wrap up your question, Ravenna, the region is not merely bracing for deportations, but it is adapting and focusing on a much more strategic and coordinated response that follows a multidimensional process focusing on social, economic, and political needs that returnees have, how these are intertwined, and how they need to address them holistically, and trying to move away from just providing services to linking these returns to local development.

[00:18:09.03] - Ravenna Sohst

Thank you very much for this introduction, and, um, that's extremely interesting. Connecting very well also with our next speaker, Rossy, who's working with transnational families and women specifically in Mexico. Rossy, based on your experience working with IMUMI, what does the arrival of migrants who are deported from the United States to Mexico currently look like in practice? What are the challenges that these women face immediately upon their arrival? And what support do they get, if any at all?

[00:18:44.19] - Rossy Antúnez

Yeah, well, thank you, Ravenna, for the invitation. And from our perspective, something that was just mentioned about the strategy of Mexico Embraces You is what we have been monitoring here at IMUMI and specifically at the northern border of Mexico where this strategy has been mainly utilized or been focused in. And this, the current Mexican government has this strategy which I just mentioned is called Mexico Embraces You. And as a returning woman, this simply also tells you a lot of the, the way they will be approaching this strategy because it has a political use. Also, the name of, of this strategy also means that this is not a program, and because it's not a program, it does not have specific budget designated to to assist the, like, not only deportees, but also the family structures that are being impacted by the deportation processes of a family member. Due to the current deportation policies from the U.S., the Mexican government saw convenient to establish this strategy because, like it was just mentioned, most of the Mexican population living undocumented outside of Mexico are in the US. And since the current US administration arrived to office, the Mexican government designated this strategy to address the crisis that they believe will come with the arrival of the current president in the US.

And what we have seen is that it hasn't happened that way since January when the US president took office. We haven't seen the rise of numbers of deportations, but what we have seen is the ways, the violent and— the violent ways they have been apprehending our community members in the US. And what we have seen also from the Mexican government is that they have focused their attention at the 11 points of repatriation or deportation that are located at the northern border in Mexico. And what we also have seen is that they have They have agreed with the U.S. government to send 2 flights at the southern border of Mexico, which is in Tabasco and Chiapas. Last year, we were seeing these flights arriving at the Mexico City airport and also at some other airports depending on the coordination that they may have. But since the beginning of this year, we have seen how the U.S. has imposed these two flight destinations, which is like from one end to the other, which is in the southern border of Mexico. And those two places don't have the capacity to even assist the, uh, these, these people that are arriving.

Because, uh, so far what we have seen is that at the northern border they have established shelters at those 11 points of repatriation or deportation. However, uh, in Tabasco and Chiapas, we don't see that. They don't— deportees don't have the opportunity to even rest and be able to at least think about what just happened, have a space where to even reflect or even digest what they have gone through. And what we do know and have seen firsthand is that they do give deportees at these places, at the 11 points of repatriation and the 2 airports where they arrive to, is that they are given food, that they are given water, like first necessities that need to be covered. And we have also seen that they're given transportation to their states of birth, not necessarily origin, because what we have seen is that since most of people, Mexican people, have had an average life of 20 years in the US. Many of these people don't even have networks or any ties at their places of birth, and most of them expect to even migrate within Mexico because also what we are seeing is the current violent situation that has impacted us all here in Mexico, not only deportees, but the whole Mexican population is being impacted by the violence of the criminal networks.

And many of these people that are being deported are from those specific places where the crime rates have increased. Therefore, many of these people intend not to go back to those places. They intend to move to other places where they may have family members or some other ties within Mexico. So what we have seen is that the Mexican government doesn't take this into consideration when giving the bus, like the transportation, because they— the fact that they see the identity document of the person and in that document it says that person was born in such place, they are directly being sent to that, to those places. However, we are saying that for security reasons and because the person needs like a network to be able to cope with this process, we need the Mexican government to be able to be more flexible and for people to decide where they want to go. But the last one I just want to touch is that this is a strategy. It does not have a specific budget. For each year. And since this strategy comes out of the mind that there will be or there is a deportation crisis, and in terms of numbers, because the Mexican government doesn't see the impact, they are only seeing the number of people that might be deported.

So this strategy does not encompass or or does not entail like a process of public policy construction because it is not considering also the family structures that are being impacted by these experience of deportation. And also because they're seeing it at the effectual moment, they're just seeing it at the border. The strategy has only being installed at the border. And it does not think about, or it hasn't materialized in specific public policies and programs for the process of reintegration or integration. It is not sustainable. It is not sustainable because it doesn't have any budget. It is not sustainable because it is not considering public policies after deportation. It is not sustainable because it only thinks about the individual and not the whole community and family structures. Because due to the deportation of one person, we have seen throughout the years, this is not something new, we have seen throughout the years that families are deciding to return, are forced to return to Mexico. There is no such thing as self-deportation. These families are not self-deporting, because no families would want to undergo through those processes, through those inhumane and painful processes. So these people, the families that are deciding, are being coerced to take the decision to return to Mexico in order to be able to keep the family structures together.

But this strategy does not consider that. It is only considering the factual moment of deportation and it's not considering the long and lasting processes of deportation. So, like, in some, that is what we are seeing currently, and not necessarily currently, but this is what we have seen throughout the years within IMUMI in terms of what has been happening with deportations of Mexican nationals.

[00:28:24.08] - Ravenna Sohst

Thank you very much, Rossy, and thank you for really highlighting what you've been seeing in Mexico and really highlighting also the community impacts that these deportations have had across the country. I want to circle back briefly to each of the participants for a brief follow-up question before we also open up for questions from the audience. But first for Camilla. So you've been explaining how some thinkers within the European Union, some policymakers, notably DG INTPA, of course, is moving towards an approach that really emphasizes local ownership in reintegration programming. But at the same time, we know that much of the reintegration support that is provided by EU member states, and notably by the EU Reintegration Program, the EURP, continues to center on individual packages such as cash or in-kind support for returnees. So how do you see these two models perhaps complementing each other or aligning? And how do you see these two aspects going forward?

[00:29:27.14] - Camilla Hagström

Yeah, no, thank you. It's obviously a good observation you have made. Yes, indeed. Listen, I think we should remember that we are operating in a policy area which is evolving quite quickly. And of course, that always comes with its challenges. There are many stakeholders, many actors operating, and a little bit embarrassingly on the EU side, indeed, it is the same. It of course is explained by the political priority that return and reintegration has in the EU and in the EU migration policy, and it has resulted in different EU approaches, as you said, from a development perspective. And I should maybe have clarified that the support we are providing from a development side to return and reintegration is not returns from Europe. It's returns, dignified and voluntary return from African countries to their origin countries. So we are not involved, of course, in the return from Europe, whereas of course our member states are involved in the direct returns from EU member states, either forced or voluntary. So of course that is one issue. I mean, we are, and I have to say, in the last 2 years we have managed to have much more coordination, information sharing, and discussions between, let's say, the 2 approaches, which at least I think today we are at the situation where we understand each other, we understand where we are coming from, and I think there is also a much broader willingness and how can I say, realization for a need to come together.

I'm not saying that we are there yet. And one of the main issues for this, of course, is that there is a strong belief that providing individual, especially cash, support for reintegration is an incentive for a migrant to return. So this is something that I would say there is maybe not so much proof or evaluation that that really proves this point, but I think that is certainly something that we are facing. Once again, and turning back a little bit to our previous discussion, I think one of the key ingredients that can help to ensure the complementarity is indeed to put the national authorities in the lead. I mean, it should be in their interest that their nationals, whether they come from the EU, from the US, from any other place in Africa or elsewhere, are treated equally and that they get the support that they need regardless of where they come from. So I think this is something that I hope our efforts to try to improve this approach and putting really national authorities in the lead can also help. But yes, it's definitely something we are aware of. Thanks.

[00:32:43.01] - Ravenna Sohst

Thank you, Camilla. Maria Jesus, you mentioned that the profile of returnees is changing. Given the evolving enforcement efforts of the Trump administration in the United States, can you elaborate what this implies in terms of assistance that is needed for those who are returning to Mexico and to other countries in the region?

[00:33:04.24] - María Jesús Mora

Yes, I can. Thank you, Ravenna.

Talk a little bit about the challenges that the region is facing. I think, well, It's important to mention that Mexico and Central America are facing an increasingly complex environment as they are working towards managing return migration. The challenges are deeply interconnected. They are fiscal, political, social, demographic, institutional, and they are being compounded by U.S. policy shifts. First, a major concern is the economic uncertainty generated by proposed tariffs. On exports and potential US efforts to tax remittances, which are a lifeline for millions of households in the region. In 2024 alone, remittances as a proportion of GDP were almost 25% in Honduras and El Salvador, 20% in Guatemala, 3.4% in Mexico. And in Mexico, that's the form of the largest single source of foreign income. And any disruption to that, for example, through the proposed tax on personal remittances transfers would undermine the very development goals that governments are trying to pursue to reduce migration in the first place. And that mere threat of such measures has already triggered economic anxiety, particularly so because the Trump administration has been focusing on migrants from the interior. So these are people that have a long track record of sending remittances.

And their family members in the origin countries depending on them. This also comes at a time when international aid was sharply reduced. So Mexican and Central American governments' limited institutional capacity to meet the diverse needs of returnees was already chief among the challenges that exist in existing reception and reintegration programming. They relied primarily on US funding. UN agencies and civil society organizations had been instrumental in filling the gaps in governments and reintegration services, from employment programs to transportation services. And the cuts to US foreign assistance, including the 85% reduction in USAID funding, has severely weakened reception and reintegration programs. So that points a little bit to what Rossy was saying. If U.S. shared some co-responsibility before in financing the return and reintegration programming in these areas, that doesn't seem to be the case anymore. And now national governments are being forced to either absorb these costs or scale back their services. And in most cases, the institutional capacity and budgets, budgets simply are not there. Some countries relied on U.S. foreign aid more heavily than others, but top recipients in the region over the past 3 U.S. fiscal years included Guatemala, Honduras, and Mexico. So exactly the countries that we're talking about.

As, at the same time, as you mentioned, the profile of returnees is shifting with long-term U.S. residents being key targets. Many of them have deep roots, U.S.-born children, limited Spanish fluency, and they face major psychological and economic hurdles that are different to the challenges that previous— the profiles of previous returnees were facing since these were mostly people that were apprehended at the border. And lastly, the constant policy shifts in the United States are leaving little time for governments to prepare or respond. Consulates are overwhelmed, um, and visits due to fear have dropped significantly, especially in high-density immigrant areas like Los Ángeles and New York. Um, and consulates are trying to adapt, but they're still struggling to meet the rising demand. Um, ultimately, the region is attempting to strengthen its approach. Um, they have these plans, but they are doing so without stable funding and a lot of economic and international political instability.

[00:37:25.19] - Ravenna Sohst

Introduction to these questions. I want to remind everybody who's listening that the Q&A box is open. So please type any questions into the chat box or the Q&A box, or you can email to [email protected], and we'll start taking questions from the chat box. In a second. And in the meantime, perhaps Rossy, you can tell us a little bit more about the longer-term challenges that women and transnational families are facing after their return, given that IMUMI has been working with them for some time.

[00:38:02.01] - Rossy Antúnez

Sure, thank you. Well, from IMUMI, we have been working with specifically with women, considering that women are the most impacted in the processes of deportation. We know that most of, like, most of the people that are being deported are men, like, on the Mexican side. And however, the impact weighs even more on women, not only those women that are being deported, but also the women that have stayed in Mexico and also the women that are staying in the U.S. due to the deportation of a family member, because most of the time it is these women that have undertaken like the care, care activities in the family structures. So therefore, after the deportation of a person, a family member, we have seen aunts, grandmothers, wives, and even godmothers, the ones that are there to assist the person that has just gotten deported. And they're the ones that are undertaking activities of to try to reintegrate or integrate the person that just arrived back to Mexico. In the case of those people that are not considering of going back to the States. So within IMUMI, we understand that women have this big role in the processes of reintegration and integration, and that is why we accompany mainly women and their families in the long process of post-deportation and reintegration processes.

Through our legal clinic, we accompany women and their children that are undergoing difficult moments of culture shock, of not being able to adjust to a life here in Mexico due to the bureaucratic ways of the Mexican government, because mainly we have seen how the bureaucratic processes to be able to get an identification, to be able to enroll your kids into school, to even have them receive medical attention has a big impact not only on the children, but also on these women, because they are the ones getting frustrated. They are the ones that are going from one office to another to— in order to be able to integrate their family structures. Because once people arrive to Mexico, as I mentioned, not only one person gets supported, but a whole family structure also is coerced to return. And in that sense, we have seen how men take different roles where they are the ones that try to seek a job once they arrive, while like family, like women in the family structure tend to undertake the roles of doing all the procedures, like legal or documentation procedures to be able to try to build a new life in Mexico.

And we have seen how many of these women face not only gender-based violence from these bureaucratic spaces because the Mexican government tends to have many administrative requirements that can only be obtained from the U.S. because once a person gets deported or lives in Mexico after living undocumented in the U.S., it doesn't override the fact that that person had any family ties, education ties in the U.S. Women, after getting deported or arriving to Mexico through a coerced return, still have these connections with the U.S., legal connections. There are things that weren't able to be solved beforehand. There's education ties also, cultural ties, and all this like transnational like networks or connections that these women have are in a way something that helps them, but however, that also affects them in a sense because they don't have the mobility or the, yeah, the opportunity to be able to move from one country to another in order to be able to get those documentations that the bureaucratic processes ask them to have here in Mexico. And we have seen how many of these kids, like María was mentioning, are facing discrimination due to the fact that they don't speak Spanish.

They are not fluent in that language. And also because They don't adjust to the lifestyle and the education processes here in Mexico. And who faces the, like, not the burden, but the weight of the emotional constraints that these kids are having? It's mainly the women. And we have also seen how these women are subject to violent situations within their own family structures, because once they return to Mexico, they become like the bridge between the community and those that stayed in the U.S. And that may sound good. However, in terms of, in terms of a personal life, the personal life of a woman, this This means that they will be subject to being objectified by their own family members in the U.S., but also in Mexico. And also this means that they will not be able to move around as they please because they tend to be told that they cannot do certain stuff. Just by the fact that they're by themselves in Mexico, because we have to remember that Mexico has 10 femicides a day. That's the context under which they're arriving to. So this is something that our families back in the US are always considering and are always pointing out, that as women, as a returning woman, you cannot go out the same way the Mexican women that never migrated move around the places, move around the country, because you are more subject to being identified as a person that does not belong because the way that you talk, the way that you dress, many, many specific elements may give you away as a returnee.

Which it shouldn't be considered as a bad aspect. However, it makes you subject to violent situations within your community, your family structures, and the whole Mexican context. So also within the movement, we have seen that children, and in this case, have arrived to Mexico as a way to be with their families. However, by the fact that there is no way to integrate into the Mexican society, we have seen how family members have taken the decision to even send their kids back to the U.S. So we have seen that even though they're trying to maintain family unity. After all, family separation comes within the Mexican context of post-deportation. So, and that impacts definitely on the lives of women deportees and also women within the context of post-deportation and return.

[00:46:58.09] - Ravenna Sohst

Thanks very much, Rossy. Very interesting. We have a lot of interesting questions coming in from the Q&A. and we can go a little bit over time to make sure we can address a few more of them. Perhaps to get us started, I see that there are several questions for Camilla specifically on the questions of how local ownership can be achieved in practice. What are the strategies perhaps that DG INTPA has been experimenting with, and what are some of the promising practices behind this? And also, what are the partners that you're working with? Is this development partners, international organizations, or also more directly working with these governments to build their ownership? Camilla, I'll let you respond to these.

[[FOR THE Q&A PORTION OF THE TRANSCRIPT, SPEAKERS ARE NOT IDENTIFIED BY NAME. PLEASE SEE THE RECORDING TO IDENTIFY SPEAKERS.]]

[00:47:49.21] - Speaker 2

Yes, thank you very much. No, definitely. Listen, local ownership is something that from a development perspective, and I'm sure I've been working in development aid for 30 years for the EU, EU. And what I can say is that we have, from our side— I'm only speaking for the EU now, but this is probably also relevant for many EU member states and their development aid— there has been a tradition to work via international organizations. This is certainly the case in migration. And this, of course— and now I'm expressing my personal views from my personal experience over 30 years. I can't say that I'm sitting here today, seeing the same program being designed with the same international organization in the same country doing exactly the same thing 30 years later, there is something that is of course not working. I'm not just going to put a lot of shame on international organizations, they are doing a great job, but at the same time it's become a bit of an industry, of course, and it's self, you know, the raison d'être, of course. I mean, they have to make themselves necessary. I think there are many other ways to work as development donors, if you wish, or partners.

[00:49:16.07] - Speaker 2

And I think one of them is, of course, to work much more with local organizations. This is for us, for the EU, we have embassies or delegations in, you know, a number of countries, over 100 countries in the world where we work. So, you know, it needs an investment in the country, you need to have presence in the country, you need to have experts in the country that know which organizations to work with. Another way you can approach this is of course to work via budget support. You provide direct funding to the government, and this funding is linked to indicators and conditions, and you have a dialog, a policy dialog with the governments, and you don't pay this money unless you see progress. And that is of course also something that can and has been experienced and let's say explored. It's not— it sounds— I was a big fan of budget support when I started. It's not as easy as it sounds. But having said that, I think we are seeing, whether we want it or not, a paradigm shift in development aid. I can assure you, in the next 5 years, development aid— and we have seen the trends from the US.

[00:50:30.16] - Speaker 2

And I don't think you should be surprised to see not the same kind of approach, but some similar trends also from the EU side or from our EU member states. So, you know, I think in order to continue to be relevant, to continue to have a reason to work and exist and do what we all believe is important and a good thing. I think we need to, as someone say, change our minds and have a deeper discussion. So that's from my side on partners and strategies on local ownership. Thanks.

[00:51:10.11] - Speaker 1

Thanks so much, Camilla. There's another question perhaps for María Jesús on the question of changing profiles of those returnees, noting also that of course now there are returnees that have been in the United States for much longer and therefore return of of course, with a different type of skill set to Mexico and other countries. What does that imply for those countries that are receiving those returnees, and could that be almost an advantage because they come with other skills? María Jesús, over to you.

[00:51:42.17] - Speaker 3

Thank you, Ravenna. Thank you for the question. Absolutely, these are people that spent either a few years or decades in the United States and were able to gain skills that could be leveraged upon their return in Mexico if they are well-matched with positions that take advantage of those skills. We've seen in the past that many reintegration programs tend to prioritize finding immediate jobs. For returnees, and that sometimes misses or is not— makes it so that migrants cannot like leverage their skills. So there needs to be a better way, um, and like a longer-term strategy to be able to map the skills, uh, that these returnees are coming with and the labor, um, demand that the industries in these countries have. Um, so Yes, a key area is employment. As mentioned, because of this, like, immediate matching, like, many returnees with great skills are pushed into informal jobs that don't match the skills that they developed. And a better approach, which we see is starting to happen, but it's still in its very initial phase, is for governments to actively partner with the private sector to identify their labor gaps, match returning skill sets with appropriate employment.

[00:53:13.15] - Speaker 3

There's also a huge issue of recognizing foreign-acquired credentials and experience is essential. This is, yeah, for people that may come with a lot of degrees that are not recognized by the countries that they are returning to. And this can be a major barrier because it might mean that they might not be able to get hired. So that those are legislative changes that the government has to also work with specific industries to tackle, to better leverage the skill set that they're arriving with. Finally, I think it's also important in this particular case to think about how to integrate case management into post-reception programs, assessing each returnee's specific needs, and identifying long-term barriers such as the access to housing, mental health care, and legal identity. These are all issues that are connected to them being able to sustain jobs and being able to contribute to the local development to the communities that they are returning to and hopefully also help them rebuild stable lives. In the communities that they arrive to.

[00:54:36.08] - Speaker 1

Thank you. Another question that was raised in the chat refers to the point that was made earlier about the key role of preparation in ensuring or improving reintegration outcomes after the return. Perhaps a question to all three of you, or whoever wants to answer, is how do you think that pre-departure preparation could be better integrated in policymaking, and what type of preparation exactly is needed to increase improve reintegration outcomes?

[00:55:07.05] - Speaker 4

Well, I think that's really difficult because right now we know that the Mexican government has— is trying to better their consular assistance. And we know that Mexico in the U.S. is the one that has the most consular offices. Which right now I think it is 53 offices within the US. However, it does not have the capacity to even assist the wide population that lives in the US because it does not, it has not considered the different necessities that these people have in terms of identity documents and also legal, legal, legal accompaniment, because we have seen women that have needs in terms of legal accompaniment for custody of their children and also like pensions. And, and not only before deportation or return, but also after deportation. And it is what we have seen is that these consular offices don't have the capacity because they don't understand their own communities of Mexican nationals. And as IMUMI, what we have been doing is to give workshops to indigenous undocumented communities because they're the ones that are more subject to violence, not only by the US institutions, but also from the Mexican government because they lack accompaniment and interpretation within their offices and throughout the processes of planning a return.

[00:57:06.07] - Speaker 4

So as IMUMI, we have been giving out workshops at consular offices, at least to tell them what they need to prepare in case they are apprehended and then they get deported. Because what we have seen is that the first moment they step into Mexico will mark the way they live their post-deportation processes. And this is not something that just IMUMI came up with. This comes from our own deported and returned community as deportees and returnees. We have seen the impact it has, the way we are received, and also the impact it has if we have, like, immediate communication with someone, a family member from the U.S. And we tend to tell people, we know that we all have forgotten to use or memorize telephone numbers. But that will have a big impact if you memorize at least 2 numbers of a family member in the US or in Mexico, because that will help you coordinate your next steps after arriving to a point of repatriation, because the context at the borders here in Mexico are very, very violent. So once they step out of the Mexican migration office, They are very subject to being kidnapped.

[00:58:35.21] - Speaker 4

And this is something that we have seen for many, many years. And I think that's something that needs to be done maybe through the collaboration of consular offices and civil organizations that accompany deportees and returnees in their post-deportation processes. Because undocumented organizations, like organizations that accompany undocumented populations don't necessarily have this information because they're very focused in like detaining, like stopping these deportations and not necessarily see what happens after that person is deported. So I think that's something that we need to do, collaborate even more between organizations and with undocumented population, with deportee organizations, and also with consular offices.

[00:59:35.00] - Speaker 1

Thanks very much, Rossy. I see another question that has been raised in the Q&A about the role of the private sector in these strategies. I know María Jesús already briefly mentioned that there is increasing cooperation perhaps in some areas, and it might also be interesting to hear if with or what role exactly there is for DG INTPA in cooperation with the private sector. So I suggest that we start with Camilla and then go over to Maria Jesus.

[01:00:06.11] - Speaker 2

Now you put me on— I, I— working with the private sector, of course, in general is a, a thing of the times, right? This is something that we are, of course, all encouraged to do more, and it's important for, for many different reasons. When it comes to return or integration, of of course, we are— I have to say that we are not doing it as much as we should, but of course, in terms of the post-return phase and the reintegration phase, when we are involving local actors, the civil society, local authorities, central authorities, I think depending on the support required, and this of course depends on the profiles of the returnees, there is certainly a role. And I think that is also something that we probably should should take more into account in the reintegration services and efforts that are being provided. And just to super quickly say on the issue, the last question, I think the pre-return, the pre-departure sort of preparations and, you know, assistance, etc., is crucial. It's in our support that we give, this is at least as much, let's say, focus on the pre-departure as to the reintegration parts. And what I wanted to add, and of course there's a whole range of activities that needs to be undertaken in the pre-departure, but I think it's very important, and what we see is a connection between the pre-departure and the, you know, post-departure, post-return and reintegration, that the services provided these services on the two sides are in connection and coordinate and there is feedback.

[01:02:02.15] - Speaker 2

And this, I think, is one thing that is not easy but extremely important. Thanks.

[01:02:09.11] - Speaker 3

I'll just follow up very quickly and say that, yes, the private sector has been collaborating with the national government in terms of providing job trainings and employment opportunities to returnees. I think one shift that we've been seeing recently is that they are more organized now while doing so. So that is worth highlighting. The other thing that I would mention is a lot of private sector actors and private sector-led foundations in the region have very interesting entrepreneurship and employability programs that aren't necessarily tailored for returnees but for vulnerable populations. So they are not necessarily mapped as immigrant integration or reintegration programs. But if returnees were to be included as a vulnerable population in these programs, that's a great opportunity to scale efforts that the private sector is already undergoing. That have been successful and, yeah, that already exist. And that is an interest, like a good way forward, especially since all the funding cuts that we've been seeing in the region and the private sector most likely having to emerge as a more relevant actor.

[01:03:44.02] - Speaker 1

Thank you, Maria Jesus. I see there are also several questions in the chat directed towards Rossy and a lot of interest in the work that IMUMI is doing. Rossy, could you tell us a little bit more about the stigma that some of those who are returning are facing, and if you see if that has been changing at all in recent months? And then also perhaps there are questions about remigration drivers. Do you already Do you see that there are some of those who are returning already expressing desires to remigrate again? And how is that connected to the stigma or other factors?

[01:04:22.02] - Speaker 4

Oh yeah, well, the stigma has always been part of like the Mexican society, the way that they see migrant people like Mexican nationals that have migrated to the US. They tend to see them as traitors. Those people that were not able to stay and just confront the realities that the Mexican society has in terms of violence, economic struggles. And there is a lot of prejudice against those that are being deported. I don't think it's in terms of the Mexican context, it also happens in most countries because something that we are trying to also do is simply just change the narratives in terms of who deportees are. Because most of the time we tend, even civil society academics, we tend, to also fall into that narrative where we only position deportees and migrant people or people on the move under one situation or context where we're only seeing them as deportees, as migrants, as asylum seekers. But there's a lot of many other identities that these people possess which are not being taken into consider consideration by the Mexican government, by civil organizations, and also by the population, by society as a whole. Where right now what we are doing within the movement is trying to work with the deported communities and return families because we have within the deported community film directors.

[01:06:29.10] - Speaker 4

We have a documentary that was made by a deportee himself, like depicting his process of post-deportation. And also we have returnee actors that are also screenwriters that are writing about their post-deportation processes, not as an individual, but as a collective. And this is something that comes from the own deported and returned community as a way to counterattack mainly the prejudice against the deportees and the fact that there's a lot of propaganda, there's a lot of infrastructure in terms of criminalizing deportees and undocumented people. And that's what the Mexican society is mainly digesting. That's what they are buying. That's what they're seeing because it's so massive and we can't control that amount of misinformation that's out there and it impacts a lot on how people consume. Since people mainly consume information through social media, the governments have deployed so much criminalization like towards our communities. So therefore, within IMUMI, we try to work along with the deportee communities and advocating for their rights. Because not only do we have to position ourselves as deportees and returnees through our experience, but also through our professional profiles, because there are so many deportees and returnees in Mexico that are advocating for policy changes, for policy constructions.

[01:08:38.10] - Speaker 4

And I think that's what we have seen within Mexico. Unequal, that there's still so much stigma towards deportees and their family structures.

[01:08:48.06] - Speaker 3

I just add a quick note to that and to Rossy's excellent points. There has always been this prevalent stigma around deportation, but it is important to highlight that a lot of the rhetoric right now of the US government in their switch to U.S. Interior enforcement is that they have been largely focusing on immigrants within the U.S. that have criminal convictions or criminal charges. So that is adding to that disinformation. A lot of people necessarily are not charged with any of these charges, but it is adding to the stigma And by being returned, there's a lot of work to do in terms of deconstructing these stereotypes and stigma with the private sector, people that are wishing to hire them, and employees and people who are going to be their colleagues, and also at the very local community level to the municipalities that migrants are moving to.

[01:09:59.07] - Speaker 1

Yes, great. We unfortunately have to close. Thank you everyone for joining us today and thank you for the thoughtful questions and the engagement through the session. Thank you very much to the three speakers. Apologies if we didn't get to every question. We tried to cover as many as possible, but of course time is limited. There will be a recording of this webinar, both video and audio, available shortly on the event page, and you can also find related resources on MPI's website. Finally, for any journalists on this call, feel free to reach out to our communications director Michelle Mittelstadt for any media inquiries. You can find her email address on this slide. Um, and with that, thank you again, and we hope to see you at future MPI events. Thank you very much.