Inducing return to : ‘voluntary’ return programmes in Germany Usman Mahar

Vol. 7, pp. 57–70 | ISSN 2050-487X | www.southasianist.ed.ac.uk

2020 | The South Asianist 7: 57-70 | pg. 57

Vol. 7, pp. 57-70

Inducing return to Pakistan: ‘voluntary’ return programmes in Germany1

USMAN MAHAR Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität, München

Germany welcomed over a million following the so-called ‘long summer of migration’ in 2015. Today, however, seeking asylum in Germany has become ever more difficult. Amongst other ‘undeserving’ economic refugees, the Afghans and Pakistanis are suffering from a shift in the German asylum regime that aims to restrict migration from ‘safe countries.’ As elsewhere in Europe, asylum in Germany is increasingly being defined by narrow ideas of deservingness and humanitarianism to seek out ‘deserving’ political refugees. Simultaneously, two methods for the removal of rejected asylum seekers are being practised to deter ‘undeserving’ refugees: namely, deportations and ‘voluntary’ returns. Focusing on the latter form of removal, I scrutinize the voluntariness and sustainability of ‘voluntary’ returns to Pakistan in this essay. I start by questioning contemporary ideas of deservingness when it comes to the right to be mobile, and provocatively try to blur the alleged humanitarian division between two categories of mobile bodies: the ‘deserving’ political vis-à- vis the ‘underserving’ economic refugee. Then, with the help of ethnographic material from my ongoing research and three measures or scales of assessment (choice, information and assistance), I take a critical look at ‘voluntary’ returns from Germany. In doing so, I discuss the sustainability and ethics of inducing return through such modes of repatriation to Pakistan.

Introduction Two legalised forms of expulsion are at the specific historical reasons –– the German word disposal of any government that wants to send for deportation (Abschiebung) comes with back displaced populations, irregular migrants particular historical baggage (Estrin 2016, or other illegalised ‘undesirables’ (Agier 2011) Sökefeld 2019b, Stokes 2019). With this in to ‘safe countries.’ Namely, deportations and mind, as well as the fact that there is ample ‘voluntary’ returns. The discourse on work addressing the issue of deportations in deportations in Germany is fraught with Germany and elsewhere (see De Genova and controversy for various contemporary but also Peutz 2010, De Genova 2016b, see Peutz 2006,

1 This paper is an outcome of ongoing anthropological fieldwork for a DFG-Funded research project ‘Return to Pakistan: The Political Economy of the Emotions of Remigration’ at the Department of Social and Cultural Anthropology, Ludwig Maximilian University of Munich. I would like to thank Clara Cornaro, Desiree Hetzel and Martin Sökefeld for their valuable input. In addition to Martin’s constructive feedback and review of this paper, I am grateful for his constant support and supervision.

2020 | The South Asianist 7: 57-70 | pg. 58

Sökefeld 2019b), this paper will not address An ever-narrowing understanding of a this particular form of removal. Instead, the victimised ‘deserving’ political refugee and an body of text that follows will be focusing on the ever-expanding idea of an exploitative ‘voluntary’ returns of rejected asylum seekers. (‘undeserving’) economic refugee are Various socio-political reasons, some of them simultaneously defining the difference and defensible but most of them based on vision mentioned above. Somewhat unfounded claims2, have led the European provocatively, however, I would like to blur the Union (EU), and Germany in particular, to take distinction between the political and the various steps towards ‘migration management’ economic. Instead of seeing the two through the and border control (Anderson 2019, De Genova humanitarian lens, I argue for the treatment of 2016a). These steps include an array of arsenal the two categories of people through the lens of to guard ‘Fortress Europe’, from the social responsibility. It should be quickly securitisation of its physical borders to pointed out that in no way whatsoever does this questionable deterrence techniques employed argument aim to reduce the suffering of a in the countries of origin and transit (Anderson person –– a refugee –– who flees a war, 2014, Meany 2019). Concurrently, based on political and religious persecution or any acute particular ideas of ‘deservingness’ stricter form of violence (Galtung and Fisher 2013). measures are being taken to control, manage Nevertheless, some profound questions need to and if necessary remove3 those who have be reflected upon. Should ideas of somehow made it into Europe (Sökefeld 2019b, deservingness4 be predicated on forms of a). In the policy quarters of Europe and beyond, violence and suffering and be evaluated it is being argued that Europe needs protection according to the generalised situation of the against exploitation at the hands of ‘bogus’ country of origin? Where does our collective asylum seekers and economic refugees. A clear responsibility start and end? Should we, for difference, it is asserted, needs to be drawn example, differentiate between someone who between a genuine refugee (henceforth flees from war or acute violence fearing for political refugee) and a chancer migrant their life and someone who fears for their life (henceforth economic refugee) so that the due to economic or structural violence (Farmer limited capacity to dish out compassion can be 2006, Galtung and Fisher 2013) as far as the effectively employed. Such a vision and form right to asylum is concerned? While it is of humanitarianism seems to fuel our collective reasonably easy to furnish a yes to such a apathy, even antipathy towards ‘bogus’ asylum question based upon utilitarian5 ideas of pain seekers, irregular migrants and undocumented and suffering, it is perhaps easier to argue for a citizens today –– epitomised in the old German no using the Kantian notion of the categorical term ‘Wirtschaftsflüchtling’ [economic imperative (Driver 2014, Rohlf 2018). refugee] (Stokes 2019). In reality, however, such questions rarely make it outside the classrooms of moral

2 The rhetoric of the alt-right and ultranationalist parties known as assisted voluntary return/repatriation or ‘self- blaming foreigners for the exploitation of state support deportation’. and for stealing jobs are amongst other unfounded 4 As dictated by our current regimes of (im)mobility and claims. humanitarian vision and blinded by methodological 3 As mentioned above, through deportation or various nationalism. forms of ‘voluntary’ remigration/return, sometimes also 5 Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill would certainly back such a stance (Driver 2014).

2020 | The South Asianist 7: 57-70 | pg. 59 philosophy, and political realism seems to be in (ibid, 33) quotes the Bavarian Interior control when it comes to the topic of migration Ministry’s ‘foreigner expert’ Werner Kanein or refugees. Sökefeld (2019b) for example, who at the time complained that the refugee shows us how the ‘politics of deportation’ in camp had become ‘a central employment Germany point out to the thinly veiled attempt agency for citizens of certain states, and the at curtailing extreme right-wing support. filing of an application for asylum only a Parties like Alternative für Deutschland (AfD) necessary formal requirement’. While the have gained considerable electoral ground by Bavarian Interior Ministry was worried that positioning themselves in radical opposition to refugee camps had become ‘labour recruitment the Christian Democratic Union (CDU)’s so- agencies’ (ibid) the neighbours of the Zirndorf called ‘open door policy’ towards refugees and camp saw its inhabitants not as a pool of labour ‘economic migrants’. Epitomised by the but as unwanted criminals in their town. Stokes willkommenskultur [welcome culture] attitude (ibid) notes that the term ‘economic refugee’ and Kein mensch ist illegal [No human is appears to have developed around this time. illegal] movement the German centrist parties With such competing political interests in and feel that their hospitality towards the alien- demands from the refugee, the development of other may be alienating people at home. The a new category was inevitable. solution seems to lie in the strict differentiation between the economic migrant and the refugee ‘Voluntary’ returns: the role of based on ideas of deservingness and deservingness and deportability humanitarianism. It is worth mentioning that Today, the ideal migrant should be someone this is a trend that is not unique to the politics who offers excellent human capital to the host of mobility and migration in Germany but nation. Nikesh Shukla (2016) claims that in resonates with the refugee politics of western practice the demand to be a ‘good migrant’ is Europe since the so-called ‘refugee crisis’. even more extreme –– which only an Germany is, however, unique in the sense that outstanding athlete, a scientific savant or an it has been in a ‘permanent state of refugee artistic prodigy can fulfil. In such times, a crisis’ as noted by the historian Lauren Stokes refugee not only gets the short end of the stick (2019). In a recent article Stokes (2019) traces but seems to be stuck in a paradox. On the one the roots of the current politics of deportations hand, he/she should be able to scarcely function in Germany as far back as the 1950s and 60s. to even claim asylum (see Ticktin 2011). On the He (ibid) recounts how in 1965 four hundred other hand, he/she should be ready and eager to people were deported from the Zirndorf camp integrate and not become a burden on the near Nuremberg on account of being ‘economic state’s welfare system. If a person tries to act refugees’. In the preceding years, the Federal out of self-interest or employ their human Republic of Germany (FRG) had decided to capital, chances are they will be marked as an allow and even encourage people from the economic refugee, or someone who ‘deceitfully socialist East to apply for asylum in order to tries to blur the distinction between the political access the labour market in Germany. and the economic out of self-interest’ (Meany However, when people were able to acquire a 2019). However, if a person is not able to learn work permit to move out of refugee camps with the local language or not able to quit social relative ease, several experts started to raise welfare, then they are not trying hard enough to questions about the asylum procedure. Stokes integrate. Apart from drawing a strict

2020 | The South Asianist 7: 57-70 | pg. 60 differentiation between the ‘deserving’ (ibid, 94) asserts that ‘a neat analytical refugee6 and the ‘undeserving’ economic distinction between ‘refugees’ and ‘migrants’ migrant/refugee7 the state simultaneously is as impossible as is the distinction between places one’s efforts to integrate as a caveat (for deportation and [voluntary] remigration’. If a detailed discussion on deserving/undeserving deportation and ‘voluntary’ return cannot be see Sökefeld 2019b). neatly separated into two distinct categories, it When faced with such a predicament an would make sense to question the voluntariness is bound to think and act out of of ‘voluntary’ returns. While political and insecurity. Here, drawing upon Nicholas De social activists regularly challenge deportations Genova’s (2002, 439) idea of ‘deportability’ I on various grounds10, ‘voluntary’ returns seem argue that the possibility of deportation is not to be accepted on face value and go mostly the only source of insecurity and anxiety, so is unchallenged. In that vein, this essay tries to one’s ubiquitous chance of being considered an problematise the issue of ‘voluntary’ returns in ‘undeserving’8 refugee. This insecurity as such Germany. Moreover, it challenges some of the is not only a legal worry but something that uncritically accepted tenants of such a return to continually affects a refugee’s subjectivity. one’s country of origin. Whereby an existential fear dictates their actions, choices and decisions in the host ‘Voluntary returns: a better alternative to country. As such, deportability in the broadest deportations? sense of the word is used here to ask the Apart from being considered more ethical to following question: Why is the German state deportations and politically less divisive, there resorting to a strict division between is an important economic aspect for the the political and the economic, bringing an propagation of ‘voluntary’ return programs ever-increasing number of people into the fold (Schuler and Zacharakis 2016). Deportation of deportability? infrastructure and processes have cost In his essay Nations Rebound, Sökefeld Germany millions over the last few years (2019b) points out that the very process of (Bundestagdrucksache 2019, Macgregor 2019, limiting the movement of particular foreign Schuler and Zacharakis 2016, Vettori 2019). A bodies and not others is a way to re- single deportation can result in costing tens of territorialise and rebind nations, ironically, to thousands of euros in transportation alone. On counter the re-emergence of right-wing the 31st of July 2018, for example, a chartered nationalism. Seemingly, challenges by right- flight carrying only eight Pakistani deportees wing nationalists can be nipped in the bud by and fifty members of the security personnel this logical differentiation between the political cost Germany €462,685 (Bundestagdrucksache and the economic refugee9. However, Sökefeld 2019, 48). At the cost of around €60,000 per

6 Someone who is worthy of humanitarian aid and refuge. insaniyat nahi’ [there is no humanity] (see the section 7 Someone who is seen as exploiting and undermining ‘Three Returnees’ in this paper). those very humanitarian values. 9 Sökefeld (2019b) uses the term migrant while I use the 8 For Pakistanis in Germany being considered a term economic refugee. deserving refugee is largely based on hope; hopes of a 10 It is worth mentioning here that more and more better future that rests on the shoulders of the deportations are only challenged based on ideas of ‘humanitarian’ German state. Most of my interlocutor’s ‘deservingness’ and integration efforts of the refugee talked about the ‘insaniyat’ [humanity, human kindness] rather than a principled stance one’s right to refuge or in Germany. They presented me with anecdotal better yet to be mobile (Gerver 2018, Peutz 2006, examples, comparing Germany to Pakistan where ‘koi Sökefeld 2019b).

2020 | The South Asianist 7: 57-70 | pg. 61 deportee this particular flight was relatively critical understanding of ‘voluntary’ returns but expensive, although even the cheapest charted also necessary for this form of repatriation to flight to Pakistan cost the German state around sustainably function. €10,000 per deportee in 2018 (ibid., 2019, 48- 50). In addition to the transportation costs, one The research material and methods must consider the fee of hiring security Before proceeding further to what a ‘voluntary’ personnel, the bureaucratic expenses, the return entails –– as far as the subjects of these policing, the apprehension and detention before returns are concerned –– it would make sense deportation, not to mention the cost of all the to address some methodological concerns. In unsuccessful arrests. Deportees are flown back the absence of an anthropological ‘field site’ in on chartered flights due to practical and the traditional sense of the word, multi-sited political reasons11. Since pilots and crew on ethnographic fieldwork was carried out around such chartered flights refuse to fly without Munich, Germany and various parts of Punjab, security, each deportee12 is accompanied by a Pakistan. Returnees at different (pre- and post- minimum of three members of the security repatriation) stages of the repatriation process personnel, adding considerable transportation were sought after as interlocutors. Other costs. In comparison, a ‘voluntary’ return important research partners included compensation13 –– or reintegration individuals and organisations that manage and support/payment as it is called –– ranges from administer ‘voluntary’ return programs such as, a few hundred euros to a couple of thousand, but not only, return counsellors in Germany and and an economy class airfare on a commercial reintegration partners in Pakistan. airline. A mixed-method ethnographic approach There is no doubt that ‘voluntary’ returns was adopted. In addition to a detailed recording are cheaper and politically less divisive as of behaviours, witnessing of events and sharing compared to deportations, however, whether of experiences through participant observation, they are voluntary is a lot less clear (Mahar the ongoing research has already recorded 2020a). We know that the ethics of deportation several hours of qualitative interviews with are routinely (and rightly) questioned based on returnees and return counsellors over a six- ideas of human agency and freedom to move. month period. The gathered research material is Sökefeld (2019a) for example, brings into further augmented by several semi-structured question ideas of choice, will and agency when interviews and focus groups. This included but he questions whether a ‘deportation is a form of was not limited to: (1) Listening to the forced migration?’ Should we not hold all experiences, hopes and aspirations of Pakistani forms of return migration –– forced or asylum seekers in different settings (in refugee voluntary –– accountable to the same camps as well as return counselling centres); standards? On its surface, the term voluntary (2) listening to return counsellors and takes care of such doubts in the case of discussing ‘voluntary’ return with them at ‘voluntary’ returns. However, reflecting on the public forums; (3) spending several days with assumed voluntariness is not only essential to a

11 Apart from the visibility of resistance on the part of the 12 The deportee is already in handcuffs that are deportee (which had led many passengers to boycott sometimes chained to his/her ankles. certain airlines), a furtive flight avoids staged protests 13 Below I have given some concrete figures. and activist interruptions.

2020 | The South Asianist 7: 57-70 | pg. 62 returnees and their families at their homes in able to build a modest house, get his daughter Pakistan talking about their return and married and is now busy setting up a small reintegration. Through the use of this material corner shop –– all with his European savings and of three case studies, this essay tries to plus the return assistance. unpack ‘voluntary’ return as a mode of migration management (Anderson 2014, De Jamshed B. Genova 2016a). Jamshed B. was ‘advised’ by his district administrative office (Landsratamt) handler to Three returnees visit the same return counselling centre in Ali R. Munich. Sharing in detail how little agency he After spending four years in Germany, Ali R. had in this process, Jamshed explained how it recently returned to Pakistan at the age of 55, was more an ultimatum than an advice. As assisted by a voluntary return counselling such, the ‘instruction’ to visit the return centre in Munich. Ali received a letter of counselling centre was the only option deportation once his application for asylum and available to him upon the rejection of his the subsequent appeal was rejected. However, asylum application and his multiple appeals. If around the same time, Ali had a bicycle he did not want to be deported or take the risk accident and had to go through surgery. Owing of becoming an absconder by leaving for to his medical condition Ali was allowed to stay another country, he should have returned in Germany for another year. Once he had through a ‘voluntary’ return program- he was healed and saw no prospect of getting legalised, ‘advised’. Jamshed was told if he tried to leave he approached Coming Home, a return for Spain (his second choice after Germany) he counselling centre in Munich. At Coming would be apprehended and returned to Home, he was promised around €1500 in Germany where he would face prison as addition to in-kind assistance of €200014 and a punishment and then deportation. According to flight ticket to Pakistan. Ali accepted and Jamshed, only a ‘sach bolne wala’ [someone returned to Pakistan within a month. who speaks the truth] and ‘kanoon ki pasdari He is more or less content with how things kerne wala’ [someone who abides by the law] developed for him. In his hometown of Mandi would return through a ‘voluntary’ return Bahauddin, Ali shared with me in great detail program. While the rest, according to him, find why he would never be able to forget the various ways to cheat the system. German ‘mehman nawazi’ [hospitality] and He repeatedly emphasised that he would ‘insaniyat’ [humanity]. Expanding on this, he have never returned was he presented with a explained how he was given a place to stay and real choice. However, with deportation a stipend by the Germans. Talking about his looming over his head, he had no other option. accident, he said that even though his asylum He confided to me that he will be leaving for was rejected, they made sure he was healthy Dubai soon because it was not safe for him to and fit to return –– ‘wadia log ne’ [they stay in his village as an ex-leader of a Shia [Germans] are amazing people] he added. youth-group. He said he would have moved to Whereas in Pakistan he had worked for another part of Pakistan, a bigger city perhaps, decades, but he could not even ensure a decent only if he had the resources to move his family. living for his family. He explained how he was He, along with his wife and children currently

14 And another €1000 after eight months of his return.

2020 | The South Asianist 7: 57-70 | pg. 63 live at his in-laws, something which is would be included into the category of the considered to be a source of shame in Pakistani ‘deserving’ (a question that his ill father had society. Jamshed’s failed migration to often asked). When his father passed away, he Germany and the current effort to move to broke the chain of insecurity (and deportability) Dubai is a way to find a solution to get rid of by forfeiting his asylum appeal and this shame and as well as the sectarian troubles. ‘voluntarily’ returning. Jamshed, unlike Ali, regrets coming back. Jamshed was very clear that he did not trust ‘Voluntary’ returns: assessing voluntariness the Afghan translator yet he had no choice but and sustainability to go through the process. Moreover, neither By taking into consideration return counsellors, did he see the return counsellors as people who facilitators and subjects or so-called ‘clients’, cared about his ‘razamandi’ [consent]15 and this section will focus on the methods and ‘marzi’ [[one’s own] accord]. Speaking about practices of ‘voluntary’ return programs to ‘voluntary’ return subjects in general Jamshed determine its sustainability as a mode of said: ‘Wouldn’t they have tried to help us stay repatriation. Taking a critical look at some of in Germany if they cared about our consent […] these practices, voluntariness and sustainability they only wanted us to leave and we had little of such returns is put into question. This section choice in that […] if there would have been starts by introducing three complex and consent, I would not have returned…’ important situations that return facilitators, counsellors and especially returnees face, by Hassam. A. placing them on three different scales that I One of my other interlocutors withdrew his have developed. I have termed these scales as asylum appeal before it was processed, in order follows (1) The Choice Scale; (2) The to return through the same program. Hassam Information Scale; and (3) The Assistance A., like Jamshed, regrets returning to Pakistan Scale. and holds social and psychological pressures First and foremost, it is argued that the responsible. These were exacerbated by his three scales offer us means to respectively father’s death –– forcing him to take the evaluate the role of coercion, information and somewhat risky decision to return to his village assistance in ‘voluntary’ return. At a secondary in Azad Kashmir16. He came back with no level, I argue that these situations and their savings and has yet to receive the money that respective scales can help third party observers was promised to him a year ago. and host countries determine the voluntariness According to one of his friends –– a of ‘voluntary’ return subjects and hence the German volunteer who had taken upon himself sustainability of ‘voluntary’ return to help the twenty or so Pakistani asylum programmes. Furthermore, these scales can seekers in his village of Bad Tölz –– Hassam help address legitimate ethical concerns around had integrated quite well during his time in such forms of repatriation. Throughout the Germany. However, it seems that Hassam course of the text, I draw upon examples and could not cope with the pressure and material from my ethnographic fieldwork and precariousness of waiting and the possibility of in particular to the three cases or stories of rejection. In other words, he was not sure if he ‘voluntary’ return mentioned above to address

15 ‘Wilful agreement'–– from 'razi’ [to agree]. 16 A region which is roughly thirty kilometres from the Line of Control between and Pakistan.

2020 | The South Asianist 7: 57-70 | pg. 64 each of these scales in detail. The concerns Another pressure that leads to coercion is brought to the table will not only help in a better the pressure of performance on counsellors and understanding of ‘voluntary’ return as a form of ‘voluntary’ return program coordinators –– repatriation but also show how it affects various whose performance is mainly measured by the stakeholders –– from the client (the subject of number of people they can swiftly remove from return) to the counsellor. the host country. Shedding light on this issue, a return-counsellor in Germany shared how one Scales of voluntariness of her colleagues felt guilty, was severely 1. The Choice Scale unhappy and left as soon as she was able to get While return counsellors and facilitators17 are another job. This counsellor was about to leave supposed to only advise and assist, they the return counselling centre herself and was become at times (willingly or unwillingly) part glad that she would leave the [emotional] stress of a system –– or, a mobility regime–– which behind. Here, I want to argue that ‘voluntary’ wants particular asylum seekers and refugees to return can only be a sustainable mode of re-emigrate to their country of origin. This call repatriation –– in the eyes of facilitators as well to remigration is often based on a very limited as returnees –– when coercion is largely if not understanding18 of human suffering, completely taken out of the equation19. If it is deservingness and one’s right to be mobile. used as a last resort on the part of the returnee When harsh conditions and policies (Christides to escape imminent deportation, it is very likely et al. 2020, Sökefeld 2019a) make the lives of to put the voluntariness of ‘voluntary’ returns asylum seekers difficult in the host country and in question. The Choice Scale can help us lead people to return to their country of origin understand how choice or coercion is through ‘voluntary’ return, how can we experienced or deployed by the various distinguish choice from coercion? If the stakeholders of such a form of remigration or decision to return is made out of free return. will/choice, there should be no coercion on the part of the returning state. If living in a state of 2. The Information Scale insecurity and deportability (De Genova 2002) The Information Scale can help us understand is a structural part of the refugee condition and the varying levels of information and a source of humiliation, social isolation and misinformation that informs a returnee decision other forms of unfreedom, then it can be argued to return. For example, asylum seekers might that the decision to return cannot be based on return due to misinformation when they come choice but rather coercion (Mahar 2020a). By to believe that their asylum-application stands removing such pressures as much as possible, little to no chance –– which in the case of policymakers in host nations like Germany are Pakistanis might be statistically correct. able to ensure that what counsellors are However, that is at best an assumption based on providing is only objective advice, and the a simplified understanding of deservingness returnee’s decision to return is informed mainly and it needs to be carefully assessed on an by free will and choice. individual basis rather than probability. In most

17 In Germany, Pakistan or elsewhere. 19 Amongst other things, deportability or fear of 18 See discussions above on deserving/undeserving, deportation should not inform an asylum seekers acute/structural violence, political/economic refugee and decision to return. good/bad migrant.

2020 | The South Asianist 7: 57-70 | pg. 65 instances the pressure on counsellors is so clients try to delay that process to get a concrete much that they refuse to listen to the stories of understanding of what they might be getting their clients. During my observations, the themselves into. However, during such counsellors would stop the clients if they tried counselling sessions, counsellors carefully to discuss their asylum case. Their stories and manoeuvre themselves not to provide any asylum applications were irrelevant, they were information that could lead the client to say no told far too often. Essential information, like to the expected ‘voluntary’ return. While the asylum seeker’s religious affiliation counsellors see their engagement as ‘open and (especially important if the client, or the subject unbiased’, Cleton and Schweitzer’s (2020) of return, belongs to a persecuted minority), analysis of ‘voluntary’ return counsellors’ was ignored. For instance, during one of my strategies resonated with my own. According to observations, the counsellor was unaware that them, counsellors use one of three strategies to the client was a Christian, even though it was induce return upon the rejection of asylum: quite evident from his Pakistani Christian ‘Firstly, by identifying existing aspirations [to name. return] among potential returnees […]. The point here is not whether the returnee Secondly, by merely obtaining informed will be in any real danger once he/she is back consent to return ‘voluntarily’ […]. Thirdly, by in the country of origin. In most cases, the actively inducing the wish to return […]’ (ibid question of safe return20 has already been 2020). decided upon by the time the asylum seeker All the strategies outlined by Cleton and comes to the return counselling centre. A Schweitzer (2020) were observed during my significant number of prospective returnees fieldwork at the counselling centres in Munich only visit a return counselling centre once all and Augsburg, with the second strategy being other doors have closed –– they are likely to be the most practiced. For example, Pakistani placed on a deportation list if not already on one returnees have to sign a waiver that they will be (see ‘The Choice Scale’ above). What I hope to fully responsible for whatever happens to them inquire here is much more straightforward than upon return –– especially with regards to legal the principle of nonrefoulement: how likely is repercussions they may face as a consequence it that the client (potential returnee) is being of leaving Pakistan through ‘illegal’ means. misinformed by counsellors? With confidence, This information is only given to the client once I can assert that such is indeed the case. they have signed the ‘voluntary’ return consent, Logic dictates that the information rather than during the course of the counselling required to make a choice should come before session21. At this point, it is quite difficult for the action of decision making. Yet, clients in the prospective returnees to reassess their the Munich based return counselling centre are decision to return for various reasons. Firstly, provided with most of the necessary due to the absence of a ‘firewall’ between the information only after they have agreed to different authorities involved, all the return. The counselling session only begins information and documentation provided once the client has provided the counselling during the return counselling session makes it centre with their identity documents. Many harder for the

20 Legally speaking, and with regards to Pakistani asylum 21 See ‘The Choice Scale’ for the types of pressures on seekers, refoulment is generally not an issue. counsellors, leading them to use such techniques that I would define misinforming.

2020 | The South Asianist 7: 57-70 | pg. 66 client to re-evaluate the situation, legally translator proceeded to communicate his own speaking. At this point, deportability starts to intuition to the counsellor instead of the client’s play an even more significant role in how the concerns. subjects of return see themselves. ‘Illegality’ and deportation not only seem more probable 3. The Assistance Scale than before, but the clients also happen to be The Assistance Scale helps disentangle constantly reminded about this during the necessary financial assistance from counselling session, if they share their questionable financial inducement that may reservations about returning. Secondly, by this affect the voluntariness of return. As already time, the clients have likely already informed explained above, returnees receive a the family that they are returning home22, ‘reintegration payment’ for returning. In the which is likely to desensitise the effects of case of my interlocutors, the EU and Germany, information that discourages return. Thirdly, for the most part, such forms of repatriation are most Pakistani returnees are not only illiterate funded through various programs. The amount but have little to no understanding of the kind can vary depending on the client’s legal and of legal consequences they may face upon application status, whether it is pending or return. To make sure that the clients sign the processed, accepted or rejected and, it is given waiver, they are told that it is a mere ‘formality’ in various forms: pre-departure cash in and no-one has ever landed into any trouble. A Germany, post-departure cash in Pakistan, as caveat is sometimes added in the form of a well as in-kind assistance24. Governmental and light-hearted joke about the possibility of a non-governmental partner organisations are corrupt official demanding a bribe. No effort is tasked with carrying out this assistance in made to inform the clients about the legal Germany and Pakistan. consequences, as that may add to their Firstly, I claim that such payments need to reservations. be carefully made so that they do not set a bad Another form of misinformation is the precedent for the moral imperative attached to miscommunication that mostly occurs due to giving refuge. The philosopher Micheal Sandel language barriers but also to other kinds of (2012) argues against such an economic cultural misunderstandings and approach in his book The Moral Limits of mistranslations. During my observations, Markets. Citing a plethora of examples, he translators rarely spoke the native language23 of states that money is not the right tool to tackle the client and only spoke very basic Urdu. On certain issues. Especially if the issue at hand one occasion, apart from mistranslating, the has a moral or social aspect, monetary payment translator started to diagnose a client who should be used with utmost caution as it has the wished to have a medical check-up before propensity to crowd out ethical and social departure. ‘You are fine, it’s just stomach gas,’ responsibilities. In that vein, I argue that the translator said to the client who had hoped something such as giving refuge or in this case, to get his abdominal pain checked before his ensuring reintegration, should be a social prospective return. Although the client was not responsibility rather than a financial obligation. convinced by the translator’s prognosis, the Mollie Gerver (2018) makes a slightly different

22 Which may also eliminate the collective familial hope 24 For example, purchase of assets or stock for a business, of getting legalised in Germany. i.e. not in cash. 23 Punjabi in most cases.

2020 | The South Asianist 7: 57-70 | pg. 67 but equally valid point in her book on the ethics or the migrant Other lacks any real agency or of refugee repatriation and argues that such choice. payments may reinforce the idea that refugees The recent German law which makes it are unwanted members of society –– an idea easier for companies to hire skilled labour from that is already propagated for various political outside Europe is a reflection of this reasons. negotiation. While the law aims to boost Secondly, monetary incentives may be Germany’s economy through an injection of counterproductive to reintegration. As such, foreign labour, it simultaneously incorporates figuring out the right balance between financial obstacles to prevent economic refugees from assistance and inducement is essential. In other using the German asylum system as a words, fiscal incentives to the point of backdoor. One would assume that the reason inducement are not only questionable when it would be to deter economic refugees as they comes to determining voluntariness, but can be might take the place of more ‘deserving’ detrimental to well-intentioned reintegration political refugees, but it is more likely that such support. Like Jamshed, some of my other measures are intended to counter challenges returnee–interlocutors, are already preparing to posed by right-wing parties like the AfD. This leave Pakistan again after their ‘voluntary’ is not the first time that economic refugees and return. In line with Cleton and Schwitzer’s migrants are portrayed as chancers and observations (2020), my returnee interlocutors scroungers threatening German prosperity and did not want to return but were coerced, resources (see Stokes 2019). Amongst others, misinformed and or induced into taking that people affected by such discourses are Afghans decision. Hence, most of them want to leave and Pakistanis26. again and they will probably do so through the In the text above, I tried to show how a very high-risk irregular means that the newcomer’s time in Germany is marked by reintegration support is supposed to differences and lack of agency in the process of discourage! integration. Rather than being seen as a newcomer, the person is seen as an asylum Conclusions seeker, an economic or political refugee, a Deportations and repatriations (whether migrant worker, an undocumented/irregular involuntary or ‘voluntary’) have a chequered migrant or through another category that history in Germany. At times, the removal, defines his/her legal status and rights. The legal even extinction of the ‘undeserving’, has been status, in turn, structures their respective legitimised based on nationhood or religion. At deportability and insecurities –– affecting their other times it was based on a differentiation choices and agency with regards to their between the economic and the political potential and actual return (or removal)27. This refugee25. The politics of removal in Germany leaves ample room for a social-responsibility- point to a constant negotiation between based debate about mobility and migration. competing political, economic and social For the purpose of this paper, I tried to forces. In this process, it seems that the refugee problematise the process of removal and in particular the so-called ‘voluntary’ returns. I

25 Often founded upon ideas of deservingness. 27 In addition to the example of Hassam A. above, see the 26 Most of whom have a job and contribute to the German instance of Asif N. provided by Sökefeld (2019b). economy.

2020 | The South Asianist 7: 57-70 | pg. 68 took three rather simple concerns and placed Social and Cultural Anthropology, Ludwig each of these concerns on a scale with two Maximilian University of Munich. It was also opposing factors. The difference in the two made possible by the kind support of several factors of each scale, I argue, can help in people: I would like to thank Martin Sökefeld assessing the voluntariness of return. and Clara Cornaro for their productive critique Moreover, the scales make visible certain and support during the research and writing practices of ‘voluntary’ return that are integral phases, Michael Heneise for editorial support, to understanding a form of repatriation that is the anonymous reviewers for their valuable being advocated as a sustainable and ethical feedback, and last but not least Silvia Genovese alternative to unethical deportations. Using for copyediting. examples from my fieldwork and the perspectives of my interlocutors, I first addressed what I called the Choice Scale by References characterising the difference between choice Agier, Michel. 2011. Managing the Undesirables: and coercion in the decision to return. The Refugee Camps and Humanitarian Government. second scale, namely the Information Scale, Cambridge: Polity. grappled with the issue of information versus Anderson, Ruben. 2014. Illegality, Inc: Clandestine misinformation. The third scale looked at the Migration and the Business of Bordering Europe. subtle but vital difference between financial Oakland: University of California Press. assistance and inducement and it is hence called Anderson, Ruben. 2019. ‘The Anthropological the Assistance Scale. As the names suggest, Borderlands of Global Migration.’ In Exotic No each of these scales points to a problematic More: Anthopology for the Contemporary situation that needs to be addressed if returning World, edited by Jeremy MacClancy. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. countries like Germany28 are really interested in voluntary remigration of rejected asylum Bundestagdrucksache. 2019. Abschiebungen und Ausreisen im Jahr 2018. In 19 Wahlperiode. seekers (for a discussion and examples see : Deutscher Bundestag. Christides et al. 2020, Mahar 2020b, a). A critical assessment of ‘voluntary’ returns Christides, Giorgos, Steffen Lüdke, Usman Mahar, and Maximilian Popp. 2020. ‘Europa schießt keeping in mind the levels of coercion, scharf.’ Der Spiegel, 78-81. information and assistance will not only help make such forms of repatriation and Cleton, Laura, and Reinhard Schweitzer. 2020. Using or Inducing Return Aspirations? On the role of remigration more voluntary and sustainable29 return counsellors in the implementation of but should be the only way to proceed with ‘assisted voluntary return ’policies in Austria and them if at all. the Netherlands. International Migration Institute Working Papers 160: 1-22. Acknowledgements De Genova, Nicholas. 2002. ‘Migrant ‘Illegality’ and This paper is an outcome of ongoing research Deportability in Everyday Life.’ Annual Review for the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft of Anthropology 31 (1):419-447. doi: (DFG) funded research project ‘Return to 10.1146/annurev.anthro.31.040402.085432. Pakistan: The Political Economy of the De Genova, Nicholas. 2016a. ‘The ‘crisis’ of the Emotions of Remigration’ at the Department of European border regime: Towards a Marxist

28 Perhaps, Pakistan too when it comes to the repatriation 29 ‘Sustainable’ alludes to a dependable/long term of Afghan refugees. solution for the repatriation of rejected asylum seekers.

2020 | The South Asianist 7: 57-70 | pg. 69

theory of borders.’ International Socialism Rohlf, Michael. 2018. Immanuel Kant. In The (150):31-54. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, edited by De Genova, Nicholas. 2016b. ‘Detention, Edward N. Zalta. Stanford: The Metaphysics Deportation, and Waiting: Toward a Theory of Research Lab Center for the Study of Language Migrant Detainability.’ Global Detention and Information Stanford University. Project Working Paper Series no 18:1-10. Sandel, Michael. 2012. What Money Can't Buy: The De Genova, Nicholas, and Nathalie Peutz, eds. 2010. Moral Limits of Markets. New York: Farrar, The Deportation Regime: Sovereignty, Space, Straus and Giroux. and the Freedom of Movement. Durham: Duke Schuler, Katharina, and Zacharias Zacharakis. 2016. University Press. ‘Freiwillig ist billiger.’ Zeit Online. Accessed Driver, Julia. 2014. The History of Utilitarianism. In 23.12.2019. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, edited https://www.zeit.de/politik/deutschland/2016- by Edward N. Zalta. Stanford: The Metaphysics 12/freiwillige-rueckreisen-fluechtlinge- Research Lab Center for the Study of Language abschiebung-asylbewerber-asylpolitik. and Information Stanford University. Shukla, Nikesh. 2016. The Good Immigrant. London: Estrin, Daniel. 2016. In Germany, Mass Deportation Unbound. is a Touchy Subject. In Global Politics: PRI - Sökefeld, Martin. 2019a. ‘Forced Migration, the Other The World. Way Round? Politics of Deporting Afghans from Farmer, Paul. 2006. Pathologies of Power: Health, Germany.’ International Conference on The Human Rights, and the New War on the Poor. Impacts of Conflict-Induced Forced Migration Berkeley: University of California Press. and Prospective Responses, Islamabad. Galtung, Johan, and Dietrich Fisher, eds. 2013. Johan Sökefeld, Martin. 2019b. ‘Nations Rebound: German Galtung: Pioneer of Peace Research, Politics of Deporting Afghans.’ International SpringerBriefs on Pioneers in Science and Quarterly for Asian Studies 50 (1-2):91-118. Practice. Heidelberg: Springer. Stokes, Lauren. 2019. ‘The Permanent Refugee Crisis Gerver, Mollie. 2018. The Ethics and Practice of in the Federal Republic of Germany, 1949—.’ Refugee Repatriation. Edinburgh: Edinburgh Central European History 52:19-44. University Press. Ticktin, Miriam. 2011. Casualties of Care: Macgregor, Marion. 2019. Germany: Drop in Immigration and the Politics of Humanitarianism Voluntary Returns and Deportations. In in France. Berkeley: The University of California Repatriation, Deportations, Voluntary Return: Press. Info Migrants. Vettori, Alexandra. 2019. ‘Abschiebegefängnis bleibt Mahar, Usman. 2020a. Die Idee der freiwilligen am Flughafen.’ Sueddeutsche Zeitung. Rückkehr ad absurdum geführt. In Globale https://www.sueddeutsche.de/muenchen/freising Gesellschaft, edited by Maria Stöhr. Hamburg: /flughafen-muenchen-halllbergmoos- Der Spiegel. abschiebegefaengnis-fluechlinge-container- 1.4653511. Mahar, Usman. 2020b. ‘Is the Pandemic a Chance to Challenge Global Inequality?’ Sapiens: Anthropology / Everything Human. Meany, Thomas. 2019. ‘Who’s Your Dance Partner?’ London Review of Books 41 (21):35-39. Peutz, Nathalie. 2006. ‘Embarking On an Anthropology of Removal.’ Current Anthropology 47 (2):217–41.

2020 | The South Asianist 7: 57-70 | pg. 70