Adaptation and Return Strategies of the Second-Generation Afghan Refugees in Iran

Adaptation and Return Strategies of the Second-generation Afghan Refugees in Iran

Mohammad Jalal Abbasi-Shavazi1 Rasoul Sadeghi2 Graeme Hugo3 Peter McDonald4

Abstract In the burgeoning migration literature much of the attention both among researchers and policy makers focuses on voluntary migration while forced migration is of major significance in the contemporary world. Understandably there is a focus on the movement of refugees from the country of origin to the destination place but it is also relevant to ask whether refugees who arrive in the destination place will remain and adapt to the host society, and if so, to what extent their adaptation patterns influence their return strategies. This is the area in which the present paper seeks to make a contribution by examining the experience of second-generation Afghan refugees in Iran. Using the survey of ‘the Adaptation of Afghan Youth in Iran’ conducted in Tehran and Mashhad in 2010, the paper addresses the following questions: What are the patterns of social adaptation among second-generation Afghans? What are the return aspirations and intentions of second-generation Afghans? To what extent do the adaptation patterns influence their return strategies? The findings suggest that the second-generation Afghans have experienced a variety of adaptation patterns, and their adaptation patterns have significant impacts on their decision to return to their homeland or to move to another destination.

1 Future Fellow, Australian Demographic and Social Research Institute, Australian National University, and Professor, Department of Demography, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran Email: [email protected] 2 Assistant Professor, Department of Demography, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran 3 Professor, University of Adelaide 4 Professor and Director, Australian Demographic and Social Research Institute, Australian National University

Introduction Afghanistan is currently the source of one in four refugees recognised by the United Nations High Commission for Refugees (UNHCR, 2012a) and it is also one of the world’s least developed nations. The Human Development Report of 2011 (UNDP, 2012) put Afghanistan Human Development Index at 0.398 positioning it at 172 out of 187 countries. The Islamic Republic of Iran is the second largest destination of refugees fleeing Afghanistan and ranks within the world’s middle income nations. While Iran functions as a country of first refuge for people fleeing from Afghanistan in fact the majority remain in Iran for a long period. Indeed a second generation of children born to Afghan refugees in Iran now outnumbers the Afghanistan- born community. This paper uses a recently conducted survey among the second generation Afghans (see the data section) to assess the extent to which Afghan refugees in Iran have been adapted to the host society, and the degree to which their adaptation patters influence their return strategies.

Afghan forced migration to Iran There is a long history of migration from Afghanistan to Iran. Shia Afghanis have been making religious pilgrimages to Iran for centuries and economically motivated migrations have also been significant. There has been permanent settlement of Afghans into neighbouring parts of Iran recorded since the 1850s. However, the modern history of Afghan immigration to Iran began in 1979 after which most of the movement has been associated with the direct effects of war and insecurity as well as their indirect effects like unemployment and inflation. The Soviet occupation of Afghanistan between 1979 and 1989 saw a massive exodus of 3 million Afghans into neighbouring Iran. After the Soviet withdrawal in 1989 and the resistance movement assuming power in Kabul, 1.4 million Afghans returned home. However, a civil war in Afghanistan between 1989 and 1993 resulted in a new wave of forced migration to Iran, involving especially the educated, urban middle class. The repressive rule of the Taliban and fighting between the Taliban and opposition groups set off further migration to Iran. With the fall of the Taliban in 2004 there was some repatriation but continued fighting has seen a continuation of the flow to Iran. Moreover, this flow has become more complex, not only involving refugees but also labour migrants. The existence and growth of a well-established

2 substantial Afghan community in Iran has facilitated the development of social networks along which new migrants from Afghanistan have moved. Accordingly, at the time of the 2006 Iranian population census, of 1.3 million registered foreign nationals, some 96 percent were from Afghanistan. Figure 1 shows the numbers of registered Afghan foreign nationals at Iranian censuses since 1976. In 2011 the official figure was 1.4 million but it is estimated that the actual numbers of Afghans including undocumented migrants is around 2.5 million. The UNHCR (2012a) reports that in 2011 Afghanistan had the largest number of recognised refugees of any nation in the world with 2.7 million in 79 countries.

Figure 1: Stock of Afghan Immigrants in Iran, 1976-2011

Source: Iranian Censuses

The fact that there has been a continuous, albeit episodic, influx of refugees from

Afghanistan to Iran over the last three decades and only limited on-migration to other destinations and return to Afghanistan has meant that there has been a chance for a significant

3 second generation Afghan community to develop. In fact, of the 1.2 million documented persons of Afghan nationality enumerated in the 2006 population census in Iran around half were born in

Iran.

Figure 2 shows that the second generation are overwhelmingly in the younger age groups. In examining the economic impacts of Afghan refugee migration it is important to consider the intergenerational effects as well as those among the refugees themselves.

Figure 2: Age-Sex Composition of the First and Second Generation Registered Afghan Nationals in Iran, 2006

Source: 2006 Iran Census

Data and Methods This paper uses the data drawn from the survey on ‘The Adaptation of Afghan Youth in Iran’ which was conducted in Tehran and Mashhad in 2010, and covered 520 Afghan second- generation in the two cities to assess the extent to which Afghan refugees in Iran have been adapted and the degree to which their adaptation patters influence their return strategies. The

4 target population in the study constituted the second- generation Afghans aged 15- 29 years. “Second generation” comprises of those who were born in Iran from at least one Afghanistan- born parent, and also including those immigrated to Iran during childhood (i.e before age 7). A multi-stage sampling procedure was applied. First, neighborhoods were selected based on density of Afghan population and socio-economic strata in census tract. In the next step, using sample frame (age, sex, birth place, year of arrival, ethnicity, education, marital status) and stratified snowball sampling procedure we selected second- generation Afghan between 15 and 29 years old in every neighborhood. The target population in the study constituted the second- generation Afghans aged 15- 29 years. “Second generation” comprises of those who were born in Iran from at least one Afghanistan-born parent, and also including those immigrated to Iran during childhood (i.e before age 7). A multi-stage sampling procedure was applied. First, neighborhoods were selected based on density of Afghan population and socio-economic strata in census tract. In the next step, using sample frame (age, sex, birth place, year of arrival, ethnicity, education, marital status) and stratified snowball sampling procedure we selected second- generation Afghan between 15 and 29 years old in every neighborhood. Bivariate (t-test, F-test, Chi-square) and Multivariate analyses (Binomial & Multinomial Logistic Regression, Multiple Classification Analysis) are employed to meet the objectives. The following variables were used in the analysis:

Dependent variables: Return aspirations & intentions (1. Remain in Iran, 2. Return to Afghanistan, 3. Migrating to other countries, 4. Undecided/ dilemma) Independent variable: Adaptation patterns (1. Assimilation, 2. Integration, 3. Separation, 4. Marginalization) Control variables: including demographic characteristics (age, gender, level of education, marital status, religion) and socio-contextual variables (structural satisfaction & discrimination, household SES, length of family stay in Iran, SES of neighborhood, city of residence).

Results See the tables1-7 and Figures 1-2 at the end of this paper.

Conclusion  Second-generation Afghans in Iran have experienced a variety of adaptation patterns and orientations  A clear majority of second-generation Afghan youth in Iran do not intend to return to Afghanistan in the short and medium term.  Assimilated SG Afghans are interested in staying in Iran  Those in the separated category were more likely to be willing or intending to return to Afghanistan as compared with those in other categories.  Integrated immigrants have simultaneous attachments to the host society and the homeland. This ambiguity and uncertainty is reflected in the undecided responses toward return aspirations and intentions.  Marginalized SG Afghans were more willing to migrate to other countries.

References: United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), 2011. Human Development Report 2011:

Sustainability and Equity: A Better Future for All, United Nations, New York.

United Nations High Commission for Refugees (UNHCR), 2012a. UNHCR Global Trends

2011, UNHCR, Geneva.

United Nations High Commission for Refugees (UNHCR), 2012b. 2012 UNHCR Country

Operations Profile – Afghanistan, UNHCR, Geneva.



Table 1. Demographic characteristics of Afghan Second-generation Youth in the Survey, 2010 Demographic characteristics Frequency % Age 15-19 227 43.7 (Average= 21.06) 20-24 164 31.5 25-29 129 24.8 Gender Male 274 52.7 Female 246 47.3 Education Illiterate/ primary 118 22.7 Secondary/ high school 266 51.2 Diploma and upper 136 26.2 Marital status Single 358 68.8 Married 162 31.2 Religion Shiite 429 82.5 Sunni 91 17.5 SES of household Low 105 20.2 Middle 345 66.3 High 70 13.5 City of residence Tehran 240 46.2 Mashhad 280 53.8 Sample size 520 100.0

Figure 3. The Patterns of Attitude -behavioral Adaptation among Afghan Second-generation Youth in Iran, 2010 40

35 35.8 % 33.3 30 % 25

15 17.1 % 13.8 10 % 5

0 Assimilated Integrated Seperated Marginalized

Table 2. Return Aspirations of Afghan Second-generation Youth, 2010 Aspirations (%) Not at all A little Rather Very How interested to stay in Iran? 10.7 21.0 38.7 29.6 How interested to return to 20.6 22.7 28.5 28.2 Afghanistan? How interested to migrate to developed countries such as 20.2 9.2 15.2 55.4 Europe, America, and Australia? Preferred country to grow up Iran Afghanistan Other I don’t know children… countries 26.2 15.5 27.7* 30.6 Return to Afghanistan if living NO; YES; Want to go I don’t know conditions improved? Remain in Iran Return to abroad (other (dilemma) Afghanistan countries) 11.9 65.3 6.3** 16.5 *Including; Australia (n=29), Canada (n=18), USA (n=9), England (n=8), Germany (n=6), Sweden (n=5), Netherlands (n=5), Finland (n=5), New Zealand (n=3), Turkey (n=3), Italy (n=2), Norway (n=2), Austria (n=2), Malaysia (n=2), One of European countries (n=19), Not certain (n=26). **Including; Australia (n=9), Canada (n=8), Sweden (n=3), Germany (n=2), England (n=2), Spain (n=2), New Zealand (n=1), Italy (n=1), France (n=1), Not certain (n=4).

Table 3. Return Intentions of Afghan Second-generation Youth, 2010 Intentions (%) Staying in Return to Planning to go Undecided/ Iran Afghanistan other countries dilemma Current intention about staying in Iran or returning to 60.4 6.0 9.2 24.4 Afghanistan Plan on staying in Iran or returning to Afghanistan in near 32.1 8.5 16.0* 43.4 future (next 2 years) Intention to migrate from Iran Yes No Uncertain to other countries (except Afghanistan) 22.7 74.4 2.9

*Including; Australia (n=21), Canada (n=11), USA (n=7), England (n=6), Germany (n=6), Sweden (n=5), New Zealand (n=2), Italy (n=2), France (n=2), Turkey (n=2), Netherland (n=2), Norway (n=1), one of European countries (n=7), Not certain (n=9).

Figure 4. Adaptation patterns and Return Strategies among Afghan Second-generation, 2010

Adaptation and interest in staying in Iran Adaptation and interest in returning to Afghanistan 100 16.7 12.5 100 90 6.7 11.1 90 80 34.4 12.4 25.8 80 70 58.4 40.3 49.1 31.9 38.2 70 60 25.8 60 50 37.1 50 46.2 40 27.8 29.2 40 26.0 30 22.5 30.6 30 55.1 24.7 20 20 11.3 16.2 27.8 16.9 19.4 10 14.5 10 8.1 12.4 8.7 0 2.2 0 Assimilated Integrated Seperated Marginalized Assimilated Integrated Seperated Marginalized Not at all A little Rather Very Not at all A little Rather Very Chi-square= 84.827 Sig= 0.001 Chi-square= 139.314 Sig= 0.001 Adaptation and preferred country to Adaptation and return to Afghanistan if grow up children… living conditions improved?

100 100 7.9 10.4 15.2 16.9 19.4 90 21.0 1.7 90 5.2 30.1 80 9.0 80 28.1 4.3 47.8 70 7.5 19.5 70 2.2 60 60 18.5 34.8 11.1 50 50 63.9 40 82.7 22.0 40 67.2 32.9 30 30 61.8 50.0 10.2 20 39.3 20 4.2 10 10 20.0 18.5 16.7 0 0 Assimilated Integrated Seperated Marginalized Assimilated Integrated Seperated Marginalized YES (return to Afghanistan) NO (remain in Iran) Iran Afghanistan Other countries I don't know Going to other countries I don't know

Chi-square= 185.679 Sig= 0.001 Chi-square= 102.660 Sig= 0.001

Adaptation and current intention about staying Adaptation and Plan on staying in Iran or returning to Afghanistan in the near future (next two years) in Iran or returning to Afghanistan 100 100 12.4 90 27.0 90 25.3 25.4 3.4 1.1 37.5 34.7 80 44.5 80 52.7 6.4 70 70 10.2 13.5 60 5.4 11.0 60 1.1 20.8 50 50 11.6 1.4 40 83.1 11.8 40.3 40 13.3 30 59.1 57.2 30 58.4 9.7 43.1 20 20 2.8 30.6 10 25.8 10 19.4 0 0 Assimilated Integrated Seperated Marginalized Assimilated Integrated Seperated Marginalized Staying in Iran Return to Afghanistan Staying in Iran Return to Afghanistan Planning to go other countries Undecided Planning to go other countries Undecided

Chi-square= 49.103 Sig= 0.001 Chi-square= 79.674 Sig= 0.001

Figure 5. Adaptation patterns and intention to migrate to other countries (%) 100 90 80 70 58.3 60 78.0 86.5 79.8 50 40 30 20 41.7 10 22.0 13.5 20.2 0 Assimilated Integrated Seperated Marginalized

YES NO

Chi-square= 19.721 Sig= 0.001

Table 4. The effects of adaptation patterns on return aspirations (Results from Multiple Classification Analysis) How strongly interested to … Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Stay in Iran (mean score) Adaptation patterns Assimilated 2.37 2.35 2.26 Integrated 2.07 2.08 2.02 Separated 1.57 1.56 1.62 Marginalized 1.46 1.49 1.61 Eta/ beta 0.346*** 0.343*** 0.262*** Return to Afghanistan (mean score) Adaptation patterns Assimilated 0.71 0.70 0.75 Integrated 1.76 1.76 1.78 Separated 2.16 2.16 2.11 Marginalized 1.26 1.28 1.27 Eta/ beta 0.467*** 0.464*** 0.442*** Migrate to other countries (mean score) Adaptation patterns Assimilated 1.58 1.64 1.67 Integrated 2.16 2.13 2.15 Separated 1.94 1.96 1.96 Marginalized 2.68 2.61 2.52 Eta/ beta 0.263*** 0.230*** 0.204*** Adaptation patterns Yes Yes Yes Demographic variables No Yes Yes Socio-contextual variables No No Yes ***P<.001 Demographic variables including age, gender, level of education, marital status, religion; Socio-contextual variables including structural satisfaction & discrimination, household SES, length of family stay in Iran, SES of neighborhood, and city of residence.

Table 5. The effects of adaptation patterns on return aspirations (Odds ratio from Multinomial Logistic Regression Models) Preferred country to grow Afghanistan Other countries I don’t know up children Vs. Iran Vs. Iran Vs. Iran Model Model Model Model Model Model Model Model Model 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 Adaptation Assimilated ® patterns Separated 48.98*** 47.15*** 34.87*** 2.20* 2.23* 1.70 12.76*** 12.09*** 11.10*** Integrated 14.12*** 14.75*** 14.96*** 2.44** 2.11* 2.10* 18.90*** 17.97*** 17.91*** Marginalized 6.87* 7.43* 5.16 8.43*** 7.74*** 5.89*** 7.22*** 7.17*** 6.32** Return to Afghanistan if the Return to Afghanistan Going to other countries Dilemma living conditions improved Vs. Staying in Iran Vs. Staying in Iran Vs. Staying in Iran Model Model Model Model Model Model Model Model Model 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 Adaptation Assimilated ® patterns Separated 14.07*** 13.32*** 8.54*** 1.29 1.04 0.46 4.13** 3.96** 3.28* Integrated 7.91*** 7.24*** 6.63*** 2.21 1.41 1.04 5.76*** 5.10*** 5.54** Marginalized 3.98** 3.72** 2.70* 7.27*** 5.44** 2.51* 3.36* 2.92* 2.58 Independent Variables: Adaptation patterns Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Demographic variables No Yes Yes No Yes Yes No Yes Yes Socio-contextual variables No No Yes No No Yes No No Yes * P<.05;** P<.01;***P<.001 ® Indicates reference category Demographic variables including age, gender, level of education, marital status, religion; Socio-contextual variables including structural satisfaction & discrimination, household SES, length of family stay in Iran, SES of neighborhood, and city of residence

Table 6. The effects of adaptation patterns on return intentions (Odds ratio from Multinomial Logistic Regression Models) Return to Afghanistan Going to other countries Undecided Vs. Staying in Iran Vs. Staying in Iran Vs. Staying in Iran Model Model Model Model Model Model Model Model Model 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 Current intention about staying in Iran or returning to Afghanistan Adaptation Assimilated ® patterns Separated 16.20** 16.09** 16.43** 2.74 2.56 3.26 2.99** 2.80** 3.15** Integrated 6.73* 7.10 10.01* 4.26* 3.61* 4.38* 2.87** 2.65** 3.08** Marginalized 2.39 2.36 2.53 11.93*** 9.52*** 9.40*** 5.42*** 5.05*** 5.81*** Plans on staying in Iran or returning to Afghanistan in the near future Model Model Model Model Model Model Model Model Model 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 Adaptation Assimilated ® patterns Separated 22.57*** 23.45*** 19.45*** 1.63 1.62 1.24 3.15*** 3.24*** 3.17** Integrated 19.50** 18.20** 17.64** 1.98 1.67 1.75 4.42*** 4.15*** 4.34*** Marginalized 7.42 7.46 6.40 8.98*** 7.52*** 5.14** 4.18*** 4.02** 3.72** Independent Variables: Adaptation patterns Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Demographic variables No Yes Yes No Yes Yes No Yes Yes Socio-contextual variables No No Yes No No Yes No No Yes * P<.05;** P<.01;***P<.001 ® Indicates reference category Demographic variables including age, gender, level of education, marital status, religion; Socio-contextual variables including structural satisfaction & discrimination, household SES, length of family stay in Iran, SES of neighborhood, and city of residence

Table 7. The effects of adaptation patterns on intention to migrate to other countries (Odds ratio from Binomial Logistic Regression Models) Intention to migrate to other countries Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Adaptation patterns Assimilated ® Separated 1.627 1.544 1.347 Integrated 1.814 1.595 1.628 Marginalized 4.583*** 3.772*** 3.228** Independent Variables: Adaptation patterns Yes Yes Yes Demographic variables No Yes Yes Socio-contextual variables No No Yes * P<.05;** P<.01;***P<.001 ® Indicates reference category Demographic variables including age, gender, level of education, marital status, religion; Socio-contextual variables including structural satisfaction & discrimination, household SES, length of family stay in Iran, SES of neighborhood, and city of residence