Political aspects of repatriation: Germany, Russia, Kazakhstan. A comparative analysis

Abstract

This paper is based on a study which compares repatriation policies of Germany, Russia, and Kazakhstan. The choice of cases is based on a “most similar case design.” The Russian case results in unsuccessful and unsustainable repatriation, the German case exhibits a change from sustainable repatriation to a slow termination of the program, while the case of Kazakhstan is one of sustainable and relatively successful repatriation. The main argument of the paper is that in order for a repatriation program to be sustainable, the program must contain both a practical component and an ideological component. If a repatriation program lacks ideological backing which permeates other aspects of political life in a state, then the repatriation program grinds to a halt. If a repatriation program has ideological backing, but is rendered impractical and does not meet the economic, demographic and labor market needs of a state, then the further development of the program stops. The findings of this study merit further reflection on issues of changing national identities, on transnational migration pathways, and on the “post-Soviet condition” which has set the stage for all of the aforementioned processes and transformations.

As the Forest is Chopped, the Chips Fly: The Fall of Soviet Internationalism and Late Perestroika's “Refugee” Problem, 1988–1990

“…The historic homelands of some "special settlers" were restored during Khrushchev's regime, while others had the legitimacy of external homelands (Greeks, Poles, Germans), some of which supported their repatriation when Soviet emigration policy liberalized by the late 1980s. 36 Among the most vulnerable were deportees who were denied the rehabilitation of, or return to, their historic homelands and did not have a recognized external titular homeland (Meskhetian Turks, Kurds, Crimean Tatars). The lack of national-cultural institutional support for nontitular peoples who did not have a "home" republic or territory after the late 1930s also caused some to adopt titular identities, which offered higher chances of mobility and social status.…”

Widely Open Closed Doors. Contemporary Repatriation Policy in Poland

“…There are numerous case studies on such an issue of repatriation (Fox 2003, Hedberg 2009, Klekowski von Koppenfels 2009, Kuşçu 2013, Münz 2003, Semyonov, Lewin-Epstein 2003, Song 2009, as well as some comparative studies (Flynn 2003, Hess 2010, Joppke, Rosenhek 2009, Skrentny et al 2007, Zeveleva 2014. A great amount of research is located within the post-Soviet context (Flynn 2003, Grzymała-Kazłowska and Grzymała-Moszczyńska 2014, Heleniak 2013, Kuşçu 2013, de Tinguy 2003, Vishnevsky 2003, Zeveleva 2014) Repatriation has two important dimensions. First of all, it is a social process, which should be interpreted within the background of ethnic return migration (Münz, Ohliger 2003, Song 2009, Tsuda 2009, Vishnevsky 2003.…”

“…In Kazakhstan, different views on the policy toward ethnic migrants reflected the public debate on the identity of the state: whether it should be civic or ethnic (Kuşçu 2013). Furthermore, changes to the repatriation policy and the approach toward repatriates might indicate the transformation of the concept of the nation itself (Hess 2010: 28, Hess 2011, Zeveleva 2014). An example of such an evolution is provided by post-war Germany, which, since the 1990s, has begun the transformation from an ethnicity-oriented to an immigration country; such a change in the discourse on national identity has been accompanied by an increasingly restrictive approach to repatriates (Levy 2003, Münz 2003, Zeveleva 2014).…”

“…In conclusion, it is argued that the persistence and strong ideological rooting of the idea of repatriation confirm an important aspect of the identity of the Polish state: the predominance of the ethnic concept of nation. The analysis of the Polish case also shows the need for further development of the existing conceptualization of the success (or lack thereof) of repatriation (Zeveleva 2014).…”

“…At the ideological level (within political discourse and rhetoric), the door has been open to repatriates because of the conducive historical and cultural environment, the political agreement over repatriation, and the gradual development and improvement of appropriate legislation. At the same time, at the level of socio-political practice the door has remained closed, since the repatriation turned out to be impractical, failing to meet the strategic needs of the country (Zeveleva 2014). The key argument is that the failure of the repatriation program was due to its poorly developed practical component.…”