Vulnerable Here or There? Examining the vulnerability of victims of human trafficking before and after return

Erlend Paasche,Sine Plambech,May-Len Skilbrei

doi:10.14197/atr.201218103

Abstract

This article deals with how return programmes for rejected asylum seekers and irregular migrants construct and create vulnerabilities. Few studies have explored the role of assistance provided through such programmes for the sex worker returnees and victims of trafficking who return through them. Even fewer holistically examine a return programme through data elicited in both destination and origin locations, before and after return. That is what we aim to do in this article. We first look at the legal-bureaucratic construction of vulnerability in a host state, Norway, and the systemic logic of its efforts to return victims of trafficking. We then look at how returnees narrate their experiences of and perspectives on vulnerability upon return to their country of origin, Nigeria. This study, together with the broader research within this field, indicates that flaws in programme implementation can in fact exacerbate vulnerabilities rather than help returnees overcome them.

Highlights

Migration control is framed as both tough and kind
We look at how returnees narrate their experiences of and perspectives on vulnerability upon return to their country of origin, Nigeria
Vulnerability is determined for prospective returnees while they are still in Norway but projected across time— into the future—and space—into Nigeria

Summary

Introduction

Migration control is framed as both tough and kind. On the one hand, European governments have shifted migration policies in a stricter direction to ensure that they appear to betough on migrants‘, with the stated intention of deterring migrants from travelling to a particular country and making them leave if they fail to secure a residency permit.[1]. LabelledAssisted Voluntary Return and Reintegration programmes‘ (AVRRs), such programmes incentivise return while presenting it asvoluntary‘. This serves to make them acceptable for domestic electorates as well as states of origin. Some AVRRs in Norway are country-specific, but most returnees make use of a universally available programme calledFinancial Support for Return‘ (FSR). Another programme of special interest in this article is entitledInformation, Return and Reintegration for Vulnerable Migrants in Norway‘, referred to as theVulnerable Groups Project‘ (VG). Only approximately three per cent of those who received support through an AVRR from the IOM in 2016 were designated migrants in vulnerable situations, numbers alone do not detract from their importance. In IOM‘s wording, ̳specific and tailored assistance is critical for returning migrants in vulnerable situations...‘.15

Objectives

Methods

Findings

Conclusion