Assembling exits and returns: the extraterritorial production of repatriation for Filipino migrant workers

ABSTRACT

Research on the extraterritorial processes of migration governance has developed a strong focus on immigration states’ externalisation management and the diaspora strategies of emigration states. In labour migration, the scholarship on migrant-sending states has largely focused on the systematic processes of recruitment and employment of migrant workers; in contrast, the question of how migrant workers are extraterritorially governed in return has received less attention, despite its importance for understanding migration governance beyond sending country jurisdiction. This paper contributes to this area of research by investigating how migrant workers are repatriated from host countries during disruptions. Using assemblage thinking as analytical lens, I consider repatriation as an extraterritorial, emergent process, shaped by the relations among state and non-state actors, material and technological resources, and the role of street-level actors. Focusing on the case of the Philippines, I draw from over 30 key informant interviews with repatriation actors to examine how the exit stage of the repatriation process is constructed, mobilised and negotiated for Filipino migrant workers, in ways that reveal the possibilities and challenges of migrant protection in host countries. The paper shows how assemblage and street-level analysis can illuminate the different ways migration processes emerge amid disturbances in extraterritorial space.

KEYWORDS:

• Extraterritorial migration governance
• sending state
• repatriation
• return
• migrant workers
• Philippines

Acknowledgments

I am grateful to the editors and reviewers for their constructive feedback. I would also like to thank Marta Bivand Erdal and Andrea Soco-Roda for their helpful suggestions and unwavering support.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Correction Statement

This article has been corrected with minor changes. These changes do not impact the academic content of the article.

Notes

1 Research on return has shown the role of non-state actors like international organisations (e.g. Koch 2014).

2 While the study conducted research in Lebanon and Singapore (both destination countries for Filipino migrant workers), the focus of article is on the experiences of repatriation actors who were also involved in cases that took place elsewhere.

3 In 2019, before the COVID-19 pandemic, the number of OFWs was estimated at 2.18 million (PSA 2020).

4 RA8042 was later amended through the introduction of RA10022 (IOM-SMC 2013).

5 ‘Anticipatory action' is based on the work of geographers on emergency governance, characterized by the logics of pre-emption, preparation and prevention (Adey 2016; Anderson and Adey 2012).

6 See Jureidini (2011) and Mansour-Ille and Hendow (2017).

7 This reflects to an extent the rise of diaspora engagements of sending states with their migrant nationals abroad (Gamlen 2014).

8 For example, see Rodriguez (2010), on the case of Filipino migrant workers in Brunei.

9 See Gois and Campbell (2013) on the plight of stranded migrant workers.

Additional information

Funding

This work was supported by Graduate Research Support Scheme, National University of Singapore.