英语论文网

国家辅助返回计划（SARP）已经成为国家侨民的动员策略的关键组成部分。特别是在国家的血统主义原则是公民的政权，这些项目往往是从表面上国家拉（ISTIC）话语为了鼓励遣返（主要是高度熟练的）公民居住在国外。在与政府官员和移民的访谈以及对中小学教材内容的分析，本文探讨了由以色列和德国部署SARP。它认为，话语和实践的国家方案嵌入（重新）在某些方面与感知影响因素回归相称的建设国家，移民往往拒绝了这些公式，而忽视强调范围的个人和专业的回报为导向的风险。State-assisted return programmes (SARPs) have emerged as key components of diaspora mobilisation strategies in countries of origin. Especially in countries where the principle of jus sanguinis underpins citizenship regimes, these programmes have often been drawn from ostensibly national(istic) discourses in order to encourage the repatriation of (mostly highly skilled) citizens residing abroad. Drawing on interviews with public officials and migrants as well as content analysis of primary and secondary materials, this paper examines SARPs deployed by Israel and Germany. It argues that while the discourse and practice within which state programmes are embedded (re-)construct the nation in certain ways that are commensurate with perceived determinants of return, migrants have often rejected these formulations, underscoring instead a range of neglected personal and professional return-oriented risks. The paper’s main contribution lies in better clarifying the links between highly skilled return migration policy, national identity and migration determinants and uncovers the diverging articulations of return used by state and migrants alike.

Introduction 介绍

2010以色列政府通过一系列激励的侨胞回报措施。总理内塔尼亚胡感谢他的近红外科恩成员在地理与环境系讲师，巴伊兰大学，以色列拉马特甘。科恩D. Kranz内阁的支持，指出“[返回]有相同的民族背景、语言和文化知识，[其他]以色列公民，然而在不同的创作和工作文化知识的同时，我们在标准采用同样的兴趣。1在那同时，德国还计划已经五岁了，但它从未公布过几乎相同的热情。相反，它长期以来一直以低调，务实的态度，专注于德国移民在美国的特点。不像以色列计划的自我声明的意图，针对所有的移民，2的德国倡议是谦虚的，针对高技术移民只。更重要的是，以色列的计划强调了潜在的海归的国际经验，德国的倡议强调了“海归”在“传统”德国体系中“融入”的能力。In 2010 the Government of Israel passed a series of measures to incentivise the return of nationals residing abroad. Prime Minister Netanyahu thanked members of his Nir Cohen is a Lecturer at the Department of Geography and Environment, Bar Ilan University, Ramat Gan, Israel. Cohen & D. Kranz cabinet for their support, noting ‘[Returnees] have the same national background, language and cultural knowledge [as other Israeli citizens], and yet at the same time knowledge of a different culture of creation and work at standards that we’re interested in adopting here as well’.1 At that time, Germany’s return programme was already five years old, yet it was never announced with nearly the same enthusiasm. Rather, it has long been characterised by a low-key, pragmatic approach that focuses exclusively on German migrants in the USA. Unlike Israeli programme’s self-declared intention to target all migrants,2 the German initiative was modest, targeting highly skilled migrants only. More importantly, while the Israeli programme highlighted the international experience of potential returnees, the German initiative underscored returnees’ ability to ‘fit in’ with the ‘traditional’ German system. Though both state-assisted return programmes (SARPs, or return programmes) wish to return well-educated and productive professionals, the different trajectories within which they are embedded attend to key differences surrounding national identities in both countries. Specifically, while Israel is depicted as an entrepreneurial, start-up nation in need of creative, cosmopolitan forces to move its economy forward, Germany is described as a safe haven where a broad social safety network awaits returnees along with stable prof