Abstract
Despite the emerging consensus that return does not necessarily bring an end to mobility, returnees’ future migration aspirations have received limited attention. Our article contributes to this under-researched area by examining how return migrants view future migration, based on 97 in-depth interviews with Romanian returnees from four European countries. We focus on young, working-age returnees, who are nevertheless well settled in their work and domestic lives. Comparisons between “then” and “now” are at the heart of participants’ reflections and draw attention to two temporal dimensions that become entangled in their future mobility considerations: prior migration experience, and life-course transformations. We show how returnees’ experiences of difficult and precarious work conditions, marginalization, and social isolation abroad, place important limits on migrating again, and generate specific parameters for future mobility, in conjunction with present family commitments and life-stage norms and aspirations. Future migration is thus often conditioned on preserving family unity and “decent” work opportunities, which reflect one's skills but also protect one's economic stability and wellbeing. The findings advance understanding of return and migration aspirations more broadly. Contrary to common assumptions, they show that prior migration experience does not simply facilitate but can also temper and recalibrate future migration aspirations, in conjunction with life-stage considerations. The findings additionally enrich the understanding of intra-European mobility dynamics, bringing in returnees’ perspectives, and revealing important temporal limits to European free mobility.
Introduction
The scholarship on return migration has grown considerably in recent years, reflecting the significance of return flows worldwide. Yet, reliable figures are notoriously difficult to produce (Wahba 2022), and they only tell half of the story. If return was traditionally seen as a “permanent move back ‘home,’” the “final point of migration,” followed by a resumption of “settled life” (White 2014; also Fauser and Anghel 2019; Gemi and Triandafyllidou 2021), this is hardly the case today. Current scholarship conceptualizes return as a “step” or “episode” in the migration journey, rather than its end (White 2014; Gemi and Triandafyllidou 2021; King and Kuschminder 2022). It acknowledges the dynamic and transnational character of many returnees’ lives, who do not simply leave the experience abroad behind, and continue to engage in various forms of mobility (Fauser and Anghel 2019; Gemi and Triandafyllidou 2021). Despite these important developments, however, returnees’ future migration aspirations are seldom explored (for exceptions, see Czeranowska, Parutis, and Trąbka 2023), and the role of prior migration in shaping them remains poorly understood.
We address this gap through a qualitative exploration of how return migrants think and talk about migrating again, based on 97 interviews with young, working-age Romanians, who returned from four major destination countries in Europe (Germany, Italy, Spain, and the UK). We focus on returnees’ migration aspirations, broadly understood to encompass “desires, intentions or plans for migration” (Aslany et al. 2021, 5). While these may not materialize, they importantly highlight the potential “temporariness” of return (Kuschminder 2022), and offer valuable insight into what matters to people when they contemplate migrating or staying, and how this changes across time, with new experiences and life-course transformations. Understanding this is essential, if we consider the growing recognition that many migrants around the world undertake multiple and multi-directional journeys during their lives (Paul and Yeoh 2021; Triandafyllidou 2022).
Our analysis makes several important contributions. We advance knowledge about return and migration aspirations by adopting a temporal perspective to returnees’ future migration aspirations, and showing how prior migration experience informs them, in conjunction with life-stage factors, dictating specific parameters for future mobility. Comparisons between “then” and “now”1 are at the heart of our participants’ views on future migration. Their narratives reveal that prior migration experience operates in more complex ways than commonly assumed, facilitating but also tempering and recalibrating future mobility aspirations. More broadly, the findings compel us to shift attention from whether to how individuals wish to migrate, challenging explanations narrowly focused on “economic imperatives” (Carling and Collins 2018). Lastly, they enrich understanding of the drivers and dynamics of intra-EU mobility by bringing in returnees’ perspectives, and showing how European free movement is complicated, and sometimes tempered, by present life-stage considerations and past experiences of living abroad. Our findings thus expose the temporal limits of “liquid migration” (Engbersen and Snel 2013), a notion developed to capture the fluidity of intra-EU mobility but increasingly problematized (Bygnes and Erdal 2017; Moroşanu et al. 2019; Bermudez and Oso 2020).
This article is structured as follows. We first connect debates around return migration, migration aspirations, and intra-EU mobility to highlight the importance of migration post-return and the crucial role of time. Second, we present the context and methods. Third, we show that, while many returnees remain open to migrating again, their aspirations are crucially shaped by challenges experienced abroad, alongside current life circumstances, norms, and aspirations associated with “adulthood.” Together, these generate precise conditions for future moves, centered on “decent work” and family unity. After discussing the factors that favor new departures, the analysis thus proceeds chronologically, addressing returnees’ prior migration experiences first, and then their present life circumstances and expectations for future mobility.
Migration Aspirations Post-Return through a Temporal Lens
Return migration has generated a wealth of literature in recent years. Studies in this area challenge the conceptualization of return as a unidirectional and irreversible move, followed by a “settled life” (Sinatti 2011; White 2014; Gemi and Triandafyllidou 2021). They show that returnees often maintain transnational lives and ties (Carling and Erdal 2014; Anghel, Fauser, and Boccagni, 2019; Bilgili 2022; Kuschminder 2022), consider leaving again, and sometimes follow through (Anacka, Matejko, and Nestorowicz 2013; White 2014; Gemi and Triandafyllidou 2021; Marchetti et al. 2024; more generally, see King and Kuschminder 2022). Nevertheless, while the “temporariness” of return and reality of post-return migration are routinely acknowledged, returnees’ aspirations in this direction remain under-researched (e.g., Czeranowska, Parutis, and Trąbka 2023).
The few studies that capture this phenomenon highlight how conditions in the place of origin in particular keep people mobile. In the Senegalese case, Sinatti (2011) finds that many migrants experience an “unsettled return,” becoming “trapped” in ongoing mobility between Senegal and Italy. Challenging conditions at home make going back and forth the only “viable option” to retain economic prosperity and secure a more permanent return. Looking at Poland, White (2014) also highlights the “instability” of return, citing survey data suggesting that half to two-thirds of the returnees might leave again (on Romanians, see Anghel et al. 2016, 30). Disappointed with their life and prospects at home, the Polish returnees she studied moved back to Britain, a phenomenon termed “double return” (White 2014; see also Anacka, Matejko, and Nestorowicz 2013). More recently, Gemi and Triandafyllidou (2021) show how many Albanians forced to return from Italy and Greece in the context of the economic crisis migrate again or maintain a mobile, transnational lifestyle. Examining different categories of returnees, Kuschminder (2022) additionally illustrates how dual citizenship enables Ethiopian professionals to live transnationally, and remain flexible about re-migrating, calling for further research on the “temporariness” of return. Closest to our focus, Czeranowska, Parutis, and Trąbka (2023) study Polish and Lithuanian returnees’ intentions to stay or re-migrate. Largely based on survey data, they find that work-related factors are important predictors for new departures, contrary to family or homeland attachment (also OECD 2024). Their four qualitative case studies, however, present a more complex picture, inviting further investigation.
The limited literature on mobility post-return thus highlights the temporariness of return and offers important insight into possible reasons behind further mobility. In doing so, however, it tends to focus on those who have re-migrated, often in specific circumstances, such as those created by a forced return, and/or present life conditions that may prompt them to. What happened before return, i.e., one's past migration experience, is largely sidelined from view. Therefore, while existing studies make important strides in understanding post-return mobility, detailed knowledge of how the past migration experience intersects with present life circumstances to shape constructions of future migration is still lacking.
The established but separate literature on migration aspirations provides important clues in this direction but rarely examines this systematically. Migration aspirations are typically understood to denote a preference for leaving over staying, although this can take various forms, including desire, intention, or plans to migrate (Carling and Collins 2018; Carling 2002). A concern with migration aspirations has been prominent in contexts of restricted movement, where aspirations to leave may exist, yet remain unfulfilled, drawing distinctions between wishing to migrate and implementing this wish (Carling 2002). While measuring aspirations in different ways, existing studies tend to focus on the act of moving and its features (timeframe, destination), examining whether individuals wish (intend or plan) to migrate (or live abroad), more than how (their specific “migration projects”) (see Aslany et al. 2021). Second, migration aspirations are often explored among prospective migrants, with little attention to returnees and previous experiences abroad.
When migration experience is considered, it is usually seen as a strong predictor for future mobility, generating knowledge and network resources that reduce the costs of subsequent migration (on “cumulative causation” theory, see Massey 1990); conversely, older age and family commitments—other factors relevant here—act as barriers to movement (Van Mol 2016; Williams et al. 2018; Tufiș and Sandu 2023). This literature, however, remains fragmented (Williams et al. 2018) and largely relies on large-scale, quantitative data, which do not provide in-depth insight into how exactly previous migration experience matters, and how it intersects with present life circumstances to shape expectations about future moves. As Carling observes, migration is not only a “demographic event, a move from A to B, but a parcel of expected actions and consequences” (2002, 17), yet this is rarely unpacked.
Our article advances understanding of return migration and (re-)migration aspirations by incorporating returnees’ perspectives on future mobility, and qualitatively exploring the role of past migration experiences. We adopt a temporal lens to show how past migration experiences intersect with life-course aspects, what Robertson (2019) calls “biographic time,” in generating precaution and firm expectations around future migration. Time has traditionally been neglected in studies of migration, viewed primarily in spatial terms (Griffiths, Rogers, and Anderson 2013; King and Della Puppa 2021). Recent years, however, have witnessed a “temporal turn,” reviving and expanding Cwerner's (2001) earlier analysis of the “times of migration.” Temporal approaches importantly highlight how journeys across space and time intersect, through migration and movement through the life course, both increasingly less linear and leading toward “settlement” (in place or into “adulthood,” cf. Harris, Baldassar, and Robertson 2020). Studies often examine legally or economically precarious migrants, showing how the temporalities of immigration control and employment govern and unsettle the course and rhythm of migrants’ lives and life course (Baas and Yeoh 2019; Robertson 2019, 2021; King and Della Puppa 2021). Yet, migrants also develop strategies to overcome these constraints, and may intentionally keep mobility “open-ended” to pursue their ambitions (Kuschminder 2022; Triandafyllidou 2022).
While time is acknowledged as critical in understanding migration aspirations, it is rarely addressed systematically (Griffiths, Rogers, and Anderson 2013; Wang and Collins 2020; Robertson 2021). The few studies that do so usefully underscore the changing nature of aspirations over time and the life course, and the interplay of different temporal scales and horizons in shaping mobility or life aspirations more generally (Boccagni 2017; de Jong and de Valk 2020; Wang and Collins 2020; Amrith 2021; Vezzoli 2023). This literature, however, focuses on current or prospective migrants, rather than returnees, leaving the role of first-hand migration experience in shaping the coordinates of future moves under-explored.
Building on this emergent literature on temporal and life-course aspects, our analysis goes further by delving into the “how” of aspirations, i.e., the kind of migration one envisions, and incorporating returnees’ perspectives, to better understand how past migration experience shapes its parameters, in conjunction with life-course factors. As Robertson (2021) notes, the temporalities literature is highly diverse in foci and approaches, requiring a selective strategy, tailored to specific research concerns. Our temporal lens thus considers two intertwined dimensions, which help deepen understanding of (re-)migration aspirations: (1) individuals’ past experiences of migration, and (2) the passage through life-course stages, particularly youth to adulthood. This reflects our participants’ characteristics and perspectives on future migration. Returnees’ migration aspirations problematize the sedentariness associated with adulthood, echoing current research (Robertson 2021; Amrith 2023), yet their parameters reaffirm traditional constructions and goalposts of adulthood, centered on family and career stability and wellbeing (Silva 2012; Varriale 2019).
EU Free Movement, “Liquid Migration” and the Life Course
Returnees’ migration aspirations are essential to unpack, given the growing efforts to move beyond treating return as the “final movement,” and more generally, migration as a one-off, linear, unidirectional journey (Baas and Yeoh 2019; Amrith 2021; Paul and Yeoh 2021; Kuschminder 2022; Triandafyllidou 2022). This is even more so in contexts where migration infrastructures encourage circulation. Our study involved returnees who were young European citizens with free mobility rights. The EU free movement regime enables “flexible temporariness” (Triandafyllidou 2022), offering a compelling contrast to the typical scenario of restrictive immigration and settlement policies that force migrants into perpetual mobility.
Alongside geographic proximity, the removal of legal barriers has spurred increasingly fluid and multi-directional mobilities within the EU. European citizens can easily engage in “repeat” or “multiple” migration between two or more destinations, onwards or after a temporary return (Ciobanu 2015; Apsite-Berina, Manea, and Berzins 2020; Salamońska and Czeranowska 2021). While such movements are not unique to Europe, the free movement and residence rights associated with European citizenship facilitate them considerably (White 2022; also Della Puppa, Montagna, and Kofman 2021; Triandafyllidou 2022; OECD 2024). The significant rise in East–West migration following the 2004 and 2007 EU enlargements is a clear testament to this. In this context, the notion of “liquid migration” (Engbersen and Snel 2013) was proposed to capture the temporary, flexible, economically driven moves of many young Europeans, who kept their options open and remained uncertain about the future. This was encouraged by open borders and labor markets, against the backdrop of growing individualization, and specifically, the weakening hold of family commitments among youth who wished to “try their luck” in different European destinations (Engbersen and Snel 2013).
Traveling back and forth is, of course, not new in the region. Visa-free travel within the Schengen area, combined with income and regional inequalities, generated substantial East–West mobility well before the EU expansion. Circular migration was, in fact, widespread after the fall of communist regimes. As Morokvasic noted in the 1990s, “Eastern Europeans were now not only ‘free to leave’ to the West but more exactly ‘free to leave and to come back’” (2004, 7), signaling the long-standing dynamism and multi-directionality of intra-European movements. This earlier circular migration, however, occurred in the context of limited legal routes to settle abroad (Morokvasic 2004).
The expansion of free movement rights has given new meaning and impetus to these trends, removing significant bureaucratic and financial impediments to migrating and settling abroad. Furthermore, it has made return decisions easily reversible. Survey data from Eastern European countries indicate a high likelihood (sometimes up to half) of migrating again among returnees, prompted by barriers at home, opportunities abroad, and strong transnational networks, which encourage individuals to “keep options open” (White 2022). Contemporary East European migrants’ temporariness and openness about the future, captured by the notion of “liquid migration,” thus becomes more a matter of choice than before (also Triandafyllidou 2022).
While intra-EU mobility research paints a favorable context for ongoing migration, we lack a thorough understanding of how Europeans view subsequent moves. Our qualitative exploration of returnees’ migration aspirations thus also contributes to this gap. Benefiting from the advantages of youth and free mobility rights, our participants were in many ways good candidates for “liquid” migration (Engbersen and Snel 2013) and return (Anacka, Matejko and Nestorowicz 2013). Their migration histories often reflected the temporary, multi-directional moves common in the EU. Returnees’ readiness to migrate again, however, proved to be crucially shaped, and tempered, by past migration experiences, combined with present life circumstances, norms and aspirations, highlighting the temporal limits of “liquidity.”
Several studies problematize the universal application of “liquid migration,” often documented among youth, a life stage associated with mobility and independence (Robertson 2021). They show that intra-European migrants come to struggle with instability and aspire for “grounded lives” with the passage of time and progress in age (Favell 2008; Bygnes and Erdal 2017; Varriale 2019). While contemporary life trajectories increasingly depart from the “normative transition to adulthood and settling down” (Harris, Baldassar, and Robertson 2020), this may continue to orient migrants’ aspirations. We add to this work returnees’ distinct perspectives and experiences. Our analysis shows how migration experiences “then” intersect with life coordinates “now” to generate caution and specific parameters for future moves. These situate returnees firmly into “traditional scripts of adulthood,” centered on family and career stability (Varriale 2019; also Silva 2012). Alongside migration post-return and migration aspirations more broadly, our article thus also advances our understanding of the dynamics of intra-EU mobility.
Background and Methods
Romania is the largest source of migration within the EU, with over three million nationals residing in other member states (Eurostat 2023). It is also the main recipient of returnees in the EU, with 90,000–120,000 Romanian-born estimated to return annually over 2013–2016 (Strain and Marchand 2019). These return movements are not isolated movements but part of a larger trend of return to Eastern Europe, following the 2008 economic crisis, and more recently, Brexit and the COVID-19 pandemic (White 2022; Grabowska and Ryan 2024). Existing research on return migration, however, tends to focus on Poland (King and Kuschminder 2022). Other countries, such as Romania, have only recently gained more prominence. While acknowledging returnees’ transnational lives, research on Romanian returnees largely captures return motivations and adaptation at home, considering re-migration only sporadically (Vlase 2013; Anghel, Fauser, and Boccagni 2019; Croitoru and Vlase 2021; Anghel, Oltean, and Silian 2022).
This article draws on in-depth interviews with returnees to Romania conducted for an EU-funded project on intra-European youth mobility (YMOBILITY). The project examined how migration shapes life-course transitions for mobile European youth, including migrants and returnees from various countries. To capture migration aspirations, the interviews with returnees included questions about future plans, including residence plans, intentions to migrate again, and circumstances in which participants might leave or stay. Participants were also asked about their (and their family's) migration history, experiences abroad, return motivation, adaptation, and life satisfaction post-return, which helped us better understand their aspirations. The research adhered to the ethical requirements of the Horizon Europe Framework Programme. Ethical approval for the data analyzed here was obtained from the University of Bucharest (991/12.11.2015).
The returnees were interviewed in 2015–2016. This was an opportune moment, after all transitional restrictions for Romanian nationals were lifted in the EU, and before Brexit and pandemic-related restrictions were imposed. Participants thus considered migration in the context of free movement in Europe, which continues today (except for the UK). This context and the general thematic focus on migration post-return underscore the contemporary relevance of the findings in Europe but also globally if we consider the growing evidence of serial and multi-directional migration around the world.
We focus on 97 in-depth interviews with returnees from Germany (27), Italy (31), Spain (18), and the UK (21). These destinations host the largest Romanian communities in Europe, including sizable young populations, and traditionally featuring high in youth's migration aspirations (e.g., Apsite-Berina, Manea, and Berzins 2020, 64; Sandu, Stoica and Umbreş 2014, 46). They attracted the largest number of participants in our project, generating a rich dataset.2 Participants were recruited from two main development regions in Romania (Centre and North-East). They came from both rural and urban areas, and had varying education levels, including students (29), workers with higher (28) and secondary education or below (40). They were aged 18–39, with a mean of 31 and more than half (55) in their thirties, and relatively evenly distributed in terms of gender. On average, they spent over 3.5 years abroad and 4.5 years since return. This is, however, difficult to establish, since many engaged in repeat migration, sometimes to different countries, as we discuss later. Apart from students, most worked in low-paid occupations abroad, including construction, cleaning, agriculture, and hospitality, reflecting Romanians’ concentration in low- and medium-skilled occupations in our countries of study (OECD 2019, 132). Those in high-skilled employment were usually academics or temporarily abroad on secondment.
Participants were interviewed in Romanian, in their homes or public spaces, except for six interviews conducted online via Skype. The interviews lasted one hour on average and were recorded and transcribed verbatim. We first conducted inductive thematic analysis, through close reading of the transcripts and note-taking. Participants’ comparisons between migrating “then” and “now” emerged as an important theme. In light of this and extant literature, we developed a coding scheme for focused analysis with the NVivo software, paying particular attention to how past migration experiences informed future migration considerations. The coding scheme, organized hierarchically into thematic codes and sub-codes, captured these alongside other relevant codes, mapping onto the interview protocol topics, e.g., migration histories, experiences abroad, return motivations, and future migration aspirations. Regarding the specific conditions for future migration, work and family opportunities appeared most relevant. Other categories (e.g., length of time, finances, personal development) intersected with these or emerged more sporadically. Given our concern with how one might wish to migrate, our analysis focuses on participants who expressed openness to migration (two-thirds of our sample). However, we occasionally integrate counter-examples from participants reluctant to leave, to reinforce, nuance, or contextualize key points. Participants’ names are pseudonyms.
Keeping Options Open
Young Romanians have traditionally held high migration aspirations. Around the time our data was collected, almost two-thirds (62%) of the population aged 16–30 wished to leave (Van Mol 2016), and many have done so every year. About a fifth (19%) of the workforce aged 20–64 is currently known to live in other EU countries (Eurostat 2022). Those who return are often met with suspicion. “Why do you want to come back?,” Mihai, a 37-year-old engineer, was asked when he returned from his Erasmus-funded studies in Germany. He blamed the “foolish” decision on his young age. Now, he might behave differently, since nobody “sane enough” would return, if they were well established with their family abroad. Raluca, who also studied abroad, concurred. She spoke enthusiastically about her international experience and did not know anyone who had returned and was not eager to leave again. She had already made plans to return to Britain, work for a year to fund her Masters, and then open a business, “a nice café” perhaps, something she had dreamt about since childhood.
While those with well-worked plans like Raluca are not typical in our sample, the strong pressures to migrate these examples convey raise important questions, which have received limited scholarly attention: how do returnees view leaving again, and how does the migration experience shape leaving or staying considerations? We address these questions by first elaborating on the context that largely favors new departures.
A Fragile Stability
Raluca was one of the few returnees who had concrete plans to leave again. But so were those who categorically excluded the possibility. Two-thirds of our participants were open to migration. While their circumstances and strength of desire varied, this was common across gender and skill levels. Otilia, who had been in Italy twice for study purposes, was now well settled in Romania with her partner but never said “no.” If she had a “good opportunity,” she would carefully consider it. Liviu, who worked in construction for many years in Germany, and previously Austria and Hungary, kept receiving job offers abroad, which he declined but might reconsider if finding work at home became difficult. Later in the interview, he did not hesitate much: “If an opportunity came up, I would go tomorrow,” if certain conditions were met. Bianca, who worked in cleaning and domestic work for a decade in Germany, also considered migrating again, if she could not secure an acceptable job in Romania after finishing her studies, and could count on her brother's support, still in Germany.
Participants’ general openness to migration is not surprising, given their broader circumstances. Many had achieved traditional adulthood milestones (Silva 2012), being well settled in their work and family lives, and felt largely satisfied with life post-return, particularly its social dimensions. Yet, economic difficulties and pressures remained widespread (also Anghel et al. 2016). Concerns about low salaries, dysfunctional institutions, and limited career progression opportunities were common and suggested that further deterioration in their circumstances or the emergence of new needs could easily tip the balance in favor of migration (see Anacka, Matejko, and Nestorowicz 2013; Vlase 2013). This is reinforced by the counter-example of the fewer who had reached a degree of material comfort and were inclined to stay to protect their hard-earned assets. Traian, who owned a restaurant, showed little appetite for “starting from scratch again:” “I have invested a lot of money here. What would I do? Close [the business] and go? Sell? To whom? […] No, I can stay here. For the time being.” Excluding the possibility, however, was not synonymous with not having it. “If I wanted to go to the UK tomorrow, I would just need to make some calls tonight and probably start work on Monday,” he added, pointing to the ease of reconsidering his position.
The Favorable Context for Migrating Again
With economic precariousness an ongoing concern, three factors made migrating again a “handy” option for our participants. First, complex migration histories were a commonplace (Carling and Erdal 2014). Many participants were not first-time or one-off migrants or returnees, echoing other research on Romanian and other European migrants (Ciobanu 2015; Salamońska and Czeranowska 2021; Marchetti et al. 2024). They had often traveled back and forth or lived in several countries, reinforcing notions of return as an episode in the migration trajectory. This sustained mobility generated significant confidence and resources for future moves.
Second, one did not have to be a serial migrant to possess significant migration-oriented resources. Many participants were not the first in the family to migrate either, following in the suit of parents, partners, siblings or other relatives, already settled abroad, and who often remained there, after participants’ return. Their networks additionally included acquaintances scattered across various European countries. Our returnees thus remained anchored in transnational networks (also Ciobanu 2015, and more generally, Carling and Erdal 2014; Carling and Collins 2018; Williams et al. 2018; Kuschminder 2022), which could be activated for future departures. Belonging to a transnational social space also meant staying up to date with work opportunities and life conditions abroad. It kept the option of migration alive and stretched the geographic coordinates for critical life decisions. A job offer from a previous employer in Germany, for example, put migration back on the table, even if temporarily declined. Many returnees’ transnational lives and mindsets transpired in their future planning.
Apart from rich migration experience and network resources, a third undeniable advantage was Romanians’ European citizenship. Romanians engaged in temporary mobility and enjoyed visa-free travel in the Schengen space well before 2007 (Anghel et al. 2016). Yet, as discussed earlier, Romania's EU accession and the gradual lifting of transitional restrictions to European labor markets expanded their destination options and enabled them to move freely and swiftly between multiple member states. It encouraged “flexible temporariness” (Triandafyllidou 2022), allowing for more spontaneity, experimentation, and freedom to move onwards or return, if things went wrong abroad (Alberti 2014; Moroşanu et al. 2021). Participants may have, undoubtedly, encountered legal barriers in the past. Although Romania joined the EU in 2007, work restrictions were only fully lifted across all member states in 2014. These, however, were not usually mentioned when returnees weighed their options, nor reminisced about their migration experiences. This could be because legal routes into the labor market existed even in the countries that maintained restrictions, e.g., via self-employment, studying or specific work schemes.
Considering these factors, which point strongly in favor of leaving again, why do many returnees remain open to, yet hesitant about, the possibility? We introduce a temporal perspective to shed light on this question. We discuss two aspects that become entangled in how returnees view future migration and its specific parameters: prior migration experience, and life-course changes and aspirations. If keeping options open appears to reaffirm the relevance of the “liquid migration” perspective in the space of EU-free mobility, these aspects illuminate its temporal limits.
“It's Not Heaven on Earth:” Prior Migration Experience
Extant literature on migration post-return typically foregrounds life conditions in the place of origin when explaining why returnees might migrate again. These include the threat of economic precariousness, and dissatisfaction with life and future prospects at home (Sinatti 2011; White 2014). Alternatively, returnees may remain mobile to make the most of their transnational skills and networks (Gemi and Triandafyllidou 2021). Our participants’ thoughts about future migration lean more in the former direction. However, while circumstances at home clearly inform their considerations, these are not simply a reflection of their present situation.
To gain a fuller understanding of former migrants’ readiness to migrate again and the circumstances in which they might follow through, we look more closely at past migration experiences and how they relate to present life and life-course factors. As our interviews showed, what it was like to migrate “then” has a strong bearing on whether and how one might migrate “now.” Returnees are different from first-time migrants in two important ways, which shape future mobility considerations and foreground the role of time: first, they possess direct experience of migration, which informs evaluations of present conditions and future aspirations (cf. Amrith 2021). Like onward migrants, they know what migration entails, and what to expect when moving countries (Ramos 2018). Alongside general “migratory knowledge” (Ramos 2018), returnees also possess country-specific information, since they often consider old, “tried-and-tested,” destinations, when contemplating a new migration. Second, we look at those who moved back for some time, who are often more advanced in the life course, with stable employment and family lives. Migration is thus often associated with an earlier stage of youth on the biographic timeline.
The Dual Role of Migration Experience
Returnees’ experiences abroad are usually considered in relation to return motivations. For example, discrimination and weaker integration abroad are known to impact intentions to return (e.g., Carling and Pettersen 2014) and bury migration ambitions (Thomas 2024). Our data show that migration experiences have broader implications, shaping not only return but also future migration considerations. They generate multiple resources for further moves but also a deeper appreciation of what migration entails (Ramos 2018) and what opportunities particular destinations present (Boccagni 2017), prompting a more prudent approach towards future migration. This dual function problematizes assumptions that migration experience simply facilitates further migration, advancing the understanding of migration capital.
Migration experience is typically seen to positively impact future moves (see Petzold 2017; Apsite-Berina, Manea and Berzins 2020). Research on serial or continued mobility has documented the different forms of “migration capital” it generates. Alongside networks and economic resources, living and working abroad enables the accumulation of skills and knowledge, which can be mobilized to access further destinations, including information about specific countries, and routes to migrate or secure employment (Paul 2011). A related notion is “mobility capital,” which captures the skills that make it “easy to plan, organize, and implement different types of movements,” as well as the ability to decide whether or not to move (Moret 2020; also Marchetti et al. 2024) and, in some accounts, “a taste for living abroad” (Murphy-Lejeune 2002).
Alongside extensive networks, our interviewees often exhibited such skills, which reflect conventional understandings of migration capital. Iulian, a 32-year-old taxi driver, who had been in the UK twice, felt he gained significantly in confidence by managing alone abroad, and “could succeed in any circumstances.” Alina, a tourist guide in her thirties, who had experimented with different countries, exuded the same air of confidence: “I survived in London, so going to Ibiza or India presented absolutely no danger to me […] I didn’t feel it was difficult to start from scratch anywhere.”
Participants’ experiences abroad, however, did not simply encourage further migration, lowering its costs and uncertainty. They worked both ways, generating knowledge and other resources that could facilitate but also constrain and redefine the terms of future migration, particularly if past migration presented challenges. First-time migrants may leave quickly, following friends or family without much planning, especially in contexts of free movement (Moroşanu et al. 2021). We found that those well-versed in migration, however, were less easily persuaded by others’ calls to join them abroad. Indeed, many participants sounded a note of caution—“it's not heaven on earth”—, highlighting the many difficulties and misconceptions around migration. As Boccagni (2017) observes in the case of long-term, low-wage migrants, experiencing hardships and limited prospects abroad can significantly depress life aspirations and the appeal of migration. For those who return, this importantly redefines the desirability and terms of future migration, throwing new light on migration capital.
The Challenges of Migration
Most participants migrated for economic or study reasons, persuaded by family and peers or the broader sense that “everyone was leaving.” They were driven particularly by the promise of higher incomes and better job opportunities (Apsite-Berina, Manea and Berzins 2020). Although students and professionals enjoyed more sheltered conditions, experiences abroad were marked by significant challenges in the sphere of work, social life, and sense of belonging, which shaped decisions to return and generated considerable caution about future moves.
First, many participants worked in difficult, low-paid jobs in construction, agriculture, hospitality, cleaning, or care, which caused significant mental and physical exhaustion. Claudiu, who abandoned construction work due to the extreme tiredness accumulated, provides a poignant example: We lay tiles hours on end from early Thursday until late on Friday. I was in Spain and they had to open a hotel on Saturday morning, and we had to finish everything by then. We worked for 36 hours, we drank [energy drink] until it stopped working. You could have never obtained a job in your field […]. And the lack of perspective, I would have had to do the same thing, […] I didn’t like the idea of working all my life from dawn to dusk […]. You didn’t have time for anything else.
Second, the disadvantages of lower-skilled employment were augmented by the social isolation and loneliness many confronted. Words like “robots,” “slaves,” or “machines” were regularly used to describe experiences abroad, mostly centered on work (except in students’ case) and broadly disconnected from the “rhythms” of local life (cf. Harris, Baldassar and Robertson 2020, 7). Despite the absence of legal barriers, participants’ employment conditions reduced opportunities for leisure and socializing. This further hindered the pursuit of traditional markers of adulthood (specifically, domestic and employment stability) and made them experience life as “suspended” (see Robertson 2021; Merla and Smit 2023).
Third, many returnees confronted various forms of discrimination and othering across the countries studied. If these were more pronounced for lower-skilled workers, the students and professionals interviewed were not spared differential treatment as migrants or Romanians (see also Moroşanu and Fox 2013; Lulle, Moroşanu and King 2022). Eugen, who worked in real estate in Spain, for instance, did not have unpleasant experiences himself but noted: “we have a very bad, very bad, really bad reputation.” Corina, who went to Italy to study, concurred, and so did Ada, another student, this time in Germany, where she felt Romanians had an equally negative image. Despite moving in “respectable circles,” Ada heard “so many offending words that [she] could not even reproduce.”
The prejudices and discrimination migrants confronted had wide implications on their structural incorporation, sense of belonging, and hopes for the future. Bianca, who worked in the domestic sector in Germany, underlined: “if you said you were Romanian, you were seen as inferior, and you got the worst paid jobs, the lowest-level jobs,” something she was not prepared to do forever. Alin, who had jobs in construction and gardening in Italy, recalled how migrants constantly worried about dismissal and had to “break their back” working. “No matter how hard they worked,” migrants “were not seen that well,” warned Horațiu, formerly employed in construction in Germany. Others like Otilia, who went to Italy to study, had a difficult time finding accommodation. “I won’t let to you because you are Romanian,” she was brutally told. While her experience was not exclusively negative, the doubt she could overcome her disadvantage was crushing: You can learn, you can do anything, you’re still not one of them. This was very clear to me, not matter how well you speak, how smart you are […] in the end, you’re not one of them.
Otilia's case exemplifies many others’ concerns, who felt “rejected,” treated as “second-class citizens,” and held back by not being “from there,” regardless of their occupational status. The barriers to career progress, social life and inclusion, acutely experienced by those in lower-skilled jobs but also affecting the higher-skilled, prevented them from picturing a future abroad. They gradually overshadowed the material gains, leading them to re-evaluate the benefits of migration and return to Romania to re-establish their status, re-align their trajectories with traditional pathways into adulthood (Robertson 2021) and achieve greater stability (Wang and Collins 2020, 586).
Experiences abroad thus weighed heavily in decisions to return and generated a certain disenchantment with migration (see also Thomas 2024). “It's not heaven on earth” was a common refrain, highlighting the stark contrast between the hopes and excitement often animating first-time migrants, and the measured attitude of returnees. Doina, who was a domestic worker in Spain, offers a damning example of the harsh reality of migration. Although she considered leaving again, for a fashion designer job, which would reflect her recent studies in Romania, she sought to temper others’ enthusiasm about their prospects abroad: I don’t think you should leave with high hopes. You shouldn’t really think it's heaven on earth because it's not. It's actually really hard, and you have to be mentally prepared.
Past experiences, however, do not operate in isolation from participants’ present life and life-course position. Our returnees did not only possess first-hand experience of migration but were also more advanced on the path of adulthood, compared to when they previously migrated. They thus viewed future moves through the lens of the past and present and associated life stages, which resulted in highly specific parameters for new departures. In analyzing these, we do not seek to draw objective distinctions between “youth” and “adulthood” but highlight returnees’ subjective evaluations and expectations about future migration, and the confluence of different times (past, present, and future) and life-course transformations therein (see de Jong and de Valk 2020; Amrith 2021).
“I’m Not 20 Anymore”: Life-Stage Factors and Migration Post-Return
Most returnees saw migrating in similar conditions as in the past as incompatible with their present life circumstances. Although emergencies alone, such as unemployment, could prompt them to migrate, many drew sharp lines between situations in which they would and would not migrate again. These forcefully reveal how memories of living abroad intersect with present experiences and visions of “adulthood,” often centered on economic and family stability (also Varriale 2019).
The Distance from the “Young Migrant” Self
Now in their thirties, many returnees distanced themselves from their younger selves. As one participant noted, “you think differently at 19. Things change when you get to 30. Life takes a different turn.” Having migrated in their twenties, few had family or career responsibilities then. “Youth” is essentially a time of exploration and “high hopes” (Arnett 2000). Migration was often a spontaneous and experimental act, powered by the curiosity, energy, and optimism typical of youth. The difficult, precarious, low-paid jobs it often entailed matched young migrants’ flexibility (Anderson 2010) and were initially compensated by material or subjective gains, like greater earnings, independence, or new experiences (see Moroşanu et al. 2019). Over time, however, the employment disadvantage, social isolation, and marginalization experienced abroad took their toll, leading many to return to build more rewarding careers and social and family lives.
Present life commitments further explain the subjective distance from migration. Many participants progressed on the path of “adulthood,” measured by traditional goalposts (Silva 2012). They had stable, if not always fulfilling or well-remunerated jobs, a life partner and children, businesses to run or property to maintain, which they valued and prioritized. While not precluding future migration, these concrete attachments and commitments clearly informed the specific conditions in which a new departure could be imagined and realized.
More generally, returnees’ perspectives reflected traditional understandings of adulthood with respect to family and work life, and their aspirations for conformity (Bygnes and Erdal 2017; Varriale 2019). The nature of work and life-work arrangements experienced abroad, marked by hardship and insecurity, appeared to many “out of sync” (Varriale 2019) with their present life stage. Status and wellbeing were now prioritized, and set the tone in preferences or conditions to migrate, as we illustrate below. Essentially, if undertaken now, migration needed to happen in conditions deemed commensurate with one's current life stage (Varriale 2019). While participants did not necessarily shun mobility, their aspirations around work and family often drew distinctions between youth and adulthood, in ways that reinforced linear, progressive views of the life course (cp. Amrith 2023).
Finally, a psychological factor also emerged. Many had returned to Romania for several years (4.5 on average, with two-thirds three or more) and adapted to its realities. Some, especially students, had returned for much longer, which made it harder to leave again. On the other end, those with extensive experience abroad in one or more destinations displayed more confidence but also deeper awareness of challenges and a certain fatigue with the instability entrenched by being “on the move” (also White 2014). The thought of “starting from scratch again” could further reduce the appeal of migration (on onward migration, Ramos 2018). The emotional toil it involved posed an additional threat to one's wellbeing, alongside the physical strain of lower-skilled work many experienced abroad. Magda, soon turning 40, decided that “it was time to have only one key,” hinting at the desire to settle down.
If “liquid migration” might have been an apt characterization of participants’ previous moves and attitudes, their reflections on future migration vividly illustrate its temporal limits. Studies of intra-European movers have documented the life-stage pressures that made these crave stability and “grounded lives” in the countries of destination, once they crossed a certain age threshold (Favell 2008; Bygnes and Erdal 2017; Varriale 2019). We found similar tendencies amongst returnees, who worried about jeopardizing the material and emotional stability, however fragile sometimes, they had achieved back home. The unpredictability, precariousness, and marginalization often defining migration experiences were at odds with participants’ current concern for status, security, and wellbeing. While open to the possibility, our returnees set a high bar for the conditions in which they might migrate again. We discuss this next, showing how past migration experiences intersect with biographic time to produce specific expectations about future migration.
The Precise Parameters of Migration Post-Return
Our participants reacted to questions about migrating again with striking caution and precision. “Only if” was a common phrase among those who prudently evaluated their options. While the experience of migration stretched the geographic coordinates of returnees’ visions for the future, migration was not taken lightly. Many would only migrate again if specific conditions were met. These reflected returnees’ efforts to minimize the challenges and uncertainty encountered then, when they previously migrated while preserving the privileges and commitments they had now, material or familial, and conforming to “traditional scripts of adulthood” more generally. Two considerations stood out, often in tandem, in future mobility reflections, which capture this well: “decent” jobs and family unity.
“Decent” Jobs
The type of work available was central to returnees’ migration considerations, reflecting their experiences in the secondary labor market abroad, on the one hand, and their present family commitments, career, and life aspirations, on the other. The vivid memories of the low-paid, physically draining work performed abroad, limited opportunities to progress, and poor work-life balance made many reluctant to repeat the experience. Iulian, who did lower-skilled agency work in Britain, forcefully captures the outright refusal to leave for jobs other than “decent,” which reverberates across the skill spectrum: “I am not going to pick cabbage or do anything.”
The jobs worth pursuing abroad had to match participants’ skills but also their age and life-stage aspirations. Monetary rewards were important but far from sufficient. Vlad, who worked long hours in food distribution in Spain, provides a good indication of their temporal limits: I felt like a slave, really. […] I didn’t get any satisfaction anymore, I couldn’t feel anything anymore, even though I was earning 1,800 euro a month at some point. I was looking at the money, and I didn’t […] feel any motivation whatsoever. I would leave. I don’t know, in decent conditions […] I wouldn’t go to do any work in Germany. I mean work in construction, care, because I haven’t worked for ten years, if we consider my university studies, Masters, PhD and postdoc, to end up doing that.
Other job attributes that gained importance foregrounded the role of age and life-stage norms. Having experienced low-paid work in Italy, Anca resumed her studies on return, and wanted job security, alongside skills match: “When [would I re-migrate]? Probably after finishing university. Not probably, certainly. And for an engineer post. Otherwise, I don’t know […] It has to be a stable job, not something exploratory,” she added, indicating that the time for experimentation was over. If work was previously approached more pragmatically and counterbalanced by non-work gains, older youth regarded it as a source of status and security. The rejection of the menial jobs once tolerated—“I’m not 20 anymore to do anything […] I’m not going to pick cabbage” (also Vlase 2013, 747)—thus places one firmly and irreversibly into “adulthood,” with its associated commitments, norms, and ambitions.
Furthermore, returnees’ reflections revealed increasing concern with health and wellbeing, illustrating the multiple ways in which age and life stage mold people's work expectations. Looking back, Emil, a football coach, emphasizes precisely this point: I would only migrate again if I didn’t have to do construction or similar work. Only football. Only under these circumstances, otherwise, I would not go again to do building work, masonry, roof tiling or I don’t know what. Because health is important too, for everybody, but when we are young, we don’t think about it. And then, we go, “oh, what have I done”?
Returnees’ attitudes to work thus reflected both past experiences of working abroad and present life-stage concerns. Participants commonly distanced themselves from the more exploratory, carefree, and risk-oriented nature of youth, and conditioned new migration on “decent work,” which went beyond financial rewards to encompass skill match, security, and wellbeing considerations (cp. Bygnes and Erdal 2017).
Family Unity
The second and related consideration that emerged strongly in our interviews was family unity. Contrary to individualization discourses (Engbersen and Snel 2013), the centrality of family in participants’ lives was pervasive and led to categorical refusals to leave alone and “cut oneself off” from it. Regardless of skill and gender, many returnees put family first and imagined future migration as a family rather than a sole venture. Opportunities for family members or their preferences thus joined, and further explained, aspirations for “decent jobs.”
A telling example is Dragoș, who would leave “tomorrow” for the right job but later rectified: “I wouldn’t go anywhere without family.” Liviu would likewise leave for good if it were for a “secure place,” where he could bring his family: “This is what matters to me.” The alternative was categorically ruled out: “I wouldn’t go otherwise, even if two Germanies joined forces to call me.” Although he saw himself migrating again if attractive work and housing opportunities arose, Florin agreed: “I wouldn’t go anywhere alone anymore. Not for all the money in the world.”
Alongside career-related expectations, returnees’ family concerns affirm the importance of life-course factors. Migration is often considered through the lens of “linked lives” rather than individual ambitions (Elder 1994; also Vezzoli 2023). Viorica pointed to the radical shift in priorities she experienced after crossing the threshold into “adult” domestic life. Migration posed challenges now that she had children, compared to earlier times when professional or personal ambitions took center stage: At this point, I mean life stage, leaving is difficult. I have small children, responsibilities at home that tie me to home somehow. And I admit that after I had children, I put them first in every single decision I made. My professional ambitions and these experiences that had always been a source of excitement in some way or another have thus moved second-stage. If I leave now, I leave with kids, family, everything […] it's not just about me anymore or about money. It's about my future, as well as my kids’ future. And what I want to do […] so if I go, I go for good or for a well-defined period […] I would specialize in a certain field. I’m not going to do anything anymore. That's another consideration. I mean, I wouldn’t go there, I’m not 20 anymore to do anything…
Compared to then, when many were not settled into domestic lives, leaving now thus involved negotiation of family commitments, and the repercussions a life-changing event like migration might have on family members. Those without family took the idea much more lightly, reinforcing the importance of life stage in migration aspirations. A telling example is Mădălina, aged 23. Unlike her older counterparts, who took many precautions before committing to the idea, she personified the enthusiasm and flexibility of youth: Possibly, it's possible, anything is possible because I’m still young. I don’t have family, I don’t have children to leave behind, just mum and dad. Of course, if I had the opportunity and […] it looked very promising, I would go. I wouldn’t look back because I’m young.
Participants’ emphasis on family, however, did not simply reflect their present commitments and attachments. As with employment expectations, the reluctance to leave alone was strongly shaped by past experiences abroad, marked by loneliness, social isolation, and the pain of separation from close and supportive ties. Liviu recalled how the emotional cost of migrating alone gradually overcame the economic gains: It works for a while but then you get tired of it. At some point, it doesn’t matter how much you earn, how you earn it. What is important is being near family, you know?
In sum, migrating post-return hanged heavily on preserving family unity and decent work opportunities, reflecting how past experiences abroad combined with present life commitments, norms, and aspirations to shape returnees’ expectations. Instead of pursuing novelty, adventure, or personal ambitions, many returnees carefully outlined precise conditions for a departure free of risk and adversity, which would protect their material stability and wellbeing. In one respect, their openness to migration echoes critiques of problematic distinctions between “mobile youth” and “settled adults” (Robertson 2021; Amrith 2023), showing that mobility is not the preserve of the former. Yet, returnees’ specific expectations about future migration emphasize the subjective distance from their younger selves, reaffirming the hold of traditional constructions of adulthood, centered on family and career stability.
Conclusion
The examination of young Romanian returnees’ future migration considerations contributes to a better understanding of return migration and (re-)migration aspirations, as well as intra-EU mobility dynamics. Despite the growing consensus that return does not necessarily mark the end of mobility, migration aspirations post-return remain under-researched. Addressing this is imperative in the EU context, where geographic proximity, limited legal barriers, and ongoing socio-economic inequalities have stimulated sustained back-and-forth movement and tendencies to “keep options open,” leading scholars to talk about “liquid migration” (Engbersen and Snel 2013). It is also important in a global context, considering mounting calls to see migration as an “open-ended,” serial, multi-directional journey (Amrith 2021; Paul and Yeoh 2021).
The few studies that address post-return migration tend to focus on conditions in the place of origin and present life circumstances that may lead one to leave again, downplaying the role of prior migration experience (White 2014; Gemi and Triandafyllidou 2021; Czeranowska, Parutis, and Trąbka 2023). While the latter is acknowledged in the separate literature on migration aspirations, this pays little attention to returnees and falls short of accounting for the complex ways in which past migration experience informs subsequent migration aspirations and the specific conditions in which one would be prepared to migrate again.
Our analysis advances our understanding of return migration and migration aspirations by adopting a temporal perspective, and showing how past migration experience shapes future migration considerations, in conjunction with present life circumstances. Building on the emergent literature which considers temporal and life-course factors shaping aspirations (Amrith 2021; Robertson 2021), we innovate by foregrounding returnees’ perspectives on future migration and paying closer attention to how prior migration experience shapes its parameters. This additionally improves understanding of “migration capital” and its role in future mobility. Our findings demonstrate that migration experience (and the knowledge accumulated thereby) works in more complex ways than commonly assumed: it does not simply facilitate future migration and develop one's mobility potential (see Petzold 2017; Williams et al. 2018; Moret 2020) but can also temper and recalibrate aspirations in this direction. Our returnees’ experiences abroad generated multiple resources that could facilitate future moves but also increased awareness of the risks and challenges of migration. These included difficult and precarious employment, social isolation, discrimination, and marginalization (also Ramos 2018). While many remained open to migration, their memories of challenging work and life conditions abroad brought significant caution. They weighed heavily in future migration considerations, dictating specific parameters, in conjunction with present life stage commitments, which reflected traditional versions of adulthood.
Just as King and Kuschminder (2022, 17) cautioned in the case of return migration, “there is no return to the situation as it once was.” Migration now cannot occur in similar conditions as before. In addition to possessing first-hand experience abroad, our returnees had progressed on the route to “adulthood.” Many achieved and valued career and domestic stability (also Marchetti et al. 2024), and discursively distanced themselves from their younger migrant selves. They considered the risks and benefits of migrating again through the lens of “then-now” comparisons, drawing firm expectations for future mobility, in light of past experience and “in sync with one's age” (Varriale 2019). Progress in age, work, and family life did not necessarily deter migration, countering conventional associations of adulthood with immobility (see, critically, Robertson 2021; Amrith 2023). Together with past experiences, however, it injected caution and redefined migration aspirations to preserve present privileges and commitments and avoid the pains of deskilling, marginalization, and isolation previously experienced abroad. Our returnees thus often refused to leave without family for jobs other than “decent.” They set a high bar for future migration, unwilling to compromise on their conditions. Contrary to the spontaneity, experimentation, and precariousness that often governed first-time migration, migration was now carefully designed as a family rather than a sole venture and involved expectations for “decent jobs,” measured not only in earnings but also skill match, long-term stability, health and wellbeing benefits.
By bringing in returnees’ perspectives and their considerations about moving again, our study also expands our understanding of migration aspirations in a more general sense. Importantly, it shifts the focus from whether individuals wish to migrate or not (Debray, Ruyssen, and Schewel 2023) to how, and how their migration projects change over time (Amrith 2021). It provides fresh insight into how experiences abroad matter, and intersect with life-course norms and circumstances in charting specific coordinates for future moves, forcefully revealing the shortcomings of narrowly focused economic explanations for migration (Debray, Ruyssen, and Schewel 2023).
Finally, our study enriches our understanding of intra-EU mobility dynamics, exposing the temporal limits of “liquid migration” from a new angle. We add to extant critical accounts (e.g., Bygnes and Erdal 2017) returnees’ perspectives, an overlooked demographic group, and their comparisons between migrating then and now, which bring these limits sharply into focus. Our returnees are well versed in the realities of migration and well advanced on the path of “adulthood,” which reduces and redefines the freedoms of European mobility and the “flexible temporariness” (Triandafyllidou 2022) they enable.
Admittedly, our participants often returned due to challenges abroad, rather than accomplishing their goals or pursuing attractive opportunities at home, and the challenges we documented may be more reflective of “low-status,” East–West European migrants’ experiences. Furthermore, participants were young adults, many in their thirties with dependent children. Their caution and parameters for future migration should, therefore, be understood in this light. To address these limitations, further research should include more privileged groups of returnees or serial migrants, for example, West–West European migrants, who typically occupy a more advantaged social and occupational position abroad. It should also consider returnees at different life stages, such as older adults, to capture variations in family configuration and career expectations. This will help paint a fuller picture of how past migration experiences matter in the European context and beyond, and how migration projects evolve over time, with the accumulation of migration experiences and life-course transformations.
Footnotes
Acknowledgments
We thank the journal editors and reviewers for their valuable feedback. We are grateful to Megha Amrith, Karen Schönwälder, and other members of the Max Planck Institute for the Study of Religious and Ethnic Diversity, as well as audiences at IMISCOE 2021, ESA 2021, ASA 2023, Sussex Centre for Migration Research, Berlin Institute of Migration and Integration Research, Bielefeld, LSE and London Metropolitan University, for insightful comments on earlier versions. We also thank the participants, whose names have been changed, and the researchers who conducted the interviews (Alin Croitoru, Georgiana Toth, Mădălina Manea, and Elena Tudor).
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: The data for this article was collected as part of the Horizon 2020-funded YMOBILITY Project (2015-18), Grant 649491.
