Refugees "visiting home"

[Notanotherkendoll]

I'm not sure how I feel after this conversation with a friend so would like to hear other opinions.
My friend took in a Ukrainian refugee back in 2022, she was a 18/19 year old teenager. She didn't stay for long before getting employment/started studying and was able to move out but they have remained in touch and my friend sort of views herself as the girls "uk mum".
Anyway friend is once again beside herself as she has gone back to Kyiv for a few days. This isn't the city she is from but sadly the city she was from was under siege for sometime and is now mostly destroyed. She is going to visit her family who all moved to Kyiv, as the only girl her family pushed her to flee when the war started but her mum stayed put.

This has me thinking, surely if it is safe enough for her to return home to visit, it's safe enough for her to move back? I thought the whole point of being a refugee was that your own country wasn't safe, if you are going back to visit how can that be the case?

AIBU to think it's incompatible with the very nature of being a refugee to be able to visit home?

Visiting family and leaving them to come back will also include feelings of guilt they are escaping again.

Such a huge gut wrench of feelings and to then face unkindness like some in this thread in host country. They are stronger than I would be.

I was born in Belfast and was barely in school when the IRA blew up the bus station that we used to arrive at when going into the city centre and killed or injured dozens of civilians (Bloody Friday). We legged it to England and my parents took whatever jobs they could get to keep a roof over our heads. But we went back for a couple of weeks most summers because almost all of our family were still there. We avoided going into the city centre. It was a calculated risk, and fairly low. I don’t see this as much different.

People who claim asylum in U.K. void their asylum claim by returning to their home country (and can end up being stuck there or in a third country). Ukraine is a different situation, but I would think that other nationalities, such as Afghan, would void their claim by returning.

Re: the way some are addressing the poster - I think many people react really negatively and emotionally to someone saying something they consider unbelievably heartless. If someone tells me they like kicking puppies for fun, am I going to be polite to them?

The OP begrudging temporary sanctuary here to a teenage girl whose life as she knew it has been turned upside down - that is in the puppy-kicking category.

Well as lots of posters have already stated, she's visiting family who she misses in a different part of the country and was in danger where she was originally.

As you have said she works and contributes via her taxes to OUR society so questions about how she affords this are ridiculous.

And all Ukrainians who have been given the visas are on time limited ones as Zelensky specifically asked our Government to do this so that when the war is over they can return and help rebuild so maintaining a relationship to the country is a good thing.

Her brothers and dad can't leave as they are supporting the war effort so I'm assuming you are now not in any more confusion about why people would return to a country on holiday to a less dangerous area but one that still presents a risk that you'd take in order to get a cuddle from your mum/dad once in a while.

Yanbu op. If it's safe enough to visit, it's safe enough to move back.

Maybe you are the half-wit if you yourself say they are visiting family yet they also fled the country initially. Course it is to visit family and not a holiday but OP means a visit not a luxury holiday. Although these ones I heard about went via Dubai and had a little break there too.

Have you read any of the many posts on this thread, including from people who have actually been in a similar situation, explaining why this is not the case? Do they affect your view at all?

Like I said earlier, people lived in London during the war. It didn’t make it safe. We had Ukrainian guests, they weren’t from the occupied area either, they lived in a ‘safe’ city in central Ukraine. Their city was still bombed. One of her neighbour’s 6 year old daughter was hit and killed in the street, and her mother had her leg blown off.

Whole families can’t flee. Men between 18-60 cannot leave the country. Often their wives choose to stay with them. They feel it’s less scary to remain with their families than leave on their own to go to a new country where they don’t speak the language. Our guest’s DM refuses to leave, despite being begged to. She’s 60 and says “I was born in Ukraine. I’ve never left Ukraine and I’ll die in Ukraine”. She’s just happy that her daughter and grandchildren are safe.

I understand where you're coming from, OP, and agree to an extent. Maybe not so much with the Ukraine example, but for other places. Going back for visits might, and I stress might, indicate some degree of economic migration in the first instance.

Not for me no. They can live there, it is their own country, who else is supposed to live there? If they leave for a better life fine, but do not dress it up as fleeing, if they then go back.

Yes I can understand why they would feel that way

Safe enough to go back 7 killed in Russian attack on Lviv

Yes I experienced a Ukrainian lady complaining about the wait to see an ophthalmologist in the UK so she just went back to Ukraine to get it sorted. she said she would be back and she was. This is absolutely not the case for other actual refugees/asylum seekers as they do not have the same status as Ukrainians- fair enough Ukraine is closer to the UK and they are in Europe.

First comment has it. Impossible to understand if you're not in that situation. I'm not sure why you would feel anything about this girl travelling back, other than sympathy.

I have a few Ukrainian friends, some who moved before the invasion and some who left after, most have gone back to see friends/family since. They're unsafe when they do so; they'd be unsafe if they moved back, because their country is under attack, but some Ukrainians have moved back. They often feel guilty knowing the people back home live (and die) in that unsafety every day. From my friends' experiences, life does not go on as normal and that's a dangerous idea to spread - people may be doing some of the same activities, but I believe there's still a curfew, there are still air raid sirens and their friends and acquaintances are being killed. It fundamentally changes you to be living in that situation. The comparison to the Blitz is a good one.

There are differences between different groups of refugees and people under humanitarian protection; some countries are much more difficult to enter logistically and the situations in each country are different.

Because they are working and earning money like the rest of us.

This has me thinking, surely if it is safe enough for her to return home to visit, it's safe enough for her to move back?

Hah no it doesn’t mean that at all. Think of all the MSF doctors in Ukraine and Gaza who are “visiting” to work in hospitals for months at a time. They’re not safe, it’s not safe but they go because they are dedicated to humanitarian work.

Going back to a county a war to check on family who cannot or won’t flee similarly doesn’t automatically make it safe to move back to live. A lot of refugees will do several visits to gauge how safe things have become before deciding to move back to the country.

As you said too, she isn’t “going back home” as her home city was destroyed so she would either be an internally displaced person or a refugee- both are essentially homeless and are trying to rebuild their lives.

The Homes for Ukraine scheme is not a refugee status, it is just leave to remain until it is safe to return to live. She is not a refugee, she is a migrant.

Which country is he from, just out of curiosity? I realise that’s an outing question, and quite nosey, so you of course don’t need to answer, but I’m just curious.

They are people, exactly like you are. If it isn’t viable for you it isn’t viable for them.

Should they raise families there? See their daughters unable to go to school? How bad do things actually have to be for you consider someone a refugee?

You can't be serious?

Today in Lviv

Of course.You cant just hop on a plane back as it totally invalidates your claim.

Either you simply can't conceive of a place which is safe enough for a visit, but not safe enough to live in, or you are being disingenuous.

One example: a gay man has received refugee status because homosexuality is punishable by death. He cannot live in such a country, but he could visit if he doesn't engage in homosexual activity.

However, the Home Office can remove refugee status if you return to your home country.

Sounds like her entire family are displaced by conflict. Some are displaced internally and some displaced in other countries.

Ukraine is a huge country and the conflict means that parts of it are under Russian occupation, parts are under regular bombardment and other parts are only at risk of bombardment. None of them are what you'd call 'safe'. It's a complex and dynamic situation, as are most conflict zones.

My own family were displaced by the London Blitz. They did eventually return to London during the war, but it wasn't 'safe' per se, they just chose to leave rural Gloucestershire and return to the East End. They were still massively at risk. But as adults, that's what they chose to do. They did then have to leave the East End for Kent because - while it was okay for a while - it wasn't viable for them to live in a flattened East End.

Just because someone has chosen to visit their relatives in their home country it doesn't mean it's safe or viable for them to return to live there any time soon.