Repatriation

Repatriation is the process of returning an asset, an item of symbolic value or a person – voluntarily or forcibly – to its owner or their place of origin or citizenship. The term may refer to non-human entities, such as converting a foreign currency into the currency of one's own country, as well as to the process of returning military personnel to their place of origin following a war. It also applies to diplomatic envoys, international officials as well as expatriates and migrants in time of international crisis. For refugees, asylum seekers and illegal migrants, repatriation can mean either voluntary return or deportation.

HAITIAN MIGRANT REPATRIATION DVIDS1070740
Haitian migrants are escorted off the Coast Guard Cutter Tampa's fantail to an awaiting Haitian Coast Guard vessel during repatriation.
Repatriation of USS Pueblo Crew
The crew of USS Pueblo as it arrives at the U.N. Advance Camp, Korean Demilitarized Zone, on 23 December 1968, following their release by the North Korean government

Repatriation of humans

Overview and clarification of terms

Voluntary return vs. forced return

Voluntary return is the return of eligible persons, such as refugees, to their country of origin or citizenship on the basis of freely expressed willingness to such return. Voluntary return, unlike expulsion and deportation, which are actions of sovereign states, is defined as a personal right under specific conditions described in various international instruments, such as the OAU Convention, along with customary international law.

Some countries offer financial support to refugees and immigrants in order to facilitate the process of starting a new life in their country of origin. Examples of 21st century voluntary return include the Danish government, which began in 2009, offering £12,000 each to immigrants to return,[1] Switzerland offering around 6,500 Francs, targeted for business startups upon returning home,[2] as well Ireland.[3] Germany in 2016 allocated €150 million over three years for migrants willing to return,[4] and the Swedish government began offering £3,500 each.[5] 544 Nigerians returned home from Switzerland in 2013.[6] This financial support may also be considered as residency buyouts.

Two countries may have a re-admission agreement, which establishes procedures, on a reciprocal basis, for one state to return irregular non-nationals to their country of origin or a country through which they have transited.[7] Illegal immigrants are frequently repatriated as a matter of government policy. Repatriation measures of voluntary return, with financial assistance, as well as measures of deportation are used in many countries.

As repatriation can be voluntary or forced the term is also used as a euphemism for deportation. Involuntary or forced repatriation is the return of refugees, prisoners of war, or civil detainees to their country of origin under circumstances that leave no other viable alternatives. According to contemporary international law, prisoners of war, civil detainees, or refugees refusing repatriation, particularly if motivated by fears of political persecution in their own country, should be protected from refoulement and given, if possible, temporary or permanent asylum.[7] The forced return of people to countries where they would face persecution is more specifically known as refoulement, which is against international law.

Repatriation vs. return

While repatriation necessarily brings an individual to his or her territory of origin or citizenship, a return potentially includes bringing the person back to the point of departure. This could be to a third country, including a country of transit, which is a country the person has traveled through to get to the country of destination. A return could also be within the territorial boundaries of a country, as in the case of returning internally displaced persons and demobilized combatants. The distinction between repatriation and return, voluntary or involuntary, is not always clear.[8]

Types of human repatriation

Medical repatriation

Repatriation is linked with health care due to the costs and resources associated with providing medical treatment to travelers and immigrants pursuing citizenship. For example, if a foreign national is in the United States with a visa and becomes ill, the insurance that the visa holder has in his or her native country may not apply in the United States, especially if it is a country with universal health care coverage. This scenario forces hospitals to choose one of three options:

  • Limit their services to emergency care only (as per the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act)
  • Offer charity care free of charge or at a reduced rate
  • Repatriate the patient back to his or her native country where he or she will be covered according to that country's policy[9]

Determining which option is the most ethical is often very challenging for hospital administrators.

In some cases, a traveler's personal insurance company is required to repatriate the patient for medical treatment. The method of repatriation could be via regular flight, by ground, or by air ambulance. Medical repatriation is different from the act of medical evacuation.

Post–World War II

In the 20th century, following all European wars, several repatriation commissions were created to supervise the return of war refugees, displaced persons, and prisoners of war to their country of origin. Repatriation hospitals were established in some countries to care for the ongoing medical and health requirements of returned military personnel. In the Soviet Union, the refugees seen as traitors for surrendering were often killed or sent to Siberian concentration camps.[10]

Issues surrounding repatriation have been some of the most heatedly debated political topics of the 20th and 21st centuries. Many forced back to the Soviet Union by Allied forces in World War II still hold this forced migration against the United States of America and the United Kingdom.

The term repatriation was often used by Communist governments to describe the large-scale state-sponsored ethnic cleansing actions and expulsion of national groups. Poles born in territories that were annexed by the Soviet Union, although deported to the State of Poland, were settled in the annexed former German territories (referred to in Polish as the Regained Territories). In the process they were told that they had returned to their Motherland.

Battlefield casualties

The Korean War marked the first time that the United States or any nation began returning the bodies of battlefield casualties as soon as possible.[11] During Operation Glory, which followed the Korean Armistice Agreement, thousands of remains were exchanged by both sides.[11][12] The practice of immediately recovering casualties continued for United States during the Vietnam War.[11]

Repatriation laws

Repatriation laws give non-citizen foreigners who are part of the titular majority group the opportunity to immigrate and receive citizenship. Repatriation of their titular diaspora is practiced by most ethnic nation states. Repatriation laws have been created in many countries to enable diasporas to immigrate ("return") to their "kin-state". This is sometimes known as the exercise of the right of return. Repatriation laws give members of the diaspora the right to immigrate to their kin-state and they serve to maintain close ties between the state and its diaspora and gives preferential treatment to diaspora immigrants.

Most countries in central and eastern Europe as well as Armenia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Japan, Kazakhstan, the Philippines, Spain, South Korea, Taiwan, and Turkey have longstanding repatriation legislation.[13] China, Japan, Norway and Serbia also have repatriation laws for their diaspora populations. The number of countries with repatriation laws has mushroomed since the end of Soviet communism and most independent nations that were once part of the communist domain in Europe have since legislated repatriation laws. Many other countries such as Jordan and Sweden have (or have had) generous immigration policies with regard to the nation's diaspora without having formally enacted repatriation laws. Such states can be described as practicing common law repatriation.

In comparison, one of the central tenets of the Rastafari movement is the desirability of the repatriation of black people from the Americas and elsewhere back to Africa. While Ethiopia specifically has land available in Shashamane to encourage this project, black people who are citizens of countries outside Africa do not have the right of return to Africa, although as individuals they are free to try to emigrate.

Psychological aspects

Repatriation is often the "forgotten" phase of the expatriation cycle; the emphasis for support is mostly on the actual period abroad. However, many repatriates report experiencing difficulties on return: one is no longer special, practical problems arise, new knowledge gained is no longer useful, etc. These difficulties are highly influenced by a number of factors including self-management, spouse's adjustment, time spent abroad and skill utilisation. What is crucial is that every individual perceives these factors in a different way. Reintegration is a process of re-inclusion or re-incorporation of a person into a group or a process, and may contribute to overcoming repatriation.[7]

Direct managers and HR staff often notice the difficulties a repatriate experiences, but they are not always able to act on it. Budget shortcomings and time constraints are frequently cited as reasons why it fails to be an agenda priority. Solutions for repatriation difficulties do not have to be expensive and can lead to great benefits for the company. Basic support can consist, for example, of good communication in advance, during and after the international assignment, or a mentor program to assist the repatriate. The expatriate and his/her family should feel understood by his or her company. Support can increase job satisfaction, thereby protecting the investment made by the company.[14]

Repatriation of non-human entities

Human remains

Return of human remains to their nation of origin. In the United States, Native Americans' human remains are uncovered and removed from their burial sites in the construction/land development process or as part of archaeological excavations. The Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA) of 1990 established the process whereby federally recognized Indian tribes and Native Hawaiian organizations can request that federal agencies and institutions receiving federal funds return culturally affiliated human remains. The NAGPRA also sets forth provisions that allow for the disposition of Native American human remains found on federal lands to the affiliated Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization. NAGPRA does not apply to the Smithsonian Institution, which is covered under the repatriation provisions of the National Museum of the American Indian Act of 1989. In previous eras it was common for British colonial authorities to collect heads and other body parts of indigenous peoples such as Indigenous Australians and Māori for display in British museums. The repatriation of these body parts is currently ongoing. For an example of a successful body part repatriation, see Yagan. Another example can be seen through the dedicated work of the Karanga Aotearoa Repatriation Programme, established in partnership between Māori and the New Zealand government in 2003. This programme is administered by the Museum of New Zealand Te Papa Tongarewa (Te Papa), and since 2003 has repatriated over 350 Māori and Moriori ancestral remains to Aotearoa New Zealand. Article 12 of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples affirms that indigenous peoples have the right to repatriate their human remains. The declaration was passed in September 2007 with the support of 143 countries. The four opposing countries—Australia, New Zealand, Canada, and the United States—subsequently endorsed the declaration.

Cultural artifacts

Cultural or art repatriation is the return of cultural objects or works of art to their country of origin (usually referring to ancient art), or (for looted material) its former owners (or their heirs).

Economic repatriation

Economic repatriation refers to economic measures taken by a country to reduce foreign capital investment.

Repatriation of currency

Repatriation of currency is when foreign currency is converted back to the currency of the home country. An example would be an American converting British pounds back to U.S. dollars. Repatriation also refers to the payment of a dividend by a foreign corporation to a U.S. corporation. This happens often where the foreign corporation is considered a "controlled foreign corporation" (CFC), which means that more than 50% of the foreign corporation is owned by U.S. shareholders. Generally, foreign direct investment in CFC's are not taxed until a dividend is paid to the controlling U.S. parent company, and is thus repatriated. The foreign direct investment income of the CFC is taxed only by the country where it is incorporated until repatriation. At that time, income is subject to the (typically higher) U.S. tax rate minus the Foreign Tax Credits. (FN: See IRC 951-965) There are currently hundreds of billions of dollars of Foreign direct investment in CFC's because of the disincentive to repatriate those earnings. (See Bureau of Economic Analysis, National Economic Accounts, Integrated Macroeconomic Accounts for the United States, available at the Bureau of Economic Analysis.)[15]

See also

Further reading

  • "Deportation from Saskatchewan during the Great Depression, the case of H.P. Janzen", in John D. Thiesen (ed.), Mennonite Life, 2010.
  • "The Deportation of German Nationals from Canada, 1919 to 1939", in Peter S. Li (ed.), Journal of International Migration and Integration, 2010.
  • "Immigration and Return Migration of German Nationals, Saskatchewan 1919 to 1939", in Patrick Douand (ed.), Prairie Forum, 2008.

References

  1. ^ "Denmark offers immigrants £12,000 to return home", The Telegraph. November 10, 2009. Retrieved 9 feb 2017
  2. ^ "Switzerland and Nigerians Abroad", Temple Chima Ubochi. Nigeria World. November 28, 2009. Retrieved 9 feb 2017
  3. ^ "Irish government to pay immigrants to go home", Henry McDonald. The Guardian. November 14, 2009. Retrieved 9 feb 2017
  4. ^ "Germany to pay for migrants to go home", Cynthia Kroet. Politico EU. December 9, 2016. Retrieved 9 feb 2017
  5. ^ "Thousands of migrants paid by Swedish gov't to leave", Michael F. Haverluck. One News Now. August 29, 2016. Retrieved 9 feb 2017
  6. ^ "A fresh start in Nigeria, brought to you by Switzerland", Veronica DeVore. Swiss Info. June 6, 2014. Retrieved 9 feb 2017
  7. ^ a b c Perruchoud, Richard and Jillyanne Redpath-Cross (eds.), Glossary on Migration, Second Edition, International Organisation for Migration, International Migration Law, No. 25, Geneva, 2011.
  8. ^ Brachet, Julien (2016). "Policing the Desert: The IOM in Libya Beyond War and Peace". Antipode. 48 (2): 272–292. doi:10.1111/anti.12176.
  9. ^ Wack, Kevin J.; Toby Schonfeld (2012). "Patient Autonomy and the Unfortunate Choice between Repatriation and Suboptimal Treatment". American Journal of Bioethics. 12 (9): 6–7. doi:10.1080/15265161.2012.692444. PMID 22881843.
  10. ^ Fields, Paul. "Ostarbeiters". Coffee Lounge. Retrieved January 11, 2015.
  11. ^ a b c Sledge, Michael (2005-04-26) [First published 2005]. Soldier Dead: How We Recover, Identify, Bury, and Honor Our Military Fallen. New York: Columbia University Press. pp. 78–80. ISBN 9780231509374. OCLC 60527603.
  12. ^ Not all remains from the Korean War were returned to the home countries. Some 2,300 casualties are buried at the United Nations Memorial Cemetery in Busan, South Korea.
  13. ^ Yakobson, Alexander; Rubinstein, Amnon. "Democratic Norms, Diasporas, and Israel's Law of Return" (PDF). ajc.org. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2010-11-26.
  14. ^ Ripmeester, N. “Handle with care”, Graduate Recruiter, Issue 22 (February) 2005
  15. ^ "U.S. Department of Commerce. Bureau of Economic Analysis". bea.gov.

External links

African-American settlement in Africa

The history of African-American settlement in Africa extends to the beginnings of ex-slave repatriation to Africa from European colonies in the Americas.

Antiquities

Antiquities are objects from antiquity, especially the civilizations of the Mediterranean: the Classical antiquity of Greece and Rome, Ancient Egypt and the other Ancient Near Eastern cultures. Artifacts from earlier periods such as the Mesolithic, and other civilizations from Asia and elsewhere may also be covered by the term. The phenomenon of giving a high value to ancient artifacts is found in other cultures, notably China, where Chinese ritual bronzes, three to two thousand years old, have been avidly collected and imitated for centuries, and the Pre-Columbian cultures of Mesoamerica, where in particular the artifacts of the earliest Olmec civilization are found reburied in significant sites of later cultures up to the Spanish Conquest.

Austin Hospital, Melbourne

The Austin Hospital is a major teaching public hospital located in Melbourne's north eastern suburb of Heidelberg, and is administered by Austin Health, along with the Heidelberg Repatriation Hospital and the Royal Talbot Rehabilitation Centre.

Back-to-Africa movement

The Back-to-Africa movement, also known as the Colonization movement or After slave act, originated in the United States during the 19th century. It encouraged those of African descent to return to the African homelands of their ancestors. This movement would eventually inspire other movements, ranging from the Nation of Islam to the Rastafari movement and proved to be popular among African Americans.

Buhl Woman

Buhla is the name for a skeleton of a prehistoric (Paleo-Indian) woman found in a quarry near Buhl, Idaho, United States, in January 1989. The skeleton's age has been estimated by radiocarbon dating at 10,675 ± 95 BP, which confirms this as one of the oldest sets of human remains found in the Americas. The discovery was made by a quarry worker when he noticed what was found to be a thigh bone in the screen of a rock crusher. The nearly complete skeleton was subsequently unearthed nearby.

Department of Veterans' Affairs (Australia)

The Department of Veterans' Affairs is a department of the Government of Australia, established in 1976, and charged with the responsibility of delivering government programs for war veterans, members of the Australian Defence Force, members of the Australian Federal Police, and their dependants. The Repatriation Commission's Day-to-Day manager is the Department of Veterans' Affairs.

For administration purposes, the department forms part of the Defence portfolio. The Minister for Defence acts on behalf of the Minister for Veterans' Affairs within the Cabinet.

The head of the department is the Secretary of the Department of Veterans' Affairs, currently Simon Lewis , who is responsible to the Minister for Veterans' Affairs, the Minister for Defence Personnel, and the Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Centenary of ANZAC, currently the Hon. Darren Chester . The Secretary of the Department also has the responsibility of the Repatriation Commission.

Filipino Repatriation Act of 1935

The Filipino Repatriation Act of 1935 for Filipino people living in the United States arepatriation program which provided them subsidized passage back to the Philippines.

Human rights in Laos

The situation of human rights in Laos has often been, and remains, a recognized cause for serious concern. Laos is one a handful of Marxist-Leninist governments and is ruled by a one-party communist government backed by the Lao People's Army in alliance with the Vietnam People's Army and Socialist Republic of Vietnam in Hanoi.

Amnesty International, The Centre for Public Policy Analysis, the United League for Democracy in Laos, Human Rights Watch, the Lao Human Rights Council and other non-governmental organizations (NGO)s have raised repeated serious concerns about the ratification record of the Laos Government on human rights standards and its lack of cooperation with the UN human rights mechanisms and legislative measures which impact negatively on human rights. They have also raised concerns in relation to disappeared civic activist Sombath Somphone, and jailed and tortured political and religious dissidents, military attacks on unarmed civilians, as well as the lack of freedom of expression, torture, poor prison conditions, restrictions on freedom of religions, protection of refugees and asylum-seekers, extrajudicial killing and rape by the Lao People's Army and security forces and the improper use of the death penalty.The policy objectives of both the Lao communist government and international donors remain focused toward achieving sustainable economic growth and poverty reduction, but restrictions on freedom of expression and association are a source of concern. The barring of independent human rights monitors makes an exact appraisal of the situation impossible. In particular, the situation for groups of ethnic Hmong hiding in the jungle remains grave and leads to a steady stream of people taking refuge in neighboring Thailand. The death penalty remains in force, although no executions have been reported since 1989.The U.S. State Department reports on human rights around the world declare that most Lao trials in 2003 were little more than pro forma examinations of the accused, with a verdict having already been reached. The State Department indicated that in some instances police administratively overruled court decisions, at times detaining a defendant exonerated by the court, in violation of the law. Moreover, while Lao law prohibits torture, members of the security forces reportedly subjected prisoners to torture and other abuses. A significant issue in human rights in Laos is the presence of anti-government rebels, mainly of the Hmong ethnic minority, who have reportedly been harshly treated by the Lao government. In its 2006 report the State Department mentions that "The government's overall human rights record worsened during the year." For more details see the report (link given below under "see also").

Lindela Repatriation Centre

The Lindela Repatriation Centre is a detention centre for undocumented migrants in South Africa.

The Lindela Repatriation Centre (Lindela) is one of South Africa’s largest facilities for the holding of undocumented migrants. These people are all awaiting determination of their legal status in South Africa (or deportation). Due to an ever increasing burden on SAPS holding cells and the lack of detention capacity in the country’s prisons, the need for a repatriation centre in Gauteng was identified by the Department of Home Affairs. In 1996, Lindela was opened to meet this requirement. It claims to be compliant with all good governance and lawful criteria.

The Department of Home Affairs is legally and administratively responsible for all matters pertaining to the apprehension, holding, processing, repatriation and release of illegal aliens at the Lindela repatriation centre.

Detainees are repatriated and transported by Home Affairs, almost on a daily basis, to border posts or O. R. Tambo International Airport and Lanseria International Airport.

Mexican Repatriation

The Mexican Repatriation was a mass deportation of Mexicans and Mexican-Americans from the United States between 1929 and 1936. Estimates of how many were repatriated range from 400,000 to 2,000,000. An estimated sixty percent of those deported were birthright citizens of the United States. Because the forced movement was based on race, and ignored citizenship, the process meets modern legal definitions of ethnic cleansing.Widely blamed for exacerbating the overall economic downturn of the Great Depression, Mexicans were further targeted because of "the proximity of the Mexican border, the physical distinctiveness of mestizos, and easily identifiable barrios." While supported by the federal government, actual deportations were largely organized and carried out by city and state governments, often with support from local private entities.

Minister for Veterans' Affairs

The Australian Minister for Veterans' Affairs is The Hon. Darren Chester , since 5 March 2018. Chester also serves as the Minister for Defence Personnel and the Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Centenary of ANZAC following a rearrangement in the second Turnbull Ministry.In the Government of Australia, the minister oversees income support, compensation, care and commemoration programs for more than 400,000 veterans and their widows, widowers and dependants; and administers the portfolio through the Department of Veterans' Affairs.

Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act

The Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), Pub. L. 101-601, 25 U.S.C. 3001 et seq., 104 Stat. 3048, is a United States federal law enacted on 16 November 1990.

The Act requires federal agencies and institutions that receive federal funding to return Native American "cultural items" to lineal descendants and culturally affiliated Indian tribes and Native Hawaiian organizations. Cultural items include human remains, funerary objects, sacred objects, and objects of cultural patrimony. A program of federal grants assists in the repatriation process and the Secretary of the Interior may assess civil penalties on museums that fail to comply.

NAGPRA also establishes procedures for the inadvertent discovery or planned excavation of Native American cultural items on federal or tribal lands. While these provisions do not apply to discoveries or excavations on private or state lands, the collection provisions of the Act may apply to Native American cultural items if they come under the control of an institution that receives federal funding.

Lastly, NAGPRA makes it a criminal offense to traffic in Native American human remains without right of possession or in Native American cultural items obtained in violation of the Act. Penalties for a first offense may reach 12 months imprisonment and a $100,000 fine.

Polish population transfers (1944–1946)

The Polish population transfers in 1944–46 from the eastern half of prewar Poland (also known as the expulsions of Poles from the Kresy macroregion), refer to the forced migrations of Poles toward the end – and in the aftermath – of World War II. These were the result of Soviet Union policy that was ratified by its Allies. Similarly the Soviet Union had enforced policy between 1939 and 1941, that targeted and expelled ethnic Poles residing in the Soviet zone of occupation following the Nazi-Soviet invasion of Poland. The second wave of expulsions resulted from the retaking of Poland by the Red Army during the Soviet counter-offensive. It took over territory for its republic of Ukraine, a shift that was ratified at the end of World War II by the Soviet Union's then Allies of the West.

The postwar population transfers, targeting Polish nationals, were part of an official Soviet policy that affected more than one million Polish citizens, who were removed in stages from the Polish areas annexed by the Soviet Union. After the war, following Soviet demands laid out during the Tehran Conference of 1943, the Kresy macroregion was formally incorporated into the Ukrainian, Belarusian and Lithuanian Republics of the Soviet Union. This was agreed at the Potsdam Conference of Allies in 1945, to which the acting Government of the Republic of Poland in exile was not invited.The ethnic displacement of Poles (and also of ethnic Germans, covered in a separate article) was agreed to by the Allied leaders: Winston Churchill of the United Kingdom, Franklin D. Roosevelt of the U.S., and Joseph Stalin of the USSR, during the conferences at both Tehran and Yalta. The Polish transfers were among the largest of several post-war expulsions in Central and Eastern Europe, which displaced a total of about twenty million people.

According to official data, during the state-controlled expulsion between 1945 and 1946, roughly 1,167,000 Poles left the westernmost republics of the Soviet Union, less than 50% of those who registered for population transfer. Another major ethnic Polish transfer took place after Stalin's death, in 1955–1959.The process is variously known as expulsion, deportation, depatriation, or repatriation, depending on the context and the source. The term repatriation, used officially in both communist-controlled Poland and the USSR, was a deliberate distortion, as deported peoples were leaving their homeland rather than returning to it. It is also sometimes referred to as the 'first repatriation' action, in contrast with the 'second repatriation' of 1955–1959. In a wider context, it is sometimes described as a culmination of a process of "de-Polonization" of the areas during and after the world war. The process was planned and carried out by the communist regimes of the USSR and of post-war Poland. Many of the repatriated Poles were settled in formerly German eastern provinces; after 1945, these were referred to as the "Recovered Territories" of the People's Republic of Poland.

Ramesses I

Menpehtyre Ramesses I (or Ramses) was the founding pharaoh of ancient Egypt's 19th dynasty. The dates for his short reign are not completely known but the time-line of late 1292–1290 BC is frequently cited as well as 1295–1294 BC. While Ramesses I was the founder of the 19th dynasty, in reality his brief reign marked the transition between the reign of Horemheb who had stabilized Egypt in the late 18th dynasty and the rule of the powerful pharaohs of this dynasty, in particular his son Seti I and grandson Ramesses II, who would bring Egypt up to new heights of imperial power.

Repatriation (cultural heritage)

Repatriation is the return of art or cultural heritage, usually referring to ancient or looted art, to their country of origin or former owners (or their heirs). The disputed cultural property items are physical artifacts of a group or society that were taken from another group usually in an act of looting, whether in the context of imperialism, colonialism or war. The contested objects range widely from sculptures and paintings to monuments and human remains.

Repatriation of Cossacks after World War II

The Repatriation of Cossacks happened when Cossacks and ethnic Russians and Ukrainians who were against the Soviet Union were handed over by the British forces to the USSR after the Second World War.

The repatriations were agreed to in the Yalta Conference; Stalin claimed the repatriated people were Soviet citizens as of 1939, although many of them had left Russia before or soon after the end of the Russian Civil War or had been born abroad. Most of those Cossacks and Russians fought the Allies, specifically the Soviets, in service to the Axis powers, specifically Germany, yet the repatriations included non-combatant civilians as well. Gen. Poliakov and Col. Chereshneff referred to it as the "Massacre of Cossacks at Lienz".

Repatriation of Poles (1955–59)

Repatriation of Polish population in the years of 1955–1959 (also known as the second repatriation, to distinguish it from the first repatriation in the years 1944-1946) was the second wave of forced repatriation (in fact, deportation) of the Poles living in the territories annexed by the Soviet Union (see Kresy Wschodnie). It should be stressed that the widely used term repatriation, promoted by decades of Polish communist propaganda, is a kind of manipulation and refers to an act of illegal expatriation.

Visa policy of Belize

Visitors to Belize require a visa unless they come from one of the visa-exempt countries. All visitors are required to have sufficient funds, US$75 per day, and documents required for their next destination.

Yagan

Yagan (; c. 1795 – 11 July 1833) was an Indigenous Australian warrior from the Noongar people. He played a key part in early resistance to British colonial settlement and rule in the area surrounding what is now Perth, Western Australia. Yagan was pursued by the local authorities after he killed Erin Entwhistle, a servant of farmer Archibald Butler. It was an act of retaliation after Thomas Smedley, another of Butler's servants, shot at a group of Noongar people stealing potatoes and fowls, killing one of them. The government offered a bounty for Yagan's capture, dead or alive, and a young settler, William Keats, subsequently shot and killed him. Yagan's execution figures in Australian history as a symbol of the unjust and sometimes brutal treatment of the indigenous peoples of Australia by colonial settlers. He is considered a hero by the Noongar.After his shooting, settlers removed Yagan's head to claim the bounty. Later, an official sent it to London, where it was exhibited as an "anthropological curiosity" and eventually given to a museum in Liverpool. It held the head in storage for more than a century before burying it with other remains in an unmarked grave in Liverpool in 1964. Over the years, the Noongar asked for repatriation of the head, both for religious reasons and because of Yagan's traditional stature. The burial site was identified in 1993; officials exhumed the head four years later and repatriated it to Australia. After years of debate within the Noongar community on the appropriate final resting place, Yagan's head was buried in a traditional ceremony in the Swan Valley in July 2010, 177 years after his death.

This page is based on a Wikipedia article written by authors (here).
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 3.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.