Therefore, this mandate can only be exercised in the state of exile and the protection it offers is maintained at the border of the State of origin. This means that refugees in principle lose UNHCR protection as soon as they decide to return to their country of origin. The consequences of repatriation to France, Portugal and Germany, which have just been discussed, are particularly noteworthy in their conclusions about the relatively small impact of immigration on indigenous peoples, since these immigrants probably share the same language as thieves and, to some extent, a common cultural heritage. On the basis of these similarities, one would think that immigrants and Aboriginal people compete strongly in the labour market in these cases. On the other hand, in countries such as the United States where immigrants face a deficit in their mother tongue, the opportunities for immigrants to compete in the same labour market as natives may be more limited. Since repatriation may be voluntary or forced, the term is also used as a euphemism for removal. Involuntary or forced repatriation is the return to their countries of origin of refugees, prisoners of war or civilian prisoners, in circumstances that leave no viable alternatives. Under current international law, prisoners of war, civilian detainees or refugees who refuse to be repatriated, particularly if motivated by fear of political persecution in their own country, should be protected from discrimination and, if possible, grant temporary or permanent asylum.  The forced return of people to countries where they would be persecuted is more precisely referred to as rejection, which is contrary to international law.
In 1985, the Executive Committee strengthened this jurisdictional framework for UNHCR by reaffirming its repatriation mandate. It extends “from the beginning of the feasibility assessment and subsequently into the planning and implementation phase of the return” (conclusion 40, XXXVI meeting). States must recognize that UNHCR has a legitimate interest in the consequences of return on individuals and should therefore have direct and unhindered access to returnees. Most Central and Eastern European countries as well as Armenia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Japan, Kazakhstan, the Philippines, Spain, South Korea, Taiwan and Turkey have long had repatriation laws.  China, Japan, Norway and Serbia also have repatriation laws for their diaspora population.