In my opinion, refugees and migrants should be evaluated separately. Both have very little in common. For example, an immigrant is an EU citizen who travels to another country with free movement within the EU. This person's ability to meet with friends and family in his / her homeland on social media positively affects his motivation to get used to where he has gone. It is likely that the person who is accustomed to the country he / she is willing to go to for work or education to meet with his / her accustomed environment may shorten the period of acclimatization. It will also increase its efficiency if it is working in a digital environment in the country where it has traveled and is predisposed to it. On the other hand, refugees leave their countries due to necessity due to a big and vital threat. Therefore, their first aim is to move to a safe country. After their passage, they are first taken under protection and all their needs are met by the states. Their purpose, such as finding a job or training, is not a priority. However, in time, these needs will arise if they will remain in the country of asylum. Issues such as education level, social status and economic status of refugees are not priorities. This becomes important if they are permanent. Their meeting with their families and friends in their countries of origin when they come from where they come from can help them to relieve their concerns first. It may have an impact on their acclimation to the country of origin. However, their efficiency depends on their qualification. If they are at a certain level of doing business or education, their social media links and their ability to digitale will work. Their social acceptance is also more difficult than for immigrants. In the countries they go to, they are perceived as the ones who exploit the values ​​of their communities and who should go to their countries as soon as possible. Therefore, it will be easier for migrants to demonstrate their abilities than for refugees. However, in any case, when a new environment is entered, the person's communication with his / her family and friends is a positive development. This will increase social cohesion and productivity.

Thanks Mehmet / I take your point on differences between migrants and refugees and it is well made, but I try to avoid the definitional debate about what makes or defines a refugee or migrant. I am interested in the connection between different kinds or degrees of social inclusion and the same as regards wellbeing. Defining these is in the centre for me.

I agree with most of the points made by Mehmet Emir

Dear Stephen Dobson I doubt that we can discuss and explore "different kinds or degrees of social inclusion" without considering what initially provoked the move.

We must understand that this idea/decision of migration (being forced or voluntary) is a daunting task for the person who moves. Therefore, the initial rationale that informs and fuels the move is what determines the degree to which this person would later show willingness, openness and adaptability for integrative and inclusive purposes in the host country.

You are asking "how [integrational] success can be measured". I believe we need to conceptualize success more specifically for each group depending on their initial reasons for move and then gradual and more long term evolving needs after migration. Therefore, the distinction between diverse groups of migrants, refugees and those who move within the global north or from the global south to north is a very fundamental aspect of answering such questions.

dear both

- nice points

Would you like to elaborate on the indicators of success for the two kinds of groups as you both define them - refugees and migrants - I would be interested to hear your views?

To give an example - in my work with colleagues (attached) we found our data showed one key identified by both groups was language skills and understanding in the new country