Historic Belonging and Contemporary Displacement: Syrian Armenians Navigating “Status” in Armenia

Abstract

Internal and civil wars affect the lives of religious and ethnic minorities the most. For Syrian citizens of Armenian origin, the Republic of Armenia represented one of the most accessible and meaningful destinations to relocate to, shaped by shared ethnicity, collective memory, and historical ties. When the Syrian war erupted in 2011, thousands opted to resettle in Armenia, yet they and host institutions struggled to categorize them as immigrants, refugees, or repatriates. This ambiguous status has received little scholarly attention. To explore these complexities, the study employed a survey-based research design involving 124 participants, supplemented by an open-ended question intended to capture personal narratives and nuanced identity negotiations. The manuscript examines how the labels immigrant, refugee, and repatriate carry distinct legal, social, and emotional implications, especially against the backdrop of the 1915 Armenian Genocide’s enduring memory and the particularly negative connotations of “immigrant” and “refugee” in Western Armenian and Arabic languages. Within this contested semantic and policy terrain, repatriation appears not merely as a bureaucratic category but as a culturally resonant and sometimes preferred pathway for some Diaspora Armenians, informed by lifelong exposure to repatriation narratives through formal education (language textbooks) and informal communal practices. The case sheds light on the broader conception of stakeholders, including how they self-identify, how they understand their status in Armenia, and the factors shaping their choices, particularly in the context of contemporary geopolitics and the role of education in influencing external perceptions of them.

1. Introduction

1.1. Research Motivation

When the Syrian war broke out and gradually encroached upon central Damascus, my hometown, it forced many Syrians, particularly young people at the threshold of their careers, to consider alternative futures. Among my peers, migration, often through uncertain or irregular routes, became a common response, with destinations such as Germany, France, and Sweden representing hope and stability. For Syrian Armenians like myself, however, there existed another, distinct possibility: a place long referred to as hayrenik (homeland in Armenian which literally translates into fatherland). This was not an abstract concept, but one cultivated through years of education and cultural practice in Armenian schools in Damascus, a place we learned about in textbooks, sang its national anthems alongside the Syrian national anthem, and imagined as both origin and destiny. Unlike our non-Armenian Syrian counterparts, whose mobility was constrained, Armenian identity could facilitate entry into the Republic of Armenia, often through documentation as simple as a baptism certificate, an advantage frequently perceived as a form of privilege.

I chose to relocate to Armenia and begin a new chapter of my life there. Yet, upon arrival, my Western Armenian speech immediately marked me as an outsider, even as I identified deeply as Armenian. I found myself confronted with competing labels: I was asked whether I was a refugee or an immigrant, while my father insisted that I was a repatriate. These categorizations raised a fundamental question: how can one be a refugee in one’s own homeland? Such tensions prompted a deeper reflection on identity, belonging, and classification among Syrian Armenians. It is this personal and intellectual dissonance that ultimately motivated the present study, which seeks to examine how Syrian Armenians understand and negotiate these categories in the context of displacement and return.

1.2. Context: Conflict-Induced Displacement and Minority Vulnerability

The conflict in Syria, which began in 2011 as a series of peaceful uprisings, quickly escalated into a protracted and devastating civil war, producing one of the largest displacement crises in contemporary history. Millions of Syrians were forced to flee their homes, seeking refuge both within and beyond the country’s borders. Recent estimates indicate that approximately 7.2 million people are internally displaced, while more than six million Syrians live as refugees worldwide, dispersed across over 130 countries, with significant concentrations in neighboring states such as Jordan, Lebanon, and Turkey (UNDP and Al Fourati 2024).

Within this broader context of forced migration, minority communities have experienced heightened vulnerability. Despite Syria’s long-standing religious and cultural diversity, the breakdown of state structures and the escalation of violence have disproportionately affected minority groups, exposing them to increased risks of displacement, marginalization, and insecurity. Among these groups were Syrian Armenians who occupy a distinct position shaped by both their minority status in Syria and their transnational ties to the Republic of Armenia.

The outbreak of the war prompted a significant movement of Syrian Armenians to Armenia, a migration that is simultaneously characterized by forced displacement and diasporic return. During the peak years of the conflict, approximately 22,000–24,000 Syrian Armenians relocated to Armenia, although this number declined over time due to onward migration and partial returns to Syria. More recent estimates suggest that around 14,000 have remained, primarily in Yerevan, where economic opportunities and community networks are more accessible (Orbeli Analytical Center 2019; Kasbarian 2025). Importantly, this movement is neither linear nor final; rather, it reflects a pattern of multidirectional mobility, in which Armenia functions as a site of refuge, a symbolic homeland, and, for some, a temporary point of transit. Moreover, ongoing political and economic uncertainties have further shaped the precarity and decision-making processes of Syrian Armenians regarding settlement and belonging (Kasbarian 2025).

1.3. Problem Statement: Ambiguity of “Status” (Immigrant, Refugee, Repatriate)

Within this complex migratory and socio-political landscape, the “status” of Syrian Armenians in Armenia remains deeply ambiguous. Individuals are variously categorized as immigrants, refugees, or repatriates, labels that carry distinct legal, social, and symbolic meanings. However, these classifications often fail to adequately capture the lived experiences and self-perceptions of those they describe. The coexistence of these overlapping categories raises fundamental questions about belonging, identity, and the nature of “return” to a homeland that is simultaneously familiar and unfamiliar.

Building on existing scholarship that conceptualizes status as fluid and socially negotiated, this article examines how status is understood and experienced among Syrian–Armenians in Armenia. Drawing on collected data, the study demonstrates how the intersection of migration, belonging, economic position, and community perceptions within the particular social context of Syrian–Armenians in Armenia shapes status. By foregrounding the perspectives of the community, the study aims to illuminate the intersections between institutional categorization and personal identity in the context of displacement and resettlement.

1.4. Research Aims and Questions

Building on this framework, the study is guided by the following research questions:

• How do Syrian Armenians interpret and negotiate their “status” in the Republic of Armenia?
• What legal, social, and emotional implications do the categories of immigrant, refugee, and repatriate carry in their lived experiences?

2. Historical and Conceptual Background

2.1. Armenians in Syria

Armenians have maintained a longstanding presence in Syria, with roots tracing back to the 6th century. Their population grew more significantly between the 9th and 15th centuries, influenced by Byzantine policies affecting Armenian communities. The largest wave of Armenian migration, however, occurred during and after the Armenian Genocide (1915–1920). By 1918, their numbers reached approximately 142,000, later rising to around 200,000–210,000 across Syria, although such figures remain approximate and debated among scholars (Hovannisian 1997; Kévorkian 2011). Beginning in the 1940s, political and social transformations led to population decline, as many Armenians emigrated to Lebanon, the United States, Canada, and Europe. This period also coincided with the Soviet-led “Great Repatriation” (1946–1949), during which thousands of Armenians from the Middle East relocated to Soviet Armenia. Although framed as a return to the homeland, many later faced marginalization and repression under Stalinist policies. As Gatta (2019) argues, the memory of this experience continues to shape diasporic understandings of “repatriation,” often imbuing it with ambivalence.

Despite these movements, Armenian communities in Syria remained relatively stable for decades. Major centers developed in Aleppo, Damascus, and Latakia, alongside smaller but longstanding communities in Kessab, Yacoubiyyah, and the Jazeera region. Over time, Armenians established schools, churches, cultural institutions, and publishing networks that sustained communal identity and language (Hovannisian 1997). However, the outbreak of the Syrian war triggered a new wave of displacement, leading thousands to leave for Armenia, Europe, and North America (Katerjian 2016; Virtual Museum of History of Armenian Diaspora 2014). While precise population figures remain uncertain, Armenians have long constituted a significant diaspora community and a recognized minority within Syrian society (Katerjian 2016).

2.2. The Syrian War and Armenian-Origin Syrians: Armenia as a Destination—Symbolic Homeland or Practical Refuge

The Syrian war, beginning in 2011, marked a turning point for Armenian-origin Syrians, transforming a historically rooted and stable community into one marked by displacement and demographic decline. As violence spread across key population centers such as Aleppo, Damascus, and Kessab, homes, institutions, and communal infrastructures were severely damaged, prompting large-scale migration (Avagyan 2025; Hovsepian 2025).

Armenia emerged as a key destination, receiving tens of thousands of Syrian Armenians during the peak years of the conflict. Many were granted facilitated access to citizenship or residency through simplified procedures based on ethnic origin. Policy reports suggest that a significant proportion acquired Armenian citizenship or maintained dual legal statuses, shaping their access to rights, employment, and integration pathways (Uzelac and Meester 2018). These institutional frameworks highlight how “status” is not only socially negotiated but also legally produced. While this movement reflects longstanding diasporic ties to an ancestral homeland, it cannot be understood solely as return migration. For many, Armenia represents a symbolic homeland grounded in collective memory and historical continuity. Yet, this symbolic attachment does not necessarily translate into lived belonging. Syrian Armenians frequently encounter social, cultural, and economic challenges that complicate integration, revealing tensions between shared ethnicity and everyday experience (Shapira et al. 2024).

At the same time, Armenia functions as a site of refuge, offering safety and opportunities for rebuilding lives. However, Syrian Armenians often occupy an ambiguous position, navigating overlapping identities as both “repatriates” and “refugees” (Pomieciński 2017). This duality underscores the gap between cultural belonging and structural realities. Moreover, migration patterns indicate that Armenia is not always a final destination; for some, it serves as a temporary point before onward migration to Europe or North America. As Yepremyan (2018) suggests, this raises broader questions about whether Armenia functions as a homeland or as one node within a transnational diaspora network.

These dynamics point to the need for a more nuanced understanding of “status” as a category shaped by both institutional frameworks and lived experience.

2.3. Conceptualizing “Status” in Migration Studies

In migration studies, “status” encompasses legal, social, and identity-related dimensions that shape how individuals experience mobility and belonging (Bloch 2008; Sajjad 2018). Rather than a fixed category, status is increasingly understood as dynamic and negotiated, shifting across contexts and over time. Migrants may move between categories such as refugee, immigrant, and returnee depending on legal frameworks, state policies, and personal trajectories (Cassarino 2004; Long 2013). This fluidity is particularly evident in cases that combine forced migration with diasporic return, where conventional distinctions between voluntary and involuntary mobility become blurred.

2.4. Definitions and Distinctions

Immigrants are broadly defined as individuals who relocate for economic, social, or familial reasons, often with the intention of permanent settlement (Castles et al. 2005). Their status is shaped both by legal frameworks and by expectations of integration and participation in the host society.

Refugees, as defined by the 1951 Refugee Convention, are individuals fleeing persecution or violence who cannot safely return to their country of origin (UNHCR 2010). While this legal definition provides a framework for protection, scholarship increasingly conceptualizes “refugeehood” as a lived condition characterized by uncertainty, marginalization, and ongoing negotiation of identity (Malkki 1995; Brun 2015).

Repatriates are individuals who return to their country of origin or ancestral homeland, often due to cultural or ethnic ties (Brubaker 2005). However, repatriation is not merely a legal or demographic category but a complex process shaped by imagined homelands, diasporic memory, and expectations of return. As research shows, return does not necessarily produce belonging; instead, it may generate new forms of ambiguity and estrangement (Anderson 2006; Cassarino 2004; Tsuda 2009).

2.5. Legal, Social, and Self-Ascribed Status

Status can be viewed through multiple lenses:

• Legal status: Codified in law, determining rights, residency, and protection (Koser 2016).
• Social status: Shaped by societal perceptions, stereotypes, and inclusion/exclusion dynamics (Van Tubergen 2025).
• Self-ascribed status: How migrants perceive and claim their own identity, which may not align with legal or social categories (Sajjad 2018). Self-perception can influence integration, well-being, and sense of belonging, particularly when external labels conflict with cultural or historical narratives.

In cases of diasporic return, such as that of Syrian Armenians, these dimensions often diverge significantly. Individuals may be legally recognized as citizens or repatriates, socially perceived as outsiders, and self-identify in ways that reflect hybrid or transnational belonging. This disjuncture highlights the importance of examining status not only as a formal classification but as an experiential and relational construct.

2.6. The Politics of Labeling

The assignment of status is inherently political. Labels such as “refugee” or “immigrant” shape access to resources, legal protections, and social recognition, while also carrying potential stigma (Bloch 2008; Fiddian-Qasmiyeh et al. 2014). In contexts of diaspora return, these labels become particularly unstable, as individuals may simultaneously occupy multiple categories.

The case of Syrian Armenians in Armenia illustrates these tensions clearly. Their movement can be understood as forced migration, diasporic return, and strategic relocation at once. This multiplicity challenges rigid migration frameworks and underscores the need to conceptualize mobility as fluid, historically situated, and shaped by both structural conditions and personal narratives.

3. Literature Review

Research on conflict-induced displacement consistently highlights how war reshapes patterns of mobility while disproportionately affecting minority communities. The Syrian conflict (2011–), often framed as one of the largest displacement crises of the 21st century, has generated complex migratory trajectories that blur conventional legal and social categories. Within this broader literature, scholars such as Stephen Castles emphasize that migration labels such as “refugee” or “immigrant” are not neutral descriptors but politically and socially constructed categories that shape access to rights and belonging (Castles et al. 2005). This insight is reinforced by work on the politics of labeling, which demonstrates how such categories function as instruments of governance and social differentiation (Bloch 2008). A growing body of work on Armenian diasporic movements situates Syrian Armenians within a longer history of forced migration, especially following the Armenian Genocide. Studies by Richard G. Hovannisian show how diasporic identity has been shaped by narratives of loss, survival, and eventual “return” to a symbolic homeland (Hovannisian 1997). This historical consciousness informs contemporary migration decisions, as Armenia is not merely a host state but also an imagined site of belonging. However, symbolic attachment does not necessarily translate into smooth reintegration, revealing tensions between ethnic affinity and socio-economic realities. Migration scholarship further problematizes the concept of “status” by distinguishing between legal definitions and lived experiences. For instance, Khalid Koser argues that legal status often fails to capture migrants’ self-identification and everyday practices of belonging (Koser 2016). Similarly, Farah N. Sajjad highlights that categories such as “refugee” and “migrant” are contested and politically loaded, often masking the complexity of displacement experiences (Sajjad 2018). Broader scholarship also underscores that such labels can simultaneously provide protection and produce stigma, shaping how displaced populations are perceived and treated (Fiddian-Qasmiyeh et al. 2014). Recent studies focusing specifically on Syrian Armenians underscore this duality. Researchers such as Karine Shapira and Anna Pomieciński describe how Armenian-origin Syrians navigate overlapping identities shaped by displacement, diaspora, and homeland narratives (Hunter et al. 2024; Pomieciński 2017). Armenia functions both as a practical refuge that offers relative safety and accessible citizenship pathways and as a symbolic homeland embedded in collective memory. Yet integration challenges persist, including linguistic differences, labor market barriers, and social distinctions between local and diasporic Armenians. Finally, the literature on the politics of labeling emphasizes that migration categories carry emotional and cultural weight beyond their legal meanings. Scholars note that terms like “refugee” may evoke vulnerability or dependency, while “repatriate” can signal dignity and historical continuity (Bloch 2008; Sajjad 2018). For Syrian Armenians, these connotations are further mediated by diasporic narratives of return, often reinforced through education and community practices. This aligns with broader theoretical perspectives that view migration status as a negotiated and dynamic process rather than a fixed classification.

Overall, existing scholarship provides insights into displacement, diaspora, and identity construction, yet it leaves a gap in understanding how individuals actively interpret and negotiate their “status” in specific contexts, giving them a voice to express it in their own ways and based on their own experiences. The case of Syrian Armenians in Armenia contributes to this discussion by illustrating how legal categories, historical memory, and self-perception intersect, challenging rigid distinctions between immigrant, refugee, and repatriate.

4. Methodology

4.1. Research Design

This study employs a survey-based research design to examine participants’ perspectives on the topic under investigation. Data is collected through a structured survey instrument consisting primarily of closed-ended questions to generate quantitative data, together with one open-ended question that allowed participants to provide additional comments and contextual insights. Quantitative responses were analyzed using descriptive statistical methods, while qualitative responses from the open-ended item were reviewed using a basic thematic approach to identify recurring ideas and patterns.

The quantitative component facilitates the identification of broader patterns in how participants perceive and select categories such as immigrant, refugee, and repatriate. The qualitative component, derived from open-ended responses, provides deeper insight into participants’ lived experiences, emotional registers, and an interpretation of their chosen status.

4.2. Data Collection

Data were collected between in February and April of 2023 through a structured survey administered to 124 Syrian Armenian participants residing in Armenia.

A purposive sampling strategy was employed to recruit individuals of Syrian Armenian background who had relocated to Armenia following the onset of the Syrian conflict in 2011. Participants were recruited through social media posts that included a consent form and a voluntary survey and snowball sampling, whereby initial participants referred others within their networks.

While the sample is not statistically representative, it is appropriate for exploratory and interpretive analysis.

The survey instrument consisted of: (1) seven closed-ended questions designed to collect demographic data and assess general perceptions of “status”; (2) one open-ended question aimed at eliciting detailed personal reflections on identity, belonging, and self-categorization.

The survey was administered in both Western Armenian and English. Participants were given full flexibility in how they expressed themselves, including the use of Armenian script, Latin transliteration, Arabic script, English, or code-switching, thereby allowing for more authentic and nuanced responses.

4.3. Data Analysis

Quantitative data were analyzed using descriptive statistics, including frequency distributions, to identify patterns in how participants understand and select status categories. Qualitative data were analyzed using thematic analysis. Responses to the open-ended question were coded inductively, allowing themes to emerge organically from the data. The analysis focused on recurring patterns as well as divergences in how participants articulated identity, belonging, and the social and emotional implications of different labels.

The integration of quantitative and qualitative findings occurred at the interpretive stage, where statistical trends were contextualized and deepened through qualitative insights.

4.4. Ethical Considerations

As a Syria-born Armenian who relocated to Armenia during the Syrian crisis, I approached the research process with particular care and reflexivity. This positionality informed a heightened sensitivity in data collection, making ethical considerations central to the study. Informed consent was obtained from all participants before data collection, ensuring they were fully aware of the study’s purpose, procedures, and their right to withdraw at any time.

Confidentiality and anonymity were strictly maintained throughout the research process, with no personally identifiable information disclosed.

Given the potentially sensitive nature of topics related to displacement, identity, and trauma, special care was taken in both the design of the survey and the interpretation of responses. Questions were framed thoughtfully to minimize distress, and participants’ narratives were handled with respect to avoid harm or re-traumatization.

The survey was administered in both Western Armenian (the native language of most Syrian Armenians) and English. Participants were given full flexibility in their responses, including the choice of language and orthography (e.g., Armenian script, Latin transliteration, code-switching, Arabic script, or English), allowing them to express themselves in the manner most comfortable and authentic to their experiences.

5. Findings

5.1. Demographic and Migration Profiles

The study included 124 participants, of whom 66% identified as female and 34% as male. Participants represented diverse age groups, educational backgrounds, and lengths of residence in Armenia, reflecting varied migration trajectories since 2011. In terms of material integration, 39.52% (n = 49) reported owning real estate in Armenia, while 48.39% (n = 60) did not; smaller proportions indicated property under construction (5.65%, n = 7), “other” (4.03%, n = 5), or preferred not to answer (2.42%, n = 3).

These patterns point to uneven levels of long-term settlement and economic stability. Despite a shared ethnic background, participants’ differing levels of material integration indicate stratified capacities for settlement shaped by class, resources, and time. This diversity complicates any singular understanding of “return.”

Migration pathways were largely shaped by conflict-related displacement, but motivations were mixed. Some participants were forced to leave, while others were also motivated by a desire to return to a perceived homeland. Migration cannot be easily divided into ‘forced’ or ‘voluntary.’ Instead, repatriation emerges as a mixed process in which constraint and personal choice coexist, challenging the assumption that return to an ethnic homeland is always clear or fully voluntary.

5.2. Perceptions of Legal Status

In response to the question “How do you identify your status in Armenia?” (N = 153 responses; multiple answers allowed), the most frequently selected category was “citizen of Armenia” (43.79%, n = 67), followed by “repatriate” (34.64%, n = 53). Smaller proportions identified as “immigrant” (9.80%, n = 15), “refugee” (4.58%, n = 7), or selected “other” (7.19%, n = 11). Overall, participants preferred categories associated with belonging and legitimacy, while “immigrant” and “refugee” were less commonly used.

Rather than neutral descriptors, these labels are used to claim belonging. Legal categories function as symbolic tools through which individuals position themselves socially. The option to select multiple responses further indicates that legal status is experienced as flexible and overlapping rather than fixed.

These findings challenge the idea that categories such as “citizen,” “refugee,” and “immigrant” are clearly separate. Instead, participants’ responses reveal a gap between official classifications and lived experience. While identifying as “citizen” or “repatriate” reflects a desire for national belonging, it does not necessarily translate into social acceptance. Formal status, therefore, does not resolve belonging but reshapes it in more complex ways.

5.3. Social and Emotional Dimensions of Labels

Participants’ narratives show that legal categories carry strong emotional and social meanings. Labels such as “immigrant” and “refugee” are associated with displacement, instability, and lack of choice, while “citizen” and “repatriate” convey belonging, dignity, and legitimacy. As one participant explained:

“I am an immigrant because I am away from my place of birth, and I am a refugee because I sought refuge in Armenia until I find another refuge.”

This illustrates how individuals use multiple labels to capture different aspects of their experience, treating them as flexible rather than fixed identities. At the same time, participants’ accounts reveal a clear tension between formal and lived belonging. Even when individuals identify as citizens or repatriates, they may still feel socially excluded. As one participant noted:

“I feel like a stranger in Armenia… I am a repatriate because Armenia is my homeland, but the difference in language and mentality makes me feel that I belong to the land but not to the people and the community.”

This gap highlights that legal status alone does not guarantee social integration. More broadly, the findings challenge the assumption that return to an ethnic homeland automatically produces belonging. Shared ethnicity does not eliminate social distance; instead, belonging is negotiated and uneven, shaped by language, cultural familiarity, and social acceptance.

5.4. Repatriation as a Preferred and Contested Category

Repatriation emerged as both widely embraced and contested. Many participants described their move to Armenia as a form of return, drawing on strong collective ideas about homeland:

“Every Armenian should be back in their homeland someday.”

“We are Armenians, and this is Armenia, our country.”

“My eternal dream was to move to Armenia.”

These responses reflect diasporic narratives that frame Armenia as a historical and symbolic homeland. In this sense, repatriation is not only a migration category but also an ideal shaped by shared memory and identity.

At the same time, other participants questioned or complicated this framing:

“I do not agree with the so-called ‘repat’ term… I feel that this is my motherland, but… I feel safer in Syria… I do feel belonging to both countries… I’m a SYRIAN ARMENIAN, not an ARMENIAN SYRIAN… I will never feel at home here either.”

Such accounts reveal a gap between the imagined homeland and lived reality. For some, repatriation does not fully capture their experiences, particularly when ties to Syria remain strong or when ancestral origins lie outside present-day Armenia.

Repatriation is therefore not a straightforward ‘return home.’ Instead, it produces uncertainty and mixed belonging. Rather than resolving diasporic identity, it can reshape it, raising questions about who is considered a “true” insider and on what grounds. Armenia thus emerges not only as a homeland but also as a space where identities are renegotiated and sometimes unsettled.

5.5. Identity Negotiation and Self-Positioning

The findings show that identity remains unsettled and context-dependent but continuously negotiated, shaped by overlapping experiences of homeland, displacement, and integration.

First, participants express strong collective attachment to Armenia, often grounded in shared cultural narratives. However, these sentiments coexist with accounts of forced displacement, highlighting that attachment is shaped not only by desire but also by constraint.

Second, many participants describe ambivalence and fluid identities, moving between categories such as immigrant, refugee, and citizen. This reflects forms of belonging that are layered, situational, and not fully resolved.

Third, belonging is frequently expressed through everyday practices—work, homeownership, children’s education, and religious participation—suggesting that it is enacted through lived experience rather than defined solely by legal status.

At the same time, some participants reject labels altogether, emphasizing a preference to be seen simply as citizens. This points to the limits of official categories in capturing lived realities.

Finally, temporality plays an important role. For some participants, belonging remains conditional, shaped by the possibility of returning to Syria if conditions improve. This suggests that attachment to Armenia, while meaningful, is not always permanent.

Taken together, participants’ accounts suggest that status among Syrian–Armenians in Armenia is fluid and contingent upon multiple social positions. However, unlike broader discussions in the literature, status in this context is shaped specifically by the participants’ simultaneous positioning as Armenians, migrants, returnees, and members of a historically distinct diaspora community.

6. Discussion

While the findings demonstrate that participants adopt multiple and overlapping status categories, they also point to an important temporal dimension that is less explicitly captured in the survey design. Participants’ narratives suggest that these identifications are not static but may evolve across different stages of migration. For example, individuals who initially experienced displacement often frame themselves in terms associated with “refugee” status, reflecting urgency, loss, and lack of choice. Over time, exposure to diasporic narratives and the symbolic meaning of Armenia may encourage identification as “repatriates,” emphasizing return and historical belonging. With longer residence, legal incorporation, and everyday participation, some participants come to identify as “citizens,” grounding belonging in practice and rights. Although this progression is not linear or universal, it highlights that status is not simply chosen at one moment but is continuously reinterpreted in relation to changing social, legal, and personal circumstances.

6.1. The Politics of Categorization: Navigating Fluid and Contested Statuses

The findings strongly illustrate the complex and often contradictory nature of “status” for Syrian Armenians in Armenia. While state institutions tend to impose rigid, legally defined categories such as “refugee,” “immigrant,” or “repatriate,” participants’ self-identifications reveal a far more fluid and nuanced reality. Many respondents selected multiple categories, highlighting the inadequacy of bureaucratic classifications to capture lived experiences. This aligns with Castles et al.’s (2005) argument that migration categories are socially constructed and politicized, rather than neutral labels. Similarly, Bloch (2008) and Sajjad (2018) emphasize how labeling functions both as a tool of governance and social control, which can empower or marginalize migrants depending on context.

This study adds empirical depth to these theoretical insights by showing how Syrian Armenians strategically negotiate their status to reconcile symbolic ties to Armenia with ongoing displacement and uncertainty. For example, some identify as “repatriates” due to cultural and historical claims to the homeland (Brubaker 2005), while simultaneously adopting “refugee” status to acknowledge the forced nature of their migration and the vulnerabilities it entails (UNHCR 2010). This hybridity reflects a dynamic, context-dependent process of identity negotiation rather than static categorization, echoing Koser’s (2016) notion of self-ascribed status that may diverge from legal definitions.

Moreover, the coexistence of multiple self-ascribed statuses is strongly supported by the data and is analytically significant. The survey results show that while “citizen” (43.79%, n = 67) and “repatriate” (34.64%, n = 53) were the most frequently selected categories, participants were able to choose multiple responses, and qualitative narratives reveal how these categories are actively combined. For instance, one participant explained, “I am an immigrant because I am away from my place of birth, and I am a refugee because I sought refuge in Armenia until I find another refuge,” while another stated, “I am a repatriate because Armenia is my homeland… [but] I chose refugee because I have no choice of return to Syria.” These accounts demonstrate that labels such as “repatriate” and “refugee” do not function as mutually exclusive categories but instead capture different dimensions of the same experience. Specifically, “repatriate” reflects historical and symbolic return to an ancestral homeland, whereas “refugee” expresses the ongoing condition of forced displacement and lack of choice. Their coexistence illustrates how participants simultaneously negotiate belonging and displacement, rather than moving linearly from one status to another. This overlap helps explain why identity positions appear fluid and hybrid: they are rooted in the intersection of collective memory, present constraints, and future uncertainty. In this sense, multiple identifications are not simply additive but reveal how individuals make sense of complex migration trajectories by integrating past, present, and anticipated futures into a single, lived status.

6.2. Historic Memory and Contemporary Policy: The Weight of the Past in Present Belonging

Historical memory of displacement, particularly rooted in the Armenian Genocide and diasporic narratives of survival and return, profoundly shapes how Syrian Armenians understand their presence in Armenia. This is evident in the prominence of repatriation discourse among participants, reflecting the enduring cultural resonance of “return” as a form of symbolic justice and continuity (Hovannisian 1997; Shapira et al. 2024). The idea that “Every Armenian should be back to their homeland someday” encapsulates this deep-seated expectation, embedded within collective memory and educational narratives (Pomieciński 2017).

However, this historical consciousness coexists with challenging lived realities that complicate integration and belonging. As noted in the findings, language differences, socio-economic disparities, and cultural distinctions between local Armenians and Syrian newcomers disrupt the idealized notion of seamless repatriation (Avagyan 2025). This tension between symbolic homeland and social marginalization echoes Yepremyan’s (2018) observation of Armenia as a complex node in the diaspora network—simultaneously a refuge and a site of negotiation. Thus, contemporary policy frameworks must grapple with these historical legacies and present-day inequalities to foster genuine inclusion rather than merely facilitating physical return.

6.3. Language, Stigma, and Power: The Role of Terminology in Inclusion and Exclusion

The study underscores the critical role that language and labeling play in shaping social power dynamics and individual experiences of stigma or dignity. Terms like “refugee” evoke images of vulnerability and dependency, often reinforcing social exclusion despite their legal protections (Fiddian-Qasmiyeh et al. 2014). Conversely, labels such as “citizen” or “repatriate” carry connotations of legitimacy, belonging, and agency, reflecting socially valued statuses within Armenian society.

Building on this, the findings further reveal that the terms “immigrant” and “refugee” carry distinct negative connotations within both Western Armenian and Arabic linguistic and cultural contexts, which remain underexplored in existing scholarship. In Western Armenian, the term often used for “refugee” (pakhsdagan) is historically laden, evoking collective memories of dispossession, forced displacement, and dependency that trace back to the Armenian Genocide and subsequent diasporic experiences. Similarly, in Arabic, the term lājiʾ (refugee) is not only a legal descriptor but also socially associated with marginality, economic precarity, and, at times, diminished social status. These connotations extend beyond semantics, shaping how individuals are perceived within host societies and how they position themselves within social hierarchies. As a result, participants may resist or strategically avoid such labels, even when they accurately reflect their legal status, in favor of terms that convey greater agency, dignity, and belonging. This highlights the need to understand migration terminology not as neutral or universally translatable categories, but as culturally embedded constructs that carry uneven symbolic weight across linguistic contexts.

These findings confirm the literature’s emphasis on the performative power of discourse in migration governance (Bloch 2008; Sajjad 2018). The ambivalence expressed by participants—some rejecting “repatriate” as insufficiently reflective of their experiences, others asserting citizenship as a claim to full inclusion—illustrates how terminology is both a site of struggle and self-definition. Language use in Western Armenian, Arabic, and other orthographies further reveals the layered identities that migrants navigate, echoing Pomieciński’s (2017) work on linguistic hybridity and identity among Syrian Armenians.

6.4. Education and the Production of Belonging: Cultivating Repatriation Ideals

Finally, the data highlight the long-term influence of education and diasporic discourse in shaping notions of belonging and status. The concept of repatriation is not only a legal or political category but a cultural ideal transmitted through formal schooling, community narratives, and symbolic practices (Shapira et al. 2024). This process aligns with Brubaker’s (2005) idea of diaspora as a form of collective identity that is continuously reproduced and negotiated.

The prominence of repatriation narratives reflects how education and community institutions work to integrate newcomers by reinforcing a shared sense of history and identity. However, the study also reveals the limitations of these narratives when confronted with economic realities and social exclusion. The symbolic return to the homeland does not automatically confer full belonging, underscoring the need to move beyond cultural idealization towards practical policies addressing employment, language acquisition, and social integration.

6.5. Summary: Bridging Legal, Social, and Emotional Dimensions of Status

The study demonstrates that “status” for Syrian Armenians in Armenia operates at the intersection of legal categories, social perceptions, and personal identity. This multidimensional understanding resonates with the conceptual framework outlined in the literature review, which situates status as a negotiated and dynamic process rather than a fixed label (Koser 2016; Sajjad 2018). By centering the voices and experiences of Syrian Armenians themselves, this research contributes to migration studies by challenging top-down classifications and emphasizing the lived realities that shape belonging, exclusion, and identity formation.

Overall, the findings reinforce existing scholarship that conceptualizes status as fluid, negotiated, and socially constructed, while also illustrating how these dynamics operate within the specific context of Syrian Armenians relocated in Armenia, where ethnic belonging, legal precarity, and historical memory intersect in distinctive ways. Rather than fully reconceptualizing status, this study refines existing understandings by demonstrating how co-ethnic return migration complicates conventional distinctions between insiders and outsiders.

7. Implications

7.1. Policy Implications

The findings point to the need for more flexible and context-sensitive approaches to categorizing displaced populations. The case of Syrian Armenians demonstrates that rigid legal labels such as “refugee,” “immigrant,” or “repatriate” often fail to capture the complexity of lived experiences. Policymakers should consider adopting more nuanced frameworks that allow for overlapping or hybrid statuses, recognizing that individuals may simultaneously embody multiple forms of belonging.

In addition, integration policies should be better tailored to diasporic returnees. While shared ethnicity may facilitate certain aspects of adaptation, it does not eliminate challenges related to language, employment, or social integration. Targeted support mechanisms—such as language programs, labor market access initiatives, and community-building efforts—are essential to bridge the gap between symbolic belonging and everyday realities.

7.2. Theoretical Contributions

This study contributes to migration studies by challenging the rigidity of conventional categories and emphasizing “status” as a dynamic, negotiated, and context-dependent process. Rather than treating labels as fixed descriptors, the findings highlight how individuals actively interpret, combine, and sometimes reject them.

Furthermore, the research bridges diaspora studies and forced migration literature. Syrian Armenians occupy a unique position at the intersection of these fields, as both descendants of a historical diaspora and contemporary subjects of forced displacement. By examining this duality, the study expands existing theoretical frameworks and calls for greater integration between these bodies of scholarship.

7.3. Broader Relevance

The insights generated in this study extend beyond the Armenian case and are applicable to other contexts of diasporic return. Similar dynamics may be observed among populations returning to ancestral homelands under conditions of conflict or crisis, where symbolic notions of “home” intersect with practical challenges of integration.

More broadly, the findings contribute to understanding identity formation under conditions of geopolitical uncertainty. They illustrate how individuals navigate belonging in contexts where mobility is constrained, categories are contested, and futures remain uncertain.

8. Conclusions

This study has examined how Syrian Armenians in Armenia interpret and negotiate their “status” within a complex landscape shaped by conflict-induced displacement, historical memory, and diasporic identity. The findings reveal that while categories such as “citizen” and “repatriate” are often preferred for their associations with belonging and legitimacy, they do not fully capture the lived realities of participants. Instead, individuals frequently adopt multiple, overlapping identities or reject formal labels altogether.

A key contribution of this research is refining existing understandings of “status” as a lived and negotiated experience rather than a fixed legal designation. Participants’ narratives demonstrate that belonging is not solely determined by citizenship or ethnicity but is continuously shaped by social interactions, cultural differences, and personal histories.

Ultimately, the study underscores the enduring tension between displacement and belonging. Even within a context of shared ethnicity and historical connection, integration remains a complex and ongoing process. Syrian Armenians in Armenia navigate this process by drawing on multiple frames of reference—homeland, diaspora, and personal experience—while adapting to new social and political realities.

Moreover, the study demonstrates that status among Syrian–Armenians in Armenia cannot be understood through economic or social indicators alone. Participants’ experiences reveal how status is negotiated through migration histories, diasporic identities, belonging, and local social relations. While previous scholarship has established the fluid and relational nature of status, this study contributes an empirically grounded account of how status is experienced and negotiated within the specific context of Syrian–Armenians in Armenia.

Future research could build on these findings by exploring longitudinal experiences of integration, comparing different diasporic return contexts, or examining the role of state policies in shaping identity and belonging over time.