Some resent that current circumstances force women to go out more Women’s increased mobility is seen by some camp residents—both male and female—as a negative but unavoidable change that violates their modesty. According to one father: “Unfortunately, some women now go out who didn’t have to go out in Myanmar. It would be better if they didn’t have to. Sometimes they have no choice—if they are widows, or wives of people with disabilities.” According to a young woman whose husband is in jail in Myanmar, “I don’t feel good when we have to receive rations directly. A household member should be able to receive them for us. Going out is not good; we have to talk to men. It’s not comfortable.” A 22-year-old woman who infrequently leaves her shelter explained that she sees women’s mobility as generally undesirable. She saw the fencing of the camps as a positive contribution to camp security. “With fencing, the camp people can stay inside safely, with no outsiders coming in. We can live more easily and safely. It’s ok to have checkpoints at the camp entry and even between different camps.” The increase in women’s mobility particularly affects women who are heads of households due to family separation. According to a woman whose husband left her for his second wife and whose parents are in Myanmar, she is forced to go out against her will as a result of his abandonment. “I don’t want to go out for any reason. If my parents were here, my father would help me and do the things that require me to go outside. I would be happy to stay inside the shelter.” “In Myanmar we lived in walled compounds, but not here—many people can see me here,” she explained. “So I don’t like it. I was used to staying in my compound. Compound life is free—there are trees, gardens, big open spaces. We used to sit and roam in the yard. My friends are far away now; we cannot meet our fellow villagers often.” decision-making will be influenced by the desire to reunite. This is not a side note—the impulse to be with loved ones for purposes of safety and survival should be regarded as a key factor and, dangerously, one that currently empowers traffickers and smugglers. Their services will continue to be in demand as long as travel and mobility for Rohingya are possible only extralegally. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS ON FAMILY SEPARATION AND MOBILITY These findings highlight the extensive fracturing of Rohingya families due to discrimination, persecution, and violence. The impacts of this separation are wide-ranging, affecting daily life as well as families’ long-term objectives and plans. Despite concerns in Bangladesh that refugees will assimilate there, this study shows that Rohingya remain very isolated in Bangladesh, with minimal social connections. But it must be acknowledged that displacement is already multigenerational for registered refugees, and that a new generation of young Rohingya born in Bangladesh will face additional obstacles to moving to Myanmar, a country they have never been to. Such challenges—for example, the fact that those born in the camps do not speak the Myanmar language—will persist even if Rohingyas’ citizenship rights are restored through a process of political reform. Such nuances again highlight the need for policymakers to recognize and accommodate the uniqueness of each family’s predicament. As this study establishes, camp residents are more likely to have family members living in third countries than remaining in Myanmar, potentially affecting their future goals of relocation, repatriation, and mobility. Camp residents resoundingly voice their desire to return home to Rakhine State with their citizenship and rights restored. But further research is needed to explore how displaced families with no remaining connections in Myanmar—who constitute a large majority of the camp population—would face different barriers to return than those with family members in Myanmar who could welcome them back and assist them in rebuilding their lives. As described by recently released prisoners interviewed for this study, rebuilding lives in the absence of intact family and social support networks—not to mention labor markets—is a daunting task. Movement and mobility are undertaken under duress, but they are also ways for people to assert agency and access a broader set of life choices. Those who choose to move despite the formal prohibitions are doing so in pursuit of refuge, opportunities, resources, and support otherwise unattainable. The following section examines livelihoods and hardship in the camps and the ways these intersect with mobility and family separation. Family separation has tremendous implications for those working for sustainable solutions to the Rohingya crisis, and further research is needed to learn from families about their family reunification goals. In addition to the collective will to repatriate, at the family level people’s 26