The only way to make the question whether refugees are expected to “go home” a semantic issue is if your stance is if you believe that when someone runs away from genocide it is their free choice between becoming a refugee or becoming a migrant.

… that… that is literally the case.

Those who remain refugees are expressing a desire to return to their countries of origin. They are seeking refuge rather than permanent residency, and that’s what the entire fucking structure of asylum law is based around.

Those who are refugees but decide they would rather not return to their country of origin even once the danger has passed apply through their host country’s laws to become immigrants to that country.

Otherwise, you are expecting things from someone based on something that happened to them involuntarily,

… that’s… that’s all of life, man.

or based on the legal system of where-ever they were able to flee to for shelter,

… generally the expectation of legal systems is that the person in question will adhere to the laws, yes.

Perhaps I don’t. How has asylum law avoided being changed by neoliberalism and neoconservatism?

Asylum law wouldn’t exist at all if it was only a question of the interests of the rich. Refugees provide no benefit to the ultrawealthy or corporations, again, in civilized countries, precisely because they are not part of the labor pool, yet remain an expense which discourages the central government from cutting taxes further. On top of that, that refugees are a lawful and recognized position strips corporations of their ability to exploit them the way they would other classes of migrant - meaning that it is in the interests of the rich to see asylum law abolished entirely, not some bizarre notion that refugees being a protected class is somehow in the interests of the ultra-wealthy.