Freie Universität Berlin

Asian Diasporas in Latin America and the Caribbean: An Historical Overview

The presence of different Asian communities in Latin America is a long one, yet a much forgotten or omitted one from history.

It was however when Acapulco and Manila connected in 1565 that globalization truly began. With it, global migration also began in to slowly take off (it wasn’t till the 1850s when migration truly became mass migration).

When speaking of migration from Asia to Latin America, Chinese and Japanese migration stands out. Although the Japanese did migrate to a number of countries within the region, it was the Chinese migration that reached every country in Latin America, and the Americas as a whole.

Mass migrations to Latin America began in 1847 with migration to Cuba (and Peru in 1849) when the “Trata Amarilla” or Yellow Trade began with migration from southern China’s Guangdong Province through Hong Kong (later Macao). The “Coolie Trade” as it also became known became infamous throughout Asia and the Americas for the violence that ensued during these two decades.

What this introduction argues is that migration to and from Latin America is a global, and not just a trans-Atlantic phenomenon; one that we must be aware of since the authors rightly argue that European, Indigenous, and Africa migrations have been the focus of human mobility within this continent.

Something that will become clearer throughout further readings is the exclusionary policies, and antichinismo throughout the entire corridor that is the Americas. There is not one country that did not at one tome or another that passed laws preventing Chinese migration.

This article presents a short overview of migration from Asia. However, two things that I think are important to take from it are:

1. The links between Asia and Latin America are long and enduring; an aspect of migration that if often overshadowed by trans-Atlantic migrations. This overshadowing places migration as a regional, rather than global the global phenomenon that is it. At the same time, it takes away focus from the fact that when we look at Latin America, the continent has been shaped and reshaped by migrations, cultures, politics, and social aspects from within the continent, as well as by trans-Atlantic and trans-Pacific ideas, values, and mores that have crisscrossed throughout the history linking these continents.
2. This point is probably the most important in my mind. The ‘invisibility’ of Asian migration to and from Latin America, as well as the lack of discourse and/or research on these mobilities. Migration from Asia is treated t times as if it is a new phenomenon beginning with China’s expansion across the globe; however, as we’ve read, migration from Asia is centuries old.

As we go deeper into migration from Asia in the next few weeks, we will dive into tis link so that we can get a better understanding on Latin America’s role within global migration.

Mexican migration is one of the most studied around the world. Research on mobilities from Mexico to the United States has been used as examples when researching other mobilities within Latin America and beyond. A good example of this is the concept of cumulative causation, whereby members build networks from close-knit communities. The pioneer migrant has become a lynchpin in how many of us look at migration since there is always that one person that usually migrates, thereby opening the door for others.

The author argues against the idea that cumulative causation is said to eventually reach a saturation point within migrant from rural area since eventually networks ran out of participants or people willing to migrate (usually young males). She presents us with 4 scenarios of how cumulative causation need not need to reach saturation.

1. Wilson states that internal migrants may not have a direct access to international networks, but throughout their movements, interactions, marriage, friendships, people in Mexicali in this case develop networks outside of the regions where they come from. This helps to mitigate saturation.
2. Wilson, rightly in my mind, argues that networks are built throughout different places where once may have family, friends, or other relations. Network building need not be geographically located to where a person physically finds him/herself (the internet has show us this).
3. The power of female migration, which has, more often than not been ignored and/or sidelined. Wilson rightly states that women also create and develop networks, where through marriage and/or friendship networks keep building and expanding. It sounds strange, but female migration is a phenomenon, which was mostly ignored until the late 1990s where suddenly people realized that millions of women were moving across the globe as nannies and bankers and everything in between.
4. The increased importance of urban centres. 54% of the globe’s population (and counting) now lives in urban centres, which is unprecedented. This takes us away from the idea of rural to urban migrations, which still takes place, but the majority or migrations are now urban to urban, which enables the growth of transnational networks. It also goes against the concept of saturation since people keep moving and developing networks throughout different urban

What are your thoughts on this article?

This article brings forth a different aspect of temporality. Temporality is usually taken for what it is supposed to represent, a short time someplace such as an international student doing a semester or year abroad; or working in a different place for some time before moving on. Yet this article places temporality almost as a constant (in one case almost 20 years); but this temporal-constant is always at risk.

As undocumented migrants throughout the US live through anxiety and fear of “removal” (a euphemism for deportation), the author reminds us that “voluntary returns or removals” are nothing new, they are a continuation of US policy, mostly on Mexican migrants, to battle against those they view as enemies, yet at the same time as almost necessary to work as farm hands (as the bracero program so eloquently put it). At the same time, it painted a well-argued point about hos deportation affects entire communities, and does not just fall on the shoulders of the individual that is being deported. It affects communities because within these localities, there are many people with an undocumented status, but also people that have legal standing such as permanent residents and citizens are very much affected since family members, friends, and other acquaintances may not have the right “papeles”.

This uncertainty shapes how communities act and react on both sides of the border. Since the article was published a few years ago, it does not tackle, but does allude to the recent phenomenon of zero net migration from Mexico to the United States. Rising economic standards in Mexico, coupled with tougher routes into the US, as well as an increase in “removals” have in fact made Mexican migration to the US a statistical non-issue. This however is the total opposite of what is going on in the media, especially in this election cycle with the rise of Trump and an ethno-nationalism that has become dangerous.

What is it about Mexican migration that brings out this fear in people?

Is this zero net migration a new “normal” or will it be cyclical?

Twenty-First-Century Migration as a Challenge to Sociology

Although this article deals specifically with Sociology, I think it is relevant to many of the related social sciences such as Anthropology and Human Geography.

The author sets out to explain 7 points, and how they have changed, shifted, or need to change in order for Sociology to stay relevant. I would argue that many of these points could be utilized in other social sciences; because with the exception of Anthropology (maybe), the majority of social sciences, for the most part still work solely with the nation-state as it only referent, and not one of the many spatial scales that we now live with under globalizations.

I would like to hear your thoughts on the article whether they are theory related or how you view global migrations, or any other way you think is relevant to the discussion.

So let’s take a look at each one:

1. How do globalization and transnationalism change the conditions and objectives
of sociological research on migration?

Castles states that international migration at its core obviously transcends borders; yet why is it that much of the study of this phenomenon does not take that into consideration?
He goes further into this within the other points, but I think one that we should note is that for many (people, organizations, governments), migration is thought of as ending and beginning at the border. It is not ‘our’ issue, problem, obligation, or what have you to view migration beyond our borders. We can study it side-by-side with other countries, but it really is of no concern till they cross our borders. Much of that can be seen today in refugee movements from the Middle East and sub-Saharan Africa towards Europe and the Central American migration towards the United States where policies, chatter, and other ideas concentrate on how to keep people out.

Although, we talk about transnational migration within the walls of academia, the world ‘out there’ still works with the view of migration as a problem to be dealt with.

2. Should migration research generally be interdisciplinary?

The issue of interdiscplinarity is an important one, especially for us since we do our work at the LAI as an interdisciplinary institution, which is great, but I think it is still one of the few institutes to consciously go this way.

I do agree with Castles that we should not blend the disciplines all into one, but rather develop ways to layer how disciplines work with migration. For example, although globalization is nothing new, we have begun to look at the world though different spatial lenses. We now view cities, regions, countries, and continents at once and at the same tie separate. Some view cities as outside the nation-state such as London, Tokyo, New York, Singapore, Hong Kong where people have more in common with each other than the country or region they may be physically located. This means that geography, as much as it is physical, is also social and cultural.

3. What are the specific topics and analytical tasks of migration sociology?

Migration through a sociological lens has been troubled with this discipline’s over focus on national societies, it s borders, cultures, and everything within this container as thought to be ‘unique’ or ‘original’ without any ‘disruptions’ from other places. This of course has never happened, but it is a discourse that is very alive when it comes to the discussions of migration and society.
Castles states that Sociology needs to address society as a whole. Does he mean global society, or again does he revert back to the society in the container that is the nation-state?

4. If the roots of sociology lie in the development of national industrial societies,
what effects has this had on the development of the sociology of migration?

Is Sociology a relevant discipline today in an ear of globalization? Is it relevant since it was designed specifically to contend with the issues of the nation-building processes on the late 19th and early 20th Centuries? If not, then how does Sociology allow for theories and methodologies developed for another time to grow, adapt, or go to the dustbin?

I’m interested in reading some of your comments on this matter. I studied Sociology in my undergrad, and am ambivalent whether the discipline continues to grow, and becomes outdated.

5. How can sociologists of migration move beyond the fixation on the nation-state to
conceptualise processes of global integration and social transformation?

How to do this with the existing tools having been created for that specific purpose, to study the nation-state?
In the age when 54% of the world’s population now currently resides in urban centres, does it make sense to concentrate solely on the nation-state? When regional blocks such as the EU exist, is the nation-state still the ultimate geography?

Well, with the Euro crisis, Brexit, and the refugee migration, the nation-state has once again been brought out and defended against ‘disruptive’ forces trying to ‘destroy’ it. This however, does not take away from the importance that cities, not just global cities, but urban centres throughout the globe that are more connected to each other than to the lands, state, or province bordering it.

Can a Sociology of Migration take into account the different scales that people are currently living in?

6. To what extent has the sociology of migration been driven by the influence of
politics and policy on the research enterprise, and the corresponding imperative of
‘policy-relevance’?

It’s no secret that in order to stay relevant, researchers need to receive grants and other forms of funds to carry-out research; and since many funding bodies are connected to national governments, the focus that they are willing to fund remains a nation-state centred approach. Of course there are exceptions, but these are limited.

I agree with Castles that policy is driven by the immediate, the temporary need for some ‘fix’ in order to get re-elected. This paces a strain on taking a look at historical accounts and narratives that can teach and contribute to contemporary debates on migration, because although the percentage of global migrants in currently 4%, it was 6% in the 1880s. Migration is nothing new, and many of the tool that are used today were in use in the 19th century.

7. What theoretical, methodological and organisational principles are needed for a
critical and socio-politically engaged sociology of migration?

Castles argues for the need to include the nation-state within a larger spatial scale, where we can move back and forth without having to be stuck on one or the other. Within this argument, I concur with him that there is no one single theory of migration, rather different theoretical approaches to be taken depending on the situation, meso-theories like Merton stated.
I hope this will bring out some other questions in you for your contributions.

Since this is a survey course, we will touch on a variety of geographies, issues, and mobilities. First though, we will touch on some theoretical aspects in order to get different ideas on how migration is viewed, studies, and handled.

This week’s reading(s), although the main article deals also with development, what I wanted you all to see was a few ways of how migration has been looked upon throughout different times. The one aspect, to my mind that never changes however is, regardless of time or era; migration is constantly viewed as a problem in need of management. Even with transnational approaches to migration, it is seen first as a problem.

What do you guys think?

In the article Faist talks about the stages or phases of migration since the 1950s and 60s.

Phase 1: Migration and development – remittances and return

Phase 2: Underdevelopment and migration – poverty and the brain drain

Phase 3: Migration and (co)development – the celebration of transnational circulation

Phase 1, according to Faist, took place during the 50s and 60s, where there was a substantial need for migrant labour to fill in the gaps in the employment markets of many Western countries. The idea was that people would temporarily migrate to Western countries, which would allow many to send remittance back home, and contribute to the development of each of these countries. The idea was that once the migrant returned home, he or she would not have only sent money during his/her time abroad, but would also bring home new and ‘modern’ ways of doing things, thereby helping their countries continue on the path to development.

Phase 2 according to Faist can be seen through poverty and the concept of brain drain, where developed countries were seen as poaching talented skilled and highly skilled individuals, thereby contributing to further poverty in the ‘global south’.

Phase 3 can be regarded as the transnational phase, where it is argued that migrants themselves can take action, and become agents of change rather than just looking on as to how structures around them are built, defined, and carried-out without much say in the matter. The idea here is that migrants are currently viewed as agents of change, of their own destiny, one could say, rather than just passive participants in how the world works.

Migrants are viewed this way now; but have they not always been in charge of some of their lives, just like non-migrants? Has human mobility always made people look weak, or is this just the view from outside by those who think human mobility takes peoples’ ability to make decisions?

Syllabus

Migration to, from and within Latin America are made up of structures that are in constant movement and transformation. Mobilities from the 19^th Century to present day have shaped and reshaped a continent socially, culturally, economically, and politically.

Today there is a much more intimate and complex relationship between migrants and receiving societies. The changes on both the structure of community and the strategies of migration depend on the different social and economic situations of the countries in which migrants have settled as well as on the ways in which receiving societies have adapted to this presence.

This survey course will take a look at different migratory movements from different regions of the globe to Latin America. It will discuss historical and contemporary movements from Europe and Asia, human mobility across the Atlantic, North America and Asia, as well as intra-continental migration.

This course will introduce students to migratory movements from different regions of the globe, and present the Latin American continent as an integral part of such global migratory processes.

The medium of instruction will be in English; however, coursework can be done in both Spanish and English.

October 17, 2016 – February 18, 2017 – Teaching (break from December 19, 2016 – January 2, 2017)