This article falls somewhat out of the norm when it comes to research on migration. In comparing and contrasting migration with adoption, the author raises some interesting issues.  It focused on two forms of migration, which are usually not integrated, or even thought about as subsets of migration studies.

I found it interesting how adoption, at least legally is not viewed as a form of migration. On one hand, I can see the argument for not placing it under that rubric, since the idea, at least legally is that of a child becomes part of a different nation. On the other hand, the exclusion of a child having the ability to have access to two or more cultural, social, and political histories is difficult to comprehend.

This article touched on a couple forms of migration that are usually not integrated within migration studies since they are either not included as migration (adoption) or are seen mostly through a security lens (getting papers for others through a work ‘contract’) and talked about from that perspective.

It is also interesting how legality also follows social and cultural norms. In this case, the social and cultural norm of the ‘nuclear’ family is where the law rests upon, which makes the case perhaps for those that fight against universal rights since the nuclear family is not the only way to look at family. This difference makes people break or go-around the law when one decides to help another person to migrate. The work ‘contracts’ in this article present a case in point, where people that do not fit within the definition of ‘family’ are helped to migrate to Spain by people that see circumventing the law as necessary in order to help those they see as family.

As we continue, we often see that the line between legal/illegal depends on the prism. Although unlawful to bring people not directly related to a person, many times, a split takes place between what is legal and what is considered to be ‘right’ regardless of what others may think.

I also found the idea of return interesting. I wondered what does a person return to? One does try to find where they were adopted, but what happens after. The case of the girl that began an NGO is an anomaly. How does a person return to place they have no memory of?

The article could have gone deeper into the analysis of the people interviewed. It did not go deep enough either into how this form of migration is transnational, nor did it go far enough at the individual level as to see how it is that people that are adopted, or migrate through false work contracts are interrelated. From what I read, the links were tenuous at best.

 

What do you think?

This article takes us back down to the local; it presents us what is referred to as a ‘slice of life’. I think these types of articles are important for at least two reasons. First, they usually (like this one) provide the reader with specific information on the sample of participants; and second, some type of insight into how this population goes about their lives. Having said that, the article concentrates on mobilities from Latin America to Europe, and specifically to the UK, but what I found a little lacking was a more precise view of how the people in London lived. For example, labor insertion is important, but just as important is where they reside, how they reside within the city itself; the article made it seem as if these people constantly lived outside their own local geographies. What I mean is that as much as remittances are important, many of us often forget that the people sending these remittances also have to live a daily life. We instead take them out of their daily successes, failures, and struggles, and only view them as cogs in the remittance machine, the faceless migrants sending money home without given them a second thought.

This article is interesting because on top of its focus on different forms of capital as first argued by Bourdieu, it deals with an aspect of migration that occurs on a daily basis, yet it is barely discussed, obtaining papers illegally in order to migrate, or as the author states it, non-perverse versus perverse forms of migration (documented versus undocumented). I’m not sure if the word ‘perverse’ is used to describe how different forms of migration are viewed and described in a legal way, or if the word is used colloquially to define illegal versus legal.

The article brought out two aspects, which I found of interest. First in using Bourdieu’s conceptualization of Human, Economic, and Social Capital, the author paints a picture of how each of these three forms are used within everyday life. The author sheds light on how different forms of migration help to develop different social spaces. For example, the difference in the development of social capital built by onward migration (living in a third, fourth, etc. country before entering the UK) versus those that migrated directly. It’s also telling how transnational links allows people to have access to fake or forged papers, which can be used to regularize legal status in a different country.

The interest in this article for me was that it deals directly with onward migration. Onward migration as a topic has been neglected by research since much of the attention has been paid to receiving countries, with source countries as a distant second. So the fact that a focus, at least in part on onward migration was part of the actual research was of interest to me. How people move usually offers good insight into how deep or not their networks (local and transnational) are. We can see this for example, the number of EU passport holders was significantly higher by those that strategically/or not, first migrated to countries such as Spain, Portugal, or Italy.

Another aspect I found interesting (as in many other parts of the world), the strong interest of parents’ want for their children to learn English. Somewhere along the way, English became a de facto lingua franca (much to the annoyance of other former colonial empires), where many parents are willing to sacrifice their own careers for their children to be able to learn “pure English”, as one of the respondents noted. Even though it would make sense at a functional level to have English as second language, there are studies and anecdotal evidence that learning this language is not just because it is necessary in a global marketplace; but just as important is the access to social and economic capital, which brings prestige that also places a premium on learning English.

When it comes to the buying of papers, in the end, as with most things, it comes down questions of legality and money, not morality. Is it moral (or right) to be able to buy your papers in order to have access to specific country?  If the answer is no, then it shouldn’t be accessible to anyone. However, so called ‘golden visas’ have become available in a number of countries to individuals willing to invest in the economy of a specific country, thereby granting residence permits, which sometimes lead to permanent residence, or in the case of the US, automatic permanent residence.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/ceciliarodriguez/2013/09/29/want-to-live-in-europe-buy-a-residency-permit/#795d3f4a8d7b

https://www.businessinsider.de/henley-and-partners-easiest-and-cheapest-countries-for-gaining-european-union-residency-2016-12?r=UK&IR=T#/#12-bulgaria-a-deposit-of-around-500000-in-a-bulgarian-government-bond-portfolio-for-five-years-is-enough-to-qualify-for-bulgarias-residency-programme-1

https://www.goldenvisas.com/category/investor-visa/citizenship/

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/kathleen-peddicord/real-estate-purchase-comes-with-residency_b_7939758.html

What do you think?

Although a long article, I believe it provided a solid introduction to Peruvian-Chinese communities in Lima.

It’s important to note what Lausent-Herrera points out, the difference between Cantonese and Fujianese. There really was no ‘Chinese’ migration per se. When we talk about ‘Chinese’ migration to the Americas, the populations that we are mostly talking about are Cantonese-speaking communities from Guangdong Province in southern China (where Hong Kong and Macau are located). So when the author mentions the arrival of the Fujianese, it is a big deal since between 95-98% of the Chinese in the Americas is Cantonese from southern China, which also helps to explain the strength of their networks.

As mentioned in the earlier reading by Hu-deHart and Lopez, Peru and Cuba were the largest recipients of indentured Chinese migration, 1849-1874.  If we look at the article on its own, we can see how Lima’s Chinatown has evolved in 160 plus years. However, we are missing some context since the article does not go deeper into how Chinese indentured workers first arrived in Lima.

By the 1860s, as the author notes, the first 8 year contracts were expiring. Although a significant number of workers re-contracted with plantations along the country’s coastline, another significant number began to migrate to urban centres. It is necessary to state that the violence, kidnapping, cheating workers on their wages, Chinese workers were treated in a similar fashion as African slaves. So, by the time contracts (although many tried to cheat workers into longer contracts), many decided to migrate to Lima’s Concepcion Market instead of having the possibility of returning home.

The beginnings of Lima’s Barrio Chino were sought with problems since the Chinese communities were viewed with suspicion and contempt by a significant number of the city’s population. This negative perspective was one of the efforts taken by the California Chinese. These migrants from California for the most part were successful businessmen that began to leave the US in the Antichinismo that led to the Chinese Exclusion Act in 1882.

These migrants from California not only brought capital for investment, but just as important, they brought their social and commercial links with cities like San Francisco, Hong Kong and other centres where the Cantonese Diaspora settled in the Americas, Australia, and New Zealand.

The author takes pains in describing very thoroughly Chinese migration, settlement, and urbanization in a very straightforward manner. At the same time, because she is very thorough, her examination of Peruvian-Chinese communities assumes that the reader is very intimate with the subject matter, which at times makes the text difficult to read. Even with this drawback, the author is one of the few diving deep into migrations that fall outside the purview of the Atlantic and also one of the even fewer that concentrate on contemporary Chinese migrations to Peru, and not solely focused on the history.

One of the interesting aspects of this article is how urban space is always changing and shifting. We all know this, we’ve experienced it in the neighbourhoods that we grew-up in, moved away from, and even how they changed while residing in a specific locality. For example, the drive to gentrification that has taken place in many cities during the last 20 years. We can see how poor, abandoned, or sometimes just forgotten neighbourhoods have been re-built bringing with them all the positive and negative aspects of gentrification or revitalization depending on which side of the argument you sit in.

This article presents the shifts of a neighbourhood throughout a 160 year period. From an outlier suburb (now part of downtown Lima), La Concepcion market became home to many of this emerging nation-state’s poor that migrated to Lima from the interior, former Chinese indentured workers included. The key to the success (and also a source of many of its problems) was how this neighbourhood, like many around the globe, opened itself to global mobilities that wold connect it eventually to a Diaspora residing all over the world. The links created by the communities in this neighbourhood was also the source of many of its problems. With the migration of the California Chinese and the subsequent links to Hong Kong, San Francisco, and other cities round the world, the argument that the Chinese were some kind of fifth column, infiltrating the country, taking away jobs, not assimilating (or integrating) became part of the general folklore in the country’s antichinismo. Although the neighbourhood survived, a stigma around it was attached, which became detrimental to its success. And even though it remained, it wasn’t until the a990s when Peruvian-Chinese communities took an active role in revitalizing the Barrio Chino that it began to take on a new life even though the majority of the Cantonese communities no longer reside in this locality.

What do you think?

Although this article is an introduction to a special journal edition on Peruvian migration, it introduces us to a mobility that is also not part of the everyday conversations of migration within the Americas. For the most part, when we think of migration in Latin America, we think of Mexicans or Cubans in the U.S. or southern cone migration (Argentina, Uruguay, and Chile) to Western Europe.

In the article, the authors argue that one of the main drivers for the diversity in destinations by Peruvian migrants is its own rich history of receiving migrants from around the globe. I would not dispute this fact; however, the same can be said for places such as Mexico and Cuba. Would geographical proximity and the imaginary of the American Dream play a stronger role than historical links?

Since the article is an introduction, it surveys Peruvian migration from about the 1930s onward. For our purposes however, it allows us to see how Peruvian mobility outside its borders is as diverse as the destinations.

Following the wave of Political refugees in the 1930s, migration in the 1950s and 60s to the U.S., Spain and Argentina vary widely on ethnicity, social, and political backgrounds.  While the majority going to New Jersey and Florida were Peruvians with indigenous backgrounds, whereas those going to Spain and Argentina were for the most part were upper class Criollos (Spanish ancestry). Just as a side note – Criollo, is not the equivalent of Creole in English or French. Whereas Creole in the latter two languages refers to a mixing of cultures, in Spanish it refers to the polar opposite.

The case of Spain is particularly of interest when it comes to Latin American migrations in general, and for this article, Peruvian mobilities. Following the 1986 Immigration Reform and Control Act in the United States, which made border control and migration a much more difficult endeavor, Spain was entering a period of prosperity; much of it as a result of its entry into the European Union after the fall of Franco and the country’s transition to democracy.

From the late 80s until Spain’s housing crash and recession in 2009, the country was a magnet in attracting unskilled and semi-skilled labour from Latin America. This type of migration was a strong shift from the traditional migration (50s to late 60s) from Latin America, which was mostly made up of wealthy students enrolled mostly in Law and Medicine. This shift is demographics, coupled with Spanish law, which allows citizens from Latin American countries, the Philippines, and Guinea (former colonies) to apply for citizenship after two years of residence, as well as to keep dual citizenship. In fact, Spain became the destination for the majority of Peruvians after the United States.

Now, if we take the assumption that migration is mostly done for economic reasons, then logic would tell us that since Spain’s recession, coupled with Peru’s rapid economic growth from 2000 to 2015, people would return in order to take advantage. This however, did not take place for at least a couple of reasons. First, many Peruvians had established themselves in Madrid, Barcelona, Seville, etc., which made giving up all they worked for to move once again not a choice one wanted. Second, many of the Peruvians in Spain were from indigenous communities in Peru; and since many left Peru because of the discrimination they faced, even a severe economic recession did not make it palatable to return to Peru.

What do you think?

Before getting into the article itself, I think it’s important to note that the authors wrote this piece from a world systems theory perspective (https://www.boundless.com/sociology/textbooks/boundless-sociology-textbook/global-stratification-and-inequality-8/sociological-theories-and-global-inequality-72/world-systems-theory-429-537/). In a nutshell, World Systems Theory argues that the world is divided into three areas – core, semi-periphery, and periphery. The argument goes that core countries dominate and exploit countries in the semi-periphery and periphery. This argument assumes that the levels of prosperity within each specific nation-state are relatively even. It does not take into account that core and periphery lives side-by-side in many areas of the globe such as wealthy and destitute neighbourhoods in Los Angeles, Sao Paolo, Mumbai, or Barcelona. To separate the globe into these three neat divisions moves us away from the multiple realities that co-exist simultaneously.

This article presents transnationalism from a different point of view, the structural. Much of what is written on transnational migration is written through the lens of the migrant as an individual or part of a family or group empowered in their risk taking to cross borders and frontiers, and be able to live a life, at many times with fear of removal; yet the argument goes that the migrant is in control of his/her actions. Although much of this is true, it presents migration as devoid or at least through a set of external factors that can be overcome with or without structures.

The creation of Temporary Protective Status (TPS), and its first application in 1990 to help Salvadoran communities escaping the civil war taking place perfectly embodies what the authors termed  ‘Permanent Temporariness’.  In examining TPS, as with some other forms of temporary residence, these policies work very well if one assumes a migrant automatically cuts-off all ties to their respective nation-state. From a policy standpoint, it allows people to remain, work, and study; however, when daily life occurs, policy and reality often diverge.

TPS as a policy, like the majority of policies regarding migration, view migrants through push-pull factors, which more often than not are developed with the view of migrants as individuals and not part of larger kinship groups, networks, or other social, cultural, or political relations. From this point of view, a person under the TPS program is not supposed to return to their homeland since it poses too many dangers; this however, poses a problem, are they supposed to cut-off the friends and family that stayed behind? Looking at it from a transnational viewpoint, the idea that not being able to keep networks alive (only via skype, etc.) negates how the majority of people live in social, cultural, and political circles, which at many times move across borders. At the same time, the inability to plan for the future becomes an issue for families in both the US and El Salvador. This similar insecurity is taking place right now with Haitian communities (https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/may/13/haitians-miami-trump-immigration-crackdown).

Under TPS, Salvadorans (or anyone covered by this policy) cannot leave the country; and if done, that individual automatically becomes undocumented. The permanent temporariness experienced by Salvadoran migrants is compounded by ‘deportability’ that Boehm analyzed in the case of Mexican migration. The shift from documented to undocumented can take place at a rapid pace since Temporary Protective Status can be terminated, making deportability an ever-present aspect of life.

What do you think?