Week 10 – Constructing transnational social spaces among Latin American migrants in Europe: perspectives from the UK

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?

24 thoughts on “Week 10 – Constructing transnational social spaces among Latin American migrants in Europe: perspectives from the UK”

  1. I have to admit I was unaware of the large scale Latin American migration in the UK, and it was great to have such an in-depth look with this article. I found it very interesting how virtually all of the stories involved all of the subjects having migrated from their countries of origin, then from their first receiving country in the EU to the UK in search for better opportunities and determined to learn English (even when looking towards the home country, like in Yaritza’s case). As you said, onward migration isn’t the focus of migration research – or at least not when focusing on Latin America, but is extremely common within the EU borders.

    I agree with you about the morality debate regarding the purchasing of visas. There is barely any moral difference between the migrants in the text who bought forged visas and passports and millionaires who are able to “invest in the economy”. In one case, the money ends up going to the forgers/smugglers, sure, but the principle behind it is the same. You’re acquiring civil capital by buying it.

  2. This paper is, same as the text from week seven, a good possibility for the reader to get insights into the practical processes of migration and remittances flows. Therefore, I appreciated it. It gave me an idea of the complexity that the research approaches of estimating remittances flow in the onward migration must contain. The example of sending remittances from one part of the EU to family members in another EU state shows how many factors must be considered.

    Regarding the golden visas, I think that it´s highly immoral to offer them or generally to trade with residence statuses, even if there isn´t coming by a work permit always. But the fact, that in most of the EU states the only possibility to get a residence status by working there for several years speaks for itself, comparing it to the golden visa possibility. For normal migrants, trying to enter the EU labour market is nearly impossible on a legal base, since the EU only allows the immigration of workers in some specialized branches. The highly selective and impermeable rules of immigration for most people in comparison with the golden visa possibilities underlines the fact, that migration policies of the EU are a highly classist normative construct, even if at least the golden visa option is driven by economical needs of single EU states. The moral guilt in that case lies by the EU states policies, not by the migrants.

  3. I found this paper very interesting as it brought back memories. I’ve lived in London for several years (around 2000) and had many Colombian friends who, as the text describes, migrated to London in order to increase economic capital and send funds to their loved ones back home in Colombia but also to escape the realms of violence (most of their friends had died at the age of 17) and to seek a better life. The majority of these friends resided in London on illegal papers and/or was in the process of obtaining an EU passport – through the special work visa arrangement with Spain. They also all had made use of their social capital in form of networks and lived in Spain before finally migrating to London. It’s interesting to me, to see this ‘slice of life’ being conceptualized and agree that too easily these souls are being regarded – most of the time unintentionally – as the ‘faceless migrants sending money home’. For precautious reasons and the strict border controls, they all entered the UK through another EU country, so I can only imagine that migrants, who enter the UK on a direct migration route, must have already obtained some sort of visa.
    I like that the text puts also a focus on onward migration since, as already mentioned, often this part of the migration process is being forgotten or neglected when researching or talking about migration.
    I find the concept of the ‘golden visa’ immoral in the sense that the rich are being given the privilege to obtain visa documents merely due to their economic status whereas the poorer who are usually the ones that see migrating to another country as their ‘only’ chance to a better life, are actually the ones in greater need of ‘legal approval’. I also agree, that the immoral guilt lies with the relevant EU state policies and not the migrants.

  4. – I’m also not sure what she means by ‘perverse’ either, but she does mention she draws the term from one of her earlier works: Moser& Mcllwaine 2004. Based on context, I would suggest it is referring to different forms of illegal or unorthodox methods of migration. Mainly because of the examples given to a ‘perverse’ form of mobilizing social capital are forged EU passports.

    – I agree with Lya regarding the morality debate evolving the purchases of visas. They condemn the ‘perverse’ methods of obtaining residency, which people are driven to when they don’t have the funds for a ‘non-perverse’ purchase. So when we look at it plainly, citizens are measured solely based on their financial capabilities. Morals, kinship, education and hardly anything else other then MONEY do not play a role in assessing whether a person is “good enough”.

    – It’s always been funny to me how immigrants are so nationalistic. In this example, Latin Americans arrive to London and look for other Latin Americans. They feel obligated to them, to help them find jobs and make sure they are comfortable as possible in their new location. Sure, it’s easier to find common associations among fellow-nationals, not to mention a common language and a reference network. But when we limit ourselves to be with our “fellow-nationals” we distance ourselves from other communities and basically “othering” ourselves. I have met far too many people that imagined they had more in common with me because we share the same religious/national/linguistic background than with someone else who does not.

    – She mentions in her conclusion that civic capital can influence all other forms of it, but in my mind, our world today appreciates financial capital far more than anything else, and the examples are endless. A few appear in the text, but another one for reflection: would Trump become president if he couldn’t afford campaigning?

    1. Hi Tal!
      I could not find the part on the text, in which Latin Americans arrive to London and look for other Latin Americans (understood as any L.A). I did read that they sometimes join relatives and friends.
      I also think, that it is problematic saying that Latin Americans are being nationalistic when connecting to other Latin Americans, because Latin America is not a Nation, it is a really big continent. Personally as a Latin American Migrant, I do not feel obligated to other Latin Americans, because I do not know all of them, and even if I did it would be very difficult to stablish a “trust relationship” with all of them (over 10,000 in Berlin: https://www.goethe.de/ins/uy/de/kul/fok/zdw/20791817.html). I must admit, that I do find it easier to speak Spanish than German or English, because Spanish is my native language, and so I find it logic, that some of the Newcomers find it easier to make friends among people, with which they can freely communicate.

      1. I simply meant to point out my feelings when I’m abroad and encounter these emotions, as i’ve described them.
        I meant L.A helping others as a Colombian helping out another Colombian for example, I wouldn’t assume anybody regarding citizens of an enormous region as feeling obligated towards each other.
        I’ve read it in the text, maybe I misunderstood.
        About the language barrier, my thought was that immigrants might want to hang out and create social circles containing not only people that share their native language, nor the language of their welcoming country, but be open to all that are going through similar processes that might not have these social networks in place. I understand it’s easier to speak one’s native language, but doesn’t it narrow one’s potential social circles?
        When my social circle is hesitant about welcoming newcomers because they don’t share our native language, to be honest, I get disappointed.
        That’s what I was going for, I’m sorry if you I was misunderstood.

  5. This week’s text by Cathy McIlwaine on Latin American migrants in Europe (especially the UK), the construction of transnational transnational social spaces, and the accumulation of different forms of capital introduced us to to the topic of Latin American migration to Europe. I was surprised to read that Latin Americans in London are one of the fastest growing migrant groups similar in size to the Polish and Chinese groups. Prior to reading the text, I was not aware of these facts and figures. I also did not know that there is a significant minority of Latin American onward migrants who migrate to Southern Europe first (mostly Spain, but also Italy and Portugal) before moving to London. It was really interesting to learn that historical ties through colonialism, linguistic legacies, former emigration patterns, the role of religion, and immigration laws and policies responding to a high demand for labor in these countries might be reasons as to why Latin American migrants prefer Southern European countries as their first destinations.

    I liked how McIlwaine tied the process of Latin American onward migration to the accumulation of different forms of capital. Whilst I do not appreciate the term “perverse” civic capital, I would like to learn more about the processes and negotiations migrants engage in when they use social capital to mobilize “perverse” civic capital, which they then use to access the UK labor market in order to accumulate economic capital.

  6. I find this article really interesting, because for a 10 Weeks we read about how people of different nationalities and with different backgrounds migrated to the countries of Latin America and this article gives us a view from another perspective.
    We read how almost every country has a eperience with migration to Latin America especially after first World War and now we see what made people migrated from Latin America.
    It’s pretty obvious why first country on their migration way was Spain – even on the distance might help them to stay in comfort zone for a while.
    But i feel difference in what motivated people to migrate, even if we would speak about particular reasons, they would be pretty much the same : personal issues, job possibility, ability of relatives. So mostly people from previous text who moved to Latin America wanted to escape poverty, or be able to provide their children possibility for the future. And from this article i got impression that most migrants from Latin America were used as “to attract people with money” – as from this Forbes issue.
    “If you have the money to invest either in a new or existing local business, or in property in many of the 28 European Union countries you would be offered a temporary residency permit as a bonus and incentive.” – thats why buying of temporary permit exsist, as we all know where there’s demand, there’s supply.

  7. The main conclusion of the text is that Southern European countries have become a mere stop over for migrants from Latin America. The traditional ties from Latin America and Southern Europe are still strong but since the economic crisis migrants increasingly left Southern Europe for more Northern countries. The stop over is mainly used for acquiring false passports.
    Therefore transnational ties are more and more transforming in to webs.. ..networks. This includes a spread and mixture of languages and traditions.
    Is this a sign of globalization or rather a natural evolution?
    Does London play a special role because of its internationality?
    It’s been mentioned that historically the UK doesn’t hold strong bonds to Latin America except for hosting revolutionairs. But I remember hearing about strong economic ties followed by political ties to Argentina during its booming years. Yes, most of the immigrants came from Southern Europe and therefore a backwards movement was obvious but some of the leading figures of the economy were British, so I can’t imagine that they weren’t followed by immigrantion back to the UK.

    On a political note: ‘fortress Europe’ is a critical concept that tends to mix refuge movements with economic migration. Asylum is for everyone who’s being prosecuted but everyone else is object to immigration quotas based on national needs.

  8. I do not think that it so easy to make a comparison between the economic terms of demand and supply and the commercial offer of temporary residency permits. I see the practice of selling temporary residency permits rather as a form of conscious selection/ selective commercialization. Legitimizing or tolerating the selling of residency permits would in this regard be a concrete action of the state to decide which standards are valid in order to become a citizen – and in this case these standards are of financial nature.

    Furthermore, I think the term onward migration is of special interest and importance. When economic capital decays in Spain, many Latin American migrants tend to make use of other forms of capital they accumulated like the social and civic capital. With this initial aid they can at least make it to another European country but there they face again the jeopardy of their civic capital because of a decreased economic capital. I think the idea that the different forms of capital are convertible among each (in a certain kind of hierarchy/valence?) and thus becoming cycles is a very worth discussible one.

  9. This week’s reading was about transnational social spaces among Latin American migrants living in the UK and the complex connections with their home countries and other European countries (e.g. Spain as intermediate destination). Many Latin Americans migrate directly to the UK and have social ties to their home countries, but there is also a significant amount of onward migrants who live in other countries first and have multiple ties both to their home countries and to other countries.

    As in previous papers that we have read so far, I liked the methodological approach in that the author conducted in-depth interviews with a wide range of people and extensive participant observation. From my point of view, interviews and observations always give great insights into personal issues. However, she mentioned that the interviews focused on “ordinary” migrants. I think she should define what she means by “ordinary”.

    Of particular interest to me was the so-called “complex mobility chain” that is described on page 296 with the case of Valentina from Ecuador. It is really interesting how complex the migrant pathway can be and how intertwined and interconnected migrants’ social ties are at some point.

    On page 298 the author mentions that migrants who had lived elsewhere in Europe before coming to the UK were more likely to send money for education expenses than direct migrants. I am wondering why this is the case.

  10. This week’s reading looked at the ways in which migrants make a new life for themselves in a new country, in this case London in particular. To be more precise, it looked at how migrants moved from their homeland to London via countries like Spain, Portugal or Italy. This article aimed at filling a gap in the current research by talking about migrants from different national backgrounds and whose status differs from being a refugee.

    The article shows, like some others before, that social spaces and connections with friends and relatives on site play an important role in establishing a new life for oneself in a new country.

    What I found interesting, if not fascinating is that so many people from Latin America choose to move on from a destination like Spain, Italy or Portugal to London. Originally, I would have assumed that migrants from Latin America would be more inclined to remain in countries like Spain, Italy or Portugal because these destinations should provide a smaller language barrier for the migrants. That way it should be easier for them to establish a life for themselves. I would even go as far as adding that the process of (cultural) assimilation should be easier in a place where the language is the same or at least very similar to the one of the migrant.

    And yet the article shows that migrants are willing to leave comforts such as small language barriers behind in order to learn English or receive an education in the United Kingdom. I find that interesting because to me this shows how dominant English really seems to be in this world. It has become so omnipresent in (international) communication and as the language of research and science, that migrants chose to move to a country where they can learn “real English” rather than settling down in a country that speaks Spanish or a language similar to it like Italian or Portuguese, languages that, in retrospect, should be easier to learn for Spanish speakers than English .

  11. This week’s reading deals with the issue of Latin American migration to Europe and with onward migration within the EU. It builds on Bourdieu’s theoretical concept of economic, social and cultural capital and analyses how these forms of capital influence the migrants’ decisions regarding destinations and ways of migration and the experiences they make outside their home countries. Furthermore, the concept is used to capture the development of transnational networks through multi-step-migration and connections between migrants from the same region of origin. The terms of different forms of capital are used here to analyse how different entities affect migrants’ every day lives and how social spaces among migrants are developed. While I find this approach very interesting and promising (especially as onward migration is often neglected in the literature) I had the impression that the text did not quite life up to its potential. To my mind, the different forms of capital and their respective meaning for direct and onward migration might be to complex as to be handled in a short paper. Therefore, while reading I sometimes had the impression of a mere fact-dropping. At these points I would have wished the text had analysed the interaction between the different forms of capital in more depth so as to explain the nature of transnational social spaces. Here, the constitutive effects of the forms of capital and their interrelations could have been explained in more detail. However, I think the text serves as a good introduction for further research on this field. I found it interesting to read about the personal experiences, especially regarding the informal ways of migration.
    I was, however, not surprised by the fact that many migrants use the Southern European countries only as entries to Europe and then proceed towards the UK. I am not sure whether they really leave comforts behind when they move up northwards, as Katja said. Although the reason of learning English has been stressed in the paper, I believe that different factors must be added: It is surely also a question of job opportunities (as has also been mentioned in the paper) and from my personal experience in South Italy I would argue that at least there society structures might be less integrative. Therefore, I believe that the presumable linguistic advantage carries no weight as migrants face other obstacles when trying to settle down. Although it might thus be more easy for Latin Americans to acquire linguistic capital in Southern countries like Italy, it might still be much harder to reach a certain social status than in countries like England.

  12. Hi Katja,
    Regarding the last part of your comment (the fascination due to Latin Americans leaving Southern Europe): According to the text, the main reason is not learning English (for some it was important), the main reason was the economical factor. The global economic recession of 2008 led to massive unemployment in Spain, and the Job conditions there where dissatisfying for the majority (see page 297). May be taking this into account makes it easier to understand why many are willing to give up some sort of “comfort”.

  13. As I do not want to repeat what my fellow classmates already said about the structure of the article (Main topics: negotiation of capital –civic, social, economic, and cultural/linguistic- and the differentiation among migration patterns –direct migration and onward migration-). I would like to talk about why this article left me with a feeling of uneasiness.

    There are several parts in this article which annoyed me.

    The first one was the general introduction to the section “International migration, ‘forms of capital’ and transnational social spaces” (p. 290).
    Why did it annoy me? Because unless this article was conceived for readers who have absolute no idea what a migrant and migration in general terms is, the opening conclusion about how “migrants develop a range of innovative mechanisms in order to enter the country of their choice” and how “migrants are not passive actors unable to function in host countries (…)” is absolutely unnecessary. Yes, migrants are resourceful: surprise, they are people with brains and social bindings, they are not rocks!

    The second part I found suspicious is the appearance of the term “perverse social capital” –as most of you already mentioned-. I tried to locate the exact article of McIlwaine and Moser in order to gain some context, but the only reference I found is a presentation by Moser in which she cited the concept from another author:
    “Perverse social capital: generates benefit for those within the relevant organization but damages the community, and is not a public good (Rubio 1997)”
    So based on this definition, migrants that are purchasing EU passports are damaging the community and are not a gain to the receiving society?
    (Here is the link to Moser´s presentation: https://www.wilsoncenter.org/sites/default/files/MoserWoodrowWilsonviolence.pdf).

    Finally, the last part I would like to discuss is “Negotiating social capital across Latin American transnational social spaces” (p. 300).
    First of all, as the author states that “Not only is social capital transferred with migrants when they move and acquired through bonds of co-ethnicity in their place of settlement (…)” I think she ignores that this is not always the case, as we saw in the case of Salvadorians not really being a cohesive community. She is presenting all Latin-Americans as a homogenous group, but despite common historical facts (colonization, independence, etc.) and the common language in most of the countries, there are many differences between Latin Americans. There have been wars between some of the countries, as well as different political regimes among them, various ethnical backgrounds, etc . There are over 100 languages in Latin America, not only Spanish and Portuguese, and I am not only referring to the native languages (by the way one of them, Guarani, is also the official language in Paraguay), but also to English (e.g spoken in Belize among other countries), French (e.g French Guyana) and Dutch (Suriname).
    To illustrate my point about MacIlwaine over generalizing Latin-Americans, I will mention another part from the same section:
    “The creation of social capital was underpinned by levels of trust that reflected a mixed picture with just over half (53%) saying they trusted other Latin Americans, The reason why people did not trust others were linked with a sense of individualism (identified by 27%) or envy (24%)”.
    Why is she parting from the idea that the social capital of an individual extends automatically to all of the other Latin-American migrants? Would she state the same about European migrants abroad? Is this not a simplistic way of seeing relationships and kinship among Latin-American migrants?

    All of these issues led to me to think about the research being done in the global north, and how –despite the fact, that some of the work is meaning to be solidary with the global south- reproduces power structures. I would love to hear your comments on this.

    By the way I found an interesting video in the webpage of McIlwaine. It contains most of the information from the article and interviews with some migrants (is only 15 min. long): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tw46pn1SzZw&feature=youtu.be

    Info about McIlwaine: https://www.geog.qmul.ac.uk/staff/mcilwainec.html

    2017-06-29 20:33 GMT+02:00 Aranza Terrón :

    Comment week 10:

    As I do not want to repeat what my fellow classmates already said about the structure of the article (Main topics: negotiation of capitals –civic, social, economic, and cultural/linguistic- and the differentiation among migration patterns –direct migration and onward migration-). I would like to talk about, why this article left me a feeling of uneasiness.

    There are several parts in this article, which annoyed me.

    The first one was the general introduction to the section “International migration, ‘forms of capital’ and transnational social spaces” (p. 290).
    Why did it annoyed me? Because unless this article was conceive for readers, which have absolute no idea what a migrant and migration in general terms is, the opening conclusion about how “migrants develop a range of innovative mechanisms in order to enter the country of their choice” and how “migrants are not passive actors unable to function in host countries (…)” is absolute unnecessary. Yes, migrants are resourceful: surprise, they are people whit brains and social bindings, they are not rocks!

    The second part I found suspicious is the appearance of the term “perverse social capital” –as most of you already mentioned-. I tried to locate the exact article of McIlwaine and Moser in order to gain some context, but the only reference I found is a presentation by Moser in which she cited the concept from another author:
    “Perverse social capital: generates benefit for those within the relevant organization but damages the community, and is not a public good (Rubio 1997)”
    So based on this definition, migrants that are purchasing EU passports are damaging the community and are not a gain to the receiving society?
    (Here is the link to Moser´s presentation: https://www.wilsoncenter.org/sites/default/files/MoserWoodrowWilsonviolence.pdf).

    Finally, the last part I would like to discuss is “Negotiating social capital across Latin American transnational social spaces” (p. 300).
    First of all, as the author states that “Not only is social capital transferred whit migrants when they move and acquired through bonds of co-ethnicity in their place of settlement (…)” I think she ignores that this is not always the case, as we saw whit the case of Salvadorians not really being a cohesive community. She is presenting all Latin-Americans as a homogeny group, but despite common historical facts (colonization, independence, etc.) and the common language in most of the countries, there are many differences between Latin Americans. There have been wars among countries, as well as different political regimes between them, various ethnical backgrounds, etc . There are over 100 languages in Latin America, not only Spanish and Portuguese, and I am not only referring to the native languages (by the way one of them, Guarani, is also the official language in Paraguay), but also to English (e.g spoken in Belize among other countries), French (e.g French Guyana) and Dutch (Suriname).
    To illustrate my point about MacIlwaine over generalizing Latin-Americans, I will mention another part from the same section:
    “The creation of social capital was underpinned by levels of trust that reflected a mixed picture with just over half (53%) saying they trusted other Latin Americans, The reason why people did not trust others were linked with a sense of individualism (identified by 27%) or envy (24%)”.
    Why is she parting from the idea that the social capital of an individual extends automatically to all of the other Latin-American migrants? Would she state the same about European migrants abroad? Is this not a simplistic way of seeing relationships and kinship among Latin-American migrants?

    All of the commented parts above, led to me to think about the research being done in the global north, and how –despite the fact, that some of the work is meaning to be solidary with the global south- reproduces power structures. I would love to hear your comments on this.

    By the way I found an interesting video in the webpage of McIlwaine. It contains must of the information from the article and interviews with some migrants (is only 15 min. long): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tw46pn1SzZw&feature=youtu.be

    Info about McIlwaine: https://www.geog.qmul.ac.uk/staff/mcilwainec.html

  14. The point Felipe made in the beginning about representing migrants just as remittance-sending individuals, as if the economic factor of sending money back home would be the only dominant asepct in their daily lives that is important. Specifically in this text I did not pay attention to this fact, but in general and as talking about migration, sending remittances is an often discussed issue forwhat I think this point is really important. Yes- migrants send money home but they live a daily life with all its moment of success and struggles. In this context it would be interesting to know how the life of individuals, that send money back home to their lived ones, in their reciving country changes, if they constantly work not just for themselves but also in order to take care of your family back home trough remitances- I` ve asked myself many times what effect his “task“ might has on the life quality and mabey also on an individuals` emotional status in regard to stress or pressure for example.

    I liked Bordieus conecpt of different forms of capital, but even more that the text or better said the author provived a practical, direct and visual examplification of this theoretic conceptualization. I could imagine what abstract terms like cultural or social capital really means or how economic capital changes into cpaital capital etc.
    This one is just a quick note, but important to mention: as at least in Anthropology and also in the context of this seminar discussing migration, we find ourselves many times confronted with brought and abstract, important-sounding terms, but not in every case the text, author or even the discussions provide a closer look on what this term might means or wants to say, a visualization and put-into-praxis of these terms.

    Not really surprising but an interesting and essential fact are the stratecial, tactical moves within the onward- migration of first migrating to Spain, Italy, Portugal, obtain f.e. passports, be able to move in a more flexible way and from there start to establish in other european countries.

    Regarding the issue of the golden-visa- I agree with Katharina, Tal and Nico. This programms are clearly for very wealthy foreigners and excludes the lower middle-class and lower class. For the countries it is sort of a clever step in order to improve their economic situation- attract people with money always works, as it seems. To me it seems ironic and false in a way- wanting people in your country with money ready to invest, but all of the rest you don`t want in your country or tolerate so easily. But with respect of the moral aspect: First you exclude certain groups of people from these programms and secound you categorize and value people only in regard to their financial situation.

  15. This was one of my favorite readings so far as it clearly discusses about civic, economic, institutional, cultural and social capital of Latin American migrants. The author has provided succinct report findings and his interpretations of the qualitative research findings are clear and well explained as well. I largely agree with the author that more work should be done in recognition of the fact that migration flows are increasingly onward and dynamic. As the research as shown, with more than one third of the migrants having lived elsewhere prior to their arrival in London, studies about the reasons for their path of migration and also their migration experiences will be very inaccurate if they fail to capture such prior migration experience. The discussion about how migrants are engaging in onward migration instead of direct migration from Latin America to get necessary documents to enter the United Kingdom makes me question the extent to which this phenomena has increased anti EU feelings amongst EU members.

    The discussion about remittances from the UK back to Latin America on page 10 was also very interesting. With migrants sending considerable amounts of money back home to support their family, it creates this vicious cycle of poverty where migrants are unable to invest in their own lives in the UK and therefore are constantly trapped in lower social hierarchy.

    The most interesting discussion for me was about the motivation to migrate to accumulate linguistic capital. Coming from Singapore, I am rather fortunate to be able to learn the current international language in the comforts of my own nation. The fact that Latin American migrants can give up so much to learn “pure English” really shows how the world is still very western centric in the sense that you need to speak western languages like English in order to rise up. Moreover, the fact that migrants are giving up so much to learn English further strengthens the dominance of English language worldwide as people will fight to maintain the status of the English language around the world, to make sure that all they have given up has not gone to waste. It also makes me wonder if such a future is possible for the Chinese language, with China gaining exponential power within and beyond Asia.

  16. The text deals with two interesting aspects. First, the connection between migration from Latin America to Europe and Pierre Bourdieus theory of social spaces and the way social, linguistic, economic and civic capital is transferred inside this social spaces. Furthermore how the different capitals depend on each other, so for example to receive economic capital it is important to have at least some linguistic and/ or civic capital, because without you won’t find a job to earn economic capital. On the other hand economic capital is needed to sign up for a language school or to buy false passports.
    Second, the the inter-European migration networks, that emerge from the transnational migration within Europe before the final arrival (at least at the time of the survey) in Britain. For me, two things are remarkable. Most of the migrants, who traveled through different countries before arriving in Britain came over Spain and Italy in the late nineties or in the early years of the second millennium. In 2008 both countries were affect by a suffocating crisis and nearly one million people in Spain lost their jobs. Some of these people were former migrants form Latin America, who had to migrate to from the crisis less affected European countries as many Spaniards had to do. I think it would be very interesting to do more research on that. What do you thing?

  17. This paper written by Cathy McIlwaine and published in 2011 addresses the issue of the complex connections Latin American migrants living in the UK have with their country of origin and the rest of Europe (especially Spain).
    McIlwaine’s arguments start on a simple observation: there is an apparent contradiction between the porous borders and the free movement inside of Europe and the concept of the “fortress Europe” which developed as a reaction to the migrant flows. The essay treats about the tactics Latin American migrants put into place to enter Europe and afterwards to resist to their exclusion. One of the main problematics raised by the author is how do the migrants acquire and consolidate assets through livelihood strategies.
    I particularly enjoyed McIlwaine’s approach to answer this question. It is based on sociological theories, mainly on the Bourdieu concepts of economic, social and cultural capitals. She stresses on the importance of the two latter ones, which were often forgotten or overshadowed in former studies. The economic capital of migrants strongly relies on remittances sent to their country of origin, while the improvement of their cultural capital is one of the main reasons why Latin Americans go to Europe (chance of better education and improvement of their linguistic skills). The social capital, is essential to migrants since it is the basis of sharing information and support to migrating friends and family. Finally, the author distinguishes a fourth kind of capital: the civic capital. It is described as “the capability to contest and claim right as well as fulfil responsibilities”, with an emphasis on the institutional dimension (what procedures to get a real or false passport etc.).
    Moreover, much empirical work focuses on the “bifocality” of migration rather than on their “multifocality”. McIlwaine however shows that one third of Latin American migrants living in London lived in another European country before, and then maintained ties not only with their country of origin but also in the European country they lived in first.

  18. This article educates us on the complex ways through which migrants from Latin America try to build their new life in a foreign country in quite an innovative way. The personal touch of the stories and experiences shared by them invariably evokes a feeling of empathy in the reader.
    I can easily understand the notion that learning English is the most crucial investment according to the parents, but I believe that the process shouldn’t require this much of a sacrifice.
    Another aspect of the text that drew my attention was the track of the map which Latin Americans cross to finally arrive at their dream destinations. I feel deep respect for the determination of those people who willingly leave their “comfort zone” and their established social connections at home in order to provide for their families and themselves.

  19. I think one of the reasons why I like this article so much is because of the way the author worked with a theoretical frame that she applied to her field research. In some of the texts that we had read so far where the authors conducted interviews and field research themselves, I felt like some of them lacked an already formulated theory that explains how social, political, or cultural systems works. Some of the texts we had read so far felt a bit shallow for me because they narrated the situation of migrants in a certain community, or explained their process of movement, but fell short in trying to explain the underlying causes, or in attempting a theoretical explanation of these. As interesting as these texts were, when I compare them to this week’s paper, I do see a big difference in the scientifically purpose and content.
    Furthermore, I like how the author attempts to take a look at migration outside the common origin/receiver country dichotomy, taking “middle” countries into consideration. Even though this analytical category brings up a lot more complications to the explanation of a migrational path, I think it is important to take pathway countries into consideration, especially when using an all encompassing theoretical frame, like Bourdieu’s theory of capital(s).

  20. This text starts by explaining the historical context of Latin American migration to the United Kingdom: the first Latin Americans to settle in the UK were independence leaders. Today, migrants come for economic reasons: to find work (and often to remit). A lot of them come with tourist or work visas through Spain, Portugal and Italy, EU-countries that signed migration agreements with Latin American countries
    This text is based on two studies in which people with various Latin American nationalities were interviewed. What I found interesting was that the majority had legal status at the time they entered the UK but for many of them a change of legal status occurred since then. It is also notable that such a large majority of the people interviewed (70%) were very well educated, even though they had elementary occupations.
    A lot of them have ties with people settled in other countries than their country of origin, especially the Southern European countries mentioned above. Their major requirement is migration amnesty, which I found interesting but also quite logical since we have seen in many texts so far how stressing the daily life is when people are undocumented.
    I liked that there were examples with personal stories representative of the experience of many. I also liked the highlight on Bourdieu’s (1986) notions of economic, social and cultural capital and habitus. Having studied sociology and particularly Bourdieu’s theories, I think it is a very innovative and pertinent approach.

  21. I have to start my comment agreeing with Aranza. It wasn’t a bad lecture, but there are some pretty obvious aspects which are overtheorized, for instance, migrants’ ability to actually survive. I don’t mean to sound too harsh, but while reading the text I got the impression that it was written by someone who probably never lacked of anything and, therefore, is amazed by the fact that people “developed livelihood strategies”. An analysis of migration based on the Game Theory, for instance, as a strategy used by rational people within a hypothetical game called Survival, where the rules of the game are adopted by Nation-states, could serve to understand this phenomenon. Here’s an article I found related in a way to this proposal:
    https://www.redalyc.org/html/3578/357834264006/
    Another aspect which I deemed as problematic is how the text’s conclusions regarding “onward migrants” only apply to movement between first world countries. Thus, when the author says that “onward migrants” were “slightly less likely to work in elementary jobs at all stages, possibly linked with gaining more qualifications in the intermediate countries…” (McIlwaine, 2011: p. 299) she surely isn’t referring to Latin American countries. Especially if we contrast her assumption about gaining more qualifications with the process of accumulation of civic capital in Europe: “37% of onward migrants had EU passports compared with only 8% of those who migrated directly.” Whether this 37% of onward migrants had “perverse” civic capital or civic capital as such, the conclusion I deduce from this is that having a EU-passport or an American one, but also just the fact that one those countries appears in a migrant’s resume, changes automatically the way they are perceived in the UK, thus, improving their opportunities in the game of Survival.

  22. Interesting on this article I found the empirical data that, while referring to the living standards of the migrants, gave a good overview of the situation of Latinxs in the UK.
    I found it impressive that while 70% had a post-secondary education, 47% worked in elementary occupations (p. 293).
    It seems to me that even in countries where golden visas don’t exist, it comes down to mostly economic factors that determine who stays and who doesn’t. Still, I find the definitions of capital by Bourdieu used in this article very useful. This shows how relatives, friends, or even fellow countrymen/women constitute a big help for migrants.
    But, however the legislation is, migration will not cease to exist. What the legislation can change, are the conditions of this migration. Illegality, forged documents etc. and no legal status often force migrants into secrecy and illegality. If one has no visa, one has to pay a coyote or trafficker. If one has no work permit, even the worst paid job will have to do.
    The sad truth is that not some universal morals guide the life of migrants, but economic interests, which in turn have an expression on the legal scale and for the policies and laws to be seen as legitimate and to be justified, a cultural hegemony is useful. Just by reading the BILD or the Sun, two newspapers that are read by millions every day, this becomes very visible.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Captcha
Refresh
Hilfe
Hinweis / Hint
Das Captcha kann Kleinbuchstaben, Ziffern und die Sonderzeichzeichen »?!#%&« enthalten.
The captcha could contain lower case, numeric characters and special characters as »!#%&«.