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?
I found the idea of regarding adoption as migration very interesting, although one troubling aspect would be the adoptees’ feeling of belonging somewhere. According to the text and the Real Academia definition of the re-grouping(family reunification) process: ““to join again or to bring together in a different manner that which was previously joined.” So the definition here does not recognize the adoptees’ old home as their actual one, but rather only their new and welcoming one. Which can be seen as an attempt to help them fit into their welcoming society and make them feel ‘at home’.
This contributes to Yngvesson’s “clear-brake model”, where the adoptee experiences “the complete severance of ties with the biological family, and the reconstitution of its national identity”. So the state feels the adoptees must renounce their homeland in order to truly accept and regard their new country as their actual home. I would argue the state is taking a bit of the adoptee’s identity by forcing them to view their new home as if it has always been their only one, and the place they were born in simply a temporary residence. Which is exactly what makes returns problematic, the adoption process is meant to make them feel as if, for example, the Peruvian adoptee has always been Spanish and a part of the Spanish family and community, even if they didn’t know it themselves. As if they had found their home when they were adopted, so how can they find their home again? (upon return)
As in the case of Alanya, it is probable that the adoptees will then feel they haven’t reached closure regarding their origins and would need to explore their ties and establish a relationship with their country of birth.
I found John Terrell and Judith Model’s question interesting, to explore how does adoption affect citizenship studies.
This article has a particular interest for me, because of bringing up the role of “adoption” in migration. In my opinion, it’s not possible to consider migration without it.
Adoption as last step of migration, I think Tal, has mentioned very correctly the troubling aspect of that in comment above – is “feeling of belonging somewhere”. That it’s not about to have their actual home in another country, but to have new one, but with hope for better conditions of life. Looking at adoption of next generation of migrants gives us a possibility to look at migration as a complex question: reasons of migration, ways of migrations. these children who “have access to two or more cultural, social and political histories” – that brings us to answer of the question of “how does person return to the place they have no memories to?”
I would say when family connection is strong, and child grew up sharing two or more cultures, it will always attract child to come back to the country they don’t have real memories with, but still culturally connected.
I found this article really interesting, but as well found it pretty hard to explain my point of view, because i got the feeling that every person can get a different understanding of how should they understand “adoption”
I think this week’s text by Jessaca B. Leinaweaver provided us with an interesting alternative view of migration. I never would have thought of comparing migration to adoption, but after reading the text, I can see that there are certain links between migration and adoption that I was not aware of before.
Given these many parallels of migration and adoption, I think reasonable arguments could be found for seeing adoption as a kind of migration. After all, the actors in both cases cross borders when leaving their home countries and moving to live in another country. From what I have learned from the text, even the reasons underlying migration and adoption, e.g. war, natural disasters, or violent conflict are somewhat similar.
Before reading the text, I probably would not have agreed with the proposal to “use adoption to better understand migration, and migration to better understand adoption”, but now I agree with the author that placing adoption and migration in the same analytical framework can provide us with enriching and compelling new insights in both the fields of international migration and adoption.
In addition, as the research presented was conducted with Peruvians in Spain, I would be interested in finding out whether other receiving countries (both in regard to migration and adoption) showcase significant differences in how they define the ideal family and a particular home life as requirements that need to be fulfilled in order to be eligible for the reunification process. This would be an interesting topic for another comparative study on migration and adoption, and could also shed more light on the conceptualization of the state as an “organizing trope”.
For this week, we had an interesting article about migrants and adoptees from Peru who live in Europe. It compared and contrasted migration and adoption and showed how migrants and adoptees have different perceptions of kinship than European nation-states. The author applied the kinship lens to migration to show that ideologies about kin ties are also present in this sphere.
It was actually the first time a read about adoption as migration, which was kind of strange in the beginning but turned out to be convincing. I think she managed to make a successful comparison between these two mobility patterns, that are usually treated separately.
I found it interesting how siblings are excluded from reunification in Spain, which is different from Peruvian ideologies of kinship and how people circumvent the rules through work contracts.
I also found it interesting how adoption and migration are similar in that for both matters the government requires proof of financial ability and a spare room.
I think the author is right in saying that studying migration from a kinship perspective brings new insights and that we can use adoption to better understand migration and the other way round.
Leinaweaver’s article on adoption offered a completely new perspective on migration to me that I had never considered before. Both analytically and content-wise, her approach is very interesting, especially the focus on legal documents and how they are part of constructing discourses and ideas on migration – for example in the relationship between the concepts of adoption, kinship, and citizenship.
One idea I found remarkably striking is the parallel between ideas of “nation” and “kinship”/”family” that she opens up in the conclusions (cf. Leinaweaver 2011: 395). It is very logical, yet acquires an even more powerful logic in the face of adoption. As she points out, adoption is legally shaped as an “either – or” operation, leaving no room for the spaces in between. This idea can be linked to how she characterizes the home as a space “where kinship is produced and, at least in the case of adoptive kinship, where it is actively produced; it must be adequate to that kinship.” (Leinaweaver 2011: 384) How does this notion echo with the parallel between nation and family?
It would fundamentally point to the idea of “territory”, linked together with the notion of “nation” to create a classical definition of the state. Following this thread of thoughts, the ‘home’ of the nation would be the territory it ‘governs’ – which would in turn happen by means of ‘stateness’. In this sense, it would be the territory where citizenship (as ‘kinship’) is reproduced. In cases where double nationality is not permitted, this territory becomes exclusive.
As Leinaweaver herself points out, these notions on “nationality” are deeply problematic and place requirements on migrants to make a decision in an “either – or” scenario. Seen through this filter, analyzing adoption in relation to migration offers tools to criticize notions of nation, state, and governance. This would, in my opinion, be an interesting thought to follow up to.
First of all, I did not know that transnational adoption was such a huge topic, so the article offered quite a lot of new insights to me.
Especially the laws to reunite families seem quite strict too me. I´ve always interpreted adoptions in a sense of accepting the biological family to still be a part of the child´s life, so why exclude them? Sure, countries have to regulate immigration but why siblings? What if something happens to the adoptive parents?
I also think it is quite interesting how adequate homes are described in comparison to the orphanages.
For me, the most interesting fact of the text was that the feeling of “my country” was mentioned for both adopted children and second generation immigrants. Why do people feel so strongly connected to a country they´ve never really been to? Is it some kind of mystification? Are they unsatisfyied in their current situation?
I think it´s the sense of wanting to give something back because they have a better life here now.
As you have mentioned before, the idea of understanding adoption as a certain form of migration and examining the importance of kinship ties in questions regarding both, migration and adoption seemed as a really interesting approach to me and was something I have never considered before.
Altough I also think that at some points, the text could have been more concrete, structured and the idea could have been more expanded or discussed more profoundly.
I think that limiting the definitons of family or family members for reunification and also the either-or-approach for adoptivees including denying the ties to the biological family and the homecountry is in a way a certain form of control and immigration regulation.
The point about the programm of “voluntary return“ of the Spanish government and the ideas connected to this, I see cirtically. Spain promotes this `´voluntary return“ arguing that returning to your homecountry you could contribute a lot to the development trough skills you have learned in Spain and all the `´development“ you experienced in Spain. Also the opinion of one friend of the interviewed persons claimed her friend not taking more advantage of Madrid`s cultural offers and not having anything to offer when going back to Peru, seemed pretty eurocentristic in my opinion.
Of coruse it is a fact that people from economically less stabil countries migrate to more stabile ones in order to improve their living conditions and these of their families back in the homecountry and it is also a fact that whenever you migrate you experience and learn new things, work in different ways and learn new skills. But the the formulation on the website of the Spanish government and the opinion of the peruvian`s friend seemed euro- and ethnocentristic to me, indicating that in Peru there is not as much culture or nothing to offer at all.
The concept of adoption as a type of migration is something that I have not thought of before. I found the discussion about government’s control over the adoption process quite interesting. The author describes the legal restrictions to adopting a child as an imposing government method to dictate notions of family and kinship. However, I think there are other reasons to such limitations, one of which being that the adoptive family has to make sure that they can care properly and provide a good life to the child, so that the child is capable of being raised to become a useful Spanish citizen and not a liability to the nation. The questioning by legal authorities about the legality of Spanish-Peruvian marriages is very unfortunate as well – this is a clear instance of how the state moves from the public sphere of demographic management to the private sphere of personal relationships and it shows how the public and private spheres are always interconnected, regardless of how they should be deemed as separate. In last week’s reading, the paper discussed about different types of capital and with regards to the discussion on social capital, government’s regulations on adoption and migration go against the proposed argument that having social capital in the form of familial ties in the new country helps with migration. In general, while this reading presented several interesting ideas, I felt that the discussion about citizenship, adoption and migration were not very well developed and insightful.
I would rather link the feeling of being connected to as well as the perceived necessity of supporting the country of origin to an (imagined) sense of authenticity.
As Leinaweaver states that “state anxieties about fraudulent marriage show the centrality of authenticity to kinship ideology” (Leinaweaver, 2011: 385), so does the returning to the countries of origin make this perceived authenticity regarding kinship visible for adoptees.
The ethnographic example of Alanya might be an exception, but surely shows that she was looking for something like her “true”, “authentic” origin.
The return including opening a night shelter I would rather see as an attempt to intensify these bonds to this place of origin. So I think the aim to give something back, as Sarah stated, certainly is another driving factor for making such a decision, but especially when the own life story (running away from home because of the feeling of not fitting in) is intertwined in such a high degree, I could imagine that the reasons/motives lie rather by oneself than by the other. This should not make her appear selfish or egocentric, but on the other hand, I think it should not be neglected, too. In the one way or another, we are all searching for where we came from and what home means to us, aren’t we?
In this sense I think it is especially interesting when the author is referring to the word “nation”, whose emergence is grounded on a genealogical metaphor of “belonging to the same family” (Leinaweaver, 2011:395). The concept of adoption questions these assumptions and the “authenticity” of places of origin, so I think it is an extraordinary good way of approaching the wide field of migration.
Hi everyone, sorry for commenting so late…
As some of you already mentioned, it was really interesting to see the parallels between migration and adoption, esp. regarding the aspect of returning to the country of origin.
I agree with Sarah, as I was pretty surprised by the sternness of the Spanish “reagrupación” regulations as well, esp. regarding the financial aspects and the habitability requirements. Although it’s an EU regulation, as the Council Directive 2003/86/EC on family reunification states that “the person concerned may be required to have accommodation that meets general safety and health standards, sickness insurance and stable resources sufficient to maintain himself/herself and the members of his/her family”, I still wonder if authorities in other countries could come to your house and check if there’s a spare room for your relative. Also, Spain’s “vision of the appropriate migrant nuclear family” (p. 387) seems to be more exclusive than the EU directive. The phenomenon of circumventing the strict reagrupación policy through a faux work contract was another interesting element.
As for adoptees, the idea(/paradox?) of “returning” to their birth country for the sake of “contribution” and “development” was also a very new phenomenon for me, as I understood adoption as a “reunification” (with the adoptive parents) evoking a new identity. Hence, little did I think about the challenges Alanya had to experience as a child for example. I believe Leinaweaver and Yngvesson made a very strong point on racial difference in the adoptive family (p. 393), which might unfortunately contribute to a feeling of exclusion in the adoptive household/society, esp. when the parents don’t react/retro adequately (cf. p. 391, young Alanya asking herself “Why do I have another color of skin than my parents?”). Again, I like how the author presents some personal stories to prove his point, such as Alanya’s and Ana Dodson’s.
I looked into the issue of illegal adoption of Peruvian children and why the government restricted adoption in the 90s. According to a Chicago Tribune article from ’92, there were several baby trafficking scandals as well as rumors of child dismemberment and organ trade prior to the tightening of the adoption law.
https://articles.chicagotribune.com/1992-03-28/news/9201280629_1_foreign-adoptions-adoption-process-peruvian-babies
The idea to connect adoption processes to “regular” migration is a quite good and refreshing approach to extend the comprehension of global migration and the individual difficulties coming by with it. I think the author described quiet well, how the two normally separated phenomena combined can help to enlighten some upcoming problems regarding migration, such as the identity problems with returning migrants born in another country. Since migration strains have grown all over the world and reports of children born in a foreign country being deported or resettling into countries they never knew, I think this kind of analysis approaches are significant for expanding the theoretical base of migration studies. Nevertheless, it was beneficial to describe the fate of Alanya for the comprehension of the authors idea of combining adoption and migration together.
It is also interesting to see how nation-states try to detect and define which kind of family-bonds are “real” and which are not. The apparent mistrust into migrating family parts, especially in families with different nationalities in some cases appears degrading. Personally, I know that not only in Spain, but in Germany too, the authorities monitor families over years fearing the immigrated family members and/or the domestic counterpart could have fraudulent intentions. If it would be for the sake and the protection of the immigrated, for example if it is women or children it would be positive, but I think these controls and the mistrust mostly arise out of economic and bureaucratic fears by the authorities.
The idea of the text is to correlation between migration and adopting as a part of kinship-motivated migration. It deals first with the “Reagrupación Familliar” (Re-Grouping) as one legal way of migration and in the Spanish immigration law implemented right in order to adoption and migration. Second, it deals with the return to the home country while the text focuses on the expectation and legal framework that returning includes. Adoption can also form migration-networks although the kinship to their original families is legally disconnected.
It was interesting that the Spanish model of the nuclear family is technically not preventing the migration but generating a new kind of simulated-labor-migration. The relatives that are not legally part of the nuclear family migrate via a simulated working contract that relates on the migration network of the already in Europe living family member.
Furthermore the different expectations for adopted and labor-migrants when it comes to returning are very surprisingly for me. The expectations for adopted are to be grateful for their parents an opportunities in their new country, so that returning seems to be ungrateful. For the other migrants the expectation is to obtain skills in Spain, because only then they can contribute to their home country when they will return. That can lead to the same argument in the end but it’s again an interesting example for different expectation that occur from different status.
The text tackling the issues of migrations and adoption of Peruvian people provides us with a very different point of view about the two processes. It was both surprising and absolutely fascinating for me to discover how much in common these processes actually have.
Some parts of the text proved to be of particular interest to me. First, the regulations for the “reagrupacion”. The conditions under which a person can reunite with their family members(depending on whether they are parents, siblings, etc.) might be rightfully described as unjust or even cruel. Nonetheless, we should still acknowledge the government’s stance, so it is understandable that they are trying to impose rules and regulations of migration.
Another interesting part of the text was the Spanish Immigration’s Plan for Voluntary Return. The way that they present the return home as “contributial” and the opportunity to be with your family is somewhat hypocritical mostly because of the strict prohibition against returning to Spain for at least 3 years.
In conclusion, the text clearly outlines the tight connection between adoption and migration and successfully illustrates how both processes can be understood if only studied simultaneously.
This text was written by Jessaca B. Leinaweaver, researcher at Brown University and professor of Anthoropology. It focuses on the topic of kinship paths to and from Europe on the example of Peruvian adoption and migration.
To do so, Leinaweaver compares the migrants and the adoptees of Peruvian origin residing in Europe, especially on the topics of family reunification and returns to the country of origin. I found that her choice to contrast these two mobility patterns is a very interesting and innovative approach to the topic. In fact, she explains that research has always analyzed the two flows separately, even though they have much more in common that we might think and raise some paradoxical problematics: “sometimes the targets of anti-immigrant racism and the adorable babies of transnational adoption come from the same places on different kinds of visas”.
The research she conducted mainly in Spain between 2009 and 2011 showed that adoption and migration have some similar patterns. For example, both adoptees ad migrants come to share a comparable sense of owing something to their country of origin and wanting to do something in return for its benefit. Moreover, adoption and migration from Peru reached a peak in the nineties during the civil war, since they both are influenced by variables such as natural disasters and military conflicts.
The impression I had by reading this article was that on the contrary to adoption, migration seems to be ruled by networks based on empathy, which is perhaps developed as a way to balance the judicial precariousness migrants are living in. For example, migrants coming to Spain help family members to join them by finding work contracts for them, and marriage between a migrant and an autochthone is often seen as suspicious by the Spanish authorities since it is often used as a way to regularize the migrant’s stay.
What I found the most interesting about the text by Leinaweaver is her methodical approach to the analysis and comparison of the concepts of migration and adoption. Picking very specific sources, like the juridical discourse and the strict definitions given to words like “reagrupar”, she manages to point out the construction of the discourse around migration and around adoption and furthermore, to show its similarities and parallels. In a method of discourse analysis like the one I would say that Leinaweaver uses in this paper, the researcher has the advantage of being able to decide what sources of the discourse production and what messages it is pertinent to look at in order to verify the hypothesis. However, the downside is that sometimes the chosen outputs sometimes do not really give a clear image of the larger issue at hand. I think in this case, there are many aspects and paradigms of the concept of adoption that weren’t taken into consideration and perhaps play an important role in the bigger picture.
The text examines the role of kinship in migration flows from Peru, making parallels between migration and adoption. Indeed, the author, Jessica B. Leinaweaver, regards adoption as a form of migration.
I found interesting that the author compares the arrival of the child in a family through an adoption and through a biological birth from the nationality perspective. In fact, when a child is adopted, a recognition of the adoption by the parents’ country is needed. The author considers that the state rules the family ties and decides which are legally accepted.
Another interesting element was the specific home requirements in Peruvian guides for adoption.
On family reunification, the author explains that it allows people to invite parents, spouses and children under certain conditions. When the relative is not included in these rules (siblings, cousins, younger parents, adult children, unmarried partner…), a work contract is needed to make him/her come. There again, the state interferes in the family life. On this subject, the author also underlines the anxiety of the state about fraudulent marriage
Besides, I knew nothing about the voluntary return program, so I enjoyed learning more about it.
As a conclusion, the author explains how both adoption and traditional migration flows (including return) strengthen transnational ties.
I had never thought of adoption as a way of migration (since children are involved), so I was glad to read a text that considers adoption this way. This perspective is very innovative.
What I think is interesting on this topic is the creation of one’s identity.
How and when does an individual, that is adopted, create kinship ties? I see a contradiction between the “new kinship studies” and traditional kinship studies in the discipline of Anthropology, for example. The former ones distinguish themselves in that relationships and kinship are seen as socially constructed and not as genealogically determined. This can be seen, for example in this text, where the adoptees become part of the adopting families, thus “kinning”, or creating kinship. On the other hand, traditional genealogical factors cannot be disregarded. Otherwise, there would exist no explanation for cases like Alanya, who “returned” to Peru as an adult.
It is implied that a reason for her to question her identity was being a Person of Color with white parents. I believe that, in a racist and white-supremacist society, not only adoptees, but generally migrants and People of Color have these doubts about their identity. How can someone be German or Dutch if he or she is not accepted as such in Germany or the Netherlands? I believe there exist many coping strategies for these questions of identity: identification with the “new home” and assimilation, trying to blend out the differences that parts of the society see between the adoptee and the host society would be one option. On the other hand, one could also reject the new kinship relations and identify with ones genealogical “roots”. It is possibly not that simple, but a navigation in these contradictions is inevitable.
I also asked myself, why adopting families sought children from Peru, or other underdeveloped countries. Do some do it subconciously to “help the poor children in the third world”? Or is it because they want to give a poor child access to a better future, regardless of their origin? Are there not enough children available for adoption in Europe?
In general, I consider interesting the analogies drawn by the author between adoption and migration, although there’re some parallels where I don’t necessarily agree with, especially the one about “return” between Alanya’ and Valery’s cases. First of all, I think it’s complicated to make general conclusions about transnational movements drawn from non-representative cases. Whether migrants understood all aspects of the Spanish “voluntary return” Program or not, the truth is that “the number of migrants taking up the government’s offer were (from the government’s perspective) disappointingly low.” (B. Leinaweaver, 2011: 389). On the other hand, Alanya’s case seems to be an exception, while “most international adoptees do not engage in permanent returns to their countries of origin.” (B. Leinaweaver, 2011:393). Another thing I would like to mention is that relatedness to a territory, which generally happens to be a country, should be analysed not only in terms of kinship, but also in terms of culture, especially if we are to find parallels between adoption’ and migration’s experiences on racism. The political and economic situation may incentive people to migrate and even create feelings of rejection toward the land, but the attachment to the culture, to the people and to those who stay is a whole different thing. I think this should be taken into account, especially considering that this elements affect people’ sense of belonging, which is relevant when talking about ideas of contribution to development as a form of altruism.