Transnational migration within and out of Asia is one of the main drivers of contemporary social change in the region, as seen from its impact on the long-standing social institution of the ‘family’. The mutually constitutive effects of family and migration have spawned richly variegated research illustrating conceptual pathways such as ‘transnational family’ and ‘global householding’. The chapter discusses three interrelated strands of work in this arena. First, transnational families draw on ideologically laden imaginaries to give coherence to notions of belonging despite the physical dispersal of their members. Second, transnational families are also realised through lived experiences, where varying degrees of intimacy are negotiated across transnational spaces in the context of new communication technologies. Third, families may assume transnational morphologies, with the strategic intent of remittance generation as a means of economic survival or to accumulate social and economic capital so as to maximise social mobility for the family.
Loretta Baldassar, Majella Kilkey, Laura Merla and Raelene Wilding
As a result of the dominance of highly individualised, economistic and gendered analyses of migration and globalisation processes, family life has often been relegated to the ‘back stage’ of research on globalisation and migration. In this chapter, we examine the relationship between family, globalisation and migration through the lens of care, focusing specifically on the experiences of transnational families. We begin by examining how uneven globalisation processes produce ‘crises of care’, which migration can help alleviate. We move on to explore the transnational care strategies migrants and their kin members in the country of origin develop to maintain familyhood across borders, including when trapped in immobility. In such a context, the opportunities provided by information and communication technologies (ICTs) to maintain connections and to care across distance have become especially important. We conclude by arguing that mobility and internet access are thus key features of globalisation that require careful policy attention at both national and transnational levels.
We review U.S. immigration history during the 1875–1920 period, when federal legislation imposed explicit qualitative restrictions on immigration. The Page Act of 1875 prohibited the entry of forced laborers, Asian women who might engage in prostitution, and convicted criminals. The Chinese Exclusion Act (1882) halted Chinese immigration to the U.S. for ten years and prohibited Chinese residents of the U.S. from becoming citizens. In 1892, the Geary Act extended the ban for an additional decade, and required all Chinese living in the U.S. to carry permits. As expiration of the Geary Act neared, the Scott Act was passed, further extending the ban. Two years later, the ban on Chinese immigration to the U.S. was made permanent. Additional legislation also limited immigration, with arrivals from Northern and Western Europe continuing to receive preferential treatment. Even so, during this period, we see large numbers of immigrants arrive from Southern and Eastern Europe.
Marie McAuliffe and Alexandra Masako Goossens
By its very nature international migration is a transnational phenomenon that operates beyond the regulation of any one State. And yet, paradoxically, almost all governance of international migration globally rests with individual sovereign States. Historically, it could be argued that this situation presented few difficulties for modern nation-States given the considerable power that rested with them – political, economic, social and cultural – and an often highly circumscribed ability of people to migrate independently. There has been, however, a significant increase in international movement spurred by greater access to physical and virtual interconnectedness through accessible transportation links and rapid growth in telecommunications technology. Immigration and border management policies and practices have evolved rapidly. However, migrants themselves, along with other non-State actors, are less confined by geography than perhaps ever before. This chapter discusses the implications of transportation and telecommunications advances on the regulation of international migration in an era of increasing interconnectedness.
Mobility between the Maghreb and Europe has been a constant in the shared Euro–North African history. This mobility of people from Tunisia, Algeria and Morocco was infused in the late 1990s with a new current of mostly irregular migrants from sub-Saharan countries crossing the Maghreb en route to Europe. Since 2000, the regional migration dynamics between sub-Saharan countries, the Maghreb and the EU has undergone many changes linked to the deterioration of economic conditions in African regions and the security upheavals caused by the ‘Arab Spring’. This created an erratic flow of irregular migration along the ‘Western Mediterranean Route’between 2000 and 2006, which tapered off as migratory routes shifted to the Central Mediterranean. In 2011–2012 there was a new surge in movement along the Western Mediterranean Route from Syrian refugees that peaked in 2015–2016 with a ‘migratory explosion’ off the Tunisian and Libyan coasts before levelling off in a ‘migratory peace’ on the maritime Moroccan-Spanish side.
Diego Acosta and Luisa Feline Freier
The extraordinarily liberal discourses on immigration and migrants’ rights that South American governments have embarked on since 2000, led to progressive policy initiatives at the national and regional level. In interregional comparison, these developments stand in contrast to recent debates on freedom of movement and refugee flows in the EU in the context of the increase of asylum applications since 2015, and the 2016 Brexit referendum in the UK. Within the region, they mark an important turning point from a historical perspective. This chapter offers an overview of recent developments in migration governance in South America at both the regional and national level. Rather surprisingly, very few studies have thus far touched on the South American experience. Apart from addressing this geographic gap in the literature, we will further suggest that an ideational approach is necessary to understand migration policy change on both the domestic and regional level. The conclusion highlights room for further research.
We review U.S. immigration history during the period from 1968 through 2015. The Hart-Celler Act (1968) abolished the National Origins Quota System and changed the bases for immigrant entry to promote family reunification, fill labor market vacancies, and accommodate refugees and asylum-seekers. This led to a pronounced increase in the number of arrivals, to 765,258 immigrants in a typical year during the period. It also resulted in a shift in the primary source countries/regions of immigrant arrivals. Asia’s share of the immigrant inflow increased from 4.9 percent during the 1921–1967 period to 31.2 percent. The share of the total inflow that arrived from Latin America and the Caribbean more than doubled, from 21.9 percent to 44.4 percent. Immigrants from Africa have accounted for 5 percent of the total inflow since 1968. We have witnessed a corresponding decrease in the immigrant share value for Europe, from 53.8 percent to 11.9 percent.
International labour migration has been a central feature of Southeast Asian labour history since the 1870s, consistent with Southeast Asia’s greater integration into the international economy, European imperialism and the colonial administrations’ labour requirements. Following decolonisation, the independent Southeast Asian states passed restrictive legislation to halt unskilled Asian labour migration. After the 1970s, labour migration again assumed new Asian and regional migration patterns that have underscored ethnicity, nationality, gender and the migrant workers’ skills. This chapter first reviews colonial migration policies and trans-Asian migration patterns. It then interrogates and investigates the current migration policies of key ASEAN states, the ‘new’ guest worker systems and the diversity of the bilateral relations between sending and receiving countries. It also addresses issues concerning the exploitation and vulnerability of migrant workers, especially foreign domestic workers, who often experience frequent breaches of contract and fraudulent practices.
We review U.S. immigration history during the period from 1921 through 1967. The Emergency Quota Act (1921) and the Johnson-Reed Act (1924) established and revised the National Origins Quota System, augmenting existing qualitative restrictions on immigration with quantitative restrictions. This greatly reduced immigrant inflows, including arrivals from Southern and Eastern Europe, while affording a large percentage of the quota allocation to Northern and Western Europe. The McCarran-Walter Act (1952) eliminated race as a barrier to immigration and citizenship, allowed immediate relatives of citizens to enter without numerical restriction, and revised the National Origins Formula. Even so, quota limits and the bias favoring immigration from Northern and Western Europe remained in place. During this period, the annual average inflow of 203,395 immigrants was markedly smaller than the average inflow of 537,945 witnessed during the 1885-1920 period, and much closer to the average annual inflow of 161,390 observed between 1820 and 1884.
This chapter argues that the complex production–migration structure in which nation-States are immersed should be examined to develop alternative conceptions of regulation vis-à-vis labour recruitment. It analyses the links between labour recruitment and forced labour in a context in which global production is being driven by global supply chains that are geographically dispersed and fragmented, by incorporating recruiters’ and workers’ agency. One of the key factors that lead to forced labour situations lies in variegated recruitment pathways which incorporate workers into global production. By addressing how different forms of labour recruitment lead to forced labour and related phenomena, the chapter shows how formal and informal migration regimes constrain migrants’ agency in different ways. Building on examples from field research on farm labour contractors in California and recruitment agencies in Malaysia and Qatar, the chapter unpacks the nuanced forms in which labour recruitment is still a key challenge for the globalisation of migration.