One of the greatest issues which our society has faced in the past decade has been immigration. While the media has delivered both the arguments of proponents and their opposition, little has been said from the perspective of those who are migrants. While we were constantly exposed to talking heads arguing back and forth over the issues of legality in regard to the immigrants, the public was left in the dark when it came to the important issues which surrounded the migrant workers, such as economic push-pulls as well as opportunities for them and their families. After reading this week’s articles, we were given a much greater sense of the ins and outs surrounding immigrants and immigration factors. As hard to believe as it is, immigrants aren’t out to take our jobs, they’re merely scouring the market for occupations that the typical citizen won’t even attempt to consider. Economically speaking, they’re merely filling the quota for demand in the market. If we can grasp anything from the readings, we need to acquire an understanding of the immigrant’s plight.
Beginning with Evelyn Hu-Dehart’s “On Coolies and Shopkeepers: The Chinese as Huagong and Huashang in Latin America/Caribbean,” Dehart presents a less often told story of the lesser known Chinese diaspora within Central and South America. Dehart’s investigation into this matter was piqued by a mere observation; why were there such prominent figures of Asiatic descent in South America? Figures included in her observation are Alberto Fujimori, former President of Peru and Cheddi Jagan of Guayana. In the Chinese Diaspora, however, there are no such Chinese figures of a like stature within Central or South America. Instead, the Chinese have simply built their diaspora around economic opportunities. Not unlike the diaspora of Chinese-Americans, the Chinese-Mexican diaspora have been catering to sites of economic boom, places where many other laborers are present to provide them with a solid clientele, such as mines, near railroads and places where there are large factories (of which employ many other laborers).As mentioned by Dehart, the investigation of certain diasporas throughout the world help to answer questions that may arise when diasporas are observed in isolation (meaning when they are only observed in one location). For example, the relatively recent issue regarding immigration and the so-called “problem” of illegal immigrants can be explained by economic needs or desires. Just as the Chinese came to the Americans because of economic opportunity which was unavailable in China, holds enough parallels to the current situation of socially unwanted but economically welcome undocumented workers.
welcome undocumented workers.
In “Asians on the Rim: Transnational Capital and Local Community in the Making of Contemporary Asian America,” Arif Dirlik seeks to unwind the increasingly intricate definition of ‘Asian American.” As opposed to the coining of a political choice, which served as the defining element of “Asian American” in its inception, the term is now being engulfed with elements of the diasporic. To be more specific, Dirlik refers to those who are transnational and able to move in and out of countries without so much as a hiccup. The problem, as he observes, is that the new term has socio-economic exclusivity. The main reason being the new definition refers solely to members who have the ability to move back and forth between nation-states, implying that they are socio-economically mobile. If you aren’t a legally blind, you may also observe individuals which may fall into this category. Within the academic environment, many new “Asian Americans” can also be referred to as parachute children, who come from Asia solely for the purpose of education. 
While this transfer of intellectual currency is exciting, the idea that such economic exchanges between Asia and the U.S. is enough to constitute them being Asian American is troubling and contradictory to the original purpose of the term, as mentioned by Dirlik. Although as a pan-ethnic identity agendas become skewed and lost under those in power, the new connotations of transnationalism have far more drawbacks in terms of being a more encompassing or suitable definition.
In “Legal Servitude and Migrant Illegality: Migrant ‘Guest’ Workers in Taiwan,” Pei-Chia Lan explains the problems revolving migrant guest-workers in countries such as Taiwan. The main cause of the issues can be related to the sovereignty of the nation-state and the means it uses to go about protecting its borders. As a result, numerous fees are passed down to the documented migrant workers and inevitably make their lives less fruitful. In contrast, the lives of undocumented workers involve fewer hardships, mostly because they are off the nation’s state radar, and also because they are given room to negotiate their labor contracts, since no employers would particularly enjoy being cited for hiring illegals. Ultimately, Lan believes the resolution to this issue can simply be found in the improved treatment of guest workers. As they put it, the term ‘guest’ worker would be more applicable if the nation-states who have them made less of a fuss regarding the distinctions of citizen and alien. If we take a comparative approach, then it is clear that the countries such as Taiwan would benefit from giving their guest workers better treatment. In addition to the financial hardships faced in their journey to a new country of employment, the workers have to face issues in their personal lives as well, such as distance from families and the fear associated with adjusting to a whole new country. In the U.S., guest-workers also have these issues, but their proximity to one another and the ability to live and interact with others from their country of origin help ease the problem:
According Cohen in the chapter “Labour and Imperial Diasporas”, the Indians and British fall under the definition of diaspora in that they have strong sustained retention of group ties, a connection to the homeland, and lastly an exclusion in these societies they migrate to. These two groups differ in that they are at different ends of the spectrum: the Indian’s migration is considered a labour diaspora, whereas the British are a imperial diaspora. The Indian diaspora consisted mainly of indentured servants, where in exchange for passage to the plantations, Indian migrants would work to pay off their passage. Often they would continue to reenter indentured servitude in order to gain their own land, but this issue of land ownership would create more strife between the Indian migrants and natives of the land. Unlike the Indian diaspora, the British moved in order to colonize the lands. Because the Indians were laborers beneath the natives of the land they emigrate to, they were considered lower class. However, as colonizers, the British put the natives under their own rule thus creating a space for themselves as higher class. This emigration was considered as necessary, as the British needed to spread their culture, religion, as well as implement new social order. Initially, despite this geographical move, the British migrants still considered themselves citizens of the British empire. Cohen continues to explain how these two forms are diaspora are seen as transitional types. Eventually, the connection between the British empire back in Europe and those in British colonies weakened and rapidly faded.
Chinese and Indian Diaspora Groups | Source: The Economist
Cohen continues to describe a different type of diaspora in the chapter “Trade Diasporas: Chinese and Lebanese.” This trade diaspora is characterized by merchants who move back and forth and merchants who moved and settled. Cohen describes it as a interrelated net of commercial communities forming a trade diaspora. An example of this is the Chinese diaspora and Cohen distinguishes the difference between imperial and trade diasporas. Trade diasporas are not state sponsored while the former is not. Chinese traders were considered by colonial powers to be incredibly profitable but the Chinese immigrants were not essentially loyal to either the colonial powers nor the place. Rather, the place they felt most loyal to continued to be to their family and homeland. This impartiality Chinese immigrants felt towards these lands created strife between the Chinese and Malaysians in Malaysia.The Malays wanted to force upon them a form of citizenship while the Chinese wanted acceptance of their cultural and religious pluralism. Their compromise led to a federated Malaysia but ultimately ended in the withdrawal of Singapore to become and independent state. Cohen emphasizes the creation of Chinatowns as a unique institution in which the Chinese used to settle into societies. For Lebanese communities, the trade diaspora originated with the motive to get rich. However those who left Lebanon found different ideals and quickly embraced them. As a result, many Lebanese emigrants joined this emigration. Cohen describes the Lebanese diaspora as butterflies and caterpillers. There is a continuous flow between going home and back again abroad.
Similarly to how Cohen describes the Indian trade diaspora, Anannya Bhattacharjee highlights the exploitation of foreign workers in her article “Immigrant Dreams and Nightmares: South Asian Domestic Workers in North America in a Time of Global Mobility.” Like the indentured servitude of Indian migrants, immigrants in North America are facing working situations that verge on the point of slavery. Bhattacharjee explains how these women come to North America as a means to create an income for their families back at home. These jobs are often a step down from what she would be doing in her native country, and often beneath their abilities. This article discusses the problems illegal immigrants face upon finding domestic work. Because these house workers are illegal immigrants, the employers have a hold over them that they cannot easily escape. As a result, they are made to do intense physical housework, little to no privacy in their sleeping quarters, incredibly low wages, and threats of deportation by their employers. As a result, these immigrants are trapped into their jobs through fear of being discovered as an illegal alien. Furthermore, they are kept so isolated that it is difficult to leave. Bhattacharjee vividly describes how the poor living conditions domestic workers undergo when working under tyrannical employers.
By: Nick Chan and Tiffany Ly
1. What are two advantages about being an undocumented worker? Why? (Lan)
2. What does Dirlik consider to be the two parts of contradiction in being ‘Asian American’? (Dirlik)
3. What is the difference between proletarian diaspora and mobilized diaspora as stated in Cohen? How would you classify the Indian and British diaspora?
4. What was at the root of the Lebanese diaspora?
5. Why did South Asian women remain in jobs demanding jobs with extremely low wages? Why did they even come to America?
R.I.P Whitney Houston
No comments:
Post a Comment