Ethnic return migration and the nation-state: encouraging the diaspora to return ‘home’

2010 ◽  
Vol 16 (4) ◽  
pp. 616-636 ◽  
Author(s):  
TAKEYUKI GAKU TSUDA
2016 ◽  
Vol 20 (3) ◽  
pp. 317-344 ◽  
Author(s):  
Stephen Cho Suh

Recent studies of ethnic return migration have explained why (economic, political, and affective) and where (Asia and Europe) this phenomenon has primarily occurred. Of the research available, however, few have examined the manner in which framings and practices of gender impact the experiences of those who participate in these transnational sojourns. This study fills this void by examining how Korean American male ethnic return migrants understand and negotiate their masculine identities, as they “return” to their ancestral homeland of South Korea. Utilizing data from in-depth qualitative interviews, this study finds that respondents initially configure South Korea as a site where they may redeem their marginalized masculine identities by taking advantage of the surplus human capital afforded to them by their American status. Over time, however, “returnees” come to realize the fluidity of masculinity and its ideals, exposing the tenuousness of their claims to hegemonic masculinity even in South Korea.


Author(s):  
Ji-Yeon O. Jo

I call for rethinking ethnic return migration through the lens of transborder belongings. Based on analysis of the discursive processes that shape return migrants’ membership status and affective belonging in the domains of citizenship, kinship, and language, I reconceptualize the notions of border and belonging, and theorize the phenomenon of legacy migration. Along the way, I provide evidence of what legacy migrants do to create belonging in the liminal and interstitial spaces they encounter. Ultimately, I propose a more versatile framework for understanding ethnic return migration and its relationship with mobility and affect, which together reflect the multifaceted contexts of contemporary transnational migration.


Author(s):  
Estella Carpi

This chapter attempts to add nuance to the scholarly debate on the security politics of borders and invites its readers to consider the practices and identities of refugees, host border societies, and earlier border migrants in a way that considers their pre-crisis (im)mobility status within the hybrid human realm of the border. The vacillating status of earning a living across the border in times of peace pervades the space of local citizenship during displacement. Against this backdrop, a clear-cut humanitarianism along borders—purporting to distinguish who is the host and who is the guest—acts as a force intended to preserve nation-state privileges. This vacillating status between borders represents the local citizens’ desire that the refugees return home as soon as possible; the refugees, in turn, are left to deal with the paradox of this request, as they are unable to definitively choose either site. It is in this vein that this chapter engages with ungraspable categories of life—and humanitarian labels—pushing border-crossing beyond a matter of life or death, and draws on the taxonomies that humanitarian borderwork and national border policies engender.


2012 ◽  
Vol 10 (1) ◽  
pp. 21-39 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jane Yamashiro

Asian ethnic return migration policies are having an important impact on the lives of Asian Americans. By making it easier for later generation Asian Americans to work and invest in their ancestral homelands, these policies have affected the scale of Asian American migration and their economic, cultural, and social connections to Asia. However, ethnic return migration policies and their effects are not uniform across all Asian American groups. This paper analyzes how Asian Americans are being affected by ethnic return migration policies through comparative examination of the Immigration Control Act in Japan and the Overseas Korean Act in South Korea. The two policies in Japan and South Korea (hereafter Korea) are similar in their initial targeting of ethnic return migrants and in their privileging of skilled workers and investors in the 2000s to increase each country’s competitiveness in the global economy. However, while Korea’s policy has cast a net to include Korean Americans specifically, Japan’s ethnic return migration policy has not been aimed at Japanese Americans in the same way.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document