The links below provide an outline of the material for this lesson. Be sure to carefully read through the entire lesson before returning to Canvas to submit your assignments.
Note: You can print the entire lesson by clicking on the "Print" link above.
Over the last six lessons, we’ve established a strong foundation in basic cultural geographic themes, especially identity and landscapes, and how those themes tie into intelligence. In this lesson we will combine all you’ve learned and apply it to movement and how people move about the world, or don’t as the case may be. In this lesson we will define mobility and migration. We’ll identify motivations for migration, as well as how that migration can impact identity. From there, we’ll discuss potential security implications that may result from this movement.
Upon completion of this lesson, you will be able to:
If you have any questions now or at any point during this week, please feel free to post them to the GEOG 571 - General Discussion Forum. (That forum can be accessed at any time in Canvas by opening the Lesson 0: Welcome to GEOG 571 module in Canvas.)
This lesson is one week in length. Please refer to the Calendar in Canvas for specific time frames and due dates. To finish this lesson, you must complete the activities listed below. You may find it useful to print this page out first so that you can follow along with the directions.
Step | Activity | Access/Directions |
---|---|---|
1 | Read the Lesson 7 online lecture notes. | The lecture notes can be accessed by clicking on the Lesson 7: Mobility I - Access, Movement, and Borders link in the Lessons menu on this page. |
2 | Required Reading |
Mobility: Migration Motivations: Internal Migrants and Security: Givens, T. E. (2010). Immigration and national security: Comparing the US and Europe. The Whitehead Journal of Diplomacy and International Relations, 11(1), 79-88. Note: Registered students can access the readings in Canvas by clicking on the Library Resources link. |
3 | Complete your rough draft of the Research project. | Submit a rough draft of your research project to the Lesson 7 Research Project Rough Draft dropbox in the Lesson 7: Mobility I - Access, Movement, and Borders module in Canvas. |
4 | Take the Lesson 7 Quiz. | You can find the Lesson 7 Quiz in the Lesson 7: Mobility I - Access, Movement, and Borders module in Canvas. |
While mobility and migration are words that are heard in everyday speech, let's look at these words through a more critical, theoretical lens. These words are intimately intertwined, with mobility informing an individual or a group’s ability to migrate. Thus, migration is considered a subdiscipline of mobility. Here, we’ll work to define them separately, while still paying close attention to their interdependencies.
The term mobility has meaning in a variety of different disciplines, not just Geography. Recall Cresswell’s (2006) discussion of the changing viewpoints of mobility as scientists discovered more about the human body. As with much of what we have discussed, a singular, comprehensive definition of mobility is hard to pin down. Merriam-Webster defines mobility as:
“The ability or capacity to move.”
You can see how such a general definition could apply to many different disciplines. While this definition is a good basis for discussion, keep in mind that mobility researchers are not only interested in the ability of people to move, but also in the flow of goods through space and time. Think about the Suez Canal blockage in March of 2021 and what that meant for the movements of goods and how that impacted services globally [1].
When you think about mobility in your own life, what do you think of? How do you get to work? To school? To the grocery store? What factors play a role in your decision making? What modes of transportation are available to you?
Think about your answers to these questions. Also think about how your answers may differ from those of your classmates. These answers likely have to do with who you are: your identity. What about how they differ from individuals in different geographic areas, say Germany, or Tanzania, or Japan. Kraemer et al. (2020) performed a study taking locational data from Google to ascertain spatio-temporal global mobility patterns, and they found some pretty interesting results when defining “mobility” in terms of distances traveled. One of the findings was that lower income countries tend to travel shorter distances than higher income countries (Kraemer et al., 2020). Cross-border movement is even more interesting, with smaller countries experiencing greater cross border mobility, but also those countries experiencing a variety of different crises, which makes mobility patterns fluid and situation dependent (Kraemer et al., 2020). While this data and research is admittedly skewed to subjects who have access both to smart phones and a mobile network, it is a good quantitative methodology for understanding global mobility. It would be interesting to consider how these global mobility patterns change or stay the same at different scales of analysis.
Mobility considerations obviously have to do with movement--but yet another aspect of mobility is the absence or limitations of movement as well and the factors that play in an individual, group, or material’s immobility. What makes one individual, group, or material more mobile than others? Are they characteristics of the individual, group, or material, characteristics of the landscape, or some combination of the two?
Another aspect of mobility of great interest to mobility researchers is (Can you guess? Hint: It’s a common theme of this course!) scale! As history has progressed, so too has the ability to move about and traverse the land-and water-scapes, changing with it potential geographic scales of mobility of people, goods, and services (Cresswell, 2010). Examples include: walking, biking, horse, boat, train, car, motorcycle, airplanes, and so many more. The modes available may also change with the scale of the unit you’re traveling with: just yourself, your family, a work unit, etc. It may be too expensive for you to travel by air with your entire family, but driving may be a viable option. Thus, one’s (or one’s group’s) mobility may be impacted by other factors.
These are just a fraction of the topics and questions that are of interest to mobility researchers. As the world changes around us, especially in terms of technology and connectivity, so too will the field of mobility change and evolve. What do you think is the future of mobility research?
As mentioned previously, migration is often considered a subdiscipline of mobility, focused on movement from point A to point B. Let’s look at the Oxford Dictionary of Geography, which defines migration as:
“The movement of people from one place to another.”
That definition checks out, but, like the mobility definition, this definition is another that is very general, where many different meanings can be inferred. One of the critiques of migration research is that it often focuses on origins and destinations, and with little consideration to what occurs in between: modes of travel, the experience of that travel, the route taken, any intermediary stops, conduits, barriers, etc. (Cresswell, 2010). Often this is where mobility research can often step in and fill in the gaps; however, that is not to say that migration research should ignore these important facets of migration, the migration experience, and its impacts on the individual or group experiencing them.
As with mobility, migration can happen at a variety of different scales. You can migrate across town. You can migrate to another state. You can migrate to another country. Maybe one day you can even migrate to another planet! As such, there are several different types of migration that can be defined and studied. Different types include but are not limited to internal migration, international migration, voluntary migration, forced migration, return migration, seasonal migration, and chain migration. We’ll only discuss a few in this section and deep dive more fully into forced migration in the next lesson. Know, however, that these are not representative of the entirety of the different forms of migration.
Here are the definitions for some of the types of migration:
Cresswell, T. (2010). Mobilities I: Catching up. Progress in Human Geography, 35(4), 550-558.
Cresswell, T. (2006). On the move: Mobility in the modern Western world. Routledge.
Kraemer, M. U. G., Sailek, A., Zhang, Q., Marchal, N. A., Tuli, G., Cohn, E. L., Hswen, Y., Perkins, T. A., Smith, D. L. Reiner Jr., R. C., and Brownstein, J. S. (2020). Mapping global variation in human mobility. Nature Human Behavior, 4(8), 800-810.
Rush, N. (2018). Chain migration explained by scholars [3]. Center for Immigration Studies.
As Cresswell points out in Chapter 1 of his book, the term “mobility” has evolved over time. Early on in its history, being “mobile” had certain stigmas associated with it. To be stable and have “roots” was seen as more beneficial than to be moving through space. However, with the advent of technological innovations in transportation and communication, mobility is at times seen as a privilege and as a sign of freedom, especially with consideration to tourism. This positive view of mobility; however, may change depending on the type of migration. Stigmas may still surround some migrants, such as refugees, internally displaced persons, asylum seekers, or employment seekers. The evolution of the term “mobility” has influenced migration and its motivations, as well as the impacts that migrant mobility has had on individual and group identities.
The motivations for migration are as varied as there are migration types and individuals; however, researchers have created a variety of conceptual frameworks to explain the rationale for migration. It’s easy to try to pinpoint one reason for a person or group’s decision to migrate: employment opportunities, educational opportunities, conflict, environmental disaster, etc. The reality is significantly more complex and relies on the interplay between individual characteristics and macro characteristics, and how those interact at a variety of different scales (global, regional, local, etc) (Piche, 2013). The accumulation of this research differentiates the variety of scales where motivations lie, as well as characterize them in terms of push and pull factors, to describe migration as “multifactorial” and “multidimensional” (Piche, 2013).
Attempts to identify rationale for migration began at the individual, identity level looking at the costs and benefits to an individual for migrating, the push and pull factors (Piche, 2013: Sjaastad, 1962; Lee, 1966). The conditions at the origin could influence (or push) a person to want to migrate: poor employment or educational opportunities, lack of access to resources, etc. While at the destination there are factors that influence a person’s desire to migrate there (or pull them there), such as the perceived notion of plentiful jobs, greater income, or a more stable environment if they’re coming from a war torn area. Pull factors often have an inherently geographic nature, as the migrant chooses to migrate to a specific place. This choice is often based on the perception of this place and the opportunities it presents, or the comforts. For example, if a person is faced with leaving their home in Syria due to the conflict, they may be “pulled” to Lebanon or Turkey because of language, familial ties, employment opportunities, etc. In addition to considering the individual costs, benefits and desires, a potential migrant must have the means to make the journey, whether large or small: transportation options, money, a social network to rely on at the destination and intermediate locations, etc. They must also have the means to overcome potential obstacles that may arise throughout the journey and at the destination.
Which leads to another important aspect of the migration progress: conduits and barriers. Conduits are factors that help migrants in the process of migration. Barriers are factors that limit their mobility. Barriers and conduits can manifest themselves in a variety of different ways, including but not limited to: individual characteristics, characteristics of the physical landscape, and socio-political factors. Examples of conduits could include permissive border policies allowing free transit, well-maintained routes and travel routes, extensive social networks along the route, and inexpensive travel options. Examples of barriers may include restrictive entry and exit policies, lack of financial means, and few travel options.
These individual factors are simply one piece of a complicated pie. There are also what Piche (2013) refers to as macro-structural factors to consider as well, seeking to explain migration from a different scale from the individual scale. Piche (2013) identifies the work of Akin Mabogunje (1970) as a seminal work in trying to understand migration as a “system” not independent of the individual characteristics but in concert with all of the factors at the structural level that interplay with them including technology and political factors. Piche’s (2013) conceptual framework diagram attempts to integrate all of these components and many others, such as gender, for a more holistic understanding of migration motivations and processes. Please pay close attention to the diagram on page 156 for a visual explanation of this framework (Piche, 2013).
Just as the motivations for migration and mobility vary by the individual, so too do the impacts of migration on one’s identity. One thing is for certain: one’s identity is impacted in some way shape or form through the migration process. Recall from Lesson 3 that identity is a process, and everything a person encounters and experiences has an impact on their identity. Migration is no different. In no way is this discussion meant to encapsulate all the possibilities with reference to the impacts of migration on identity, but instead to present a snapshot of some possibilities to get you thinking about the impacts migration can have on identity.
In the process of migration, one leaves behind many of the facets of their identity, including but not limited to “social status, family, and social networks” (La Barbera, 2015). In some migrants, this loss may manifest itself in feelings of loneliness and anxiety, in an unfamiliar place, potentially forcing them to reimagine, rebuild, or rewrite (or some combination of these) their identity to gain acceptance in their new locale (La Barbera, 2015; Ramelli et al., 2013). Some migrants may also be more or less likely to engage with locals when they arrive, potentially seeking instead to connect with anybody who may have also migrated from their origin (Berry, 1997).
In addition to reimagining their identity in a new place, migrants also may also reimagine their expression of their identity as they seek to adapt to a culture that may be different from their point of origin. Consider a migrant moving from a predominantly Muslim country to a predominantly Christian one. How they self-represent may lead to misunderstandings. La Barbera (2015) uses the example of female migrants in a non-Muslim country wearing hijab. To the female migrant, this may be an expression of her religion and a source of comfort for her in an unknown place. To others, however, they may view her hijab as a “symbol of oppression.” This is not just true in religious contexts, this is also true when thinking about one’s self-representation and expression of their identities in terms of gender, sexuality, and ethnicity, among many other facets (La Barbera, 2015). Migrants in these cases may feel compelled to alter their expression of their identities to seek acceptance in their destination location.
The manifestations of the identity process may also differ with respect to the type of migration the individual is experiencing. An internal migration will face different situations than an international migrant, where language and culture for the international migrant could be significantly different from their point of origin. A forced migrant may have different sentiments towards the destination than a migrant seeking greater employment opportunities. These different experiences will also likely impact the identity process.
In many cases the identity process includes a hybrid mixture of elements of an individual’s identity that are manifestations of their identity at their point of origin and at their destination. All of the experiences go into their identity and their expression of that identity. La Barbera (2015) summarizes the literature on migrant patterns of identification as varying, “...ranging from identification with one’s country of origin, religion or mother tongue to [the] receiving country, neither or both.”
Berry, J. W. (1997). Immigration, acculturation, and adaptation. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 46(1), 5-34.
Cresswell, T. (2006). On the move: Mobility in the modern Western world. Routledge.
La Barbera, M. (2015). Chapter 1: Identity and migration: An introduction. In M. C. La Barbera (Ed.), Identity and migration in Europe: Multidisciplinary perspectives (pp. 1-13). Springer International Publishing.
Lee, E. (1966). A theory of migration. Demography, 3(1), 47-57.
Piche, V. (2013). Contemporary migration theories as reflected in their founding texts. Population, 68(1), 141-164.
Ramelli, M., Florack, A., Kosic, A, and Rohmann A. (2013). Being prepared for acculturation: On the importance of the first months after immigrants enter a new culture. International Journal of Psychology, 48(3), 363-373.
Sjaastad, L. A. (1962). The costs and returns of human migration. Journal of Political Economy, 70(5), 80-93.
Migration in all forms brings with it opportunities, but it also brings with it potential institutional challenges that are often unique to the areas where the migration is occurring, as well as by the type of migration. One set of challenges are potential security challenges posed by migration in both the international and internal contexts. These security challenges can manifest themselves where the migrants continue to experience human and resource-related security issues, but also where a fraction of migrants may cause physical security issues. This is not to say that all migrants represent some level of security issue or challenge, but the point is merely to highlight potential security challenges that may arise through and as a result of the migration process. These challenges may also arise from the intersection of different situations (Tsardanidis & Guerra, 2000). While literature regarding internal migration and security is not as plentiful as that regarding international migration and security, it too provides valuable insights into the similarities and differences in the experiences of these migrants.
Research on potential security issues revolving around internal migration are not as abundant as those discussing international migration and security. This is likely due in part to a general lack of data availability on internal migration trends in various parts of the world (Bell et al., 2020; Petrova, 2021; Charles-Edwards et al., 2016). Despite the general dearth of literature available, there are many potential security issues surrounding, whether it deals with physical security, or other types of security such as health, food, and other forms of security.
Most research deals with security challenges that could arise from internal migration from a theoretical, qualitative perspective, describing the identity struggle internal migrants face when moving from their origins where they have a social network to a destination where they likely do not have that network (Awasthi, 2021). This is often discussed in the context of rural-urban migration, which dominates much of the literature on internal migration globally (Awasthi, 2021; Charles-Edwards et al., 2016). Rural-urban migrants are often seeking employment opportunities; however, they have no definitive employment prospects upon arrival, leaving their economic security uncertain. Awasthi (2021) identifies that rural-urban migrants in Delhi often settle on the urban periphery and potentially in slums, where access to resources is often scarce and can potentially influence individuals to become involved in criminal enterprises leading to physical security concerns within the city. This concern has been highlighted even in smaller countries in Asia that also experience rural-urban migration, such as Bhutan (Gosai & Sulewski, 2020).
There have been some quantitative approaches as well. Petrova (2021) while trying to identify any potential linkages between natural disaster-based internal migration and protest found that higher numbers of internal migration is related to a greater number of protests in Bangladesh; however, found little evidence of natural-disaster based internal migrants being related to an increase in protests in receiving districts.
There are also pockets of literature tackling internal migration due conflict, specifically addressing internally displaced persons (IDPs). According to the United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs [4] (OCHA), IDPs are:
"people who are forced to flee their homes due to armed conflict, generalized violence, violations of human rights, or natural or human-made disasters, but who remain within their own country."
Their location in their own country differentiates them from refugees, who seek refuge in another country and will be examined in greater depth in the next lesson. The consideration of IDPs as internal migrants encourages a look at the security threats to internal migrants, not necessarily as proponents or sources of security threats. Though, IDPs may be susceptible to non-state actors encouraging them to become involved in internal conflicts, which is a similar plight that refugees face (Adamson, 2006). However, many IDPs face greater human security threats including lack of access to resources, including housing, food, and water, in addition to difficulty finding accommodations (Adewale, 2016).
While some of the same concerns arise with international migration as with internal migration (such as potential conflicts caused by strain on resources of the receiving area), there are some unique security concerns brought about through international migration. Some of these concerns have to do with the physical security of a nation, others deal with resource security, economic security, and human security of the immigrants among a few examples.
Many have made the connection between migration and terrorism, especially in the aftermath of the events of September 11, 2001 and the European bombings that were in the years following (Adamson, 2006). This often brings to light a nation’s ability to control their borders and the entry and exit of individuals through them, as porous borders can enable terrorists and others to enter unabated. After the events of September 11th, many technological and institutional changes, such as the creation of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), increased funding to various border security entities, and the increased adoption of biometrics at border control sites across the globe (Popescu, 2012; Adamson, 2006). Even with all of these increased security measures, people who migrate illegally may still find gaps in the security measures to enter a nation and potentially pose security threats. Adamson (2006) maintains that terrorists view immigration policy from a “strategic” perspective either to use it with the aim of committing a terrorist attack or of creating sleeper cells. Additionally, migrants may also become involved in criminal enterprises that are not necessarily terrorism related. Tsardanidis and Guerra (2000) identify the use of immigrants to conduct criminal acts by Italian criminal organizations.
The use of international migration policy to commit terrorist and other criminal acts- is certainly the exception, and not the aim of all migrants; however, this rhetoric could potentially cause anti-immigrant views in the country of origin. Anti-immigrant sentimentality, racism, and other forms of discrimination could lead to conflicts between individuals in the destination countries and immigrants, potentially leading to violence against immigrants (Tsardanidis & Guerra, 2000). Other areas for conflicts between immigrants and local populations at the destination country include strains on resources (such as food, water, and other commodities) and perceived reduction of employment opportunities that sometimes come with increased migrant flows (whether international or internal) (Tsardanidis & Guerra, 2000). Conflicts of this nature are often location dependent and depend on the policies and rhetoric that are promulgated at the national, regional, and local levels.
Our consideration of the security issues surrounding internal and international migrants certainly presented some interesting challenges and opportunities for policy internationally. There’s an interesting balancing act in recognizing that migrants on the whole are opportunity seekers, who do not seek to be security threats or conduct acts of terrorism, and that only a very small percentage of migrants have nefarious goals. How do countries balance the protection of their citizens with participating in this increasingly globalized world?
This is certainly not an easy question to answer, and different countries and supranational organizations take different approaches, as evidenced by Givens’ (2010) comparison between the United States and Europe’s immigration policies. Should countries increasingly “police” mobility to ensure their security? Are permissive or restrictive immigration policies more advantageous? Should countries encourage multiculturalism vice assimilation? With technological advances making it both easier to travel and easier to communicate globally, it is much easier than in the past for migrants to remain connected with their native cultures and languages (Adamson, 2006). Would advocating multiculturalism nationally, regionally, and locally help reduce the security threat by reducing the “us” versus “them” sentimentalities? Are the practices of the past still applicable in today’s globalized community?
In addition to the obvious policy implications for the migration-security nexus, there are some additional less obvious connections between migration and security. One example of such a connection is that migrants can influence policy decisions of their destination countries with regards to their country of origin and/or send money or other resources back to their home countries that may increase instability (Tsardanidis & Guerra, 2000). An example of this influence includes the Kurdish population in Germany’s influence over relations with Turkey, specifically with Germany criticizing Turkey’s movement into Kurdish parts of northern Syria (Heine, 2020).
Adamson, F. B. (2006). Crossing borders: International migration and national security. International Security, 31(1), 165-199.
Adewale, S. (2016). Internally displaced persons and the challenges of survival in Abuja. African Security Review, 25(2), 176-192.
Awasthi, S. (2021). ‘Hyper’-urbanisation and migration: A security threat. Cities, 108, 1-5.
Bell, M., Bernard, A., Charles-Ewards, E, and Ke, W. (2020). Comparative measures of internal migration. In M. Bell, A. Bernard, E. Charles-Edwards, and Y. Zhu (Eds.), International migration in the countries of Asia (pp. 229-247). Springer.
Charles-Edwards, E., Muhidin, S., Bell, M., and Zhu, Y. (2016). Migration in Asia. In M. J. White (Ed.), International handbook of migration and population distribution (pp. 269-284). Springer.
Givens, T. E. (2010). Immigration and national security: Comparing the US and Europe. The Whitehead Journal of Diplomacy and International Relations, 11(1), 79-88.
Gosai, M. and Sulewski, L. (2020). Internal migration in Bhutan. In M. Bell, A. Bernard, E. Charles-Edwards, and Y. Zhu (Eds.), International Migration in the Countries of Asia (pp. 229-247). Springer.
Heine, H. (2010). German government criticises Turkey’s Syria invasion [5]. Euractiv.
Petrova, K. (2021). Natural hazards, internal migration and protests in Bangladesh. Journal of Peace Research, 58(1), 33-49.
Popescu, G. (2012). Bordering and ordering the twenty-first century. Rowman & Littlefield.
Tsardanidis, C. and Guerra, S. (2000). The EU Mediterranean states, the migration issue and the ‘threat’ from the south. In R. King, G. Lazaridis, and C. Tsardanidis (Eds.), Eldorado or fortress? Migration in Southern Europe (pp. 321-344). St. Martin’s Press.
We are now in week 7 of this course, and you have decided on a research project, medium, outline, and continued sifting through research. This week, we will ask you to submit a rough draft of your research project. This will allow your instructor to provide feedback on your progress and allow you enough time to course correct in case things are straying too far afield.
For this week, your rough draft should include:
Note for students submitting podcasts: your podcast must be accompanied by two things:
Reminder: you are expected to incorporate citations in the podcast itself (e.g., by conversationally stating the author and year of a study). If you are not sure how best to do this, contact your instructor.
Please look over the grading rubric for the Lesson 7 Research Project Rough Draft in Canvas, where you can view the grading criteria for this assignment.
When you are ready to submit your research project rough draft, please return to Canvas and open the Lesson 7 Research Project Rough Draft dropbox in the Lesson 7: Mobility I - Access, Movement, and Borders module.
In this lesson we defined the fairly ubiquitous terms of mobility and migration within the context of human geographical research. We discussed the potential motivations for migration, but also the fact that migration is a system that incorporates a variety of different factors including macro-structural factors, as well as intervening barriers and conduits. While realizing that the majority of migrants do not have nefarious intentions, we examine potential security issues that may arise around internal and international migration, as well as potential policy implications.
Please return to the Lesson 7: Mobility I - Access, Movement, and Borders module in Canvas where you will find the Lesson 7 Quiz. The quiz will asses your understanding of the Lesson 7 content and associated readings.
Please check the Canvas Syllabus or Calendar for specific time frames and due dates.
You have reached the end of Lesson 7! Double-check the to-do list on the Lesson 7 Checklist page [7] to make sure you have completed all of the activities listed there before you begin Lesson 8.
If you have any questions now or at any point during this week, please feel free to post them to the GEOG 571 - General Discussion Forum. (That forum can be accessed at any time in Canvas by opening the Lesson 0: Welcome to GEOG 571 module in Canvas.)
Links
[1] https://www.cnbc.com/2021/03/29/suez-canal-is-moving-but-the-supply-chain-impact-could-last-months.html
[2] https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/
[3] https://cis.org/Rush/Chain-Migration-Explained-Scholars
[4] https://www.unocha.org/es/themes/internal-displacement
[5] https://www.euractiv.com/section/global-europe/news/german-government-criticises-turkeys-syria-invasion/
[6] https://www.getwelder.com/transcribe-old#:~:text=Welder's%20free%20video%20transcription%20allows,txt%20format.
[7] https://www.e-education.psu.edu/geog571/node/175