Question 1
Migrants have faced a significant problem settling or rather adapting to their host countries. Nonetheless, there are different ways they can use to adjust to the host society, for instance, ethnic pluralism, assimilation, and transnationalism. Assimilation is whereby two distinct groups of people from different cultures merge to share a common culture. When migrants move to new countries, they have to assimilate with the natives by learning their culture and social life. On the other hand, there is pluralism whereby a group of people come together and decides to maintain their identity and culture. For the case of the migrants, while in another country, they do not integrate with the citizens, rather they remain separate from them by sticking to their cultures and social life. Lastly, there is transnationalism whereby the host and the visitors exchange ideas and cultures to fit in the society, nonetheless, the immigrants will always belong to two nations (Waters and Reed 150). With transnationalism, the host community and the immigrants connect by engaging in transnational practices and activities and this becomes a vehicle for cultural and social exchanges between them.
Assimilation, Pluralism, and transnationalism are very different from each other. With assimilation, the immigrant groups come together with the host society and share everything with them including their culture. The aspect of assimilation entails adapting to and learning the languages of the host community as well as practicing their customs and social life (Waters and Reed 132). In addition, the assimilation process helps lessen disparities in immigrants and the hosts because they become part of the mainstream culture. In contrast to assimilation, with pluralism, the immigrant groups remain on their own as they hold onto their cultures, thus doing things on their own. With pluralism, the immigrant groups maintain their cultures and boundaries (Marger 93). Transnationalism is somehow same as assimilation because the host and the immigrants integrate by sharing their cultures and ideas; the only difference is that, with transnationalism, the immigrants belong to two societies at the same time. Therefore, with assimilation, the immigrants put their lives primarily on acculturation while pluralism, they decide to hold onto their culture, and lastly, transnationalism, they integrate with the host community but still belong to their home culture.
The most suitable way for immigrants to adapt to the host society is by transnationalism. With transnationalism, individuals from different countries/borders connect and bring changes in their cultural, economic, and social landscapes. Through transnationalism, the immigrants exchange cultures, ideas, and values as well as and interacting with the host society, but they still hold strong ties to their homeland and culture (Waters and Reed 151). An immigrant can engage in political, social, and economic activities in both the host country and the countries of origin without any problems because of transnationalism. The immigrant groups can focus on both their reception country as well as their countries of origin, and this transforms their lives both at home and in their host country because they pursue their dreams home and away. Hence, transnationalism remains the best way to immigrant groups to adapt to the host society because it provides opportunities for them both at their countries of reception and back in their countries of origin.
Question 2
The migration of women has been an important subject to the international women’s rights. Female migrants are on the increase, and this has led to the question as to whether these women have more to lose or to gain from the migration. First of all, we should note that gender inequality plays a pivotal role in the migration of women, especially when they feel that their social, economic, and political expectations cannot be met in their country. Therefore, their migration can be beneficial to them, but only if their movement is voluntary and not forced, and if their presence in the receiving country is legal. Hence, it is apparent that the causes of migration of women determine their success in the recipient country.
Another question that arises because of the immigration of women is whether they have more to gain or lose compared to their male counterparts. It should be noted that both men and women make migration decisions basing on the political, economic, and social situations in their countries of origin. Therefore, if the migrants end up in a country where there are opportunities, they both gain equally from their migration. Women who are discriminated against in their country of origin whereby they are limited from accessing employment, education and political participations can gain more. Most women migrate to other countries, especially abroad in response to specific gender labor demand. Thus, while in these countries, they gain economically because they get chances, they are denied in their countries of origin.
Nonetheless, even though most women may gain more in their countries of destination after migration, they may also lose, especially in countries where the laws discriminate women. Women become vulnerable to exploitation, discrimination, and abuse because of their status as immigrants. Some countries have laws that only govern only the rights of their citizens. As a result, the migrant women are considered as unauthorized workers, and this makes them vulnerable in the receiving countries because they have no protection. In addition, they are not privileged like their male counterparts because they are paid less compared to the men who get high-paying jobs because of gender segregation in host countries. Besides, compared to men, most migratory women will always end up taking 3D jobs with limited access to networks and as a result, they lack access to social support and information. Moreover, Grasmuckm and Patricia note that, they take jobs with low wages because that is all they can find (151). They also occupy positions that are within informal sectors thus lack protection because such jobs are not covered by the labor legislation, and this is a disadvantage to them as compared to their male counterparts who work in formal sectors. Nonetheless, despite all difficulties they encounter, migrant women still use these limited opportunities to their advantage to better their lives and for their families in their home country (Oishi 1).
Overall, most migrant women who work in their countries of destination gain more because they become independent and gain autonomy, which leads to a change in gender relations with their families back home. They can contribute economically to their host countries with their skills and competency, something they are denied in their countries of origin. Moreover, they as well provide for their families back home and also help other women to move and gain experience, and upon the return to their country of origin, they disseminate the significance of women in the society. Therefore, if the migration of women is done legally, the women have more to gain in the countries they have moved to than in their countries of origin (Grasmuckm and Patricia 152). This way, they will have more to gain than to lose from their migration because of the opportunities available to them in their countries of destination. For that reason, migration offers women great potential such as financial dependence and improved status in their lives and homes because they become significant contributors to their home economy with their remittances and their families.
Works Cited
Grasmuck, Sherri, and Patricia R. Pessar. Between two islands: Dominican international migration. California: University of California Press, 1991. Print.
Oishi, Nana. Women in motion: Globalization, state policies, and labor migration in Asia. Stanford University Press, 2005. Print.
Marger, Martin N. Race and Ethnic Relations: American and Global Perspectives. Cengage Learning, 2009. Print.
Waters, Mary C and Reed Ueda. The New Americans: A Guide to Immigration Since 1965. London: Cambridge, 2007. Print.
