Advertisement

Legislated Inequality: Provisional Migration and the Stratification of Migrant Lives

  • Francis L. CollinsEmail author
Chapter
Part of the Mobility & Politics book series (MPP)

Abstract

Over recent decades, a focus on management has become increasingly central in the formulation and operation of migration policy across the world. This is particularly the case in Anglophone settler societies, where migration regimes, formerly oriented towards large-scale settlement, have progressively introduced schemes for temporary migrant entry for work or study that hold out the prospect of settlement for only a select number of arrivals. While migration policy has always hinged on inequalities between potential and actual migrants, these provisional migration regimes manifest an internalisation of inequality in relation to the present rights and future prospects of individuals residing within nations. This chapter explores the shifting relationship between migration policy and inequality through a focus on labour migration policies in Aotearoa/New Zealand and the ways in which the value of migrants has become oriented around claims of quality and skill that have manifest impact on the daily lives of migrants and the communities they live amongst. Through this analysis, the chapter demonstrates the manner that inequalities within migrant populations, as well as between migrants and non-migrants, are not only established through extant social and economic differences but also formalised through the legislation of multidimensional stratification in society.

Keywords

Migration management Temporary migration Labour market Stratification Inequality Occupation Gender 

References

  1. Anderson, B. 2010. Migration, immigration controls and the fashioning of precarious workers. Work, Employment and Society 24 (2): 300–317.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Ashutosh, I., and A. Mountz. 2011. Migration management for the benefit of whom? Interrogating the work of the International Organization for Migration. Citizenship Studies 15 (01): 21–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Batnitzky, A., and L. McDowell. 2011. Migration, nursing, institutional discrimination and emotional/affective labour: Ethnicity and labour stratification in the UK National Health Service. Social & Cultural Geography 12 (02): 181–201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Cochrane, B., M. Fletcher, G. Pacheco, and A. Plum. 2018. Low pay in New Zealand. Wellington: New Zealand Work Research Institute and Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment.Google Scholar
  5. Collins, F.L. 2018. Anxious desires: Temporary status and future prospects in migrant lives. Emotion, Space and Society.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.emospa.2017.10.004.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. De Haas, H. 2010. Migration and development: A theoretical perspective. International Migration Review 44 (1): 227–264.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Duncan, G.J., and R.J. Murnane, eds. 2011. Whither opportunity? Rising inequality, schools, and children’s life chances. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.Google Scholar
  8. Gideon, J. 2013. Migration, health and inequalities: Reflections on the experience of Latin American migrants in London. Migration and Inequality 100: 187.Google Scholar
  9. Immigration New Zealand. 2012. Are you recruiting migrant workers? A guide for dairy farmers. Wellington: Ministry of Business, Employment and Innovation.Google Scholar
  10. ———. 2016. Migration trends and outlooks 2015/16. Wellington: Ministry of Business, Employment and Innovation.Google Scholar
  11. ———. 2017. Migration trends and outlooks 2016/17. Wellington: Ministry of Business, Employment and Innovation.Google Scholar
  12. ———. 2018. Migration data explorer. Wellington: Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment. Available online at: https://mbienz.shinyapps.io/migration_data_explorer/
  13. Lenard, P.T., and C. Straehle, eds. 2012. Legislated inequality: Temporary labour migration in Canada. Kingston: McGill-Queen’s Press.Google Scholar
  14. Liepins, R. 2000. Making men: The construction and representation of agriculture-based masculinities in Australia and New Zealand. Rural Sociology 65 (4): 605–620.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. McCall, L. 2005. The complexity of intersectionality. Signs: Journal of Women and Culture and Society 30: 1771–1802.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. McDowell, L. 2008. Thinking through work: Complex inequalities, constructions of difference and trans-national migrants. Progress in Human Geography 32 (4): 491–507.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Meissner, F. 2018. Legal status diversity: Regulating to control and everyday contingencies. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies 44 (2): 287–306.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Mezzadra, S., and B. Neilson. 2013. Border as method, or, the multiplication of labor. Durham: Duke University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Ong, A. 2006. Neoliberalism as exception: Mutations in citizenship and sovereignty. Durham: Duke University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Preibisch, K., and G. Otero. 2014. Does citizenship status matter in Canadian agriculture? Workplace health and safety for migrant and immigrant laborers. Rural Sociology 79 (2): 174–199.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Raghuram, P. 2004. The difference that skills make: Gender, family migration strategies and regulated labour markets. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies 30 (2): 303–321.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Robertson, S. 2015. Contractualization, depoliticization and the limits of solidarity: Noncitizens in contemporary Australia. Citizenship Studies 19 (8): 936–950.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Searle, W., K. McLeod, and N. Ellen-Eliza. 2015a. Vulnerable temporary migrant workers: Canterbury construction industry. Wellington: Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment.Google Scholar
  24. Searle, W., K. McLeod, and C. Stichbury. 2015b. Vulnerable temporary migrant workers: Hospitality industry. Wellington: Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment.Google Scholar
  25. Simon-Kumar, R. 2015. Neoliberalism and the new race politics of migration policy: Changing profiles of the desirable migrant in New Zealand. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies 41 (7): 1172–1191.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Strauss, K., and S. McGrath. 2017. Temporary migration, precarious employment and unfree labour relations: Exploring the ‘continuum of exploitation’ in Canada’s temporary foreign worker program. Geoforum 78: 199–208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Stringer, C. 2016. Worker exploitation in New Zealand: A troubling landscape. Auckland: Human Trafficking Research Coalition and The University of Auckland Business School.Google Scholar
  28. Walia, H. 2013. Undoing border imperialism. Oakland: AK Press.Google Scholar
  29. Winker, G., and N. Degele. 2011. Intersectionality as multi-level analysis: Dealing with social inequality. European Journal of Women’s Studies 18 (1): 51–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Woodhouse, M. 2017. Changes to better manage immigration. https://www.beehive.govt.nz/release/changes-better-manage-immigration
  31. Xiang, B., and J. Lindquist. 2014. Migration infrastructure. International Migration Review 48: 122–148.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Yeoh, B.S. 2006. Bifurcated labour: The unequal incorporation of transmigrants in Singapore. Tijdschrift voor Economische en Sociale Geografie 97 (1): 26–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.National Institute of Demographic and Economic AnalysisUniversity of WaikatoHamiltonNew Zealand

Personalised recommendations