Abstract
In this chapter we analyze and discuss a specific kind of circular migration, which is oriented to return and whose rationale and goals imply that migrants do not seek, and indeed actively avoid, any sort of involvement and investment in the receiving society. We show that neither the traditional notion of national citizenship, nor the more flexible notion of post-national citizenship can accommodate the life plans and address the specific vulnerabilities of this special category of migrants. As an illustration of the phenomenology of this kind of migratory practices, and of the normative issues they raise, we refer to the case of circular migration of Romanian domestic and care workers in Italy. In order to tackle the specific needs and plans of these migrants, we suggest, we had better put aside the language of equal citizenship and of citizenship rights, and envision instead special rights meant to facilitate their unorthodox life projects.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
In this, we consider European Union citizenship as a near-enough example of postnational citizenship. European Union citizenship possesses many of the (relevant) attributes of postnational citizenship, e.g. its being multilayered and void of a definite cultural content, at least a thick one, and arguably, often also of a strong sense of identification of the citizens with the Union’s political institutions.
- 2.
Arguments very similar to, and often influenced by, Walzer’s position are advanced by theorists in both the communitarian and liberal national traditions, for example David Miller and Will Kymlicka, who are both of central importance in the normative theory of migration and citizenship. See, for example, Miller (1995) and Kymicka (1995). For a discussion of the relevance of Walzer’s theory for current theories of citizenship, see Bosniak (2006) and Seglow (2005).
- 3.
Soysal is, of course, not the only one to have observed and remarked upon such changes in the patterns of migrants’ integration. Various scholars have emphasized these new patterns in most Western democracies. Saskia Sassen, for example, points out that immigrants have gained civil, social, and even some political rights in their countries of residence, and that formal citizenship status is of minor importance with respect to entitlements to such social services as education, health, welfare, and unemployment benefits in the United States and Western Europe (Sassen 1996).
- 4.
Irene Bloemraad has convincingly argued that institutional factors other than migration laws have a significant impact on naturalization rates. Still, even where these facilitating factors are present, there are large groups of eligible foreign residents who do not naturalize (Bloemraad 2002).
- 5.
In the period between 1990 and 1996 the maximum number of Romanians in Italy was 34.00 (Sandu et al. 2006: 18). In 2005 there were 125.160 Romanians in Italy, 130.700 in Spain. In 2010, there were 813.037 in Italy, 810.470 in Spain (source: World Bank estimates 2010). According to the Italian Institute of Statistics (ISTAT), at the beginning of 2015 there were 1,131,839 Romanians residing in Italy.
- 6.
Torre et al. (2009) report that according to the Romanian Institute for Statistics, in 2006 women accounted for the 62 % of the migrant population from Romania.
- 7.
“The percentage of housekeeping work tripled in the work total carried out by Romanians abroad, between 1990 and 1995, and 2002 and 2006” (Sandu et al. 2006: 21); Pasquinelli and Rusmini (2008: 25) estimated that in 2007 in Italy 39 % of the migrants working as housekeepers of caregivers were from Romania. On the domestic work performed by migrants in Italy see also Scrinzi (2008).
- 8.
- 9.
An important caveat to be addressed is that these migrants’ scarce political and social engagement in the host country might not depend on the circular or temporary nature of their migration plans, but on a typical trait of Romanian migration in general; Romanian migrants, indeed, are less prone to engage in networking and transnational practices than other migrants (for a comparative analysis, see Eve 2008). However, it should be pointed out that the same pattern is also to be found among circular migrants employed in domestic work coming from other Eastern European countries (see for example Coyle 2007); furthermore, the claim that the scarce social engagement of these circular migrants from Romania depends more on their personal motives and rationales than on a general trait of their national culture appears to be supported by qualitative surveys (see for example Castagnone et al. 2007).
- 10.
Pietro Cingolani talks of “weak transnationalism”, in order to signal that the international ties and relations of these migrants are much weaker than in other cases of circular migration (Cingolani 2009: Chap. 6). Mirjana Morokvasic uses the language of transnationalism as well in order to describe similar migration experiences by Polish domestic workers in Germany (Morokvasic 2003: 111). We suggest that the language of transnationalism, in these cases, could be abandoned altogether; using it to refer to the cases we are considering unduly stretches the original meaning of the term.
- 11.
This has been described as an “apnea” strategy. See Castagnone et al. (2007).
- 12.
In the literature on migration there is indeed a tendency to consider as involuntary or forced all choices made in circumstances of less-than-full justice. This is an undue assumption that we would immediately perceive as counter-intuitive if applied to other familiar cases. We are assuming here a more sensible definition of voluntariness, by which a choice can be said voluntary if it is not made just because there are no acceptable or good enough alternatives (See Ottonelli and Torresi 2013; Olsaretti 1998).
- 13.
Italy was among the countries that opted for “transitional” measures before completely opening their borders to Romanian immigration. Until January 2012 Romanians still had to apply for a work permit, unless they were employed in the field of constructions, care services, domestic work, tourism, agriculture, metallurgy, managerial and high skills tasks and seasonal work (this list comprises in fact the vast majority of the jobs usually performed by Romanian migrants).
- 14.
Pasquinelli and Rusmini (2008) report a percentual decrease of Romanian domestic workers who are planning to return after 2007 and suggest that this might indicate the decline of circular migration from Romania. However, we should consider that these percentual data are to be assessed against the absolute numbers of female migrants from Romania, which have increased significantly after the accession to EU in 2007. The percentage of temporary migrants might have been decreasing simply because under the new regime more people are migrating among those who want to do it on a permanent basis. On this, see also Torre et al. (2009: 13).
- 15.
It may be worth pointing out that the existence of historical precedents, per se, does not make a way of life involuntary or not chosen. For a telling illustration, see De La Torre’s paper in this volume (Chap. 7), focused on the Bolivian tradition of circular migration.
- 16.
This is because in an egalitarian liberal democracy the presence of marginal and vulnerable groups is unacceptable normatively and may produce a corruptive effect on the egalitarian ethos of the society (See Walzer 1983).
- 17.
References
Aleman-Castilla, B. (2007). The returns to temporary migration to the United States: Evidence from the Mexican urban employment survey (Discussion Paper no. 804). London: Center for Economic Performance.
Alexandru, M. (2007). Migration and social mobility. A new perspective on status inconsistency. Romanian Journal of European Studies, 5–6, 153–167.
Anderson, B. (2004). Migrant domestic workers and slavery. In C. van den Anker (Ed.), The political economy of new slavery (pp. 107–117). Houndmills: Palgrave.
Anghel, R. G. (2008). Changing statuses: Freedom of movement, locality and transnationality of irregular Romanian migrants in Milan. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 34(5), 787–802.
Anwar, M. (1979). The myth of return: Pakistanis in Britain. London: Heinemann.
Bauböck, R. (2003). Towards a political theory of migrant transnationalism. International Migration Review, 37(3), 700–723.
Bauer, T., & Sinning, M. (2005). The savings behavior of temporary and permanent migrants in Germany (Discussion Paper no. 1632). Bonn: Institute for the Study of Labor.
Benhabib, S. (2002). The claims of culture. Equality and diversity in the global era. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Benhabib, S. (2004). The rights of others. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Bettio, F., Simonazzi, A., & Villa, P. (2006). Change in care regimes and female migration: The “care drain” in the Mediterranean. Journal of European Social Policy, 16(3), 271–285.
Bloemraad, I. (2002). The North American naturalization gap: An institutional approach to citizenship acquisition. International Migration Review, 36(1), 193–228.
Bosniak, L. (2006). The citizen and the alien: Dilemmas of contemporary membership. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Boswell, C., & Ciobanu, O. (2009). Culture, utility or social systems? explaining the cross-national ties of emigrants from Borsa, Romania. Ethnic and Racial Studies, 32(8), 1346–1364.
Caponio, T. (2009). Documenti, lavoro, casa: l’integrazione delle donne immigrate. In R. Catanzaro & A. Colombo (Eds.), Badanti & Co: il lavoro domestico straniero in Italia (pp. 85–108). Bologna: Il Mulino.
Castagnone, E., Eve, M., Petrillo, E. R., & Piperno, F. (2007). Madri migranti. CeSpi Working papers, 37/2007. Roma: CeSpi.
Catania, D., Recchia, D., Simoni, M., & Zucca, G. (2007). “Il welfare fatto in casa”. Indagine nazionale sui collaboratori domestici stranieri che lavorano a sostegno delle famiglie italiane. Roma: Iref.
Cesareo, V. (2015). Migrazioni in Italia ed Europa: Un Nuovo Scenario. In ISMU (Ed.), Ventunesimo Rapporto sulle migrazioni 2015. Milano: FrancoAngeli.
Cingolani, P. (2009). Romeni d’Italia. Bologna: Il Mulino.
Cingolani, P., & Piperno, F. (2005). “Il prossimo anno, a casa”. Radicamento, rientro e percorsi translocali: il caso delle reti migratorie Marginea-Torino e Focsani-Roma. Roma: CeSpi.
Coyle, A. (2007). Resistance, regulations and rights: The changing status of Polish women’s migration and work in the “new” Europe. European Journal of Women’s Studies, 14(1), 37–50.
Da Roit, B., & Sabatinelli, S. (2013). Nothing on the move or just going private? Understanding the freeze on child-and eldercare policies and the development of care markets in Italy. Social Politics: International Studies in Gender, State & Society, 20(3), 430–453.
Dustmann, C. (1996). Return migration: The European experience. Economic Policy, 11(22), 213–250.
European Commission, Directorate-General for Economic and Financial Affairs. (2009). Five years of an Enlarged EU, 1/2009.
Eve, M. (2008). Some sociological bases of transnational practices in Italy. Revue Européenne des Migrations Internationales, 24(2), 67–90.
Fullin, G., & Vercelloni, V. (2009). Dentro la trappola: percezioni e immagini del lavoro domestico e di cura nei percorsi delle donne immigrate. Polis, 23(3), 425–461.
Galor, O., & Stark, O. (1990). Migrants’ savings, the probability of return migration and migrants’ performance. International Economic Review, 31(2), 463–467.
Glystos, N. P. (1997). Remitting behaviour of “temporary” and “permanent” migrants: The case of Greeks in Germany and Australia. Labour, 11(3), 409–435.
IOM. (2005). World migration report. Geneva: IOM.
Kofman, E. (2007). Gendered migrations, livelihoods and entitlements in European welfare regimes. In N. Piper (Ed.), New perspectives on gender and migration: Livelihoods, rights and entitlements (pp. 59–102). London/Geneva: Routledge/UNRISD.
Kosic, A., & Triandafyllidou, A. (2004). Albanian and Polish migration to Italy: The micro-processes of policy, implementation and immigrant survival strategies. International Migration Review, 38(4), 1413–1446.
Kymlicka, W. (1995). Multicultural citizenship. Oxford: Clarendon.
Leogrande, A. (2008). Uomini e caporali: viaggio tra i nuovi schiavi nelle campagne del Sud. Milano: Arnoldo Monadadori Editore.
Marcu, S. (2009). Inmigrantes Rumanas en el servicio domestico y de cuidados de la comunidad de Madrid: Estudio cualitativo. Estudios Geograficos, 70(267), 463–489.
Marshall, T. H. (1959). Citizenship and social class. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Messina, A. M. (2006). The political incorporation of immigrants in Europe: Trends and implications. In A. M. Messina & G. Lahav (Eds.), The migration reader (pp. 470–493). Boulder: Lynne Rienner Publishers.
Miller, D. (1995). On nationality. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Miller, D. (2008). Immigrants, nations and citizenship. The Journal of Political Philosophy, 16(4), 371–390.
Morokvasic, M. (2003). Transnational mobility and gender: A view from post-wall Europe. In M. Morokvasic-Muller, U. Erel, & K. Shinozaki (Eds.), Crossing borders and shifting boundaries (Gender on the move, Vol. 1, pp. 101–133). Opladen: Leske and Budrich.
Morokvasic, M. (2006). Transgressing borders and shifting boundaries in post-wall Europe. A gender view. In A. B. Antal & S. Quack (Eds.), Grenzüberschreitungen – Grenzziehungen. Implikationen für Innovation und Identität (pp. 47–72). Berlin: Sigma.
Newland, K. (2009). Circular migration and human development (MPRA Paper No. 19225, Munich Personal RePEc Archive).
Olsaretti, S. (1998). Freedom, force and choice: Against the right-based definition of voluntariness. The Journal of Political Philosophy, 6(1), 53–78.
Ottonelli, V., & Torresi, T. (2012). Inclusivist egalitarian liberalism and temporary migration: A dilemma. The Journal of Political Philosophy, 20(2), 202–224.
Ottonelli, V., & Torresi, T. (2013). When is migration voluntary? International Migration Review, 47(4), 783–813.
Parreñas, R. S. (2001). Servants of globalization. Women, migration and domestic work. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Pasquinelli, S., & Rusmini, G. (2008). Badanti: la nuova generazione. Caratteristiche e tendenze del lavoro privato di cura. Milano: Istituto per la ricerca sociale.
Piperno, F. (2008). Migrazioni di cura: l’impatto sul welfare e le risposte delle politiche (CeSpi Working Papers 40/2008). Roma: CeSpi.
Ricci, A. (2008). Caratteristiche dell’immigrazione rumena in Italia prima e dopo l’allargamento. In F. Pittau, A. Ricci, & A. Silj (Eds.), Romania. Immigrazione e lavoro in Italia. Roma: Idos.
Rossi, E., & Botti, F. (2010). Migration as a factor of social innovation and development: the case of Romanian migration to Italy. Revista Innovaţia Socială, 2, 15–23.
Sandu, D., Radu, C., Costantinescu, M., & Ciobanu, O. (2004). A country report on Romanian migration abroad: Stocks and flows after 1989. Prague: Multicultural Center.
Sandu, D., et al. (2006). Living abroad on a temporary basis. The economic migration of Romanians 1990–2006. Bucharest: Open Society Foundation.
Sassen, S. (1996). Losing control? Sovereignty in an age of globalization. New York: Columbia University Press.
Sciortino, G. (2004). Immigration in a Mediterranean welfare state: The Italian experience in comparative perspective. Journal of Comparative Policy Analysis, 6(2), 111–129.
Scrinzi, F. (2008). Migration and the restructuring of the welfare state in Italy: Change and continuity in the domestic work sector. In H. Lutz (Ed.), Migration and domestic work (pp. 29–42). Aldershot: Ashgate.
Seglow, J. (2005). The ethics of immigration. Political Studies Review, 3(3), 317–334.
Simonazzi, A. (2008). Care regimes and national employment models (Working Paper n. 113). Roma: Dipartimento di Economia Pubblica, Università “La Sapienza”.
Soysal, Y. N. (1994). Limits of citizenship: Migrants and postnational membership in Europe. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Soysal, Y. (2012). Post-national citizenship: Rights and obligations of individuality. In K. Nash, E. Amenta, & A. Scott (Eds.), The new Blackwell companion to political sociology (pp. 383–396). Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.
Torre, A. E., Boccagni, P., Banfi, L., & Piperno, F. (2009). Migrazione come questione sociale. Mutamento sociale, politiche e rappresentazioni in Ecuador, Romania e Ucraina (CeSpi Working Papers 57/2009). Roma: CeSpi.
Triandafyllidou, A. (2011). Circular migration and integration. A short guide for policy makers, Metoikos Project. Florence: Robert Schuman Center for Advanced Studies.
Uccellini, C. M. (2010). Outsiders after accession: The case of Romanian migrants in Italy, 1989–2009. Political Perspectives, 4(2), 70–85.
van Hooren, F. (2010). When families need immigrants: The exceptional position of migrant domestic workers and care assistants in Italian immigration policy. Bulletin of Italian Politics, 2(2), 21–38.
Walzer, M. (1983). Spheres of justice. New York: Basic Books.
Yang, P. Q. (1994). Explaining immigrant naturalization. International Migration Review, 28(3), 449–477.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2016 Springer International Publishing Switzerland
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Ottonelli, V., Torresi, T. (2016). Temporary Migration and the Shortcomings of Citizenship. In: Solé, C., Parella, S., Martí, T., Nita, S. (eds) Impact of Circular Migration on Human, Political and Civil Rights. United Nations University Series on Regionalism, vol 12. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-28896-3_8
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-28896-3_8
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-28894-9
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-28896-3
eBook Packages: Political Science and International StudiesPolitical Science and International Studies (R0)