Luka Roth

Professor Bové
10/23/2023
Midterm Exam

1) Peter Adey wrote that “Mobility is an underlying concept as fundamental—but no less

contested—as ‘space,’ ‘society,’ ‘power,’ ‘city,’ ‘nature,’ ‘creativity’ or ‘home.’” This quote
means that mobility “operates as a key building-block notion.” Essentially, mobility is a
fundamental concept of sociology and social thought. Adey believes that mobility should be
viewed in this way and studied as a topic which encompasses the root of many other topics and
fields of study. From war, to tourism, to immigration and emigration, to transportation, the
concept of mobility can be applied to every one of them, and moreover, mobility actually
underpins many of these elements of sociology. As Adey demonstrates in the beginning of the
introduction, the world depends on mobilities, even in the sense of daily activities like walking
up stairs or accessing products and services. Mobility can change the way we view and
understand the world, which further cements it as a fundamental concept. For instance, Adey
notes how mobilities have led to globalization, which has allowed societies and nations to grow
and expand, while also bringing them closer together. Due to mobility, the world is more
connected and interdependent than ever before. However, mobility is also often a contested
topic. For example, many scholars disagree on the definitions of mobility. Adey notes in the
article that while he views mobility as a larger, all-encompassing concept which can be applied
to other fields and helps explain various concepts, others clearly differentiate between mobility
and other concepts like migration. Additionally, mobility has many different ways of being
interpreted. Adey states that our own access and proximity to mobility, such as whether we drive,
use public transportation, or have physical disabilities/impairments all change the way mobilities
are understood. One example from an assigned reading which demonstrates how mobility is a
fundamental underlying concept is from the article by John Torpey about the monopolization of
movement by the state. Torpey breaks down the concept of borders and immigration in the
modern world essentially to just mobility, asserting that the state has deprived people of the right
and the freedom to move across certain spaces. Of course, Torpey delves into the specifics in his
article and uses examples from history about the gradual development of nation-states, the
advancements in technology which allow states to effectively control movement, and the socio-
economic factors which drive immigration. However, his entire article applies the same basic,
fundamental ideas about mobility described in Adey’s article. I believe that Torpey inherently
understands mobility and uses it as the fundamental basis in order to make his assertions about
the state’s monopolization of movement and migration throughout his article. I argue that he
would agree with Adey that mobility is a fundamental, underlying concept which can be applied
to nearly every specific concept Torpey discusses in his own article.
Luka Roth
Professor Bové
10/23/2023
2) Race/ethnicity and migration are often intertwined in today’s world. One example from
current events that demonstrates the relationship between race and migration is the recent war
between Russia and Ukraine. Due to the war, many Ukranians have been displaced and have
become refugees, prompting them to leave their country and seek refuge elsewhere. The United
States, along with many Western European countries like Germany and the UK have admitted
millions of refugees into their countries since the conflict began. However, the Syrian Civil War
in 2011 produced a similar number of refugees, yet these same Western European countries have
admitted significantly smaller numbers of refugees from Syria. The rhetoric surrounding the two
groups of refugees, especially from the media, differ greatly, likely due to the predominant races
of Ukraine and Syria, respectively. White Ukrainian refugees were consistently described as
good neighbors, good people, and viewed as easily able to assimilate into western European
nations, whereas Syrian refugees were constantly talked about as being violent, poor, and
unworthy of entry into these countries, let alone assimilation and integration. Another example
from current events is when former U.S. president Donald Trump issued a travel ban from
several countries from the Middle East, stating national security as a reason, yet the true reason
was due to the fact he was targeting predominantly Muslim countries and restricting immigration
from those countries because their are deemed as undesirable, and that Muslim values are
opposed to American values. Finally, two examples from articles covered in the course are those
by Tera W. Hunter and Jason De León et al, respectively. In the former, Hunter highlights the
struggles faced uniquely by African Americans during the Reconstruction period following the
Civil War. African Americans migrated in droves away from the plantations on which they were
formerly enslaved, to major cities across the United States. According to the article, this mass
migration of African Americans also occurred due to search for economic opportunity, homes,
and safety from racist terror groups such as the Ku Klux Klan, as well as protection amongst
other African Americans who shared the same struggles as they did. This demonstrates the
relationship between race and migration because this mass migration was uniquely due to
problems faced by African Americans. The latter article byJason De León et al, similarly outlines
the relationship between ethnicity and migration through the controversial Arizona law of 2010,
which gave law enforcement the right to stop and frisk individuals in order to check their
immigration status, and potentially catch immigrants who were staying in Arizona illegally.
However, since there is little to no visual distinction between legal and illegal immigrants, law
enforcement would often single out anyone with darker complexions and Spanish last names
when stopping inhabitants. This emphasizes how immigrants are often viewed in the U.S., and
how South and Central Americans are associated with immigrants despite their actual
immigration status, simply because of their features, race, and ethnicity.
Luka Roth
Professor Bové
10/23/2023
4) According to the article, “Beyond open and closed borders: The grand transformation of
citizenship,” by Ayelet Shachar, grand transformation of citizenship describes the way in which
the definitions of borders as well as citizenship are constantly shifting in today’s world. Shachar
considers 3 intersecting, yet distinct, dimensions of this grand transformation: the territorial, the
cultural, and the economic. The phrase “grand transformation of citizenship” essentially means
that the idea of citizenship which has been established for the past 100+ years (since the advent
of the nation-state and membership, as well as the rise of nationalism and international borders)
is now undergoing a drastic transformation. No longer are borders considered in the binary sense
of simply “open” or “closed.” Rather, borders are now extremely dynamic and constantly being
reinvented in order for nations to regulate mobility, often in selective and unequal ways,
especially for poor/unwanted migrants. The example used by Shachar to illustrate this idea is
through COVID-19. During the pandemic, nations like the United States—or even European
countries with otherwise open-border policies towards migrants—“shut down” their borders in
an attempt to quarantine their own country. This response of heavily restricting the access of
migrants to coming into these countries during global events like COVID-19 demonstrates the
fluidity of borders in the modern world and thus the grand transformation of citizenship Shachar
describes. One other example of the grand transformation of citizenship is seen in the article by
John Torpey about states monopolizing the means of movement. According to his article, states
can sometimes choose not to grant passports to particular people, regardless of their legal status,
even if they are citizens. Torpey views passports and other legal documents as another way for
countries to keep records of their inhabitants, and of course, to restrict movement. For instance,
in the 1950s, the U.S. State department was given the authority to deny passports and
international travel for members of the Communist Party, regardless of their legal status. The fact
that nations sometimes deny passports even to its own citizens is emblematic of the very grand
transformation of citizenship that Shachar writes about. Another example is from the article by
Jason De León et al. In this article, the authors explain how a 2010 law passed in Arizona gave
local law enforcement the right to stop and frisk inhabitants of the state to check their
immigration status. This law also allowed them to temporarily suspend the rights of anyone
who’s immigration status was questioned, regardless of whether or not they were legal migrants
or even citizens. This, along with the law that allows law enforcement to do the same thing to
anyone who resides within 100 miles of a U.S. border are both examples of the grand
transformation of citizenship, because despite the fact that the U.S. has and [is supposed to]
adheres to international rights of migrants and asylees, they frequently bend these laws and
temporarily suspend rights in order to control who comes in and to kick out unwanted migrants.
They also frequently impede those who attempt to enter the country through the proper legal
channels of immigration and asylum-seeking in similar ways.
Luka Roth
Professor Bové
10/23/2023
5) Steven Castles strongly asserts in his article, “Why Migration Policies Fail” that migration
policies are generally ineffective at stopping migration. One example from an assigned reading is
in the article, “By the Time I Get to Arizona”- Citizenship, Materiality, and Contested Identities
Along the US–Mexico Border.” In the article, the authors mention a US federal enforcement
strategy for restricting and mitigating migration from Central America known as “Prevention
Through Deterrence” (PTD) that was implemented during the 1990s. The strategy was enacted
by increasing security and border patrol in and around large urban areas, which were often points
of entry for illegal, undocumented immigration from Central America. The rationale behind
starkly increasing security in these areas was that it would deter migrants from even trying to
enter through these popular points of entry. Thus, migrants attempting to pass through
unauthorized border crossings would be forced to shift their strategy to other points of entry such
as the Sonoran Desert, which has extremely difficult and dangerous crossing conditions which,
in theory, would further deter migration. However, according to the article, much research has
shown that “PTD has failed to deter migration,” and instead has simply transformed the process
of entering the United States illegally into one which is much more dangerous, violent, well-
organized, and expensive than it was before. Another example from an in-class film is the
documentary Which Way Home. This documentary follows the story of a group of child migrants
from Guatemala and Mexico on their journey to attempt to enter the United States. They travel
without parents, either alone or in groups, for weeks or even months on end. These children had
very little belongings with them and were susceptible to constant threats, whether it was being
run over by trains, being mugged, sexually assaulted, or worse. Overall, despite the fact that only
one of the multiple children documented in the film was able to cross the border into the United
States successfully, it exemplifies why migration policies are unsuccessful in preventing
individuals from moving across international borders. For instance, the film shows just how
many people from these countries are willing to even attempt to enter the United States. In one
scene, there was a man reading from a paper to a group of traveling migrants, outlining the
dangers that they could and will face in their journeys, including death, deportation, jail, and
much more. However, despite this man’s speech, none of the migrants seemed deterred at all.
The fact that children as young as 6 years old are willing to risk their lives to come into the
country alone shows that migration policies are unsuccessful, because migration is a nuanced
social phenomenon with many reasons and factors that cannot be stopped simply with border
patrol and deterrences. Furthermore, the fact that one of the main children in the documentary
was able to get in shows that these policies do not prevent individuals from moving across
borders. In fact, this same child (if I’m not mistaken) tried again later in the movie to enter the
U.S. illegally, because no amount of policy or obstacle was going to stop him from trying to
enter the U.S. in hope of finding his family and a better life.