Being seen: visibility, families and dynamic remittance practices

Abstract

This paper seeks to respond to the limited discussion about why remittances cease, by exploring the dynamic meaning of remittances to senders. We interviewed 43 labor migrants in Israel about remittance practices. We discovered that many migrants no longer regularly remit, and those who do remit changed their initial pattern for remitting, often for reasons independent of a left behind family’s financial need or a sender’s financial ability to send. Remittances help migrants manage the stress from labor migration by providing identity benefits. Labor migrants often describe themselves as ‘invisible’ to both left-behind families and people in the receiving country. Remittances can render migrants visible by generating new roles in the family and generating a positive self-image when experiencing downward mobility due to dirty, dangerous and dull work. If migrants form new families, their need to remit declines. If familial roles changes, value as a remitter declines, costs exceed benefits or because contracting partners change, remittance practices may change or cease. We show how social relations shape this visibility and new family contracts affect remittances practices. The findings have implications for understanding the multibillion-dollar remittances industry, immigrant incorporation, and transnational family relationships.

Keywords:

• social remittances
• remittance practices
• temporary labor migration

Acknowledgements

First and foremost, we would like to thank our research partners in Israel for sharing their stories. We would also like to thank the organizers, discussants and participants at: The 4th Ruppin International Conference on Immigration and Social Integration: The Changing Face of Migration: Future Challenges for Societies (held at: Ruppin Academic Center, Israel May 23–24, 2016); EUBORDERSCAPES 3rd Scientific Conference (held at: Pati Manning, Carrer de Montalegre 7, Barcelona, Spain, 28–29 January 2016); Association for the Study of Nationalities Annual Meeting at Columbia University, New York, April 24–26, 2014; IS Academy Migration and Development‬, January 22–24, 2014, Maastricht, The Netherlands‬ for their useful comments. We are indebted to James Korovilas, Zeev Rosenhek and Aviva Zeltzer-Zubida for their helpful suggestions on earlier drafts. All remaining errors are, of course, ours.‬‬‬

Notes

1. Workers have irregular status by entering without papers or with false papers. Willen (2007) observes that the Israeli government has great difficulty distinguishing between pilgrims and migrants seeking work. This theme was beautifully depicted in Ra’ananAlexandrowicz’ 2003 film ‘James’ Journey to Jerusalem’.

2. For Jewish immigration Israel has the ‘Law of Return’ – which is the main immigration policy of the state. However, it offers only limited accommodation for non-Jews. See Harper, R. A., & Zubida, H. (2014). How Does the Construction of New Families impact Remittances?. Diversities, 15(2), 6-19. For a discussion of the inclusiveness of the ethnic state, see Harper, R. A., & Zubida, H. (2015). One of us? Reaction formation and inclusion as a strategy in the ethnic state. Social Identities, 21(2), 149-168.

3. Migrants are issued visas as individuals and normally do not arrive as a family.