Family-mediated migration infrastructure: Chinese international students and parents navigating (im)mobilities during the COVID-19 pandemic

Abstract

The outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic and associated responses such as border closure, lockdown measures and flight curtailment have severely disrupted transnational infrastructures that sustain, channel, organize and condition international migration. This infrastructural disruption has led to the double exclusion of temporary migrants from both sending and host societies. In this context, we explore how Chinese international students in the United Kingdom and their parents in China navigate transnational (im)mobilities during the pandemic. In doing so, we develop the conceptualization of "family-mediated migration infrastructure" to elucidate the role played by transnational family relationships in brokering information, mobilizing resources, and coordinating disjointed acts of institutional players in order to sustain transnational (im)mobility. We also reveal a distinctive emotional double-bind in the process of family-mediated infrastructuring, which requires members of transnational families to strategically perform emotional engagement and detachment in complex ways. Our findings highlight the functional resilience and emotional vulnerability of family-mediated transnational migration infrastructure, and render visible the intimate fabrics that contribute to sustaining transnationalism during the pandemic.

Unintended health and societal consequences of international travel measures during the COVID-19 pandemic: a scoping review

“…Of the included studies, nine used quasi-experimental designs, including eight interrupted time series studies 33–40 and one difference-in-difference study. 41 We also identified two observational studies, 42 , 43 two mathematical modelling studies, 44 , 45 six qualitative studies 46–51 and four mixed methods studies. 52–55 …”

“…The included studies reported on the implementation of international travel measures in Brazil, 47 Canada, 36 France, 36 Germany, 36 , 48 Italy, 36 Japan, 36 , 37 Malaysia, 51 Nepal, 52 Poland, 48 , 54 South Africa, 37 Turkey, 53 Vietnam, 49 the UK 36 , 37 and the USA. 33 , 36 , 37 , 46 , 49 , 50 Eight studies analysed the effects of international travel measures implemented by multiple countries. 35 , 38–41 , 44 , 45 , 55 Three studies did not focus on specific countries or settings.…”

“…Some studies reported on the countries that were targeted by the measures, notably China, 33 , 44 Germany, 48 India, 52 Iran, 44 Italy, 44 Poland, 48 , 54 South Korea 44 and the UK. 46 However, in the majority of studies, this was either not applicable or not specified. 33–43 , 45 , 47 , 49–51 , 53–55 Most studies did not differentiate between specific modes of travel (i.e.…”

“…Studies examined the effects of international travel measures on various populations: stock market listed companies, 34–40 the tourism industry, 41 , 51 , 53 cross-border commuters and working migrants, 52 , 55 border-region residents, 48 , 55 international students, 46 , 49 businesses, 42 , 54 cargo airlines, 33 healthcare facilities, 55 refugees, 47 cruise ship employees 50 and the general population. 43–45 …”

COVID-19, Inter-household Contact and Mental Well-Being Among Older Adults in the US and the UK

“…Inter-household contact often took the form of face-to-face meetings and activities, supplemented by virtual interactions via telephone or video calls, text messaging, and social media ( Ignatow et al, 2013 ; Sandstrom and Dunn, 2014 ; Lomanowska and Guitton, 2016 ). When regular in-person contact was not viable, such as for transnational families and in disaster scenarios, individuals often resorted to virtual communication to maintain long-distance relationships with family members and friends, along with occasional in-person visits ( Madianou and Miller, 2013 ; Hu et al, 2020 ).…”