Laws of Migration Essay

Mr. E.G. Ravenstein established a theory of human migration in the 1880s that still forms the basis for modern migration theory. He called it the â€Å"Laws of Migration†, which the books have divided them into three general categories: characteristics of migrants, patterns of migration, and volume of migration. I believe people move for a variety of reasons, but his philosophies were basic on census results over time which makes it very creditable to me and these tendencies of migration still show currently. I will discuss, in the next few paragraphs, my reasoning of why I agree with Mr. Ravenstein â€Å"laws of migration†, and how those laws still apply today. The first general category is characteristic of migrants, which is described by the book as â€Å"selective†. I understand this category as the people that want to or the people that are forces to leave their homeland because of a major circumstance, not everyone wants to leave their homes. Religious or political reasons appear to be at the top of the list. For example, Cuba has a communist government that forces people to agree with the government. Where people do not agree with the government’s views or decisions they are not allowed to express their opinion. People from Cuba are force to leave the island if the government finds that they are looking for options to leave or trying to take action against the government. On the other hand, there are people in Cuba that are happy with the government. They do not have any decider to leave the island. They also like the rules in place for the community and believed that everyone should follow them. Another general category that the book describes is patters of immigration. I see this category as the pull factor describes on page 17 as â€Å"to those attractive forces emanating from the migrants’ goal that draws migrants†. I see the pull factor as the idea of people to emerge from poverty or the inabili ty to use acquired professional skills. This concept still happens today, my own experience is a clear example of it. In the years 1999 to 2006 Argentina reached an economic crisis, the patters at the time was to come to the United States because the better future was here. My mother and I came to the United States back in 2000 from Argentina. One of the reasons that my mother decided to come to the United State was for a better future for me. I attended Miami Beach Senior High school, where I found a group of kids that were from Argentina. Their parents had decided to come to the U.S. for their better future. There were many people in Argentina with professional degrees but not many with good jobs. My mother and those kids parents were persuade by the idea that having a degree in the United States was more valued that a degree from my country. The last general category is volume of migration which I can relate to the availability of affordable transportation and other advantages related to globalization and advances in technology, many recent immigrants are not forced to sever ties with the families they leave behind. People consider the advantages and disadvantages of staying versus moving, as well as factors such as distance, travel costs, travel time, modes of transportation, terrain, and cultural barriers before moving. For example, the volume of migrants that comes from Mexico every day to make money or to achieve a better standard of leaving. They still provide for their families in Mexico but they believed working in the U.S. is far more effective, easier, and produce way more money in a short period of time. In conclusion, I agree with Mr. Ravenstein â€Å"laws of migration† because I can relate his philosophy to today’s world and still see the same reasoning. Cuba, Argentina and Mexico are a clear example of his migration point of view.