Reflecting on a second-migration experience: Issues and implications for social work practice

Abstract

The purpose of this article is to present the research findings from a qualitative study on a type of second migration experienced by Korean-New Zealand immigrants in Australia. Data were collected from 16 in-depth interviews with those people who initially moved from South Korea to New Zealand, and then migrated to Australia. The study findings show that the participants were likely to experience ‘soft-landing’ relocation, ethnically internal belonging and identity flexibility. A critical reflection on this second-migration phenomenon is presented in order to help social work professionals broaden their perspectives on today’s fluid migration and its implications for practice.

Keywords

Australia Korean migrants New Zealand

Introduction

The world is currently experiencing ‘an age of migration’ where the movement of people across nations and cultures is accelerating (Castles and Miller, 2009). The ‘population of almost every country is nowadays a collection of diasporas’, thus creating ‘the age of diasporas: a world-wide archipelago of ethnic/religious/linguistic settlements’ (Bauman, 2011: 428–429, emphasis in the original). Technological developments, including the Internet and mobile devices, allow human migration to be less constrained by geographical distance, and/or language and cultural differences (see Schmidt and Cohen, 2013). A number of people for various reasons are in a continuous process of relocation, resettlement and remigration; some people are moving from the East to the West, while others are crossing borders from the South to the North. The second migration of Korean-New Zealand citizens to Australia, which is the subject of this research, is an example of diverse patterns of human movement in the age of migration.

In response to the rapidly growing migrant population, social work around the world plays a pivotal role in helping new arrivals and established immigrants in the community and the wider society. With an emphasis on the principles of social justice and human rights, the social work profession has continued to deal with resettlement and integration issues to protect and empower migrant populations and prevent any types of abuse and oppression against them in host societies (Dominelli, 2018). Social workers are well suited to conduct assessment for case work, group intervention, family support, advocacy and social action to serve those migrants regardless of their gender, age, ethnicity and other factors of social differentiation. There has been strong attention to the ‘cross-cultural’ ability to provide competent and ethical services in a way that is sensitive and responsive to the culture of the client throughout the social work practice process (Balgopal, 2000).

In reality, however, working with migrants often creates for the social work profession a layer of difficulties and challenges due mainly to differences in cultures, languages, and social welfare and social work services. There is also a dominant assumption in mainstream social work thinking that newcomers’ needs and interests are homogeneous, regardless of whether they are voluntary movers or involuntary re-settlers, and thus the issues facing immigrants, refugees or undocumented residents are likely to be dealt with in a ‘one size fits all’ approach in practice. In addition, a lack of understanding of clients’ unique circumstances often causes social work professionals to encounter extra challenges in their practice and relationships with migrant clients from different backgrounds (Lum, 2011). It is necessary for the professionals to gain understanding of not only the psychological and social functioning of migrant clients, but also their environmental factors at family, community, societal and transnational levels.

In this article, we critically document the experiences and perceptions of Korean immigrants who have undertaken a second-migration process to Australia from South Korea via New Zealand. An in-depth understanding of the study findings, shaped by the participants’ words and narratives, is presented based on our holistic person-in-environment perspective. It is not the main purpose of the article, however, to generalise the findings from this regionally specific study. Rather, we aim to inform the social work profession (including practitioners and researchers) of the specific phenomenon of second migration, and its implications for practice and beyond.

Broad conceptions of migration: From traditional to contemporary

Human migration is an enduring phenomenon throughout human history, and is, arguably, a form of human need to pursue quality of life, better security and safety, and more opportunities (see Crawford and Campbell, 2012). It can lead those people crossing borders to achieve a sense of purpose and accomplishment, as well as to gain new life experiences and relationships. For many of them, however, there are challenges related to resettlement in an overseas country. Adaptation and adjustment processes can cause significant difficulties for migrants who are not familiar with the language and culture of their adoptive society. A range of discrimination, including access to employment, also adversely affects the resettlement and well-being of those populations (Clifford and Burke, 2009). Such problems or challenges often encourage migrants to stay in their own ethnic enclave, resulting in a lack of social participation and integration, including employment, in a wider society. Thus, some social work scholars, like Martinez-Brawley and Zorita (2011), argued that ‘immigrants are vulnerable to all types of sub-standard living conditions and abuses’ (p. 18).

Unlike internal (domestic) migration within a nation, external migration (immigration) occurs when people move to another nation from their own culture. This transnational migration requires migrants, including immigrants, refugees and other types of external immigrants, to engage in intercultural relations and to adapt to the culture and lifestyles of the host society. Traditionally, migrants are expected to trade most aspects of their cultural heritages for the ways that are accepted and ‘normal’ in the receiving nation (Berry, 2003). For example, Gudykunst and Kim (2003) argued that acculturation involves the disintegration and reintegration of the individual migrant in behavioural, cognitive and affective dimensions. This argument suggests that, in order to be functionally fit, the migrant must think in similar ways and have similar expressions of emotions as an Indigenous local. A further perspective argues, however, that integration of original and adopted cultures is a more favourable strategy for migrants’ acculturation than simply being assimilated into the host culture (see Ward, 2008). It is also understood that some migrants are able to manage their multiple group memberships in both ethnic and national identity, and this could be beneficial for their acculturation to the host society (see Deaux, 2008; Nguyen and Benet-Martínez, 2013).

Recently, there has been increasing diversity in migrant status as well as reasons for and length of migration (Bauman, 2005; Simon et al., 2013). More migrants than before are able to make multiple moves to other nations, utilising a range of resources and services available in their cross-national environments (Garip, 2008). Advancing technology and transportation allow people to develop flexible migration strategies, including second migration and other types of non-permanent movements. In some areas, the spread of connectivity between the sending and receiving communities helps migrants choose to make return or circular migration patterns. Under these circumstances, the issues of identity and acculturation among present-day migrants become exponentially complex, and no theories are sufficiently broad enough to explain this complexity.

Nevertheless, recent debates on migrant issues have focused on migrants’ geographical clustering (ethnic enclaves), their social and economic participation, and social cohesion and integration in ‘mainstream’ societies. Especially in the social work field, practice with migrants has been underpinned by the ‘traditional’ assumption that those populations are likely to be poor, vulnerable and isolated (Shier et al., 2011). As a result, the social work profession has tended to limit itself to the issues associated with migrants’ acculturation problems, their linguistic and cultural isolation, and racial discrimination against them within the receiving society. The impacts of current changes in present-day migration, including second migration, have yet to be incorporated into social work practice, and this ‘passive’ approach may impede professionals from developing more effective social work skills, knowledge and values in this rapidly evolving field.

Contextualising the research project

Koreans (from the Republic of Korea) have quickly become established as one of the largest Asian ethnic groups in Australia, although this population has a relatively short history of immigration. Until 1971, there were 468 Korean residents across the country; however, their numbers had rapidly increased to 123,017 people with Korean ancestry by 2016 (Australian Bureau of Statistics, n.d.). Most Korean-speaking residents were born in Korea (82.1%), followed by Australia (16.2%). The Korean community also includes a group of people who initially migrated to live in New Zealand and then moved to Australia for their ‘second’ resettlement abroad. This second-migration population consists mainly of adult migrants and their Korean-born children, except for approximately 250 Korean Australians who were born in New Zealand and made their first migration movement to Australia.

Korean-New Zealanders, like other New Zealand citizens, are eligible to live, work or study in Australia under long-lasting arrangements involving a free flow of people between the two countries. The Special Category Visa (SCV, subclass 444, Migration Regulations, 1994) allows New Zealand citizens (including Korean-New Zealanders) to remain and work in Australia indefinitely without obtaining permanent residency or citizenship as long as they retain a valid New Zealand passport. These SCV holders, however, do not have the same rights and benefits as Australian citizens or permanent residents. Since changes in the law in 2001, only New Zealand citizens with permanent residency or citizenship of Australia can receive the full range of welfare payments and job search assistance. Consequently, those on the ‘unprotected’ SCV are likely to be ineligible to receive government payments and services from Centrelink (The Department of Human Services Master Program of the Australian Government). This means that there could be a number of Korean-New Zealand citizens (and other New Zealand citizens) who exist beyond any social security nets between their home and host nations.

In the Australian and New Zealand context, there is a lack of in-depth studies about a pattern of ‘stop-over’ migration (interim movement in a country other than the final destination) to Australia through New Zealand, particularly, with immigrants of Korean-origin New Zealanders. The study which is the subject of this article is the first-ever attempt to document the specific phenomenon of second migration in the Korean population across Australia and New Zealand. It is focused on exploring the issues and ideas that matter to Korean migrants who initially migrated from Korea to live in New Zealand and then moved again to Australia. The research questions were the following: (1) what are the experiences of Korean-New Zealanders with their second migration to Australia? and (2) how do they perceive their migration from New Zealand to Australia in relation to their identities and social connections? These research questions were intertwined with each other and held a significant meaning for most people involved in the second-migration phenomenon, and especially in this study.

Methods

This research project was designed as an intensive empirical study using a qualitative research method based on a theoretical exploration of modern migration issues, particularly across Australia and New Zealand whose contemporary landscapes are partially shaped by present-day immigrants. Ethics approval for this research project was obtained from the Western Sydney University Research Ethics Committee in December 2018.

Recruitment and data collection

Data were obtained through a series of loosely semi-structured, in-depth interviews with a sample of 16 Korean-New Zealand citizens living in Australia. These participants were required to be those people who had initially migrated from South Korea to New Zealand, and then moved to live in Australia. All participants were New Zealand citizens who were entitled to the SCV when they moved to Australia. This group of participants were believed to be particularly ‘knowledgeable’ on issues associated with second migration based on their own lived experience across the two nations. Our research team, consisting of a Korean-born Australian and two Korean researchers, used a snowballing method to recruit potential Korean participants. In addition, five participants were recruited through a professional network where the Australian-based researcher has been long engaged in research with frontline migrant support workers and social workers in both Australia and New Zealand. An interview protocol was developed and used as a guide for all interviews. The questions used during the interview included ‘What were the factors that affected your decision to leave New Zealand and come to Australia?’, ‘What are differences or similarities between your first migration from Korea to New Zealand and the second migration from New Zealand to Australia?’ and ‘What are “good” and/or “bad” things to have the second-migration experience for you and your family members?’. All recruitment and interview procedures were conducted in the Korean language between December 2018 and November 2019 in the wider region of Sydney in Australia.

There was a relatively diverse range of participants who were invited to an interview, although the actual number of them was small in this study. The majority of the participants are Australian citizens or permanent residents (n = 11), while there are five SCV holders without Australian citizenship or permanent residency. The ages of the participants varied from 31 to 65 years, with a median age of 44. There was a fair balance in gender among the participants (female = 9, male = 7), which reflects our effort to take into account a mix of potentially different perspectives on the research subject. The interview participants had lived in Australia for between 2 and 16 years, and the median length of residence was 5.6 years. In terms of their prior experience with social work services, there were no participants who had been contacted by a social worker or a social care service-provider since their arrival in Australia. Given the small number of participants in this qualitative study, we were not able to achieve a more diverse sample construction in relation to income levels, religion and education.

Data analysis

Data analysis in this study was undertaken through using a variant of the thematic analysis approach to qualitative data, developed by Clarke and Braun (2017). The original version of this approach has been altered by adding an extra step to increase the degree of reliability and consistency in the data translation process. In the early stage of data analysis, a ‘naïve’ review was conducted by one of the researchers to draw an overarching picture of the phenomenon of second migration in the study population. The Australia-based researcher was able to articulate ‘initial’ (preliminary) codes and develop the ‘refined’ (final) codes, which were carefully evaluated by the other two researchers. After a series of discussions regarding interpreting the findings and translating words/phrases from the Korean language to English, we finalised the main themes that, we believed, are most useful and accurate representations of the collected data.

Findings

In this study, the participants’ narratives indicate that their immigration to Australia was ‘less dramatic’ (Female, 43 years) than their previous movement in New Zealand. It was mainly the knowledge and experience obtained from their first migration from Korea to New Zealand that led to participants’ relatively smooth ‘soft-landing’, particularly in the early stages of resettlement into Australian society. The rest of this section will present the participants’ narratives analysed and interpreted within four major thematic categories: (1) experiencing a ‘soft-landing’ movement, (2) ‘reflective’ resettlement: dealing with challenges, (3) being connected in wider but looser networks and (4) a mixed sense of belonging and ‘tenant’ citizenship.

Experiencing a ‘soft-landing’ movement

Most participants in this study experienced a sense of a ‘soft-landing’ in Australia, which is only a 3-hour flight away from their first host country, New Zealand. In the context of migration, a soft-landing can refer to having reduced levels of teething problems, such as housing and transportation, enrolling in school, and access to social services or health care at the beginning of the new resettlement process. The factors that made them experience a sense of soft-landing in their second migration included more familiarity with the English language and social/health care systems, as well as better readiness for another cross-national movement. A female participant, who moved to Australia in her 40s, explained this well, as follows:

I found things are almost the same . . . just slightly different names, such as Medicare card [public health care], Opal card [public transportation service]. . . . There are not many new things I have to work out, compared with a lot when we moved to New Zealand before. (Female, 43 years old)

The phrase, ‘easiness with English’ was frequently mentioned by the participants as a source contributing to an improved experience in resettlement into Australia. According to a female participant, ‘getting used to Kiwi [New Zealand] English’ seemed to serve as ‘a passing ticket’ to enter into Australian society:

When we arrived in Auckland [New Zealand], I felt that I was an absolute deaf, not being able to hear and speak at all. . . . But in applying for a permanent resident visa here [Australia], I didn’t need to provide evidence of my English language proficiency, but just submitted a copy of my New Zealand passport . . . that’s all . . . [thus] now we are feeling much relaxed about English here . . . (Female, 49 years)

To these participants, less apprehension over language was often associated with an increasing level of awareness about social and health care systems, which then reduced potential struggles involving in new resettlement into Australian society. A male participant who was near to retirement stated that his second overseas movement was ‘not a big thing’ because he got to know about Australia’s social security and health care systems even before his arrival in Sydney. He said that ‘we knew more about social welfare benefits and public hospitals here than we did at the time of our arrival in New Zealand years ago’. Such awareness of and being knowledgeable about social and health care systems was mentioned by four more participants as an affirmative factor that helped them feel less worried about their resettlement and future in Australia.

In addition, many participants appeared to be much more prepared for movement to Australia than when they had immigrated into New Zealand previously. Making site visits to Australian cities, applying for a job before migration and connecting with local Koreans in Australia are some activities that Korean-New Zealanders underwent to discover more about their second destination. Several participants also mentioned that they were encouraged to move, or offered practical advice and information, by their relatives or friends living in Australia. These preliminary activities and connections contributed to increasing their readiness for the resettlement process in both practical and psychological ways.

Reflective resettlement: Dealing with challenges

A soft-landing migration, however, does not mean that moving from New Zealand to Australia is an easy process without struggles or challenges. A range of difficulties in resettlement were identified by almost all participants regardless of their age and gender. The apparent challenge facing them was related to work and income, such as temporary, insecure employment, low wages and high living and rental costs, whereas a lack of practical information and social participation, language difficulties and the hotter weather in the Australian summer were occasionally mentioned during the research fieldwork.

More specifically, almost half of the participants mentioned various levels of concern about the insufficient or unstable income sources they experienced in their resettlement period and beyond. A professional, who is a 1.5 generation migrant, stated that

I believed that Australia is a highly economically developed country compared with New Zealand and Korea, and in fact, our wages are higher than what we used to earn in New Zealand . . . . However, we found ourselves more conscious of our daily living cost[s] and financial stability than we were in New Zealand . . . there are a lot of taxes, duties and even strata levies [payments for apartments’ running costs] we should pay regularly . . . (Female, 38 years)

Other challenges facing many participants appeared generally similar to what they had previously experienced in New Zealand. For example, the narratives collected from older participants (in their late 50s or over) indicated that they experienced a sense of insufficient information and knowledge about their new host community and society. A difficulty in obtaining practical information was likely to result in other challenges for those participants who thought that there must be ‘something missing’ in their Australian lives, such as financial allowances, job support, free training sessions or other opportunities.

Although this varied from participant to participant, there was a notably common pattern in the participants’ responses towards those challenges and difficulties. The majority of them revealed some ‘reflective’ (looking back on their experience) thoughts and techniques regarding their second resettlement into Australian society. In other words, they seemed to have reflected on what happened before and tried to take account of their first immigration experience in coping with the new challenges in Australia. This was evident from a series of related comments such as ‘have learned a lot from our mistakes in New Zealand lives’ (male, 45 years), ‘tried to change our way of dealing with matters here based on previous experience in New Zealand’ (female, 51 years); and ‘recalling of a similar thing [that] occurred in our New Zealand lives’ (female, 31 years). A participant who was employed as a health professional said that

[i]n New Zealand, we had made a lot of errors and troubles . . . this way and that way . . . [however] now we became more mature and thoughtful, and often tried to see things more carefully. . . . You know, people say that failure is the mother of success . . . that’s the exact case for us too . . . (Female, 31 years)

The experience of the first migration was also useful for improving emotional calmness and self-confidence, particularly for those participants who were relatively older as first-generation immigrants. One participant, living in a western Sydney suburb, stated that ‘When we lived in New Zealand, I often felt caught up in troubles and fall between the cracks . . . [but] now feeling relaxed and don’t care about problems too seriously’. Another participant added a similar statement that ‘I was like living with the weight of the world on my shoulders there [New Zealand] but not anymore in Australia’. It was through their ‘real-life’ reflection on their prior New Zealand migration experience that these participants were able to keep a sense of relaxedness about matters, and even the challenges, that they faced in their second migration in Australia.

Being connected in wider but looser networks physically and virtually

Most participants stated, regardless of their age and occupation, that they had been connected with diverse people in different locations due partially to their dual-migration trajectory across Korea, New Zealand and Australia. This geographically wider networking of the participants has a common feature – that is, being connected with people in the same ethnic groups in their homeland and New Zealand, rather than being associated with people from different ethnic groups residing in their immediate neighbourhood and communities. This ethnic-based, cross-national network seemed to act as a distinctive asset that allowed the participants to diversify their social lives and retain social connections from time to time at different levels in a dual-migration context.

At a local level, it was obvious that most participants maintained a certain degree of social connectedness with a group of Koreans in their own ethnic community. They were likely to belong to an interest or religious group, mainly consisting of Korean migrants, and thus had peers and friends to meet on a regular basis. One participant, who ran a small business, stated that ‘we certainly need some friends who can share the same mother tongue, lifestyle, knowledge and social norms’, and thus, ‘being associated with Koreans is not only preferable but also necessary for our business and work’ (male, 59 years). Among ethnic-based social groups, religious affiliation was observed to provide an opportunity to maintain high-quality companionships with mutually reliable peers sharing routines, rituals and spiritual connections (male, 55 years).

On a wider societal level, the Korean community was regarded by most participants as a feasible source of attraction and retention that assisted them in their daily lives in the context of second migration in Australia. For example, a huge number of Korean ethnic shops, which are combined into one single Korean ethnic market in a few suburbs, served as significant social and cultural places and institutions. A participant compared Korean communities in both New Zealand and Australia in a simple way, as follows:

When we went to Eastwood [Sydney, Australia], we were very much surprised at how this suburb is pretty monocultural, with a lot of Korean shops and businesses. . . . This was a sort of shock as we [hadn’t] seen such a huge Korean town [enclave] in Auckland [New Zealand] where Koreans are more likely to be associated with people from other cultures . . . (Female, 57 years)

Beyond their ethnic groups in Australia, many participants stated that they still retained close relationships with people living in New Zealand and Korea. These cross-national relationships were regarded as part of essential social networks, which are crucial for various matters such as a sense of belonging, companionship, mutual support, business and information sharing. A male participant, for instance, illustrated his cross-national network as ‘a core of connection’ that has allowed him to operate his online business targeting people in Korea since his arrival in Sydney from New Zealand (male, late 40s).

The participants’ connections were obviously facilitated by the currently prevailing digital technology that helps them stay connected to families, friends and acquaintances across nations. The use of information and communication technology among the participants appeared to be common and to affect many aspects of resettlement and adaptation into their second destination of immigration. While the participants differed in their use of various digital technologies, most of them reported that they were always using KakaoTalk, a smartphone messenger application which was mainly used in Korea or among Koreans abroad. A participant added that she always used Naver, the Korean web portal, to get the news and information that she needed on a range of issues and topics (female, 58 years).

However, we also learned that several participants had unfortunate experiences with their neighbours, and their crucial need for neighbourhood relationships was often unfulfilled in a positive and secure way. In this case, the Korean community, being ethnic-based, plays a limited role in assisting its members in relation to their engagement with surrounding neighbours and integration into the local community. In the words of a participant who is unemployed temporarily, the Korean community is less functional and less locality-based:

A lot of Asians including Indians, Chinese and Koreans are living in this apartment. . . . when something is going wrong in our neighbourhood, we don’t know what to do and how to do . . . even we don’t know who we have to contact . . . many people, me too . . . just tolerate the problem . . . and wait in silence until someone else fixes it . . . we don’t have a sense of belonging here . . . (Male, 49 years)

Another participant reported that ‘upon our arrival here from New Zealand, our daily lives were badly affected by our immediate neighbours who have a water-pipe smoking culture’ (female, 57 years). She shared her annoying experience with the noise and smoke caused by the neighbours and addressed the importance of having good neighbours and neighbourly relationships.

A mixed sense of belonging and ‘tenant’ citizenship

For most of the participants who made a comment on the reasons for their second migration, the phrase ‘anticipating more opportunities’ was the most common expression that they used to explain their motivation to move to Australia. In one participant’s words, this means that they ‘decided to come to Australia because we believed there are more opportunities here than in New Zealand’ (female, 35 years). Across the participants, their wished-for opportunities were family-focused and optimistic, but varied from family to family, such as a son’s medical study in Sydney, a daughter searching for marriage, a husband’s high salary and a wife looking for a homecare job. We found that these expected opportunities were believed to be achievable or attainable given their feeling of competence through their previous migrant experience in New Zealand.

In relation to the issue of their national identity, more than half of the participants appeared to hold a flexible perspective on their citizenship or nationality. The cluster of participants’ narratives indicated that becoming an Australian citizen did not guarantee them any better privileges than their previous status in New Zealand, but could offer them a place to explore better opportunities. They perceived identity membership as a matter of eligibility and accessibility, rather than an ideological or political sort of citizenship requiring commitment or loyalty to the host nation. A male professional’s comment illustrates the pliable nature of national identity as follows:

Well, I haven’t thought about my national identity [or citizenship] seriously. . . . To me, citizenship only matters when an election occurs, and when you go overseas . . . If I should identify my identity, then I will say I am an Australian . . . not because I really feel so, but because I have an Australian passport. . . . Even I don’t remember the whole national anthem or other things . . . (Male, 49 years)

There was a more liberal perspective on having a sense of national identity (or citizenship) and its implications for the everyday life and well-being of those who participated in this study. According to a few participants, the current host nation (Australia) was viewed as a place for claiming rights to stay peacefully, to pay all taxes and to receive adequate social and health care services when needed. A participant who is a professional in the human services sector asserted that

[h]ere [in Australia], we are living like tenant-occupiers, not owner-occupiers. We are fine to stay here as long as we don’t miss to pay, having a stable income and a good character, and behaving as a good neighbour. . . . As far as I know, a sense [of] ownership about the nation is not prevalent among us in the Korean community here . . . (Male, 58 years)

While such a sense of flexibility on citizenship was reflected in several participants’ narratives, this was not the case for those who do not hold citizenship or a permanent resident visa but remain in Australia with a temporary visa (SCV for New Zealand citizens). A female participant shared her concerns about living with ‘an indefinitely temporary visa’ in Australia:

Because we don’t have PR [permanent resident visa] here [in Australia], we are actually being left behind by two governments [New Zealand and Australia] . . . if something bad happened to us, we couldn’t get any government support here, other than having to return to New Zealand for that. This is very disappointing and scaring . . . (Female, 39 years)

To these temporary SCV holders, it appeared to be an urgent and important matter to acquire permanent residency status or citizenship of Australia so that they can be eligible for welfare benefits when they are in need.

Discussion

In an attempt to better explain what has been learned from the study findings, we have come to name the phenomenon of second migration as an example of ‘soft’ migration, referring to the overseas movement of people that is relatively flexible, reflective, mobile, diverse and technologically advanced in many domains. Unlike traditional types of perpetual migration or forced movement, soft migration is not necessarily intended to be a permanent or ‘solid’ state. It also encompasses some features, found in our study, including ‘soft-landing’ relocation, reflective resettlement strategies and the experience of ‘soft’ belonging and identity.

In a more general sense, the mobility of present-day migrants is growing as people often choose to move to another country in a journey of flexible living arrangements across national borders, rather than as a destination of permanent one-way migration (Cohen, 1997). The immigrant population per se has an increased diversity in migrant status, reasons for movement, length of migration and levels of adaptation or acculturation. This was proven to apply positively to those migrants who made a second migration from Korea to Australia via New Zealand. During our study, we witnessed that mobility in the Korean-New Zealand migrants in Australia was not regarded as perpetual or fixed due to their ‘success’ in crossing countries at least twice. This group of migrants were likely to place themselves in a better position to make a ‘soft-landing’ relocation to their second chosen destination, utilising a range of resources available physically and virtually across their past and new environments.

Throughout our study, we also observed that there are numbers of ethnic-based businesses, groups and churches which serve as a resource pool of local knowledge, services and practical support for new and established migrants, particularly those who are dependent on the ethnic enclave. It is quite evident that ethnic communities play a significant role in assisting new migrants to make a decision to move to, and settle in, the host society (Sanders, 2002). There are a variety of informal gatherings, small clubs, support groups, organisations and institutes within ethnic communities in both geographical and virtual spaces (Oiarzabal and Reips, 2012). Such ethnic-based resources within migrant communities allow newcomers to broaden their survival strategies and use various supports for their resettlement (see Chen and Choi, 2011).

For the migrants who have voluntarily moved into an economically or environmentally preferred location, resettlement issues become flexible and diversified with a growing flow of information and materials, as well as advances in technology and social media (Park and Anglem, 2012). Present-day migrants can manage a ‘continuing’ belonging to their homeland connections, maintaining high levels of ethnic consciousness and linguistic heritage. The nexus with their place of origin and the ethnic communities they established overseas assisted migrants in retaining cultural roots and identity in spite of their long-distance movement from the country of origin. In our study, we were able to learn that the flourishing of internal networks encourages people to belong to the ethnic-based groups in which they feel comfortable, experience enjoyment and maintain active social lives without language or cultural barriers.

However, heavy reliance on ethnic-based resources within ethnic enclaves may cause some migrants to be associated with a cycle of lower level adaptation, a lack of social participation and social isolation outside of the ethnic community (Kim, 2001). This ‘narrow’ adaptation strategy of immigrants can limit their participation and representation in the main social and political structures in the adoptive society. As shown in our study, although a certain level of connectivity is apparently happening in many aspects of migrants’ routine activities, neighbourhood relationships with people from other cultural backgrounds do remain unfulfilled in their daily interactions. This observation indicates that second migration could involve a certain degree of potential risk concerning some shortcomings in neighbourhood engagement, community solidarity and inclusive participation in a wider society.

As mentioned previously, there is some belief that migrants should be acculturated or assimilated to become part of the receiving society, partially through giving up their own cultural heritage and identity (see Berry, 2003). Bauman (2011) argued, however, that nowadays people experience identity formation, which is a lifelong process of readjustment, instead of having to hold a fixed identity. From this perspective, the migrants participating in our study are likely to be those people who have ‘soft identity’ or ‘fluid identity’ between the places to which they previously belonged, and where they are currently situated. Some of them are holding ‘triple identity’ as Korean-New Zealand-Australians, and using it respectively or together depending on the situation. In addition, the resident status of migrants varies from ‘naturalised citizens’, and ‘tenant-occupier citizens’ who are lacking a sense of citizenship, to ‘indefinitely temporary’ migrants (see Hundt, 2019). This variation of residency/citizenship status seems to contribute to the weakening of identity solidity and acculturation endeavours among Korean-New Zealand migrants in Australia.

Implications for social work practice

In the social work and human service field, the emergence of ‘soft’ migration, including the phenomenon of second migration, is a significant social and political issue which is particularly pertinent to social work practice. This emerging type of migration can produce different patterns of opportunities and/or problems to both sending and receiving societies. It can also contribute to the creation of the social needs that affect diverse groups of immigrants and their social participation in the host society and across transnational borders. Practitioners need to reflect deeply on contemporary migration changes and their influence on migrants and their communities, as well as upon professional practice in social work. In this vein, the evidence obtained from this study informs social work professionals of the emerging nature of ‘soft’ migration that defines both clienthood and social work services for present-day immigrants and their communities.

More specifically, our observation of the second-migration phenomenon leads towards creating a nudging approach to social work practice, which is part of brief practice and much focused on motivating people and encouraging their positive decisions. The nudging social work practice approach, borrowed from Thaler and Sunstein’s (2008) ‘nudge theory’, emphasises the client-centred principle that decision-making should be based on how clients actually think and decide, rather than how professionals (social workers) think that their clients believe and behave. From our reflection, social work with ‘softened’ migrants (those experiencing ‘soft’ migration) requires a development of more nudging methods, which are indirect, tactical and cooperative, than the forcing methods employed in some traditional social work settings. This nudging approach also guides social workers to ensure that their practice ultimately helps migrant clients increase the possibilities of controlling their own lives, rather than narrowly focusing on their deficits, weaknesses and challenges. In this vein, the approach we suggest here is closely aligned with the strengths-based practice, emphasising the strengths, possibility and resilience of clients and their communities (see Saleebey, 2006).

In addition, a ‘security work’ framework, focusing on ‘physical and legal security and ontological security of self-identity’ (Payne, 2011: 7), could be developed and implemented to assess the resilience that the migrants had learned from their first migration. This positive form of resilience assessment could be complementary to risk-management approaches, focusing on traditional migration issues such as language barriers, social isolation, discrimination and oppression, and lower levels of socio-economic status.

Limitations and recommendations for further research

There are limitations in our discussion, mainly due to the methodological approach chosen for this qualitative study with the specific population of Korean-New Zealand migrants in the Australian context. Accordingly, some features of the softened migration pattern (including second migration) may not be consistent with other ethnic migrant groups and communities. It is also possible that selection bias might have affected our findings as we used snowball sampling to recruit the majority of participants. In addition, we might have had a different experience if we had focused on a more specific issue such as the marginalisation or social exclusion of those participants on the temporary visa. In-depth exploration of how identity changes and which changes occur would be very helpful. Further research could also address the extent and nature of issues like the potentially negative effects of second migration impact the well-being of individuals and families.

Concluding comments

Regarding present-day migration issues, Putnam (2009) once wrote, ‘We live in interesting times. Let us learn from all that is interesting out there on issues of racial and ethnic solidarity, and chart a new course’ (p. 5). Obviously, uncertainty appears to be growing and change is enduring in the age of migration (Castles and Miller, 2009). This does not mean, however, that new migration is growing in uncertainty and without explanations. The findings from this study with Korean-New Zealand-Australian migrants provided pivotal evidence that can be used to reduce certain levels of such uncertainty, and inform best practice in resettlement social work. Nevertheless, we dare to call for a debate on soft migration, including second migration, not only because we are living in interesting times, but also because we are charting a new course in the age of migration.

Footnotes

Declaration of conflicting interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iDs

Jeongmi Lim

Hong-Jae Park

Author biographies

Wook-Mo Kang is professor of social welfare at the Department of Social Welfare, Gyeongsang National University. He has extensive experience in social work training and research in South Korea.

Jeongmi Lim is research fellow at the Korea Institute for Health and Social Affairs. Her area of research focuses on migration and aged care across cultures.

Hong-Jae Park is senior lecturer in social work at Western Sydney University. He is a native of Korea who received a PhD from the University of Canterbury, New Zealand.

References

Australian Bureau of Statistics (n.d.) ‘2016 Census Community Profiles’. Available online at: https://quickstats.censusdata.abs.gov.au/census_services/getproduct/census/2016/communityprofile/036?opendocument

Balgopal

(2000) Social Work Practice with Immigrants and Refugees. New York: Columbia University Press.

Bauman

(2005) Liquid Life. Cambridge: Polity Press.

Bauman

(2011) ‘Migration and Identities in the Globalized World’, Philosophy & Social Criticism 37(4): 425–35.

Berry

J.W.

(2003) ‘Conceptual Approaches to Acculturation’, in Chun

Balls-Organista

Marin

(eds) Acculturation: Advances in Theory, Measurement and Applied Research, pp. 17–37. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Castles

Miller

(2009) The Age of Migration: International Population Movements in the Modern World, 4th edn. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

Chen

Choi

(2011) ‘Internet and Social Support among Chinese Migrants in Singapore’, New Media & Society 13(7): 1067–84.

Clarke

Braun

(2017) ‘Thematic Analysis’, The Journal of Positive Psychology 12(3): 297–8.

Clifford

Burke

(2009) Anti-Oppressive Ethics and Values in Social Work. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

10.

Cohen

(1997) Global Diasporas: An Introduction. London: UCL Press.

11.

Crawford

M.H.

Campbell

B.C.

(2012) Causes and Consequences of Human Migration: An Evolutionary Perspective. Cambridge; New York: Cambridge University Press.

12.

Deaux

(2008) ‘To Be an American: Immigration, Hyphenation, and Incorporation’, Journal of Social Issues 64(4): 925–43.

13.

Dominelli

(2018) Anti-Racist Social Work, 4th edn. London: Palgrave Macmillan.

14.

Garip

(2008) ‘Social Capital and Migration: How Do Similar Resources Lead to Divergent Outcomes?’, Demography 45(3): 591–617.

15.

Gudykunst

Kim

Y.Y.

(2003) Communicating with Strangers: An Approach to Intercultural Communication, 4th edn. New York: McGraw Hill.

16.

Hundt

(2019) ‘Residency without Citizenship: Korean Immigration and Settlement in Australia’, Asian and Pacific Migration Journal 28(1): 28–52.

17.

Kim

Y.Y.

(2001) Becoming Intercultural: An Integrative Theory of Communication and Cross-Cultural Adaptation. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

18.

Lum

(2011) Culturally Competent Practice: A Framework for Understanding Diverse Groups and Justice Issues, 4th edn. Belmont, CA: Brooks/Cole.

19.

Martinez-Brawley

Zorita

(2011) ‘Immigration and Social Work: Contrasting Practice and Education’, Social Work Education 30(1): 17–28.

20.

Nguyen

A.M.D.

Benet-Martínez

(2013) ‘Biculturalism and Adjustment: A Meta-Analysis’, Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology 44: 122–59.

21.

Oiarzabal

Reips

(2012) ‘Migration and Diaspora in the Age of Information and Communication Technologies’, Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies 38(9): 1333–8.

22.

Park

H.-J.

Anglem

(2012) ‘The “Transnationality” of Koreans, Korean Families and Korean Communities in Aotearoa New Zealand–Implications for Social Work Practice’, Social Work Review 24(1): 31–40.

23.

Payne

(2011) ‘Risk, Security and Resilience Work in Social Work Practice’, Revista de Asistenta Sociala 1: 7–14.

24.

Putnam

(2009) ‘Diversity, Social Capital, and Immigrant Integration: Introductory Remarks’, National Civic Review 98(1): 3–5.

25.

Saleebey

(2006) ‘Introduction: Power in the People’, in Saleebey

(ed.) The Strengths Perspective in Social Work Practice, 4th edn, pp. 1–24. Boston, MA: Pearson; Allyn & Bacon.

26.

Sanders

(2002) ‘Ethnic Boundaries and Identity in Plural Societies’, Annual Review of Sociology 28: 327–57.

27.

Schmidt

Cohen

(2013) The New Digital Age: Reshaping the Future of People, Nations and Business. New York: Alfred A. Knopf.

28.

Shier

Engstrom

Graham

(2011) ‘International Migration and Social Work: A Review of the Literature’, Journal of Immigrant & Refugee Studies 9(1): 38–56.

29.

Simon

Reichert

Grabow

(2013) ‘When Dual Identity Becomes a Liability’, Psychological Science 24(3): 251–7.

30.

Thaler

R.H.

Sunstein

C.R.

(2008) Nudge: Improving Decisions about Health, Wealth and Happiness. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

31.

Ward

(2008) ‘Thinking Outside the Berry Boxes: New Perspectives on Identity, Acculturation and Intercultural Relations’, International Journal of Intercultural Relations 32(2): 105–14.