Immigration VS Diasopora?

I’m having difficulty identifying the exact differences between diaspora and immigration. It seems to be an interesting negotiation of concepts and ideas. In Clifford’s article Diasporas, he defines the borders of diasporas and mentions several differences that distinguish immigration and diaspora. He claims, “…diasporic populations do not come from elsewhere the way that “immigrants” do” (307). This line was particularly confusing to me. While both groups come from elsewhere, there are clearly factors that define differences. Clifford mentions the fact that while immigrants may maintain nostalgia of home they essentially assimilate into their host population, especially in the case of immigrants in the United States. Diasporic cultures however, cannot be merged into their new host culture. Their identity reaches beyond the territory of their nation-state or place of origin. Resistance may even occur to the merging of host and home cultures.

I believe Clifford’s point that diasporic cultures “… are deployed in transnational networks built from multiple attachments, and they encode practices of accommodation with, as well as resistance to, host countries and their norms” (307) is very telling. Diasporic people never exist alone the way individual immigrants may. They are always connected to groups, who shave a common connection with a shared homeland and culture, with little to no assimilation. The accommodation with and resistance to host cultures creates more of a hybridity of culture then may be present for immigrant groups. Both diasporic and immigrant groups leave a homeland for a new land. However, it still remains difficult to note which immigration groups’ count as diasporas. I think that this distinction would differ depending on whom you ask. It also seems to change throughout history. For example the Irish immigration in the United States can be seen as a diaspora depending on the time, location, or person asked. Many Irish people maintained connection with their homeland and combined their cultural heritage with their host country.

Diasporas must have homes and communities away from home. In this way they are different than immigrants. While both may leave a homeland for various economic, political and/or personal reasons, immigrants are more likely to break ties with homeland, while diasporas maintain connections. It seems to be difficult to navigate the differences between diasporas and immigrants. It’s a fine line that often becomes blurred. Perhaps in our global society there are more diasporic groups than immigration groups, as countries such as Canada do not force assimilation as much as they used to. Whatever the case, the global flow of people, and the impact it has on those people and the places they go must continue to be examined in order to determine the cultural and personal significance of diasporic groups.