In the article, "Staying Put," Scott Russell Sanders argues whether to a situation that is better or just to stick where we are. In argument the author point out that giving up being migrants will lead people to pay "heed and respect to where we are." The author also asserts that local knowledge is based on the global knowledge. I disagree with the author's opinion. I disagree with him because compare will stir up people's heed of their ex-place's benefits, a place can give migrants motivation, and the more places people go, the wider sphere of vision people have. First of all, most people feel bored to live in the place where they are. They think their life is not colorful or interesting enough. When these people move into a place where they never have been, they might find how good a place they lived before. People will miss everything they used to have and realize how much niceness they had in the ex-places. Actually, all of the results are led by comparison. Because of comparison people can see which place is they want, and what benefits about their ex-places have. When people meet something there must exist a lot of people and things they cannot give up. The much more wonderful things people miss, the much more respect they will pay for the place. The respect is not only from people admired about niceness, but also from people homesick. People's heed and respect to their ex-places is stirred up by the immigration, people can naturally explore the benefits from it. This process will let migrants make sure whether they need to move to a new place. Secondly, there are will some things, which people never seen before, motivate people after people's surround is refreshed. When people in a new place, they must meet a plenty of persons in their life. Those persons might be their workmates, friends, or classmates. It means migrants have a good opportunity to develop their relationships with people. On the other hand, people also can