This chapter by Nancy Foner titled “Transnational Ties” introduced me to the phrase transnationalism. It refers to processes by which immigrants ‘‘forge and sustain multi-stranded social relations that link together their societies of origin and settlement. . . . An essential element . . . is the multiplicity of involvements that transmigrants sustain in both home and host societies.’’ The word itself encompasses a situation familiar to many people who live in New York City. In a city so dense with immigrants its hard not to see where this term comes into play. What I thought was very interesting in Foner’s chapter was her assessment of the old transnationalism. In the 1880s to early 1900s transnationalism was looked down upon in American society.

Unlike in the past immigrants who come here are welcome to express their ties to their home countries. And as opposed to the past there more frequent connections to the culture and family left behind which may result in stronger ties. This is all due to the advancement of technology. Again I was amazed, as I usually am, by how much of a difference a decade can make. The book feels so outdated. The outdated tech included in this chapter is telephones and videotapes. I say telephones because not that many people use a telephone to call long distance and get charged that cheap rate of three dollars per minute… Also many of the younger generation don’t even now how to work a VHS recorder. As of right now the Internet has become the biggest game changer in keeping ties with loved ones in other places. People use free social networking sites to keep in contact with their family and friends. They can now Skype each other, tag each other or do whatever they want to online. The ability to instantly contact a person and see their face and surroundings in real-time probably greatly affects the ability to be a connected, transnational citizen.

The most intriguing issue brought up in the chapter was how the US’ and the world’s acceptance of transnationalism affects politics and economy. The ability to be a potential lobbyist for the home country in America is one reason why dual citizenship is very important to many countries. It’s important to note that different countries have different policies for their dual citizens and some allow dual citizens to vote in their elections. One such country is the Dominican Republic. The Dominican community in New York is the second largest concentration of voters in any Domincan election. Another reason dual citizenship is important to the home country is that “a powerful economic incentive is involved in the recognition of dual nationality by various sending countries.” Like the Dominican Republic, Philippines also relies on the remittances from their migrants. About 10% of their GDP comes from money sent back. These results of transnationalism are amazing to observe and the future results of it are unpredictable but they seem to make the world a more interesting place.

Nancy Foner, in her chapter on ‘transnational’ immigrants – or those who maintain strong roots to their home country while establishing an American identity – exposed many interesting ideas. These include the ability of transnationalism to adjust with society and how transnationalism is perceived by various people.

Foner compared transnationalism of early immigrants in the turn of the twentieth century to today’s immigrants. She stated that the rate of returning to home countries was higher for early immigrants for adjusting to new life was difficult. In addition, many immigrants left their families at home and arrived just to work so returning was necessary. In today’s day, immigrants seem to not have that problem due to advancing society and technology. Keeping ties with their home countries was easier and no longer meant just returning home. I found it interesting that this book, published in 2000, focused on the fact that technology such as telephones and emailing was a privilege for the well-off. This discussion aids in the argument of the rate of advancement in society in the past 13 years since this book was published.

Transnationalism is a complicated concept that has been around since the beginning of immigration – just with a different connotation. Another interesting analysis of transnationalism brought up the argument of whether transnationalism is beneficial. Some argued that the immigrants reluctancy to adopt American life was a form of anti-Americanization. I was intrigued by this thought because one can argue that Americanization is the concept of immigrants coming together into this melting pot. Does this melting pot ultimately consist of the various identities that immigrants bring along or various immigrants who choose to disregard their backgrounds? Transnationalism complicates the role of immigrants in America – especially naturalized citizens. What affect, if any, does transnationalism have on one’s ‘citizenship’?

The thing I found most interesting in this chapter was the constant reference to the term “transnational”, which I had never even heard before. According to Foner, transnationalism cam be defined as a process where immigrants “forge and sustain multi-stranded social relations that link together their societies of origin and settlement…An essential element…is the multiplicity of involvements that transmigrants sustain in both home and host societies.” In other words, immigrants are seen as having roots in both their country of birth and their new country of residence (in most cases, the United States).

Foner goes on to point out that this seemingly new concept of transnationalism isn’t really all that new. When comparing the past wave of immigration to the more modern one (as Foner always does), it becomes clear that this allegiance to two societies among immigrants was very common due to lack of economic security, lack of full acceptance into the American culture, family back at home, etc. Immigrants of both time periods often went home or identified with their home country in other ways here. Rather than fully assimilating into American culture, they would instead try to plant themselves and their nation firmly within our cultural landscape. By supporting politicians of their ethnicity and keeping customs alive, they managed to create almost a dual form of allegiance transcending the typical definitions of citizenship. In modern times, technology also plays a large role in keeping connections with home countries. Also, greater tolerance for “ethnic pluralism and multiculturalism…have put transnational connections in a new, more positive light.” Better forms of communication and travel allow transnationalism to be a very easy part of today’s immigrant culture, yet at the same time it can create contradictory pressures as to where true allegiance lies.

When reading this chapter, I couldn’t help but keep thinking of last class when we discussed what truly defines a “citizen” and a “good citizen”. In this case, citizenship almost seems irrelevant because immigrants can call both countries home. Even if only one of those countries actually protects them by law, cultural and socioeconomic ties can easily lie with multiple societies. So, is this a new definition of citizenship emerging? If an immigrant is formally an “American” yet they have strong transnational ties to another nation, where does their inner citizenship lie? Perhaps then the term “citizen” itself is too complex in nature to adequately describe what residents of the United States are, aside from the political definition of it.

-Cassandra Price

Among scholars, historians, and Foner the notion of transnationalism being a new idea seems like a mutual agreement. As stated in chapter 6, there seems to be some form of transnationalism exiting before the 1990s but the aspects and characteristics that come after are distinguishing enough for a new term.

The technological advances are one of the main factors Foner mentions which allow the modern day transnationalism to flourish. The quickness and easiness of a phone call or the affordability of plane tickets make it easier for an immigrant to be part of two nationalities. History proves that technological advances have hard hitting effects of its time period. For example, during the first wave of immigration the jobs provided to immigrants were through technological advances in steel and transportation industries. Now it allows immigrants to identify with their home country. A social aspect for many immigrants who feel as if they are subordinates in the United States.

Aside from the social aspect, I found the economic and political involvement of the home countries more interesting. Rather than the immigrants needs, Foner mentions how the home countries of these immigrants benefit from transnationalism and as a result foster it through companies or financing. I believe that the involvement of government from the home countries both politically and economically showcases and only further proves that time period is important and in today’s society the Global Market becomes an important aspect. Today, businesses and companies seek out those who can reach out to global markets. As mentioned by Foner, the fact that many of these immigrants come as professionals also plays into the role of a Global Market.  With the changing ideals of the United States, which once took an individualistic and secluded stand point politically, transnationalism becomes and idea that only deepens and widens in today’s society.

–Trish Anne Roque

The crime prevention situation on the Lower East Side as described by Jessica Cattelino reminded me of the situation in Crown Heights we discussed earlier. Cattelino described two groups of people – white middle-upper class and the colored lower class – living in the Lower East Side facing similar problems of crime. She gave examples from both groups of people who wanted to volunteer for crime prevention for almost the same reasons – to help their community. Cattelino emphasized the difference in syntax – the white middle-upper class stated that they wanted to help “the community” while the colored people of the lower class wanted to help “my community”. The lower class of colored people  chose to express themselves in such a way, stated Cattelino, because they did not want to associate themselves with a general community that didn’t emphasize the different people inhabiting it. When I surveyed the situation, I realized that the group did have a lot of similarities in their argument for volunteerism. Still, the lower class demanded police presence but protested police brutality at the same time. To them, this situation occurred due to their status in society but they failed to realize that crime prevention in the upper class society thrived due to civilian involvement. For the middle-upper class, crime prevention was their duty as a citizen rather than a burden put among them. (As a side note, I found this thought process interesting because of our discussion on the meaning of citizenship. These people almost redefined it completely and made me rethink it as well. Citizenship, to them, meant receiving governmental aid while actively participating in society for the good other others. They chose to volunteer as a moral obligation as opposed to a legal one like jury duty, tying in the moral aspect of citizenship.)  Just as in Crown Heights, the two groups of people had varying views on the same situation due to societal differences.

Up until now, we have defined citizenship solely as a matter of legality. While describing civilian crime prevention on the Lower East Side, Jessica R. Cattelino expands this definition by highlighting the moral and performative aspects of one’s membership in a society. It becomes quite clear then that “citizenship” is not confined to a mere document, but is rather subjective.

So what exactly does it mean to be a citizen? According to some civilian crime-prevention participants, to be a good citizen is to be an active participant in the community. To them, “citizenship” is synonymous with “involvement” and the upholding of moral duties and civic responsibilities. In this sense, civilian crime fighting can be considered an American ideal. Poorer participants of color, however, characterize citizenship as a matter of exercising and asserting rights, specifically the right to protection. To them, civilian crime fighting is not so much an ideal as it is a necessary evil in a society where there exists unjust police neglect.

With that said, it seems as though it is quite difficult to reach a universal understanding of citizenship. Even so, is it not possible for multiple interpretations to coexist at once? Whether these participants function as “active” or “passive” citizens, are they not all united under shared social and political actions aimed at crime prevention? Despite their common goals, however, there exists a tension between these two groups. And while this tension is exacerbated by unequal allocations of resources (among other causes of friction), the core of this difference lies, in actuality, in the concept of citizenship, as it is distinctly – and strictly – defined. As Cattelino concludes, the emphasis on participation widens the gap between those who “partake of the moral good of active citizenship” and those who are viewed as “merely (and immorally) taking from the state,” a gap that is formed in the name of citizenship.

Before reading this article, I would have never thought to consider the undocumented among those who tragically died during 9/11. It’s terrible to think that so many could have passed away without any recognition.

Dealing with undocumented people in the United States is a complicated issue. One of the biggest issues the U.S. faces, is how to treat the undocumented when they are not protected by our legal system and are therefore not equals, legally, to U.S. citizens. However, I feel that in times of crises, legal citizenship should no longer become an issue, and the situation becomes more of a humanitarian crisis in which relief groups should focus on all individuals involved equally.

When the article explained that some families from other countries were given a hard time when they asked for information regarding their loved ones who worked illegally in the Twin Towers, I was not surprised but I was severely disappointed. I understand how complicated it becomes trying to find information on victims with false names and information. However, reuniting families or providing closure to loved ones should not have been exclusive to only some of those who worked in the Twin Towers, they should have tried to account for all workers from the start.

That being said, I’m surprised that so few groups stood up and tried to help the undocumented. Why did the undocumented become a separate issue to begin with? Aren’t we all human beings with some form of a family? Shouldn’t it be a natural right for a family to be reunited or even informed in a time of crises? Why didn’t relief groups focus on all individuals in the Twin Towers? Why did one relief group have to stand up and deal with all the undocumented on their own with such little resources?

It’s incredible to think what the few individuals can accomplish with the right amount of dedication and determination. Tepeyac should be publically praised for their humanitarian efforts. Regardless over whether or not the people they helped were legal citizens, they still helped thousands in need and their time and effort should not go unrecognized.

-Christina Torossian

This chapter by Alyshia Gálvez explores one non-profit organization’s experience with a paradox of good intentions. The Asociación Tepeyac de New York is a group comprised of forty parish-based Guadalupan committees designed to serve the Mexican immigrant community of New York. The committees of the association were originally launched with a mission of dedication to “the social welfare and human rights of Mexican immigrants, specifically the undocumented in New York City.” The word Mexican has since been replaced with the word Latino, as the acclaim that the association reached after its successfully efforts to provide compensation to the invisible victims of the attack on the World Trade Center, the survivors and families of those perished in the towers for whom being undocumented workers meant that they left no paper trail behind, has transformed Tepeyac… in a lot of ways for the worse. The tiny organization that began with the founder being seated on five-gallon paint buckets, using crates for desks and armed with only a single phone and the leaders recruited at city playgrounds as instruments for change, demonstrated its ability to successfully use resolviendo. Resolviendo, a Spanish expression similar to the English word adaptability, became an inevitable part of the reputation of the organization after it became the first to develop an innovative system of identifying undocumented victims of the 9/11 attacks by tapping into a secret goldmine of information, coworkers. People who came to Tepeyac provided notarized affadavits that were used collectively as alternate sources of documentation for those lost whose names were not on the payroll. This allowed for speedy and more effective cross-referencing for those claiming a family member who was a victim, creating a form of evidence of their right to being compensated. Tepeyac effectively referred those whose stories checked out to the Red Cross for monetary compensation and acted as an intermediary between the government and those the association was trying to provide aid to via lobbying. Perhaps the most understated victory of this organization was the role it played in attempting to combat growing xenophobia by serving as a collective proxy which enabled undocumented immigrants effected by the disaster who would otherwise be ineligible for participation in things like protests and lobbying to open up spheres for themselves to be involved in civic processes and prepare them for the anticipated goal of being fully enfranchised citizens. Though these efforts yielded undeniably positive results, the costs of the growth of the organization and more esteemed view of it in the media were felt greatly by the very people carrying them out.

A majority of the Tepeyac’s relief for World Trade Center victims came from private organizations such as the American Jewish World Service, AFL-CIO, and the Robin Hood Foundation. Unsurprisingly the diversity of its donors meant that an organization formed to serve a very specific demographic, undocumented Mexican immigrants, has been balked out and presumed exclusionary for the very reason that many of its donors would not be in a particularly good position if they were to seek out the associations help, as many are not exclusively Mexican. Although many non-Mexican survivors did seek out the services of Tepeyac after September 11^th, the nature of the organization that asserted “its collective identity in particularly Mexican idioms,” made the continued communication with the organization for several months necessary to receive the proper paperwork to obtain a death certificate and emergency survivors’ benefits a less likely commitment made by non-Mexicans. Similarly the funding for ongoing services offered by the association was limited, and thus more likely to be allocated for services for the organization’s preexisting (largely Mexican) constituent base. This transformed the original mission to aid Mexican immigrants toward a more inclusive “Latino immigrant” group. The donations inspired due to the Asociación Tepeyac’s role in revealing the invisible victims of 9/11 also had quite a detrimental effect on the association. Contrary to its aim, the donations received made the association ineligible to continue receiving small donations, and the lack of this necessary funding made the sustained overhead of the organization that would be necessary to handle larger government grants impossible. The very people the Tepeyac organization sought to find work became those that the association itself was laying off and taking off of its payroll. Those who helped its founder to create the association lost respect for the direction it had taken and all the quintessential aspects of its origin, even including the connection to the Catholic church that inspired the Guadalupan committees at the heart of its creation, have taken a second seat and become completely out of the picture for this non-profit. This article presented an interesting and somewhat devastating look at a charity group for whom despite the best intentions, the genuine means led to a counterproductive end.

We often assume that social constructs are subconscious social agreements foisted by the community as a whole upon the minority in question. In his article, Steven Gregory not only offers a new perspective of the factors of a social construct (as multi-layered and faceted with various social assumptions) but also on who, in fact, controls the social constructs. Through one case example, he shows that the constructs are not necessarily as rigid as we might believe and that they are even changeable by the individual. In Lefrak City, Edna Baskin lead a small revolution in the perception of the black community by the outsiders and insiders alike. For years the residents of the apartment complexes struggled against black prejudice but through slow, mediated organization, new policies and opportunities and perspectives were born and modified the social construct of the black community in that area. The crucial turning point, though, occurred not through appeal to the larger, white community, but through the cleanup competition, in which the black youth actively rehabilitated their own image, showing that they were not, as they were perceived to be, crime- and drug-ridden youth, but caring, productive citizens. Through this initiative, the black community reached out and affiliated with other neighborhood communities and strengthened their image in the public eye. Baskin also was able to rehabilitate the image of the impoverished, large black family into an image of a homey community with family-values, with mothers and their children, with fathers in leadership positions, and their sons following in their lead. Gender-prejudice and economic distinctions also came into play in the images of this community, but in Lefrak City, they were ultimately able to transcend previous barriers and create new socially-accepted frameworks. To be sure, this could be seen as an isolated incident, and not necessarily the beginning of a movement to redefine social constructs everywhere, but from this, its evident that it can be done, and it was done, by its own members.

Steven Gregory’s concept of gender and how it is intertwined with race is very interesting.  When I first read that Edna Baskin asked her husband or brother-in-law to serve as CCA’s representative, because “‘men get more respect-they take you more seriously (pg. 382),'” I was shocked. Baskin is trying to destroy the stereotypes that have plagued the African American residents of Lefrak City, and here she is reinforcing other stereotypes, that of the woman as inferior to man.  Why should women accept their position of “back up (pg. 382)” as Baskin puts it? This is clearly a secondary role.  In fact, why should this have anything to do with race? Baskin is the founder of the CCA, therefore she should be the face of the organization to the public.  I assumed that such decisions based on gender would only hinder the CCA’s goal of changing the image of the African Americans, because Baskin clearly accepted other societal inequalities.  Once one group of sub-citizens is acknowledged, it is very easy to keep making distinctions among people based not only on race and gender, but also, religion and ethnicity.  I would have thought that to be successful, Baskin would have to abolish all stereotypes.

However, what she accomplished by simply making a man the spokesperson of the organization is beyond anything I would have thought possible. Such a decision highlights Baskin’s understanding and thoughtfulness of the situation at hand.  First there was the pragmatic goal of presenting what society saw as the strongest embodiment of power, man.  According to Baskin, it is a “white man’s world (pg. 382).” Therefore, by having a spokesman Baskin is affirming this idea and proving that she is not attempting to do anything radical, but rather just trying to be like everyone else, or at least the whites, by achieving equal status and treatment.  While reading Gregory’s essay, this answer made immediate sense to my question.  In order for Baskin’s ideas to be accepted by government officials and private corporations, she needed to frame the request in terms they understood.  Therefore, a man, albeit African American, would need to do all negotiations.

It is the second goal accomplished by making a man the face of the organization that I found more fascinating. Presenting an African American male in a position of authority and leadership, not only gave the African Americans positive male role models, but also dispelled the “negative images of black masculinity (pg. 382).”  In this way, the male African Americans are not seen as violent, but rather as responsible, not only for themselves, but within the lager picture, for an organization, the CCA.  In this way, they are contributing to the betterment of society.  What an effective strategy.  Baskin clearly understands the problems facing the African American community Lefrak City, especially their negative image, and expertly went about trying to solve them.

It is the African American image more than anything else that Baskin is trying to change.  This makes sense because the African American residents in Lefrak City only need surveillance because outsiders associate them with crime, drugs, and violence.  This is an issue of their image because Gregory does not bring any statistics to prove that crime rates are higher among African Americans. In fact, the testimony given by one of the African American teenagers at the Youth Forum described how he gets to the park and is chased out by officials.  There is no basis for such treatment. Therefore, Baskin’s idea to have a male spokesperson is an effective way not only to confirm society’s idea of male authority, but also to change for the better the image of the African Americans, especially the males, in Lefrak City.