The authors make a valid point when they identify two distinctly different definitions for transnational. Like most, I always understood that to be transnational meant to be an immigrant in a new country who cut almost all ties to their old country. However, the authors argue that this is one of the most common mistakes made in modern society. They argue that to be transnational actually involves a person who merges two nationalities into one by maintaining ties to both countries instead of simply being “culturally homogenous.”
I particularly like the three examples that the authors present of what it truly means to be transnational in today’s society. Glick Schiller was overlooked in a dinner conversation about his own homeland. Just because he had moved to the United States many years ago, international development experts assumed he no longer kept connections with his home country. However, Schiller actually maintains strong ties with the workers on his land and even visits frequently adding to his dual identity. The story about the West Indian children was also really interesting. I never would’ve imagined, mostly due to their young age, that school kids could have such strong ties to their original countries and even move back and forth from the United States just to attend school there. Each of these stories truly delineate what it means to be transnational in todays society.
I didn’t realize how essential transnationalism could be for some immigrants. Moving to certain profitable countries or cities such as the United States is integral to some immigrants’ life styles while still maintaining strong ties to their home countries. However, being minorities, many of these immigrants face racial discrimination with the types of jobs they receive. Even if they secure promising jobs, the authors argue that their opportunity is drastically limited by their ethnic background. Honestly, this makes me sad to hear. I had thought that we, as a country, had reached a point were ethnic backgrounds were no longer limiting factors to a person’s success. It really is a shame because most immigrants idolize this country as the country of opportunity when in truth, their opportunities have already been limited before they even arrive.
The last section of this article that stuck out to me was the section on Caribbean and Filipino transnationalism. Part of the section deals with the survival of immigrant families as a unit. Unit families such as the Carrington’s work together to enhance their social and economic position. There were family members station all around in New York, Trinidad, and St. Vincent. When one part of the unit experienced hardship or was laid off, the rest of the family helped support him/her. Another similar story features a Filipino couple who were cast off from the support of their families and moved to the United States without their children as a risky investment. As they continue to live in Queens today, their children live successful lives in the Philippines while the parents still have dreams of buying their own house in the Philippines when they can manage it financially. This exemplifies the importance and strength in family ties. This whole article was very eye opening to me in the sense that I had never before understood what it truly meant to be a transnational. Now however, I have a new respect for the word and the kind of life it entails. We don’t notice it sometimes because of the fortunate lives that we live, but a lot of people struggle with their lives and find transnationalism integral to their survival.
