Local and international links and relationships engulf the idea of transnationalism. The aim of this article is: to focus on how immigrants within the US are having their allegiances constrained, to “reframe the concept of immigrants,” and finally to open new debates with this newly constructed image. This article focuses on immigrants from St. Vincent, Grenada, the Philippines, and Haiti.

The term ‘Transnational,’ which holds the definition of surpassing or breaking borders and barriers, goes hand in hand with migration. The article argues the reasons behind transnational migration falls under three main categories: poor “social and economic conditions” in labor, racism, and political alliances. Because of Capitalism, weaker and less profitable cities begin to economically and socially deteriorate. Their workers would escape to cities that were “emerging as centers of communication and organization” (i.e. Harlem) (50). Once in these new cities, however, immigrants are subject to new forms of discrimination, and new forms of labeling. Also, the efforts of the country of settlement to naturalize these immigrants require them to redefine their “political identity.”

The article seeks to reorganize the manner in which we interpret an immigrant’s situation. They are not “uprooted,” the article notes, as many maintain strong cultural, social, and economical ties to their homeland. Interestingly, the article also touches upon the ambiguity when it comes to defining an American Identity. Should immigrants abandon their connections to their homelands and adopt an entirely new culture? Or should America adopt a strict practice of pluralism and multiculturalism?

One part I found interesting was the exploration of the Greek diaspora. The first noteworthy idea was the depiction of foreign-born Greeks as having a dualistic culture. As the article notes, they were not “transplanted Greeks” but simply had an understanding of the “American ethnic.” I feel that this continues to defunct the idea that immigrants are lost and “uprooted,” where here they are depicted as having strong multinational connections. Going further, the purpose of the diaspora eventually evolved into a “transcendental territory,” where people who identify with their “Greekness” can satisfy their needs and wants. It is a sort of mecca, where people are able to return to a strong, accepting culture, and not necessarily an existing nation.

As the article moved on to discuss examples from the Caribbean, it immediately focused on migration and transnational networks. It stated that the creation of the networks allowed a migrating family to maintain any resources and social positions (of course this was sometimes not the case when dealing with racial standards in the country of settlement). Having an extensive family network, however, allows for social mobility and economic prosperity. It is not only a safety that family members have, but also an incredible business opportunity if utilized correctly. As money is made in the country of settlement, it is then placed in a business that generally helps the country of origin (i.e. shipping companies), maintaining that strong link to origin.

Similar to family networks, social organizations also allowed for the creation of profitable businesses. These organizations, however, also extended immigrant’s outreach to a political level. Many of these organizations, notably the Haitian ones, were against political regimes and dictatorships, campaigned for political representation within the US, and even fought against discrimination against their nationality. Some organizations, those supporting Grenada and St. Vincent, worked with the home countries and were even able to “obtain more lenient immigration quotas.”

Even though transnationalism plays an important role in the development of nation-states, it is done so subtly. It is interesting to see how US responds to this idea of transnationalism. Even though it may seem to support it, the bottom line is the final allegiance should lie with America. Policies, such as the Proposition 187 that “denies vital services to undocumented immigrants,” specifically draw lines between the legal immigrant and the undocumented one.