The reading about transnational migration was quite intriguing because right from the beginning, old ideals about immigrants are challenged, and new theories are proposed. The reading does that waste time to pose it argument, it states in the beginning, and goes about proving it brilliantly throughout the article. The article debunks the idea of “uprooting” and poses a more rational theory that immigrants should be considered more in a transnational manner, meaning having ties (personally, politically, economically) to other countries. An excellent example that was used in the article was how there are transnational companies that currently exist, which operate over many countries. Using this denotation, the immigrants today especially, can be considered transnational immigrants, because they still have many ties with their home country, or even other countries.
Taking into consideration the vast improvements we have experienced globally, communication and transportation are so easily available. Families that are thousands of miles apart can video chat with each other in a manner of seconds. We no longer depend on the insufficient and time consuming process of sending mail to communicate. If we want to send money to family in a different country, we can do it almost instantly using banks or Western Union. To take it a step further, a person can send something to a country that is thousands of miles over-night using Fedex. Previously in history, this luxury wasn’t available and it would take months for communication and transportation to occur. Thus, understanding our current status technologically, our society is much more efficient, and to maintain ties with other countries is much easier, thus supporting the thesis that immigrants should be considered transnational
Going back in history, many individuals migrated to better their life either politically or financially. This sole reason still exits today, as people are moving into urban centers such as cities due to the economical opportunities available. Previously in history, many individuals sought to leave their home country, to start a whole new life in a different, more prosperous country such as America. However, this wasn’t always the case, and this resulted in individuals being inevitably stuck. But, now these immigrants have an opportunity to return home via a quick airplane flight, in comparison to the month long journey on a ship. This goes to prove how an immigrant will continue to have ties with his home country, and how he can not just be identified as being affiliated from one country.
On the other hand, the question of national identity arises. Which country would an individual be identified from? If this question was asked to immigrants, varying answers would exist, which supports the article’s thesis. Many individuals still have ties with their home countries, especially in terms of finance. A personal example would be that even though I am a US citizen, my family and I still have ties with relatives back home in Afghanistan. In addition, my family still owns land back in Afghanistan, thus the land poses as physical evidence to an existing connection with the home country, that many other immigrants share, such as the Haitian immigrants mentioned in the reading.
Immigrants should not be generalized into a certain nationality, especially today. The old belief that immigrants “uprooted” from their home country, and completely assimilated into their new country can not be a valid statement in our current status globally. If immigrants were to be categorized, the only category that is most suitable would be transnationalism due to technological advancements in our current era, and due to the multiple national identities that identify one individual.
