Theorizing Transnational Migration argues that previously held notions of what it meant for immigrants to move from their country of origin to places like the United States or Europe are not necessarily true. Previously, it was thought that when people chose to move from one country to the next, it was an indication that their lifestyles were being significantly modified and they were somehow leaving behind all that they knew. Instead, it seems that immigrants’ ties to their home countries were being significantly misrepresented and misunderstood. While it is true that Immigrants tend to incorporate themselves into their new society to an extent, this certainly does not keep them from maintaining immensely strong emotional, physical, and even economic ties with their home countries.

Immigrants’ reasons for migrating typically stem from a desire for economic improvement that their home country cannot offer. While the economic improvement that immigrants sought was, in many cases, realized, these newcomers were faced with a host of other issues that they had to overcome which included discrimination and a pressure to assimilate. Now, however, with an increased permeability between nations as a result of increased inter-connectedness in the global economy, economic and social exchange between immigrants and their home countries is at a never before seen high. This exchange is mostly seen in the context of families, who support each other financially despite international separation. An important concept that pertains to this interconnectedness is the idea of a “nation-state,” which is used to describe the people of a certain country living abroad and still being considered part of that country. This is important because it allows these countries and their people, who are maybe less significant on an international scale, to maintain their identities in this globalized society.

One thing that caught my eye about this paper is towards the end when the “Community Service Society” was quoted as saying “I have problems with dual citizenship; I believe in allegiance to one country.” Generally, I have a serious problem with pledging “allegiance” to any form of dogmatic institution such as governments, religious bodies, corporations and the like. These sorts of institutions promote conformity and exaggerate what makes their members different from members of opposing or different organizations. Instead, it seems that to avoid conflicts between groups of people, we should strive towards becoming citizens of the world. Of course every area will have its own unique characteristics, but in order for people to really begin to accept these differences, it will take this sort of mindset.

After reading “Callaloo,” I feel that I don’t really understand the point of what the authors are trying to make. If they are trying to say that a black diaspora is non-existent, I have a hard time even figuring out what that means. It seems to me that if you are any immigrant of any color, you are part of a diaspora, so the entire point of the article seems a bit useless. They then try to distinguish between the black diaspora and the African diaspora, to which I would say that of course there is a difference––blacks who migrated from the Caribbean, for example, may very well feel a stronger connection to their home than to Africa––but that does not necessarily stop someone from deciding for themselves which aspect of their heritage they connect with more strongly. I have a feeling that I did not fully understand what this article was trying to say––it was rather complex to read––but nothing especially groundbreaking seems to have amounted from the work that the authors have done. Less verbiage and more useful dialogue seems like a good idea…