In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

Transnational Political and Cultural Identities: Crossing Theoretical Borders Maria de los Angeles Torres Political borders-a defining feature of nation-states during the twentieth century-are changing, being reinforced at the same time that they are eroding. These increasingly porous frontiers suggest that, like economies, the nature of politics and of political participation may also change.! One reason is that people, particularly in diaspora communities, are affected by decisions made by govenunents in which they have only a limited voice or no voice at all. In home countries, governments make decisions that affect diaspora communities residing beyond the state's geographic jurisdiction . In host countries, diaspora communities often have a restricted role in public affairs because of their newcomer status. Ironically, while some countries are extending voting rights to their communities abroad, most host cotrntries are limiting or even reversing some of the avenues inunigrants have used to express their opinions in the past. There are few analytical and legal concepts that go beyond the nation-state as the parameter for political participation, making it difficult to envision immigrant political participation in both host and home countries. In addition, the cultural identities of diaspora communities are not only informed by the host country, but also have many points of reference to home country culture. Past cultural and familial connections are not severed by crossing political borders. Inunigrant flows from home countries have added new layers to existing diaspora communities. Yet the prevailing social science framework used to study the immigrant experience assumes that the nation-state is the principal organizational unit of politics and cultural identity. In this fran1ework, public power is organized and contested within the geographic boundaries of nation-states, which also define the economies and social organization of societies. It is the state that regulates the affairs of the nation. Citizenship: Who Is Entitled? The notion of citizenship is deeply interwoven with the rise of the nationstate . With the formation of nation-states came a new set of conditions that defined the rights oC~~ ~UUtrly in relation to the state. 169 170 Transnational Identities rnrnrnrnrnrnrnrnrnrnrnrnrnrnrnrnrnrnrnrnrnrnrnrnrnrnrnrnrnrnrnrnrnrnrnrnrnrnrnrnrnrnrnrnrnrnoo These included a definition and legal categorization of who was entitled to these rights. Citizenship became something to be granted or denied by the state. Although there are many legal variations in how citizenship is acquired-for instance, under German law it is passed from parent to child, while under Spanish, French, and British law the place of birth is the determining factor-nation-states make citizenship and residency a requirement of political participation. Furthermore, citizenship assumes loyalty to a state. In order to acquire U.S. citizenship, for example, emigres must swear an oath of exclusive allegiance to the United States. Yet the identities of many immigrants are too complex to allow this. Diaspora communities often reside in multiple states or have traveled through them. Restricting loyalty to one state flattens immigrants' experiences and limits their political options, particularly when they are affected by the decisions of many states. The "nation" side of the nation-state concept also carries built-in assumptions. In regard to citizenship, the nation was conceived from the start as socially and culturally homogeneous. Those who are citizens are assumed to have a common cultural base. Even in the United States, where property, gender, and race were used initially to define who was included in the body politic, a romanticized abstraction of the androgynous , raceless citizen prevailed. Naturalized citizens-that is, those not born in the United States-were expected to leave their homeland behind when it came to public affairs. Those born in other countries are not automatically entitled to U.S. citizenship. The state can choose whether and when to grant this right to those who apply. Moreover, participation in public affairs depends on one's legal status. Undocumented residents and legal residents who are not naturalized are not allowed to vote, nor do they enjoy the same rights as citizens. The Assimilation Model: Politics and Identity Assimilation, the prevailing model of immigrant political development, is shaped by a geographically determined definition of political space and agenda. The assimilation model predicts that recent immigrants do not participate in politics immediately after tl1eir arrival in the host country because they are still preoccupied with home country issues and with trying to adapt to a new environment. By the second generation, ties to the homeland have weakened. Political involvement begins at the local level, moving to the national level within another generation. By the third generation, the...

Share