Before getting into the article itself, I think it’s important to note that the authors wrote this piece from a world systems theory perspective (https://www.boundless.com/sociology/textbooks/boundless-sociology-textbook/global-stratification-and-inequality-8/sociological-theories-and-global-inequality-72/world-systems-theory-429-537/). In a nutshell, World Systems Theory argues that the world is divided into three areas – core, semi-periphery, and periphery. The argument goes that core countries dominate and exploit countries in the semi-periphery and periphery. This argument assumes that the levels of prosperity within each specific nation-state are relatively even. It does not take into account that core and periphery lives side-by-side in many areas of the globe such as wealthy and destitute neighbourhoods in Los Angeles, Sao Paolo, Mumbai, or Barcelona. To separate the globe into these three neat divisions moves us away from the multiple realities that co-exist simultaneously.
This article presents transnationalism from a different point of view, the structural. Much of what is written on transnational migration is written through the lens of the migrant as an individual or part of a family or group empowered in their risk taking to cross borders and frontiers, and be able to live a life, at many times with fear of removal; yet the argument goes that the migrant is in control of his/her actions. Although much of this is true, it presents migration as devoid or at least through a set of external factors that can be overcome with or without structures.
The creation of Temporary Protective Status (TPS), and its first application in 1990 to help Salvadoran communities escaping the civil war taking place perfectly embodies what the authors termed ‘Permanent Temporariness’. In examining TPS, as with some other forms of temporary residence, these policies work very well if one assumes a migrant automatically cuts-off all ties to their respective nation-state. From a policy standpoint, it allows people to remain, work, and study; however, when daily life occurs, policy and reality often diverge.
TPS as a policy, like the majority of policies regarding migration, view migrants through push-pull factors, which more often than not are developed with the view of migrants as individuals and not part of larger kinship groups, networks, or other social, cultural, or political relations. From this point of view, a person under the TPS program is not supposed to return to their homeland since it poses too many dangers; this however, poses a problem, are they supposed to cut-off the friends and family that stayed behind? Looking at it from a transnational viewpoint, the idea that not being able to keep networks alive (only via skype, etc.) negates how the majority of people live in social, cultural, and political circles, which at many times move across borders. At the same time, the inability to plan for the future becomes an issue for families in both the US and El Salvador. This similar insecurity is taking place right now with Haitian communities (https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/may/13/haitians-miami-trump-immigration-crackdown).
Under TPS, Salvadorans (or anyone covered by this policy) cannot leave the country; and if done, that individual automatically becomes undocumented. The permanent temporariness experienced by Salvadoran migrants is compounded by ‘deportability’ that Boehm analyzed in the case of Mexican migration. The shift from documented to undocumented can take place at a rapid pace since Temporary Protective Status can be terminated, making deportability an ever-present aspect of life.
What do you think?
I especially like the methodological approach of this week’s reading. I think that interviews with actual migrants make the study seem much more believable than if the researchers only would have been working with statistics. It shows what those affected by migration and migration regimes had to go through and that makes it easier to understand the issue.
The text was dedicated to demonstrating how (Salvadoran) migrants go about their daily lives under the influence of the Temporary Protective Status. I especially noticed how globalization despite its supposedly well meant intensions doesn’t necessarily make the lives of immigrants easier. Skype calls and E-Mails surely will never replace the ability of people to reunite with their families in person.
The mention of migrants not being able to return to their homes due to possible loss of status reminded me of similar regulations here in Germany. Unless certain criterias are met, foreign permanent residents in Germany are not allowed to leave the country for more than 6 months in a row without losing their status. That is especially tedious for people who spent most of their lives in Germany and for example, want to leave the country for work or study purposes as this regulation does not just refer to a foreigner’s visit to his/her homeland but any international travel in general. It was interesting to discover such parallels between migration regimes even on different continents.
With regards to the idea that migrants are individuals who are in control of their actions, I noticed that the concept of TPS shows how this can’t be 100% true. From the text’s analysis of how TPS can affect the lives of migrants one can notice that the restrictions that come with a PTS status are exactly what limits migrants’ abilities to be the masters of their own actions. How can they really be in control of their own actions if they have a regime telling them what they can and what they cannot do?
Especially the second part of the text was more than an „unromaticized and noncelebratory experience“ (p. 141) of reading for me and made me kind of sad. For me, the testimonials embody the feeling of helplessness and impotence towards certain „trans-hegemonic“ nation-state constraints regarding migratory processes. On the weekends I am helping in an association for refugees in Berlin-Wedding and usually it is always a good time doing handicrafts with the children, but on Sunday the mood was different. On friday the CDU/CSU declared against the stop of deportation to Afghanistan and by doing this leaves many (not only Afghan) refugees alone with their speculation about the future and the feeling that the state simply goes over their heads. This example showed me another time that already the institutional threat and not the intervention itself affects lives in a drastic way. In my experience and like Bailey et al. are stating that „[…] the material and nonmaterial aspects of a transnational field are shot through with the structural parameters of legal uncertainty.“ (20 139), one cannot neglect the influence of laws and state-given regulations. This does not mean that there is no space left for the migrant’s agency, but this often very fragile space can be and de facto is invaded by the state.
Especially the statements on page 139 show the enduring disruption and feeling of “being out of space and time“ that migrants with an uncertain residence status are going through. They are not always seen as heros due to their remittances, but also as traitors and uncaring parents because they leave their families. In this sense in the vague spaces they can move in (although not entirely being part of) they are likely to experience discrimination against at any place they go- in the country of origin as well as in the receiving country. I hope that I am not too pessimistic because of my recent encounters and the slighty bad weather.
This week’s text by Bailey et al. presented the results of an interesting study conducted by the authors of the paper on the impacts of the policy of TPS (“temporary protective status”), which creates an experience of temporariness for immigrants, on the everyday life and stability of the designated research field, the Salvadoran transnational field between a cluster of northern New Jersey communities and El Salvador.
What I found especially compelling was the research finding presented in the section on “Salvadoran Transnational Geographies” and the “Myth of the Transnational Warrior”, that the Salvadoran transnational field is characterized by social obligations motivated by guilt and a feeling of responsibility of those Salvadorans living in New Jersey and sending remittances home to their family and kin. I am wondering if this phenomenon of interdependence within a transnational field is a characteristic trait of most transnational communities, and if the degree of interdependence differs according to the various economic backgrounds of migrants and their families in the country of origin, but also according to differing economic realities of the immigrants. I would also be interested in finding out whether similar terms to “superar” (“working hard to succeed” or “to rise above”) have been used by other transnational communities as a means of assessing an immigrant’s success and performance in the new country of residence.
Especially the second part of the text was more than an „unromaticized and noncelebratory experience“ (p. 141) of reading for me and made me kind of sad. For me, the testimonials embody the feeling of helplessness and impotence towards certain „trans-hegemonic“ nation-state constraints regarding migratory processes. On the weekends I am helping in an association for refugees in Berlin-Wedding and usually it is always a good time doing handicrafts with the children, but on sunday the mood was different. On friday the CDU/CSU declared against the stop of deportation to Afghanistan and by doing this leaves many (not only Afghan) refugees alone with their speculation about the future and their feeling that the state goes over their heads. This example showed me another time that already the institutional threat and not only the intervention itself affects lives in a drastic way. In my experience and like Bailey et al. are stating that „[…] the material and nonmaterial aspects of a transnational field are shot through with the structural parameters of legal uncertainty.“ (p.139), one cannot neglect the influence of laws and state-given regulations. This does not mean that there is no space left for the migrant’s agency, but this often very fragile space can be and de facto is invaded by the state.
Especially the statements on page 139 show the enduring disruption and feeling of “being out of space and time“ that migrants with an uncertain residence status are going through. They are not always seen as heros due to their remittances, but also as traitors and uncaring parents because they leave their families. In this sense in the vague spaces they can move in (although not entirely being part of) they are likely to experience discrimination against at any place they go- in the country of origin as well as in the receiving country. I hope that I am not too pessimistic because of my recent encounters and the slighty bad weather.
The Haitian unfortunate story in the US is unbelievable, thank you for bringing it to my attention. The Haitian community in the US has definitely benefited from their stay in the US, but the status does not promise or guarantees anything about their rights. They are not considered full-fledged citizens, but rather temporary residents. On the other hand, they pay taxes to a country which does not provide them with the most basic right to self-govern (voting). This exact plan was brought up by a right-wing politician in Israel as an answer to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict: allow all Palestinians to be Israeli residents who can work and stay freely, but not grant them the right to vote, because in his mind he wants to prevent the possibility of Palestinians making policy decisions in Israel. This suggestion was shot down quickly and HEAVILY criticized exactly because of the lack of the basic necessity to self-government. But even in the Israel case they would have the freedom to leave and re-enter the country, even have an Israeli citizenship. The US offers even less than that, and is still considered something worth fighting for. But the Haitians can’t do it themselves, because they can’t vote on it.
I like Mahler’s definition of Transnationalism as it appears in the text, I have taken a few seminars that found this term to be hard to define: “the term transnational should communicate the fact that people’s lives span borders, while acknowledging that borders, nation-states, and national identities still exist and are of consequence.” This definition actually forces the researcher into looking at individual cases and to empathize with “transnationals” to have a better understanding of the term.
I agree in looking at the whole thing from a post-structuralist point of view, it helps a lot especially when introducing new aspects of a (transnationalist) theory.
While I found the structural perspective on transnational networks very enriching, there were some points that left me wondering throughout the article.
One of those are the researchers’ positions themselves. As they state repeatedly, they worked by means of participant observation (cf. e.g. Bailey et al. 2002: 130) and later carried out siginificant actions that made them become “a part of the transnational network” (Bailey et al. 2002: 138). This perspective on research itself makes a lot of sense, especially when carrying out multi-dimensional research in the field of migration – however, the implications of this specific method and its consequences are not specified in the article.
What exactly does it mean that the authors “became part of the network”? What consequences did it have for their research and their observations of the different communities they worked in? As I’m not very acquainted with the specific characteristics of the method itself, the answers to these questions might be very obvious, and I wouldn’t know. However, in my opinion it would also have given the article additional depth to reflect upon their own roles as researchers within the transnational networks they were describing. As they themselves state, their position was considered to be “impartial” by members of the networks they were describing, lending them some sort of “authority” (Bailey et al. 2002: 138). How does this type of authority influence a process of participant observation? How exactly did it alter their initial role as “outsiders” (Bailey at al. 2002: 130)? Does authority imply a certain sense of barrier between the researchers and the members of the community or was it indeed a means to integrate them into those very communities?
Reading of this week was interesting for me in a different points.
Firstly, as in previous texts as well, i find it really important, that author brings up “real” interviews, kinda “alive” interview, because we can real a lot of theory, but as soon as you read life examples and life experiences it brings you closer to the theme.
Secondly it was actually very informative part, where author speaks about a role of Temporary Protective Status – as it is a temporary immigration status, i didnt know that much about that – i made a small reading about it, and after it helped me understand better connection between Salvadoran, how they deal with daily routine under the pressure of TPS. It is incredible how TPS influence on their lives.
Basically every text that we read shows us from one or another part what mirgants have to do to leave their country and that are they going through after.
This week’s reading was about the Salvadoran transnational social field in New Jersey and how TPS (temporary protective status) affects daily life creating an “experience of temporariness”.
What I found particularly interesting was that it often seems that some Salvadorans live in a web of hypermobility but that the researchers found out (in their field work) that there are significant limitations to their mobility (risky trips back and forth). In addition, many Salvadorans who have not been to the U.S. are not aware of the real legal consequences of border-crossing for TPS-people, which leads to misunderstandings between those who stay and those who migrate.
I liked the quote “Remittances have become the economic glue that binds northern New Jersey with El Salvador” (p. 134). I think the text also shows how it is not only an economic glue but also a kind of social glue.
As some people have already pointed out, I also liked the interview-style of the reading because It made the topic more personal and easier to imagine how the situation really is.
This week’s topic obviously captivated me, as a Salvadoran with a large portion of her family living in the US, many having been granted TPS-DED at some point of their lives.
I appreciated the authors’ demythification of the “transnational warrior” concept. I have witnessed both hypermobility between Salvadoran communities in the States and across borders in some family members, and immobility in others. The portrayal of misunderstandings of the structural conditions preventing mobility of migrants as lack of agency and the resulting tensions in the remaining family back in El Salvador hit close to home. As the authors explain, the immobility depends highly on their migratory status and the ability to take on direct and indirect costs. . My great aunt spent a part of her life undocumented, another on DED, then permanent residence and recently – finally – citizenship. Up until her residence was granted, she refused to leave her hometown, Las Vegas. Now, she visits my family in El Salvador twice a year and goes back and forth from her children’s houses in Nevada, California and Arizona; she barely stays in one place.
The text about the Salvadorians reminded me of the situation with the refugees from the Balkans who came to Germany in the 90s.
They came in times of war to find shelter in a country that participated in the exact same war. (as a NATO member )
Fleeing from a war zone always indicates never knowing if you’re able to come back. The regime might have changed to the worse or the infrastructure might be too destroyed.
A cut of the connection to family and friends who were left behind might be intended by the government to keep out potential enemies but I imagine it being hard for the refugees since it’s their homeland but at the same time the country that robbed them of their existence.
Deciding that is a core part of integration. If there’s a want to come back once the situation has calmed down, ties to the homeland might be kept close.
Of the people who I know, several have chosen to migrate back to the Balkans to help their country grow although they’ve grown up in Germany.
On central tematic aspect of this week`s text is the U.S. TPS for Salvadorian immigrants with its constraint of not leaving the country, which effects the daily life of, in this case, salvadorian migrants in the U.S. as well as their communites in their homecountry. For me in this context stands out the psychological effect that has this migration law and others- impotence, frustration or simply the feeling of not feeling completely reliefed and not being able to just do what you want to or move where you want to move, without thinking off the consequences.
For me, the TPS is a quite good example of a more general consequence of different laws, rules and programmes in migratory issues: in most cases people end up in a certain category and are restricted in their freedom in different ways.
Another aspect, the text made me reflect on and take in consideration in some kind of admiration, is the fact that many of latin american migrants migrate in order to maintain their families or communities in their homecountry and for that, leaving behind, a big piece, if not almost all of their own life- doing that requires certain self-abandonment and means to have to struggle for something other people have for granted. Of course people develop their mechanisms to comfort themselfes, to get along and to addapt to different situations, though I imagine it as very hard many times. This is an aspect that I have to think of several times during our seminar and another seminar about Migration, Gender, Ethnicity and Latinamerica.
The text discussed the interplay of structure and agency in explaining the sense of “permanent temporariness” experienced by Salvadoran migrants to the United States, recognising that both structure and agency play a role in explaining the different experiences and aspects of the way of life of these migrants, their fellow migrant community, and their home communities. I personally enjoyed how the authors chose to look at the issue through a space-time perspective, especially due to the transnational nature of the issue and the impact of migration over generations and time, which allows for the gradual changes and developments to be clearly reflected and studied. It was interesting to learn how the migration and the “permanent temporariness” experienced by the migrants restricted their mobility and how that in turn led to the restructuring of their identity, where they do not really experience any sense of rootedness to El Salvador, and yet do not perceive the United States as a possible permanent home either. This is also portrayed by Lya in her description of her great aunt above.
Something that striked me as I was reading the text was the growing dependence of El Salvador and its citizens on the United States. The sense of “permanent temporariness” brought about by the uncertain positions of Salvadorian migrants as a result of undocumented migration or the TPS, may perpetuate this dependence. Local communities will continue to perceive the United States as an escape to greater economic opportunities and a better life, while they also continue to face insecurity in their daily lives that prevents them from benefitting significantly from the opportunities in the United States without experiencing high costs as well. This leads me to question whether the introduction of the TPS is more beneficial or detrimental for El Salvador and its citizens, and whether alternative measures could have been adopted by the American government to address the problems suffered in El Salvador (e.g. natural disasters, civil war) instead.
One important aspect in this text for me was the comparison between internationalisation of labour, parallel to that of capital. The authors describe transnational communities as “labor’s analog to the multinational corporation”, citing Portes (1996, 74). Still, his describing transnational communities just as “byproduct(s) of improved communications, better transportation and free trade laws” (p. 127) seems too reductionist and dubious to me. Transnational communities exist no matter how good or bad the means of transportation or communication for immigrants are, which can be seen for example in the case of African or Middle Eastern refugees in Europe, most of whom did not have quite good access to ways of transportation.
However, I found the analogy between the multinational corporations and transnational communities very interesting. Hardt and Negri (2000) argue that through the global expansion of capitalism through imperialism, centered on nation-states, will eventually lead to the “Empire”, where institutions such as the NATO or IMF will hold and exercise political power, thus leading to a decline of the importance of nation-states.
This internationalisation of capital will lead to an internationalisation of labour, which is needed for sustaining the production of livelihoods.
Applying these aspects to todays reality can be quite useful. Multinational corporations seem to have no problem, with a few exceptions, to settle in any country which is seen as a good place for making profit. However, most migrant workers still have to struggle to travel to and stay at their destination where they sell their labour. However hard this is for many, migration will still continue to exist as it is necessary for capital to acquire cheap labour.
Summarizing, you could say that the internationalisation of capital needs and produces an internationalisation of labour. Nevertheless, Hardt and Negris theory of the “Empire” is far from becoming real. Nation states and borders, the rise of nationalist movements with a support of sectors of the working class prove this, seem to be far from internationalizing labour completely.
As many others have stated in their comments before, I found the text on the transnational Salvadoran community in New Jersey both insightful to an important migration group that is not so often regarded, and somewhat disheartening as well. The way the authors quote the migrants they interviewed in their fieldwork, much like in the “¿Quién Sabe?” text at the beginning of the semester brings the reality of uncertainty of the migrants awfully close to each reader, and I think it is easy to be affected by the statements that are made in the text.
The issues I have with the text go in the direction of what Liv Collel already described above; regarding the methodology and the analytical method used for the investigation on this paper. I also believe that the authors mention too briefly and without much reflection their involvement in the transnational network between El Salvador and New Jersey, and that it is important to put those methodological actions in question, particularly when thinking about the implication on many levels that their involvement could have upon the transnational community.
Furthermore, I think that the proposition of the authors to break with the traditional space/time conceptions with the example of this particular Salvadoran migrant community is too ambitious, and analytically weak. Even though the points they make about the permanent temporariness and the being always in between make a lot of sense, the idea of breaking with space/time perception in political and sociological analysis would need a lot more theoretical framing and groundwork.
I really liked the approach of the author to use interviews and the stories of affected migrants to explain the problematics of TPS. The paper in my opinion shows very well, that the idea of giving refugees and migrants a firmly established system comparable to an “one size fits all” residence authorization has no future in the modern world, especially for people that are coming from political instable regions or war zones. In the modern global migration movements, the kind of irregular wars, post-war economic and political instability and the lack of perspectives of nowadays can´t be estimated in a way like the TPS systematics implies it.
The second anti-TPS argument would be the inability of planning possibilities for individuals and families as we see it in the interviews. With a temporal status, migrants have no possibility to have a constant way of life and work in the US, since the danger to get the TPS-status removed is always present. The fact, that many families like the Salvadorian community shown in the text established the complicated remittances-system with relatives at home, which is important of the economic stability of whole regions, shows that residence systems like the TPS must be reformed or replaced in a way that allows these migrant groups to live their life in a constant and secure way. This is also a necessity to prevent “lost generations” of young people who can´t participate in the normal development process of socialisation because of limited residence statuses and the possibility of being deported to a stranger country (for them).
This week´s article was in some extent a little bit confusing to me, because the authors tried to refute some concepts such as the under theorization of space-time relations without explaining it or making a clear and new theorization.
At some extend it was clear, that they wanted to examine how structural considerations are embedded into the daily life of migrants. But even if the authors repeatedly talk about the constitution of space and time in the particular case of Salvadoran migrants: “The joint construction of daily life in multiple location implies the juxtaposition of two, often contrasting systems of spatiality an temporality”, in their conclusion they stated that “Theorist should reconsider the idea that hybrid spaces are somehow beyond space and time, and removed from situated practices in particular places at particular time”. So that it was difficult for me to get a sharp definition of their proposal.
In general, the study felt as a great load of concepts without the explanation, which led me to a lot of confusion. Nevertheless, the part I found interesting was the methodology (even if, as Liv said, the authors leave some important details out, such as their reflection process regarding the interviews and their role as interviewers). Another aspect I liked was the “anthropological- lens” traduced into testimonies.
This weeks article by Baily et al. is focusing on transnational social fields of Salvadorians living in the US and lists various aspects of experiencing temporary protective status, short TPS. The dependence on remittances on the one hand and the psychological effects resulting of no agency and frustration seems to be an ambivalent tension.
Although I have to say I didn’t really enjoyed reading the text because of its structure and writing style there are a few quotes which caught my attention and helped me to understand the emotional side of being torn in between two countries/ or e.g. places.
“The first quote below was recorded in El Salvador, and the second in New Jersey:
My mother comes and goes. When she’s over there, she wants to come here, when she’s here she wants to go back. She’s never in one place, she comes and goes. Today she wants to return, she wants to leave on the first (of the month). And when she gets there, she’ll want to come right back.
And from Eva: My head hurts, I am always very tired, drained, always busy running about, I worry too much about my family, I don’t live for myself, and then the fear of the street. Too much stress. If I could leave as soon as possible I would, but I don’t know where to.” (p.139)
Living a life of physical and psychical restlessness between two countries, combined with a strong sense of responsibility must be enormously energy draining and exhausting.
The perspective on legal or illegal status and the different forms that exist and the effects which will ensue from that for the Salvadorian population in the United States was very interesting to read. I did not know that people who came with a more or less legal status are so much limited in their daily life and social mobility.
The term of “permanent temporariness” describes the situation of the in the text interviewed Salvadorians very accurate. The fear that you can not came back after participating at a funeral of your relatives in the home country is one strong example for that feeling.
Also the every-day possibility of losing the documented status will cause in social marginalization because of the insecure personal situation and will result in restrictions for the private and professional life that make assimilation or integration even more difficult.
The method of interviewing is also decent if you want to verify the concept of “permanent temporariness” because that feeling is based on experience by Salvadorians and can differ from the legal framework that may exist.
I think that the Temporary Protective Status is actually an indirect way of allowing governments to imprison these foreign migrants. TPS prevents migrants from being able to leave the country (or they risk losing their status), thus trapping them within the borders (in this case, the borders of US). The fact that they have left their homelands changed the way their networks and friends back home perceive them, deterring them from going home. Yet at the same time, they are expected to remit their earnings back to their families, leaving them with little financial resources to invest in their own future. It seems to completely benefit the system as US gets human resources while successfully masking the growing numbers of migrants as “temporary”’ residents; this will divert questions from the electorate about the growing number of migrants in the country draining resources that were meant for the people (especially right wing electorates). However, such temporariness makes me question the extent of which these migrants’ human rights are protected – violations probably go unreported for fear of losing this temporary status and the “temporary” label gives countries an alibi to devoid itself of any responsibility for taking care of the rights of these migrants. I wonder also if such lack of belonging and status can escalate beyond psychological disenfranchisement and push these temporary status citizens to seek belonging in other social groups such as terrorist groups or mafias.
This text, written by J. Bailey, A. Wright, Mountz and Miyares and published in 2002, treats the subject of Salvadoran immigration in the US. Salvadoran settlement in the US is quite recent, since 90% of the current first-generation Salvadoran population arrived in the past 20 years, mainly because of the civil war that took place between 1979 and 1992.
The four authors seek to contribute to the transnational theory on contemporary international migrant forge by analyzing how the Temporary Protective Status (TPS) influences the daily life of Salvadoran migrants. Since I never heard of the TPS before, I did some quick research about it. The TPS is a temporary immigration status created in 1990 in the Immigration Act of 1990. It also has an equivalent in European Union, the Temporary Protection, created in 2001 after the conflicts in the former Yugoslavia. In the United States, it allows the Attorney General to provide the TPS status to immigrants who are temporarily unable to return safely to their country of origin because of environmental disaster or an ongoing conflict. The TPS however does not lead to permanent resident status even though the TPS beneficiaries may obtain a work authorization. When a TPS designation expires, the migrant reverts to the same immigration status prior to the TPS: if they had no lawful status, he reverts to unlawful status.
The text thus shows the main characteristics of the daily life a Salvadoran immigrant in the US. It is characterized by the concept of permanent temporariness, which can be summarized by the sentence “I’m here while I can”. It has a huge influence over families and all social fields, since it enhances the sense of guilt of the migrants and the social divisive effect of TPS. Moreover, though transnational, Salvadoran migration is forced to be immobile since under TPS they cannot leave the country. Moreover, even if they are active participants in the strong performing American economy in the nineties, which allowed them to send large sums of money to families in Salvador, their lack of human capital and of degrees make them stuck in secondary labor market positions.
In a nutshell, I found the authors’ conclusion interesting and innovative. They show that the legal status both animates and immobilizes immigrants’ daily life, and argue that theorists should reconsider the idea that “hybrid spaces are somehow beyond’ space and time”.
Having Salvadoran relatives (through a marriage in the family), I was very curious about this subject. Besides, in a Spanish class, I had already chosen to study the Salvadoran civil war (1979-1992) for a year. This side of the subject, exile/emigration to the US and the permanent temporariness, was therefore very interesting to read about, especially because it is very well treated in this article.
Like Katja, I liked the method used in this text for it underlines what we have seen until now: that migration is rooted in a transnational context and that it makes more sense to look at migration subjects with a “postnational” perspective. The mixed-method also enables to have precise numbers as well as a qualitative overview on the subject. Plus, having interviewed people in El Salvador and in New Jersey made the daily-life issues and expectations of migration much more understandable. For instance, we can see how much people who emigrated are expected to send money back to their relatives and to the country (for example, to contribute to the paving of the main street in Amapalita) in the frame of a remittance economy. On this topic, the text underlines the difference between the imagined richness of the emigrants by the people stayed in El Salvador and their actual conditions of living making it sometimes very hard to remit. The daily-life concerns, be it about guilt to have left children in El Salvador, health care, finding work, are very well described and analysed in the article.
Furthermore, I found the concept of strategic visibility very interesting. The text stresses the impossibility to settle and to assimilate in the frame of the TPS (Temporary Protective Status) or when people are undocumented. Their life is strongly influenced by legal statuses.
Additionally, knowing a little about the violence of the conflict and the role of the US in the civil war, I was surprised that “only about 5 percent of Salvadoran asylum claims were accepted in the mid-1980s”.
However, since this text was published in 2002, I wonder if some features of this subject have changed, for instance the fear to be involved in political campaigns and fights for their rights and against discrimination or the non-desire of some people to return to El Salvador.
The authors also describe how this changed the Salvadoran society, they point out: “The relatively recent out-migration of over one million Salvadorans results in a wholly new orientation of the trajectory of Salvadoran society.”
The text was really detailed concerning both theory and praxis when talking about transnationalism. Firstly, it offers a very complete introduction on the theoretical debates about transnational communities and the question about agency vs structure. Secondly, as other classmates already mentioned, it delivers a very insightful view, through cualitative interviews and participant observation, on how people are capable of finding strategies and sliping away form major political and economic stuctures operating within/on them, to actually manage and survive. It’s amazing the emphasis that multinational companies have gained through the globalizing process and at the same time, so depressing the terms in which people are being read under this narrative: human capital. Even in cases Salvadorans have “human capital”, their job opportunities are equaly restricted by their nationalitiy, because employers do “not recognize Salvadoran credentials in the U.S context” (Bailey et al., 2002: 134). Nevertheles, an exception can be made in the case of Salvadorans who belong to a “trader class”, which can be understood as a transnational entrepreneural community. On the other hand, Salvadorans are placed under huge preassure, emotionally and socially, when they’re portrayed as heroes by their people in the homeland, playing the role of a politician in a minor scale. Still, for those Salvadorans who are part of TPS or undocumented, this role is impossible to accomplish, because they are themselves living and struggling under a sort of probation status in the US.