Diasporic multiple citizenships through extraterritorial networking

This piece is written to summarize the basic arguments and findings of an academic article by Glick Schiller (2017), titled “Transborder citizenship: An outcome of legal pluralism within transnational social fields”. I decided to review this paper for a couple of reasons. First, this article is related to my thesis work which is about the Ethiopian diaspora’s engagement in domestic politics. Second, it would
possibly stimulate some readers to develop an interest in globalization and diasporic studies.

The paper underlines migrants’ involvement in the normative cultural and political activities of both the home and host countries. The author claims that transborder citizenship is not merely living in two or more borders and participating in everyday life in those states. It is rather a citizenship entitlement they are receiving from those countries either by being a member of those states or based on legal rights. Indeed, the proliferation of this category of society in a globalized world has appeared to bridge legal citizens to non-citizens. They connect the citizens to non-citizens through transnational social fields. The transnational social field is established by migrants to connect their homeland to the new land. Such a social field has created the opportunity for non-citizens to be networked and aspire to migrate as well. Consequently, aspirant migrants would get networked and benefit from them to claim citizenship entitlements once they arrived in the host countries.

Transborder citizenship builds on the idea of social and cultural citizenship, apart from legal citizenship. According to Schiller, social and cultural citizenship was advocated in the 1980s by minorities and migrants to benefit from multiculturalism and legal pluralism in the USA. While social citizenship is claimed through collective organizations to protect themselves against discrimination and to receive rights and benefits from the state, cultural citizenship is ‘the right to be different in terms of norms of the dominant community. Such legal pluralism and multiculturalism helped transborder citizens to enjoy citizenship rights both in the receiving and origin countries. In fact, the proliferation of conventional and/or mainstream media platforms has accelerated transnational communities’ involvement in the normative culture and legal rules of multiple countries.

In connection to this, the author highlighted the peculiarities of the different contexts of transnational citizenship. The first peculiarity is that this category of society is practicing citizenship between homeland and the nation of settlement. Homeland politics is the most visible form of transnational citizens’ involvement in domestic affairs. This category of society has been benefited from legal pluralism and dual citizenship entitlements as well as extraterritorial networking to engage in domestic politics. For example, Haitian immigrants in the USA have been actively involved in the political activities of their home and host countries. As a result, their relentless engagement has brought significant political and social policy changes in their homeland.

The second characteristic of transnational citizenship is that ‘transborder citizenry’ is shaped by the particularity of a specific city of settlement. Schiller explains that in the plural world, the migrant’s experiences and outlook are structured by transnational networks and the institutional structures of the city. Moreover, the international networks coupled with the structure of the city have shaped the
migrant’s experiences and outlook. The role of locals in incorporating and instituting pluralism to which migrants would enjoy multiculturalism essentially helps them to actively participate in both the cultural and political activity of more than one legal regime. For example, Turks who are still considered foreigners but were born in or are long-time residents of Berlin claim a form of social citizenship that connects them to the city and to others in it. This entitled them to legal pluralism and the ability to maintain their identity and keep connected with their decedents as well.

The third characteristic of transnationalism is that transborder citizens are networked in multiple states to create a global forum of identity and practices rooted in different legal systems and states and justify entry into all. In the migration regime, migrants have established special institutions such as religious organizations and identities that allow them to become actors in their new states while simultaneously building transnational networks and social fields that extend into many states. The newly formulated identity and organizations are being networked in different countries to claim their rights and benefits in multiple legal regimes. It helps them to form transnational networks and connections that extend into different states. For example, rather than migrants organizing themselves along ethnic lines or involved in long-distance nationalism, they highlight religious identity within their country of settlement and connect with their co-believers worldwide as illustrated among Nigerian and Congolese believers in
Germany.

Moreover, the relationship of transnational societies to legal regimes has been shaped by multiple connections within the receiving state and other nation-states. This is to mean that the citizenship entitlement, the economic, social, and cultural as well as the legal and political rights of transnationals are determined by the legal norms of each migrants receiving country as well as their homeland legal norms. On the other hand, their approach to non-governmental and governmental institutions is with a gaze. For example, unlike other associations and organizations, transnational citizens are neither deeply involved in non-governmental organizations nor do they have special civil and political rights in the receiving country. However, they can make a relation with more than one government or nation-state in an interactive manner as well as simultaneously engage in the political and economic activity of both the sending and receiving countries.

The extraterritorial involvement of transnational citizens can also shape the economic and political policies of both their homeland and the country of settlement. For example, Argun (2003) illustrated that transnational migrants are become major players in legal regimes and international affairs using their diasporic status. They have a cyclical back-and-forth movement through which they can contribute different economic and political opportunities in both countries. However, such involvement is determined by the legal norms of both the receiving and sending countries. Furthermore, Schiller accentuated that transnational society is not only subjected to a plural system but also actors in both systems as well. They put pressure on both nation-states and enforce policies to ensure their rights and privileges. Their active involvement causes the endorsement of more than one set of laws, norms, and values that ensures their rights and benefits in multiple nation-states. For example, diasporic interactive relation to the area of settlement can positively change the public culture of the citizen as well as contribute social and political changes in their place of origin as well.

In conclusion, transnational citizenry’s relationship to legal regimes is shaped by multiple and complex memberships and connections within and across nation-states. Their activity and memberships are also subjected to national legal norms as well as international regulations. Their transnational political and social engagements that can be stretched between their homeland country can also ultimately determine their transnational citizenship and experiences as well.