Transnational Citizenship: A Proposal From Below

Transnationalism de-emphasizes the role of geography in the formation of collective identity, recreates membership by overcoming territorial borders, and emphasizes the ability to maintain and generate post-migratory relationships and bonds ( ^{Levitt, 2001} ). According to ^{Martiniello and Lafleur (2008)} , the following elements characterize transnationalism:

Several disciplines have adopted the concept of transnationalism to explain the dynamics of migrants; however, one of the less explored topics has been the role of transnational practices in the process of citizen incorporation, which is also one of the indicators that best reflect the success or failure of accommodation processes. ^{Østergaard- Nielsen (2003)} points out how the development of transnationalism endows immigrants with socio-political capital to influence policies at their place of origin, and that capital is also channeled into the politics of the place of residence, where “The local dimensions of citizenship imply the incorporation of stakeholders in local decision-making, policy formulation and implementation through processes of governance” ( ^{Østergaard -Nielsen, 2011, p. 24} ). ^{Siemiatycki (2011)} explains that through transnationalism immigrants can participate in local politics and help to determine the rules by which they will live, what society owes its members, and the obligations that individuals have towards society.

Immigrants tend to perceive the national level as distant and indifferent to their demands, but in cities they find arenas to negotiate the form and areas of participation. In this regard, ^{Ginieniewicz (2010)} states that although immigrants suddenly come to a world whose rules, laws, codes and references differ from those they know, the migratory experience includes a process of learning civic practices and rules of the place of settlement. The politicization process is progressive, but in most cases negotiation is the first challenge for the political incorporation of migrants.

The restructuring of citizenship is essential for transnational migrants because one of their main demands is a “double presence instead of double absence.” ^{Faist (2000)} suggests that transnational citizenship includes complementary and compatible political elements of the double affiliation of migrants. In this case, it is necessary to point out that the transnational adjective refers to the character of the agents and not to a diffuse figure of multinational or transborder membership. In this regard, ^{Bloemraad (2004)} highlights important analysis elements for the restructuring of migrant citizenship: the deterritorialization of the ascription due to the individual's multiple territorial ties, multiple memberships with which they can identify, and the fact that there are few migrants who are promoting these proposals by means of concrete actions.

^{Yuval-Davis (2006)} argues that citizenship is a multi-layered construct affected by ideological interactions, relationships and positions, and challenged by groups that reconstruct the notions of belonging. Transnational citizenship refers to a membership project of a group of migrants that receives its name after the transnational nature of its practices. In this regard, ^{Fox (2005)} points out that what makes transnational citizenship is the fact that, from within a cosmopolitan society, certain groups develop activism towards another country while building political participation arenas that are rooted in the place of residence. This way, transnational citizenship is a combination of the empowerment of transnational migrants, the institutional recognition of freedoms, the search for opportunities in the sociopolitical arena, and the space of citizen exercise where the multiple identities of each of its members do not have to represent a risk for social cohesion.

In this sense, the recognition of diversity, a collective affiliation as a minority, and the search for a certain autonomy as a particular sector of society will be basic components and demands of the vision of transnational citizenship. In addition, transmigrants conceive citizenship as a role or agency, not simply as an affiliate relationship. The roles they intend to promote are precisely as relevant agents of communication that keep their particularities and constitute themselves as participant minorities.

Multicultural Citizenship: The Answer From Above

Contrasting with the transnational citizenship to which an immigrant sector aspires through its practices, multicultural citizenship arises. The main response of some governments and academic sectors of contemporary liberal democracies has been characterized by the transition from assimilationist models to the adoption of incorporation projects. These perspectives agree that due to the different affiliations and interests that converge in the same socio-political imaginary, it is impractical to deny public rights and policies that would favor certain minority sectors of the population, even if those individuals do not meet all the formalities to be recognized as full members.

Supporters of this perspective base their premises on multiculturalism. Abdallah- Pretceille explains that “based on a dualism between a philosophical, theoretical and methodological construction on the one hand, and on the other on an empirical reality, multiculturalism is understanding and action” ( ^{Abdallah-Pretceille, 2006, p. 477} ). Kymlicka, pioneer in the field, (1995, 2003, and 2007), analyzed contemporary societies in North America and formulated the concept of multicultural citizenship. Multiculturalism is based on three fundamental principles: citizenship, right to difference and unity in diversity ( ^{Giménez-Romero, 2001} ). Additionally, multiculturalism implies not only exalting the presence of other cultures, but also converging on a same social project.

Multicultural citizenship became a relevant aspect to be developed in the processes to integrate migrants according to the work of ^{Joppke (1996)} , ^{Baubock (2003)} , ^{Brubaker (2010)} and ^{Bouchard (2011)} . All of them agree on reviewing the liberal concept of citizenship and in formulating a new post-national membership project, whose main components are full recognition of civil rights and freedoms regardless of immigration status. Multiculturalism focuses cultural rights on individuals and not on groups, since for its promoters, multiculturalism is an individual rather than a collective construction ( ^{Bodirsky, 2012} ).

Multicultural citizenship is the most common political strategy to accommodate diversity in cities ( ^{Zapata-Barrero, 2003} ). Its main objective in the medium term is to promote the recognition of diversity and to achieve harmonic accommodation among the main groups that converge in the city. In the long term, it is intended to create a new public culture that guides all institutional and civic practices aimed at creating a new tie through cultural tolerance, interaction included ( ^{Zapata-Barrero & Pinyol Jiménez, 2013} ).

Supporters of multiculturalism state that this perspective of multicultural citizenship is compatible with liberal democracies, as it is based on respect for the diversity of groups and because organization is one of its pillar values. ^{Reitz (2009)} explains that “multiculturalism –not only understood as tolerance to cultural diversity but as a demand for the legal recognition of racial, religious or cultural rights of groups– has been established virtually in all modern liberal democracies.” Consequently, multicultural citizenship implies a positive interaction between cultures, but rejects structures of ethnic representation or exclusive forums for certain groups ( ^{Thomas et al., 2010} ).

^{Kymlicka (1995)} proposes that minorities should not be seen simply as external allies; in fact, he suggests that ethnic groups are non-rigid and intermittent categories. These groups want to keep their cultural peculiarities within society; they do not want to build a parallel society within the states they inhabit. In this regard, ^{Cantle (2014)} points the following as the main objectives of cities towards multiculturalism: 1) the search for stability by aiding in the convergence of political traditions with rights, 2) cohesion and social inclusion, and 3) co-development. In this context, governments use multiculturalism –both discursive and practical– to manage cultural differences as social assets rather than as threats.

Multiculturalists agree that a first phase consists in the recognition of pluralism; this simply means that alternative perspectives displace the dominant ideologies in the discourse. In a second stage, these objectives are institutionalized as political principles, and even in this normative stage they become policies. There is currently a call for the development of methodologies for the diagnosis and evaluation of multicultural citizenship processes, which in migrant host cities find favorable spaces to guide integration and participation in the immediate political arena.

Multicultural citizenship rejects ethnic platforms and the isolation of cultural groups ( ^{Thomas et al., 2010} ). Consequently, these are the central concepts of multicultural citizenship: access to social institutions and programs without ethnic or cultural discrimination, an education sensitive to different cultures, opening government institutions to cultural diversity, the representation of minority sectors, especially in advisory bodies and, to a lesser extent, in political participation. The mechanisms meant to ensure the effectiveness of multicultural citizenship relate to the creation of inclusive contexts, with equal opportunities and affirmative action destined to reduce the vulnerabilities of cultural minorities.

The Contrasts Between Citizenship Projects ‘From Above’ and ‘From Below’

As previously stated, the main question guiding this text is why is citizenship being restructured through contrasting projects arising from the local arena? ^{Halfmann (1998)} posits that citizenship is the basic right required to be a full member in a political community, which can only be executed within the organizational framework offered by a constituted political entity, and whose main attribution is the direction of the physical means to guarantee compliance spaces for citizen deliberations. Consequently, the reformulation of affiliation relationships and the renegotiation of the rules for the assimilation of new members into societies lead to two different initiatives, one ‘from above’ and one ‘from below.’

^{Portes (1997)} explained that organized immigrants deployed transnational practices as a strategy to counteract restrictive and exclusive positions, to erode the systemic response that 'capital is global while work is local', and to reduce the neoliberal effects on labor markets and in the lives of immigrants. Subsequently, ^{Portes et al. (2003)} developed this idea, stating that “…the ‘transnationalism from below’ enacted by the migrant population seeking social, economic and political integration generates an elitist response ‘from above.’” That is, the dynamics of the migrants are motivated from below as mechanisms of survival against their vulnerabilities, but later when the diaspora is settled and holds social capital, it motivates host governments' responses from above.

Following this line of research, the following differences are proposed between the perspectives of citizen restructuring, explained as processes ‘from below’ and ‘from above’:

In this context, the following question is also raised: what are the consequences of having contrasting citizenship projects or perspectives? Considering that, beyond the debates on inclusion and exclusion, membership approaches can generate or prevent social conflicts, and motivate or constrain the progress of immigrants.

The Multicultural Proposal of the Political Elites in Chicago

Chicago has tried to respond to the demands in the city through urban migration policies, especially by creating spaces to shape and channel the citizen incorporation of these migrants. A first step has been taken through the use of concepts. In Chicago and in other cities in the American Welcoming Cities⁶ coalition they don't talk about migrants or foreign workers, but about new Americans, which is an inclusive denomination with an intrinsic invitation to integration, and of merely discursive value.

In 1985, Mayor Harold Washington –elected in 1983 thanks to an inter-ethnic coalition, therefore an important promoter of the civic participation of immigrant groups, mainly of Latinos– signed an executive order to cancel the practice of requesting citizenship proof when requesting services and licenses in the city, the local cooperation with immigration officers was also limited. Then, in 1989, Mayor Richard Daley extended this ordinance by establishing fair and equal access for all regardless of the country of origin; however, the same year an amendment was passed that allowed the disclosure of immigration status to fight gang activity in the city ( ^{Paik, 2017} ). It was in 2006 when the city council unanimously passed the ordinance that turned Chicago into a sanctuary city and initiated the so-called welcoming policies.⁷

Currently, the Office of Immigration Services has several initiatives to promote this new citizenship. The New Americans Initiative (2011) is the most complete effort; it has a concrete action plan based on multicultural citizenship, the New Americans Plan ( ^{Kerr, McDaniel & Guinan, 2014} ). This policy aims to transform Chicago into the most hospitable city for immigrants in the world. Among its motivating factors, the initiative highlights the economic and cultural contributions of immigrants to the city.

In its political design, this plan had the participation of 50 migrant organizations among chambers of commerce, promoting associations and community organizations. Many of them have deployed migrant valorization campaigns and have offered citizenship workshops, as will be explained later. In addition to the advisory council, the plan incorporates the creation of an executive office to monitor compliance and to carry out administrative tasks, which also works to link immigrants with the local government and that concentrates all the city's migration programs. Since its foundation, this office has been headed by officers of Mexican origin.

The plan becomes public policy by establishing several concrete initiatives and also defines a set of indicators to assess progress. Although an important part of these initiatives are economically motivated, such as the incubation of businesses among migrants and the professionalization of migrant workers, these initiative also focus on education. However, the plan mostly incorporates multicultural policies: they emphasize the impulse towards multilingualism and cultural sensitivity in public offices in the city, endorse equal access to public services, the promotion of civic participation especially in young people, the promotion of naturalization campaigns, and the incorporation and dissemination of migratory services at the local level.

Another important aspect is that Chicago is a “sanctuary city”: the local police does not cooperate with immigration officials to carry out mass raids or arbitrary detentions, in case of misdemeanors detained migrants are not handed to immigration officials. This sanctuary ordinance contains several exceptions: the police are obliged to cooperate with immigration officials in cases of violations of state laws, when the person has been previously imprisoned, and when there is a record of alleged gang membership. In this regard, various city authorities have stated that their priority is to strengthen local laws and reduce violent crimes, and not the mere deportation of undocumented immigrants, but the risk of such an outcome still exists.⁸

Sanctuary cities stand out because any resident can access basic services such as basic education, health, housing and public safety without providing any proof in terms of their immigration status. The problem is that they cannot access other services that are funded by state and federal funds.

In 2016, alliances such as “Chicago is with you” and “One Chicago” were launched. These in force campaigns are aimed at disseminating the immigration services provided by the city and also include a one-million-dollar legal assistance fund for immigrant dreamers. Recently, a program to issue a local identification card was also approved. However, critics of these City ID programs ( ^{Graauw, 2015} ) state that their effectiveness is limited since they become mere bureaucratic programs because a consular matricula is already accepted locally in these cities.

For the political elites in Chicago, stimulating citizenship implies investing in the education of human capital, fostering individual immigrant development strengthens ties with the city. That is why the services they provide are job training, English as a second language courses, business incubation, etc. They also highlight in this strategy the generation of multicultural skills in public offices and in the security forces that are part of the administration that interacts daily with immigrants.

This proposal is framed within the model of citizenship molded from above, which corresponds to a multicultural perspective and in which through their plans governments channel and shape the way that immigrants should be integrated. These are the main values prioritized, matching with the classic values of American society: individualism, entrepreneurship, self-made attitude and meritocracy. In addition to the culture of separating ethnic particularities and cultural values from citizen participation, this mechanism differs from the practices of the most vulnerable immigrants, which are rather based on cultural resilience as a political stakeholder.

In this approach to multicultural citizenship, the migrant participates exclusively through consultative forums, and there are only spaces for those who are active in organizations that have made contact with the city administration, and who have organizational structures that are perceived as positive because of their minimum degree of institutional confrontation. Thus, according to this approach, it is possible to establish a positive interaction through a common language. This implies an invitation to join local governance, but only along defined lines of the plan. This means that this initiative from above is aimed only at a certain profile of migrants with the possibility of reaching citizenship, excluding the most vulnerable, who are affected by the lack of legal means fort citizen incorporation at the federal level, and whose organizational efforts are halted by not being able to engage in that civic and political project framed by the locally dominant sector.

Citizenship Projects of Transnational Migrant Organizations

Latinos in Chicago are one of the most organized and politicized migrant groups in the United States, since they knew how to adopt the social structures that already existed in the city, created by the African American civil rights movement and the labor mobilizations in the first mid-20th century. Based on these patterns, they organized around social structures within communities, such as school councils, churches, community organizations, unions, chambers of commerce and, recently in political organizations ( ^{Mendoza & Bada, 2013} ). In all these spaces, the condition as an immigrant ethnic minority has been the main element of cohesion.

The election of Donald Trump in 2016 was a detonating element to raise awareness among immigrant organizations about the need to promote the exercise of citizenship both in its objective and substantive dimensions. Election statistics showed that up to three million migrants across the country could obtain full civil and political rights, and therefore vote. That is, a hostile context motivated the search for alternatives to increase their socio-political capital by promoting naturalization processes.

In this way, migrant coalitions in Chicago –the Illinois Coalition for Immigrant and Refugee Rights (ICIRR), Alianza Américas, Enlace Chicago and Casa Michoacán– began to develop Citizenship Workshops. These workshops are events in which permanent residents are invited to naturalize; they also provide logistical support, legal advice and transnational support funds –such as Slim Foundation, in Mexico– to pay the fees and prevent fraud cases.

An interesting aspect on bonding is that volunteers have been trained to accompany migrants throughout the naturalization process. Organizations report that in the city of Chicago citizens of all ethnic groups volunteer in solidarity with migrants. Another important ally for the success of these workshops has been the Mexican consulate, which lends its facilities, its experts and its dissemination channels (radio channels, mobile consulates, etc.). Likewise, several Latino elected officials, through their offices and in alliance with the coalitions, have given Citizenship Workshops in their facilities and also offer information about funding opportunities.

According to the Immigrant Services Fund of the city of Chicago, between 2016 and 2017 approximately 96 000 people participated in the citizenship workshops. The results cannot be reflected immediately because the naturalization process takes time. The USCIS (U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services) reports a delay in the processing of applications; however, the last report of 2016 showed that in that year the applications had increased by 14%.⁹ It is also necessary to note that there are many formal details involved in each application and that organizations point out that for many migrants there is no legal path to regularization; therefore, all social agents must continue promoting flexible forms of local citizenship.

Regarding the profile of the participants, organizations in Chicago report that 60% of them did not finish high school education or are not fluent in the English language, which according to the 2015 National Survey of Latinos is the main obstacle to applying for citizenship ( ^{Gonzalez-Barrera, 2017} ). In this sense, organized migrant communities through citizenship workshops aim to raise awareness among other migrants that they are not alone in the incorporation process, and that in it they can use their cultural values and their particularities as assets. Immigrants trust organizations surged from within their communities. In addition, a result of participating in their citizenship programs is the adoption of such groups' positions and demands.

The influence of migrant organizations in the process of political incorporation has resulted in a more pragmatic vision of exercising citizenship that is related to the transnational citizenship model proposed in this research. Organizations have vast experience –inside and outside local institutions– in exercising substantive citizenship derived from civic participation and in impacting on their communities' public policy. These are precisely the values that they convey through their citizenship workshops, in which migrant organizations in Chicago raise awareness about how citizenship not only implies status regularization and voter registering, it should be instead a substantive exercise towards impacting on policies and programs that favor collective interests.

In addition, organizations conduct training workshops for community leaders, campaigns for access to social policy and other binational programs. These programs include Know Your Rights, in which organizers explain how every individual regardless of immigration status is entitled to several constitutional guarantees in the United States. In these campaigns, organizations have made an efficient use of the communication channels (radio, television, social networks, etc.) that Latin American immigrants have deployed in the city.

In Chicago, immigrant organizations with very elaborate internal structures have managed to position themselves as relevant communicative agents in society. They have also managed to establish cooperation channels with both host and home governments, and through their dynamics, citizens root transnational activism. It is true that the economic and political resources to which these immigrant organizations have access are limited, that the learning process has ups and downs –even problems within the collectives themselves– and that for many migrants in Chicago citizenship is not a viable path; however, through these exercises they promote the empowerment of the migrant collective as a whole, always favoring group perspectives under a collective approach marked by transnational experiences.