exam

UC Santa Barbara Journal of Transnational American Studies

Title Americans Abroad: A Global Diaspora?

Permalink https://escholarship.org/uc/item/07c2k96f

Journal Journal of Transnational American Studies, 4(2)

Author Croucher, Sheila

Publication Date 2012 Peer reviewed

eScholarship.org Powered by the California Digital Library University of California

Americans Abroad:

A Global Diaspora?

SHEILA CROUCHER

The low-level, constant harassment against our own

diaspora is crazy, sad, and destructive.

——Andy Sundberg, founder of American Citizens Abroad

To mount a defence of an orthodox definition of

“diaspora,” which orthodoxy in any case has been shown

to be dubious, is akin to commanding the waves no longer

to break on the shore.

——Robin Cohen, sociologist

In April 2011, an energetic cadre of US citizens converged on the nation’s capital with

the goals of lobbying representatives, strategizing with fellow constituents, and

exercising their rights as members of a democratic state. Nothing appeared to

distinguish this group from other concerned citizens negotiating the corridors of

Capitol Hill. Yet these Americans had traveled thousands of miles, across

international borders from their residences in France, Mexico, Switzerland, the

United Arab Emirates, and elsewhere to exercise citizenship in a country where they

possess formal membership but do not reside and, in some cases, had not resided for

decades. This DC gathering, known as Overseas Americans Week (OAW), has been

occurring annually since 2002 and is but one indicator of the multiple and varied

forms of attachment these migrants maintain to their US homeland. The population

of Americans living around the world defies precise enumeration but is estimated at

anywhere between five and seven million (see Figure 1). Although official estimates

of the size of this emigrant population vary, sources generally agree on the rank

order of settlement sites, with Mexico, Canada, and the UK representing the top

three respectively. 1 These American emigrants, like so many others, participate in a

range of associations designed to link them with their homeland and with their

compatriots scattered across the globe, as well as to preserve and promote the

culture, history, and values of their country of origin. During OAW 2011, one American

woman who had been living in Holland for over thirty years said to me, almost

defiantly, “You can’t take the country out of us.” Writing eighteen years earlier,

sociologist Arnold Dashefsky made the same observation: “Apparently, you can take

an American out of America, but you cannot take America out of an American.” 2

FIGURE 1. American Citizens Living Abroad

Source: American Citizens Abroad, accessed December 17, 2012, http://americansabroad.org/files/6013/3589/8124/citizmap.jpg.

Globalization has dramatically increased both the mobility and

interconnectedness of humankind and inspired a rich body of scholarship on the

topics of diaspora, plural citizenships, transnationalism, and the ambiguous future of

the nation-state. 3 A wealth of case studies provide empirical grounding for these

analyses, ranging from the ancient Greeks, Armenians, and Jews to Dominicans,

Haitians, and Mexicans. 4 Largely missing, however, is an awareness of or interest in

the sizeable and growing population of native-born US citizens also scattered around

the globe. 5 Yet these migrants, like others, are practicing forms of political and

cultural belonging that transcend the boundaries of the nation-state. This article

explores the relevance of the literature on diaspora to the underexamined case of

emigration from the US and the transnational attachments and practices of

Americans living outside their country of birth. What follows is an exploration into

whether the label “diaspora” can be applied to Americans and, if so, what the

implications—both practical and analytical—are of doing so. Incorporating

Americans abroad into a framework heavily influenced by themes of dispossession is

counterintuitive, as is applying the label “diaspora” to a relatively privileged group of

migrants more likely to be referred to as “expats.” The argument here is that (1) the

lens of diaspora can bring needed focus to an American emigrant population whose

size and transnational engagement are increasing; and (2) the underexamined case

of Americans abroad can enhance existing scholarship on contemporary

configurations of cultural and political belonging in an era of heightened

globalization.

Americans Abroad

As a “settler society,” the US has long been implicated in a number of diasporic

realities. European colonialism in North America initiated the forced dispersion of

indigenous peoples, and the subsequent formation and westward expansion of the

US intensified the continental scattering of Native Americans. The populating of the

US by immigrants also resulted in a nation comprised of multiple diasporas. For over

two hundred years, millions of immigrants have been arriving voluntarily from around

the world and maintaining ties to their homelands. The US plays host to large and

mobilized diasporas originating from Armenia, Iran, Ireland, Israel, Mexico, and Syria,

to name only a few. Other “migrants,” most notably African slaves, arrived in the US

against their will and grew to comprise a diaspora scattered widely across oceans and

continents. Immigration, settlement, and assimilation are central themes in the

American narrative, but equally prevalent in the country’s history, albeit less

celebrated, are emigration, mobility, and the maintenance of transnational ties.

When George Washington became the first US President on April 30, 1789,

among those celebrating his inauguration was a “colony” of Americans living in

France. 6 Two hundred and nineteen years later when Barack Obama was sworn in as

the 44th US President, poignant images of Americans around the world celebrating

his victory circulated widely on the web. 7 Since the founding of the republic,

Americans of various backgrounds have emigrated. Like other groups, their

motivations, destinations, and experiences vary widely. “Founding fathers” like

Benjamin Franklin and Thomas Jefferson resided for extended periods in Europe to

pursue diplomatic aims. Both men sought to promote the interests of their country

and their compatriots abroad—regularly hosting Americans living in Europe for

dinners and Fourth of July celebrations and, in Franklin’s case, printing a daily

newspaper in French and English for the benefit of Americans living in Paris. 8 A

hundred years later, at the end of the American Civil War, thousands of Confederates

left the US—the largest numbers settling in Mexico and Brazil. These migrants

continued (in some cases for generations) to identify with the culture, history, and

language of the Southern United States. In the Brazilian town of Americana,

residents with surnames such as Butler, Jackson, and Stonewall still “make pecan

pies, hold debutante balls, and sing Southern hymns in their Protestant church.” 9

Authors, artists, and musicians have also figured prominently in the

population of Americans abroad. 10

Painter Mary Cassatt left Philadelphia to settle in

Paris in the early 1870s and rarely returned to the US. Yet she was known to regularly

remind her French friends, “I am an American—definitely and frankly an American.” 11

Perhaps most well known are Ernest Hemingway, F. Scott Fitzgerald, Gertrude Stein,

and other members of the “Lost Generation” who lived in Europe after World War I. 12

Stein’s famous claim that “America is my country and Paris is my hometown” offers

an early illustration of American transnational belonging. 13

This trend of Americans emigrating for a mix of political, cultural, and

increasingly economic reasons has continued to the present day. 14

During the Cold

War, a number of Americans left the country for Europe and Latin America to escape

the political and cultural oppression of an anticommunist movement in the US. 15

An

estimated fifty thousand draft-age Americans migrated to Canada during the late

1960s and 1970s in protest of the Vietnam War. 16

Hundreds more have joined them in

recent years in response to the US wars in Afghanistan and Iraq—some also alleging

dissatisfaction with the policies of George W. Bush and cultural and political

discrimination against gays and lesbians in the US. 17

Artists continued to be well

represented among the American emigrant population (members of the Beat

Generation famously sought cultural liberation in Mexico and other parts of Latin

America), as have young people seeking adventure abroad or, as is increasingly the

case, economic opportunities that elude them at home. 18

Coinciding with the

intensification of contemporary globalization, a growing number of US citizens are

moving abroad for employment, love and marriage, 19

and, with the “coming of age”

of the Baby Boomer generation, retirement. 20

Throughout this history of US emigration, Americans, like most migrants, have

founded organizations, associations, schools, and clubs to ease their settlement in

new lands, promote the culture and ideals of their homeland, and defend their

interests as citizens straddled between two lands. Even among Americans whose

departure from the US has been motivated by cultural or political disenchantment,

the tendency to commune with fellow Americans abroad and to maintain ties to the

country they left is widespread. Hundreds of associations exist around the world to

serve the interests of Americans abroad. The American Legion, chartered in 1919 for

the purposes of “advocating patriotism and honor” and “promoting a strong

national security,” is well known for its work in the US. Less well known is that in

addition to each of the fifty states, the Legion maintains departments in France,

Mexico, the Philippines, and smaller posts in eleven more countries around the

world. Mexico is home to eight active American Legion posts serving hundreds of the

estimated more than one million US citizens residing south of the border. 21

The

Daughters and the Sons of the American Revolution also maintain chapters in Mexico

and other countries around the world. Founded in 1890 and 1889 respectively, both

organizations dedicate themselves to “promoting patriotism, preserving American

history,” and “expand[ing] the meaning of patriotism, respect for . . . national

symbols, [and] the value of American citizenship.” 22

As a testament to the territorial

and cultural fluidity of the American nation, in 2003, the SAR chapter in Mexico

passed a resolution recognizing as “American Patriots” descendants of New Spain,

whose ancestors fought alongside the colonists during the American Revolution. 23

In addition to organizations founded in the US and extending their work

abroad for the benefit of American emigrants, many other groups have formed

outside of the US by and for the growing population of Americans worldwide. The

Association of Americans Resident Overseas (AARO), founded in 1973 and

headquartered in Paris, defines itself as a “non-partisan service organization

representing the interests of more than 6.32 million U.S. citizens living and working

abroad. Its mission is to ensure that Americans resident overseas are guaranteed the

same rights and privileges as their counterparts in the U.S.” 24

American Citizens

Abroad (ACA), founded in 1978 and billing itself as “the voice of Americans

overseas,” maintains its headquarters in Geneva and has more than sixty active

“country contacts” representing ACA throughout the world. 25

The Association of

American Clubs represents over forty member organizations throughout the world

that, like the American Society of Sydney, describe their mission in terms of

“celebrat[ing] American culture from afar.” 26

Hundreds of very active American

Women’s Clubs exist globally for the purposes of uniting and serving American

women living outside of the US and are linked internationally through the Federation

of American Women’s Clubs Overseas (FAWCO). 27

Finally, both of the major political

parties in the US have active and growing global branches. Democrats Abroad,

formed in 1964, maintains committees throughout Europe, Asia, Africa, and the

Americas and describes itself as “the official Democratic Party organization for the

millions of Americans living outside the United States.” 28

Republicans Abroad,

founded in 1978, is now a “worldwide organization, with over 50 chapters,” whose

primary mission is “to integrate Americans, especially those who adhere to the

principles of the Republican Party, into the election process.” 29

Some of these groups describe themselves as primarily social clubs, others

more as advocacy organizations, but in every case what unites the participants is

their identity as American and their interests in and attachments to the US. The

socializing that takes place typically revolves around celebrating US holidays and

customs. Fourth of July parties and Thanksgiving dinners are especially popular, but

these American emigrants also commemorate national tragedies, honor fallen US

leaders, and raise money for compatriots in the homeland during national tragedies

like Hurricane Katrina. 30

Advocacy focuses on particular issues American citizens

confront due to their residence outside of the US—whether in the realms of banking,

access to Medicare, the transmission of citizenship to children born abroad, voting,

or taxes. 31

In addition to their coordinated efforts during the annual Overseas

Americans Week in Washington, these groups have succeeded in establishing a

Congressional Caucus on Americans Abroad, a bipartisan group dedicated to

addressing “the concerns of several million US citizens living outside the United

States.” 32

The Democrats Abroad and Republicans Abroad have both reported

increased involvement on the part of their constituents in countries around the

world, particularly in the wake of the very close US presidential elections of 2000

when the role of overseas ballots captured unprecedented national and international

attention. 33

In 2008, the Democrats Abroad instituted the first-ever “global primary”

to allow US Democrats worldwide to help choose the party’s presidential nominee. 34

In spite of these many efforts, the US government’s attitude toward its

citizens abroad has tended toward disinterest or, from the perspective of many

emigrants, neglect. Individuals who are active in the various organizations above

express frustration with the US government, not only in terms of issues like taxation

(which is based on US citizenship rather than residency as is this case in most other

countries) and obstacles to voting from abroad, but also in terms of what they

generally experience as a deaf ear when it comes their concerns. Andy Sundberg,

founder of ACA, has lamented, “Most other countries put a premium on encouraging

their citizens to live and work abroad. They see it as an asset rather than a liability.” 35

One indicator of neglect lies in US government agencies’ lack of reliable data on the

numbers of American abroad. No US government agency reports on emigrants. In

1957, the Immigration and Naturalization Services discontinued its collection of

emigration data. In 2004, the US Census Bureau issued a report concluding that it

was not cost effective to count Americans abroad. 36

The US State Department

maintains records of US citizens living abroad who register, voluntarily, with a local

US consulate, but growing national security concerns have made the State

Department reluctant to release such information. The last time they did so with

specific country-level data was in 1999 (see Table 1).

The frustrations these emigrants share bear little resemblance to the tales of

hardship familiar among immigrants from developing countries struggling to adapt in

“settlement” countries such as the US, Canada, and those in Western Europe. Still,

like many dispersed populations, Americans abroad clearly have deep attachments,

cultural and otherwise, to the land of their birth. 37

When asked about his sense of

“belonging,” one American living in Mexico remarked that although he lives abroad

and travels frequently, he always feels American: “Look, I am Jewish. I have this

argument a lot with friends about Israel. Of course I belong to Israel. But if there was

ever a conflict, I am American first and foremost.” 38

Another American, born in the

US but living in Switzerland for decades and very active in one of the organizations

for Americans abroad, said this, with emotion, when I probed the persistence and

passion behind his attachment to the US: “It’s my heritage.” 39

Finally, an American

woman living in Canada for twenty years said this when asked about her continued

commitment to voting in US elections: “that just affirms my connection to the US. . . .

You get more involved [with the American political process] the longer you stay [in

Canada], as you realize that no, I am not Canadian. We care about what happens in

the US.” 40

TABLE 1. United States Citizens Living Abroad, 1999

Region

Americas 2,113,295 51.00%

Europe 1,169,438 28.00%

Asia 517,800 12.00%

Middle East 295,645 7.00%

Africa 67,632 2.00%

TOTAL 4,163,810 100.00%

Country (Top ten)

Mexico 1,036,300 24.89%

Canada 687,700 16.52%

United Kingdom 224,000 5.38%

Germany 210,880 5.06%

Israel 184,195 4.42%

Italy 168,967 4.06%

Philippines 105,000 2.52%

Australia 102,800 2.47%

France 101,750 2.44%

Spain 94,513 2.27%

Source: Jason P. Schachter, “Estimation of Emigration from the United States Using

International Data Sources,” United Nations Secretariat, Department of Economic and Social

Affairs, November 2006, p. 15, table 1,

http://unstats.un.org/UNSD/demographic/meetings/egm/migrationegm06/DOC%2019%20ILO.

pdf.

For this group of migrants, as with others, globalization provides an

increasingly important backdrop for understanding international migration and the

maintenance of cross-border ties. Global capitalism has given rise to conditions that

“pull” Americans to other locales and “push” them to leave the US. Job

opportunities have opened in some parts of the world and closed in others. 41

US baby

boomers poised to retire face dwindling pensions, insecure real estate investments,

and increasing health-care costs. Finding themselves priced out of many US locales,

they are pursuing retirement bargains throughout Latin America and elsewhere. 42

Meanwhile, communication and information technologies encourage migration by

facilitating the maintenance of sociocultural, political, and economic ties with the US

homeland and the formation of networks among conationals residing abroad.

Facebook, Meetup.com, Yahoo! Groups, blogs, and countless websites provide useful

media for disseminating knowledge and facilitating networks. US citizens abroad

emphasize the significance of the internet and global media to their migration

decision-making—in terms of the easy availability of information as well as the

related ability to maintain close ties with family, friends, financial investments,

politics, and popular culture in their homeland. 43

Relative to the voluminous literature on international migration and

immigration to the US, American emigration has captured minimal attention. Several

reasons likely contribute to this oversight. American identity is steeped in myths of

exceptionalism. The “shining city upon a hill” is a destination that migrants seek, not

one that they choose to leave. Americans who do move abroad are rarely perceived

as immigrants or treated as such by scholars, politicians, or the media—owing largely

to their class, cultural, political, and racial positioning in the global hierarchy of

peoples and states. This population’s relative privilege renders Americans unfamiliar

subjects for the study of migration and diaspora. But failing to incorporate native-

born US citizens more fully into the study of global mobilities and transnational

identities hampers both the understanding of potentially significant social and

political phenomena and the development of the concepts and framework employed

to make sense of those phenomena. The next section reviews seminal work on the

meaning of term “diaspora” and assesses its applicability to the case of Americans

abroad.

An American Diaspora?

The term “diaspora” appears only rarely in association with US citizens abroad. In this

article’s epigraph, the founder of ACA used the term while complaining about the US

government’s treatment of the overseas American community. Harvard Business

Review’s technology forecaster, Paul Saffo, describes “A Looming American

Diaspora” of young, talented US knowledge workers seeking opportunities

overseas. 44

Andrew Sullivan discusses how the US government’s “sub-human”

treatment of gays and lesbians is “forcing more and more able, qualified, productive

and talented citizens into a diaspora to protect their families.” 45

In the conclusion to

his book, Leaving America, John Wennersten refers to American expatriates as “The

Tribal Diaspora” 46

; and the Overseas Vote Foundation recently published a brief essay

by Judith Murray entitled “The American Diaspora.” 47

These references might be

read as contributing to the “genuine inflation” of the term “diaspora,” 48

but they

also suggest a need for reexamining existing frameworks used to study mobility and

identity in a global world.

Originating from ancient Greek, the word “diaspora” means “to sow over” or

“to scatter widely.” 49

Historically associated with the Jewish people, use of the word

“diaspora” has undergone massive expansion—quantitatively and qualitatively.

Today, the term’s inflation is the single point on which scholars of diaspora most

widely agree. Less agreement exists regarding how (or whether) to distinguish this

form of mobility and belonging from other categories of dispersed populations:

expatriates, exiles, refugees, immigrants, and minority ethnic communities. 50

Existing

scholarship provides valuable insight into the utility of the concept, traits that might

be used to define and delimit diasporas and diasporic activity, and qualifiers such as

“quasi-diaspora,” “semi-diaspora,” and “diasporic,” intended to sharpen the

precision of the term. 51

Nevertheless, a review of this literature supports three basic

observations: (1) no firm agreement has been reached as to what precisely

distinguishes diaspora from other forms of dispersion, or what and who properly

qualifies as a diaspora; (2) interest in and usage of the term “diaspora” (albeit

typically loose and imprecise) persists; (3) the case of Americans is absent from this

scholarly literature on diaspora.

The most likely explanation for why the concept of diaspora has rarely been

extended to US citizens abroad lies in the term’s lengthy association with coercion

and trauma. Yet scholars of diaspora agree, explicitly and implicitly, that forced

dispersal and suffering are not the sine qua non of diaspora. William Safran

acknowledges that “it is possible for a diaspora not to be involuntary [and] not to be

the consequence of collective trauma.” 52

Dominique Schnapper reaches a similar

conclusion: “It seems to me useless . . . to make distinctions based on whether the

dispersion was provoked by political persecution, economic misery, or a project of

colonization, commerce, or culture.” 53

Coercion and trauma continue to figure

prominently in discussions of diaspora but never as sufficient conditions for diaspora

status, and often not even as necessary ones. Analysts who generate lists of defining

attributes tend to share James Clifford’s view that, “whatever the working list of

diasporic features, no society can be expected to qualify on all counts.” 54

Robin Cohen has gone perhaps the furthest in detaching the concept of

diaspora from its ties to what he labels “the victim tradition.” He does this, first, by

reminding us that for the Greeks, from whom the word comes, diaspora did not refer

to collective trauma but had an essentially “positive” connotation focused on

expansion for the purposes of conquest, colonization, and migration. Second, he

reinterprets the history of the Jewish diaspora to reveal a diversity of experiences

not adequately captured by the notion of “victim diaspora.” From here, Cohen

proposes a typology of diaspora that includes victim diasporas (characterized by

traumatic dispersal, e.g., Jews, Africans, and Armenians); labor diasporas

(characterized by dispersal in pursuit of employment, e.g., Indians); imperial

diasporas (characterized by overseas expansion and settlement for the purposes of

colonization, e.g., the British); trade diasporas (characterized by networks of

proactive merchants buying and selling goods over long distances, e.g., Chinese); and

cultural diasporas (exemplified by hybridized cultures of Caribbean peoples). Cohen

is careful to clarify that offering an overarching theory of diaspora is not his goal, and

something he judges to be impossible. Rather he aims to consider all credible

meanings of the term and offer a taxonomy to assist in evaluating the current and

future implications of global diasporas. 55

Other scholars’ conceptualizations of diaspora are more restrictive.

Schnapper acknowledges the increasingly expansive use of the term diaspora but

maintains that “nevertheless, one would hardly use it to analyze phenomena as

quantitatively and politically considerable as the dispersion of Europeans founding

their colonial empires . . . the migration of workers from the poor countries of the

south to the rich countries of Europe . . . the departure of political exiles like the

Poles of the 19th century. One would hardly speak of a ‘Spanish diaspora,’ a ‘British

diaspora,’ or an ‘Italian diaspora.’” 56

Although she is correct that the variation among

these groups and experiences is considerable, she does not clarify how or why size

matters to the definition of diaspora, or which specific political conditions support

the designation of diaspora and which do not. Ultimately, Schnapper concludes that,

to render the concept of diaspora operative, “we must reserve it for populations that

maintain institutionalized ties, whether objective or symbolic, beyond the borders of

nation-states” (251). The emphasis on the maintenance and institutionalization of ties

delimits the reach of the term diaspora, but not in a way that excludes Americans

abroad.

Safran is also troubled by the loose and overly inclusive use of the term

diaspora. Like Schnapper, he sorts through examples of groups to whom the label

can properly apply. West Indian blacks who settled in Britain or the US, he argues,

constitute a “genuine diaspora” in that “they regard Jamaica as their homeland, are

imbued with its culture, and have ongoing connections with it.” 57

He makes a similar

case for Portuguese immigrants in France “who continue to return to Portugal to

vote” (263). On the other hand, Polish Americans and Italian Americans are not

diasporas, according to Safran, if they “no longer speak Polish or Italian, no longer

attend a homeland-oriented church, have no clear idea of the homeland’s past, and

retain no more than predilection for the cuisine of their ethnicity, a predilection often

shared by people who do not belong to their ethnic group” (262).

Ultimately, Safran acknowledges that the question of how or whether an

immigrant group constitutes a diaspora is unsettled, but that the following seem to

be obvious preconditions: the creation and maintenance of adequate diasporic

institutions; a sufficient number of members; and charismatic cultural leaders or

ethnic entrepreneurs committed to the group’s collective identity (284–85). His

definition also remains vague in terms of what constitutes “adequate” institutions or

“sufficient” numbers or “charisma.” Nor do the criteria offered to distinguish among

groups render US citizens abroad ineligible for diaspora status. Americans, like

Jamaicans, regard the US as their homeland, are imbued with its culture, and remain

connected to it. Like the Portuguese in France, they continue to vote in US elections.

Americans abroad continue to speak English, attend homeland-oriented churches,

and retain a predilection for their country’s cuisine. 58

Also concerned about the widespread appropriation of the term diaspora,

Clifford nevertheless acknowledges that, in the current age, “most communities have

diasporic dimensions” and that, ultimately, it is not possible to define diaspora

sharply, “either by recourse to essential features or to privative oppositions.” 59

Particularly significant in the case of Americans abroad is Clifford’s argument for the

need to better understand class differences among diasporic populations. On the one

hand, he maintains that Aihwa Ong’s example of the Chinese investor “based” in San

Francisco who proclaims, “I can live anywhere in the world, but it must be near an

airport” overstretches the concept of diaspora. However, Clifford continues, “to the

extent that the investor identifies and is identified as Chinese, maintaining significant

connections elsewhere, the term is appropriate” (312).

More recent analyses, focused less on defining diaspora and more on

assessing their implications, offer these straightforward definitions: “A diaspora is a

self-identified ethnic group, with a specific place of origin, which has been globally

dispersed through voluntary or forced migration” 60

; or “an ethno-national diaspora is

a social-political formation, created as a result of either voluntary or forced migration,

whose members regards themselves as of the same ethno-national origin and who

permanently reside as minorities in one or several host countries. Members of such

entities maintain regular or occasional contacts with what they regard as their

homelands and with individuals and groups of the same background residing in other

host countries.” 61

Table 2 compiles the attributes of diaspora as proposed by three different

sources. All six of the attributes posited by Safran apply to US citizens living abroad,

with some minor qualifications. The wording “have been dispersed” in his first

attribute implies that the dispersal may not have been voluntary, though Safran does

not state this qualification explicitly, nor, as noted above, does he insist on it in his

analysis. With regard to Safran’s third condition for diaspora status, Americans

abroad tend to remain partly separate from their host societies, though this

segregation is typically the result of choice or a perception of difference than actual

experiences of exclusion. Safran’s fourth attribute applies in that US emigrants often

idealize their homeland, but the question of return is a matter of choice and

convenience, as was the decision to depart, and viewed not so much in structural

terms as in individual ones. 62

TABLE 2. Common Features of a Diaspora

Safran (1991)

1. They, or their ancestors, have been dispersed from an original “centre” to

two or more foreign regions;

2. they retain a collective memory, vision or myth about their original

homeland including its location, history and achievements;

3. they believe they are not – and perhaps can never be – fully accepted in

their host societies and so remain partly separate;

4. their ancestral home is idealized and it is thought that, when conditions

are favourable, either they, or their descendants should return;

5. they believe all members of the diaspora should be committed to the

maintenance or restoration of the of the original homeland and to its

safety and prosperity; and

6. they continue in various ways to relate to that homeland and their

ethnocommunal consciousness and solidarity are in an important way

defined by the existence of such a relationship.

Cohen (1997)

1. Dispersal from an original homeland, often traumatically, to two or more

foreign regions;

2. alternatively, the expansion from a homeland in search of work, in pursuit

of trade or to further colonial ambitions;

3. a collective memory and myth about the homeland, including its location,

history and achievements;

4. an idealization of the putative ancestral homeland and a collective

commitment to its maintenance, restoration, safety and prosperity, even

to its creation;

5. the development of a return movement that gains collective approbation;

6. a strong ethnic group consciousness sustained over a long time and based

on a sense of distinctiveness, a common history and the belief in a

common fate;

7. a troubled relationship with host societies, suggesting a lack of acceptance

at the least or the possibility that another calamity might befall the group;

8. a sense of empathy and solidarity with co-ethnic members in other

countries of settlement; and

9. the possibility of a distinctive creative, enriching life in host countries with

a tolerance for pluralism.

Sahoo and Maharaj (2007)

1. Ethnic consciousness

2. Active associative life

3. Contacts with the land of origin in various forms, real or imaginary

4. Relations with other groups of the same ethnic origin spread over the

world

Cohen’s list of attributes fits Americans abroad as well, with some of the same

caveats noted with regard to Safran’s attributes. Dispersal of Americans outside the

US has rarely been traumatic, although possible exceptions might include Cold War

exiles, war resisters, and racial and sexual minorities. Regarding the second

condition, the ambitions of these migrants are not conventionally “colonial,”

although similarities with the colonial experience do exist, particularly among

Americans who have migrated to less developed countries. 63

The ability to return

home (attribute number three) is a readily available option for most US citizens. The

relationship with the host society is seldom one of assimilation, nor is it “troubled” to

the extent implied by Cohen’s seventh condition. Each of the four qualities put forth

by Sahoo and Maharaj apply to the case of US citizens residing abroad.

Assessment of the applicability of the concept of diaspora to Americans

abroad must also acknowledge that the form and nature of any given diaspora can,

and will, vary internally and across time. Safran acknowledges that among ethnic

minorities who live outside their homeland, some may manifest diasporic identities

while others do not. 64

Schnapper notes that any one diaspora can exhibit

simultaneously different motivations and characteristics (escaping persecution and

pursuing economic gain). 65

And Vertovec maintains that “we should resist

assumptions that views and experiences are shared within a dispersed population

despite their common identification.” 66

In other words, the attitudes and behaviors

of the swelling ranks of US retirees scattered throughout Latin America are likely to

differ from those of the post–World War I “Lost Generation” of Americans living in

Europe or the Americans who left for Canada during the Vietnam War era. And there

are certainly individual Americans who have left the US and maintain few if any

attachments, material or symbolic, to their homeland. Like other cases, this one also

confronts challenges related to measurement. Are children who acquire their US

citizenship through birth to American parents living abroad to be considered

members of the American diaspora? Are immigrants to the US who naturalize but

then return to their original homeland part of the American diaspora? This variation in

the population, and puzzles related to who properly belongs, neither distinguishes

the American case from others, nor disqualifies Americans abroad from diaspora

status.

At first glance, the term diaspora seems an unlikely fit for Americans abroad.

The migration in question is voluntary. The migrants tend to be privileged compared

to others and to many of the host societies where they settle. Their homeland is

politically, economically, and culturally powerful compared to other countries in the

international system, including many that are receiving its emigrants. As a result,

rarely are their experiences of movement or settlement characterized in terms of

coercion, loss, or longing. Also confounding the notion of “American diaspora” is the

invocation of “ethnicity” in some definitions of the term. As a settler society founded

on the narrative of the melting pot and principles of civic nationalism, the US

tolerates ethnic subgroups but explicitly rejects defining “American” identity in

ethnic terms. To refer to shared ethnicity as a factor that unites Americans abroad is

counterintuitive. Yet scholars have convincingly demonstrated that ethnicity is not a

primordial trait but a social and political construction; and international migration is a

central context for and factor in that construction. 67

Wennersten alludes to the

constructed character of ethnicity when he writes that, although few Americans

would consider themselves members of a “tribe,” they are “nonetheless a singular

breed” who “think differently and act differently from the members of other tribes”

and who “have difficulty getting America out of their heads.” 68

Despite peculiarities in the American case, the behaviors of this population

resemble in many ways those of groups whose stories dominate the literature on

diaspora. A persuasive claim can certainly be made for extending the label “diaspora”

to US citizens abroad, but fit alone is not sufficient justification for applying the term.

Ultimately, the utility of interrogating the meaning of any conceptual frame and its

applicability to any case is to further understanding of the phenomena in question.

The next section provides an overview of the potential practical and analytical

insights to be gleaned from examining Americans abroad through the lens of

diaspora.

Implications and Insights

Practical/Political Implications

Agreeing that diasporas (owing largely to globalization) are increasing in size,

number, and relevance, scholars have tended to turn their attention to the question

of impact. This turn heeds the advice of luminaries like Tölölyan and Clifford to focus

on that which diaspora defines itself against: the nation-state. 69

How, in other words,

do diasporas challenge the integrity of nation-states, and what are the economic,

political, and cultural implications of diaspora for homelands, host countries, and

migrant populations themselves? In an essay entitled “Diasporas Good? Diasporas

Bad?” Vertovec outlines the parameters of this discussion. Assessments of the

“goodness” or “badness” of diasporas obviously vary depending on the conditions

(economic, political, cultural) and the perspective (migrants, host society, homeland,

and subgroups of each) in question. 70

Recently, for example, diasporas have been

applauded for their potential to contribute to economic development in the

migrants’ homelands via remittances and other forms of investment. 71

Assessments

of the political and cultural implications of diasporic belonging have tended to be

more mixed. From the perspective of homelands, diasporas can be perceived as

helping to further foreign policy goals or, alternatively, as fueling disloyal

constituencies whose continued involvement with their country of birth constitutes

unwelcome meddling from abroad. Mexico, historically, has offered examples of

both views. 72

From the perspective of settlement countries that receive large

numbers of immigrants, such as the US, attitudes toward diasporic activity and

identification vary, but host societies and governments often perceive diasporas as

threatening—politically and culturally. Political scientists Samuel Huntington’s and

Stanley Renshon’s quasi-scholarly accounts of “the challenges to America’s national

identity” and “the 50% American,” respectively, reflect well the public hostility in the

US toward immigrants’ dual allegiances (Mexicans’ in particular) and what Vertovec

characterized as “diasporaphobia.” 73

Notably, however, diasporic groups whose

political agendas sync with US foreign policy goals (Cubans, for example) tend to

receive a warmer welcome. 74

Much remains to be learned about US citizens as migrants. As with all cases of

dispersed populations, the impact of Americans abroad—whether on the homeland,

country of settlement, or the migrants themselves—varies by context. Factors to be

considered include the specific countries and governments involved, the

relationships between them, and the motivations for migration. To the extent that

the economic impact of Americans abroad is a consideration, it is so primarily for the

countries of settlement, and specifically those countries whose level of economic

development is such that they are simultaneously in need of, and potentially

vulnerable to, the economic investment of immigrants from the US (e.g., Mexico,

Costa Rica, Panama, Nicaragua). In the case of Mexico, home to the world’s largest

population of American emigrants, the host government and society recognize

potential benefits in the form of capital infusion and job creation that accompany a

growing population of US immigrants, but they also express concerns about rising

real estate prices, the loss of valuable property, and wages that do not keep pace

with rising prices. 75

The potential political and cultural implications of an American diaspora have

not generated much interest on the part of either the settlement countries or the US

homeland, but legitimate concerns arguably exist for the receiving countries, the

sending country, and the migrants themselves. Where Americans’ economic

investments travel, so too do their political interests and cultural influences. This

situation is not unique to US emigrants, but their relative privilege, and that of their

homeland, increases its significance. As noted above, some aspects of the American

settlement abroad (particularly in locales in Central and South America) are

reminiscent of the colonialism of an earlier epoch. Despite, for example, explicit

prohibitions in Mexico against foreigners’ involvement in domestic politics, US

citizens residing in Mexican towns regularly involve themselves in local issues,

including development, environmental sustainability, historical preservation, policies

related to pets, and cultural traditions such as running of bulls. They also alter the

cultural landscape, linguistically and otherwise, and in some cases explicitly promote

“American” cultural values that they deem superior to Mexican ones. 76

Regarding

the response of the host societies to American migrants, there is of yet no evidence

of anything approaching “diasporaphobia,” but the space for such a response is, in

some countries, arguably limited by imbalances in power and wealth.

As noted, the US is seemingly disinterested in its diaspora when compared to

many sending states. It rarely reaches out to Americans abroad for assistance with

lobbying or diplomacy efforts, and emigrants active in the diaspora remark that it is

they who initiate and maintain the ties to their homeland. Still, like so many other

immigrant groups, US citizens are practicing what David Fitzgerald has called (with

reference to Mexican migrants) “extra-territorial citizenship.” They are living in

countries where many do not claim citizenship and claiming citizenship in a country in

which they do not live. 77

These extra-territorial citizens, whose numbers and

transnational engagement are increasing, pose challenges for the US in the realms of

citizenship, voting, campaign finance, taxation, government entitlements, and

national security. The US is one of few countries that does not restrict voting from

abroad on the basis of the length of time outside the country, and, for many of the

groups discussed above, improving and increasing extra-territorial voting has been a

central goal. Political parties and candidates are increasingly recognizing the

untapped potential of the American diaspora; 78

and the Federal Election Commission

reports a substantial and growing number of political donations coming from

abroad. 79

Taxation is a point of contention as Americans abroad complain that by

levying taxes on the basis of citizenship as opposed to residency, the US is burdening

its citizens abroad and hampering economic activity that could benefit the country as

a whole. The post-9/11 national security context has further complicated

transnational life as banking from abroad and other cross-border financial

transactions are now more stringently regulated. 80

Finally, some Americans are

lobbying for the extension of Medicare payments abroad, maintaining that they paid

into the system throughout their lives and continue to pay US taxes but are unable to

access the benefits to which they are entitled. 81

In this case, as with all others, globalization has altered the context in which

citizens and states engage each other, but they certainly continue to engage each

other. Although the US is clearly implicated in diasporic phenomena (and not solely

that of its immigrants), public officials, policy makers, the media, and scholars have

been relatively slow to address the related issues and implications. Compared to

heated and pervasive debates about the proper role of immigrants in the American

national community, discussion about the proper role of emigrants pales.

Recognizing the diasporic dimensions of a globally dispersed American population,

and labeling it as such, can help focus attention on developments described above

and provide an established framework for analyzing them. Relying on more familiar

labels, such as “expat,” perpetuates the political and analytical invisibility of this

group of migrants and the global networks they establish. Moreover, not only can

the diaspora frame illuminate significant issues related to a population of American

emigrants that is growing in size and cross-border engagement, but the case study

can also contribute to more general analyses of diasporic belonging in a global era.

Analytical Implications

Scholars have called for more focus on the variations in power and privilege among

transnational migrants and the states they transcend 82

; and taxonomies, like Cohen’s,

explicitly acknowledge that diasporic experiences range from coercive and traumatic

dispersion to voluntary, imperial wanderings. Yet, although Cohen’s distinctions

“take into account the diversity of diasporic experience,” as Roza Tsagarousianou

argues, “they do not really take on broad late modern transnational mobility.” 83

Tsagarousianou offers this assessment of Cohen’s and others’ analyses as a way to

reevaluate recent debate on diasporas in light of the contemporary global context.

Specifically, she advocates a conceptualization of globalization that is less about

rapid traversing of long distances and more about intense and constant transnational

interaction—globalization not as dispersion but as connectivity. She also calls for

moving beyond assumptions of diasporas as “given communities,” territorially

extended intact, to acknowledge the central role of cultural invention and

reinvention. Finally, she cautions against the “ideal” type, “check-list,” or “typology”

approaches to diaspora, all of which obscure the dynamic and fluid character of

diasporas and the transnational contexts in which they exist (105). As scholars

embrace the fluid nature of diasporic belonging, the critical case of Americans abroad

can contribute significantly to theory-building efforts. The American diaspora is

unique in several respects—most notably in terms of the relative privilege of the

migrants and the homeland from which they hail, but also in terms of the history and

national identity of the US as a country that receives and integrates diasporas, rather

than spawning them. 84

Both characteristics, however, offer insights into the study of

contemporary diasporic activities and attachments and the nature of American

identity and belonging in a global age.

Themes of marginalization have pervaded the scholarship on diaspora and

transnational migration and shaped the explanations for what motivates

transnational ties and assessments of their implications. The term diaspora’s ties to

trauma and coercion have loosened, but scholars persist in emphasizing hardship.

Describing the ways in which diaspora is constituted, Clifford writes, “Experiences of

loss, marginality, and exile . . . are often reinforced by systematic exploitation and

blocked advancement.” 85

Shuval cautions that diaspora is not always “forced exile,”

but what she allows instead is that “some people may opt for migration as a result of

political domination and repression, economic inequality, powerlessness or minority

status.” 86

Transnationalism, with few exceptions, has been similarly conceptualized

as the purview of the disadvantaged and a site of potential resistance against the

hegemony of global capitalism and racial discrimination. 87

What follows from these

pervasive assumptions about power imbalance are explanations that attribute the

rise and persistence of transnationalism to proactive sending states seeking

economic and political gain via their diasporas, and to migrants who sustain ties with

their homelands in an effort to combat experiences of dispossession and

marginalization. 88

Meanwhile, assessments of the impact of cross-border belonging

typically deem it benign (if not positive) and compatible with (if not conducive to)

cultural and political integration. 89

Assumptions, such as migrants tending to move from poorer countries to

richer ones, receiving states more powerfully positioned in the world economy than

sending states, and migrant groups typically marginalized in their “host” societies,

dominate current analyses. The case of Americans abroad challenges many of these

assumptions and may challenge the subsequent conclusions as well. Like other

groups, American migrants celebrate the holidays, consume the foodstuffs, and

speak the language of their homeland, while residing in a new land. They vote in US

elections and raise money for and meet with US politicians without leaving their

residences abroad. They participate in a range of organizations designed to serve and

mobilize the interests of Americans abroad and to connect them to their homeland

while simultaneously easing their transition to a new land. But they do so not in

response to a US government that is actively courting their attachments to the

homeland; nor do they do so in reaction to experiences of domination and

repression. Cohen’s observation is indeed correct that “globalization has enhanced

the practical, economic and affective roles of diasporas, showing them to be

particularly adaptive forms of social organization.” 90

Such adaptation is not,

however, the sole purview of the marginalized.

In addition to insights to be gained from greater focus on privilege, this case

and Cohen’s insight about adaptation also point to the potentially perpetual nature

of diasporic belonging. Tölölyan’s earlier caution against the premature eulogizing of

the nation-state relates directly to the future of diaspora. Just as globalization has

reconfigured the nation-state but not superseded it, diaspora challenges the nation-

state while attesting to its continued, albeit altered, significance. Moreover, if the US,

as a real and symbolic refuge for global diasporas, produces its own, then diaspora is

conceptually delinked from its association with ethnicity in any primordial

understanding of that term; and we are reminded that identities of all sorts are social

constructions, shaped by the conditions of any historical moment and amenable to

perpetual reshaping.

Conclusion

In 1996, Tölölyan, cautioned that diaspora “is in danger of becoming a promiscuously

capacious category.” 91

In the sixteen years since then, the use (and what critics might

label “abuse”) of the term has only intensified. In 2005, Rogers Brubaker noted that

while the term “diaspora” appeared only about 13 times a year in the late 1980s, in

2001 alone, it appeared 130 times. 92

By the year 2010, that number had risen to

1,882. 93

This ever-burgeoning scholarship on diaspora is providing fresh insights into

familiar cases as well as introducing new cases and alternative foci, but what has not

ensued is the “stringency of definition” that Tölölyan requested. Extending the label

of diaspora to Americans abroad does not solve this issue, but it can move the

conversation forward in useful directions.

Returning to the guiding question, “What is to be gained and lost by applying

the term ‘diaspora’ to US citizens abroad?” one obvious risk in extending further the

notion of diaspora is that the concept becomes meaningless. As Brubaker argues, “If

everyone is diasporic, then no one is distinctively so. . . . The universalization of

diaspora, paradoxically, means the disappearance of diaspora.” 94

Of additional

concern in this case is the appropriation of a term associated with hardship to discuss

the experiences and actions of a group whose level of comfort sets them apart from

the large majority of the world’s migrants and recognized diasporas. These concerns

are legitimate, but the assumption made here is that the diaspora genie is out of the

bottle. As Cohen suggests in the epigraph, it is neither feasible nor advisable to

defend an orthodox definition of diaspora. The degree of “stretching” has already

been such that the inclusion of a counterintuitive case offers as much possibility for

conceptual enhancement as it does dilution. From this perspective, as important as

acknowledging what might be lost by extending the label “diaspora” to Americans

abroad, is consideration of what stands to be gained.

The global dispersion and transnationalism of US citizens show no signs of

abating. Experts predict that a “silver tsunami” will carry ten thousand aging

Americans per day into Social Security eligibility over the next two decades; and

these “baby boomers” are being increasingly lured across the US border to Mexico

and other locales by promises of “La Vida Cheapo.” 95

Other Americans are cashing in

on their European ancestry as a means to pursue dual citizenships and expanded

opportunities in Europe. 96

Meanwhile, globalization in its economic, political, cultural,

and technological dimensions will continue simultaneously to compel the worldwide

dispersion of Americans and facilitate their cross-border engagements. The executive

director of ACA, Marylouise Serrato, notes that in light of growing concerns about

overseas banking and taxation, her organization’s membership has expanded by

twenty-five percent in recent years. 97

Leaders of Democrats Abroad and Republicans

Abroad made similar observations based on the increased political engagement of

Americans abroad during the past two US presidential elections. 98

Scholarship on American emigration and transnationalism is arguably in its

adolescence and exciting prospects for future research abound. Analysts will benefit

from examining more fully the implications of an American diaspora for US policies

related to voting, taxation, citizenship, Medicare, banking, and national security.

Similarly, the impact on settlement societies of this relatively privileged diaspora

hailing from a particularly powerful homeland warrants careful investigation.

Theorists can also use this case to deepen interrogations of the meaning and practice

of citizen democracy in a global era, and the contemporary nature of American

identity and belonging. Finally, incorporating a counterintuitive case can assist

scholars working in the fields of diaspora studies and transnationalism in sharpening

their analytical frameworks. What is already evident, however, is that Americans are,

and always have been, implicated in diaspora, global migration, and transnationalism

in more complex and expansive ways than has generally been acknowledged.

Notes

1 Jean-Christophe Dumont and Georges Lemaître, “Counting Immigrants and Expatriates

in OECD Countries: A New Perspective,” OECD Social, Employment and Migration Working

Papers, no. 25 (2005), doi: 10.1787/521408252125.

2 Arnold Dashefsky, Jan DeAmicis, Bernard Lazerwitz, and Ephraim Tabory, Americans

Abroad: A Comparative Study of Emigrants from the United States (New York: Plenum

Press, 1992), v.

3 See Rainer Bauböck and Thomas Faist, eds., Diaspora and Transnationalism: Concepts,

Theories and Methods (Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press, 2010); Ajaya Kumar

Sahoo and Brij Maharaj, eds., Sociology of Diaspora: A Reader, vol. 1 (Jaipur: Rawat

Publications, 2007); and Jan Aart Scholte, Globalization: A Critical Introduction, 2nd ed.

(Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan, 2005).

4 See Kim Knott and Seán McLoughlin, eds., Diasporas: Concepts, Intersections, Identities

(London: Zed Books, 2010).

5 For notable exceptions see analyses of Americans’ transnationalism in Canada by Susan

W. Hardwick, “Fuzzy Transnationals? American Settlement, Identity, and Belonging in

Canada,” American Review of Canadian Studies 40, no.1 (2010): 86–103; Kim Matthews and

Vic Satzewich, “The Invisible Transnationals? Americans in Canada,” in Transnational

Identities and Practices in Canada, ed. Vic Satzewich and Lloyd Wong (Vancouver:

University of British Columbia Press, 2006), 164–78; Stephen P. Banks, “Identity

Narratives by American and Canadian Retirees in Mexico,” Journal of Cross-Cultural

Gerontology 19, no. 4 (2004): 361–81; Omar Lizárraga Morales, “The US Citizens

Retirement Migration to Los Cabos, Mexico,” in “Special Issue on Lifestyle Migration,”

Recreation and Society in Africa, Asia and Latin America 1, no. 1 (2010): 75–92; and David

Truly, “International Retirement Migration and Tourism along the Lake Chapala Riviera:

Developing a Matrix of Retirement Migration Behaviour,” Tourism Geographies 4, no. 3

(2002): 261–81.

6 Ishbel Ross, The Expatriates (New York: Crowell, 1970), 28.

7 See “US Election Night as Seen from Abroad: 20+ Expat Cities Pictures,” ExpatFinder

Blog, November 5, 2008, http://blog.expatfinder.com/2008/11/us-election-night-as-seen-

from-abroad-20-expat-cities-pictures-americans-overseas-expatriates-and-locals-follow-

the-results-on-different-time-zones/.

8 Ross, Expatriates, 10.

9 John R. Wennersten, Leaving America: The New Expatriate Generation (Westport, CT:

Praeger, 2008), 35. See also George D. Harmon, “Confederate Migration to Mexico,”

Hispanic American Historical Review 17, no. 4 (1937): 458–87; and Eugene C. Harter, The

Lost Colony of the Confederacy (Jackson: University Press of Mississippi, 1985).

10 See David McCullough, The Greater Journey: Americans in Paris (New York: Simon and

Schuster, 2011).

11 Ross, Expatriates, 166.

12 See Harold T. McCarthy, The Expatriate Perspective: American Novelists and the Idea of

America (Cranbury, NJ: Associated University Presses, 1974); and Ross, Expatriates.

13 Gertrude Stein, Gertrude Stein’s America, ed. Gilbert A. Harrison (Washington, DC:

Robert B. Luce, 1965), 63.

14 See Dashefsky et al., Americans Abroad; and Wennersten, Leaving America.

15 See Rebecca M. Schreiber, Cold War Exiles in Mexico: U.S. Dissidents and the Culture of

Critical Resistance (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 2008).

16 See John Hagan, Northern Passage: American Vietnam War Resisters in Canada

(Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2001).

17 See Maggie Gilmour, “We Won’t Go Back,” Toronto Life, July 2009,

http://www.torontolife.com/features/we-wont-go-back/; and Audrey Kobayashi and Brian

Ray, “Placing American Emigration to Canada in Context,” Migration Information Source,

January 2005, http://www.migrationinformation.org/usfocus/display.cfm?ID=279.

18 See Gary Belsky and Leslie Alderman, “Escape from America,” Money 23, no. 7 (1994):

60–69; Ada W. Finifter, “American Emigration,” Society 13 (1976): 30–36; and Jay Tolson,

“A Growing Trend of Leaving America,” U.S. News and World Report, July 28, 2008,

http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2008/07/28/a-growing-trend-of-leaving-america.

19 See Wennersten, Leaving America; Tolson, “Growing Trend of Leaving America”; and

American Citizens Abroad, So Far and Yet So Near: Stories of Americans Abroad (Geneva,

CH: American Citizens Abroad, 2005).

20 See Sheila Croucher, The Other Side of the Fence: American Migrants in Mexico (Austin:

University of Texas Press, 2009); Migration Policy Institute, America’s Emigrants: US

Retirement Migration to Mexico and Panama (Washington, DC: Migration Policy Institute,

2006), http://www.migrationpolicy.org/pubs/americas_emigrants.pdf; and Morales, “US

Citizens Retirement Migration.”

21 “About,” American Legion, accessed April 21, 2011, http://www.legion.org/about.

22 DAR (Daughters of the American Revolution), accessed April 20, 2011,

http://www.dar.org/; and NSSAR (National Society, Sons of the American Revolution),

accessed April 20, 2011, http://www.sar.org/.

23 NSSAR (National Society, Sons of the American Revolution), “New Spain Eligibility

Guidelines,” Mexico Society, 2003, accessed July 11, 2007,

http://www.sar.org/mxssar/mxssar-e.htm.

24 AARO (Association of Americans Resident Overseas), accessed November 20, 2012,

http://www.aaro.org/.

25 ACA (American Citizens Abroad), accessed November 20, 2012,

http://americansabroad.org/.

26 “The American Society of Sydney,” Association of American Clubs, accessed November

20, 2012, http://www.associationofamericanclubs.com/american-society-of-sydney.html.

27 FAWCO (Federation of American Women’s Clubs Overseas), accessed April 21, 2011,

http://www.fawco.org/.

28 “About Us,” Democrats Abroad, accessed April 20, 2011,

http://www.democratsabroad.org/about.

29 “The History,” Republicans Abroad, accessed April 20, 2011,

http://republicansabroad.org/history.php.

30 See American Citizens Abroad, ACA News Update, no. 194 (2011),

http://americansabroad.org/files/5113/3458/8065/nu194.pdf; and Croucher, Other Side of

the Fence, 125–26.

31 The Overseas Americans Week website posted position papers on these issues. See

“Position Papers for Overseas Americans Week 2011,” Overseas Americans Week,

accessed May 3, 2011, http://www.overseasamericansweek.com/pospaper.htm.

32 “Americans Abroad Caucus,” ACA, accessed November 20, 2012,

http://americansabroad.org/issues/representation/americans-abroad-caucus/. See also

“Americans Abroad Caucus,” AARO, accessed November 20, 2012,

http://www.aaro.org/lobbying/americans-abroad-caucus.

33 See Taylor E. Dark III, “Americans Abroad: The Challenge of a Globalized Electorate,”

Political Science and Politics 36, no. 4 (2003): 733–40, available through the American

Political Science Association (APSA) website at

http://www.apsanet.org/imgtest/AmericansAbroad-Dark.pdf; and Matthews and

Satzewich, “Invisible Transnationals?”

34 See Sheila Croucher, “Migrants of Privilege: The Political Transnationalism of

Americans in Mexico,” Identities: Global Studies in Culture and Power 16, no. 4 (2009):

463–91.

35 “The American Diaspora,” Esquire, September 26, 2008,

http://www.esquire.com/features/american-diaspora-1008.

36 US Government Accountability Office, 2010 Census: Counting Americans Overseas as Part

of the Decennial Census Would Not Be Cost-Effective; Report to the Subcommittee on

Technology, Information Policy, Intergovernmental Relations and the Census, Committee on

Government Reform, House of Representatives (Washington, DC: United States

Government Accountability Office, 2004).

37 See American Citizens Abroad, So Far and Yet So Near; Dashefsky et al., Americans

Abroad; Hardwick, “Fuzzy Transnationals?”; and Matthews and Satzewich, “Invisible

Transnationals?”

38 Croucher, Other Side of the Fence, 146.

39 Author interview with attendee at 2011 Overseas Americans Week, Washington, DC,

April 12, 2011.

40 Matthews and Satzewich, “Invisible Transnationals?” 176.

41 See Paul Saffo, “A Looming American Diaspora,” Harvard Business Review (2009),

http://hbr.org/web/2009/hbr-list/looming-american-diaspora; and Jonathan V.

Beaverstock, Ben Derudder, James Faulconbridge, and Frank Witlox, eds., International

Business Travel in the Global Economy (Farnham, UK: Ashgate, 2010).

42 See Morales, “US Citizens Retirement Migration”; and Cindy Perman, “The Best Places

to Retire Outside the U.S.,” CNBC, February 3, 2011,

http://www.cnbc.com/id/41407154/The_Best_Places_To_Retire_Outside_the_US.

43 See Croucher, Other Side of the Fence, 2, 85–91; Matthews and Satzewich, “Invisible

Transnationals?” 167, 176; and Migration Policy Institute, America’s Emigrants, 2, 53, 56,

63.

44 Saffo, “Looming American Diaspora.”

45 Andrew Sullivan, “The New American Diaspora,” Atlantic, September 22, 2009,

http://www.theatlantic.com/daily-dish/archive/2009/09/the-new-american-

diaspora/196238/.

46 Wennersten, Leaving America, 145.

47 Judith Murray, “The American Diaspora,” OVF Research Newsletter 2, no. 4 (2010): 1–4,

https://www.overseasvotefoundation.org/files/OVF_NL_July-Aug2010.pdf.

48 Dominique Schnapper, “From the Nation-State to the Transnational World: On the

Meaning and Usefulness of Diaspora as a Concept,” trans. Denise L. Davis, Diaspora 8, no.

3 (1999): 225.

49 See Robin Cohen, Global Diasporas: An Introduction (Seattle: University of Washington

Press, 1997), ix; and Steven Vertovec, “Diasporas Good? Diasporas Bad?” Metropolis

World Bulletin 6 (2006): 5.

50 See Khachig Tölölyan, “Rethinking Diaspora(s): Stateless Power in the Transnational

Moment,” Diaspora 5, no. 1 (1996): 3–36; and Khachig Tölölyan, “The Nation-State and Its

Others: In Lieu of a Preface,” Diaspora 1, no. 1 (1991): 3–7.

51 See James Clifford, “Diasporas,” Cultural Anthropology 9, no. 3 (1994): 302–38; Cohen,

Global Diasporas; Sahoo and Maharaj, Sociology of Diaspora; William Safran, “Comparing

Diasporas: A Review Essay,” Diaspora 8, no. 3 (1999): 255–91; Schnapper, “From the

Nation-State”; Gabriel Sheffer, Diaspora Politics: At Home Abroad (Cambridge: Cambridge

University Press, 2003); Judith T. Shuval, “Diaspora Migration: Definitional Ambiguities

and a Theoretical Paradigm,” in Sahoo and Maharaj, Sociology of Diaspora, 28–42; and

Tölölyan, “Nation-State and Its Others.”

52 Safran, “Comparing Diasporas,” 260, emphasis original.

53 Schnapper, “From the Nation-State,” 250.

54 Clifford, “Diasporas,” 306.

55 Cohen, Global Diasporas, ix–xx.

56 Schnapper, “From the Nation-State,” 227.

57 Safran, “Comparing Diasporas,” 262.

58 See American Citizens Abroad, So Far and Yet So Near; Banks, “Identity Narratives,”

363, 366; Erik Cohen, “Expatriate Communities,” Current Sociology 24, no. 3 (1977): 28–

29, 32, 37, 47; Croucher, Other Side of the Fence; and Dashefsky et al., Americans Abroad.

59 Clifford, “Diasporas,” 310.

60 Vertovec, “Diasporas Good?” 5.

61 Sheffer, Diaspora Politics, 9–10.

62 See Cohen, “Expatriate Communities,” 53; Croucher, Other Side of the Fence, 52–58;

Migration Policy Institute, America’s Emigrants; Morales, “US Citizens Retirement

Migration,” 94–96; and Truly, “International Retirement Migration,” 274.

63 See Banks, “Identity Narratives,” 374, 376; Cohen, “Expatriate Communities,” 5–10, 20,

71; Croucher, Other Side of the Fence, 150–74; and Morales, “US Citizens Retirement

Migration,” 104–5.

64 Safran, “Comparing Diasporas,” 258.

65 Schnapper, “From the Nation-State,” 250.

66 Steven Vertovec, “The Political Importance of Diasporas,” Migration Information

Source, June 2005, http://www.migrationinformation.org/Feature/display.cfm?ID=313.

67 See Stephen Cornell and Douglas Hartmann, Ethnicity and Race: Making Identities in a

Changing World, 2nd ed. (Thousand Oaks, CA: Pine Forge Press, 2007).

68 Wennersten, Leaving America, 145.

69 See Tölölyan, “Rethinking Diaspora(s); Tölölyan, “Nation-State and Its Others; and

Clifford, “Diasporas.”

70 Vertovec, “Diasporas Good?”

71 See Kathleen Newland with Erin Patrick, Beyond Remittances: The Role of Diaspora in

Poverty Reduction in Their Countries of Origin; A Scoping Study by the Migration Policy

Institute for the Department of International Development (Washington, DC: Migration

Policy Institute, 2004),

http://www.migrationpolicy.org/pubs/Beyond_Remittances_0704.pdf.

72 See Yossi Shain, Marketing the American Creed Abroad: Diasporas in the U.S. and Their

Homelands (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999).

73 Samuel P. Huntington, Who Are We? The Challenges to America’s National Identity (New

York: Simon and Schuster, 2004; Stanley A. Renshon, The 50% American: Immigration and

National Identity in an Age of Terror (Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press,

2005); and Vertovec, “Diasporas Good?” 8.

74 See Sheila L. Croucher, “The Success of the Cuban Success Story: Ethnicity, Power, and

Politics,” Identities: Global Studies in Culture and Power 2, no. 4 (1996): 351–84.

75 See Croucher, Other Side of the Fence, 183–96; Migration Policy Institute, America’s

Emigrants, 32, 45–46, 51–52; Morales, “US Citizens Retirement Migration,” 96, 103–7; and

Eve Bantman-Masum, “‘You Need to Come Here . . . to See What Living Is Really About’:

Staging North American Expatriation in Merida (Mexico),” Miranda, no. 5 (2011),

http://www.miranda-

ejournal.eu/sdx2/miranda/article.xsp?numero=5&id_article=Article_05-1471.

76 See Croucher, Other Side of the Fence, 150–83; Banks, “Identity Narratives,” 374–77;

and Truly, “International Retirement Migration,” 273, 278.

77 David Fitzgerald, Negotiating Extra-territorial Citizenship: Mexican Migration and the

Transnational Politics of Community, Monograph Series 2 (La Jolla: Center for

Comparative Immigration Studies, University of California, San Diego, 2000), 10.

78 See Murray, “American Diaspora,” 1; Dark III, “Americans Abroad,” 733, 738; and

Croucher, “Migrants of Privilege,” 472–75.

79 Sheila Krumholz, “Recommendations of the Center for Responsive Politics for

Improved Management of Federal Election Commission Data and Disclosure,” Federal

Election Commission, submitted February 18, 2009,

http://www.fec.gov/law/policy/enforcement/2009/comments/crpcomment.pdf.

80 For a variety of regularly updated reports on policy issues of concern to Americans

abroad, including banking, taxation, and citizenship, see ACA (American Citizens Abroad),

accessed November 20, 2012, http://americansabroad.org/.

81 See David C. Warner, Getting What You Paid For: Extending Medicare to Eligible

Beneficiaries in Mexico, U.S.–Mexican Policy Report No. 10 (Austin: Lyndon B. Johnson

School of Public Affairs, University of Texas at Austin, 1999).

82 See Clifford, “Diasporas,” 302, 310; Peggy Levitt, “Transnational Migration: Taking

Stock and Future Directions,” Global Networks 1, no. 3 (2001): 211; Peggy Levitt and B.

Nadya Jaworsky, “Transnational Migration Studies: Past Developments and Future

Trends,” Annual Review of Sociology 33 (2007): 133; and Roger Waldinger and David

Fitzgerald, “Transnationalism in Question,” American Journal of Sociology 109, no. 5

(2004): 1179, 1185.

83 Roza Tsagarousianou, “Reevaluating ‘Diaspora’: Connectivity, Communication and

Imagination in a Globalised World,” in Sahoo and Maharaj, Sociology of Diaspora, 105.

84 Diasporic analysis has been applied to other relatively privileged groups such as

Australians and New Zealanders. See, for example, Graeme Hugo, “An Australian

Diaspora?” International Migration 44, no. 1 (2006): 105–33. In neither case, however, is

the country, culture, or expatriate population characterized by the same degree of global

hegemony as is true of the American case. Nor is either country so deeply wedded to the

founding myths of immigration and assimilation.

85 Clifford, “Diasporas,” 312.

86 Shuval, “Diaspora Migration,” 33.

87 See Linda Basch, Nina Glick Schiller, and Cristina Szanton Blanc, Nations Unbound:

Transnational Projects, Postcolonial Predicaments, and Deterritorialized Nation-States

(Langhorne, PA: Gordon and Breach, 1994); Alejandro Portes, Luis E. Guarnizo, and

Patricia Landolt, “The Study of Transnationalism: Pitfalls and Promise of an Emergent

Research Field,” Ethnic and Racial Studies 22, no. 2 (1999): 217–37; and Eva Østergaard-

Nielsen, “The Politics of Migrants’ Transnational Political Practices,” International

Migration Review 37, no. 3 (2003): 767.

88 See Caroline B. Brettell, “Introduction: Global Spaces/Local Places: Transnationalism,

Diaspora, and the Meaning of Home,” Identities: Global Studies in Culture and Power 13,

no. 3 (2006): 327–34; Clifford, “Diasporas”; José Itzigsohn, “Immigration and the

Boundaries of Citizenship: The Institutions of Immigrants’ Political Transnationalism,”

International Migration Review 34, no. 4 (2000): 1126–54; and Levitt, “Transnational

Migration.”

89 See Christian Joppke and Ewa Morawska, Toward Assimilation and Citizenship:

Immigrants in Liberal Nation-States (New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2003); Levitt,

“Transnational Migration”; Portes et al., “Study of Transnationalism”; and Michael Peter

Smith and Matt Bakker, Citizenship across Borders: The Political Transnationalism of El

Migrante (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 2008).

90 Cohen, Global Diasporas, 176.

91 Tölölyan, “Rethinking Diaspora(s),” 8.

92 Rogers Brubaker, “The ‘Diaspora’ Diaspora,” Ethnic and Racial Studies 28, no. 1 (2005):

1.

93 See ProQuest Dissertations and Theses, accessed February 28, 2011,

http://search.proquest.com/.

94 Brubaker, “‘Diaspora’ Diaspora,” 3.

95 Mark Lassiter, “Nation’s First Baby Boomer Files for Social Security Retirement

Benefits—Online!” Social Security Administration, October 15, 2007,

http://www.ssa.gov/pressoffice/pr/babyboomerfiles-pr.htm; and Barry Golson, “La Vida

Cheapo,” AARP Magazine, March–April 2004.

96 Andrew Abramson, “With U.S. in Slump, Dual Citizenship in EU Countries Attracts

Americans,” Palm Beach Post, June 8, 2008, 1A.

97 Marylouise Serrato, interview by author during 2011 Overseas Americans Week,

Washington, DC, April 12, 2011.

98 See Croucher, “Migrants of Privilege,” 464, 475; Dark III, “Americans Abroad,” 738; and

Matthews and Satzewich, “Invisible Transnationals?” 173–77.

Selected Bibliography

AARO (Association of Americans Resident Overseas). Accessed November 20, 2012.

http://www.aaro.org/.

ACA (American Citizens Abroad). Accessed November 20, 2012.

http://americansabroad.org/.

American Citizens Abroad. ACA News Update, no. 194 (2011).

http://americansabroad.org/files/5113/3458/8065/nu194.pdf

American Citizens Abroad. So Far and Yet So Near: Stories of Americans Abroad. Geneva,

CH: American Citizens Abroad, 2005.

American Legion. Accessed April 21, 2011. http://www.legion.org/.

Association of American Clubs. Accessed November 20, 2012.

http://www.associationofamericanclubs.com/.

Banks, Stephen P. “Identity Narratives by American and Canadian Retirees in Mexico.”

Journal of Cross-Cultural Gerontology 19, no. 4 (2004): 361–81.

Bantman-Masum, Eve. “‘You Need to Come Here . . . to See What Living Is Really About’:

Staging North American Expatriation in Merida (Mexico).” Miranda, no. 5 (2011).

http://www.miranda-

ejournal.eu/sdx2/miranda/article.xsp?numero=5&id_article=Article_05-1471.

Basch, Linda, Nina Glick Schiller, and Cristina Szanton Blanc. Nations Unbound:

Transnational Projects, Postcolonial Predicaments, and Deterritorialized Nation-

States. Langhorne, PA: Gordon and Breach, 1994.

Bauböck, Rainer, and Thomas Faist, eds. Diaspora and Transnationalism: Concepts,

Theories and Methods. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press, 2010.

Beaverstock, Jonathan V., Ben Derudder, James Faulconbridge, and Frank Witlox, eds.

International Business Travel in the Global Economy. Farnham, UK: Ashgate, 2010.

Belsky, Gary, and Leslie Alderman. “Escape from America.” Money 23, no. 7 (1994): 60–

69.

Brettell, Caroline B. “Introduction: Global Spaces/Local Places: Transnationalism,

Diaspora, and the Meaning of Home.” Identities: Global Studies in Culture and

Power 13, no. 3 (2006): 327–34.

Brubaker, Rogers. “The ‘Diaspora’ Diaspora.” Ethnic and Racial Studies 28, no. 1 (2005): 1–

19.

Clifford, James. “Diasporas.” Cultural Anthropology 9, no. 3 (1994): 302–38.

Cohen, Erik. “Expatriate Communities.” Current Sociology 24, no. 3 (1977): 5–90.

Cohen, Robin. Global Diasporas: An Introduction. Seattle: University of Washington Press,

1997.

Cornell, Stephen, and Douglas Hartmann. Ethnicity and Race: Making Identities in a

Changing World. 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Pine Forge Press, 2007.

Croucher, Sheila. “Migrants of Privilege: The Political Transnationalism of Americans in

Mexico.” Identities: Global Studies in Culture and Power 16, no. 4 (2009): 463–91.

———. The Other Side of the Fence: American Migrants in Mexico. Austin: University of

Texas Press, 2009.

———. “The Success of the Cuban Success Story: Ethnicity, Power, and Politics.”

Identities: Global Studies in Culture and Power 2, no. 4 (1996): 351–84.

DAR (Daughters of the American Revolution). Accessed April 20, 2011.

http://www.dar.org/.

Dark III, Taylor E. “Americans Abroad: The Challenge of a Globalized Electorate.” Political

Science and Politics 36, no. 4 (2003): 733–40. Available at the American Political

Science Association (APSA) website at

http://www.apsanet.org/imgtest/AmericansAbroad-Dark.pdf.

Dashefsky, Arnold, Jan DeAmicis, Bernard Lazerwitz, and Ephraim Tabory. Americans

Abroad: A Comparative Study of Emigrants from the United States. New York:

Plenum Press, 1992.

Democrats Abroad. Accessed April 20, 2011. http://www.democratsabroad.org/.

Dumont, Jean-Christophe, and Georges Lemaître. “Counting Immigrants and Expatriates

in OECD Countries: A New Perspective.” OECD Social, Employment and Migration

Working Papers, no. 25 (2005). doi: 10.1787/521408252125.

FAWCO (Federation of American Women’s Clubs Overseas). Accessed April 21, 2011.

http://www.fawco.org/.

Finifter, Ada W. “American Emigration.” Society 13 (1976): 30–36.

Fitzgerald, David. Negotiating Extra-territorial Citizenship: Mexican Migration and the

Transnational Politics of Community. Monograph Series 2. La Jolla: Center for

Comparative Immigration Studies, University of California, San Diego, 2000.

Hagan, John. Northern Passage: American Vietnam War Resisters in Canada. Cambridge,

MA: Harvard University Press, 2001.

Hardwick, Susan W. “Fuzzy Transnationals? American Settlement, Identity, and

Belonging in Canada.” American Review of Canadian Studies 40, no.1 (2010): 86–

103.

Harmon, George D. “Confederate Migration to Mexico.” Hispanic American Historical

Review 17, no. 4 (1937): 458–87.

Harter, Eugene C. The Lost Colony of the Confederacy. Jackson: University Press of

Mississippi, 1985.

Hugo, Graeme. “An Australian Diaspora?” International Migration 44, no. 1 (2006): 105–33.

Huntington, Samuel P. Who Are We? The Challenges to America’s National Identity. New

York: Simon and Schuster, 2004.

Itzigsohn, José. “Immigration and the Boundaries of Citizenship: The Institutions of

Immigrants’ Political Transnationalism.” International Migration Review 34, no. 4

(2000): 1126–54.

Joppke, Christian, and Ewa Morawska. Toward Assimilation and Citizenship: Immigrants in

Liberal Nation-States. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2003.

Knott, Kim, and Seán McLoughlin, eds. Diasporas: Concepts, Intersections, Identities.

London: Zed Books, 2010.

Kobayashi, Audrey, and Brian Ray. “Placing American Emigration to Canada in Context.”

Migration Information Source, January 2005.

http://www.migrationinformation.org/usfocus/display.cfm?ID=279.

Levitt, Peggy. “Transnational Migration: Taking Stock and Future Directions.” Global

Networks 1, no. 3 (2001): 195–216.

Levitt, Peggy, and B. Nadya Jaworsky. “Transnational Migration Studies: Past

Developments and Future Trends.” Annual Review of Sociology 33 (2007): 129–56.

Matthews, Kim, and Vic Satzewich. “The Invisible Transnationals? Americans in Canada.”

In Transnational Identities and Practices in Canada, ed. Vic Satzewich and Lloyd

Wong, 164–78. Vancouver: University of British Columbia Press, 2006.

McCarthy, Harold T. The Expatriate Perspective: American Novelists and the Idea of

America. Cranbury, NJ: Associated University Presses, 1974.

McCullough, David. The Greater Journey: Americans in Paris. New York: Simon and

Schuster, 2011.

Migration Policy Institute. America’s Emigrants: US Retirement Migration to Mexico and

Panama. Washington, DC: Migration Policy Institute, 2006.

http://www.migrationpolicy.org/pubs/americas_emigrants.pdf.

Morales, Omar Lizárraga. “The US Citizens Retirement Migration to Los Cabos, Mexico.”

Special issue, Recreation and Society in Africa, Asia and Latin America 1, no. 1

(2010): 75–92.

Murray, Judith. “The American Diaspora.” OVF Research Newsletter 2, no. 4 (2010): 1–4.

https://www.overseasvotefoundation.org/files/OVF_NL_July-Aug2010.pdf.

Newland, Kathleen, with Erin Patrick. Beyond Remittances: The Role of Diaspora in Poverty

Reduction in Their Countries of Origin; A Scoping Study by the Migration Policy

Institute for the Department of International Development. Washington, DC:

Migration Policy Institute, 2004.

http://www.migrationpolicy.org/pubs/Beyond_Remittances_0704.pdf.

NSSAR (National Society, Sons of the American Revolution). Accessed April 20, 2011.

http://www.sar.org/.

Østergaard-Nielsen, Eva. “The Politics of Migrants’ Transnational Political Practices.”

International Migration Review 37, no. 3 (2003): 760–86.

Overseas Americans Week. “Position Papers for Overseas Americans Week 2011.”

Accessed May 3, 2011. http://www.overseasamericansweek.com/pospaper.htm.

Portes, Alejandro, Luis E. Guarnizo, and Patricia Landolt. “The Study of Transnationalism:

Pitfalls and Promise of an Emergent Research Field.” Ethnic and Racial Studies 22,

no. 2 (1999): 217–37.

Renshon, Stanley A. The 50% American: Immigration and National Identity in an Age of

Terror. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press, 2005.

Republicans Abroad. Accessed April 20, 2011. http://republicansabroad.org/.

Ross, Ishbel. The Expatriates. New York: Crowell, 1970.

Saffo, Paul. “A Looming American Diaspora.” Harvard Business Review (2009).

http://hbr.org/web/2009/hbr-list/looming-american-diaspora.

Safran, William. “Comparing Diasporas: A Review Essay.” Diaspora 8, no. 3 (1999): 255–91.

Sahoo, Ajaya Kumar, and Brij Maharaj, eds. Sociology of Diaspora: A Reader. Vol. 1. Jaipur:

Rawat Publications, 2007.

Schachter, Jason P. “Estimation of Emigration from the United States Using International

Data Sources.” United Nations Secretariat, Department of Economic and Social

Affairs, November 2006.

http://unstats.un.org/UNSD/demographic/meetings/egm/migrationegm06/DOC%2

019%20ILO.pdf.

Schnapper, Dominique. “From the Nation-State to the Transnational World: On the

Meaning and Usefulness of Diaspora as a Concept.” Trans. Denise L. Davis.

Diaspora 8, no. 3 (1999): 225–54.

Scholte, Jan Aart. Globalization: A Critical Introduction. 2nd ed. Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave

Macmillan, 2005.

Schreiber, Rebecca M. Cold War Exiles in Mexico: U.S. Dissidents and the Culture of Critical

Resistance. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 2008.

Shain, Yossi. Marketing the American Creed Abroad: Diasporas in the U.S. and Their

Homelands. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999.

Sheffer, Gabriel. Diaspora Politics: At Home Abroad. Cambridge: Cambridge University

Press, 2003.

Shuval, Judith T. “Diaspora Migration: Definitional Ambiguities and a Theoretical

Paradigm.” In Sociology of Diaspora: A Reader, vol. 1, ed. Ajaya Kumar Sahoo and

Brij Maharaj, 28–42. Jaipur: Rawat Publications, 2007.

Smith, Michael Peter, and Matt Bakker. Citizenship across Borders: The Political

Transnationalism of El Migrante. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 2008.

Stein, Gertrude. Gertrude Stein’s America. Ed. Gilbert A. Harrison. Washington, DC: Robert

B. Luce, 1965.

Tölölyan, Khachig. “The Nation-State and Its Others: In Lieu of a Preface.” Diaspora 1, no.

1 (1991): 3–7.

———. “Rethinking Diaspora(s): Stateless Power in the Transnational Moment.”

Diaspora 5, no. 1 (1996): 3–36.

Truly, David. “International Retirement Migration and Tourism along the Lake Chapala

Riviera: Developing a Matrix of Retirement Migration Behaviour.” Tourism

Geographies 4, no. 3 (2002): 261–81.

Tsagarousianou, Roza. “Reevaluating ‘Diaspora’: Connectivity, Communication and

Imagination in a Globalised World.” In Sociology of Diaspora: A Reader, vol. 1, ed.

Ajaya Kumar Sahoo and Brij Maharaj, 101–17. Jaipur: Rawat Publications, 2007.

US Government Accountability Office. 2010 Census: Counting Americans Overseas as Part

of the Decennial Census Would Not Be Cost-Effective; Report to the Subcommittee

on Technology, Information Policy, Intergovernmental Relations and the Census,

Committee on Government Reform, House of Representatives. Washington, DC:

United States Government Accountability Office, 2004.

Vertovec, Steven. “Diasporas Good? Diasporas Bad?” Metropolis World Bulletin 6 (2006):

5–8.

———. “The Political Importance of Diasporas.” Migration Information Source, June

2005. http://www.migrationinformation.org/Feature/display.cfm?ID=313.

Waldinger, Roger, and David Fitzgerald. “Transnationalism in Question.” American

Journal of Sociology 109, no. 5 (2004): 1177–95.

Warner, David C. Getting What You Paid For: Extending Medicare to Eligible Beneficiaries in

Mexico. U.S.–Mexican Policy Report No. 10. Austin: Lyndon B. Johnson School of

Public Affairs, University of Texas at Austin, 1999.

Wennersten, John R. Leaving America: The New Expatriate Generation. Westport, CT:

Praeger, 2008.