Is it possible to be a diaspora without a “homeland” cinema or media? What happens when there is not a homeland media to produce and narrate belonging? In the case of Hmong refugees, a cinema had to be made where one did not exist prior to exile. Hmong Americans are an ethnic group who have migrated primarily from Laos under the conditions of political exile due to their covert assistance to US CIA as guerrillas in the secret war SE Asia. Fleeing Laos primarily to Thai refugee camps, Hmong have, since then migrated to several different nation-states including France, Australia, French Guyana, and the US. Nearly 200,000 Hmong Americans live in the US, with large communities in the Minneapolis-St. Paul (Minnesota and Wisconsin) and California Central Valley areas. In the US, as a refugee population, they are seen within a neoliberal and racist framework as “unproductive citizens” and “welfare burdens,” and like other Asian Americans as “perpetually foreign.” As Louisa Schein has written, far from being unproductive, Hmong Americans are some of the most prolific filmmakers in America today. Prior to establishing this emerging cinema, however, was a period of the scrounging through, salvaging, and remaking other transnational media. One of the most interesting borrowings and reworkings has been the voracious consumption and re-production of Bollywood, including the Hmong dubbing of popular Hindi films. Literary translations rely on the idea of hiding their seams. Cinematic translations via subtitling supplement the film, sitting neatly on top, but require literacy. Dubbing reorganizes and creates disjunctures, contradictions, and pleasures. How do we want to read the dubbing of (presumably pirated) Hindi films by Hmong Americans? What does it tell us about alternative circuits of transnational media? How do new assemblages and diasporas reform and realign through racialized and gendered bodies in sound and images in Hmong Bollywood?