While in New York, immigrants have a large affect on the school system, and vice versa. In the book From Ellis Island to JFK Nancy Foner highlights many of the problems surrounding our school systems. They are often dirty, dangerous, and many students graduate from high school without knowing how to adequately read English. She notes, “The growing number of immigrants, it seems too many, is just another part of the problem.” The large influx of students due to immigration attributes to the low academic performance of students around the city. However, Foner also points out that school’s play a big role in “Americanizing” immigrants. The schools allow immigrants to learn and interact with regular American citizens who may be of the 3^rd or 4^th generation. This helps them adjust more easily to the new way of life, and enables them to be more American and westernized than their parents

Chapter 5 of Nancy Foner’s From Ellis Island to JFK focuses on the topic of race and racism in terms of current immigration and immigration of old. It is interesting to note how the race hierarchy has changed dramatically overtime. For example, although whites are regarded as the highest group of the racial hierarchy, this was not only the case. In fact, it was quite the opposite in the past. Early Jewish and Italian immigrants faced racism similar to how the minority groups of the present experience racism in the modern day and age. When a specific nationality is considered as part of the bottom of the racial hierarchy, people assume that people of these nationalities will fail to contribute to United States or even impede the success of other groups. As Nancy Foner suggests, the spread of antagonism against specific ethnic groups can be stopped through intermarriage. This is an obvious and intuitive solution because the more mixed and diverse Americans become, the harder it becomes to antagonize an American on a basis of race.

In Chapter 4 of From Ellis Island to JFK, Nancy Foner discusses a the plights of women immigrants and how the situation of women immigrants have changed over time. Nancy Foner rightly suggests that women have a far different immigrant experience from their male counterparts. Foner explains that this discrepancy is rooted in the cultural values of the country these women have emigrated from. The differences between men and women immigrants may also have been compounded by the fact that a double standard is already in effect in the United States. The gender roles that were commonplace in America may have enforced the cultural idea of the male breadwinner and a female housewife.

Present day immigrant women differ from the immigrant women of old because many of them come into the United States already having acquired a professional degree. These  women have come to the country to search for skilled job opportunities that may have been void in their homelands. However, women have not completely escaped the role of housekeeper. Many immigrant women continue to act as stay at home mothers and are content with this because it is a value embedded in their native culture. Perhaps as newer generations arise in the United States, new roles in the home and in the workplace will arise as well.

Regardless of their country of origin, women one hundred years ago were clearly subservient to men in American society, as they made up a minor percentage of the workforce. In the previous century, immigrant women who actually worked were unlikely to work once they had been married. Many of these young immigrant women began working at very young ages instead of being in school while oftentimes their brothers would attend school.

Today, many immigrant women come to New York City with a much higher educational background than the Italian and Jewish immigrant women did. As a result, they are better adapted to working in well paying jobs. Examples of this phenomenon include the number of West Indian and Filipino women who work in the health care industry as nurses or home health aides. Because many immigrant women today are more likely to work in well paying jobs, they are no longer seen as subservient to their male counterparts. Nevertheless, many of these immigrant women who come to the New York with their families are still expected to perform the majority of the household chores, regardless of whether or not they have jobs. This expectation that women remain the primary caretakers of the household in many immigrant families highlights the double standard that many immigrant women face. I expect that over time, household chores and responsibilities will be divided more equally amongst immigrant men and women.

A major difference between the immigrants who come to New York City today and those immigrants who began coming to New York City a century ago is their occupations. Today, immigrants are far more likely to work in jobs that require professional or technical skills. This is due to the fact that in modern times, immigrants are far more likely to have a greater educational background that would provide them with the technical or professional skills to work these better paying jobs. The lack of a basic education hindered the ability of immigrants, especially those from southern Italy from finding well paying jobs. As a result, many Italians were confined to jobs in construction and jobs on the docks. Although the Russian Jews who came to New York City generally had a stronger educational background than the Italian immigrants, they also faced the difficulty of climbing the occupational ladder, primarily because of their unfamiliarity with the English language. However, many did have tailoring skills and as a result, the Russian Jews began to work in and operate garment factories and sweatshops.

Today, many immigrants face language barriers and a lack of professional or technical skills that hinder their ability to receive well paying jobs. However, immigrants today are far more likely receive a greater level of education and are more likely to have been exposed to the English language. As a result, immigrants today are much more likely to work in better paying jobs and some are even able to work white-collared jobs. For example, a significant amount of the doctors and engineers in New York City are immigrants from India.

It is extremely interesting that the jobs that immigrants occupy are often linked to the country from which they immigrated. For example, West Indians and Filipinos are more likely than other immigrant groups to work as nurses or occupy other jobs in the health care industry. This is often because of the higher levels of education these groups received in their home countries in comparison to other immigrant groups. Additionally, Latinos tend to cluster around jobs in the construction or garment industry because those jobs do not require a strong education or good knowledge of the English language.

I believe that immigrants from the West Indies and Asia will continue to occupy the better paying jobs primarily because the immigrants from these regions are far more likely to receive a better education and be exposed to the English language than immigrants from other regions such as Latin America. However, I believe that there will always be immigrants working menial jobs regardless of their educational level because immigrants are often hindered by a language barrier and will face discrimination.

In this chapter, Foner focuses on the changes and continuities in the settlement of immigrants in New York City over the past century. Foner discusses the fact that the majority of Italians and Russian Jews who came to this country almost one century ago often settled below 14^th Street in Manhattan, in the Lower East Side. They often lived in tenement buildings, just like the ones we visited on the tour at the Tenement Museum. After the 1910s and 1920s, Italians and Russian Jews began moving out of the Lower East Side, and many settled in Harlem or in the Bronx.

Today, although most immigrants do not live with the same horrendous conditions that the Russian Jews and the Italians immigrants who lived in the tenements did, many immigrants do often live in deplorable conditions. It is not uncommon to find several immigrants and their families living in extremely close quarters. In fact, there are four Bangladeshi families who live next door to my family in an almost identical three-floor house. It is almost impossible for me to imagine that four families could live in a house like mine, but often, it is the case of many immigrants.

Also, like the Russian Jews and the Italian immigrants a century ago, many immigrants today still live in ethnic enclaves, such as the Chinese community in Chinatown and the Guyanese community in Richmond Hill. Nevertheless, modern immigrants tend to move outside these ethnic enclaves with a greater frequency than the Russian Jews and Italian immigrants did a century ago, as many of these immigrants settle in the more suburban neighborhoods of New York City.

Like Foner, I expect the areas in which immigrants live in New York City will constantly be changing depending on the countries of origin of the various immigrant groups as well as their socioeconomic status. I also expect that immigrants will begin to settle with greater frequency in areas farther outside of the city, such as Long Island and Westchester, as there are a growing number of immigrants settling outside of New York City.

In Chapter 1, Nancy Foner largely focuses on the changing demographics in the immigrant population that has arrived in New York City over the last century and also addresses the various reasons why these immigrants come here. Foner immediately addresses that indeed a stark difference in racial background of immigrants to New York City a century ago, to those immigrants of today. In the early 1900s, Italians and Russian Jews were the dominant group of immigrants who came to New York City. Today in New York City, there is no such thing as a dominant immigrant group. Today, immigrants from different countries in Asia, South America, the West Indies, and Central America live throughout the five boroughs.

Foner also makes the point that demographics and the racial makeup of the city is continuously changing with time. She particularly addresses the changing demographics in the makeup of the Latino community when she writes, “The days when Hispanic meant Puerto Rican are over” (12). As Foner’s data suggests, Dominicans now makes up the majority of Hispanics, along with Colombians and Ecuadorians. Additionally, Foner states that the demographics in the black community are changing now that a plethora of immigrants from the West Indian nations of Jamaica, Haiti, Guyana, and Trinidad are settling in New York City.

Nancy Foner also makes recognizes that the reasons why the Russian Jews and Italians began coming to New York over a century ago are indeed distinctive from the reasons many of the newer immigrant groups come to New York City. Essentially, both the Russian Jews and the Italians from almost a century ago, as well as many of the modern immigrant groups have come to New York, and the United States in general, because of the poor social, political and economic conditions in their homes countries. However, the immigration of the Russian Jews and the Italians to New York City was often more of a result of desperation. For the Russian Jews, they often faced anti-Semitism and religious persecution in Russia. Many of the Italian immigrants had been starving in Italy as a consequence of the Franco-Italian tariff, which raised the price of wheat and bread greatly. Additionally, many of these Italian peasants were plagued by natural disasters such as the phylloxera epidemic, volcanic eruptions, and earthquakes. Today, many immigrant groups, such as the Jamaicans come to New York City because of the lack of economic opportunity and jobs in their homelands. Other immigrant groups, such as the Haitians often came to New York to escape the political turmoil surrounding the dictatorships of “Papa Doc” and “Baby Doc” Duvalier, as well as the military coups in the 1990s.

In Foner’s article, I found it interesting how one group in New York can be referred to differently in Texas. For example, New Yorkers tend to use ‘Latinos’ and Texans use ‘Hispanics’ to describe that particular group with Hispanic background. We tend to generalize several groups of people into one category depending on what we hear from media or what the dominant group is. Another interesting point was how the whites don’t see minorities as American even though they are citizens and have been in the U.S. for many years. This has always caused identity issues among those of ethnic backgrounds. Are we American? Are we Chinese? Chinese American? Most people usually label minorities by ethnicity whereas most minorities consider themselves American or both. Some people accept being labeled by their specific ethnicity but many others are confused as to who they are. Because of this, I think people should be more mindful of how people refer to groups.

Chapter 3:

Early twentieth century New York was expanding both physically and economically, which created thousands upon thousands of job opportunities that entailed low wages, no skill and long, laborious hours. Many immigrants were unskilled and knew little English, so they jumped on any job they could possibly get. As a postindustrial city today, New York still attracts immigrants barely fluent in their native languages that come to toil day in and day out. But along with the unskilled and illiterate that come to the states, there are also a significant amount of immigrants that come with college degrees and highly specialized skills. Often these highly educated immigrants work jobs in city that are significantly beneath their potential ability, such as doctors and engineers working as store clerks and delivery boys. Many times the underemployed immigrants will work their way up to get the degree or position equivalent to what they had back home. For some cultures this is a touching topic to talk about, but overall, many immigrants experience a better life in New York, regardless of what jobs they held in their native countries. Generally, each immigrant group will experience improvements over time, as they learn from each other which skills to acquire in order to make in the job market.

Chapter 4:

I knew that daughters of early immigrant families were expected to work outside the house at garment factories, but I never realized that Jewish daughters specifically brought in nearly 40 percent of their family’s yearly income. That’s a pretty hefty percentage. The girls were expected to work long hours, give their paychecks unopened to their parents, and then expected to help out around the house and take care of siblings. Boys, on the other hand, had fewer expectations, giving them “freedom to roam the streets” and “seek adventures with friends.” On top of that, their sisters’ wages were used to help pay boys’ school tuition, because spending a girl to school was a waste of time. But girls did experience little bit of freedom by working since they were able to talk to other girls with their parents’ presence, as well as learn about current fashions and other cultures through friends at work.

Clearly things have changed because by 1979, women outnumbered men in the nation’s colleges. Many of my friends, who are daughters of immigrants, not only attend school, but they also work inorder to make a little extra spending money so they don’t have to rely on their parents for every little thing.

Chapter 3: The Work They Do

This chapter was a mixed bag: for the most part we had already studied, whether in a history class or through our previous readings for this class, the sorts of jobs that immigrants, both past and present, worked. Still, there were several facts that I found especially interesting, if not down-right surprising.

I was a bit confused to learn that despite their differences in education and skills, Russian Jewish immigrants and Italian immigrants had an annual household income of $520 and $519, respectively (page 72). Nancy Foner dedicates several paragraphs to exploring the socioeconomic differences of these immigrants, yet in the end they ended up earning about the same amount. I’m not really sure how to explain this and it’s a question perhaps worth further research.

On page 75 Nancy Foner writes that in 1910 “the clothing industry… accounted for 40 percent of greater New York’s industrial wage earners.” Later, she writes that “in the 1980s, Chinatown’s garment factories alone employed as many as twenty thousand… workers” (page 94). From everything we read in “Sewing Women,” and from what we learned on our tour of the Lower East Side Tenement Museum, it has become abundantly clear that New York’s garment industry has been, historically, a crucial part of the overall economy.

It is always exciting when you inadvertently find examples of material from another, totally unrelated class. On page 91 Nancy Foner describes “rotating credit associations,”  or “susus” that many West Indian immigrants took advantage of. On page 96 she describes the “kyes” that Korean immigrants partake in. Both of these are examples of ROSCAs, which we have been focusing on in my Economic Development class; a group of people get together, pool a fixed amount of money, and distribute it much like a bank would give out a loan. In my Econ class we have focused extensively on the use of these rotating credit associations in the developing world, but of course it makes total sense that these would be created by groups of immigrants looking for a safe, bureaucratic-free cash infusion for large purchases or start-up businesses.

Chapter 4: Immigrant Women and Work

It is difficult to imagine a world before women could vote, or even one where most women didn’t work or have an equal say in the household. Yet for the vast majority of women throughout history, this (and much worse) was the reality. Even the fact that most daughter of immigrant families at the turn of the century were expected to work and then hand over their paychecks, unopened, is such a stark contrast to the world I grew up in. Up until now any image I may of had of children working was not so that they could contribute to the family’s income, but so that they could have spending money for themselves without relying on their parents.

It is funny how discussions of money and income often bring me back to economics. On page 114, Foner writes: “young Jewish women’s ability to earn their own living allowed them more control over whom they married and the power to resist the services of marriage brokers.” Describing the immigration of the 1980s and 1990s, Nancy Foner maintains that “migrant women often gain greater independence, personal autonomy, and influence as a result of earning a regular wage.” It is not surprising that increased financial power equates to more bargaining power for women. Micro-Finance Organizations, adhering to this mentality, often target women for loans and financial assistance as a way of elevating the status of women in countries where the subordination of women is commonplace.

Still, it’s astonishing how nuanced any discussion of women in the workplace must be. According to some women, they would rather not have to work (141), while many others revel in the newfound freedom of being a wage earner. Some men embrace these changes as a matter of becoming more “American” and modern, while many others, especially (and surprisingly) relatively educated men, accept them only as a matter of economic survival in a new land.

In Chapter 5, Foner discusses race and racism. One thing i found notable was how even among the Caucasian population there exists discrimination. In the late 1800’s and early 1900’s, the Jewish and Italian immigrants coming from Europe, though sharing skin color with the so called “nativists”, were not easily accepted into society. This may be odd to hear considering today, Italians and so called ‘American’ Jews are considered typical “white Americans.” However, when they first came to the United States, these two groups were both considered lower class. This is interesting because nowadays both ethnic groups are fully integrated, and equal parts of American society. Although not extremely profound, this is an example of how the US is evolving in racism. Perhaps racist views are decreasing/evolving due to the number of interracial marriages and relationships. The children of mixed couples look different and also come from backgrounds different than their predecessors. If more mixed couples then mix, eventually the physical appearance and culture of many people will evolve and it will be harder to be racist against one certain race because more and more people will be mixed. Still, the United States is not there yet, and sadly racism against all ethnicities stil does exist.

In this chapter, Foner points out the racial difference between the old and new waves of immigration. White European immigrants dominated old waves of immigration, while after World War II, New York City has experienced a huge influx of African Americans from the South and Puerto Ricans. Immigration of the new wave is predominantly immigrants of color. It’s interesting to see how just a little century ago, blacks made up barely two percent of the city’s population. The percentage of Hispanics and Asians were even smaller. It’s hard for me to understand that especially since I grew up in New York City and think of it as a very multi-cultural city. I can walk down the street and not be able to count all of the different ethnicities I see on my two hands. What I found extremely interesting in this particular chapter is that Foner posits that European immigrants are often simply considered White, while at the turn of the century the influx Italians and Jewish immigrants faced great prejudice. They were considered to be of the “mongrel” or inferior race. I was also fascinated by Foner’s comment on racial classification in present times. Hispanics and Asians are seemed as in-betweeners. She also points out that those immigrants that are not classified as black but are “non-white” seem to have greater success in being recognized for their nationality and not the color of their skin. There has been a framework established in New York City that when someone thinks of race, automatically they view people through the context of white, black, Asian, and Hispanic. Being Hispanic myself, I’m also really interested in how there’s this trend where people will view certain lighter skin Hispanics or Latinos as “white” as well as Hispanic or Latino simply because of the way they look. I experience this phenomenon quite often because I’m light-skinned. Many people often assume I’m some kind of white because of my skin tone even though my features are stereotypically Hispanic. Some even assume I must be mixed with some European. What Hispanics identify as on the census is really fascinating since Hispanics seem to be this in between that can identify as black or white, since there’s this concept of a “white Hispanic.” Foner includes in this chapter that in the 1990 census, “a quarter of New York City’s Dominicans and over half of the Colombians and Cubans described themselves as white.” I wish I could say I was shocked when Foner points out that lighter skinned Dominicans have reported lower poverty levels and higher success rates in attaining jobs. This is a scary truth; racial categorization plays a major role in our society and how we perceive one another.

In chapter 4, Foner focuses on specifically the effects of immigration on women and the changes that have taken place over the past century. It’s definitely awe inspiring when you think about just how much freedom and rights women have gained over the years, for example women gained the right to vote in 1920. Women have been increasing in the rates of attending and graduating from college. Foner even points out that in 1979, the amount of women enrolled in colleges and universities was greater than the amount of men. Foner then centers on the changes women have experienced in the work force. More women are working as shown through Foner’s statistics: in 1900 only twenty percent of women were working, while in 1995 nearly sixty percent of women were working. Foner also points out the difference between what kind of women were working at the turn of the century and the kind of women who work now. In the past it was mostly young single girls who worked outside the home while sons went to school. Foner includes some quotes from women who account for their childhood as a young migrant girl. They recall how they always handed all of their paychecks to their mother in exchange for small allowances, while the boys often received greater allowances. Girls were expected to help out their mothers with household duties and smaller children, while boys experienced less pressure and were allowed to “roam the streets, play sports, and seek adventures with their friends.” Foner points out the possible advantages of the young girls working long hours outside the home. She posits that this allowed the girls to establish friendships and partake in the American culture of teen girls with romance novels and gossiping about boys. They could freely speak without the presence of adults watching. Once they got married, they would automatically assume the position of housewife and take care of the home and the kids while the husband would work. In regards to marriage in older waves of immigration, Foner mentions that along with the move to America, many immigrant groups dropped the concept of arranged marriages all together that were very common in their home countries. Young girls were socializing more and more with the move to New York. Nowadays, this is no longer a common trend amongst women; many women of all ages work. In comparison between migrant women of the past and migrant women of today, the migrant women of today tend to experience more freedom than they had previously been able to in their home countries when they move to New York City. Migrant women of the past, particularly the Italian and Jewish women, often experience more oppression when they moved to the city. Foner points out that although more migrant women are being able to work outside the home more than ever before, it has a downside. Migrant women are now often working outside the home and are left to also take care of the home and the children. I also thought it was interesting that a Russian immigrant worker claimed that in her home country it was respectable for women to work, it was even acknowledged that often “the women made a living for the man,” but with the move to America, it became a common thought that “a man of character never let his wife work.” In present times, immigrant women experience greater freedoms than their predecessors. Foner states that this increasing trend is all due to the “structure of U.S. immigration law, changing gender roles, and economic opportunities for women.” Changes in the city over the past century has allowed for the growth for immigrant women in ways that completely contrast what would’ve been possible for turn of the century immigrant women.

In this chapter, Foner discusses in detail the changes in the new waves of immigration versus the old waves from previous decades. The first few waves of immigration was dominated by the common theme that many of the immigrants that originally came to America knowing little to no English and were generally uneducated. When they came to America, they generally worked in factories or labor-based jobs with low wages. This was also due to the way the economy and work industry was in New York City at the time as well. Factory life dominated city work life and many jobs required these uneducated immigrants who would work for little pay. These jobs were high in demand and allowed for this influx of uneducated immigrants to get jobs in the city. However, New York City, as Foner put it, is a “post-industrial economy.” Therefore, factory or labor work is not as great in demand. Actually, many jobs now in the city require a college degree. This is reflected in the new wave of immigration, where a new predominant theme amongst this new influx of immigrants is immigrants who are educated in their home countries, many have college degrees, before coming to America and often speak fluent English as well. Foner points out that New York City has become a “receiving city,” thereby allowing for this new wave of skilled immigrants. She also points out that even though this new wave of immigrants definitely exists, there are still a good amount of immigrants that coming into America unskilled and knowing little English, similar to that of the previous waves of immigration. Foner posits that even though there are some similarities between the different waves of immigration, the differences outweigh the similarities. Many new immigrants now are filling in high positions in the city workplace, for example, doctors. I also thought it was an interesting point that Foner made that “immigrant entrepreneurs” are replacing the Jewish and Italian factory owners because their children moved on to other jobs.

Chapter 3: In addition to the change among incoming immigrants over the past century and a half, New York City has evolved. As a receiving city, it once housed thousands of non- English speakers who could find work among ethnic communities, mostly comprised of physical labor. Later into the 20th century, factory work welcomed immigrants who were gradually learning English. Today, with significantly more immigrants arriving with higher education and English proficiency, the job market for immigrants has expanded into the highest ranks of professional positions. The change in New York post-industrialization is reflected in the kinds of work immigrants do here. However, this is not to over generalize the trend. While many enter New York with professional degrees, there is still a significant percentage of newcomers willing to working the service industry, even if it means they are underemployed. WIth the change in New York’s economy and a move away from production and manufacturing industries, the middle class gap widened, especially for immigrants.

Chapter 4: This chapter focuses on the changes of the role women played in New York and within the family as providers. Women in particular experienced a huge life change when moving to America. Though for some this meant liberation, often times women were subject to long and oppressive work conditions in addition to the challenge of a new country. The changes in society are seen in when and where women worked. Daughters, who once played a part in the workforce are now staying in school and not holding full time jobs until at least graduation, married women in contemporary New York are not obliged to work in within the homeThe trends surely affected each woman individually. Depending on the situation of their homeland, work could have been seen as liberating and empowering, or possibly demeaning and burdensome.Today t hough, the with fairer working conditions, women of all backgrounds are accepted into the workforce, changing yet again how immigrant women fit into society.

In Chapter 5 of Nancy Foner’s book, Foner talks about the racial injustices of society from the early 1900s until now. Racial injustices against non-whites were not new news to me, but what was really interesting was that there were also some divides in the white class. The Jewish and the Italians were treated as “lower white people”, and this prejudice was so bad in the white community that the way they were viewed reminded me of how the Nazis viewed the Jews in WWII. The Jews and Italians were contaminants of the white race in the eyes of the white community. What was even more surprising was that even universities like NYU and Harvard discriminated against the Jewish community.

The divide between the whites and blacks were always present in society, and it is really unfortunate that many immigrants feel the need to distinguish themselves from being black in hopes of avoiding being targeted by racist whites. It was interesting to see how Asians went from being “almost black” to “almost white” as time progressed. This may be due to the rising Asian influence on the world economy today. I wonder if this model will work on the black community too. If “black” countries start to become more influential around the world economically, would the prejudice inflicted upon them eventually lighten over time?

Chapter 6: Transnational Ties
As someone who was born abroad, but has been an American citizen from birth, I’ve never really thought of myself as an immigrant in this country. Nevertheless, I felt a personal connection with many of the topics in this chapter. For example, on page 170 Nancy Foner writes: “(immigrants) maintain strong strong involvements in their societies of origin, which, tellingly, they continue to call home.” I’ve spent the majority of my life in the United States, but I feel an undeniable sentimental attachment to Italy; whenever I go back, I don’t feel like a tourist, but like someone who identifies with the culture and society. I know that my father, who lived in Italy until he was 24, has always considered that his “home” (disclaimer: for the first time in the 14 years we have lived here he has admitted that he is considering applying for citizenship).
I was also interested by the discussion of various forms of transnational political involvement. Italy has a parliamentary system similar to that of Britain’s; there are (I believe) 4 seats dedicated to MPs who represent Italians abroad. I have mixed feelings about this (and Italian politics on a whole, but that’s a separate discussion). On the one hand, as citizens, it seems right that we should be given a voice in a democratic system. On the other, these candidates end up being relatively obscure (and because their constituents are often removed, relatively ineffective), and so most people end up voting along party lines, not because they necessarily agree with that candidate’s individual platform.

Chapter 7: Going to School
I enjoyed this chapter for its realistic discussion of contemporary urban secondary and higher education. I was surprised to learn that Hunter College was originally an all-girls school, and that class sizes were so small. That past is unrecognizable today… According to this book, in 1992, “41 percent of CUNY’s freshman class was foreign born” (203). I am curious to know what that number is today.
On page 216, Nancy Foner wrote: “Many Jewish students strove to live up to their teachers’ high expectations, whereas Italian children had to struggle against negative stereotypes.” Acknowledging that Asian students are overrepresented in many prestigious schools, Nancy Foner gives several reasons, socioeconomic and cultural to explain this; yet I would argue that the stereotype of Asian students also fuels their academic drive. Just as a child who is told he is “bad” will behave correspondingly (this perhaps has important implications for Foner’s discussion of the “oppositional outlook” that many immigrants adopt), it seems logical that students who are told they should be “smart” will strive to meet those expectations. In the case of this positive-feedback loop, stereotypes may prove to be an important driving force behind the academic success of certain Asian immigrants.

Chapter 2 in Nancy Foner’s book talked about where the immigrants lived from the early 1900s to present day, and the conditions they lived in. I knew that living conditions were bad back then because there were no building regulations set for apartment owners, but it was surprising for me to read about how some immigrants nowadays still live in apartments with rat infestations, plumbing breakdowns, heat deficiencies, water leakages.

It was also scary to learn how 3/4 of Manhattan residents in 1900 were tenement dwellers, knowing how bad tenement conditions were back then. There was no steam heat, no hot running water, no private toilets, and some residents even had no windows in their dwellings. What was worse was that there was no water at all for upper story residents. Whatever water they used, they had to lug all the way up to their apartment by stairs! This however, was also very interesting to me because I felt what it was like to live in one of these tenements when Hurricane Sandy hit New York City. I also had no heat, no running water, and limited lighting. I had to, like tenement dwellers back then, lug water 8 floors up back to my apartment.

Most of the chapter also talked about demographics of immigrants in New York City, and it was interesting to learn how communities changed over time. I didn’t know that Harlem was once dominated by the Jewish and the Italians!

What I found interesting about this chapter is that most immigrants nowadays come to the USA as professionals because there is too much competition for jobs back in their homeland, even if it means that they will occupy lower level jobs that require less skill. It was surprising to find out how a woman in Brazil who used to be a head nurse in an urban hospital made five times less money than when she came to the USA and worked as a babysitter in New York.

It was also interesting to find out that the successful do not want to come to the USA because they already make enough money back home to live a good life while even though the poor want to achieve the American Dream, they cannot because they do not have enough money to pay for the transportation to get them to the USA. Only the middle class people usually immigrate to the US.

It is just sad to know that many immigrants are wasting their skills when coming to the US.

Immigrants move into cities all over the United States but New York has and will always be a unique place. In the article, Foner makes it clear that while other cities such as Los Angeles and Miami have many immigrants, New York exemplifies multiculturalism. Compared to a diffusion of one race seen in other cities, New York has had numerous waves of different kind of people. The close structure and environment of urban life in New York City makes contact between different people possible,

New York does not have a dominant ethnic group like other large cities. The 3 million immigrant population displays much diversity with no few dominant nations. Although New York is teeming with so many different people, the melting pot is not peaceful. It is impossible to think that a mixture of races of people with pre-conceived notions about each other can coexist peacefully. It is more often that not that people of the same race will congregate together.

New York can be seen as capable of acknowledging the high amount of immigrants it houses. New York offers services that are supportive of diversity and tolerance among ethnic groups. Foner gives us the example that there are parking regulations changes on 34 legal holidays and religious holidays. These holidays are across all groups such as Passover, Asian Lunar New Year, and Diwali. Being from a different place is a common occurrence in New York and the atmosphere has a mixture of different cultures.

Foner mentioned New York’s CUNY system which had a surprising role in immigrant life. CUNY is the largest urban public university system in the nation and this system supports New York’s immigrant pride. The colleges permit many immigrants to sharpen their skills and reach higher levels of education. The diversity in a CUNY campus is evident in that there are different ethnicities seen in the halls and you can always hear another language being spoken somewhere.

             The second chapter is informative on where and how immigrants lived together in America. Foner explains the drastic differences between the racial neighborhoods of Jews and Italians despite close geographical distance. Blocks were usually distinctly inhabited by Italians or by Jews, but never shared. It was unfortunate to learn that Jews faced Anti-Semitism even in America, such as when they were excluded from JacksonHeights when the neighborhood was formed. Venturing so far to escape discrimination back home, they found prejudice in a new land.

            Tenement life was anything but comfortable. Apartments consisted of small rooms where family members had to sleep anywhere they could, including furniture and the ground. There was typically one dirty communal bathroom and a lack of running water. Despite such unpleasant conditions, immigrants tried to make their homes aesthetically pleasing. They cleaned and decorated their areas any way they could using wallpaper and curtains among other things. Immigrants tried to settle with people who resembled them because it felt more like home. Building a community similar to the one they shared back home was of utmost importance because it allowed them to keep ties with their roots and get help from people just like them.

            Living in Manhattan has changed drastically in the early 1900’s. Most people in New York were centered in Manhattan because the other boroughs were difficult to reach with lack of efficient transportation. Living in Manhattan was necessary for being aware of any open job opportunities. As a result, there was much over-crowding in poorer neighborhoods in Manhattan. This has changed in the last few decades because there are different types of immigrants arriving. Although poor housing is still present nowadays, many immigrants have higher education and financial resources. They are able to live in middle class housing, allowing for more diversity in various neighborhoods because there is less emphasis on dominant immigrant groups per area.

            Foner’s first chapter in her novel “From Ellis Island to JFK: New York’s Two Great Waves of Immigration” discusses two separate eras of immigration in America. She talks about the various reasons why immigrants leave their home country such as political, religious, and economic difficulties. The first wave of immigrants are remembered as the poor huddled masses yearning for freedom while there are also immigrants who had decent lives in their home country.

            Foner does well to dispel common misconceptions people have towards immigrants. The new wave of immigrants entering New York are not uneducated and from the slums of society as they are though to be. Many immigrants were specialized and in a professional field in their homeland. After coming to America, many were unable to get qualified and obtain a license to practice what they specialized in before. Highly educated people often have to take jobs that they are over-qualified for. It was disheartening to read about the returning veterans who were unable to acquire jobs even if they were capable of working in that field in the army.

            It is remarkable how much resolve immigrants show in their desire to be part of the American life. The environment in which many came to the Unites States is almost nauseating. People were crammed into boats that were unsanitary and filled with hazardous conditions such as darkness and foul smell. Insects had to be picked out of food and bathrooms were dirty and contaminated. It was surprising that this was the legal immigration process, so one can only imagine how much worse the illegal journey was. Even worse was the admission process into the country that was just as grueling as the journey. People used to be denied entry based on literacy and physical injury.

What is the first thing that comes to mind when you hear the words “New York?” Do you see the bright lights and flashing screens of Time Square? Do you hear all the loud noises that are every language you can imagine mixed with the sounds of engines, music and everything in between?

In Foner’s article “How Exceptional is New York” Foner brings up many interesting points, mainly focusing on the immigrant experience, but what to me is most interesting is her point on the New York versus American identity. In her article, Foner mentions that second generation New Yorkers are more likely to identify themselves as New Yorkers than as Americans. I think this is very interesting because when their parents immigrated to the United States, they were immigrating to the whole image of “America.” The land of freedom, where anyone can achieve anything as long as they put in enough effort and time. And yet, they came to New York, which is perhaps the exact embodiment of this perception of America. As Foner mentions in her article, New York is full of immigrants, all of whom came here for different reasons and yet it is strange that all of their children consider themselves New Yorkers. I think this idea helps unify New Yorkers and make us such a diverse and yet strong community.

What then does this say of the identity of an American? Being the first member of my family  born in the United States, I have a very mixed identity. I am proud of being an American, of being of Russian descent and also almost arrogantly, proud of being a New Yorker and I believe that many people in my position tend to feel the same way. Just this idea in itself helps to show how exceptional New York really is.

Foner points out the various reasons why immigrants come to the United States and the difficulties they confront when they first arrive. In Chapters 1 and 2, she draws a connection between the motivations of the immigrants to their living conditions afterwards. The opportunity to achieve bigger goals, the opportunity to provide more for your family, the opportunity to have a new beginning. Yes, all those are powerful reasons but is it worth giving up everything you had and start from complete scratch in an alien country?

The “old immigrants”, as Foner puts it, were mostly peasants and inexperienced farmworkers. Even if they came to the United States, they would most likely be the same, except in factories and industries. With all the racism and discrimination, It was hard moving up the social ladder as immigrants. Most immigrants left their families behind to try to seek profits in the U.S. However, the conditions were not much different, or maybe even worse in the U.S. They lived in cramped tenements, which probably sheltered 10 other families. It’s unbelievable that so many people were able to live in such small spaces. What’s more shocking is that this kind of living was accepted into society.

The “new immigrants” are the brain-drain immigrants. Most are educated professional middle-class people. Even though they were well off in their home country, they came to the U.S. to have an opportunity to achieve more than they could have at home. Many do obtain a white-collar job and good pay. These immigrants had better living quarters, having been able to afford their own places. The status of incoming immigrants has really changed in the past decades, from peasant families to the recent middle-class.

In chapter 2, Nancy Foner discusses the conditions in which the immigrants who came to America lived in and where different immigrant groups settled. She says that in the beginning, almost all the immigrants who came to New York settled in Manhattan, but as time went on they spread to the other boroughs. This is because the immigrants who came later were more affluent and confident, and did not feel the need to cluster and post with other immigrant. Foner states that the most obvious example of a group of people settling in one location is Chinatown, which is where most Chinese immigrants settled. She also talks about how the patterns where immigrants settle change over time, and people who live in one location at one time will move and others will take their place.

This can be related to Joe Salvo’s talk during which he mentioned that the patterns of immigration change over time. At the time of his lecture, I was curious as to why it was that groups of people would settle in one place, then leave, and another group would then later come and take their place. Chapter 2 of Foner’s book helped to elucidate this question for me. The answer being that different types of immigrants come to the US and they come with different needs and eventually they move and others come and take their place.

In chapter 2 of “From Ellis Island to JFK,” Foner highlights the new migration and settlement patterns of different waves of immigrants coming into New York City. Originally Manhattan was the only borough that was really developed, so many immigrants settled in lower Manhattan, just as the Chines immigrants did decades ago. The rest of the boroughs were mostly undeveloped and had little population. This is when tenement housing with unsafe and dirty conditions ran rampant. However, today’s influx of immigrants tends to have a higher degree of education and have more wealth than that of the immigrants of a previous time.  Most immigrants now are able to and tend to move to different boroughs and can afford more and live a more comfortable life than previous waves of immigrants. Especially since immigration has made easier in the past few decades due to getting rid of previous strict laws, the city has come to represent a multifaceted layout of different ethnically concentrated neighborhoods, thereby making our city one of the most diverse in the nation. However, Foner points out that not one ethnic group dominates anymore like in previous times. Foner also makes note of the migration of many whites and Asians to more suburban areas, whereas Hispanics and Blacks seem to be moving to the urban areas. Foner did an excellent job of showing how immigration has greatly changed and has affected the layout of our city.

The second chapter of Nancy Foner’s From Ellis Island to JFK is primarily about the locations of immigrant groups and how they have changed over time. Nancy Foner explains that present day immigrants are comfortable with settling in unfamiliar areas where immigrants similar to themselves are not found. It is interesting how immigrant settlement patterns are prone to constant change, and this change may be quite drastic. As Foner suggests, the most obvious example of dynamic settlement patterns is Chinatown. Present day Chinatown encompasses what were once predominantly Jewish and Italian neighborhoods. Nancy Foner calls this process “Ethnic Succession.” New immigrant waves are entering white middle-class areas. As these new immigrant waves root themselves in the area, the old white middle-class population is gradually phased out.

New York’s immigrant group geography has also evolved so that specific groups do not dominate different areas. Rather, neighborhoods are home to a slew of varying immigrant populations. It is interesting to know that despite the low availability and high cost of housing, immigrant groups continue to settle themselves in new areas.

In chapter 1, Nancy Foner talks about two waves of immigration, their reasons for doing so and what kinds of immigrants they were. Foner does point out that the one thing most immigrants universally have in common is their desire to emigrate to have a better life. However, there is usually a bit more packed onto this, and it also depends on the time period in which they are emigrating. For example, years ago many immigrants were coming to America to flee political oppression in their home country. Even though in today’s time, this still may very well be a factor. Foner posits this idea of “network building,” in which immigrants have built up a network here in the United States, therefore new immigrants can easily contact a friend who has moved here already. This seems to be a popular trend in today’s wave of immigration. I thought this was extremely interesting because when I interviewed my friend for the oral history report, I made connections with this particular chapter of Foner’s with her immigration story. Her parents came to America especially since they already had friends and family who have done so previously, so they would not be alone when they came to America. It helped make their assimilation into a completely different culture much easier than if they had come alone like the earlier waves of immigrants did. I also found the interracial stereotypes that Foner presents interesting. For example Mexicans and Puerto Ricans even though both Hispanic, have racial biases towards the other. I agree with Foner with this idea of  a new generation in NYC that is accustomed to and embracing of differences among races, and that hopefully following the lead of this new generation NYC will be more culturally and ethnically accepting.

According to Chapter 2 of Nancy Foner’s “From Ellis Island to JFK”, both the changing influx of American immigration and internal migration of residents have heavily influenced the patterns of immigrant settlement within New York City. At the turn of the century, New York’s population was concentrated in Manhattan; the other boroughs were “sparsely populated, undeveloped” regions, difficult to reach from the center of the city. The scarce population of the other boroughs was due highly to the lack of efficient transportation at the time and caused immense overpopulation and crowding in the lower-class, ethnic neighborhoods of Manhattan. Immigrant life was characterized by run-down, overcrowded, often dangerous tenements, with only the few wealthy Jewish and Italians living in more comfortable townhouses or apartments. Although ethnic enclaves and poor housing are still present today, the many different types of immigrants coming in and their possession of higher education and wealth have changed the way they settled into neighborhoods around New York. Most immigrants that come into the country today are capable of living in middle class neighborhoods with adequate housing, unlike most of the ‘old immigrants’. The increase in the types of immigrants that settle in NYC has also changed the layout of ethnic neighborhoods throughout the city. Because there are immigrants from all over the world coming in, many different ethnic enclaves have arisen throughout the city as well as diversify the already established neighborhoods. There are many neighborhoods in which no one immigrant group dominates, which was non-existent during the days of ‘old immigration’.

The exodus of white, native New York residents to other areas of the city and to suburbs surrounding it have also changed the layout of immigrant neighborhoods. In fact, many Asian and European immigrants have been moving straight into the wealthier, white suburbs instead of first settling in the city. In contrast, Hispanic, Black, and West Indian immigrants are settling in poorer suburban neighborhoods, in which many of the squalid conditions of the past are seen.

Immigration settlement within New York City will continue to change as the number and kinds of immigrants coming in changes. Curious question: Will it ever be possible for black immigrants to escape the pull of black neighborhoods, where it is difficult to attain a proper education or “access the amenities of urban life”?

Chapters 2 and 5 were interesting in that they address two sides of the same issue: how are immigrants seen and how does that determine their opportunities (i.e. where they live)? Several points made in chapter 2 struck me especially.

First, I had never heard of the number 7 as the “International Express,” and it has piqued my interest; I’ll be sure to take a ride sometime soon.

Second, I fascinated by the concept of “susus” (p. 65), a system of credit-investments that allow coethnics (in this case, West Indians) to accumulate the capital to make a down-payment on a house. In my economics class, we often refer to “credit-market failures” by which poorer borrowers are seen as less trustworthy, and therefore borrow at a higher-than-competitive rate or are simply denied access to credit. It seems obvious, but a system by which a tight-knit community trusts the other members of the susu to use the funds appropriately and to continue paying into the pool seems to alleviate the problems of our modern banking system. Of course, this only works because it is on such a small scale, but it demonstrates the ingenuity and resourcefulness of immigrant groups who find ways to modify an existing institution to best fit their needs and the needs of their communities- because after all, if more people are homeowners, haven’t they succeeded in creating a more stable, more dependable community?

Regarding chapter 5: It was astonishing to read of the pseudo-scientific reasoning attached to racism. I knew that such a schools of thought had existed, but to read of Italian immigrants that “so far as the American people consent to incorporate… greater numbers of… excitable, impulsive persons who cannot organize themselves, it must in the end resign itself to lower efficiency, to less democracy, or to both,” is, well, unreal. I appreciate that Nancy Foner addressed the culture of “political correctness.” We all embrace multiculturalism and ethnic diversity, yet Nancy Foner says it outright: New York is a highly segregated city (166). It seems to me that in a sense, political correctness has actually worked to mask modern-day racism. Today, bigots know what they can and can’t say, but just because they don’t say what they believe, does that make them any less bigoted? Perhaps self-inflicted censorship is counterproductive and everything should be out in the open, where its validity can be discussed, weighed, and eventually accepted or rejected. Obviously, the opposite argument could be made: that racial epithets are hurtful, and regardless of what one thinks, nobody should ever have to be subjected to such verbal abuse. Just something to think about…

Nancy Foner compares and contrasts the living situation of immigrants in the past and in the present. In order to better observe and understand the message that Foner was trying to convey, I chose two images to show how living conditions have changed and remained the same. The first image is Jacob Riis’s “Bandit’s Roost” taken in NY in 1888 and the second image is one of Manhattan’s Chinatown.

Some similarities between old and new immigration settlement are the presence of ethnic enclaves, poor and crowded conditions, and illegal means of housing. Immigrants wanted to settle with people they knew, were familiar with, spoke same language as, could get a job from, and start a community with that would resemble home. It seems to be a part of immigration that still remains: keeping ties with their homeland. The housing in both areas can be characterized as crowded and small. Two or three families might share the apartments and houses that were meant for one family. Some immigrants that either illegal or very poor have always done whatever they could to find a place to live, which could be paying to sleep in a bed for a night.

Although some similarities have carried on throughout the years, there are definitely strong differences between the living situations of the old and new immigrants. The new ethnic enclaves are no longer Russian Jewish and Italian neighborhoods but rather Asian, Caribbean, Central and South American neighborhoods, etc. These neighborhoods are smaller clusters than the large ethnic enclaves of the past. It was expensive to live in the outskirts of the city while now it is more expensive to live in the city (Manhattan). As seen in the Chinatown picture, businesses and shops are in the city but immigrants live more in Queens or Brooklyn. In Jacob Riis’s “Bandit’s Roost, the squalid housing was much more prevalent than it is today. The tenements were a small size, sometimes only one room, and hot water was a luxury. Now, that has become the minority with the majority of housing consisting of the basics: elevators, hallways for privacy, plumbing, and somewhat bigger space. Again, we come back to this new trend that much more immigrants now are skilled and educated, belonging to the middle class, and move straight into suburbs. There is a greater diversity in terms of socioeconomic classes than immigrants before.

Bandit’s Roost – Jacob Riis NY 1888

Manhattan’s Chinatown- Unknown

In Chapter 1 of Nancy Foner’s From Ellis Island to JFK, she discusses where New York’s various immigrant groups emigrate from and why they do so. One key point Nancy Foner emphasizes in the chapter,is that New York is a unique immigrant city in terms of its diversity. No one group dominates the immigrant arrival percentages. In fact, New York’s top three immigrant groups only comprise about 30 percent of New York City’s immigrant population. Compare that fact to some immigrant cities where just one group may make up a large chunk of the immigrant population. New York contrasts starkly with other popular immigrant destinations, such as Los Angeles and and Miami.

Furthermore, New York’s incoming immigrant demographics are ever-changing. At one point, the  arriving immigrant groups were Italian and Russian Jews, but the number of groups has increased over time. Now Europeans, Asians, West Indians, and Latin Americans  make there way to New York because of volatile economic, political, or social circumstances in their respective homelands. For example, Jews sought refuge in America because of the growing anti-Semitic sentiment that once brewed in Russia. Discussion of the salaries and costs in the city, motivated much of the immigration to New York.

The first chapter of Nancy Foner’s “From Ellis Island to JFK” titled ‘Who They Are and Why They Have Come’ offers an interesting perspective on the evolution of American immigration. I think the most interesting part of this change is the idea that, in most cases, the immigrants from the first wave of immigration post-Revolution are now the people who consider themselves American. Generations upon generations of American-born and raised families have turned these once-immigrants into fully Americanized citizens. And so, is it safe to say that a century or two from now, the immigrants from this age (Latinos, Asians, West Indians, and more), will also become the new citizens of the US? Or will the many arisen and arising immigration laws keep them from truly melting into the pot?

In many ways, it seems that American immigration will continue its transformation from a melting pot into a salad bowl, with immigrant groups retaining distinct and separate identities in the mix of everyone else.

Much of Chapter One addresses what one may consider the “basics” of immigration from two major epochs. Most Americans have at least some understanding of those “huddled masses” that came to the United States from 1900-1920. Indeed, much of our cultural heritage is built on the legacy of these immigrants. Likewise, those of us who were paying attention in our high school American History class can recall that post 1965, when immigration restrictions were reformed and revamped, immigration from Asia, Latin America, Africa, and the Caribbean increased dramatically. All of this Nancy Foner covers in the first few pages of chapter one. This story is, however, more nuanced than one might originally suspect.

For example, Foner places great emphasis on the fact that most immigrants are neither the very poor nor the very rich. They are usually of the lower and middle classes in their home countries. The allure, she explains, is directly connected to America’s exported emphasis on consumerism: a nurse in Brazil earns five times as much in New York as a babysitter (page 27). This immediately struck a chord: I remember how, when I was younger, a Polish woman would come once every three or so weeks to help my mother clean the house. Once, when I was maybe 11 or 12, I was practicing piano while she was there; we began talking (her english was very poor) and she told me that she was once a student at the conservatory in Warsaw. I invited her to sit and play and was astonished by how good she was. Upon further interrogation I learned that she had studied music as a young child and had been a physical therapist before coming to the United States. Nonetheless, she stressed the fact that she could earn more cleaning houses in the United States than she could as a P.T. in Poland.

Furthermore, I found Nancy Foner’s discussion of illegal immigration to be fascinating. Given the collective image most Americans subscribe to (the one involving ruthless and violent “coyotes” who smuggle illegal aliens across the boarder), it was surprising to learn that most illegal immigrants come to this country legally and simply overstay their visas. It makes me wonder about all those politicians who run up and down the aisles of the Capital Building ranting and shouting about walls and boarder patrols. Do they do it for effect, because the majority of Americans don’t know better, or is it genuine? If so, I think we should find space in the Federal budget to buy each of them a copy of this book. I also appreciated her jab at those who focus on “‘illegals’ in immigration debates;” she implies that this distinction is an easy way to validate one’s own immigrant history without acknowledging that “they” (meaning the immigrants of today, who are, by and large, not of caucasian descent) are separate and distinct. “Oh no, my ancestors were not like them.”

Nancy Foner’s article, “How Exceptional is New York?” promises an interesting re-read in the context of Robert Putnam’s article. Citing various statistics, Foner celebrates New York’s diversity, and sees New York’s efforts to foster and promote cultural pride as beneficial to the overall harmony of the city. She cites parades and the suspension of alternate side parking regulations on “thirty-four legal and religious holidays in 2005” as evidence of this commitment to cultural diversity.

She does not for an instant claim, however, that the city is a “racial paradise” (page 12). Her discussion of “peaceful coexistence” as the overarching mentality in New York City is consistent with our in-class discussions of “salad bowls” (as opposed to melting pots). In contradiction to Putnam’s proposed conflict theory, however, Foner points to friendships formed in schools, colleges, playgrounds, and workplaces (among other places) as evidence that we, as a community, have the capability to move beyond ethnic differences.

Nancy Foner’s article highlighted several facts that were new to me. For example, on page 10 she explores the stereotypes and stigmas attached to various hispanic groups: according to Foner, Mexican immigrants view Puerto Ricans as lazy, while in the Puerto Rican community, Mexicans are seen as unsophisticated and assumed to be undocumented. Likewise, her analysis of the term “hispanic” throughout the country (in Texas, for example, as compared to New York) proved to be illuminating.

Ultimately, Nancy Foner ends her article with an exploration of the “Second Generation” (page 17). Her declaration that as children of a diverse city we are embrace multiculturalism (multi-ethnic neighborhoods, intermarriage, etc.) is refreshing: it leaves me hopeful that maybe someday, at least in New York City, we will be free of racial and ethnic bias.

Finally, as a member of this generation, I found her claim that we see ourselves as “New Yorkers” as opposed to “Americans” interesting, and to a certain extent, true. For example: whenever I am abroad, I tell people that I am from “New York,” not “America.”

Foner’s first chapter in her novel From Ellis Island to JFK: New York’s Two Great Waves of Immigration talks about who the immigrants were and why they have come to New York. I liked how Foner stated that it was simple to just say that immigrants only came to the United States for a better life, however there are plenty of other reasons they decided to emigrate here as well. Russian Jews may have been escaping political oppression years ago, what causes them to come to the United States in today times? The answer to that is “A process of progressive network building, Networks developed by the movement of people back and forth in space.” I found it interesting that Foner mentioned this idea of “network building” because for me, it is extremely easy to picture. Whenever a new immigrant arrives in New York, all he or she has to do is call up a friend who may know a friend, who may know another friend, and so on until this network of connections leads the new immigrant into getting a stable house and job.

What I found questionable was the idea of the increasing population of illegal immigrants. It is stated in the book that an undocumented immigrant is just as skilled and may even be more skilled than a normal, legal immigrant who has a green card. So, if they are just as skilled, or even more skilled, why are they coming to the United States illegally? Yes, the process may be long, but if the person is just as skilled as a legal immigrant, the wait would be extremely worthwhile. To me, it was heartbreaking to read about the conditions people put themselves through, such as the small ship that packed many men into a room, just to arrive to the United States. Going through all of that proved how much the people really wanted to live in a new country.

As the title of her article, Nancy Foner proposes the question, how exceptional is New York? and through her article, Foner proceeds to answer that question. New York is a city that is hard to describe. It has served as a port for immigration for so many years that nowadays, a vast majority of New Yorkers have an immigrant connection. If these New Yorkers are not immigrants themselves, at least one of their relatives are, whether it be their mother or their great great grandfather. I found it interesting to see how Foner compared New York with other major immigrant cities such as Miami or Los Angeles. In New York, Mexicans and Puerto Ricans are dominant, while in Miami, Cubans play an important role in the population. It is also interesting that while Miami is Cuban dominant, it is also characterized by a lacking of the Asian race, which makes me wonder why Asians tend to stick to New York and Los Angeles. Is it because of the immigrant ties they have with the two major cities?

I also liked how Foner mentioned that although New York is full of immigrants, “the city, of course, is not a racial paradise.” Yes, New York can be described as a city full of diversity, “the Melting Pot of all Nations”, however this it is almost impossible to have a fully peaceful city of so many different races that each come with their own culture and beliefs. It is hard to avoid the racial prejudices and stereotypes exist in the world but it is not hard to say that New York is definitely a diverse city.

Some quotes I found interesting in Chapter 1 were:

• “Indeed, a study of Dominican immigrants in New York City in the early 1980s found that the undocumented held more prestigious jobs before emigrating than did the documented immigrants; they were far more likely to have been professionals and managers in the Dominican Republic” (Foner 17).

Nancy Foner starts off the book explaining that the words engraved at the bottom of the Statue of Liberty stating that immigrants are “huddled masses” and poor no longer applies to all the new immigrants. When I read this, I understood that many of the immigrants were more educated and came equipped with better skills. However, why would the Dominicans holding more prestigious jobs not follow the law and come to America? They would be an asset to this country and could potentially offer the country a great deal. What struggles are they facing that is causing them to resort to illegal means?

• “Indeed, contemporary immigration has a lot to do with America’s political and economic penetration worldwide and the diffusion of a modern culture of consumption, a culture out of the reach of most people in developing countries” (Foner 18).

I think one of the major factors (Nancy Foner doesn’t mention as much) that attract many immigrants now is the globalization that has become stronger due to the Internet. Information is being transmitted much quicker and is connecting people across the continents.  The American culture has spread to many countries, with American movies and television shows being seen by people all over the world. People might feel a connection with the culture or values that they have been exposed to and decide to come to the country for those reasons.

• “In general, countries with a history of American military, political, and economic involvement and intervention have been sending large numbers to the United States. The entire Caribbean region has known the presence of the United States. During the past hundred years, Puerto Rico, Cuba, the Dominican Republic, Haiti, Nicaragua, Panama, and Grenada have all been under direct U.S. military rule at one time or another” (Foner 28).

The United States has always struggled between the foreign policies of isolationism and intervention in other countries. I feel that our country intervening in other countries can be seen positively and negatively: positively because we are a strong nation that can care for the needs of others and negatively in that they take over a country they don’t understand or don’t try to understand the culture and the people. I feel our diplomacy and foreign relations history with a country would definitely affect how many immigrants from that country would want to come to the US.  We have had positively and negatively viewed foreign policy with the Carribeans and I wonder how that factors into the number of Dominicans coming into the country.

• “Indeed, those who endure the most difficult journey to America today by risking their lives crossing borders or being smuggled on ships are not modern-day heroes in the public eye. As undocumented immigrants, they are stigmatized and unwanted” (Foner 35).

Many people want to come to this country for a better life. Why do we sympathize with all the immigrants that came before and not these hopeful new immigrants that are sacrificing everything to come here? Do we feel there journey in not as difficult? Do we feel that the policies are fairer now and people should be able to immigrate legally? What or who constructed this stigma with undocumented immigrants and how can be change either their status or their image?

Nancy Foner’s article, “How exceptional is New York?”, discusses the ethnic diversity present in New York in the past decade and brushes on how these statistics compare with other popular cities. What I found interesting about this article is the construction of race and ethnicity in urban areas. Dark skin is not favored among individuals. Dominicans do not associate themselves with blackness because they do not want to associate themselves with the darker inhabitants of their neighboring country, Haiti. Hispanics do not want to associate themselves with Puerto Ricans because they are portrayed as lazy. The fact that a 5^th generation Mexican is still seen as any Mexican as opposed to an American is also surprising.

It is magnificent though, seeing how all these racial differences do not really prevent people in the city from interacting with each other in their workspaces or on the streets day to day. I have found, and agree, that it is most likely the fact that the second generation is becoming more open-minded that allows races to intermingle and maybe even influence their older generation family members to become more liberal in accepting different cultures.

But even though we may have originated from different backgrounds and enjoy different cuisines, we are all still obnoxiously loud New Yorkers.

Nancy Foner’s book “From Ellis Island to JFK” talks about the two major waves of immigration to New York City and compares and contrasts the groups of immigrants who came and for what reasons.

I thoroughly enjoyed the first few chapters of this book and found it especially relevant to myself. This is because Foner mentions the reasons Russian immigrants came and my family immigrated here from Russia. Therefore it was very interesting to read about the reasons the immigrants she mentioned came and compare it the reasons my own family came, although my family came in 1992 and she mostly talks about those that came after 1910.

The book was also very interestingly structured in that it divided the chapters based on why and how immigrants came, where they settled, and how and where they later worked.  A lot of the things she wrote about elucidated many questions I have always had, such as why did certain groups of immigrants only start coming after a certain point, or why did others stop coming? Overall, I enjoyed the first chapters of the book very much.

The idea that intrigued me most about Nancy Foner’s “How Exceptional is New York?” is the one that elucidates the misconception that New York is an isolated haven for immigrants. It is not to say, however, that New York’s immigration patterns are very distinct from those of other states, even large, key cities such as Los Angeles or Miami. Yes, a “peaceful coexistence” among the many immigrant groups in the Big Apple exists and the city is “more immigrant-friendly” than its West Coast counterpart, but New York is not immune to national politics, racism, and the fulfillment of general immigrant stereotypes. These stereotypes include immigrants living in lower class areas, experiencing prejudice and discrimination from non-immigrant groups, having a difficult time finding stable, well-paid jobs, being uneducated, and more.

My point is, while it is not wholly inaccurate to view NYC as the mecca for US immigration, it is important to remember that it is still part of the US as an individual state, and is still under the influence and power of the national government. Despite this “new discovery” I had upon reading Foner’s piece, I still continue to believe that New York is and will always be the gateway to the “American Dream,” whatever that may be.

There were many interesting points in Nancy Foner’s article but I think the most interesting aspects were the ones that brought up ideas of Ethnic Identity. In a world full of grey areas when it comes to beliefs, religion, sexual identity etc. Race and Ethnicity always seemed to be so black and white. As Foner points out, there are 4 main groups of ethnicity according to Foner: Asians, Whites, Blacks and Hispanics. However, Foner made it seem like ethnicity had less to do with the color of your skin and where you were born and more with how you acted and how much money you made. Foner gave an example of Cubans in Miami who identified themselves as white on the census. Although I do like the idea of people being able to choose their race instead of having their race chosen for them, it reinforces racial stereotypes in society. By striving to be “white” Latinas are intimating that whites are superior, which should not be a prominent idea in the 21^st century.

Foner made a really good point in saying that second-generation New Yorkers are more likely to identify as New Yorkers than Americans. Although America is the land of freedom, I think people are more proud of their New York identity, even if it comes with stereotypes of being rude and always in a rush, because of New York’s high level of diversity and acceptance of all ethnicities, races, and cultures. Although New York is not fully tolerant, I believe that the level of tolerance is higher in New York than any other city in the US if not the world and that is what makes me so proud to be a New Yorker.

Two Interesting quotes I found in the Nancy Foner article, “How exceptional is New York? Migration and multiculturalism in the empire city”:

• “A striking feature of New York City’s immigrant population , which stands at nearly three million, is its extraordinary diversity, No one or two, or even three or four, nations dominant”. There are so many countries with such huge populations such as China and I would assume that the immigrant population would mostly come from countries with larger populations themselves but this fact required me to change my mind. We have such clustered populations of certain type of ethnicities that I assumed a few would dominate over the others. Then, why are the signs in the subway usually written in spanish and chinese? Should we not be considerate to include a few more since there must be more ways of getting information to all our immigrants from every nation. 
• “By US standards, New York City’s government provides a wide range of social, health, and educational services, including the City University of New York [CUNY], which is the largest urban public university system in the nation”. I always knew that, besides our history with Ellis Island, our city’s government has encouraged immigration since that is how we would like to be identified as in the country, a center for immigration. The interesting part is the CUNY system’s role in it. I think I took for granted the urban university system that allows so many immigrants to continue their studies or fill the gap between their studies in their own countries. These colleges are so vital to helping the immigrant population attain better skills and use their advanced skills to help benefit this country.  I always thought of the City University of NY as a way to have more public universities in the city but never in how the city utilizes it to help immigrants in a more economical and political aspect.

Over the years, there has been a great influx of immigrants into cities all across the United States. However, New York City seems to stand apart from many others in the country. Its history, extremely ethnically and racially diverse population, and various constructs as a city have made what seems to have become a “receiving city” like no other in the country. There are so many different backgrounds in the city that people have just come to really accept each other’s differences. New York City’s extremely urban structure and environment especially allows for assimilation and acceptance of other cultures because everyone is in so close contact with one another; These city dwellers begin to rely on each other to function in their daily lives. Foner points out that the immigration population in New York City alone is “nearly three million.” This alone represents the uniqueness that New York City has to offer concerning a more accepting multicultural society. He also points out that there is no dominant race or ethnic group like in many areas of the country. Something I found especially interesting that Foner points out is that New York City offers so many services that promote diversity. For example, there is a parade for countless ethnic backgrounds.  Foner also points out that “alternate side parking regulations were suspended on thirty-four legal and religious holidays in 2005, including the Asian Lunar New Year, Purim and Passover, the Feast of the Assumption, the Muslim holiday of Id-al-Adha, and the Hindu celebration of Diwali.” This is why I believe New York City is the heart of multicultural acceptance in the United States. As Foner states, New York City, unlike other cities, provides this atmosphere where “being from somewhere else is the norm.” Does this evidence that Foner provides prove that New York City is a progressive city, and therefore allows for increase acceptance of various culture. If so, why can’t this happen for the United States as a whole?

What interested me the most about Foner’s article “How Exceptional is New York” is Foner’s attempt to separate the diversity seen in New York from those seen in other major American cities such as Los Angeles and Miami. While multiculturalism and assimilation exists in many cities across the U.S, something about New York exemplifies this. Instead of a constant influx of races of one kind as seen elsewhere, New York experienced multiple waves of a variety of races. The incredible density of the city combined with an encompassing public schooling system and budding youth culture creates an interesting cultural dynamic seen nowhere else. The New York attitude toward foreign (implying non-American as in New York “foreign” no longer has much meaning) cultures has become something more closely associated with ignorance than acceptance. When the human body is exposed to a constant stimulus for an extended period of time, it ceases to acknowledge it and it becomes unrecognizable. The same can be seen in terms of cultural diversity in New York City. Close proximity to people of all kinds of cultural backgrounds (seen in public schools and transportation systems) produces an apathetic kind of tolerance, where foreign behavior no longer shocks us as it used to. This desensitization, however, does not reduce the significance of this social conglomeration. As the children of immigrants grow up in the city together and neighborhoods become less and less exclusive due to gentrification, New York is becoming a more socially open city.