From a social science perspective, Foner’s decision to frame her research on a city-scale, rather than a national one, allows her to focus on what makes immigration patterns in New York so unique.  She discredits the notion that the nation state should serve as the unit of analysis when measuring immigration.  Rather than using the “city as a constant” method,  she compares and contrasts the institutions between cities that determine the nature of the immigrant experience in each.  For example,  she demonstrated the impact of the City University of New York on the education opportunities provided to new immigrants in New York.  This massive, and relatively  affordable institution, has allowed millions of immigrants passing through New York to obtain higher education levels.  Apart from personal enrichment, this allows immigrants to pursue careers with higher wages, provide for their family, and stimulate the city’s economy.  The absence of a city-wide university with a mission of affordability in other cities such as Chicago prevents low-income students, a demographic that most immigrants fall into, to move to that city and pursue desired educations and careers.

Apart from eduction, law-enforcement, medical, and judicial systems  cause a vast disparity in every American city’s “openess” to immigrants.  New York has historically placed an emphasis, through both its social institutions and economic budget, on encouraging immigrants to travel to the city.  The fluctuation of immigrants in and out of the city, as Joe Salvo observed in his talk, lends an important energy to the city.  Certain groups leave neighborhoods and new  ones emerge to take their place, changing the cultural fabric of an area seemingly overnight.  Although this transition of immigrants in and out of New York is expensive for the state, it is essential to maintaining the cultural diversity that makes New York an exceptional city on both a national and global scale.

-Victor Rerick