Nancy Foner, in her chapter on ‘transnational’ immigrants – or those who maintain strong roots to their home country while establishing an American identity – exposed many interesting ideas. These include the ability of transnationalism to adjust with society and how transnationalism is perceived by various people.

Foner compared transnationalism of early immigrants in the turn of the twentieth century to today’s immigrants. She stated that the rate of returning to home countries was higher for early immigrants for adjusting to new life was difficult. In addition, many immigrants left their families at home and arrived just to work so returning was necessary. In today’s day, immigrants seem to not have that problem due to advancing society and technology. Keeping ties with their home countries was easier and no longer meant just returning home. I found it interesting that this book, published in 2000, focused on the fact that technology such as telephones and emailing was a privilege for the well-off. This discussion aids in the argument of the rate of advancement in society in the past 13 years since this book was published.

Transnationalism is a complicated concept that has been around since the beginning of immigration – just with a different connotation. Another interesting analysis of transnationalism brought up the argument of whether transnationalism is beneficial. Some argued that the immigrants reluctancy to adopt American life was a form of anti-Americanization. I was intrigued by this thought because one can argue that Americanization is the concept of immigrants coming together into this melting pot. Does this melting pot ultimately consist of the various identities that immigrants bring along or various immigrants who choose to disregard their backgrounds? Transnationalism complicates the role of immigrants in America – especially naturalized citizens. What affect, if any, does transnationalism have on one’s ‘citizenship’?