Throughout Chapter 6 of From Ellis Island to JFK, Nancy Foner discusses the growing complexity of citizenship and the impact transnationalism has had on both the immigrants of the past and the immigrants of today. Defined as “the processes by which immigrants ‘forge and sustain multi-stranded social relations that link together their societies of origin and settlement,'” transnationality – though not always recognized – has had a long history in immigration.
As Foner asserts, immigrants at the turn of the century often sustained familial, economic, political, and cultural ties to their home societies while simultaneously developing connections to their new homes. With the uncertainty of work and the economy, many of these immigrants labored to obtain just enough money to send back to other family members and to return home for both brief visits and permanent stays – minus any financial baggage they might have carried with them when they first arrived on Ellis Island.
This desire to return to their home societies, Foner argues, was also encouraged by racism and prejudice in America: “Nonwhite immigrants, denied full acceptance in America, maintain and build ties to their communities of origin to have a place they can call home.” Yet, what I found quite interesting, was the very apparent “catch-22” associated with transnational ties. While many Americans have and still continue to discriminate against immigrants and maintain desires to limit immigration overall, immigrants, at the same time, are “expected to stay once they arrive,” because “to leave again implied the migrant came only for money; was too crass to appreciate America as a noble experiment in democracy; and spurned American good will and helping hands.”
Furthermore, immigrants are continuously pressured to abandon traditional customs and languages, emerging from this simmering melting pot as “immaculate, well-dressed, accent-free ‘American-looking’ Americans.” I found Foner’s haunting description of assimilation and institutionalization to parallel hazing and other forms of mass processes employed to prove loyalty. With that in mind, I find it quite absurd – while we continue to stigmatize immigrants and maintain anti-immigrant sentiments, we expect them to conform to our so-called inherently “American” ideals (but are we not, first, a country built upon immigrant ideals?) and declare allegiance to a country that does not wholly recognize these same immigrants.
Today, with advancements in technology, the ways in which immigrants preserve transnational ties has changed – they are now able to do so simultaneously, via phone, instant messaging, video and numerous other options. However, the economic uncertainty faced by past immigrants remains an obstacle for the immigrants of today and is still one very influential factor in maintaining dual nationality. To most, especially those in academia, transnational relationships “enhance the possibility of survival,” and more people now view themselves as “world citizens.” Even here, though, I recognize contradiction. While I believe it certainly broadens prospects to be knowledgeable of facets of multiple cultures, building transnational ties ultimately adds complexity into the definition of citizenship (explaining why many countries do not legitimize dual citizenship) and threatens the limiting categorizations created and enforced by society. Thus, unfortunately, I feel it will take much time before transnationality will be truly discussed, as doing so would first require society to recognize and respect the complexity of differences in individual identity.
