Foner addresses transnationalism—immigrants’ upholding of strong involvement in their societies of origin, places they continue to call home. Throughout the decades, there is an idea of returning to the home country for many immigrants. She cites how many would send money home to build houses there to return to. One explanation offered was that, during economic instability, immigrants could participate in two economies to raise money. I found this interesting since it is usually the wealthy immigrants I know that build mansions and vacation houses in their home countries. While they came to America to make ‘American money’, the circumstances and necessity have changed. Immigrants I’ve encountered that did come to the U.S. due to economic insecurity usually have greater intentions to be permanent and build a better life for themselves in America. This is, however, just through personal observation and I don’t have enough data to suggest that intentions have completely shifted throughout the century.

Although my mother became an American citizen four years ago, she still repeatedly refers to Guyana as “my country” or “back home.” Technology has certainly helped in making it seem as if she is still a resident; with just one click she can read current news, keep up with the latest fashion trends, and Skype with family and friends. Walking around Queens, there are many West Indian neighborhoods that cater to this desire to stay connected. Last month I read an article in the New York Times about how stores in Queens sell DVDs of current parties in Jamaica so Jamaican immigrants can not only quell homesickness but even keep up with who goes to the parties, what the latest dance craze is, and all the latest pop culture from their homeland. I find it interesting, however, that she browses contemporary news but there is no connection. She left during a time of political turmoil, and often when she refers to Guyana she is speaking about a place located in a different decade with different demographics and a different culture. Her true connection and involvement is with a time and place that no longer exists. Perhaps before technology, homesick immigrants, staring at pictures and trinkets they brought with them before migrating, felt more like this. Should the idea of the domus have collapsed in Italy during the mid 1900’s, would the residents of Italian Harlem care or would they continue to cling to the Italy they knew and left behind?

Foner mentions that transnationalism is now seen in a more positive light. I don’t think transnationalism is anything new; the main difference between now and then is how it is perceived. Transnationalism was never directly measured but rather exposed after studies were done concerning Americanization. Before, Americanization was synonymous with assimilation and naturalization. Now, however dual nationality and diversity is more celebrated, and every nationality has its own association, parade, lobby, etc. It is hard to compare the two eras when researchers from each have such different perspectives.