The thing I found most interesting in this chapter was the constant reference to the term “transnational”, which I had never even heard before. According to Foner, transnationalism cam be defined as a process where immigrants “forge and sustain multi-stranded social relations that link together their societies of origin and settlement…An essential element…is the multiplicity of involvements that transmigrants sustain in both home and host societies.” In other words, immigrants are seen as having roots in both their country of birth and their new country of residence (in most cases, the United States).
Foner goes on to point out that this seemingly new concept of transnationalism isn’t really all that new. When comparing the past wave of immigration to the more modern one (as Foner always does), it becomes clear that this allegiance to two societies among immigrants was very common due to lack of economic security, lack of full acceptance into the American culture, family back at home, etc. Immigrants of both time periods often went home or identified with their home country in other ways here. Rather than fully assimilating into American culture, they would instead try to plant themselves and their nation firmly within our cultural landscape. By supporting politicians of their ethnicity and keeping customs alive, they managed to create almost a dual form of allegiance transcending the typical definitions of citizenship. In modern times, technology also plays a large role in keeping connections with home countries. Also, greater tolerance for “ethnic pluralism and multiculturalism…have put transnational connections in a new, more positive light.” Better forms of communication and travel allow transnationalism to be a very easy part of today’s immigrant culture, yet at the same time it can create contradictory pressures as to where true allegiance lies.
When reading this chapter, I couldn’t help but keep thinking of last class when we discussed what truly defines a “citizen” and a “good citizen”. In this case, citizenship almost seems irrelevant because immigrants can call both countries home. Even if only one of those countries actually protects them by law, cultural and socioeconomic ties can easily lie with multiple societies. So, is this a new definition of citizenship emerging? If an immigrant is formally an “American” yet they have strong transnational ties to another nation, where does their inner citizenship lie? Perhaps then the term “citizen” itself is too complex in nature to adequately describe what residents of the United States are, aside from the political definition of it.
-Cassandra Price
