The term “immigrant” frequently conjures up images of forlorn and lonely individuals toiling away in a foreign country, being forced to forget about their homeland thousands of miles away and faced with the constant pressure of having to adapt to the cultural norms of their new home while simultaneously facing discrimination and prejudice by the native population. This is, however, an incredibly distorted image of immigrants who are far from isolated from the worlds they left behind. Immigrants are, in fact, not alone but part of a “transnational household with members scattered across borders.”

Transnationalism was very much alive back in the day and is even stronger today. With respect to the immigrants of the last great wave, Italians were the “quintessential transnational New Yorkers of their time.” Due to certain unfavorable conditions in the homeland, many Italians found themselves immigrating to the United States with the monomaniac goal of finding work. Most were not concerned with starting new lives here but with saving up sums of money, which they would then take back to Italy to improve the quality of their own lives and that of their relatives at home. Many Italians saw the Unites States as a “workshop” and felt an inextricable sense of loyalty and responsibility to the people they left behind as these people often included wives, children, and parents. Money was constantly sent to family members in Italy and letters were frequently exchanged. As promised, an impressive number of Italians actually returned to Italy permanently, buying “a little house and a plot of ground” there and living markedly enhanced lives.

Today, a noticeably different kind of transnationalism pervades New York City. It is one that is definitely more far-reaching and intense due to a variety of factors including transformations in the technologies of transportation and communication dual nationality provisions by home governments. In fact, transnationalism is almost “a way of life” for the immigrants of today and is much more accepted and celebrated now than it was in the past. Today’s immigrants can be seen as living two totally separate lives, one in the home country and the other in the host country.  It’s not unusual for immigrants to buy homes in both countries, open up businesses in both countries, and boast political involvement in both countries. Scattered members of the transnational household can easily be brought together through phone calls, emails, and other forms of communication, allowing immigrants to be actively involved in matters back at home. Due to the quicker, more convenient, and relatively inexpensive trips back to the native country, immigrants can easily take part in important life events of those that they have left behind and can bring even bring relatives to join them here. As a result of this far-reaching transnationalism, immigrants are always connected to the familiarities of the home and there is little reason for having to permanently go back, explaining why the rate for return for present day immigrants is significantly less than that of past immigrants like the Italians.

Slymovics’s indication of the New York City’s Muslim Day Parade as a means of reconfiguring “religion into an ethnicity” is the concept that stood out to me the most in this article. There seems to be a certain degree of truth behind such a suggestion as the parade is made up of individuals of a plethora of ethnicities, all of whom are bridged together under the religion of Islam. The fact that immigrant Muslims from different areas of the world can come together and take part in the prayers and festivities of the parade as one people shows that Islam does—to some extent—serve as an ethnicity.

Slymovics then goes on to an extensive discussion of the parade, emphasizing that like other groups of people who hold parades to “show their communities’ strengths,” the Muslims too are aiming to present their identity to their fellow New Yorkers. What’s interesting about the Muslim Day Parade is the distinct ways in which it is like a “typical” New York City parade and the other ways in which it is clearly not. New Yorkers are generally view parades as a manifestation of ethnic pride, and it is clear that the Muslims use this to their advantage as they incorporate a variety of signs, floats, bands, and other components that demonstrate to the public that they can and do collectively participate in American civil society.

On the other hand, the lining up and orienting of hundreds of Muslims toward the “traditional east,” resulting in the conversion of the city’s street into a place of prayer, and the inclusion of the “takbir” in the parade despite certain concerns creates a distinct foundation for the event and reinforces the religious significance of it. The dual aspects of the parade show that “Muslim rituals could operate simultaneously with secular parade rituals,” and “the result was that the parade does not always keep events apart. Sometimes the two worlds of foreign religion and urban secular American culture clashed…” In other words, the Muslim Day Parade demonstrates that while Muslims can be like the rest of New Yorkers in certain ways, they are inarguably different in other ways, leaving us to wonder whether this group of people can ever come to be fully integrated into and accepted by American society.

In regard to the nature of public discourse on racial issues, Foner states, “What was acceptable and commonplace in 1900 would be considered unthinkable today.” Prior to reading this chapter in Ellis Island to JFK, I had a rather vague idea of the nature of such discourse, and although I knew that the immigrants of the past faced intense discrimination, I was not aware of the sheer magnitude of this intensity. Foner writes that the “inferior mongrel races” of the Italians and Jews were believed to contribute to a “falling off of good looks,” lower efficiency, less democracy, and moral depravity as they were once referred to as “moral cripples.” I was absolutely horrified by such acerbic language and way of thinking.  To find out that signs such as “No Jews or Dogs Admitted Here” were once pervasive in New York City and to find out that the “swarthy, oily” Italians received lower wages for the same work as their counterparts is just really upsetting and makes one empathize deeply with the immigrants of the past. Foner’s discussion of the “sting of prejudice” endured by the predominantly south and eastern European immigrants of the past initially prompted me to take a sigh of relief and feel grateful for the apparently changed environment of the New York City of today. However, after examining Foner’s subsequent discussion of race and the “newest New Yorkers,” the rather saccharine image in mind of NYC as a place where everyone can be him or herself with perfect impunity just didn’t seem so accurate anymore.

First of all, it is unequivocally clear that African Americans in New York City still have to grapple with the painful sting of prejudice. Foner writes, “Today, most white Americans would like to convey an image of themselves as unprejudiced and compassionate. Yet racial stereotypes, prejudice, and discrimination against blacks have had a tenacious hold and persist in a variety of forms.” Even those who aren’t native-born blacks, such as West Indians and “dark Hispanics,” end up being thrown into the category of “black.” These individuals then try their hardest to prove to the rest of society that they aren’t “black” as this is a term that a wide range of people, not only native whites, have come to associate with crime, a lack of education and culture, and an antagonistic attitude. The story about the West Indian family whose newly bought house in Canarsie went up in flames even before they could move in in 1992 is the one that bothered me the most. While the frequency of such dramatic incidences is not particularly high anymore, other forms of prejudice and discrimination against the various groups of people collectively referred to as “black” are still very much alive and include things like racial slurs, insults, and offensive gestures and actions. “No matter how affluent or influential blacks may be, in public places they cannot escape the stigma of being black.” This causes one to stop for a while to think about how accepting and appreciative of “diversity” New Yorkers really are. On the surface, all seems perfect, but upon further examination, a rather troubling reality emerges.

It is safe to say that when the word “Jewish” is brought up, a great deal of people immediately conjure up images of “brusquely” walking men in long, black coats and fedoras. In the eyes of many, what it means to be Jewish is frequently condensed into this single image. In Chapter 4, Goldschmidt admits that there are numerous telltale sartorial signs that lead to one’s judgment of who is Jewish and who isn’t, and he suggests that in a sea of Gentiles, it’s often the case that the Jewish stand out. However, at the same time, he asserts that there are several variations on norms of dress within the Jewish people themselves and uses the Luvabitchers as a testament to his claim as they tend to dress less elaborately and distinctively than is typical of most Hasidim. Furthermore, he goes on to say that an increasing number of Jewish people have—to some extent—assimilated to mainstream norms of dress to a point where it’s very difficult to tell them apart based solely on appearance. Goldschmidt says that while it is unremarkably easy to identify some Jews based due to distinctive apparel and certain physical features, it is significantly easier to overlook those who are Jewish and mistake them for people who are not. In particular, Goldschmidt brings up two groups of people within the Jewish community who are frequently taken as non-Jews: Jewish women and Black Jews.

Jewish women, who typically wear skirts of modest length, full sleeved blouses, wigs, and cover their legs in public, can easily be taken for any other women in New York who prefer to dress a bit more on the conservative side. Goldschmidt brings up a very good point since a many people may not realize just how difficult it can actually be to distinguish Jews from non-Jews on the basis of physical appearance.  It is often even easier, however, to overlook a Black Jew since a great deal of people do not correlate skin of color to Jewishness. Especially in a neighborhood like Crown Heights where residents are either “Jewish” or either “black,” the concept of an overlap between the two elements is often too complicated for the public to harbor. In addition, the clothing of many Black orthodox Jews in Crown Heights does not fit in with Hasidic norms of clothing. For example, Goldschmidt states that a greater number of Black Jews appear to be more assimilated to mainstream norms of dress while some other Black Jews don very distinctive articles of clothing such as bright, colorful yarmulkes that can confer an entirely new identity upon them when misinterpreted by the public. Therefore, Goldschmidt poses a very important and thought-provoking question: how can one really distinguish a Jew from a non-Jew when “telltale sartorial signs” and “unique and instinctive facial and physical features” aren’t present?

After reading Goldschmidt’s various arguments, it becomes quite clear that there is no way to be absolutely sure of the identity of a passerby. What I found particularly interesting, however, was the way that several Jewish acquaintances of Goldschmidt maintained that they have a much easier time telling apart Jews form non-Jews for the reason that the “neshoma” of an individual just shines out to them. In fact, according to some, “the soul of a Jewish is fundamentally different from a Gentile” and there is a spiritual radiance that makes every Jew, regardless of sex and appearance, stand out from non-Jews. This line of thought brings us back once again to the mystical world of Kabbalistic thought, which seems to shape virtually every aspect of Hasidism. In every chapter, I find this theme of “esoteric Kabbalistic thought” surfacing and I am intrigued by it every time because it is most effective in helping to reveal the nature and beliefs of the Hasidic people.

The opening paragraphs of the first chapter of Orsi’s The Madonna of 115^th Street create an indubitably convivial and joyous atmosphere. The day of the festa has arrived and all of Italian Harlem is bustling with activity. It was exciting to read the descriptions provided by Orsi as they enabled me to visualize a neighborhood full of lively conversations, various foods, bright decorations, and smiling inhabitants. In addition, the deep veneration of la Madonna during this period of time helps to characterize the Italian immigrants as staunchly devoted to their faith and beliefs as Orsi describes all of Little Italy going to great lengths to pay tribute to the Virgin.

After reading Chapter 1, Italian Harlem seems like an ideal place to live. It is depicted as a place where a sense of community and belonging is pervasive and where strong ties to the homeland are maintained. This is why I was very surprised upon reading the following chapter, which talks about all the banes that afflicted Little Italy at the time. Orsi paints a picture of a neighborhood in which sidewalks are cluttered by garbage, streets are dominated by gangs and juvenile delinquency, and residents are forced to live in squalor. There is a clear discrepancy between how the immigrants envisioned their lives in America and reality.

Orsi states that The Italian immigrants were traveling away from the world of “la miseria,” which was riddled with overpopulation, disease, and over taxation. Sadly, however, the quality of life in East Harlem at the time was nowhere close to matching the saccharine expectations held by these immigrants. At the end of the second chapter, Orsi goes on to say that despite the incongruity between their dreams and reality, the Italians of East Harlem grew to love their home, a place where everyone shared in both the joys and tribulations of each other and a place where cultural ties were strongly clung on to. At first, I wondered how anyone could come to so dearly love a place plagued by so many issues, but I went on to realize that many immigrant groups, not just the Italians, faced a similar situation upon settling down in various neighborhoods in the city. Although the quality of life was definitely not as great as it could be, these immigrants were able to overlook this reality by finding strength and hope in one another.

New York City immigrants of the past—as we all know—were not very fortunate when it came to settling down and finding a place to stay. Individuals like Jacob Riis forced us to open our eyes to the housing issues and abysmal tenement lifestyle that most immigrants had no choice but to acquiesce to. Tenement lifestyle was absolutely horrid as many immigrants had no alternative but to crowd into small rooms, live in dimly lit spaces, expose themselves to extreme temperatures, and put themselves in great jeopardy of developing health problems due to unimaginably unsanitary living conditions. Ethnic clustering, as depicted through the dominance of the Lower East Side before the early 1900s by immigrant Jews, was also very pervasive since it made the newly arrived feel much more comfortable and in touch with their identity.

A great deal of time has passed since the early 1900’s.  However, Foner shows us that there are still some undeniable similarities and patterns that exist between the housing of past and contemporary immigrants. When I think of where today’s immigrants live, my mind does not conjure up images of tatterdemalion and dark tenement style housing. An immigrant myself, I settled down in a small but comfortable apartment with my parents when I came to NYC at the age of two. While our living standard was far from luxurious, it definitely did not compare with the wretched descriptions given by individuals like Riis. I always thought that like my family, most immigrant families settle down in decent housing in lower-middle class neighborhoods, and therefore, I wasn’t surprised when Foner revealed that this is mostly the case. I was horrified, however, by her vivid descriptions of Mexican and Chinese immigrants living in claustrophobic and unimaginable circumstances. She purports that a very small number—seventeen percent to be exact—of immigrants live this way, but this piece of information is what I found to be the most disturbing.

What I found to be the most interesting was Foner’s take on ethnic clustering in the past and the present. One does not have to live in the city for very long before uncovering that ethnic clustering is still very much rampant today for pretty much the same reasons why it was so common back in the day. In short, ethnic clustering brings about a sense of community. Foner states, however, that more and more immigrants, especially Asian Americans, are choosing to venture out of their safe havens and into more affluent regions that are common amongst native born whites, signifying that the immigrants of today are quickly making progress in both their financial and social lives.

“Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free.” This notable line from Emma Lazarus’s sonnet, “The New Colossus,” is addressed to the multitude of people who abandon their native lands of their own volition for a chance at a more auspicious life in the seemingly nonpareil city of New York. Lazarus suggests that most, if not all, of the individuals who emigrate from their homelands to New York City are those who are forlorn, impecunious, and rejected. Today, however, this notion is inapplicable as our day to day experiences as New Yorkers have proven that most immigrants are not those unfortunate beings who saw no alternative but to escape a life of extreme poverty and rejection. As Foner states, New York City boasts an impressive diversity amongst its immigrants who come from a wide range of educational and professional backgrounds and who flaunt a variety of skills and expertise.

I found that the most interesting aspect of this reading was the manner in which Foner goes on to debunk various other myths that many people hold about immigrants in New York City. These myths have to do with who comes to New York, why people come, and how they get here. Foner very systematically organizes and presents her information to the reader who first learns about who these immigrants are. Many people are very quick to say things like “all the Mexicans are taking our jobs” or “all the Chinese are taking over our schools” without any real knowledge of what kind of people actually make up our city. Foner tells us that there is no particular immigrant group that dominates our city and that after 1964, the immigration of people to New York from places as varied as Asia to Latin America to the Caribbean skyrocketed. Therefore, to say that the immigrants in New York are predominantly from one particular group is wholly unjustifiable.

The next question that Foner goes on to explore has to do with why so many people come to New York. My immediate response was because people want to escape persecution and because they do not have ample opportunities at success in their homelands. After reading, I realized that while these things do play a significant role in an individual’s desire to emigrate from their native country, there is another obvious yet often unacknowledged element that explains why New York is such a popular place for immigrants to settle. Foner reminds us that the changes in U.S. immigration policies over the years that have opened up a plethora of opportunities for a wide range of people all across the world. After the end of various immigration acts and restrictions, the U.S. has become much more eager to welcome immigrants, and therefore, one of the biggest reasons why so many people come to New York is simply because they can.