Political Incorporation of Immigrants, Then and Now, by Gary Gerstle and John Mollenkopf, addresses the issue of immigrants coming to terms with American society. They propose that instead of the traditional method of studying waves of immigration separately, to utilize information and data from both immigration movements mentioned in order to create a more accurate and fluent representation of immigration in the United States. He explains how the approaches used by social scientists and historians should be incorporated, as in both perspectives should be considered when looking at this subject.

The writing introduces and compares the immigration during the turn of the 20^th century and from 1965 onwards. The turn of the century migration saw immigrants of mostly English, Scottish, Irish, German, and Scandinavian origins whereas the immigrants of present day are of mostly Caribbean, Latino, and Asian origins. Both immigrants lived in concentrated neighborhoods of their ethnicity in urban settings. The one of the main differences between the two waves of immigration was that the earlier wave saw slow integration overtime into white American society whereas the immigrants today don’t really have that option. It goes on to explain the works of other researchers who examined the role of the state and the effect of transnationalism and education on immigrant integration.

I agree with the authors’ arguments that both immigration periods should be compared together and not separately and that the approaches used by social scientists and historians should both be considered when doing this type of research. Social scientists looks at data and statistics, but in order to understand the numbers and patterns, historical context must be considered.

On the topic of transnationalism, in present day communication and global networking is much more efficient and accessible than it was at the beginning of the 20^th century. Therefore, immigrants are more inclined to embrace both American culture and the culture of their country of origin. I also believe that the accessibility of international communication and globalization also contributed to another issue. The authors mention the argument that schools nowadays taught only English and a hidden social hierarchy instead of conveying the values of liberty, independence, order, individual rights and duties, and patriotism. Perhaps this argument is wrong. English is taught merely as a way for immigrants to communicate with one another and this social hierarchy seems to resemble the ethnically concentrated neighborhoods immigrants tend to reside in. Perhaps this is just another way for children of immigrants to feel a sense of belonging. The U.S. is much more connected with the rest of the world today as a result of globalization. What was taught to students in the past may be considered outdated in terms of the situation America is in and meeting the needs of the students today.