The first of the three readings for this week is an academic paper by Rudolph J. Vecoli. The purpose of this piece is to, firstly, defend the notion that immigration has had a major influence on America’s national identity since our country’s inception. Secondly, (After establishing) Vecoli uses the ideological basis of the American identity to examine our government’s treatment toward immigrants and its effect on the national image at different times in history.

For the purposes of his writings, Vecoli introduces the basis of American identity as a set of ideals- specifically, ideals from the Enlightenment period- rather than a bloodline or religious claim to the land. As bloodlines in the Western Hemisphere determined everything about a person’s social status, this was a revolutionary concept. I found this point essential to establishing the central contention of the essay as it introduces the reader to the centuries long dichotomy between America’s founding principles and its actions. On the one hand, a national identity based on the natural rights of “all men” implies that one must simply believe in these rights in order to taste citizenship. Yet, the changing definition of “all men” has caused ethnic tensions and great deals of exclusion for the benefit of the Anglo hegemony.

Though this concept is eloquently defended in Vecoli’s writings, Nancy Foner’s “Immigrants in New York City in the New Millennium” uses census data in New York City- the largest and, perhaps, most diverse city in the country- to quantify the ebb and flow of immigrant populations and statistically highlight its affect on the ever-changing national landscape.

Using statistical data, Foner compares and contrasts the pre-1965 and post-1965 immigrant in New York City. According to Foner, after 1965 immigrants were mostly females coming from Latin America, the Caribbean and Asia. An increased number of immigrants have college degrees. After 1965, many immigrants came seeking reprieve from their home country’s oppressive or depressed economy. Foner refers to this as a “flight response” in hopes of gaining financial stability.

One way in which this is achieved is through the immigrant’s family network. Foner rightly asserts that, after establishing a life in New York City, most immigrants send for their family members in other countries. This makes the immigration process cheaper and increases the family’s chance of becoming successful in America.

Interestingly, the American government has a history of encouraging this action by making the immigration process for people who have immediate family members in the country. Foner says, “By allocating most immigrant visas along family lines, U.S. immigration law reinforces and formalizes the operation of migrant networks” (Foner). In what way is the immigration network in New York City so beneficial that the government propagates it through immigration legislation?

An answer is provided in an essay entitled “The Next Generation Emerges” by Philip Kasinitz. In this essay, Kasinitz examines immigration’s effects on the children of first time migrants who he refers to as the second generation. Kasinitz characterizes the second generation in New York City in order to provide a suggestion about the reason our immigration laws encourage family immigration.

Firstly, Kasinitz helps the reader to see that concerns surrounding the second generation’s ability to assimilate into the American culture are highly unwarranted. Yet the stigma of assimilation issues continues to insight subtle racisms as second-generation blacks and Latinos- especially those with deeper skin tones- are often mishandled by police officers.

The main purpose for immigration is more often than not to achieve a better social status for one’s family through the acquisition of higher education and good jobs. As a brief synthesis of Kasinitz writings on the second generation in the labor force, we see that despite the fears for a decline in the socioeconomic standing of second generation citizens and their children due to an inability to overcome social stigmas, the second generation is often more eager to enter the labor force than their non-immigrant counterparts. Yet their enthusiasm does not ever seem to be enough to help the second generation break through the proverbial “glass ceiling” that often keeps them from the highest heights of socioeconomic success. For this reason, the family network of immigrants is crucial; it helps to reinforce the work force for low class to middle class positions without disrupting the labor force at the top of the socioeconomic ladder.

For me, all three of these writings converge on the idea that America, though a society established on ideals of Enlightenment principles, has always treated its immigrant population in a way that discourages upward mobility. Though the system of immigration in New York City has made the process of immigration easier through is immigrant network-centered visa distribution, there are certain stigmas and invisible barriers that have yet to be overcome.