America is and always has been a country of immigrants. Every single resident of the United States, besides the Native Americans, is either an immigrant or a descendant of immigrants. This fact makes it hard to understand why new groups of immigrants are typically greeted with anxiety, suspicion, discrimination, and even hate.

The first major wave of immigration came mainly from Europe from approximately 1880 to 1920. This group included many Irish, Polish, Italian, and Eastern European immigrants among many other groups. The established white American population reacted very harshly to this new group of immigrants; they called these immigrants hateful names and prohibited them from working and living in certain areas. This is the climate into which my two Irish great-grandparents arrived in the late 1800s.

My grandmother was the youngest of nine children (all of whom were raised in New York among many other immigrant children), she herself was victim to several instances of discrimination by the WASP population. When she first moved to Elmhurst in 1935 or so, the neighborhood was overwhelmingly white and full of the aforementioned immigrant groups. Within her lifetime, the group of immigrants that her parents came to the U.S. with became more or less incorporated into mainstream society.

She lived in Elmhurst as the second wave of immigrants began to come into the U.S.: Chinese, Hispanics (from many different countries), Indians, Middle Easterners, etc. As the people she grew up with left and passed away and as white Elmhurst began its shift into becoming one of the most diverse neighborhoods in the world, my grandmother experienced anxiety over change. As she grew older, she grew bitter, and as a young child I could not understand what the fuss was about.

This is still a question that I deal with years after my grandmother’s passing. How could a child of immigrants be so scared of other immigrants? She herself was even discriminated against for similar reasons. One answer that I have considered is that it’s an ongoing process of new Americans trying to claim a piece of their own here in the U.S. When the first wave of immigrants came in, the established white population was scared that they’d lose their power, their jobs, or their values. Now we see the ostracized doing the ostracizing.

People naturally fear change and the unknown. Until we stop being so terrified of our fellow Americans, we cannot fully embrace the skills and vitality that they can deliver once they are accepted and incorporated. Those who understand this can tap into the energy and potential of these immigrant groups in ways that can better the society as a whole. For those who do not, it may already be too late for them to see.

The Political Incorporation of Immigrants, Then and Now by Gary Gerstle and John Mollenkopf mainly discusses about two major waves of “new immigrants”. They discuss significant similarities and differences of these two waves of immigrants. The first wave of 27.6 millions of “new immigrants” was mainly composed of eastern, central, and southern Europeans. They arrived during the recovery time of the Civil War when the economy of the United States had started to develop and stabilize through steam, rail, electricity, and numerous other industries.

After World Ward II and Great Depression, the new “new immigrants” arrived. Unlike the previous wave, this group of people was mainly composed of Asians, Latin Americans, and the Caribbean (fewer Europeans). Since 1965, 20 million immigrants have arrived in the United States and a huge portion of them settled gateway cities like New York, San Francisco, Chicago, and etc. This new generation of immigrants also arrived at the time of economic prosperity and development. Also numerous immigrants with professional skills were present since the standard for the jobs has been raised.

The crucial difference between the old and new “new immigrants” are the problems they face.  The newer immigrants face the wall of education. The requirements for jobs have been getting stricter and stricter. Although the immigrants at the beginning of the 20^th century were fairly uneducated, the society did not require for them to have high degree of education. Finally, the later immigrants enter “a more culturally relaxed, multicultural, and perhaps less prejudiced society”. Although there have been anti-immigrant acts, the immigrants weren’t greatly affected by it and eventually, the practice of holding dual-citizenship became popular.

What’s really distinct about the second wave of “new immigrants” is the diversity of race. The older immigrants were able to assimilate to the American society eventually. After a certain point, they were considered “white”. The newer wave will have harder time assimilating into the mainstream society because of the color of their skin.

Gerstle and Mollenkopf discuss the two great waves of immigration to the United States; namely the great European immigration of the late 19^th to early 20^th century, and the more recent influx of immigrants from Latin America and Asia from the mid 20^th century through the present. They discuss the fact that there is currently a great disparity between studies of the first wave and the second. They propose that to truly understand these movements, lessons from both eras must be applied.

In terms of similarities, in both cases certain “gateway” cities became hubs for immigrants. New groups formed by ethnic similarities appeared in within the older system of division of labor. Immigrants from both eras faced discrimination, from groups that feared their presence but paradoxically exploited them for political and economic reasons.

There were also stark differences, mostly in their respective historical contexts. The first wave of immigration was sustained by the final fruits of the industrial revolution. New technologies developed heavy industry and manufacturing as a major part of the economy. The resulting economic growth created plenty of opportunity for advancement. The second wave on the other hand arrived in a period of economic flux and uncertainty. The lack of education, relative to natives, amongst many of these immigrants makes it difficult for advancement similar to that of the previous wave.

In The Political Incorporation of Immigrant, Then and Now, Gary Gerstle and John Mollenkopf talk about the development of immigrant participation in politics and the two waves of immigrants that came to the United States of America.  The first wave, which lasted from the 1880s to the 1930s, consisted of mainly Europeans.  Most immigrants came from countries of Eastern Europe, like Italy, Germany, and Ireland.  The second wave consisted of Latinos, Asians and Caribbeans during the 1900s to present day.  With the new wave of immigrants coming to the United States came the inevitable rise in immigrants in blue collar jobs.  With the lack of skill and knowledge of how the job market worked in America, immigrants were a great source of cheap labor for manufacturers and other low-skilled jobs.  Both waves of immigrants also settled in city areas with other immigrants, like New York City.  Since immigrants seemed to gravitate towards other cultures similar to theirs, the authors point out how the first wave of European immigrants became more assimilated into American culture, or “white” culture.  As time passed by, Europeans became accepted as part of the American culture.   Because the earlier wave of immigrants related more to “white”culture, it makes sense that immigrant participation in politics has declined.  The newer wave of immigrants do not feel as assimilated as the earlier wave, so they are not as inclined to participate in political activities.  Of course, there are the few immigrants who are interested in politics and making themselves heard.  The issues of immigrants are being made more and more known, even though participation is lower than it should be.

The Political Incorporation of Immigrants, Then and Now by Gary Gerstle and John Mollenkopf discuss two different time periods in U.S. history that immigration was especially prevalent. The first of which dates from 1880-1930. This first wave was made up of Europeans (England, Ireland, German, etc.) who migrated to the United States. Upon arriving these immigrants immediately took to blue collared jobs and created their lives around these jobs. The second wave was made up of Latin Americans and other “non whites” (Latino, Asians, Caribbean). Few of these new immigrants started in blue collared jobs. We still see second wave immigration to this day with a large number of Asian and Latino immigrants.

The authors point out some of the differences between the first wave and the second wave of immigrants. One of these differences is the first wave had a greater opportunity to slowly assimilate with the other whites around them. For the second wave, it is increasingly more difficult to assimilate into “white” culture because with such a high concentration of diversity, it is clear that immigrants tend to stick with people of similar backgrounds.

As time has passed, immigrants are taking less and less of a role in politics. The first wave of immigrants seemed to take a more active approach to politics in voicing their opinions and willing to fight. The second wave of immigrants typically takes a backseat in politics. I know from experience that my parents, who are both immigrants, often question whether there is any point in voting. They constantly speak about how “this is a white man’s world” and despite arguing with them, they have already made up their minds. To them, the country will run with or without them so they believe there is no real need for them to voice their opinions because they believe that as a minority immigrant, there opinions will not be heard.

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. 

Nik Theodore and Nina Martin share several important ideas in “Migrant Civil Society: New Voices in the Struggle Over Community Development.” The one thing that stood out to me is the role played my nonprofit organizations to fill the void left by the US Government post 9/11 in policies regarding immigrants in the United States. Theodore and Martin mention how September 11 terrorist attacks, the 2001 recession, the fiscal crisis in state government, and the alleged challenge to state sovereignty that has been brought on by large-scale undocumented migration, has led to the withdrawal of many public services that migrants need in the US. This is why nonprofit organizations have stepped in to fill the void, to allow migrants to get the help they need to live a proper life. In a survey done on 182 different nonprofits showed that 133 organizations reported to have 30% or more of their clients be foreign born migrants. These migrants came  from various backgrounds such as: Mexicans, Koreans, Chinese, Russians, Poles, Indians, and Central American migrants. Interestingly enough the greatest problem migrant families face (56%) is the language barrier and substandard employment issues, as discussed numerous times in class. [Need for health and social services (36%), immigration-related issues (33%) such as family reunification and gaining citizenship, and access to quality affordable housing (16%) (Figure 1). Virtually every organization interviewed is engaged in raising awareness of one or more of these social problems. In Chicago, these advocacy efforts center on the following issues: immigrant rights (29%), access to health and social services (21%), access to quality affordable housing (14%), and access to education (14%)]

It is truly interesting to see the various obstacles immigrants in America faces, and it’s hard to envision where they would be without the lobbying of nonprofit organization looking out for their well-being.

I found this article to be very interesting because it made some claims that seem to go against what I had believed before reading it. Sometimes I wished Gerstle and Mollenkopf would give more reasoning to their claims or to the claims of the authors they discuss.

One idea that baffled me was Gleason’s idea of the American civic culture before the civil rights movement in his book “Sea Chnage in the Civic Culture of the 1960s”. This culture seems like the American Dream, but I don’t think people lost the American dream after the civil rights movement. If people no longer had dreams of equality, liberty, and individual opportunity when in America after the civil rights movement began, why would people bother coming to America? Also, during the time that this civic culture existed, the 1925 quotas were in place. I would think that these quotas would detract from this civic culture that Gleason talks about because it does not seem that the United States was very welcoming to immigrants before the Hart-Cellar Act. I wish Gerstle and Mollenkopf dove further into Gleason’s argument, so his argument made sense considering the laws that were in place.

Another interesting idea that I wish had been explained further is idea that Tyack discusses of schools emphasizing different ideas during different time periods in America. The first few time periods discussed make perfect sense. When the country was first born, teachers tried to get students to accept a republican form of government. Then when more ethnicities were introduced to the country, teachers tried to create a common culture and then when there were huge surges of immigrants teachers tried to Americanize the immigrant children. In the fourth wave there were progressive teachers who taught about different types of tolerance. I am confused on why Tyack believes that now teachers use school as “a form of human capital”, so students are taught more, so they can make money. What is specific about this current time period that is causing teachers to focus more on money rather than on creating good American citizens? Is it because immigration has been occurring for so long?

In the article, The Political Incorporation of Immigrants, Then and Now, Gary Gerstle and John Mollenkopf focus on two waves of immigration: one in from late 1880s to early 1930s and the second one, from mid 1900s to present day. In the earlier wave of immigration, most immigrants originated from Europe (mostly from Italy, Russia, Poland, Austria Hungary, Germany) and were basically “swept into” the blue-collar jobs (such as manufacturing) in America. According to the article, these immigrants’ children, who were born in the United States, overcame the economic crises of the Great Depression and the shaky political environment and eventually benefitted from the post World War II boom. The authors make a very interesting point by saying that the “line” between white protestants and the white Jewish or Catholics was blurred. And therefore, they were all now considered to be “white”.

The new “new immigrants” (as the authors call them) were part of the second wave of immigration and were labeled as “non whites”. Both the immigrants from the late 1880s and the new “new immigrants” settled in major cities like New York and gave that ethnic character to neighborhoods where a certain ethnic group was dominant. But the authors make the distinction that these new “new immigrants” were also highly professional and they did not enter the blue-collar job market unlike their predecessors. Instead, the more recent immigrants today are similar to the immigrants of the late 1880s and early 1900s due to their lack of English language skills and their lack of involvement in highly professional fields.

Also, according to the authors, the new “new immigrants” entered a more relaxed and multi-cultural society when compared to the new immigrants of the late 1800s and early 1900s. This relaxed and accepting environment was established partly due to the struggles of blacks against institutionalized discrimination. They also point out that America is more open to dual citizenship and the incoming of professional immigrants today than it was back in the early 1900s. A few weeks ago, in Michael Maly’s work, we read about the “Action Jackson” campaign and how it had an anti-immigrant agenda because they mostly targeted immigrant businesses in Jackson Heights. The authors even mention that the political environment did become very hostile towards immigrants in the mid-1990s. So although it is true that today’s society is a lot more diverse, this does not necessarily mean that the natives were “relaxed” about the non-white immigration into their neighborhood and easily accepted these new “new” immigrants into their society.

Gary Gerstle and John Mollenkopf’s “The Political Incorporation of Immigrants, Then and Now” studies the similarities and differences between two waves of immigration (1880-1930 and post-1965 to present), and how, in turn, each wave has interacted with civil society and the political sphere.

What most caught my attention was Gerstle and Mollenkopf’s commentary on Laurie Olsen’s essay, which honed in on the role of the education system in the U.S., and how, as a formal government institution, schools influence how and to what extent immigrant children, or the U.S.-born children of immigrants, are accepted by society. Olsen based her study on students in a California high school in the 1990s, and aimed to get the most accurate account of the students experience by approaching the students themselves. Olsen made some interesting observations, the most prominent being that “civic education” has, according to student experience, “become synonymous with learning English.” Taking this into consideration, it appears that assimilation to American society, is, first and foremost, based on the ability to speak English.

Other aspects of “civic education, [which include] learning about democracy, opportunity, or civic rights or duties” are put on the back-burner, if taught at all. Instead, students, both consciously and unconsciously, are subject to racial tensions that fill the halls, galvanizing students into aligning themselves with a specific racial category. This discourages unity and assimilation and, instead, gives students the impression that they can only relate to those with the same racial background as them.

From the beginning, America has been a country of immigrants. Gary Gerstle and John Mollenkopf, in their article The Political Incorporation of Immigrants, Then and Now, critically analyze the transformation of immigrants as well as their involvement in politics. The authors note two specific eras of immigrants that share similar characteristics but are also different on some basic levels. The changes over the past century have lead to a transformation as to how immigrants and their progeny contribute to their community and their political involvement.

Gerstle and Mollenkopf describe what they call old immigrants and new immigrants, the former being mostly from Eastern Europe while the latter being mostly from Latin American countries. They bear many similarities, among them antagonism from native people and in the labor force. An interesting point the authors make was regarding the respective career paths of the two types of immigrants. Old immigrants became involved in specific work that, as a result, became ethnically distinctive, while new immigrants pursued jobs that involved unskilled labor. The two types of immigrants did not interact because of the obvious time gap and also because by the time new Latino immigrants came, the old immigrants already appeared less distinctive in society. As later noted, they had sacrificed their ethnic distinctiveness; they gained more acceptance into society but lost claims to their uniqueness. Immigrants may have felt that sending their children to public schools would smoothly incorporate them into society, but in reality they still had to deal with the reality of having a unique identity. Gerstle and Mollenkopf assert that now that Americans are more liberal, they are less hostile to new immigrants than they were to old ones. I disagree with this claim because there is still native-immigrant fighting, the only difference being that there is more government involvement toward promoting tolerance.

The immigrants themselves are not the ones who mostly take a role in politics and advocate for equality rights, but rather it is the second generation that feels responsible for doing this. They are involved in American politics, but some new immigrants are as involved in US events as they are in their native country. Those from the Dominican Republic, for example, have dual citizenship and can vote in both America and in the Dominican Republic. Such a powerful involvement with their homeland, Gerstle and Mollenkopf note, is actually more common in new immigrants than old immigrants. Upon reading this, I assumed that the connection must surely have been facilitated by the advent of technology, and not because of a deeper connection with their homeland. A question that popped into my head was: if email existed a century ago, would America’s economic relationship with various Eastern European countries be much stronger?