Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
Could Tom Tancredo Have Been... Wrong?
The Washington Post reports on a new study revealing the quicker and quicker adaptation of immigrants to American norms.
In general, the longer an immigrant lives in the United States, the more characteristics of native citizens he or she tends to take on, said Jacob L. Vigdor, a professor at Duke University and author of the study. During periods of intense immigration, such as from 1870 to 1920, or during the immigration wave that began in the 1970s, new arrivals tend to drag down the average assimilation index of the foreign-born population as a whole.
The report found, however, that the speed with which new arrivals take on native-born traits has increased since the 1990s. As a result, even though the foreign population doubled during that period, the newcomers did not drive down the overall assimilation index of the foreign-born population. Instead, it held relatively steady from 1990 to 2006.
"This is something unprecedented in U.S. history," Vigdor said. "It shows that the nation's capacity to assimilate new immigrants is strong."
What left-wing, Soros-and-la-Raza-funded "think tank" belched this out, anyway?
The study, sponsored by the Manhattan Institute...
Oh. Well.
Obviously, a large school of restrictionists believe in restriction
as a means of assimiliation. This is an old Peter Brimelow hobby
horse: The immigration waves before the 1920s were so successful
because the "time out" between then and the 1965 Immigration Act
stopped flooding cities with new arrivals who would have retarded
the assimiliation of the old arrivals. But if assimiliation is
quickening without a strategic pause...
|5.13.08 @ 10:35AM|#
This is what I've been saying on immigration threads for
years!
The reason people encounter immigrants with bad English skills so
often is because those immigrants are out there in the mainstream
economy and society, learning English by using it every day to
interact with native English speakers - as opposed to the old days,
when immigrants could live, shop, and work entirely within ethnic
enclaves where everyone spoke the old tongue.
Score one for the libertarians; the openness of America's society
and economy makes it an astoundingly efficient assimilation
machine.
|5.13.08 @ 10:35AM|#
Can we please stop pretending that there was anything positive about the mass immigration of Catholics and Jews to the US in the 19th century? The know nothings were right. The Irish, Jews and Italians imported their socialist statist ideas, their corruption, their criminal gangs. We're still dealing with that awful legacy. Look at the cesspools of New Jersey or Eastern Masschusetts if you want to see the damage 19th century immigration has wrought.
Abdul|5.13.08 @ 10:36AM|#
We soften up those forreigners with our globalism, lure 'em in
with our shiny economy, and assimilate 'em with our name-brand
ketchups.
Who can resist? Who would want to?
|5.13.08 @ 10:37AM|#
Could?
It takes a scholar to prove that fresh-off-the-boat immigrants
don't usually assimilate, but their kids do? Do these schmucks
never go to a suburban shopping mall near a major city on a
Saturday afternoon?
|5.13.08 @ 10:44AM|#
This result isn't surprising if you think about it. The reason is that today's immigrants, for the most part, are already half assimilated when they get here. Even a Mexican campesino or Chinese peasant knows a lot more about the US, and more English, than my semi-literate Italian great grandfather did, and culturally the leap they are making is much smaller. Even poor people in the 3rd world are at least acquainted with computers, electricity, cars, paper money, fast food, etc. It's not the culture shock you had 120 years ago coming on a tramp steamer from a dirt poor Ukrainian Shtetl where you'd known maybe 100 people your entire life and being dropped in Manhattan. So thank Hollywood and McDonald's if the new crop of immigrants becomes American at a record pace.
the devil|5.13.08 @ 10:48AM|#
But if assimiliation is quickening without a strategic
pause...
then keep bringing 'em in! It's not like Southern California is
overcrowded or anything...
BakedPenguin|5.13.08 @ 10:50AM|#
How you gonna keep 'em down on the español once they seen cable TV?
dhex|5.13.08 @ 10:54AM|#
anxiously awaiting lonewacko's post about the ManhattanInstitute and the MexicanGovernment.
Jim|5.13.08 @ 11:05AM|#
The second paragraph of the article: "Modern-day immigrants
arrive with substantially lower levels of English ability and
earning power than those who entered during the last great
immigration wave at the turn of the 20th century. The gap between
today's foreign-born and native populations remains far wider than
it was in the early 1900s and is particularly large in the case of
Mexican immigrants, the report said."
Weigel: hardly a blanket endorsement of your spin
perspective.
Vanya: See above. The article clearly states lower levels of
English proficiency than in 1900 immigrants.
It appears to me that both of you largely read the headline and
nothing else. The rest of the article clearly elaborates on the
paragraph above. I would argue the main point of the article is:
current immigrants assimilate at a faster rate but start at such a
low level of English and economic proficiency compared to
immigrants of 100 years ago, that the gap between immigrant and
native born is much larger than at any previous point in American
history.
This is not even remotely a pro immigration or assimilation
article. If anything it is extremely anti illegal immigration and
you spin this as pro?
|5.13.08 @ 11:06AM|#
If you want to learn the truth about TomTancredo and his
allegiance with BigMysticism, ask him questions like
these, upload them to VideoSharingSites, and soon the whole
world will know the truth about TomTancredo and his allegiance with
the KnowNothings.
For the dumber BobBarr supporters, I recommend you re-read
JohnBull's excellent Work.
|5.13.08 @ 11:08AM|#
The reason people encounter immigrants with bad English
skills so often is because those immigrants are out there in the
mainstream economy and society, learning English by using it every
day to interact with native English speakers - as opposed to the
old days, when immigrants could live, shop, and work entirely
within ethnic enclaves where everyone spoke the old
tongue.
I hate that mentality of "why don't they just learn english?"
It's as if they expect them to enter the country and learn the
language immediately, when in reality it takes a while, even if
you're taking classes.
At the same time, even I get frustrated a lot trying to communicate
with my Spanish-speaking co-workers. But shit, it's not a fucking
abomination of our country's flag if they refuse to learn the
language.
|5.13.08 @ 11:09AM|#
From the article, conveniently quoted in the blog post: As a
result, even though the foreign population doubled during that
period, the newcomers did not drive down the overall
assimilation index of the foreign-born
population.
From Jim: would argue the main point of the article is: current
immigrants assimilate at a faster rate but start at such a low
level of English and economic proficiency compared to immigrants of
100 years ago, that the gap between immigrant and native
born is much larger than at any previous point in American
history.
So, no.
scott|5.13.08 @ 11:14AM|#
Being pro immigration I was curious about the details. Having
found this I don't think the spin in the original blog post is
inaccurate.
http://nysun.com/news/assimilation-factor
Linked article authored by the vice president for Policy Research
at the Manhattan Institute.
Episiarch|5.13.08 @ 11:20AM|#
I'd really like to hear LoneWacko's opinions on the
IrishCatholicMenace (PapalArmy!) and the GreasballWOPs.
I just had a funny image of LoneWacko smacking a plate of spaghetti
from in front of himself because it's "guido food" just like Russel
Crowe in Romper
Stomper.
|5.13.08 @ 11:23AM|#
Jim,
The article clearly states lower levels of English proficiency
than in 1900 immigrants.
That's very misleading. The article also states clearly that "one
of the top five origin countries was England, and close to 100
percent of them spoke English." English people have never really
been considered "immigrants" by your average American(see John
Bull's post above). Also I suspect a large number of the Irish who
came then were quite capable of speaking their mangled doggerel
English dialect. My Irish relatives came over pre-1900 and not a
manjack among them spoke Irish as far as I know. So really you need
to compare the Italian and Eastern European immigrants to todays
Latin American and Asian immigrants. Modern immigrants have the
benefits of television, a global entertainment culture, cell phones
and rapidly homogenizing cultural mores. They certainly know a lot
more about the US before they get here than Grandma Corleone or
Papa Yankelovich did when they set out for the land where the
streets were paved with gold.
|5.13.08 @ 11:34AM|#
I'm not anti-drug, I'm anti-illegal drugs! See, there's a
difference!
Freedom of movement, labor and contract can only be permitted once
we dismantle the welfare state...duh! You guys didn't know our
freedoms should be held hostage to the Welfare State?
Cosmotarians think they're doing libertarianism a favor by trying
to make it more globalistic, but everyone knows that most
libertarians are White Christian Males.
Jennifer|5.13.08 @ 11:43AM|#
I'm fine with slaves leaving their masters; they just need to do so within the boundaries prescribed by law.
|5.13.08 @ 11:48AM|#
I just don't want to interact with brown-skinned people unless they act completely "white" upon my first meeting them. Shows like Sesame Street and Maya and Miguel on PBS just prove that the Mexicans are trying to brainwash our children into liking corn tortillas and pronouncing Mexican words correctly!
jtuf|5.13.08 @ 11:52AM|#
I tend to be skeptical towards social science research. The indices in the study are vague, and so is the concept of assimilation. The Amish still hold on to many cultural traits from their Swiss ancestors. Cultural traits don't make someone American. The US Constitution makes someone American. Language and social preferences are small details compared strong union that document makes.
|5.13.08 @ 12:14PM|#
I saw Romper Stomper in the theater. With a bunch of
skins.
I gotta Netflix that. Thanks, Episiarch!
|5.13.08 @ 12:15PM|#
I'm not anti-speeding, just anti-illegal-speeding.
That's why we can't change the speed limit.
Wait...what?
D.A. Ridgely|5.13.08 @ 12:26PM|#
In general, the longer an immigrant lives in the United
States, the more characteristics of native citizens he or she tends
to take on.
Did the study take a look at how long on average before the
immigrant takes on the characteristic of bitching about new
immigrants?
Rhywun|5.13.08 @ 1:07PM|#
It's not like Southern California is overcrowded or
anything...
By world standards, it isn't. Not even remotely.
|5.13.08 @ 1:18PM|#
Did the study take a look at how long on average before the
immigrant takes on the characteristic of bitching about new
immigrants?
I once mediated a land dispute between two neighbors.
It took me three tries to understand that the Portugeuse guy was
complaining about the Asians.
"Dey shoulda go home!"
Orange Line Special|5.13.08 @ 1:55PM|#
I see the kids have already been here to help Reason burnish
their reputation as a site for intellectual discussion.
And, I see that Weigel has already offered the intellectually
dishonest coverage, failing to point out any of the many issues
with the study.
And, I see that Weigel has failed to look into who else the
ManhattanInstitute employs. Hint: I've written dozens of posts
about her and even discredited her in person.
No one should take Reason seriously, they're just "libertarians"
who constantly attempt to support corporate welfare.
|5.13.08 @ 2:11PM|#
Hint: I've written dozens of posts about her and even
discredited her in person.
Bigger hint: No. One. Cares.
|5.13.08 @ 2:17PM|#
I haven't read the study, but interestingly the Palm Beach Post,
on the strength of the same study, came away with exactly the
opposite evaluation of it's conclusions:
Immigrants less integrated than before, study finds.
Maybe somebody might want to read the fucking report itself, and
tell us what it actually says?
|5.13.08 @ 2:18PM|#
TAC has it right...
http://www.amconmag.com/blog/2008/05/13/weigel-spins-the-assimilation-issue/
Jim|5.13.08 @ 2:24PM|#
Sure they are improving at a higher rate. Big deal. The
assimilation rate seems higher but the article also states the
actual gap between native and immigrant is larger than it has ever
been. They are currently starting so far behind native born that a
fast rate of improving assimilation is irrelevant.
Would you rather have 50% of $1 or 5% of $100?
Vanya: I disagree. From the Library of Congress website: "Unlike
earlier immigrants, the majority of the newcomers after 1900 came
from non-English speaking European countries. The principal source
of immigrants was now southern and eastern Europe, especially
Italy, Poland, and Russia, countries quite different in culture and
language from the United States."
As you can see the vast majority of immigrants in the times being
discussed were NOT from English speaking countries. I don't think
I'm being unfair when I say you skimmed the blog post and then came
up with a theory you thought made sense based upon your quick and
incorrect read. 100 years ago the primary source of immigrants was
non English speaking countries and immigrants did not have the
benefits of, as you point out mass media and cellphones, yet the
gap between immigrant and native born is much higher today than it
was during the other big peak in immigration, 100 years ago.
My only point was you misunderstood or did not read the article and
so the basis for your argument was invalid.
|5.13.08 @ 2:39PM|#
Here's the amconmag link taking Weigel to task.
This is getting silly: all we have is bloggers putting their spin
on newspaper accounts of a study that apparently nobody has
actually read...
|5.13.08 @ 2:44PM|#
The report found, however, that the speed with which new arrivals take on native-born traits has increased since the 1990s.
Not having read the study, I wonder how much of this is
enhanced/created by technology. We are the Internet/cell
phone/txting generation and most immigrants are youthful, thereby
more willing to adopt newer conventions.
|5.13.08 @ 3:06PM|#
No Jim. I did read the article. Here, in more detail, is the
exact quote:
"Although new arrivals at the turn of the 20th century were
most likely to be eastern and southern Europeans, he said,
"one of the top five origin countries was England, and
close to 100 percent of them spoke English."
Now the article may be wrong, but I certainly read it
correctly.
Gilbert Martin|5.13.08 @ 3:08PM|#
"In general, the longer an immigrant lives in the United States,
the more characteristics of native citizens he or she tends to take
on"
Yeah - like an "entitlement" mentality and support for all the
related socialist programs and buying into the (racial) group
indentity politics that the leftists have stoked among the
pre-existing homegrown minority groups for decades.
|5.13.08 @ 3:14PM|#
Yeah - like an "entitlement" mentality and support for all
the related socialist programs and buying into the (racial) group
indentity politics that the leftists have stoked among the
pre-existing homegrown minority groups for decades.
As well as an "entitlement" mentality and support for all the
related socialist protectionist programs and buying
into the (racial native) group indentity politics that
the leftists, rightists, and moderates have stoked among the
pre-existing homegrown minority majority groups for
decades.
Orange Line Special|5.13.08 @ 3:45PM|#
The NYSun link posted above is from someone who works at the ManhattanInstitute, so presumably he's familiar with the study.
Jim|5.13.08 @ 4:09PM|#
Vanya: Please do your research. Look it up. See what the percentage is. In the top 5 means it could be number 5? Give it up. You spun an idea out of thin air and now you just can't admit there is no basis to your whole argument. The article says the opposite of what you were spinning. Secondly, if you knew much at all about immigration history, you would know that the overwhelming majority of immigrants during the time period described were not from English speaking countries. If you don't believe me, look it up. If you want to continue to argue it then come back with some facts rather than sound good theories conjured up from thin air.
|5.13.08 @ 4:16PM|#
Sure they are improving at a higher rate. Big deal. The
assimilation rate seems higher but the article also states the
actual gap between native and immigrant is larger than it has ever
been. They are currently starting so far behind native born that a
fast rate of improving assimilation is irrelevant.
No, Jim, that is not what the report says.
The report states that while more immigrants are coming here with a
larger cultural gap between them and the American mainstream, the
rate of assimilation has increased to the degree that, in the
aggregate, the population of immigrants in this country today is
more assimilated than ever before.
The actual gap you refer to is, in fact, smaller than ever before,
according to the study.
The rate of assimilation is not irrelevant, as it is that rate of
assimilation that has caused the gap between immigrants and
native-born Americans to be smaller than at any point in our
history. Even though they are, on average, starting off "further
behind," assimilation has advanced so much that this larger gap is
not just made up for, but overtaken.
Do you want to start out with $1 and earn $100 per day, or start
out with $5 and earn $10 per day?
|5.13.08 @ 4:33PM|#
but the article also states the actual gap between native
and immigrant is larger than it has ever been
It states that this is so for immigrants just stepping off the
boat.
However, the people who came here in the last week are only a tiny
fractions of the population described by the label "immigrants."
Most immigrants have been here for one, two, five, ten, thirty
years.
For the entire population of immigrants, they are closer to
mainstream America than has historically been the case, despite the
fact that they start our further behind in the aggregate.
Orange Line Special|5.13.08 @ 4:58PM|#
For the response to joe, read the links provided above. Needless to say, the situation is a whole lot worse than supporters of corporate welfare would have you believe.
Carter|5.13.08 @ 5:18PM|#
Mexico is the largest source of immigrants. According to the
Vigdor report which Weigel couldn't be bothered to read:
"Mexican immigrants experience very low rates of economic and civic
assimilation. Immigrants born in Mexico, particularly those living
and working in the United States illegally, lie at the heart of
many current debates over immigration policy. The assimilation
index shows that immigrants from Mexico are very distinct from the
native-born upon arrival and assimilate slowly over time. The slow
rates of economic and civic assimilation set Mexicans apart from
other immigrants, and may reflect the fact that the large numbers
of Mexican immigrants residing in the United States illegally have
few opportunities to advance themselves along these
dimensions."
The nature of Mexican assimilation is well established. As UCLA
professors Edward Telles and Vilma Ortiz have noted (in
Generations of Exclusion: Mexican Americans, Assimilation, and
Race):
"Linguistically, Mexican Americans assimilate into mainstream
America quite well-by the second generation, nearly all Mexican
Americans achieve English proficiency. In many domains, however,
the Mexican American story doesn't fit with traditional models of
assimilation. The majority of fourth generation Mexican Americans
continue to live in Hispanic neighborhoods, marry other Hispanics,
and think of themselves as Mexican. And while Mexican Americans
make financial strides from the first to the second generation,
economic progress halts at the second generation, and poverty rates
remain high for later generations. Similarly, educational
attainment peaks among second generation children of immigrants,
but declines for the third and fourth generations."
Native Americans|5.13.08 @ 5:26PM|#
Can we please stop pretending that there was anything
positive about the mass immigration of Catholics and Jews to the US
in the 19th century? The know nothings were right. The Irish, Jews
and Italians imported their socialist statist ideas, their
corruption, their criminal gangs. We're still dealing with that
awful legacy.
Can we please stop pretending that the was anything positive about
the mass immigration of the English, Spanish, and French of the
17th century? The Europeans imported their imperialism, diseases,
and slavery. We're still dealing with that awful legacy. And trust
me, WE'RE dealing with a hell of lot more crap than assholes like
John Bull.
M|5.13.08 @ 5:28PM|#
Say, did Professor Jacob L. Vigdor sign the "Duke Lacrosse players are all rapists letter"? If so, I don't give two fucks from Thursday what he has to say.
Carter|5.13.08 @ 5:28PM|#
Here are some more highlights:
"The assimilation index is low overall, and has been at a steady
low level since 1990. This 16-year period is unique, however, in
that it coupled a rapid increase in the immigrant population with
virtually no change in the composite assimilation index or its
components. Over the past few years, in fact, there has been some
evidence of an upward trend in assimilation. Rapid growth of the
immigrant population, which would tend to depress the assimilation
index on its own, was offset by stronger upward trends in
assimilation for immigrants remaining in the United States. These
strong upward trends are most obvious along economic and civic
dimensions. Cultural assimilation shows less evidence of increasing
strongly as immigrants spend more time in this country, except
among cohorts arriving within the past decade."
That doesn't sound so good. Neither does this:
"Vietnamese immigrants, taken as a whole, are well on track to be
considered successful. Mexican immigrants, by contrast, display
much more worrisome patterns." Or this:
"children of Mexican immigrants have had below-average
assimilation-index values for the entire period since 1980."
Or this:
"young immigrants born outside of Mexico are less likely to be
incarcerated or otherwise institutionalized than natives in the
same age group. Among those aged 12-24, the rate in the immigrant
population is 1.0%, while in the native-born population it is 1.4%.
Thus, the assimilation index treats institutionalization as a
distinctively native characteristic. Mexican immigrants, however,
have an institutionalization rate of 1.8%."
Or this conclusion:
"As seen in this brief analysis, immigrants born in Mexico and most
immigrants groups born elsewhere prove to be on a separate
trajectory."
|5.13.08 @ 5:34PM|#
But shit, it's not a fucking abomination of our country's
flag if they refuse to learn the language.
In Detroit, we have a century old catholic church that still
celebrates mass in German.* People find it cute, not
threatening.
* Not every mass, just once on days of obligation.
|5.13.08 @ 5:35PM|#
"By world standards, it isn't. Not even remotely."
The world is a pretty shitty standard.
|5.13.08 @ 5:39PM|#
...everyone knows that most libertarians are White Christian
Males.
And I thought Libertarians were all godless, dope smoking atheists.
I want my money back!
|5.13.08 @ 5:39PM|#
The NYSun link posted above is from someone who works at the
ManhattanInstitute, so presumably he's familiar with the
study.
Familiar in what way? Does he have the background in any relevant
subject to opine on the matter?
The study was from a guy at Duke. MI may have commissioned it, but
that doesn't imply that a janitor who works there has any
particular insight into the study.
|5.13.08 @ 5:43PM|#
In Detroit, we have a century old catholic church that still
celebrates mass in German.
I thought Vatican II made it so mass is always said in English.
Otherwise, what was the point of it?
Carter|5.13.08 @ 5:56PM|#
So should we have an immigration pause? Based on Vigdor's report, the answer is yes. As he bserves, "immigrants originating in different nations have also had very different experiences. Mexican immigrants, who find themselves at the center of current policy debates, show evidence of assimilating very slowly in comparison with other contemporary immigrant groups." Since Mexicans arrive in far higher numbers than other groups, reducing the number of Mexican immigrants might go a long way to helping them assimilate better.
|5.13.08 @ 6:15PM|#
So should we have an immigration pause? Based on Vigdor's
report, the answer is yes.
Based on Vigdor's report and a belief that his findings on
assimilation trump every other concern one might have.
|5.13.08 @ 7:32PM|#
Tancredo, et al have been wrong all along. Doesn't matter - the Lonewackos of this world will continue to hear what they want to hear...
RonL|5.14.08 @ 10:49PM|#
Sorry, but it seems no one here has the intellectually curiosity
to read the report.
http://www.manhattan-institute.org/html/cr_53.htm
After collapsing from 1964 until 1983, the Assimilation index has
only marginally decreased since 1984.
The Washington Post reporter, N.C. Aizenman, bopth lied and spun,
and a hack for the open borders fanatics at Reson spread the
lie.
I'm shocked.
|5.15.08 @ 7:26AM|#
My intellectual curiosity impugned, I disregarded my earlier
presumption that such assimilation metrics are not particularly
important and read the report. I now have even more reason to
believe that such assimilation metrics are not particularly
important.
Don't get me wrong: It looks like an enjoyable statistical
exercise, and there may be interesting subsets of data and results
involved. But the grand metrics should not have any but the most
marginal place in the immigration debate.
Suffice it to say that a metric that finds India to be the second
least assimilated country of origin after Mexico does not offer
much insight into whether immigration is good or bad for the
US.
|5.15.08 @ 7:30AM|#
Incidentally, because the assimilation metrics have so little relevance to any normative measure of goodness, and because those metrics bend like reeds before the particular characteristics of the immigrants du jour, evidence for pretty much every conclusion that has been mentioned in the original posting and on this thread can be found in the article.
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245