Immigrants in America Are Doing Well

The salad in a melting pot

The tragedy in Norway reminds us that Europe doesn’t know how to live with immigrants. Immigrants in America, despite some issues, stimulate the country’s vitality.

Immigrants in America don’t set cars on fire like the Arabs in the Parisian banlieux. They don’t live in ethnic ghettos like the Turks in Berlin. Unlike in England, Islamic extremists are hard to find among Muslims in New York or Detroit. There is no feeling in the United States that the immigrants are a time bomb, unlike in Europe, where they feel like second-class citizens. Local politicians fighting against illegal immigrants in Arizona is not the same as anti-immigrant parties in France, the Netherlands or Finland. The immigrants in America assimilate much better, and they make the country younger, unlike in the aging Europe.

The immigrants from Europe, who came in waves in the second half of the 19th century, have assimilated at a different pace, but eventually with success. The fears about farmers from Ireland, Eastern and Western Europe didn’t come true. In this American melting pot, their kids became true Americans, no worse than the WASPs, the descendants of the Founding Fathers.

The flow of immigrants from the Third World starting in the 1960s caused fears that America may not be able to absorb them. The multiculturalism theory born at the same time as the movement for equal rights for blacks and Native Americans became a response to the incoming wave of immigrants and an alternative to the idea of a melting pot. Its supporters promoted a vision of the U.S. as a multi-cultural salad, a mosaic of ethnic groups preserving their own identity and culture. The supporters of a traditional model of integration warned against America’s balkanization. The fears proved to be untrue. Migrants from the poor South assimilated with issues, but they were similar to those from Europe.

Unlike in Europe, the American government doesn’t do much for the assimilation of immigrants and it doesn’t have to. America, a nation joined by the idea of freedom, not blood, are open to immigrants and accept them; they take them as individuals and not ethnic group members. There are prejudices, ethnic jokes and social barriers in the higher levels of the social hierarchy, but in business and neighborhoods they are treated as everyone else, unless they prove to be a slob or unpleasantly arrogant.

Another factor of this spontaneous assimilation is a specific character of the American economy. A flexible ease in hiring and firing employees and enormous training possibilities are favorable to foreigners as well. Judging by the increasing number of managers with exotic names, the corporate glass ceiling is much thinner than in Europe. Besides social vertical mobility there is also a spatial dimension thanks to the ease in finding an apartment. In the suburbs of Washington there are neighborhoods like Manassas, fully developed with semi-detached houses inhabited by bricklayers, carpenters and roofers from Mexico, El Salvador and Guatemala. In the U.S. everyone can — even should — have their own house, so banks will grant mortgages to them as well.

There are now thousands of Hispanics in Manassas and other cities leaving houses that are being repossessed by banks for absent payments. The enormous capacity for immigrants to find a new home in the U.S. keeps shrinking due to America’s economic problems. That’s why any activities in favor of assimilation become even more important. It is not the federal government handling it in the U.S., but rather local governments, charitable organizations, churches and immigrant self-help organizations, especially in cities like New York.

The residents of the New York metropolis speak 170 languages and 3.7 million New Yorkers (47.8 percent) use a language other than English in their homes. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, 36 percent of the 8 million metropolitan residents were born abroad, and another 20 percent are their children. Mayor Bloomberg emphasizes the support for these immigrants. It is in the city’s interest to assimilate them, train them and teach them English. “Immigrants are the lifeblood of our city,” said Fatima Shama, Commissioner at the Mayor’s Office of Immigrant Affairs, which was established in 2004. She is responsible for propagating programs explaining their new environment to immigrants and involving them in the city’s economic, cultural and civic life.

New York City Council dedicates several million dollars each year for free English lessons, legal advice and classes preparing immigrants for the citizenship tests, in which they learn about U.S. history and the political system. In Manhattan, there is the International Center where any foreigner, after paying a small fee, can enroll in open conversations led by American volunteers. This organization distributes reduced price tickets for concerts and plays. There are common dinners organized in Manhattan restaurants on holidays. “Our mission is to help in cultural assimilation,”* says Doreen Rizopoulos, Executive Director at the International Center.

New York cares about the immigrants’ civic integration too: “We distribute information on what’s is happening here and what rights they have,”* said Thanu Yakupitiyage from the New York Immigration Coalition, the association of approximately 200 New York organizations. “Sometimes they already are citizens but don’t even know they can vote.”* The immigrant groups can later lobby politicians. However, activists emphasize that it is not so easy when minorities coming from totalitarian countries or places where the politicians are corrupt, are simply biased against politics.

What probably enables immigrant assimilation most are especially strong antidiscrimination rights in the U.S. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 created in reference to blacks and prohibiting racial discrimination was expanded to hold up against bad treatment of foreigners. The Civil Rights Act of 1968 prohibits discrimination concerning the sale, rental, and financing of housing based on race, religion, national origin, and further acts prohibit discrimination in employment, school and university admissions.

They are taken seriously and consistently executed. Courts deal with actions against discrimination of immigrants on a regular basis and accept any data that might prove it. Immigrants from the groups considered disadvantaged — mostly Hispanics and Africans, take advantage of affirmative action, that is, preference in employment, university admissions and government contract assignments. Affirmative action was introduced to enhance blacks’ opportunities, but they help immigrants as well.

A poor command of English cannot be a pretext for worse treatment. In 2000, President Clinton issued an ordinance obligating governmental institutions to assure the same access to federal benefits and services for people not speaking English as for other legal residents. Immigrants are therefore granted free translators in courts and public offices. The ordinance also prohibits language discrimination in the private sector. Employers are not allowed to expect the employees to speak English better than it is necessary to perform their duties.

Again New York sets a good example here. The city provides immigrants with translators and leaflets in different languages in the public offices. The education department currently has to translate the document into 10 different languages so that immigrant parents can fully participate in their child’s education process. There are meetings in ethnic languages, so that school representatives can talk to the parents easily in their native tongue. City government offer an information and services 311 phone number, through which citizens can get connected with city agencies, file complaints, get information on the city’s functioning, and be connected with translators to assist if necessary. The city brags it can provide a translator in any of the 170 languages New Yorkers speak.

Many Americans think things have gone too far: Immigrants don’t care about learning English anymore. It’s not just about the employees at Chinese laundry places with whom it is impossible to communicate. In the 1960’s when multiculturalism was born, the bilingual teaching programs were introduced in the schools so that children of immigrants had all of the classes in their native language. It was supposed to help immigrants to assimilate in the new country, contributing mainly to Hispanic immigrants and poor farmers for whom the U.S. was a shock.

It turned out to be a mistake as the program only deepened the cultural isolation of Hispanic immigrants. In the 1990’s they started rebelling against this system, boycotting schools where Spanish was the official and mandatory language. The majority voted for cancelling bilingual programs in a referendum in California. Other states followed. Bilingual programs were replaced with intensive English education programs. Now, bilingual teaching in 12 states only means the possibility to study your ancestors’ language if you so choose.

The changes are slow, as multiculturalism advocates treat it as the main front in the fight against the melting pot. They accuse supporters of intensive English teaching programs of discrimination and trying to destroy the ethnic identity of immigrants. On the other hand, the promoters of general Americanization see the language as the main instrument of immigrants’ emotional attachment to America. Who is right?

Orthodox followers of multiculturalism should be convinced by reasonable arguments. A hundred years ago in an economy based on traditional industry, immigrants could be successful in their ethnic enclaves without speaking English. They could partially exist like in the age of ethnic TV and radio. No command of the language now, however, constitutes the impassable barrier into the middle class in an economy based on highly qualified services in a high technology industry.

Authors writing about Americanization issues think mostly about Hispanics. Aside from Cubans, they are mostly poor, often illiterate peasants who become manual laborers and do not attend school in America. Even their children born in the U.S. are worse students than their American colleagues. According to University of Berkeley research, the differences in cognitive capabilities of Hispanic and American children (both white and black) appear as soon as three years old and only increase with time. Researchers blame the poverty culture and underestimation of knowledge in raising children. Bad school results close doors to good universities, and so to the middle class as well. As a result, Hispanics remain at lower income levels and social ranks, together with blacks and Native Americans.

According to experts, Hispanics do not assimilate well and they will probably never become Americans. Such a thesis was stated in the book “Who We are: The Challenges to America’s National Identity” by the late political scientist Samuel Huntington, the author of “The Clash of the Civilizations.” He thinks such a confrontation takes place in the U.S. as well: It is Anglo-Saxon culture, which served as a basis for America, versus Hispanic culture, with which the immigrants from the South feel comfortable and don’t intend to change.

Huntington sees it as a threat to the country’s cohesion. “The single most immediate and most serious challenge to America’s traditional identity comes from the immense and continuing immigration from Latin America, especially from Mexico,” he said. Conservative commentators such as Michelle Malkin warn of Hispanics heading toward a reconquista, reclaiming Southwestern states of the U.S. formerly belonging to Mexico. Demographic conquest is supposed to be an instrument — like a rising birthrate and invasion of the mostly illegal immigrants, thanks to which Hispanics will constitute a majority in California and neighboring states by the mid 21st century. Latino-phobes point to demonstrations defending immigrant rights, where Mexican flags appeared alongside banners calling for reclaiming “stolen” California.

Such trends are surely marginal. Sociologists do not interpret Hispanic assimilation issues in an apocalyptic way. Yes, many immigrants don’t learn enough English, but their children do — 90 percent of second-generation immigrants speak English. They live in ethnic ghettos, but are hardworking and resourceful; the number of private companies established by Hispanics increases three times as fast as the average. Hispanic women from the second generation go to college in the same proportion as Caucasian Americans. The experts claim that problems with Hispanics are the same as those with peasant immigrants from the south of Italy, who assimilated slowly, but whose descendants now among America’s elite.

On the opposite end of the spectrum are Asians, regarded as a model group for others. This largely diversified group, consisting of large numbers of Chinese, Filipino, Korean, Pakistani and Hindi minorities, shines in schools and universities, especially scientific and technical ones. Of the entire population, the ratio of Asians in universities is higher than that of Caucasians. They also gain doctorates more often, and their incomes are above average. Asian immigrants end up in prison less often, rarely divorce and seldom take advantage of social welfare. They are a large motor for the American economy, as their companies are among the fastest in creating jobs, not only in Chinese laundries or Korean vegetable stores, but in Silicon Valley and on Wall Street as well.

Asians achieve all of this without affirmative action and in spite of claims of a glass ceiling. Asian “workaholism” brings results (just as puritan work and a mentality of saving for the future used to) alongside a Confucian ethos — with its worship of knowledge and respect for elders and a social hierarchy — that proves to be a shield against erosion of the family in the new America setting. Civic passiveness was once the Asian Achilles’ heel, but this is changing: Chinese-Americans such as Gary Locke and Stephen Chu are members of Obama’s cabinet and two Hindi, Bobby Jindal and Nicki Haley are governors of Louisiana and North Carolina, respectively, and Republican Party newcomers. As long as the Hispanics’ road to assimilation is compared to that of Italians from Sicily, Asians seem to follow the quick assimilation model of American Jews.

In research and sociopolitical journalism Muslims are referred to separately, as the religious distinction proves to be more important than the ethnic. Most incoming Muslims come from the Indian subcontinent, primarily India and Pakistan. Therefore, they can be compared with their fellow believers in the United Kingdom and other immigrants from Southeast Asia.

American Muslims are much better educated than the average American resident: 59 percent graduated from college while the overall national statistic amounts to only 27 percent. This is quite the opposite in the United Kingdom, where the percentage of Muslims with a higher degree is lower than that of the general population. Muslims in the America are wealthier than other groups of people ($60,000 versus $50,000 per year in income), while the average income of their British counterparts constitutes only 68 percent of the average income. They are also becoming more active politically, which shows that they assimilate much better than the Muslims in Europe, who live off of social benefits on society’s dollar.

But it is not all that easy. Until recently, Muslims in the U.S. tried to assimilate quickly. Coming from autocratic countries, they appreciated the improvement of their financial situation as well as their liberty. Their Islam was usually moderate and limited to prayers and visits to the mosque, which would command respect in a religious America. This all changed after 9/11 and subsequent terror incidents in the past decade.

The increase in Islamophobia, as well as the infiltration of mosques and Muslim organizations by the FBI, made Muslims convinced that they were not welcome in America. Experts notice the symptoms of their increasing alienation. There is an increasing number of U.S.-born terrorists among the perpetrators of the latest attacks. Young women, whose mothers had taken off their Islamic head covers, are putting on hijabs.

Muslim outfits are not prohibited, but they often cause hostility and mistrust. An increasing number of young people enroll in religious schools, where they are told to be Muslims above everything else. This is a defense mechanism against outside pressure, but is also a delayed echo of Islamic fundamentalism. Muslim immigrants are Americanizing in economic terms, but are not assimilating culturally.

The last few years brought a storm related to illegal immigrants, the number of which is estimated at 10-12 million. As the Mexican war on the drug cartels moved abroad, indocumentados, among whom mobsters recruit their followers, started plaguing the residents of southern states. Frustrated with poor federal control over the border, Arizona passed a law allowing police to detain anyone suspected of being there illegally if they were stopped for another crime. Hispanic lobbyists challenged the law in court, accusing it of encouraging “racial profiling,” but it is supported by most Americans, not only in Arizona, but in other states as well. Indeed, some of them followed Arizona: In Georgia, a law was passed allowing the prosecution of those providing help to illegal immigrants.

But this campaign has a broader meaning: Many of its promoters want radical limitation of immigration in general. Polls confirm that the nativistic feelings stemming from the economic crisis and high unemployment rate are getting stronger. Waves of xenophobia and demands to stop illegal immigration keep coming back. If America manages to get out of its current issues, the anti-immigrant feelings will be gone.

Poles are affected by anti-immigrant feelings as well. Not those already perfectly assimilated Polish Americans, but potential immigrants and tourists from Poland who still have to apply for a visa. Our fellow countrymen’s trips to the U.S. have less and less to do with immigration for employment. If they want to work, they go to London rather than Chicago; it is closer and the salaries are better. People are leaving the wealthier Poland to meet their family in Buffalo, go shopping in New York (which is cheaper to do than in Warsaw), and to see the Grand Canyon. Poles are not plotting with Al-Queda and don’t join Mexican drug cartels, but the American Congress obviously fails to notice this and has not initiated any legal measures to allow Poles join the visa-free traffic. Only those legislators with a Polish electorate seem to be interested.

The deadlock could be resolved if the government suggested to Congress that such initiatives (e.g. the latest suggestion of changing the criteria to allow Poland to join the non-visa traffic group, which would make the process faster) be considered important. President Obama’s public support for the idea, which he declared during his visit to Poland, seems promising. The question is, however, if he would affirm it during his meetings with Congressional leaders, which could be decisive.

President Obama’s Employment Committee called for, among other initiatives, taking advantage of America’s tourism potential by slackening visa restrictions. Does the president know that more Poles are coming to America to visit the National Parks than to work on the roofs in Greenpoint?

*Editor’s note: The quotation, although accurately translated, could not be independently verified.