While I’m perseverating on immigration is anybody more wrong about immigration than Paul Krugman? Unless your immigrant ancestors came over here illegally, today’s immigrants aren’t “the same as our parents and grandparents were”. That probably should be grandparents and great-grandparents nowadays. I think that Dr. Krugman is dating himself.
Did your immigrant grandparents phone Mama in the Old Country on a daily basis? How many Romanian immigrants to the United States cast votes in the Romanian elections in 1910?
Additionally, most of the Ellis Island immigrants had pretty high skill levels relative to the U. S. economy of the times. That’s a dramatic departure from today when the overwhelming preponderance of immigrants enter the country as workers with low skills.
The U. S. has changed a lot and its needs have changed. Our laws need to change to suit the times but the dialogue continues to be dominated by Ellis Island romanticism.
It’s clearly an appeal to emotion, and on some level it works for me because the immigrant story is central in my family lore. It’s part of the gratitude for the opportunities we’ve had, and built on, that I want to extend to others.
But I’m capable of looking at it rationally too. To your point about skills, many of my relatives were skilled artisans and tradesmen (furniture making and masonry.) Others were not, but they came to the steel mills. They needed the economic opportunity (and escape from forced conscription by governments occupying their homeland) but the US also needed them.
Two more points:
1. The opposing argument, also somewhat emotional, would be to consider the effects on employment opportunity for African Americans. If we’re going to appeal to a sense if obligation to a group, they should be first in line.
2. I don’t agree with the concerns about ties to the homeland. My great grandparents retained strong Polish nationalist ties but simultaneously assimilated their families here. I suppose it can be a problem if immigrants do one without the other though.
But did they call Mama every night or continue to participate in Polish domestic politics? I sincerely doubt it. There is a qualitative difference in immigration today. The degree of embracing of the new home country just isn’t required any more.
There was no Polish domestic politics, but what they participated in was American foreign policy politics (helping to coordinate the Polish vote for Wilson in exchange for him to insert the support for Polish nationhood point into his 14 points.)
They didn’t phone Poland because of the technology, but my impression is that they kept in close contact (just one example, my paternal great grandfather died of a sudden heart attack days after the German invasion of Warsaw- we’re still trying to sort out exactly what he knew and when, but clearly it was related to his stress over his family’s situation there.)
In my experience, the children of immigrants from Central America or the Dominican Republic are as Americanized as everyone else. If they aren’t–they’re radically distinct, like the Hasidic or kids who are sent to school wearing veils.
The problem here is that half of the country hates this version of America as much as they do immigrants.
Also, are you really arguing that earlier immigrants would not have availed themselves of cheap long-distance or modern air travel to visit their home countries and the families they left behind? Because that is utterly insane.
Or that Southie in Boston wasn’t sending tons of money back to the IRA?
Agree with Modulo’s second comment. The technology is different, not the people. How could it be otherwise? It’s remarkable enough that people would leave the only home and family they’ve known behind, but they’re not going to cut the ties completely as though their family left behind no longer exists.
No, I’m arguing that because they didn’t have Skype, Facebook, or cheap air fares that their attitudes toward the new and old countries were different. And a century ago most families did, indeed, cut their ties with the family they left behind completely.
I think that insane is believing that circumstances don’t change behavior or attitude.
The changes in attitudes between now and a century ago are vast. For one thing we had a system of public education that had acculturation of immigrants as its express purpose. Such a thing would provoke outrage today.
I’m not saying it was right; I’m saying it was different.
I agree that the technology makes it easier and therefore closer ties remain, but I still think that it’s nearly universal both then and now for first generation immigrants to keep one foot in each country. To some extent that persists to the next generation and then it fades, and I only think it’s problematic if there isn’t a foot planted here (if a person comes for the benefits of America without wanting to really become American.)
That’s not a law of nature. It’s dictated by circumstances. Change the circumstances and behaviors change.
First off I disagree (I’d say it’s a law of human nature) and second, I don’t understand what you’d propose to change. Fact is that the technology now exists and is cheap enough for immigrants to communicate daily with their loved ones left behind. That’s not changeable.
Being a nation of immigrants, most of us have family immigration stories to tell. My dad came over here as a French-Canadian immigrant. My Greek father-in-law immigrated here via Canada. Both of these relatives, however, went through the proper channels to integrate themselves, eventually becoming legal citizens.
While one can emotionally empathize with the complexities and problems inherent in immigrating from one country to another, when the rule of law is not applied, or breaks down entirely, then everyone suffers. Laws give civilized structure to a country, much like a skeleton gives firm contours to the soft body tissues. Take these away, and collapse is likely to happen.
I also agree with Dave about the influences of modern technology changing behavior, as it’s common usage serves to strengthen home ties more, making adaptability and integration into a new society longer and more difficult. This decrease of immigrant emulsification, IMO, ultimately lends itself to a society more inclined to divide itself, rather than becoming a cohesively bound melting pot of different nationalities bound more by their new country’s values than by the culture they left behind.
Well my opinion about assimilation is that it’s not a problem unless the immigrants come from a culture that is incompatible in some way with US laws and whatever values we consider universal. The current group where this could be problematic, IMO, are fundamentalist Muslims, and that’s more of a problem in Europe than here.
Otherwise I just don’t see why it’s a problem for the first generation immigrants to have strong ties and care what happens to the family they leave behind. American culture is sufficiently attractive that by the second to third generation, no one is looking back anymore,
(Hit the submit button prematurely)
The common story is that the immigrant parents have trouble keeping alive the culture and tradition of the Old Country in the younger generation.
I don’t think Krugman’s piece is that “wrong.” A few selections:
“The New Deal . . . probably wouldn’t have been possible without the immigration restrictions that went into effect after World War I.”
” low-skill immigration probably has some depressing effect on wages”
These are nods to the social cohesion problem (particularly for those who want a more European-style social democracy), and the regressive economics of low-skill competition. Krugman also appears to have received special dispensation to refer to this as “illegal” immigration.
Being illegal thwarts the assimilation process. It is more advantageous to limit interaction with others in a similar situation or relatives. Gangs have also been able to offer protection because they do not report illegals to ICE.
Most people just aren’t that political. We forget that because we talk about it too much. Most of those people calling home aren’t really that into politics, just like most of us. They are mostly keeping track of what the family does. These immigrants are learning English just as fast as past immigrants. Hispanics and Asians pretty consistently test out as having as good or better a work ethic as we do. I think the big difference is that many go back and forth a lot more, if they can.
Steve
@CStanley, I’m not sure that Poles living in Chicago are models of assimilation, so I think there is always the issue of density, as well as culture (which I think is more resistant to assimilation because of the scars of Russification).
PD- Yes to the comment about Russification- I can see where the scars of it affected our family. And yet by the second to third generation (my Dad raising us) we were typical American suburbanites except we had Kielbasa and Pierogis on Easter Sunday.
Don’t know as much about the Chicago Poles (currently researching the lost branch of our family, the steel mill bunch) but my line settled in NYC. In what way would you characterize lack of assimilation as a problem?
What is being meant by assimilation? For example, Catholics used to be feared. Al Smith couldn’t get elected. John Kennedy could. Was there a shift during some point in between where Catholics suddenly became acceptable Americans and not agents of the Pope?
I think not. I think assimilation is sort of a myth–immigrant groups and their descendants don’t become anything more than what they are. It’s the prejudice and the intolerance towards these groups that through familiarity and habit die off. Unless these are kindled purposely, as a form of identity.
@CStanley, Chicago still appears to be a magnet for Polish immigrants, and Polish is the first language in many neighborhoods.
A friend’s son married a Polish immigrant and he worries that she prefers to take their kids to some sort of health advisor in the Polish community for medical needs instead of a licensed physician. Lack of assimilation can mean groups become inward-looking and trust people based upon shared ethnic experience, instead of objective qualifications.
There have been a number of incidents involving crazy Polish immigrants who have committed atrocious crimes that seem to involve various degrees of alienation from the broader culture. I’m not suggesting Polish immigrant are more likely to commit crimes, but when they do their stories often are uniquely “immigrant” stories.
That’s interesting, PD- I didn’t know there was still such an influx there. I’m not sure how I see how such stories are really problematic on a systemic level though. People from all quarters do dumb or ignorant stuff. This may be one particular flavor of it, but if it were removed I think others would fill the void.
@CStanley, of course people do dumb or ignorant stuff, but I’m talking about criminal stuff like mass murders and grave desecration. And it’s not that any group doesn’t have its criminal outliers, it’s that many of the stabilizers that we have don’t reach into immigrant sub-cultures to stop things earlier.
I hope I don’t sound like I’m picking on the Poles; we could talk about Dearborn Arabs, East L.A. Mexicans, or Pennsylvania Amish.
No, I didn’t take it that way. I guess I’m skeptical that there are many effective stabilizers to stop things, no matter what the community.
The point TB made upthread about gangs seems more relevant, because that’s a case where the insularity breeds a specific response that is more of a systemic problem. The one off things, even if insularity is a contributing factor, don’t seem to rise to that level of concern IMO.
My most recent immigrant ancestors (assuming the family genealogy is correct!) came over from Scotland some time after the Civil War. I know my paternal grandmother, their daughter, was born in the US in the late 1880s or 1890s. (I believe around 1893, but I’ve lost those records and don’t know anyone alive on my dad’s side of the family.) Not sure what they did, just that they were Scottish. Before that the last immigrant in the family I know of came over around 1810. But I don’t know my Dad’s side that well so there may be a few newbies in the 1800s.
Everyone else came over in the Seventeenth or Eighteenth centuries. One of my Great^5 grandfathers* was noted for killing the last Indian in his part of Virginia. Also survived being shot by Indians at least once when his wife and other family members fought off the attackers. Lots of scouts in the French & Indian War, the Revolutionary War & the War of 1812 from that branch.
So are today’s immigrants fighting off Injuns in the Wilderness?
* Shameful family history: It’s believed that particular G^5 grandfather never learned how to speak English. We know he couldn’t write it as his final will & testament was in German. Stinkin’ wetbacks should at least learn the language.
Did the President explain why, with the country ~2.25 million full-time jobs short of its peak in 2007, and with workers age 25-54 short about ~4 million full-time jobs from the rate at which they had such jobs before the recession, that we need more workers? Did he explain why we need more people in the workforce when wages have not just stagnated but gone down during his Administration, exacerbating a decades long bad trend?
Just curious.
One thing I forget to mention regarding Krugman’s article: In theory the Dream Act targets the most Americanized non-citizens we could possibly find: Young people who have lived here most of their lives, graduated from high school, speak English, college or military suitable, and no criminal record. Also, likely to develop at least semi-skills. I cannot find any objection to the ideal, just some of the weasel-words in some of the versions that would mean a different reality, and the issue of encouraging more people to come and live in the shadows with that dream for their children. And we don’t want people living in the shadows, right?
As I’ve said any number of times, I’d support some form of the DREAM Act, as long as it was uniformly and systematically applied.
“Not sure what they did, just that they were Scottish.”
They hid their money………which I can say as my ancestors were Scottish and English. Recently I know they were farmers. Rumor has it if you go back far enough my lineage goes to William Wallace. Well, admittedly that was after a full night of Scotch drinking. But I’m going with it.
I have a question for PD. It surprises me that something of the magnitude of Obama’s action is not well known to be either Constitutional, or not. Is there really a question or is this just public positioning.
As much as I usually enjoy your posts this seems more mysticism than data.
The question of assimilation has always been hotly contested throughout history. One only has to refer back to Chinese communities in the 1900s ([url=http://www.sscnet.ucla.edu/soc/faculty/zhou/pubs/Zhou_Kim_Paradox.pdf]Chinatown[/url] anyone) to see that there have always been worries of parallel societies developing. The idea that long-range communication would meaningfully trump day-to-day contact seems rather quaint. A bit like those people claiming a good school system can counteract the 18+ hours of the day not spent in it.
Concerning immigration skill levels, today’s immigration is nearly [url=http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/research/files/papers/2011/6/immigrants%20singer/06_immigrants_singer.pdf]twice as skilled [/url]as the [url=http://books.google.de/books?id=1HZ6N-OC-d4C&lpg=PA25&ots=VkpATmXXOY&dq=skill%20level%20immigrants%201900&hl=de&pg=PA32#v=onepage&q=distribution%20of&f=false]Ellis Island crowd[/url] was. Back then more than 50% of immigrants were low skilled compared to about 30% today. While the impact of the skills may have been higher back then, the idea that there is some unprecedented deluge of peons is nonsense. If there is a relevant changed factor it’s the increasing irrelevance of low-skilled labour.
Guarneri,
The Courts only resolve certain types of cases, so issues become vaguer based upon the contours of judicial review. If executive action is quick and temporary, the courts won’t be able to rule until the controversy is moot.
Here, the issue is standing, someone has to have a “particularized injury” arising from the President’s action to access the courts. If the President tried to deport a citizen, they would be personally injured by this action and would have a judicial remedy. If the President decides not to deport anybody, there is no individual injury, it’s a general injury to everybody. No standing as to government inaction means little caselaw, and arguments from analogy to cases where Truman seized the steel industry or Nixon refused to spend appropriations.
That’s why the idea of Congressional standing is intriguing, it would provide judicial review of executive inaction.
More Krugman excerpts (from a previous article):
“many of the worst-off native-born Americans are hurt by immigration — especially immigration from Mexico. ”
“U.S. high school dropouts would earn as much as 8 percent more if it weren’t for Mexican immigration.”
“the reason some jobs pay too little to attract native-born Americans is competition from poorly paid immigrants.”
“low-skill immigrants threaten to unravel [ou social] that safety net”
“low-skill immigrants don’t pay enough taxes to cover the cost of the benefits they receive.”
“Immigrants are a much more serious fiscal problem in California than in Texas”
“Realistically, we’ll need to reduce the inflow of low-skill immigrants. Mainly that means better controls on illegal immigration.”
Basically, Krugman’s views are constant, but we get more details when he is criticizing Bush, than when he is praising Obama.