The US scale of diversity will not be discussed solely through the prism of statistical data, reminiscent of the case of the European Union.266 As Peter Schuck points out, two levels of thinking about diversity in reference to diversity in America must be distinguished: “diversity as fact” and “diversity as ideal.” Accordingly, American diversity as fact is
interpreted as the demographic reality of ethnic diversification, which has shaped the US since its earliest years. Diversity as ideal, in contrast, is quite a new phenomenon, which emerged in the Civil Rights Movement of the 1960s, emphasizing American “notions of fairness, equal opportunity, and growing global responsibility” for world migration movements.267
The ideology of the past and present American ideal of diversity, which needs to be included in any discussion of the US as a typical immigration country, will be considered first. In fact, three commonly-used associations with America could be employed to briefly
characterize the landscape of US immigration: diversified, unified, and hyphenated. These opposing expressions already indicate the great complexity of the US scale of diversity.
First, Hollinger’s metaphor of “diversification of diversity,” used in reference to the US, points to a multitude of different ethno-racial affiliations present in the country. This ethnic diversification has led America to be commonly associated with the notion of the melting pot as well as the birthplace of assimilation and multicultural thought.268 The United States has definitely become one of the most popular destinations for world immigration, with the renowned Statue of Liberty, a symbol of a welcoming mother greeting new immigrants, the
265
Exceptions may be observed in some cases, when some significant news or new data published at the beginning of 2011 were considered indispensable for the analysis.
266
See subchapter 4.4.1. 267
Schuck, P. H. (2006). Diversity in America: Keeping Government at a Safe Distance. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, p. 94.
Diversity as an ideal, according to Schuck, started to emerge in the framework of the Immigration law of 1965, which established American preferences in immigration policies. How the American diversity as ideal and diversity as reality can be harmonized by national and local governments is a question addressed both by Schuck and this dissertation.
268
Hollinger, D. A. (1995). Postethnic America: Beyond Multiculturalism. New York, NY: Basic Books, p. 79. For more on the origin of integration and assimilation theories in the American experience, see subchapter 2.1.1.
“huddled masses yearning to breathe free,” and offering them hope for a better life “beside the golden door!”269
Secondly, people of different cultures who found themselves together in one country, started to create a sense of unity. However, neither a common history nor the same blood could bind immigrants in the US together, but only a shared set of ideals. As Seymour Martin Lipset confirms, “[b]eing an American is an ideological commitment. It is not a matter of birth. Those who reject American values are un-American.”270 Indeed, a set of American values, the American Creed, first coined by Gunnar Myrdal,271 is considered one of the building blocks unifying people of many traditions and various cultural backgrounds. Historically, the Founding Fathers expressed the American Creed, laying the foundation for the United States in the Declaration of Independence and in the Constitution. As Henry Bischoff points out, “[f]rom such ideas a civic culture emerged that valued liberty, established an increasingly participatory democracy, included a bill of rights, and fostered open economic opportunity.”272 As a result, the national unity in diversity of many ethno-racial groups has emerged. The motto E Pluribus Unum, out of many one, first used as a symbol for the political unity of the thirteen-state-country in the first Great Seal of the United States, has become a symbol of the American ideal.273 Certainly, the bonds among members of this American unity are much stronger than those among the countries in the European Union. The old and still common celebration of the American ideal of diversity has made the United States appear to be an immigration country in a way which no European immigration country ever has.
Although different cultural influences have been incorporated into the values of the American Creed, tolerance towards “otherness” is not unlimited. In fact, the American immigration and integration system works through the binary opposition of inclusion and exclusion: American versus “alien.” The challenge of striking a balance between the two American ideals, creating unity while respecting diversity, are part and parcel of American politics and culture. As a result, the third important symbol of the US as a nation of
269
From Emma Lazarus’ poem, The New Colossus, 1883. These lines were engraved on a bronze plaque on the pedestal of the Statue of Liberty in 1912.
270
Lipset, S. M. (1990). Continental Divide: the Values and Institutions of the United States and Canada. London: Routledge, p. 19.
271
Myrdal, G. (1944). An American Dilemma: The Negro Problem and Modern Democracy. New York, NY: Harper & Bros.
272
Bischoff, H. (2002). Immigration Issues. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, p. 119.
For a more comprehensive discussion of the key layers of the American Creed see Huntington, S. P. (1981). The American Creed and National Identity. American Politics: The Promise of Disharmony, 36- 41.
A more updated interpretation of the American Creed as five basic tenets: liberty, equality, individualism, democracy, and the rule of law is to be found in: Ostendorf, B. (1996). Inclusion, Exclusion and the Politics of Cultural Difference. In P. O. Stummer and C. Balme (Eds.), Fusion of Cultures (pp. 207-223). Amsterdam: Rodopi.
273
E pluribus unum has become the national motto of the United States. It appears on the obverse side of the seal, on official US documents, and on most US currency.
immigrants emerged with the hyphen. Hyphenated America has become “an emblem of the immigrant bargain,” which is a consequence of the failed Americanization movement.274
Endless discussions exist among researchers about the question of which expression – diversified, unified or hyphenated – best describes the American nation of immigrants. Judging which concept is more appropriate or adding new perspectives to this debate is beyond the scope of this paper.275 Nevertheless, it can be argued that being American will always be an issue in the US national mode of integration as will be discussed in a later section of this chapter. As Jacoby rightly points out, referring to American political principles, “much as we celebrate the hyphen, one side of it is more important than the other.”276 The same principle also applies to American integration policies.
The second dimension of the US scale of diversity – diversity as fact – is much easier to measure owing to a wide range of available statistics and demographic reports on
immigrants in the US.277 Based solely on the quantity and quality of available sources on US immigration, it might be assumed that monitoring ethnic diversification is a top priority at both state and national levels. In fact, the US government started publishing statistical data on immigration as early as the 1890s,278 whereas the first data on the birthplaces of the US population stem from the 1850 decennial census. Such a long-established system of regular data collection makes historical and comparative research on migration trends across the whole nation, particular states and at the local level much easier than on the other side of the Atlantic.279
The diversity of immigration in the US can be perceived through the prism of various categories of immigrants in the US statistics, which differ significantly from European ones. According to the Census Bureau, the term “foreign born” refers to a person with no US citizenship at birth, and includes naturalized citizens, lawful permanent residents, refugees and asylees, people on certain temporary visas, and the unauthorized. On the other hand,
274
See Jacoby, T., op. cit., p. 295. 275
For a comprehensive analysis of how American immigration policy has been used as a tool of American nation building from the colonial period to the present, see Zolberg, A. R., op. cit. 276
Jacoby, T., op. cit., p. 314. 277
In the dissertation I use US immigration sources, as recommended in Batalova, J., Mittelstadt, M., Mather, M., and Lee, M. (2008). Immigration: Data Matters. Washington, DC: Migration Policy Institute, and Population Reference Bureau.
These include: the US Census Bureau from various years, the American Community Survey, the 2000 decennial census, and the 2009 Current Population Survey; the US Departments of Homeland
Security and State; resources from the Migration Policy Institute (MPI); resources from the Pew Hispanic Center. A big part of the data quoted comes from the statistical update in the article: Batalova, J. and Terrazas, A., op. cit.
278
United States Department of Homeland Security. (2010). Yearbook of Immigration Statistics: 2009. Washington, DC: US Department of Homeland Security, Office of Immigration Statistics.
279
In comparison to some EU countries, where available statistical data varies significantly (e.g. comparing few Polish sources with extensive German sources), US statistical sources on the foreign born population are detailed and comprehensive. On the other hand, monitoring integration is still underdeveloped, in comparison to Germany, for example. For an analysis of the US mode of integration, see subchapter 4.1.2.
the term “immigrant” in US statistics refers only to people granted legal permanent residence in the United States, also known as LPRs.280 However, for the purpose of this dissertation the term “immigrant” will be used interchangeably with foreign born people, following the
standards set out in the introduction and also a common practice in US migration reports.281 With reference to statistics on immigration youth, two types of immigrant children have to be distinguished: second-generation immigrant children, who are US-born children with at least one foreign-born parent; and first-generation immigrant children, which include any foreign-born children with foreign-born parents, collectively called children with immigrant parents (hereafter immigrant children). Nationwide research on this group of children is quite difficult to interpret due to certain shortcomings of existing data.282 The available data on immigrant children comes from the decennial census and American Community Surveys, which did not ask respondents for their parents' country of birth if they did not live together in the same household. Consequently, the statistics collected on immigrant children reflect only those who reside with at least one parent. The majority of this population is under the age of 18. By the same token, research on the educational performance of second generation immigrant children is limited to local surveys and longitudinal studies.283
Despite variations in the intensity of incoming flows of immigrants into the United States in the two last centuries, the average number of all immigrants across the 50 states makes the US the top immigration host country in the world.284. The overall percentage of immigrants in the US population has been constantly increasing since its record low in 1970 (4.7%). According to the Census Bureau's 2009 American Community Survey, the current US immigrant population, estimated at 38,517,234, stood at 12.5% of the total US population in 2009.285 Immigrant children and youth (aged 5 to 24) accounted for almost 15% of all foreign born.286 The predominance of immigrants from Central America and Asia among all
280
Definition from United States Census Bureau. (n.d.). American Fact Finder Glossary. 281
See chapter 1. 282
The most recent census data comes from 2000. The Census Data of 2010 was not available at the time of writing.
Nationwide data collection on third generation immigrants in the US does not exist, in contrast to the recently introduced system of data collection on people with migration backgrounds in Germany, see subchapter 4.5.3.
283
For example, see The Children of Immigrants Longitudinal Study (CILS), a decade-long panel survey conducted in San Diego, CA, and Miami/Ft. Lauderdale, FL. For the results see Portes, A. and Rumbaut, R. G. (2006). Immigrant America: A Portrait. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. For an analysis of methods of data collection on second generation immigrants in the US see Heckathorn, D. D. (2006, October). Studying Second-Generation Immigrants: Methodological Challenges and Innovative Solutions. Migration Information Source.
284
United Nations, Department of Economics and Social Affairs, International Migrant Stock: The 2008 Revision, in Population Database: http://esa.un.org/migration/
285
This figure is still a bit below the record of 14.8% in 1890. The historical context for immigration in the US after WW II will be presented as background information with reference to historical insights into immigration in California and Arizona in subchapters 4.2.1 and 4.3.1.
286
Among them, 6.5% of the foreign born were between 5 and 17 and 8.4% were between 18 and 24 years age of age. These figures do not include second generation immigrant children due to limited
foreign born marks an important shift in recent immigration patterns.287 Of the entire foreign born population in 2009, the most numerous group according to the country of birth came from Mexico, which comprised almost 30% of the foreign born residing in the US. Mexico was followed by the Philippines, India and China, excluding Hong Kong and Taiwan (see graph 1).
Graph 1 Ten Source Countries with the Largest Populations in the US as Percentages of the Total Foreign-Born Population in 2009.
Source: The US Census Bureau's American Community Survey 2009
A distinct part of the US immigration landscape is shaped by refugees and asylees.288 For more than two decades refugees in the US have constituted one-tenth of the annual immigration into the country. They are beneficiaries of the well-known US Refugee Program (USRP), which in cooperation with the UN Refugee Agency UNHCR has resettled more refugees than all of the other 24 current resettlement countries combined. Among new arrivals in 2009 74,602 refugees were reported, half of them under 25 years of age.289 The
statistical data. Available estimates come from 2009 report 16.9 million children age 17 and under with at least one immigrant parent.
287
For example, in 1960 almost every fourth immigrant (more than 23%) in the US had been born in Italy or Germany. In 2009 they accounted for less than 3% of the foreign-born population.
288
According to the US definition, refugees and asylees are persons who sought residence in the United States in order to avoid persecution in their country of origin. Persons granted refugee status applied for admission while outside the United States. Persons granted asylum applied either at a port of entry or at some point after their entry into the United States. United States Department of
Homeland Security. (2010). op. cit. 289
Accordingly, in 2009 the top resettlement countries were the United States, followed by Australia (6,720) and Canada (6,582). Germany (2,064) had the largest number of resettled refugees in Europe in 2009. China 4% El Salvador 3% Canada 2% Guatemala 2% Mexico 30% Philippines 4% India 4% Vietnam 3% Korea 3% Cuba 3% All other countries
number of resettled immigrants in 2009 was almost three times higher than during the steepest fall-off in resettlements in 2002 (when 26,765 refugees were accepted), though this figure is still far from the peak in 1980, when more than 200,000 refugees were admitted. Iraq, Burma, and Bhutan were the three top countries of origin in 2009.290
The number of foreign born who have successfully applied for asylum has been constantly decreasing since 2001 (with the exception of a small increase from 2005 to 2006), when almost 40,000 people were granted the status of asylees. Today the number of new asylees has decreased by almost 50% (to 22,119 in 2009). Nearly half of all asylees came from China (28%), Ethiopia (5%), Haiti (4.5%), Colombia (4.5%) and Iraq (4.1%).
It should be noted here that the average level of immigration presented for the whole US does reflect existing differences between US states. Graph 2 provides an overview of the geographical distribution of immigrants in the US. States also differ in terms of the main countries of birth of immigrants, which will be discussed in more detail in the subchapters on California and Arizona. However, certain general new trends in immigration patterns are worth mentioning here.
Although the long-established immigrant destinations, such as California (9,947,000), New York (4,178,00), Texas (3,985,000), Florida (3,484,000), and New Jersey (1,759,000), were still on top in 2009, other immigration destinations have been rapidly growing in popularity over the last decade, primarily in the Southeast and Midwest.291
The states with the largest percent growth of the immigrant population between 2000 and 2009 include South Carolina (76.9%), Alabama (67.5%), Tennessee (67.1%), Delaware (64.9%), and Arkansas (63.2%) (see graph 3). Geographical resettlement patterns, in turn, are usually determined by the location of family members or pre-existing ethnic communities of incoming refugees. Almost one-half of all refugees were resettled in one of six states: California (15%), Texas (11%), New York (5.9%), Arizona (5.8%), Florida (5.6%) and Michigan (4.7%).
See UNHCR Resettlement Service, Division of International Protection. (2010). UNHCR Projected Global Resettlement Needs 2011. Geneva: UNHCR.
For historical insight into the development of refugee resettlement across the US, see Singer, A., and Wilson, J. H. (2006). From 'There' to 'Here': Refugee Resettlement in Metropolitan America.
Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press 290
Followed by numerous groups from Iran, Cuba, Somalia, Eritrea, Vietnam, the Democratic Republic of Congo, and Burundi. The annual admissions ceiling for refugees, which the President, in
consultation with Congress, establishes prior to the beginning of each fiscal year, has declined by almost two-thirds in the last 31 years: to 80,000 in 2011. Many pro-refugee advocates persistently call for either increasing or abandoning the ceilings. See United States Department of State (2010). Proposed Refugee Admissions for Fiscal Year 2011: Report to the Congress.
291
Singer, A. (2009). The New Geography of United States Immigration. Brookings Immigration Series 3. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.
Graph 2 US States Ranked by Percent of Foreign Born in 2009
Source: The US Census Bureau's American Community Survey 2009
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% California New York New Jersey Nevada Florida Hawaii Texas Massachusetts Arizona Illinois Connecticut Maryland Rhode Island United States Washington District of Columbia Virginia New Mexico Colorado Oregon Georgia Delaware Utah North Carolina Alaska Minnesota Idaho Michigan Kansas Nebraska Pennsylvania New Hampshire Oklahoma Wisconsin South Carolina Indiana Tennessee Arkansas Iowa Ohio Missouri Louisiana Maine Vermont Wyoming Alabama Kentucky South Dakota North Dakota Mississippi Montana West Virginia
No demographic picture of immigration situation in the US would be complete without mentioning the magnitude of undocumented immigration. For years the issue of the
unauthorized population has been the most contentious subject in political and social debates on immigration.292 Consequently, there are many surveys monitoring unauthorized immigrants. As of January 2009 the Department of Homeland Security estimated 10.8 million unauthorized resident immigrants, of whom 63% entered before 2000 and 62% were from Mexico.293 These figures are corroborated by the estimates presented in the most recent report by the Pew Hispanic Center, from February 2011, which reported 11.2 million unauthorized immigrants living in the United States as of March 2010 (up to 3.7% of the nation’s entire population), almost three times more than in 1990, but 8% less than in March 2007. Besides Mexico, the majority of undocumented immigrants are reported to come from