Contextual Essay

The historian Oscar Handlin wrote in his 1952 Pulitzer Prize-winning book The Uprooted, “Once I thought to write a history of the immigrants in America. Then I discovered that the immigrants were American history.” * Handlin’s comment described nineteenth-century America, but it also succinctly and aptly summarizes the importance of immigrants to the United States at the beginning of the twenty-first century. (*Oscar Handlin, The Uprooted: The Epic Story of the Great Migrations That Made the American People, (New York: Atlantic-Little, Brown Books, 1951), page 3.)

During the last twenty years, the racial and ethno-national composition of the U.S. population has changed dramatically, with the Hispanic and Asian populations growing at much faster rates than the Black or White populations. In 1980, Whites made up 86 percent of the nation’s population, Blacks 12 percent, Hispanics 6 percent, and Asians 1.5 percent. By 2000, estimates held that Whites would account for 82 percent of the American population, Blacks 13 percent, Hispanics 12 percent, and Asians 4 percent. Demographers believed these trends would only accelerate over the next fifty years. (U.S. Census Bureau, Statistical Abstract of the United States, 2001 (121st Edition), Washington, DC, 2001, page 13.)

This demographic revolution can be attributed largely to the growing numbers of immigrants arriving in the United States over the past thirty years from Asia and South and Central America. During the 1990s, over nine million persons emigrated legally to the United States. Nearly half came from Mexico, the Caribbean, South America, and Central America. More than one-quarter came from Asia.* But these numbers tell only a small part of the story of immigration in the United States. Just like their predecessors, America’s most recent immigrants have helped shape the nation’s politics, workplaces, culture, and folkways, contributing to the nation’s racial, ethnic, cultural, and linguistic diversity at the dawn of the twenty-first century.(* U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service, Statistical Yearbook of the Immigration and Naturalization Service, 2000, U.S. Government Printing Office: Washington, D.C., 2002, pages 18, 271.)

The entry of large numbers of immigrants raises important and difficult questions, however. How do these newcomers affect the nation’s job market? Should immigrants have access to public education, to health care, to welfare programs? Should illegal immigrants be privy to the same benefits? And finally, how does the arrival of these immigrants – both legal and illegal – contribute to the America’s evolving and fragile sense of national identity?

Coming to America: Immigration to the United States after 1965

From the 1920s to 1965, the national origins quota immigration system governed which (and how many) immigrants could come to the United States. Designed to slow overall immigration to America and to encourage emigration from countries in northwestern Europe, the act was oriented toward preserving the United States as an Anglo-Saxon nation. During the middle decades of the twentieth century, then, most immigrants to the United States came from Germany, Canada, and the United Kingdom.

The national origins immigration laws survived relatively intact until 1965, when liberals in both the Democratic and Republican parties, spurred on by the Civil Rights Revolution and the Great Society, sought to amend those edicts. Legislators instead designed an immigration system that capped the entry of immigrants from both hemispheres, but admitted immigrants on a “first come, first served” basis with preferences given to those with family in the United States and valuable job skills. Preferences based on race, ethnicity, and nationality – the foundation of the national origins system – were eliminated.

The results of these changes in American immigration law became clear by the late 1970s. The elimination of the national origins system, as well as the onset of political and economic stability in Europe, helped shift the source of immigration to the United States from Europe to Asia, as well as to and South and Central America. In the 1990s, for instance, Mexico, the Philippines, China, India, and the Dominican Republic – in that order – sent the most immigrants to the United States. Mexico became the main source of immigration to America. In the 1980s, more than 1.5 million Mexican immigrants came to the United States. During the 1990s, that number grew to more than two million – more than one-quarter of all immigrants admitted during that decade. Moreover, because of loopholes in the nation’s immigration laws permitting the entry of immediate family outside of the hemisphere cap, immigration each year swelled beyond the prescribed total limits.

Why did these immigrants come to America? Many came in search of economic opportunities that did not exist in their homelands. Others – especially refugees – came to escape the political turmoil that marred their countries of origin. Finally, many came because they wanted to join family and friends already in the United States. These were the same reasons that immigrants historically have come to the United States.

Living in America: Post-1965 Immigrants in the United States

Post-1965 immigrants to the United States have affected every facet of American life, making it difficult to detail comprehensively their contributions. A few general comments, though, can be made about post-1965 immigrant participation in the American economy, politics, and culture.

Foreign-born workers (of which immigrants are the key component) increasingly make up a larger part of the American workforce. In 1960, 1 in 17 workers was foreign born; by 2000, that ratio had shrunk to 1 in 8.* But post-1965 immigrants have encountered mixed success in the American job market, with their achievements depending largely on their levels of education and their English-language skills. A small group of recent immigrants, possessing high levels of education (college or graduate degrees) and English-language skills, have found well-paying jobs as doctors, professors, or in the high-tech sector. The majority of recent immigrants, lacking sufficient education and English skills, have suffered in the job market. They tend to work in the service, agricultural, and manual labor sectors of the American economy – in jobs which are low paying, which have few benefits (such as health or disability insurance), which offer little chance for advancement, and in which employment itself is unstable.** (*Abraham T. Mosisa, “The Role of Foreign-born Workers in the U.S. Economy,” Monthly Labor Review, May, 2002, page 3. ** Mosisa, pages 3-14; Joseph Meisenheimer, “How do Immigrants Fare in the U.S. Labor Market?”, Monthly Labor Review, December 1992, pages 3-19; The U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, “Counting Minorities: A Brief History and Look at the Future,” Report on the American Workforce, 2001, pages 15-53, (http://www.bls.gov/opub/rtaw/rtawhome.htm).)

Recent immigrants also have helped shape American politics. Naturalized immigrants, including Puerto Rican-Americans in New York City, Cuban-Americans in Florida, and Mexican-Americans in Texas and California, each have become important voting blocs that local, state, and national politicians court aggressively. The political affiliations of post-1965 immigrants, however, stretch across party lines. Mexican-Americans in California tend to vote Democratic, while Cuban-Americans in Miami tend to vote Republican. This diversity of party affiliation reflects the diverse ideological and political leanings of post-1965 immigrants, as well as the unique circumstances each immigrant – and each immigrant group – has encountered. Immigrants also have energized grass-roots political movements. Mexicans and Mexican-Americans in California helped revitalize the American labor movement during the 1990s.* Likewise, Cuban-Americans have provided valuable additions – in votes, money, and energy – to conservative and Republican party causes in Florida. Cuban-Americans also have helped shape American relations with Castro’s Cuba since the 1970s.** (* Liza Featherstone, “Fighting the War at Home: Targeted by Authorities, Immigrants are Organizing to Defend their Rights,” The Nation, April 1, 2002, page 27; Jennifer Gordon, “Immigrants Fight the Power, ” The Nation, January 3, 2000, page 16. 88. William Finnegan, “Castro’s Shadow,” The New Yorker, October 14/22, 2002, pages 101-113.)

The cultural contributions of post-1965 immigrants are too numerous to list, but perhaps an anecdote can prove a larger point. As Donna Gabaccia, a noted immigration historian, writes, "The taco is arguably the latest ethnic icon en route to status as an American food – sold and eaten everywhere by and to people of all ages and backgrounds. Yet only forty years ago, the owner of a Mexican restaurant in Minnesota had to teach public school classes on Mexican food in order to build a clientele for her tacos. Will satay or jerked chicken be next? It seems possible. " (Donna Gabaccia, We Are What We Eat: Ethnic Food and the Making of Americans (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1998), pages 202-203.)

Ethnic foods like the taco (as well as salsa, the bagel, and spaghetti), which have their roots in foreign cultures and were brought to the United States by immigrants, are now staples of the American diet. Similar arguments could be made about certain musical and artistic folkways. But the American public’s embrace of the taco illustrates how powerful economic and cultural institutions and elites mediate, and often control, the American public’s acceptance of things “foreign.” In other words, immigrants brought the taco to America, but Taco Bell played a key role in making it “American.”

Making Sense of Immigration and Immigrants in the United States

As the preceding history makes clear, immigrants have shaped the United States’s past and present. They certainly will shape its future. Immigration issues reappeared on the national agenda in the early 1990s, powered by an economic recession, the stress ever larger numbers of immigrants put on existing public and private social programs, and the potent political campaigning of Republicans like Pat Buchanan and Governor Pete Wilson of California. Recently, the September 2001 terror attacks have reenergized the immigration debate, while adding a new focus on national security. A few questions, though, animate current discussions about immigration.

Should the United States continue to accept large numbers of immigrants? Do these newcomers help or hurt the United States? Some authors, like Wall Street Journal reporter Joel Millman, contend that recent immigrants have revitalized local communities and economies, especially those in urban areas that have not recovered from the deindustrialization of the last three decades. They argue that immigrants are a vital economic and cultural resource that the nation must continue to import. Other observers and scholars, like Roy Beck, counter that immigrants often overwhelm their new communities, causing more harm and disruption than good. These writers highlight the struggles of local governments to educate, house, and provide social services for newcomers, as well as the tensions (both economic and racial/cultural) that often arise between immigrants and natives. The “pro-immigrant” camp acknowledges these problems, but sees them as outweighed by the advantages accruing from the population influx.

How should the United States deal with illegal immigrants? Estimates place the number of illegal immigrants in the United States (as of 2001) at anywhere between 5 and 11 million persons – and growing each year; more illegal immigrants come from Mexico than any other country.* Defenders of illegal immigrants point out that these persons mostly come to the United States in search of better lives, higher paying jobs, and the chance to reunite with family – in short, the traditional reasons immigrants historically have come to the United States. As The Economist noted, “Much of America’s farming, gardening, child-care and house-cleaning is also done by its…undocumented workers. Without them, the economy would sag horribly.”** Critics, however, object to the strain that undocumented immigrants put on the nation’s social-welfare net. They also decry the porous nature of America’s borders that makes illegal immigration possible and perceive the border problems as a stain on American sovereignty. President George W. Bush, in the summer of 2001, addressed the “illegal immigrant” question by trying to conclude a landmark agreement with Mexico that would have granted illegal Mexican immigrants permanent residence in the United States in return for increased Mexican cooperation patrolling the border. In the wake of 9/11, Bush’s proposals went to the backburner, replaced on the legislative agenda by tougher border security measures. Most experts, nonetheless, believe he will have to return to this problem. (*U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service, Statistical Yearbook of the Immigration and Naturalization Service, 2000, U.S. Government Printing Office: Washington, D.C., 2002, pages 18, 271. ** “Welcome, then, provided you work, Immigration,” The Economist, August 4, 2001.)

What does the continued influx of immigrants mean for the nation’s identity? Scholars, public intellectuals, and pundits in recent years have begun a serious re-examination of national identity, in large part because of recent immigration trends. None dispute that immigration to the United States is reshaping the nation’s racial and ethno-national composition. But this fact leads to two questions, neither of which have easy answers. First, can Americans be unified by a single national identity? Second, on what principles will that identity be based? On the political right, the scholar Tamar Jacoby has called for a vigorous program to assimilate immigrants. Others on the right, most prominently Pat Buchanan, call for severe reductions in immigration in order to preserve America’s identity. On the political left, which over the last fifty years generally has welcomed immigrants, multiculturalists argue that the American nation is stronger when it recognizes that it is made up of a multitude of subcultures (often composed of recent immigrants), each of which enriches the whole. Multiculturalists, though, are a divided lot. Some, like Michael Walzer, want the multiculturalist approach to coexist alongside a healthy respect for the idea of the “American nation.” Others find the idea of the “American nation” so freighted with racist, sexist, and imperialist assumptions that it should be discarded altogether. Perhaps the only safe answer to these questions has been offered by the political scientist and immigration expert Peter Skerry: “Diversity can work, but making it work is a messy, contentious business.” * As immigrants continue to come to the United States, that business will surely be bustling. (*Peter Skerry, “Beyond Sushiology: Does Diversity Work?,” Brookings Review, Winter 2002. Patrick J. Buchanan, The Death of the West: How Dying Populations and Immigrant Invasions Imperil our Country and Civilization, (New York : Thomas Dunne Books, 2002.) )

Suggested Readings:

Roy Beck. The Case Against Immigration: The Moral, Economic, Social, and Environmental Reasons for Reducing U.S. Immigration Back to Traditional Levels. (New York: W.W. Norton & Company, 1996.) Beck, a journalist, argues that the substantial growth in legal immigration to the United States since 1965 has adversely affected the lives of poor, often black, Americans who most often compete with the newcomers for jobs and live with them in their communities. Beck published a short article, entitled “The Ordeal of Immigration in Wausau,” that explores many of the themes of the book in The Atlantic Monthly, April 1994.

Patrick J. Buchanan. The Death of the West: How Dying Populations and Immigrant Invasions Imperil our Country and Civilization. (New York : Thomas Dunne Books, 2002.) Buchanan, a right-wing commentator and presidential candidate, argues in this polemic that recent immigrants are responsible for the “balkanization” of the United States and the demise of an American culture and value system in place since the nation’s founding. Buchanan calls for a severe reduction in legal immigration to the United States, renewed efforts to assimilate newcomers, and an aggressive campaign to end illegal immigration to the United States.

Roger Daniels. Coming to America: A History of Immigration and Ethnicity in American Life. Second Edition. (New York: Perennial, 2002.) Daniels, an historian, offers an encyclopedic history of immigrants in America, as well as the evolving meanings of race and ethnicity. Daniel’s book, quite simply, holds the preeminent place among recent surveys of American immigration history.

Donna Gabaccia. We Are What We Eat: Ethnic Food and the Making of Americans. (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1998.) Gabaccia, a noted historian of American immigration and women, argues that what people have eaten throughout the history of the United States reflects political, economic, cultural, and social realities. She also traces how ethnic foods, like the bagel, have become “American.”

Gary Gerstle, American Crucible: Race and Nation in the Twentieth Century. (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2001.) Gerstle, a history professor, crafts an engaging narrative combining political and cultural history that traces how two strands of nationalism – one based on racial principles and the other based on civic traditions – have shaped American national identity in the twentieth century.

Historical Reference Library, Immigration and Naturalization Service. “An Immigrant Nation: United States Regulation of Immigration, 1798-1991” (1991). Available at: http://www.ins.gov/graphics/aboutins/history/cover.htm.The INS historical office produced this brief, well-written survey of American immigration laws and policies. The INS web site is also a good source of immigration statistics.

Millman, Joel. The Other Americans: How Immigrants Renew Our Country, our Economy, and Our Values. (New York: Viking, 1997.) Millman, a Wall Street Journal reporter, examines how recent immigrants have reenergized the politics, economics, and cultural life of communities in New York City, Massachusetts, California, and Florida. Millman presented his arguments in an earlier article, “Newcomers” in the November 24, 1997 edition of The New Republic.

Walzer, Michael. What It Means to Be an American. (New York: Marsilio, 1992). Walzer, a left-leaning public intellectual, calls for Americans to reinvigorate the idea of citizenship in order to counteract the sometimes divisive ethnic and racial divides among a polyglot American population. He approvingly calls immigration “the material base of multiculturalism.”

Zia, Helen. Asian American Dreams: The Emergence of an American People. (New York: Farrar, Strauss, and Giroux, 2000.) Zia, a journalist, fashions a part auto-biographical and part historical – but consistently captivating – story of Asian-American life in the United States since the 1970s.