assimilation today: new evidence shows the latest immigrants to america are following in our...

8/8/2019 Assimilation Today: New Evidence Shows the Latest Immigrants to America Are Following in Our Historys Footsteps

1/47www.amer icanprogress .o rg

Assimilation TodayNew Evidence Shows the Latest Immigrants to AmericaAre Following in Our Historys Footsteps

Dowell Myers and John Pitkin September 2010


2/47

Assimilation TodayNew Evidence Shows the Latest Immigrants toAmerica Are Following in Our Historys Footsteps

Dowell Myers and John Pitkin September 2010


3/47

Fast facts on Americas latest immigrantsImmigrants, whether from higher or lower starting points of social and economic attainment,have been integrating at high rates since 1990.

Only 9.3 percent o Latinos who were recently arrived ownedhomes in 1990, but the number surged to 58 percent by 2008.

There are now 14 states that have oreign-born populations greaterthan the national average share o 12.5 percent. In a re ection o themovement o immigrants into new communities, the data shows27 states with immigrant populations that are only recently arrived(i.e. since 2000) o at least two percent o the state population.

Integration occurred astest in the areas o citizenship and home-ownership, especially in the rst 18 years o U.S. residency, reach-ing the abled American Dream.

The rate o citizenship grew at a similarly ast rate, rom below10 percent in 1990 to 56 percent by 2008, a substantial achieve-ment given the constraints o ederal citizenship law, whichrequires a ve-year waiting period to become eligible or natural-ization or three years i the immigrant is married to a U.S. citizen.

High school completion and earnings also are rising. The share o oreign-born men earning above low income, or example, rose

since 1990 rom 35 percent, when they were recently arrived, to66 percent in 2008, when they were longer settled.

Immigrant childrenespecially among Latinoshave higher rateso attainment in education and occupation than adult immigrants,who have less access to education as newly-arrived workers.

U.S.-born children whose parents are immigrants have lived theirentire lives in the United States and participate as citizens in theircommunities and their schools. They are exceeding their parentseducational attainment levels.

Second-generation Latinos are more likely than their immigrparents to have B.A. degrees (21 percent), higher-paying occ

tions (32 percent), be living in households above the poverty(92 percent), and own homes (71 percent).

The college graduation rate has steadily risen since 2000, suping the theory that immigrant children are more able than aduto pursue opportunities or educational advancement. Lesseraccess to education and learning centers or immigrant adultmeans a lower English pro ciency rate, especially among Ladue to their work and income status, and also because languaclasses are not evenly provided across all states and have losing in recent years.

New destination states such as Georgia and North Carolina hmore new immigrants than immigrants who arrived be ore2000. The opposite is true in the traditional destination statesCali ornia, New York, Texas, Florida, and Illinois.

The longer immigrants are in the U.S., the more integratedthey become, a act that remains consistent across the nation,regardless o whether they came rom Mexico and CentralAmerica or rom other countries.

1990

9.3%o Latinos who were recentlyarrived owned homes in 1990

2008

58%owned homes by 2008

66.6%

H o m e o w n e r s

S p e a k

E n g

l i s h

E a r n

b e

t t e r

t h a n

l o w

i n c o m e

Arizona

59.2% 57.9%

Arizona stands out as an example, where Latino immigrants have provemuch more success ul than some have assumed. For example, a ter 18o residence, 66.6% are homeowners, 59.2% speak English well, and 5earn better than a low income.


4/47

1 C n Am ican P g ss | Assimi a i n t da

Introduction and summary

Te s ory o immigran s in our na ion is abou newcomers in egra ing in o oursocie y and hen s reng hening our cul ure and especially our economy. Telonger immigran s have lived in he Uni ed S a es, he more hey become us.Pas a, salsa, sausage, and egg rolls are now as common place on American din-ner ables as corn, pumpkin, and urkey. Soccer is now a na ional pas ime, a leasamong you h, and millions o spor s ans cheer he hundreds o immigran s whoare members o Major League Baseball.

None heless, opposi ion o immigra ion oday is whipped up by conserva ives who claim ha assimila ion is no occurring and ha ins ead mos immigran sare a burden on our socie y. Bu our his ory ells us o herwise. Immigran s o ourshores oday are ollowing closely in he pa h o heir predecessors, assimila ingrapidly jus like hey did in he pas as mos Americans wi ness every day inone way or ano her.

In his paper we use he mos comprehensive U.S. Census Bureau survey da ao inves iga e how well he process is working or odays immigran s. Replacinghe misleading rhe oric o immigra ion opponen s wi h rm da a, his s udy

shows ha assimila ion is happening across our na ion. Te illusion o nonas-simila ion is crea ed by looking only a newcomers who have no had ime ye oassimila e as ully as earlier arrivers. Bu once we examine immigran s advance-men over imein his s udy rom 1990 o he presen we discover ha

he longer immigran s are here he more hey advance and he beter hey arein egra ed in o our socie y.

Te resul s are plain o see. Evidence showing how more recen arrivals o our

coun ry are progressing is derived rom care ul s udy o census da a over wodecades, wi h a ocus on key areas ha demons ra e he advancemen and in egra-

ion o immigran s in o socie y. Our assimila ion benchmarks are hose we know rom our his ory o be bellwe hers, among hem:


5/47


Ci izenship Homeownership English language pro ciency Job s a us Earning a beter income

Tese benchmarks demons ra e ha immigran s in our coun ry since 1990 areadvancing a high ra es no mater heir social and economic s a us 20 years ago.

In egra ion is occurring as es in he areas o ci izenship and homeownership, wi h high school comple ion and earnings also rising. Te share o oreign- born men earning above low-income levels in our coun ry, or example, rose o66 percen in 2008, he las year or which comple e da a is available, rom jus35 percen in 1990 when he immigran s were recen ly arrived.1 And La inoimmigran s in he rs 18 years o U.S. residency swi ly atained he hallmark o

he American Dreamhomeownership, wi h 58 percen achieving his ea in2008, up rom only 9.3 percen in 1990. Tis is a subs an ial leap. While lower

han he 66.6 percen homeownership ra e or non-Hispanic na ive born men,he homeownership levels or La inos and o her oreign-born immigran s rises

as heir ime in he Uni ed S a es leng hens.

No surprisingly, he ra es o assimila ion in educa ion and occupa ion are higheramong immigran children, especially among La inos, han among adul rs -genera ion immigran s who have less access o educa ion because hey are newly-arrived workers.

Te college gradua ion ra e among immigran s is also on he rise since 2000,demons ra ing ha immigran children are more able o pursue oppor uni ies

or educa ional advancemen . Lesser access o educa ion and learning cen ers orimmigran adul s also means a lower English pro ciency ra e, especially amongLa inos, due no jus o heir work and income s a us, bu also because languageclasses are no evenly provided across all s a es and have los unding in recen years. Bu immigran children are bridging his language gap exceedingly quickly.

Geographically, oo, our na ions la es immigran s are ollowing in he oo s eps o our ances ors, spreading ou across he coun ry o assimila e in communi ies largeand small. Tere are now 14 s a es ha have oreign-born popula ions grea er

han he na ional average share o 12.5 percen . In a re ec ion o he movemen

Integration is

occurring astes

in the areas o citizenship and

homeownership,

with high school

completion and

earnings also risi


6/47


o immigran s in o new communi ies, he da a show 27 s a es wi h immigranpopula ions ha are only recen ly arrived (since 2000) o a leas wo percen o

hese s a es popula ion.

New des ina ion s a es such as Georgia and Nor h Carolina have more new

immigran s han immigran s who arrived be ore 1990. Te opposi e is ruein he radi ional immigran des ina ion s a es o Cali ornia, New York, exas,Florida, and Illinois. Te longer immigran s are in he Uni ed S a es, he morein egra ed hey becomea ac ha remains consis en across he na ion,regardless o whe her hey came rom Mexico and Cen ral America or romo her coun ries.

Indeed, in Arizona he s a e ha now has immigran s in he crosshairs o i s law en orcemen o cialsLa ino immigran s have proven much moresuccess ul han some assume. A er 18 years o U.S. residence, 66.6 percen are

homeowners, 59.2 percen speak English well, and 57.9 percen earn beter hana low income.

So why is i ha some residen s in some s a es wi h large new immigranpopula ions believe ha in egra ion is no occurring? One reason is ha new arrivals increased over a shor period while assimila ion, by de ni ion, can only be observed over ime. Tere ore, s a es wi h larger segmen s o long-setledimmigran s also are s a es where heir melding in o socie y has had more ime

o un old, and hus immigran advancemen and in egra ion has grown more visible. Many Americans all prey o he presump ion, largely unconscious, haimmigran s are like Pe er Pan orever rozen in heir s a us as newcomers,never aging, never advancing economically, and never assimila ingpeople whoperpe ually resemble newcomers.2 Seeing he da a on immigran advancemenmay be surprising and should help dispel he illogical Pe er Pan allacy.

Almos a hal cen ury ago, Presiden John F. Kennedy re ec ed on how heimmigra ion process con ribu ed o he evolu ion o our grea na ion and became cen ral o he whole American ai h. Immigra ion, he added, gaveevery old American a s andard by which o judge how ar he had come and

every new American a realiza ion o how ar he migh go. I reminded every American, old and new, ha change is he essence o li e, and ha Americansocie y is a process, no a conclusion.3

The longer

immigrants are in

the United States

the more integrat

they becomea

act that remain

consistent across

nation, regardles

whether they cam

rom Mexico an

Central America

rom other coun


7/47


In he pages ha ollow, his repor documen s in de ail wha Presiden Kennedy described so elegan ly a hal cen ury ago he ever ongoing process and grow ho immigran s advancemen and in egra ion in he Uni ed S a es hrough ci izen-ship, educa ion, learning English, work, and ul lling he American Dream o home ownership. Te longer immigran s are here, he more hey assimila e, resul -

ing in even grea er levels o achievemen or heir children and sowing he seeds o progress or genera ions o come.


8/47


Measuring immigrant assimilation

Te success ul ou come o assimila ion by immigran s and heir children whoarrived in America early in he 20hcen ury is well recognized some 100 yearsla er. Bu he course o immigran assimila ion or hose who came over he pas20 years is no as widely known, especially in par s o he na ion where newcom-ers have mos recen ly arrived. Ini ially, he upswing in immigra ion sweeping heUni ed S a es a er 1970 was concen ra ed largely in Cali ornia, New York, exas,Florida, and Illinois, bu now i has spread much more widely across he coun ry.

Because assimila ion akes ime be ore i s efec s are visible, and because, un ilnow, rm da a has been lacking o rack i s progress, here is con usion abou whe her assimila ion is ac ually occurring, especially in communi ies in ourcoun ry where immigra ion is a new phenomenon. Our s udy collec s he mosrepu able da a and organizes i o re ec he assimila ion o recen immigran s oour coun ry over ime so ha o hers can more ully comprehend heir advance-men over ime. Sharing hese da a in such a plain orma should help our poli icalleaders on bo h sides o he aisle and heir cons i uen s assess he ra e o assimila-

ion wi h heir own eyes.

Tis s udy presen s a broad overview o immigran assimila ion in he Uni edS a es ha draws on new da a care ully ma ched o U.S. Census Bureau repor s

rom earlier decades, hus enabling he American public o unders and he prog-ress o immigran s over he pas wo decades. We race he pa hway o immigranassimila ion in he Uni ed S a es rom 1990 o 2008 hrough rends in six key social and economic indica ors:

Ci izenship

Homeownership English-language pro ciency Educa ional atainmen Occupa ion Income


9/47


We hen compare he curren s a e o immigran achievemen across he coun ry,ocusing especially on he op nine s a es where mos immigran s have setled.

Te nine s a es are:

California. Wi h an es ima ed oreign born popula ion o 10.3 million, more

han hal o he Golden S a es immigran s became homeowners a er 18 yearso residence.

New York. Te s a es 4.7 million immigran s have a ci izenship ra e ha is9 poin s higher han he na ional average.

Texas. Homeownership ra es among he border s a es 4.2 million immigran srank above he na ional average regardless o when hey arrived. La inos whohave resided in he Uni ed S a es a leas 18 years have a high homeownershipra e o 68 percen .

Florida. Te levels o ci izenship, homeownership, and English pro ciency exceed he na ional averages or he 3.9 million immigran s in he s a e.

Illinois. Homeownership among he s a es 1.9 million immigran s is a leas10 percen higher han he na ional averages or all immigran s and also orLa ino immigran s.

New Jersey. Te s a es 1.9 million immigran s rank well above o her s a es inhe areas o English pro ciency, income, and ci izenship.

Massachusetts. Te almos 1.1 million immigran s showed higher han averagera es o advancemen in he areas o English pro ciency, ci izenship, and abovelow income, including La ino immigran s.

Arizona. Wi h jus over one million immigran s, he s a e has higher ra es o advancemen han many assume, especially in he area o homeownership, wi hLa ino homeownership 10 poin s above he na ional average o 56.2 percen .

Georgia. Educa ional advancemen and homeownership ra es place his s a esone million immigran s above he na ional average.


10/47


Clearly, immigran s o hese nine s a es are making he kind o headway owardull assimila ion ha our his ory eaches us o expec over ime. Bu a deeper dive

in o he da a gives us even more elling evidence o immigran assimila ion since1990. We ge a hese ac s by answering he ollowing key ques ions in his repor :

How much do immigran s assimila e? Do immigran s achieve as er progress on some dimensions han o hers? In wha realms do children make he grea es s rides beyond heir paren s? Is assimila ion occurring everywhere in our coun ry or are here s a es

where i is s alled? Do he paterns o assimila ion vary subs an ially across diferen s a es

o he na ion?

Tis s udy will largely ocus on immigran s who arrived as adul s, ra her han aschildren, al hough we also brie y address he grea er assimila ion o children. Te

s udy will assemble consis en ly measured da a across a range o diferen socio-economic indica ors o describe he pace o immigran advancemen in order

o describe objec ively how much immigran s adjus over ime. We leave i oo hers o judge whe her he pace is adequa e. Te rs s ep is o credibly measure whe her and how quickly hey are advancing. Our purpose is o display hese

rends plainly so ha he American public can decide or hemselves.

The growth in foreign-born U.S. residents

Te oreign-born popula ion o he Uni ed S a es reached 38 million in 2008, uprom 19.8 million in 1990 (and 9.8 million in 1970). Tis increase ollowed sev-

eral decades o declining immigra ion o our shores in he middle o he 20hcen-ury, such ha he 4.7 percen share o he U.S. popula ion ha was oreign-born

in 1970 was he lowes in American his ory. Since hen, he oreign-born share o our o al popula ion rebounded subs an ially, rs o 7.9 percen in 1990 and henreaching 12.5 percen in 2008a level o immigran residen s s ill below ha o

he early 20hcen ury, when i reached 14.7 percen a i s apex in 1910.4

Tis new resurgence o immigran residen s was mos eviden ini ially in a hand ulo s a esCali ornia, New York, New Jersey, Illinois, Florida, and exasbusoon spread more broadly across he coun ry. Growing demand or labor ou side

hese Big Six s a es led o dispersed migra ion ne works ha spread immigran smore evenly, o en o s a es where ew immigran s wen be ore.5


11/47


A curren pro le o he share o oreign-born residen s in every s a es popula-ion is provided in Figure 1, which ranks he s a es wi h he highes and lowes

immigran popula ion in each region o he na ion in 2008. Four een s a es havehigher percen ages han he na ional average (12.5 percen ), wi h Cali ornia(26.8 percen ) leading he Wes , Illinois (13.9 percen ) he Midwes , Florida

(18.6 percen ) and exas (15.9 percen ) he Sou h, and New York (21.7 percen )and New Jersey (19.9 percen ) he Nor heas . In every s a e, however, a no ablepercen age o he s a es popula ion is comprised o newcomers who arrived heresince 2000. In 27 s a es, a leas 2 percen o he s a es popula ion is comprisedo immigran newcomers.

Figure 1

Waves o immigrants added in each state

Percent o each states population that is oreign-born in 2008, by decade o arrival

The total percent oreign born is indicated by the ull height o the bar or each state, with the portion that arrived be ore 1980 shown at the bottom o the bar and the portion arrived since 2000 at

12.5% foreign born in U.S.

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

C a l i f o r n i a

N e v a d a

H a w a i i

A r i z o n a

W a s h i n g t o n

C o l o r a d o

O r e g o n

N e w M e x i c o

U t a h

A l a s k a

I d a h o

W y o m i n g

M o n t a n a

I l l i n o i s

M i n n e s o t a

K a n s a s

N e b r a s k a

M i c h i g a n

W i s c o n s i n

I n d i a n a

O h i o

I o w a

M i s s o u r i

N o r t h D a k o t a

S o u t h D a k o t a

F l o r i d a

T e x a s

D i s t r i c t o f C o l u m b i a

M a r y l a n d

V i r g i n i a

G e o r g i a

D e l a w a r e

N o r t h C a r o l i n a

O k l a h o m a

S o u t h C a r o l i n a

T e n n e s s e e

A r k a n s a s

L o u i s i a n a

A l a b a m a

K e n t u c k y

M i s s i s s i p p i

W e s t V i r g i n i a

N e w Y o r k

N e w J e r s e y

M a s s a c h u s e t t s

C o n n e c t i c u t

R h o d e I s l a n d

P e n n s y l v a n i a

West Midwest South Northeast

Pre-1980 arrivals1980-89 arrivals1990-99 arrivalsRecent arrivals, 2000-08


12/47


Te percen age o a s a es popula ion comprised o he newes immigran arriv-als, hose who came since 2000, is shown in Figure 1 a he op o he bar or eachs a e, while he earlies arrivals, hose who came be ore 1980, are shown a he botom o each bar. S a es wi h he larges segmen s a he botom are he radi-

ional ga eway s a es wi h long radi ions o immigra ion. S a es wi h more recen

his ories o immigra ion, such as Georgia and Nor h Carolina, have much largersegmen s o new immigran s han o earlier arrivals. O key impor ance or hisrepor , s a es wi h larger segmen s o long-setled immigran s are also s a es whereassimila ion has had a longer ime o un old.

Meanings and measurement of the assimilation concept

Assimila ion is a con es ed opic. Tere are diferen poin s o view abou whai means. Te generally unders ood meaning, however, is one o immigran s

adjus men o li e in America, ye he opic o assimila ion is variously addressedin diferen deba es or discussions wi h diferen audiences. I revolves around di -

eren erminology used o describe assimila ion as well as he choice o re erencegroups ha serve as models or immigran s when adjus ing o li e in America.

Ano her, more poli ically charged deba e involves conserva ive ac ivis s whooppose any increases in immigra ion, some o whom ques ion whe her immi-gran s are assimila ing a all and whe her hey can in o America. Tis charge isespecially leveled agains La ino immigran s. Opposing his view are suppor erso immigra ion, including he Cen er or American Progress, who poin o ourna ions deep immigran heri age and view La ino immigran s as assimila ing jusas pas immigran s have.

Tese difering poin s o view require us o de ne wha we mean by assimila ionand how we can measure i .

Assimilation: concepts and terminology

Wha all he discussions abou assimila ion have in common are concerns abouhe pace o change over ime in immigran s li e in America. O en he ac s

are elusive because a any momen in ime no observer can see all he changes. Assimila ion migh ake several genera ions o comple e, or be largely comple ed


13/47


in a single genera ion, or, al erna ively, i migh reveal rapid progress in jus adecade.6 Tis is why he cen ral ques ion broadly shared in all deba es is how rap-idly immigran s changesome hing we ermthe pace of advancement in joining

he American mains ream.

A number o diferen erms are used o describe he assimila ion process. Onese includes in egra ion, incorpora ion, inclusion, or accommoda ionall hav-ing o do wi h he process o kniting immigran groups in o our economy, poli y,and socie y. Ano her se o erms which emphasizes immigran s own changesincludes adap a ion and adjus men , or he process o immigran s alignmen wi h new cons rain s and oppor uni ies. Each o he diferen erms embodies apar icular concep or model abou how assimila ion should proceed.

An earlier model o assimila ion embraced in he early and mid-20hcen ury burejec ed by mos scholars oday is ermed Anglo con ormi y, or he assump ion

ha immigran s should abandon heir old cus oms and rai s and ry o resemble whi e America as closely as possible. However, a er decades o mul icul uralexperience as previous waves o immigran s success ully in egra ed in o our soci-e y, we are now very accus omed o valida ing and celebra ing e hnic diferences.

odays model o assimila ion is less cul urally res ric ive and ins ead emphasizesadvances by immigran s in civic and economic par icipa ion.

oday sociologis s ask: Wi h whom do immigran s aspire o assimila e, or moreacademically wha is he model o which hey aspire? A major new heory proposed in he 1990s by sociologis s Alejandro Por es and Min Zhou is he

segmen ed assimila ion model, which posi s ha diferen immigran groupsconverge on he behavioral norms o diferen na ive groups.7 Tis model does noespouse he goal o assimila ion or any groups bu merely seeks o beter describea more diverse empirical reali y. More recen ly, sociologis s Richard Alba and Vic or Nee proposed a view o assimila ion as simply he lowering o e hnic barri-ers and dis inc ions be ween groups.8 Tey charac erize he 20hcen ury processin he Uni ed S a es as ranspiring over several decades and mul iple genera ions.

Alba and Nee also reclaim he radi ional erm assimila ion bu ake pains o sepa-ra e i rom he e hnic bias so eviden in he ou da ed Anglo-con ormi y model.

Te wo scholars also main ain assimila ion is a wo-way s ree as all groups insocie y converge o orm a broad new mains ream o socie y.

Assimilation is a

two-way street

as all groups insociety converge

to orm a broad

new mainstream

o society.


14/47


The assimilation process over time

By and large, scholars agree ha assimila ion is a process ha akes place over ime,or more precisely he process o growing immigran achievemen s we calladvance-ment . Bu scholars rom diferen elds end o avor diferen ou come indica-

ors o assimila ion, or in everyday parlance hose iden i able charac eris ics o assimila ion such as English language uency, na uraliza ion, commi men o localcommuni ies hrough homeownership, and rising income levels. Change is noins an aneous and hese kinds o indica ors do no all change in he same way over

ime, so here is disagreemen over he ime rames or measuring progress.

One major dis inc ion is diferences by age a arrival in he Uni ed S a es. New research nds ha cer ain measures o assimila ion are highly sensi ive o he age a which immigran s arrive, mos prominen ly English-language pro ciency and edu-ca ional atainmen achievemen s ha are grea ly accelera ed or immigran s who

arrive as young children.9 O her achievemen s such as homeownership appear o be unafec ed by diferences in arrival age, as long as i is be ore age 25. As a resulo hese diferences, heories ha emphasize English-language pro ciency as hecore indica or o assimila ion emphasize grea er assimila ion prospec s or immi-gran s who arrive as children or or he U.S.-born children o hese immigran s.10

A second ime rame is leng h o ime in he Uni ed S a es a er arrival. Ins ead o age a arrival, scholarship on labor and housing marke s emphasizes he leng ho ime in he Uni ed S a es since immigra ion as a key predic or o economicassimila ion.11 Ci izenship and homeownership also increase drama ically helonger an immigran lives here. Al hough English-language pro ciency alsoincreases wi h leng h o residence, ha is less common or older immigran s han younger immigran s.

Educa ion, by con ras , is litle afec ed by he ime spen in he Uni ed S a es orimmigran s who arrived a er age 20. Ta is because ew immigran s or na ive- born go back o school when hey are adul s, no mater how long hey live here

Tis leng h-o - ime efec can be a major orce in our momen ary assessmen o

how well assimila ion is working. Simply s a ed, assimila ion seems grea er whenmore immigran s have longer residence.12 In con ras , when immigra ion is only recen ly on he rise, mos immigran s are obviously more recen arrivals and

hey have no proceeded very ar wi h heir assimila ion. Our early luminary BenFranklin is o en quo ed or his despair abou he seeming ailure o Germans o


15/47


assimila e in o heir new land when a grea many had only recen ly arrived.13 Inano her amous illus ra ion, sociologis Richard Alba documen s he 20hcen ury

rans orma ion o I alian immigran s rom raw newcomers o s alwar s o hepro essional class, a change ha seemed impossible in 1920.14

In recen years, his percep ion is again on he rise. From a his orical low poinin 1970, he share o he na ions oreign-born residen s drama ically increased,rs in a ew s a es, and hen more broadly. Te recen appearance o immigran s

in new des ina ions doing wha previous genera ions o immigran s ini ially did,orming immigran clus ers wi hin communi ies, means hey have had much lessime on average o assimila e.

For his reason i is impor an o compare he pace o assimila ion speci cally orgroups wi h he same leng h o ime in he Uni ed S a es. Be ore doing so, how-ever, we rs need o setle on he appropria e indica ors o assimila ion. o his

we now urn.

Indicators of assimilation

Given he broad no ion o assimila ion and variable speed o advancemenor par icular indica ors i is impor an o address a sui e o diferen ou come

measures. Our selec ed indica ors are:

Ci izenship Homeownership English-language pro ciency Educa ional atainmen Occupa ion Income

Tese are variables repor ed in he decennial census o 1990 and 2000 and in he American Communi y Survey o 2008 (see Me hodology on page31).

Each o hese measuremen s can make a diferen con ribu ion o our unders and-ing o assimila ion. For his reason i is impor an o highligh heir unique quali-

ies and no combine hem in some kind o abs rac overall index. Advancemenoward higher percen ages o atainmen on each indica or is assumed o be a

desired ou come by immigran s and heir ellow Americans alike.

The recent

appearance o

immigrants in nedestinations mean

they have had mu

less time on aver

to assimilate.


16/47


Some indica ors could reach 100 percen , as sugges ed by na ive-born accomplish-men s such as in he case o ci izenship or English-language pro ciency. O herindica ors, however, reach peak values a much lower levels, such as homeowner-ship (since a subs an ial minori y o he U.S. popula ion does no own heir ownhomes). In order o provide a rough gauge o possible atainmen levels by immi-

gran s, we will indica e wha is he average observed among he na ive-born whoare age 20 and older.15 Te selec ed indica ors are measured as ollows:

Citizenship he percen o our oreign-born popula ion aged 20 and older whohave na uralized o U.S. ci izenship, wi h 100 percen atainmen level observedamong he na ive-born because by de ni ion all na ive-born are ci izens, hough

here is a wai ing period or all eligible immigran s.

Homeownership he percen o our oreign-born householders aged 20 andolder who own ra her han ren heir homes, wi h average atainmen level o

he na ive-born a 66.6 percen .

English proficiency he percen o our oreign-born popula ion aged 20 andolder who speak only English, or who speak English ei her well or very well, wi h 99.4 percen he average atainmen repor ed among he na ive-born.

Education he percen o our oreign-born popula ion aged 20 and older whocomple e a high school degree or General Educa ion Developmen es equiva-len (average repor ed among he na ive-born is 88.5 percen ) and he perceno our oreign-born popula ion aged 25 and older who comple e a 4-year collegedegree or a more advanced degree, wi h average atainmen among he na ive- born o 27.8 percen .

Higher occupation he percen o our oreign-born men aged 20 and older(whe her employed or no ) whose occupa ion is classi ed as pro essional ormanagemen , wi h average atainmen among he na ive-born o 37.9 percen

Earnings better than low income he percen o our oreign-born men aged20 and older (whe her employed or no ) who have individual earnings grea er

han he pover y hreshold or a amily o our, wi h average atainmen amonghe na ive-born o 55.4 percen .

Each o hese indica ors measures a diferen aspec o success ul immigranin egra ion and advancemen in li e in America. Ci izenship represen s poli ical


17/47


incorpora ion and is he hreshold condi ion needed or vo ing and ull par icipa-ion in our democracy.16 Homeownership is a cen ral componen o he s oried

American Dream and signi es bo h landed setlemen in he Uni ed S a es anden ry in o he middle class.17 English-language pro ciency is an indica or o civicin egra ion and also cul ural adap a ion.18 Educa ional atainmen is a widely-used

measure o human capi al orma ion help ul or success ul economic incorpora ion,and improves chances or higher occupa ional atainmen and a beter income.

Estimating assimilation over time

In our s udy, each o hese selec ed ou come indica ors o assimila ion isobserved a hree poin s in ime: 1990, 2000, and 2008. We canno race individuals across 18 years in hese hree separa e surveys using he da a available, so we race he average achievemen s o speci ed groups o immigran s as observed

a hese hree poin s in ime.

We ake his approach even hough a ar more simple approach would be o calcu-la e he average s a us atainmen o all oreign-born adul s in each year, and hen

race he rend over ime. Ta would include he average increase in atainmen by immigran s who lived here longer. Bu ha measuremen also would include immi-gran newcomers and would be biased by he growing numbers o new immigran sor young adul s urning age 20 who would have o be added o he popula ion o immigran s we would be s udying each year. Tis over-inclusive me hod would nomeasure very well he progress o hose adul s who s ar ed ou in 1990.

So he pre erred solu ion adop ed by immigra ion scholars and us in his reporis o ocus on a xed cohor o immigran s de ned by heir arrival in one imeperiod. Te average atainmen s o his cohor can be repea edly observed insuccessive surveys as all members o he cohor grow older and s ay longer in ourcoun ry. Te same individuals are no observed over ime he repea ed surveysare no connec ed o one ano herbu he same group o individuals can besampled over ime by repea edly looking a members o a given arrival cohor .19

Tis s udy ocuses on immigran s who arrived in he period o 1985 o 1989 and were rs coun ed in he 1990 census. We hen observe hem 10 years la er in he2000 census, and ano her 8 years la er in he 2008 American Communi y Survey, which is conduc ed annually by he U.S. Census Bureau.


18/47


In he scheme o hings, 18 years is no a long enough ime o observe he comple e workings o assimila ion. Cer ainly an earlier arrival cohor such as 1965-69 wouldaford a longer ime span or inspec ion. Bu he more recen arrivals provide a beter gauge o recen rends and condi ions. Te more recen arrivals are also morenumerous and provide a beter s a is ical sample, especially in s a es where immi-

gran popula ions are more recen ly setled. For hese reasons, he 1985- o-1989arrival group seems o be he bes choicelong enough setled o wi ness he begin-nings o assimila ion, and recen ly enough arrived o provide curren assessmen .

For our primary analysis we will res ric he cohor o ages 20 and older in 1990,30 and older in 2000, and 38 and older in 2008. In addi ion, wo supplemen ary bir h cohor s will be in roduced or he analysis o English-language pro ciency and educa ionone cohor ini ially aged 10 o 19 in 1990 and a second cohorini ially aged 0 o 9 in 1990.

All o hese cohor s are analyzed or he o al oreign-born popula ion living inhe Uni ed S a es. A subse will also be selec ed or parallel analysis, namely ouroreign-born popula ion whose home coun ry is Mexico or ano her na ion in

Cen ral America. Predominan ly Spanish speakers and wi h lower average educa-ional atainmen han o her immigran groups, his La ino popula ion has beenhe subjec o par icular discussion abou i s degree o assimila ion. Amoun ingo 40 percen o our oreign-born cohor chosen or analysis, his is an especially

impor an subse o immigran s o s udy.

Finally, o round ou he above analysis ou lined or our oreign-born residen she rs genera ion o heir amily o live in he Uni ed S a eswe also draw on

newly published research on he grown children o immigran s, hese second-genera ion Americans. A newly published s udy in Demographyau hored by hesociologis and demographer Julie Park and Dowell Myers presen s an ex ensiveanalysis ha compares he average s a us atainmen s o immigran paren s in1980 wi h he achievemen s o heir grown children a he same age in 2005.20 Many o he same indica ors explored in our s udy o he rs genera ion are alsoaddressed by Park and Myers, hus permiting use ul comparisons o assimila ion be ween genera ions. We will summarize he Park-Myers genera ional ndings,

which per ain o a somewha longer ime period han our own s udy o he rsgenera ion alone.


19/47


Assimilation in the first generation

Te overall pace o assimila ion is bes judged by displaying all o he indica orsoge her. Tis sec ion addresses rends in he Uni ed S a es as a whole rom 1990o 2008. A la er sec ion will provide a summary or he individual s a es. Te rs

se o char s examines all immigran s aken oge her, o be ollowed by a speci clook a La ino immigran s rom Mexico and Cen ral America.

A pro le o he selec ed indica ors o assimila ion is provided in Figure 2,

showing he changes in s a us atainmen rom 1990 hrough2008 among all immigran s aken as a whole. Te mos s rikinggains are wi nessed or homeownership, which rose rom16 percen o 62 percen during ha ime period; ci izenship,up rom 7 percen o 56 percen ; ollowed by he increasingshare o men who earn incomes above low income, which grew

rom 35 percen o 66 percen . Addi ional gains are ound orspeaking English well, which reached 64.1 percen , up rom56 percen , in he 2008 American Communi y Survey.

In con ras , hree indica ors show rela ively litle change overhe 18 yearshigh school comple ion, atainmen o a B.A.

degree, and pro essional or managemen occupa ion. Teseimmigran s were all a leas 20 years old when rs observed and

heir educa ional and career s a us appears o have been welles ablished by ha age.

Te drama ic rise in homeownership in jus 18 years reveals as rong desire o achieve he American dream. Tis re ec s he

prac ice o pooling mul iple incomes in immigran householdsand is aided by purchase o lower priced homes. Such sharpupward rajec ories in o homeownership are commonplace in

he immigran experience in he Uni ed S a es, revealing hem-selves in he 1970s, 1980s, and 1990s, as well as he 2000s. A par-

Figure 2

Rapid assimilation

Key indicators o assimilation chartedover two decades

Homeownershi

Citizenship

High school com

College comple

Profession

English procieBetter income

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

1990 2000 2008


20/47


allel ra e o progress was ound in all decades and in s a es wi h bo h high housingcos s (Cali ornia and New York) and low cos s ( exas, Florida, and Illinois).21

Te rise in ci izenship has been on a similar rajec ory despi e limi s in ederallaw, which requires legal immigran s o wai ve years be ore becoming eligible o

na uralize or hree years i married o a U.S. ci izen. Tus, becoming a ci izen can be more di cul or an immigran han nishing high school or earning a good wage, which can be ob ained regardless o ci izenship s a us.

English pro ciency also rises in every decade, hough i may be underes ima edin our da a or 2008. Consis ency es s o he underlying da a indica e o us

ha he measure o English-language pro ciency is underes ima ed rela iveo he 2000 Census by abou 4 percen age poin s, sugges ing ha he Census-

consis en pro ciency atainmen in 2008 is roughly 70 percen .

Conversely, he same consis ency es s indica e ha high schoolcomple ion may be over es ima ed in he ACS, rela ive o he2000 Census by roughly 6 percen age poin s. Explana ion o hisreasoning is ofered in he me hodology on page 25. Recogni iono his measuremen bias helps o explain he apparen dis-crepancy visible in Figure 2, which indica es rising high schoolcomple ion ra es or his middle-aged cohor (38 and older in2008). We do no correc hese measuremen biases bu leave

hem visible as re ec ed in he raw da a.

English pro ciency and educa ional atainmen are especially sensi ive o he age a which immigran s arrive in he Uni ed S a es,according o research ci ed above. Accordingly, or hese ac ors werepea our analysis or wo younger cohor s, hose ages 10 o 19and ages 0 o 9 a he ime o arrival. Analysis o English-languagepro ciency shows immigran s who arrived as young childrenachieve pro ciency in spoken English ha is 20 percen age poin smore comple e han among adul arrivals, reaching roughly 95 per-cen , hough again he measuremen diference be ween he 2000

Census level and he 2008 ACS is apparen in Figure 3.

High school comple ion is also more common among he young-es immigran arrivals, reaching 82.9 percen among immigran s who arrived be ore age 10 compared o 63 percen among hose

Figure 3

Speaking English well

Younger immigrants do best at mastering E(de ned by their age at arrival)

A

A

A

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

1990 2000 2008


21/47


who arrived a er age 20. Tose who arrive as children receive he oppor uni y o aU.S. educa ion and he bene s o socializing wi h o her Americans while in heirmos orma ive years or linguis ic developmen .22 In con ras , immigran s whoarrive in heir eens and wen ies bring an educa ional atainmen ha re ec ss andards in heir homeland, o en shor ened o eigh h grade, and are no drop-

ou s rom U.S. schools.

Assimilation among foreign-born Latino immigrants

We urn now o he rends in assimila ion observed or La ino immigran s who were born in Mexico or Cen ral America. O en hese immigran s have he loweseduca ional atainmen and lowes English-speaking skills. Cri icism is some imesexpressed ha hese immigran s are des ined or a li e o pover y in America.Because all hese assumed aul s are o en exaggera ed, here is a compelling need

o learn he La ino immigran s pa h o assimila ion.

Te overall pic ure o assimila ion rends or adul immigran sis displayed in Figure 4. Te ndings resemble hose or allimmigran s, wi h he an icipa ed diference ha educa ion levelsare subs an ially lower, as is English-language pro ciency. Mores riking, however, is he s rong upward hrus o La ino immi-gran s in homeownership and earnings. Be ween 1990 and 2008,homeownership ra es soared o 58 percen rom 9.3 percen ,and he percen o men earning above low income rose o 61.6percen rom 21.5 percen over he same period.

Te upsho : Rapid economic advancemen is occurring amongoreign-born La inos. When hese immigran s were newly

arrived in 1990 hey may have resembled he nega ive s ereo ypeo La ino immigran s mired in pover y, bu ha was be ore hey began heir assimila ion in o he middle class.

While La ino adul immigran s appear o be slow a increasing

heir English-language pro ciency and do no increase heireduca ional atainmen once hey s ar working, i is a diferens ory or younger immigran s who arrive as eenagers or youngchildren. Te analysis above or all immigran s is repea ed here

or he subsample ha was born in Mexico and Cen ral America.

Homeownershi

Citizenship

High school com

College comple

Profession

English procie

Better income

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

1990 2000 2008

Figure 4

Focus on Latino Immigrants

Indicators o assimilation demonstrate kein income and homeownership


22/47


We nd ha English-language pro ciency increases by an evengrea er amoun or La ino immigran s who arrive a young ages

han is he case or all immigran s.

In 2008, he percen age o hose young La inos who speak

English well, even i underes ima ed a 88.3 percen , is morehan 40 percen age poin s higher han or adul La ino immi-gran s (see Figure 5). High school comple ion by he youngarrivals is also much more common han among he adul arriv-als, reaching 71.6 percen among immigran s arriving be oreage 10, compared o 49 percen among hose arriving be weenages 10 and 19, or 38.3 percen among immigran s arriving a erage 20. All in all, i appears ha earlier arrival is a grea er bene

or even ual adul achievemen s among La ino immigran shan among all immigran s (see box on programs o acili a e

English-language pro ciency).

Assimilation in the second generation

Our ndings o grea er assimila ion by young La ino immi-gran s led o ques ions abou he success o American children born o immigran s in he Uni ed S a es. Tese U.S.-bornchildren may also have oreign-born paren s bu hey have lived

heir ull lives here, bene ing rom ci izenship rom bir h. By looking a his second genera ion we can learn more abou assimila ion.27 o doso we make use o a new s udy released in Demography,drawing especially on

he summary in ergenera ional mobili y pro le presen ed herein.28

Te Park-Myers ndings or second-genera ion La ino Americans indica e evengrea er increase in high school comple ion (84 percen ) han repor ed in hecurren s udy or La ino immigran s who arrived a young ages. Te second-gen-era ion s a us atainmen s are es ima ed a he age o 35, including he ollow-ing addi ional ou comes: B.A. degree (21 percen ), higher-paying occupa ion

(32 percen ), living in households above he pover y line (92 percen ), andhomeownership (71 percen ).

Figure 5

English-speaking Latinos

Younger Latino immigrants also do best atmastering English (de ned by their age at a

A

A

A

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

1990 2000 2008


23/47


Meanwhile, vir ually 100 percen o he second-genera ion La ino Americanshave mas ered he English language, hus overcoming any barriers heir paren ssufered. On several o hese scores his second genera ion o La inos convergeson he whi e na ive born atainmen levels a he same age, such as householdsabove he pover y line (jus shy o he na ive-born s andard o 93 percen ),

homeownership (71 percen vs. 79 percen or na ive-born) and higher occupa-ion (32 percen vs. 40 percen ).

Overall, he Park-Myers ndings show drama ic gains in assimila ion indica ors be ween he rs and second genera ions. Indeed, he immigran s who arrived as young children who were s udied in he presen repor have pos ed achievemen sroughly hal way be ween hose o he rs and second genera ion. In ac , he ermo en applied o hese young children o immigran paren s is he 1.5 genera ion.

Immigrant populations in this report are drawn rom U.S. Census Bureau data,which does not distinguish between legal and illegal immigrants. Some legal im-migrants enter the United States as legal permanent residents while others earnlegal permanent resident status over time spent in the country. Regardless, legalpermanent residents must wait ve years be ore becoming eligible to naturalize, orthree years i married to a U.S. citizen, and be at least 18 years o age and willing to

le a petition to naturalize.

Yet more than a quarter o all immigrants in the United States are undocumentedand thereby ineligible or citizenship. As a result, citizenship attainment levels statedin this report, which due to data limitations amalgamate all legal and illegal immi-grants including those who cannot apply or citizenship, almost certainly underesti-mate the aspiration o immigrants to naturalize.

Naturalization rules

Virtually 100percent o secon

generation Latin

Americans have

mastered the

English languagethus overcoming

any barriers thei

parents su ered.


24/47


The key or immigrants that unlocks the door to integrationin U.S. society is English-language pro ciency. The greaterthe level o English-language skills, the higher the chance

or educational and employment achievement and commu-nity leadership. The U.S. citizenship test also requires basicknowledge o English.

As this report indicates, younger immigrants are more likelyto achieve English-language pro ciency. Unlike their parents,immigrant children have access to education and socializationin schools and are o ten at a young enough age when theirlanguage skills are still developing. Latino immigrant childrenbecome pro cient in English at a greater rate than all o our

oreign-born adults, and the strides that our Latino immigrantchildren make beyond their parents generation is greaterthan or all oreign-born children.

At the same time, it is more di cult or older immigrants todevelop English-language skills, especially Latino adults. Onemajor actor is that, outside o amily, the top priority or im-migrant adults is ull-time employment.

But there is another signi cant reason: Funding cuts anddiminished availability o English-language literacy training

programs have reached crisis levels, creating a situation thatthe Migration Policy Institute describes as among the mostneglected domestic policy issues in our nation today.23

Adult immigrants are eager to learn English, according to sev-eral studies, but they ace several obstacles. The rst is thisa majority o English-as-a-Second-Language programs (57.4percent) report having waiting lists, according to a 2006 sur-vey and report.24 Waitlists or ESL classes can range rom a ewweeks to more than three years, and waitlists are especiallylong or intensive-language courses and or evening classes

when most immigrants are able to attend.

The second obstacle is thisdespite a dramatic increase indemand or ESL classes, the ederal government between

scal years 2004 and 2008 reduced spending on adulteducation and ESL programs rom $574 million to $554 mil-lion.25 This $20 million reduction in unds over our years re

sulted in many cancelled classes, more under unded classes,and an overall lack o pro essional educators and material.

Whats more, ESL training is insu cient because the objec-tive is or most students to read and speak at a th gradelevel. Because o reduced unding, even those programs stillin operation cannot expand their training to bring immi-grants English-language skills up to par. And as previouslynoted, adult immigrants have less timeand usually lessresources such as transportation or moneyto apply towardlearning a second language.

Numerous recommendations on expanding access to Englishlearning programs are made to Congress every year, such ascombining ESL with workplace trainingto no avail.

Thats not the case in other traditional immigrant receivingcountries. Other English-speaking countries such as Canadaand Australia have comprehensive national policies thataddress integration o new immigrants; however the UnitedStates lacks any such policy or system testi ed Charles S. Am

orosino, Jr., executive director o Teachers o English to Speakers o Other Languages, Inc., during a House o Representa-tives subcommittee hearing last year. 26 Although the mosaico programs in the adult education system are efective, theadult education system as a whole is complex, ragmented,and in many places, ad hoc in nature.

As our study notes, Latino immigrants are integrating intothe middle class despite lower rates o English-language pro-

ciency and education or adults. The policy challenge is toexpand adult educational opportunities, particularly in areas

o the country that have become new gateway communitieswith growing numbers o immigrants.

Measuring spoken and written English skills


25/47


Immigrant assimilationacross our nation

Immigran s o our shores may no assimila e equally in all s a es because eco-nomic oppor uni ies and public policies difer rom s a e o s a e. Bu how muchdo immigran s assimila ion achievemen s really vary? In his sec ion o our repor we explore he diferences among he 50 s a es in immigran assimila ion visiblein 2008. We ocus on his single year since many s a es did no have many immi-gran s in earlier decades, and because he mos recen da a permi s he broadescomparisons. Also, his single snapsho mos closely re ec s wha local observers

can see oday in each s a e.

We ocus rs on de ailed ndings assembled or he 9 larges s a es or immigransetlemen (over 900,000 oreign born residen s in 2008). Te achievemen s o immigran s in hese s a es are examined separa ely or hose who arrived since2000 (0 o 8 years o U.S. residence), hose wi h 8 o 17 years o residence, and

hose wi h 18 o 27 years o residence. La er in his sec ion we will compare all 50s a es, including ones wi h very small immigran popula ions, and repor simpleaverages ha ignore any diferences based on leng h o ime in he Uni ed S a es.

The impact of time spent in the United States

Te rs s riking ac eviden in he da a is how much immigran s achievemen sin every s a e depend upon he leng h o ime hey have spen in he Uni edS a es. o illus ra e his, rends are char ed or he nine s a es wi h he largesimmigran popula ions, including Cali ornia and Arizona in he Wes , Illinois in

he Midwes , exas, Florida and Georgia in he Sou h, and New York, New Jersey,and Massachusets in he Nor heas . (Educa ion and occupa ion are no char ed

because weve already examined why hese wo indica ors do no change much oradul immigran s wi h ime in he Uni ed S a es.)

Among Latino

immigrants

homeownership

levels exceed

45 percent a ter

two decades o

residence in ever

key destination s

except New York


26/47


Whe her or all oreign-born residen s (Figure 6) or Mexican and Cen ral- American immigran s (Figure 7), he resul s are airly consis en across s a es.Immigran s have much higher achievemen s when hey have resided longer in

he Uni ed S a es. Te atainmen ha varies he mos is homeownership, buha is a re ec ion o local housing marke diferences.29 Immigran s are slower o

achieve homeownership in New York and he high-cos s a es o Cali ornia andMassachusets.30 None heless, a er wo decades o residence, over 50 percen o all oreign-born households have achieved homeownership in all he key des ina-

ion s a es excep New York. Tis compares avorably o he na ional homeown-ership ra e o 60.6 percen . Among La ino immigran s homeownership levels aresomewha lower bu exceed 45 percen a er wo decades in residence in every key des ina ion s a e excep New York.

States where immigrants are recent arrivals

S a es where a high propor ion o he immigran s are only recen arrivals in heUni ed S a es na urally have lower overall levels o immigran advancemen . Terapid in roduc ion o his rising popula ion has crea ed con usion over he ra e o assimila ion and con ribu ed o ear-based poli ical deba es. Te evidence shownabove, however, ells a clear s ory o rising assimila ion in each s a e when immi-gran s grow longer setled.

Here we compare he average immigran achievemen s (aggrega ed wi houregard o leng h o ime in he Uni ed S a es) or all 50 s a es and he Dis ric o Columbia, as presen ed in ables 2 and 3 on pages 34 and 36. wo supplemen-

ary ables are also provided o accoun or con dence in ervals es ima ed orhe sample in he American Communi y Survey, which is necessary becausehere are such small numbers o immigran s in some s a es.31 Tese da a re ec

wha an observer can see in each s a e a a single momen in ime, bu he aver-ages are very misleading abou he ra e o assimila ion. Te grea weakness o

his snapsho is ha i averages oge her all immigran s living in a s a e, no ma -er how long hey have lived in he Uni ed S a es, and is much less accura e hanhe por rai o assimila ion described in he previous sec ion. We will demon-

s ra e here how o make beter sense ou o hese s a e comparisons by compar-ing he average achievemen s o how grea a share o he s a es immigran s arerecen ly arrived.

A ordability

o housing is

apparently much

less important th

the length o tim

immigrants have

been settled.


27/47


Figure 6

Assimilation in key immigrant destination states

Four measures o assimilation by length o time in the United States

EnglishCitizensIncomeOwners EnglishCitizensIncomeOwners

California Arizona Texas

Florida Georgia Illinois

New York New Jersey Massachusetts

010203040506070

80

010203040

50607080

010

20304050607080

EnCitizensIncomeOwners

EnglishCitizensIncomeOwners EnglishCitizensIncomeOwners EnCitizensIncomeOwners


United States

01020304050607080

EnglishCitizensIncomeOwners

< 8 years 818 years 1827 years


28/47


Figure 7

Latino assimilation in key immigrant destination states

Four measures o assimilation by length o time in the United States

EnglishCitizensIncomeOwners EnglishCitizensIncomeOwners

California Arizona Texas

Florida Georgia Illinois

New York New Jersey Massachusetts

01020304050

607080

01020

304050607080

01020304050607080

EnCitizensIncomeOwners



United States

01020304050607080

EnglishCitizensIncomeOwners

< 8 years 818 years 1827 years


29/47


S a es ha have only recen ly received immigran newcomers can expec rapidassimila ion in coming years. Tis can be seen by comparing s a es ha have largershares o heir immigran residen s who are newcomers wi h o her s a es ha have

ewer newcomers and more long-setled immigran s. Tere is a wide varia ion be ween s a es in he share o heir oreign born who are recen ly arrived (see he

las column in ables 2 and 3 on pages35and37). Given he subs an ial risein atainmen levels among immigran s when hey reside here longer, we wouldexpec higher overall assimila ion o immigran s in s a es where long-setled resi-den s are more prevalen .

Conversely, s a es ha are home o grea er propor ions o recen arrivals wouldhave less assimila ed immigran s, on average. ake hree s a es as examples, ocus-ing on La ino immigran s:

In Arizona, 29.8 percen o La ino immigran s have arrived since 2000, and

53.8 percen o all La ino immigran households are homeowners.

Georgia is a new des ina ion s a e, wi h 44.3 percen o i s La ino immigran shaving arrived since 2000. Accordingly, a lower share o La ino immigranhouseholds in Georgia are homeowners37.1 percen han in s a es wi hlonger-setled immigran s.

Sou h Carolina is a very recen des ina ion or La ino immigran s: ully 55.4 percen arrived here since 2000, and only 24.9 percen o La ino immi-gran households in Sou h Carolina are homeowners.32

Housing prices ofer litle explana ion or hese diferences in homeownerachievemen s. Arizona, wi h he highes homeownership o he hree, has amedian house value ha is 16 percen higher han he na ional average, Georgiasmedian is 14.4 percen below he average, and Sou h Carolina, wi h he loweshomeownership, has a median 29.8 percen below he na ional average ye alsohas he lowes immigran homeownership. Afordabili y o housing is apparen ly much less impor an han he leng h o ime immigran s have been setled.

Tese examples are represen a ive o o her s a es in he na ion. We demons ra ehis in a graph o he 50 s a es ha plo s each s a es percen o immigran s who

are recen arrivals on he horizon al axis and immigran s who are homeownerson he ver ical axis (Figure 8). Te hree example s a esArizona, Georgia, andSou h Carolinaare iden i ed along he cen ral rend line o his dis ribu ion.


30/47


Te downward sloping line re ec s a nega iverela ionship he more newcomers, he lower

he homeownership ra e(a correla ion o 0.54 be ween he share o La ino immigran sin a s a e ha are newly arrived and he share

ha are homeowners).33

Mos s a es are clus ered near he cen ralrend line, indica ing s rong con ormance ohis basic rela ionship, bu several are no . In

par icular, ve s a es a he botom o he graphhave very low homeownership percen ages orimmigran sMaine, New Hampshire, and Vermon in New England alongside Alaska, andNew York. All ve o hese s a es pose excep-

ional condi ions or immigran s; our o hes a es are in he ar nor h and have very smallLa ino popula ions, while in New York he con-di ions include very high housing prices andlow homeownership or all residen s.

Wha is more no ewor hy in Figure 8 isLa ino immigran s high homeownership inCali ornia, despi e prices ha are 136.3 per-cen above he na ional average. Long-setled in Cali ornia, La ino immigran shave ared surprisingly well in achieving homeownership under he condi ions.

Al hough i is no easible o label every s a e in Figure 8, he exac gures oreach s a e are repor ed in able 3 on page37 (wi h con dence in ervalsre ec ing he uncer ain y o es ima es based on a sample in able 3a on page38).34 Te immigran s ory implied by hese da a is visually displayed inFigure 8 and is well illus ra ed by comparing exas and Arizona o Cali ornia.

exas has 25.2 percen recen arrivals and 55.6 percen homeowners among i simmigran s, which posi ions he Lone S ar s a e above Cali ornia in homeown-ership (due o exass much lower housing prices) and o he le o Arizona

(because i has ewer immigran s who are newcomers).

Curren measures o immigran assimila ion are heavily afec ed by he newnesso immigran s. Similar correla ions be ween how recen ly immigran s arrivedand s a es overall levels o assimila ion are calcula ed or each o our atainmen

Figure 8

Achieving the American Dream

Homeownership is high among Latino immigrants in stateswhere more are long settled

CaliforniaGeorgia

New York So. Carolina

Alaska

New HampshireVermont

Maine

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80%

Homeowners

Recent arrivals

More settled Less sett

r=-0.54

ArizonaTexas


31/47


indica ors, bu hese are no also char ed as a graph. Te correla ions are repor ed bo h or all oreign-born residen s and separa ely or hose immigran s born inMexico and Cen ral America ( able 1). Te correla ions are diferen or all he

atainmen indica ors, re ec ing how much assimila ion increases wi h leng h o ime in he Uni ed S a es or diferen atainmen s. In addi ion, he correla ionsor all oreign born are afec ed when diferen immigran groups are mixed in o

diferen decades o arrivals.

For his reason, he correla ions ocused on La ino immigran s alone may ofer hecleares pic ure o he diference ha newness o immigra ion makes or overallatainmen levels o immigran s in each s a e. As expec ed, he educa ion indica-

ors are only sligh ly afec ed by when an immigran arrived, bu he occupa ionindica or shows a posi ive correla ion ha is anomalous because normally i isas uncorrela ed as educa ion. All he o her correla ions yield he s rong nega iveefec o be expec ed: in ci izenship (-0.69), homeownership (-0.54), income(-0.46), and English pro ciency (-0.45).

Clearly, a grea er share o recen arrivals lowers he overall atainmen s visibleor a s a es immigran s a one poin in ime. Once hose newcomers have hadime o assimila e, much higher achievemen can be expec ed given he over-

whelming evidence rom o her s a es ha boas immigran s who arrived hereearlier han 2000.

Table 1

Correlations between recency o immigration and states overall levels o assimilation in 2008

The table summarizes correlations computed between each status attainment and the percent new arrivals, drawing on the data orall 50 states in Table 2 (all oreign born) and Table 3 (Latino immigrants) in the Appendix beginning on page34. Correlations canrange rom -1 to 0 to +1, and a strong relationship exceeds either 0.40 or -0.40. The results show that correlations with recency arrare largely negative and stronger across most attainments or Latinos. This means that average assimilation levels in states are higa ected by the recency with which their Latino immigrant residents have arrived in the United States

Above lowincome

Englishpro icient

Higheroccupation Citizens

High schoolcompletion

Collegecompletion Homeo

All oreign born 0.135 0.190 0.014 0.683 0.108 0.120 0

Mexican and Central American immigrants 0.459 0.447 0.251 0.693 0.238 0.083 0


32/47


Conclusion

Te evidence presen ed in his repor shows ha assimila ion o immigran s in America con inues a a rapid pace oday. Te insigh s rom his s udy are achieved

hrough care ul assembly o comprehensive da a spaced decades apar , akinggrea care o measure immigran progress by he mos consis en means pos-sible. Our major ask was o arrange he raw da a in a orma ha re ec s he imedimension o immigran advancemen so ha o hers can see he changes over

ime. Sharing hese da a should help he American public assess he ra e o assimi-

la ion wi h heir own eyes.

Te resul s are elling. Whe her rom higher or lower s ar ing poin s o social andeconomic atainmen as observed when immigran s are newly arrived heensuing wo decades reveal a drama ic rise. Tis remarkable advancemen is moseviden or ci izenship and homeownership, ollowed by income and English-language pro ciency. Educa ional atainmen and occupa ion are rela ively cons an among immigran s who arrived as adul s, bu immigran children exhibi

remendous gains over heir paren s.

Assimila ion is all abou advancemen over ime, con rary o he unwitingassump ion ha immigran s are rozen in ime like Pe er Pan. Te dynamics por-

rayed in his s udy are o en invisible o local observers o new immigran popu-la ions, bu rapid gains in immigran achievemen s can be disguised when henumber o more visible newcomers is grea er han he number o longer-setledimmigran s. Indeed, newcomers may be all ha are seen in new des ina ion s a es.Local residen s simply may no know wha o expec rom immigran assimila ion.

As we demons ra e in his s udy, he rs 18 years o U.S. residence by La ino

immigran s resul s in a rise in homeownership o 58 percen rom 9.3 percen ,and a rise in he share o men earning beter han a low income o 61.6 percen

rom 21.5 percen . Meanwhile, na uraliza ion has risen o 32.6 percen . Tese arecompelling indica ors ha assimila ion is robus in he 21s cen ury and ollows

he patern o previous eras o American his ory.

Assimilation is aabout advanceme

over time, contra

to the unwitting

assumption that

immigrants are

rozen in time li

Peter Pan.


33/47


Te process o immigran advancemen appears o be broadly similar in difer-en s a es, al hough i is afec ed by local economic condi ions on earnings andhousing marke efec s on homeownership. Less immedia ely visible may be heefec s o s a e educa ion policies ha accrue over ime and only become apparen years la er when young people reach adul hood. Surely diferen s a e policies may

impac he ra e o immigran assimila ion, bu on he whole he rends seem posi-ive and encouraging o ur her efor s.

Claims ha immigran s are s uck a he botom o he ladder are due simply ohe newness o immigran s and he lack o ime or assimila ion o occur. Givenime, he evidence plainly shows ha our immigran s oday are growing ever more

success ul and becoming par and parcel o he abric o our na ion. Tis is hecon inuing legacy o our assimila ion na ion.


34/47


Methodology and data for this study

By ar he mos common da a used in s udies o immigran assimila ion aredrawn rom Census Bureau surveysei her he decennial census or he CurrenPopula ion Survey. A newer survey, he American Communi y Survey, or ACS,is now coming in o prominence because i is designed o replace mos o heques ion con en ha was ormerly asked in he decennial census. Tis includesall he ques ions abou place o bir h, language, educa ion, income, occupa ion,and na uraliza ion, among o hers. Te ACS also elds a very large sampleo

over 7 million people per yearand so is likely o provide use ul-size samples ors udying small groups even in small s a es. Given ha assimila ion akes place overlong ime periods, we compare da a rom he 2008 ACS wi h earlier da a rom he1990 and 2000 census, as described below.

Al hough he ACS is in ended o replica e he socioeconomic con en o hedecennial censuses o he pas , diferences in survey me hodology make he ACSda a sligh ly inconsis en wi h earlier censuses on some ques ions. Such incon-sis encies have po en ial o skew he changes be ween previous censuses and he

ACS ha we are using o measure assimila ion. Accordingly, a necessary prior ask has been o evalua e he consis ency o da a be ween surveys, especially be ween

he 2000 census and he 2008 ACS, using he in ervening ACS surveys o in ormhis analysis. Tis evalua ion is described in a separa ely available working paper

and summarized here.35

Many people are amiliar wi h he me hodology used in he 2000 and 1990censuses, in which ques ionnaires are mailed ou o all known addresses andresponden s are asked ll hem ou and mail hem back. In erviewers are hensen o ob ain responses or addresses rom which he orms are no re urned. In

he 2000 census, 67 percen o households responded by mail. In he ACS, ques-ionnaires are sen o a sample o households, 3 million per year, a a ra e o 250housand each mon h. Follow-up in erviews are conduc ed a rs by phone. A erwo mon hs a 1 in 3 sample o he remaining addresses are selec ed or in-personeld in erviews. In he 2007 ACS, 47 percen o households responded by mail.36


35/47


For linguis ically isola ed Hispanic households (in which no adul speaks English well) he mail response ra e was 18 percen .

Te lower mail-back ra e in he ACS han census can be atribu ed o he speedierollow-up wi h personal in erviews as well as grea er visibili y, publici y, and amil-

iari y associa ed wi h he decennial census.

Sys ema ic diferences in responses o he i ems in his s udy appear o be rela edo he diference in response mode, since he wording o he ques ions in he

census and he ACS is he same.37 No only does he ACS in erview a much largershare o households in person (or by phone) han he census, bu he in erviewersare more highly rained permanen s af han hose who carry ou he census.

Our review o he ACS resul s or 2008 as well as all earlier years o he ACS ndsha he da a or he popula ion in his s udy, 1985-89 immigran s rom Mexico

and Cen ral America, appear generally consis en wi h he 2000 census resul s ormos o he indica ors used in our s udy.

Te wo no able excep ions are English-language pro ciency and comple ion o a high school degree. We es ima e ha he English pro ciency is 3 or 4 percenlower in he ACS han he census and comple ion o a high school degree some6 percen higher in he ACS rela ive o he 2000 census. I is reasonable oin er, bu we canno prove, ha hese diferences are due o he much higherra e o responses o rained and bilingual in erviewers in he ACS. Subjec iveunders anding o English language pro ciency may be expec ed o difer in hecon ex o a personal in erview han a sel -repor ed ques ionnaire. In erviewersmigh reasonably also be expec ed o provide addi ional in orma ion beyond

he ques ionnaire abou he correspondence be ween degrees ob ained indiferen na ions. For purposes o he presen s udy, he main conclusion is no

he rela ive accuracy o he wo surveys bu he simple ac ha he responsessys ema ically difer.

Despi e hese inconsis encies, in his s udy we do no adjus he da a in ordero impose consis ency. Ins ead, we display he da a as hey are ou o belie ha

grea er rus wor hiness is gained by repor ing he unadjus ed source da a. As aguide o readers, we poin ou where here seem o be no ewor hy diferences be ween he observed and ac ual changes be ween wo poin s in ime and oferour insigh s on adjus men s needed or grea er consis ency.


36/47


Ano her limi a ion posed by he American Communi y Survey is ha i s sampledesign yields es ima es surrounded by a range o uncer ain y. Tis ac or becomesmore prominen when he sample is smaller, such as in small s a es when examin-ing small subgroups o immigran s. For he s a e-level analysis we have ollowed

he procedures recommended by he Census Bureau o calcula e by ormula a 90

percen con dence in erval around each es ima e.38

Ra her han cluter he exand exhibi s wi h hese con dence in ervals, we repor he plus-or-minus range ina separa e able or he 50 s a es and he Dis ric o Columbia. Also, we ake careno o emphasize es ima es or he smalles samples in our analysis, relying moreon he larger groups. Where values or especially small samples are commen edon, such as new immigran s in Sou h Carolina, we indica e he plus-or-minusrange in a oo no e.


37/47


Appendix

Table 2 provides a 2008 snapsho rom he American Communi y Survey hasummarizes he s a us o all immigran s residing in each s a e. Te gures or each

opic are an average o all immigran s residing in each s a e, regardless o he di -erences be ween recen ly-arrived and longer-setled immigran s. Also shown inhe percen o immigran s who have only recen ly arrived in he Uni ed S a es.

Table 2a is a companion o able 2, showing he plus-or-minus range o 90%

con dence ha surrounds each percen age repor ed in able 2. Tese con dencein ervals are calcula ed according o procedures given by he Census Bureau in

PUMS Accuracy o he Da a (2008). www.census.gov/acs/www/Downloads/2008/AccuracyPUMS.pd .

Table 3 provides a 2008 snapsho rom he American Communi y Survey ha isselec ed only or La ino immigran s. Te gures or each opic are an average o all La ino immigran s residing in each s a e, regardless o he diferences be weenrecen ly-arrived and longer-setled immigran s. Tis summarizes he s a us o La ino immigran s residing in each s a e and shows he percen o immigran s who have only recen ly arrived in he Uni ed S a es.

Table 3a is a companion o able 3, showing he plus-or-minus range o 90%con dence ha surrounds each percen age repor ed in able 3. Tese con dencein ervals are calcula ed according o procedures given by he Census Bureau in

PUMS Accuracy o he Da a (2008). www.census.gov/acs/www/Downloads/2008/AccuracyPUMS.pd .


38/47


Table 2

Snapshot in 2008 o average immigrant achievements and recency o arrival

Above lowincome

Englishpro icient



Collegecompletion Homeowners

Arrived2000-08

Alabama 49.8 68.7 33.0 34.1 74.5 29.1 49.5 41.0Alaska 61.3 82.0 29.9 57.5 84.1 24.7 57.8 25.0Arizona 49.4 57.9 25.4 32.5 55.8 16.9 59.1 29.2Arkansas 46.8 61.3 25.1 38.0 54.7 16.7 52.6 30.6Cali ornia 53.4 61.2 30.4 46.7 62.6 24.8 49.5 20.4Colorado 50.8 65.8 29.6 34.3 59.9 24.2 51.6 28.6Connecticut 63.2 80.6 37.9 46.8 79.3 32.8 59.3 26.2Delaware 57.5 81.6 41.0 39.5 74.3 38.0 53.2 32.0District o Columbia 65.7 86.8 47.0 34.7 73.1 46.7 34.5 38.1Florida 48.6 69.8 31.6 49.7 75.3 25.1 63.2 25.3Georgia 52.8 67.3 31.6 35.6 70.3 29.8 57.2 34.7Hawaii 56.8 76.7 31.1 56.3 79.6 22.9 54.3 23.5Idaho 52.1 64.8 26.5 34.5 55.6 18.0 56.6 30.3Illinois 58.8 67.7 30.8 46.4 69.7 28.7 63.3 24.0Indiana 51.7 71.1 35.1 37.8 69.0 29.2 59.0 36.7Iowa 54.2 70.6 29.9 39.1 68.9 29.0 55.4 33.6Kansas 56.5 69.4 29.2 37.9 63.3 26.8 57.5 31.4Kentucky 48.0 76.2 35.5 35.3 75.4 33.1 51.0 45.0Louisiana 50.4 73.3 33.9 48.4 68.2 26.0 56.3 24.2Maine 46.7 91.7 34.5 58.5 78.2 24.7 66.0 18.1Maryland 65.5 81.3 47.0 47.4 79.9 41.5 62.5 32.1Massachusetts 60.5 75.0 39.4 50.1 75.6 34.3 49.0 29.1Michigan 51.9 80.2 40.3 52.2 76.7 37.4 67.0 27.1Minnesota 57.2 74.4 32.5 47.0 71.3 32.3 55.1 33.9Mississippi 53.9 66.3 34.0 30.9 65.6 28.2 51.4 47.1Missouri 49.1 72.6 31.3 41.0 73.5 32.9 53.3 33.6Montana 46.2 93.0 37.5 52.6 82.8 34.6 63.4 19.5Nebraska 56.1 64.3 24.2 38.9 58.7 20.0 51.5 28.2Nevada 59.7 65.9 22.5 39.6 63.2 19.5 53.1 26.4New Hampshire 64.7 88.0 44.2 54.3 81.4 41.9 57.8 23.3

New Jersey 65.1 73.6 38.9 51.8 78.8 36.1 53.3 25.8New Mexico 47.3 58.8 24.4 30.6 51.0 15.9 62.4 24.8New York 52.4 72.2 31.0 53.7 72.4 28.5 40.1 22.0North Carolina 49.1 63.3 28.3 29.6 63.5 26.9 50.3 38.6North Dakota 59.5 90.7 24.9 45.2 82.4 16.0 56.4 30.3Ohio 54.3 82.6 42.7 51.1 81.6 41.8 58.6 31.9Oklahoma 53.9 65.8 27.3 35.8 60.3 21.9 54.3 27.6Oregon 48.6 65.7 26.5 37.9 66.0 25.4 55.9 28.0Pennsylvania 58.2 77.7 39.4 51.1 78.4 36.9 59.6 27.8Rhode Island 57.3 68.3 22.8 52.0 60.9 19.3 50.5 18.1South Carolina 48.8 69.9 28.2 33.6 70.5 25.3 51.7 38.4South Dakota 75.6 79.4 41.7 51.8 85.9 38.6 49.8 19.7Tennessee 53.1 70.2 28.8 32.7 69.6 28.9 50.7 40.4

Texas 51.9 56.1 29.2 33.9 54.1 19.3 58.4 26.3Utah 57.5 65.8 28.7 33.2 69.0 21.6 54.9 32.9Vermont 46.3 89.9 39.6 56.7 83.5 33.8 66.0 20.6Virginia 65.4 77.4 41.9 47.2 77.4 39.3 61.8 30.1Washington 58.8 71.7 34.9 45.8 73.6 30.5 57.6 26.4West Virginia 44.8 90.9 52.1 51.1 84.9 45.8 68.7 30.4Wisconsin 52.3 73.6 28.3 42.8 68.8 25.9 57.0 29.8Wyoming 50.5 73.6 16.8 35.9 85.7 17.7 53.6 30.9

Notes: Above low income: Percent eign-born men aged 20 and older (wemployed or not) who have annual greater than the poverty threshold

amily o our.English profcient: Percent o oreipopulation aged 20 and older who sonly English, or who speak Englishvery well.Higher occupations: Percent o ormen aged 20 and older (whether emor not) whose occupation is classifepro essional or management.Citizens: Percent o oreign-born paged 20 and older who have naturalU.S. citizenship.High school completion: Percent oborn population aged 20 and older whave completed a high school degreGED equivalent.College completion: Percent o orpopulation aged 25 and older who hcompleted a 4-year college degree omore advanced degree.Homeowners: Percent o oreign-bhouseholders aged 20 and older whrather than rent their homes.Arrived 2000-2008: Percent o orpopulation aged 20 and older that arU.S. in 2000 to 2008 (the date o th


39/47


Table 2a

Con idence intervals or state indicators o achievements and recency o arrivalor all immigrants, 2008

Above lowincome

Englishpro icient



Collegecompletion Homeowners

Arrived2000-08

Alabama 5.4 3.4 5.1 4.6 3.2 3.5 5.9 4.8Alaska 8.4 4.9 7.9 6.7 4.3 5.2 9.0 5.9Arizona 2.0 1.8 1.7 1.8 1.3 1.1 2.2 1.8Arkansas 5.5 3.9 4.8 4.7 3.7 3.0 6.4 4.4Cali ornia 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.4 0.4 0.7 0.5Colorado 2.7 2.0 2.5 2.6 1.8 1.7 3.0 2.5Connecticut 2.8 1.9 2.8 2.8 1.5 1.8 2.9 2.4Delaware 7.5 4.4 7.0 6.5 4.4 5.1 7.1 6.2District o Columbia 6.5 3.4 6.8 5.4 4.0 4.6 5.9 5.5Florida 1.1 0.7 1.0 1.0 0.6 0.6 1.1 0.9Georgia 2.0 1.3 1.8 1.9 1.3 1.3 2.2 1.9Hawaii 4.4 2.7 4.1 3.9 2.2 2.4 4.3 3.4Idaho 6.1 4.8 5.4 5.4 4.1 3.4 6.7 5.2Illinois 1.4 1.0 1.3 1.4 0.9 0.9 1.5 1.2Indiana 3.6 2.4 3.5 3.2 2.3 2.3 4.0 3.2Iowa 5.0 3.6 4.3 4.4 2.9 3.1 5.0 4.2

Kansas 4.3 2.9 3.7 3.6 2.6 2.5 4.5 3.5Kentucky 5.7 3.3 5.5 5.2 3.1 3.6 6.2 5.4Louisiana 5.2 2.9 4.9 4.9 3.3 3.3 5.7 4.2Maine 9.6 3.6 9.1 7.8 4.7 5.0 8.0 6.1Maryland 2.2 1.4 2.3 2.2 1.2 1.6 2.4 2.1Massachusetts 2.0 1.4 2.0 2.0 1.1 1.3 2.1 1.8Michigan 2.3 1.4 2.2 2.4 1.4 1.6 2.4 2.1Minnesota 2.7 2.2 2.5 2.8 2.0 2.2 3.0 2.7Mississippi 8.0 4.1 7.6 6.9 5.1 5.1 8.9 7.5Missouri 4.1 2.4 4.0 3.9 2.4 2.7 4.3 3.8Montana 14.7 4.7 13.3 10.4 6.0 7.9 12.6 8.3Nebraska 5.2 5.3 4.1 4.5 3.5 3.0 5.3 4.2Nevada 2.7 2.4 2.3 2.6 1.8 1.5 2.9 2.4New Hampshire 7.0 3.3 7.3 6.5 4.0 5.2 7.4 5.5

New Jersey 1.4 1.1 1.4 1.4 0.8 1.0 1.5 1.3New Mexico 4.6 3.4 3.9 4.1 3.0 2.3 3.9 3.8New York 1.0 0.6 0.9 0.9 0.6 0.6 1.0 0.8North Carolina 2.4 1.4 2.1 2.1 1.6 1.5 2.6 2.2North Dakota 16.0 7.1 13.0 12.2 9.4 10.3 14.1 11.3Ohio 2.8 1.4 2.8 2.7 1.4 1.9 3.0 2.5Oklahoma 4.2 3.3 3.7 3.5 2.8 2.5 4.4 3.3Oregon 3.2 2.3 2.8 2.9 2.0 2.0 3.4 2.7Pennsylvania 2.1 1.3 2.2 2.3 1.2 1.5 2.2 2.1Rhode Island 5.4 3.3 4.5 4.9 3.4 2.9 5.4 3.8South Carolina 4.5 2.8 4.0 4.0 2.7 2.8 4.8 4.1South Dakota 12.0 9.6 14.

assimilation today: new evidence shows the latest immigrants to america are following in our...

Documents