By Dominique Peridans, CIS.org

During the course of 2011, the Manhattan Institute for Policy Research produced a study on the question of immigrant assimilation, to which an article last month in the Wall Street Journal referred. The study concluded, and the article celebrated, that Americans do assimilation well. In comparison with an assortment of European nations and Canada, the United States ought to be proud of how they integrate newcomers. As was reported last June in another Wall Street Journal article that referred to the study, “handling immigration turns out to be one thing we do better than most of the rest of the world.”

Story continues below…
      

Three important findings articulated in the study’s executive summary are of particular interest:

1. On the whole, immigrants in the United States are more assimilated than those in most European countries, except Portugal, where a large proportion of immigrants originated in former Portuguese-speaking colonies.
2. Immigrants from Canada rank first in terms of overall assimilation as measured by the study, largely as a consequence of their high rate of naturalization.
3. Easing the path to naturalization does not guarantee full integration into society. Immigrants in the Netherlands naturalize much more often than those in the United States but have significantly lower employment rates.

The question is how do we measure assimilation? There is no unanimity regarding the criteria to be used. We might even ask: does true assimilation involve something quasi-immeasurable?

Jacob L. Vigdor, adjunct fellow at the Manhattan Institute, professor of public policy and economics at Duke University, and author of the report, defines assimilation as “the process of erasing differences between immigrants and natives over time”. In the report, he further states that “assimilation takes people who, though living among us, are often viewed as alien, hostile, or indifferent to the values of their new homeland, as well as a drain on its resources, and turns them into productive citizens of diminishing distinguishability.”

This seems to be true, but it is not too vague a definition? Is it not a definition that, in a sense, is predicated upon too low a common denominator? Is a community built upon the elimination of what its members do not have in common? Or is a community built upon what its members share, i.e. what its members have in common? The elimination of what they do not have in common does not guarantee them something in common. A community exists and is defined by what its members share. At any rate, Vigdor’s definition, although pointing in the right direction, is arguably insufficient.

Interestingly, USC demographer Dowell Myers echoes the Manhattan Institute perspective in a Wall Street Journal online conversation last month. Both use four criteria in their effort to measure assimilation. Only one of the criteria used for the study, however, is properly cultural (this criterion is actually with respect to that which bears a culture, language): “speaks English well”. “Cultural” refers to actively shared communal habits that express something of the human spirit, and not simply material similarities between people, such as having a car.

That there be only one “cultural criterion” is significant, and reveals either how difficult it is to measure assimilation or reluctance to try to measure what many consider to be an obvious, if not core, feature of assimilation: attachment to the community. (My colleague Stanley Renshon has written extensively on this issue of attachment as the central concern regarding assimilation.) Again, the “cultural criteria” are the ones that reveal what members of the community truly share. The three other criteria used in the study: “living out of poverty”, “completed high school”, “homeownership”, although revealing a certain stability or healthy conditions in the community, do not sufficiently measure membership. Beyond these lies the cultural reality properly speaking, which translates attachment to the community. This we are perhaps afraid to discuss, for fear of accusations of cultural dominance.

Attachment, however, is the issue. The Manhattan Institute report, in the midst of lavishing praise upon the United States for its successful integration of immigrants, underscores a sobering fact: “Immigrants from Mexico and two nearby Central American countries, El Salvador and Guatemala, are both poorly assimilated in an absolute sense and show few signs of progress over time.” In other words, immigrants from these countries show little attachment to the American community. Why is this? Perhaps it is that sheer numbers make living in a cultural enclave very feasible and favorable. Perhaps it is that there is insufficient expectation of assimilation on the part of the host country expressed in part by the numerous bilingual services provided for Spanish-speakers. A nation that welcomes newcomers is enriched by these persons, and, if it truly chooses to welcome, must help such persons “make themselves at home.” But the responsibility for integration first lies with the immigrant. And a country need not and must not abandon its cultural identity nor dilute its linguistic patrimony so to be welcoming.

It is interesting to observe that immigrants can have graduated from high school, own a home, and be living a middle class lifestyle — and not be attached to the nation. Once they speak English, however, and English becomes their first language, allegiances begin to shift and attachment grows, for participation in the community intensifies. The linguistic arena, in which members of the community truly share, is indeed where we can begin to measure immigrant assimilation. Language is an indispensable cultural feature of a country, and, in a sense, crystallizes its identity. Indeed, Thomas Aquinas, the great philosopher and Christian theologian, in Expositio libri Peryermeneias, his commentary on Aristotle’s work “On Interpretation”, says it so well: “Because humans are naturally social and political, it was necessary that the thoughts of humans be known by others, which occurs by means of the voice. And this is why it was necessary that there be meaningful words, so that humans might be able to live with one another. Hence, those who speak different languages cannot truly live together in social unity.”

---

The Center for Immigration Studies is an independent research organization that examines the impact of immigration on the United States. Dominique Peridans is an ordained minister in the Roman Catholic tradition, and is currently a full-time graduate student in Pastoral Counseling.

---

---

Related: Immigration, Latin America, Linguistics

---