urbs 150

SYMPOSIUM: IMMIGRATION, CITIZENSHIP, AND THE AMERICAN DREAM

Immigration Benefits America

Steven J. Gold

Published online: 7 July 2009 # Springer Science + Business Media, LLC 2009

Abstract David Stoll suggests that because contemporary immigrants are non-European, uneducated, poor, and uninterested in joining the moral community of American society, their presence threatens national unity, obscures citizens’ obligations to one another and will shortly change the US into a minority–majority society. Drawing from historical accounts and statistical evidence, this article asserts that immigrants provide American society with social, economic and demographic benefits. Moreover, while pundits have long predicted that immigrants with national origins distinct from those of natives will transform American life to its detriment, the record reveals the US has been able to incorporate diverse nationalities to the benefit of immigrants and the native-born alike.

Keywords Immigration . Nativism . Assimilation .

Skilled immigrants

David Stoll suggests that because contemporary immigrants are non-European, uneducated, poor, motivated by financial gain and uninterested in joining the moral community of American society, their presence threatens national unity, obscures American citizens’ obligations to one another and will shortly change the US into a minority–majority society.

Since immigrants tend to be poor and powerless, their burgeoning existence can be attributed to the endorsement it receives from coastal elites who, Stoll contends, are motivated by either economic self-interest (they seek to exploit the low-cost labor of immigrants), naive idealism

(they assume that immigrants will both benefit themselves and the country) or both.

According to Stoll, social transformations brought on by immigrants and their allies will ultimately replace the longstanding bases of American identity—ones rooted in nationalism, shared origins and mutual obligation among citizens—with the hazy concepts of transnationalism and globalism. The economic outcome of this will allow the well-heeled to grow more affluent while everyone else becomes poorer.

Given the negative consequences of contemporary immi- gration, Stoll encourages Americans to reject this “post national” vision of American society. Instead, we should strive to retain ethnic and nationalistic forms of moral community that emphasize our obligations to the well- being of our fellow citizens before concerning ourselves with the fate of those from elsewhere.

Stoll’s characterization of migration’s impact on the United States raises several important and controversial issues. However, before we accept his conclusions, it is worthwhile to evaluate the grounds upon which he calcu- lates the negative impact of immigration—economically, socially and morally—on American society.

Students of American history will find a familiar ring to Stoll’s warnings. For over 100 years, some members of established factions have worried that immigrants would reduce wages, erode social solidarity and remain loyal to their family, religion or country of origin rather than to the US. While immigration does pose many challenges for the US, there is every reason to believe that it will also provide numerous benefits to the country just as it has in the past. To paraphrase Mark Twain, both historical and contempo- rary reports of American society’s demise as a consequence of the arrival of impoverished and culturally dissimilar immigrants have been greatly exaggerated.

Soc (2009) 46:408–411 DOI 10.1007/s12115-009-9235-4

S. J. Gold (*) Department of Sociology, Michigan State University, 316 Berkey Hall, East Lansing, MI 48824-1111, USA e-mail: [email protected]

To begin with, I question the author’s contentions about the existence of a growing community of scholars and immigration supporters who foresee or desire the end of nations. During the 1980s and 1990s, a few theorists speculated that forms of regional and global governance coupled with free-flowing migration might result in the diminution of the nation state. However, the overwhelming consensus of research, especially that conducted since the events of September 11, 2001, has affirmed the continued importance of nation states as locations of political and economic power as well as national identity.

Stoll’s assertions about the economic impact of immi- grants on the US have been well-studied, and a preponder- ance of resulting data would appear to contradict them. First, although he fails to mention it, a considerable fraction of contemporary immigrants to the US are not members of a low-wage migration stream. On the contrary, they are highly educated professionals. These newcomers find employment in well-paid occupations for which there is considerable demand. In 2006, 27% of the foreign-born population age 25 or older had a BA or higher degree, a fraction nearly identical to that of the US population at large. [At the same time, it is true that a larger portion of immigrants have only a high school degree or less than is the case among the native-born US population (Terrazas et al. 2007)].

Such educated migrants work as scientists, technicians, engineers, economists, professors, physicians, nurses and entrepreneurs. Their activities are vital to the most advanced, innovative and profitable sectors in the US economy. Since the US economy demands many more persons with these skills than exist among the native-born, immigrants provide a considerable fraction of the human capital that allows American companies to function and generate good jobs. 40% of PhD scientists working in the US are foreign born. Indeed, according to Duke University scholar Vivek Wadhwa, 52% of the technology start-ups in Silicon Valley, one of the US’s greatest engines of recent economic growth, had a CEO or chief engineer born overseas (Bernstein 2009).

The work of these skilled immigrants is also vital to the provision of a wide range of services including healthcare, transportation and public works associated with the standard of living and quality of life that Americans have come to expect.

When highly educated persons come to the US, natives reap the benefits of their costly skills without having to pay for their training. In addition to those who arrive in the US upon the completion of their schooling, immigrant students increase their education here. Accordingly, a significant fraction of the science and technology PhD degrees awarded by American universities go to foreign-born

students. Between 70% and 96% of these students stay on to work in the US for at least 5 years after their graduation (Executive Office of the President 2007).

Over and above their professional know-how, foreign- born workers often possess linguistic, cultural, and techni- cal skills and contacts that permit American companies to sell goods and services abroad. In this way, their presence fosters American firms’ access to global markets.

Less-skilled immigrants also contribute to Americans’ economic well-being. They perform a wide array of essential jobs that few native-born workers are interested in taking, including food service, domestic jobs, meat packing, farm work, construction, light manufacturing and hospitality. Immigrants are disproportionately represented among proprietors of the small businesses that generate employment while making our lives more convenient and communities more lively (Light and Gold 2000).

While opponents to immigration have long claimed that newcomers drive down wages, a significant body of re- search reveals that the economic impact of immigrants on American life has been highly positive (Fix and Passell 1994). For example, a comprehensive study of the eco- nomic impact of immigrants on American society con- ducted by the National Research Council concluded that immigration delivers a “significant positive gain” of $1 billion to $10 billion each year to native-born Americans (Smith and Edmonston 1997). President George W. Bush’s Council of Economic Advisors determined that 90% of the US-born population benefited economically from the presence of immigrants (Executive Office of the President 2007). Findings like these suggest that rather than consti- tuting an economic threat to most American workers, immigrants are an asset.

In addition to these short-term economic benefits, immi- grants and their children also contribute to America’s long- term population growth. Countries such as Japan, Spain and Italy, which have low birth rates, aging populations and relatively low levels of immigration, face demographic crises, including labor shortages and a demographic crunch in which a relatively small number of workers will be expected to pay for the retirement and health care needs of a sizeable elderly population. The presence of immigrants and their children helps the US population remain compar- atively youthful and stave off such troubling scenarios (Wiseman 2005).

The consequences of overpopulation, including high real estate prices, overburdened social services, congested transportation systems and environmental pollution are widely reported in coastal cities and Sunbelt regions of the US. Other parts of the country, however, confront the opposite problem of population loss, which yields labor shortages, declining real estate values and an insufficient

Soc (2009) 46:408–411 409

level of consumer demand and tax revenue to sustain basic services, schools, and businesses.

Immigrants and refugees are often willing to live in small towns and accept unglamorous but essential jobs in agriculture and other industries. They play critical roles in delivering needed commodities, and allow smaller com- munities to survive. For this reason, cities like Lansing, Michigan, Fort Wayne, Indiana, Littleton, Colorado and Boise, Idaho have established programs to attract, welcome and assist refugees and immigrants (Migration Policy Institute 2009).

Stoll observes with some alarm that America will soon become a minority–majority society. However, the histor- ical record shows that over time, a number of groups that were initially thought to be inassimilable have found their place in the American mosaic. Accordingly, there is reason to believe that the most recent wave of immigrants will, like those of earlier cohorts, prove to be good citizens and valu- able assets to their adopted country.

A century ago, leading intellectuals of the progressive era including Madison Grant, University of Wisconsin sociologist E.A. Ross, Harvard psychologist William MacDougall and patrician author Henry Adams endorsed the eugenics movement. They warned that “alien races” including the Irish, Italians, Greeks, Jews and Poles were incapable of functioning in American society and, through their limited intelligence, base urges and flawed ethics, would pollute the national gene pool while bringing about the downfall of the American way of life. In 1911, the Dillingham Commission of the US Congress reported that new immigrants were “racially inferior, inclined toward violent crime, resisted assimilation” and likely to drive native-born citizens out of work (Pedraza 1996: 8). Such views were incorporated into the Immigration Act of 1924, which placed stringent restrictions on the arrival of immigrants who did not originate in Northern Europe and completely excluded those from Asia. Its quotas were not fully rescinded until 1965.

In retrospect, the concerns of these professors and pundits now seem unfounded. Not only do we celebrate the countless contributions of these populations to the American way of life, but further no longer regard such nationalities as racially distinct from other European Americans. Based on this record, it appears quite likely that the descendents of today’s immigrant minorities will be regarded as equally American as those whose forebears came from Europe.

David Stoll suggests that immigrants do not share American notions of civic nationalism. However, various indicators suggest otherwise. In a detailed study of immigration and crime, Rubén G. Rumbaut and Walter Ewing found that immigrants, including those lacking legal

documentation, have much lower rates of criminality than the native born.

Another indicator of immigrants’ willingness to honor established notions of American nationality is through their military service. According to the Department of Defense, as of February 2008, more than 65,000 immigrants (non- US citizens and naturalized citizens) were serving on active duty in the US Armed Forces. This accounts for about 5% of all active duty personnel. Since September 2001, the US Citizenship and Immigration Services has naturalized more than 37,250 foreign-born members of the US Armed Forces and granted posthumous citizenship to 111 service members who were killed in the line of duty (Batalova 2008).

The fact that so many immigrants are willing to serve in the American armed forces during a war that is both dangerous and internationally unpopular demonstrates their patriotism and willingness to literally put their lives on the line to further the goals and values of their new nation.

In conclusion, this brief review of contemporary and historical patterns of immigration presents a far more positive image of the impact of immigrants on American society than does Stoll’s essay. While the presence of immigrants will certainly challenge both the native-born population as well as newcomers, such evidence suggests that immigrants will continue to make life in the US more affluent, more fulfilling and more inclusive for both natives and new arrivals than it would be without them.

Further Reading

Batalova, J. 2008. Immigrants in the US Armed Forces, Migration Information Source. www.migrationinformation.org. Accessed 7 May 2009.

Bernstein, R. 2009. Letter from America: Don’t Deny Benefit of Foreigners, New York Times, May, 6.

Executive Office of the President, Council of Economic Advisors 2007. Immigration’s economic impact. Washington DC: The White House, June 20.

Fix, M., & Passel, J. S. 1994. Immigration and immigrants: Setting the record straight. Washington D.C.: The Urban Institute.

Light, I., & Gold, S. J. 2000. Ethnic economies. San Diego: Academic Press.

Migration Policy Institute. 2009. E Pluribus Unum Prizes. http://www. migrationinformation.org/integrationawards/. Accessed 7 May 2009.

Pedraza, S. 1996. Origins and destinies: Immigration, race and ethnicity in American history. In S. Pedraza, & R. G. Rumbaut (Eds.), Origins and destinies: Immigration, race and ethnicity in America (pp. 1–20). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing.

Rumbaut, R. G., & Ewing, W. 2007. The myth of immigrant criminality and the paradox of assimilation: Incarceration rates among native and foreign-born men. Washington DC: American Immigration Law Foundation, Spring.

410 Soc (2009) 46:408–411

Smith, J. P., & Edmonston, B. (Eds.) 1997. The new Americans: Economic, demographic, and fiscal effects of immigration. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

Terrazas, A., Batalova, J., & Fan, V. 2007. Frequently requested statistics on immigrants in the United States. Migration Information Source. www.migrationinformation.org. Accessed 7 May 2009.

Weisman, J. 2005. Aging population poses global challenges. Washingtonpost.com, Page A01. Accessed 7 May 2009.

S. J. Gold is professor, associate chair and graduate program director in the Department of Sociology at Michigan State University. He is past chair of the International Migration Section of the American Sociological Association and author, co-author or co-editor of five books, most recently, The Israeli Diaspora (Routledge/University of Washington Press 2002). Together with Rubén G. Rumbaut, he is the editor of The New Americans book series from LFB Publishers.

Soc (2009) 46:408–411 411