Economic Assimilation of Immigrants - Comparison of 1980's w the Present

This is interesting.  One thing that the paper does not examine in detail, and which I think is very relevant, is the geographic variation in rates of assimilation - a great topic for a social geographer.  I'll look for more studies along this line.  In The Slowdown in the Economic Assimilation of Immigrants: Aging and Cohort Effects Revisited Again (NBER Working Paper No. 19116), George Borjas finds a cohort effect not only in the level of immigrant earnings, with more recent immigrants having generally lower entry wages than immigrants did before the 1980s, but also in their rate of earnings growth, with more recent immigrants having a smaller rate of economic assimilation compared to earlier immigrants. He suggests that this slowdown in wage convergence reflects a decline in "human capital accumulation" tied to a decline in the rate at which more recent immigrants are acquiring English language skills. The issues involving immigrant assimilation, human-capital accumulation, and wage convergence have been widely studied for decades. Initial studies used cross-sectional data to compare the age and earnings profiles of immigrants and natives, and often found a rapid rate of wage convergence with native workers. The difficulty with this approach is that cross-sectional comparisons may mis-state the true rate of assimilation when there are substantial differences in earnings potential across immigrant cohorts. The current study uses data from the 1970 through 2010 Censuses to examine the evolution of immigrant earnings, and it focuses on immigrants who were 18 or older when they arrived in the United States. The analysis finds different levels of earnings between those immigrants who arrived in the United States before and after the 1980s, but it also reveals that most immigrants arriving after the 1980s had a smaller rate of economic assimilation than those who arrived earlier. For immigrants who entered the country before the 1980s, their initial wage disadvantage compared to natives typically narrowed by around 15 percentage points during their first two decades in the United States. In contrast, the immigrants who entered the country after the 1980s have a much lower rate of wage convergence, and the evidence suggests there has not been any economic assimilation at all for immigrants who entered the United States in the 1990s. The author considers three factors that might have contributed to the slowing assimilation of immigrants over time: changes in U.S. macroeconomic conditions that affected immigrant and native wage structures differently; changes in the national origin composition of the immigrant population; and changes in the geographic settlement pattern within the United States of more recent versus past immigrants. He concludes that "the data convincingly show that none of these factors can account for the severe decline in the rate of assimilation." The data instead suggest that part of the decline in assimilation appears to be connected to a discernible decline in the rate of human capital accumulation among recent immigrants. Specifically, immigrants who entered the country prior to the 1980s typically experienced a 15 percentage point increase in their fluency rate during their first two decades, while the cohorts who entered the country after the 1980s show only a 7 percentage point increase. The study focuses on one factor that seems to explain part of the decline in the rate of economic assimilation and human capital accumulation: the growth in the size of the national origin groups from which recent, as opposed to historical, immigrants are drawn. The rate of increase in English language proficiency is significantly slower for larger national origin groups. This effect accounts for about a quarter of the concurrent declines in the rate of economic assimilation and the rate of human capital acquisition. Data from a number of immigrant groups — including Chinese, Filipinos, Cubans, Mexicans, and Indians — suggest that all of these large national origin groups exhibited a decline in the rate of assimilation between the cohorts who entered the United States in the late 1980s and the late 1990s. The author notes that the payoff for immigrants to learn English is likely tied to the frequency with which they use their language skills in everyday activities, and that the incentive to learn English is likely to be lower when immigrants find a large, welcoming ethnic enclave in the United States. --Jay Fitzgerald Research generally confirms the following observation: Immigrants residing in ethnic concentrations show less English language ability, a lower educational attainment, a lower rate of naturalization, and a lower income level than do those living outside such concentrations. http://csun-dspace.calstate.edu/bitstream/handle/10211.2/1904/Allen-Turner96_SpatialPatternsOfImmigrantAssimilation.pdf?sequence=1 A variety of reasons for the concentration of new arrivals has been offered: a "clustering" of people who seek the comfort/security of sharing the same space with others who are culturally similar; the attractiveness of low rent areas (which may have been prospected by earlier arrivals within the group) in some instances, proximity to sources of employment dominated by an immigrant group e.g. meat packing houses.  In contrast to this general pattern, immigrants who arrive with higher levels of education and fluency in English do much better than their counterparts.  Other Dimensions of Immigration 1.  The Impact of Hate Crimes The integration of immigrants has other dimensions which are of special interest to security agencies i.e. the proclivity of certain groups to support activity not in the interest of the state.  The events of 9/11 are a case in point.  There is evidence that the backlash against Moslems in the U.S. (and perhaps, elsewhere) in the aftermath of 9/11 has resulted in a community which is: more conservative (as measured in propensity to be more observant and for women not to participate as much in the work force) less integrated (as measured in English proficiency and rates of intra-marriage with fellow Moslems).  http://www.voxeu.org/sites/default/files/file/DP8797.pdf 2.   Economic Prospects Another dimension of immigration is the generally held assumption that new arrivals will gradually close the wage gap between them and native born people.  In the past, this has been the pattern; however, there is recent evidence that the wage gap is not being closed to the same degree.  The following paper, provides some very interesting insights into this phenomenon: http://journalistsresource.org/studies/government/immigration/slowdown-economic-assimilation-immigrants# 3.   English - the Equalizer - will government screening processes insist on greater levels of proficiency? Proficiency in English is one of the major keys to "success" for new arrivals.  The poorer economic performance of new arrivals compared to earlier arrivals has received considerable attention recently.   Either way, Borjas's findings are important. Immigrants do better when they learn English, yet the incentives for them to do so decline as more arrive. If we plan on letting in more immigrants, as most economists recommend, we may need to implement policies that push new Americans to learn English to offset this troubling trend. http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-06-20/immigration-s-economic-boost-depends-on-learning-english.html The assumption/hope with the American approach to immigration is that immigrants will assimilate i.e. "become more like us".  Here is an interesting take on this notion of assimilation: http://www.brookings.edu/research/articles/2000/03/immigration-skerry The author argues that immigration is a great experiment in progress: fraught with risk and opportunity.  America shines as a desired destination for potential immigrants and it has a history of adjusting and accommodating to meet new needs.  The difficulties caused by two decades of an inept foreign policy may hinder this flexibility, either by creating conditions whereby new arrivals are less inclined to participate in the general society or where some very highly qualified individuals may decide to emigrate to countries which they perceive as "more friendly".   Only time will tell.  In Canada, where I live, the experiment with "multiculturalism" started in the Trudeau years.  In 1971, Canada was the first country to adopt multiculturalism as an official policy.  Canadian multiculturalism is fundamental to our belief that all citizens are equal. Multiculturalism ensures that all citizens can keep their identities, can take pride in their ancestry and have a sense of belonging. Acceptance gives Canadians a feeling of security and self-confidence, making them more open to, and accepting of, diverse cultures. The Canadian experience has shown that multiculturalism encourages racial and ethnic harmony and cross-cultural understanding. http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/multiculturalism/citizenship.asp It is worth exploring the above-noted web site to learn more about the "official" line (which surprisingly, is towed by most Canadians).   This is a "grand experiment" that contrasts with the "melting pot" approach of our great neighbour to the south.  In terms of social harmony, it appears to be working and in large urban areas such as Toronto, the various ethnic and religious groups are interacting in ways which would surprise those who lived here 40 years ago.  It is a much more interesting place to live as a result, and, we believe, it equips us to compete with more agility on the international scene (this despite an inept foreign policy agenda on the part of the current federal government).  While there are legal sanctions to address incidents of discrimination and the like, the major drive for the policy comes from civic leaders, the business class, and a host of civic organizations.  In essence, it has become embedded as a social norm.  This is not to say that there have not been challenges to this policy.  Recently, the Government of Quebec has indicated its intention to ban the wearing of religious headgear and the like within the civil service.  In the eyes of many, it is a cynical ploy on the part of the PQ to burnish its profile among its core constituency which resides primarily in smaller urban centres and rural areas.   http://www2.macleans.ca/2013/09/20/quebecs-war-on-religion/ The Canadian approach, reflected mostly in our larger cities has been characterized by a former Mayor as having the following elements: the definition of what it is to be "Canadian" has changed over time - it's a moving target our values have changed over time in response to the insinuation of cultural practices (e.g. foods, music) of new waves of arrivals in recent years especially, inter-racial/cultural marriages have become more common (it is almost the norm in some neighbourhoods) further blurring the boundary of "difference" it is a process which is hard to define at any point in time It may not be "social cohesion" as much as respect and tolerance for difference.  To my mind, it is one of the reasons why Toronto is so vibrant in so many different ways.  By several metrics, it has been identified as one of the best places to live in the world ... a far cry from the 1950's when it went by the name of "Hog Town".  ..... now, if we could only get relief from the likes of our current mayor:  https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/lv?key=0AhpNgYjOr8FzdGhZNVFocUhERUxzRGJBMFBtVDZHaUE&toomany=true#gid=0