Second Generation Immigrants Attitudes and Behavior under M - PowerPoint Presentation

Slide1

Second Generation Immigrants Attitudes and Behavior under Multiculturalist Policies

Matthew WrightAmerican Universitymwright@american.edu

Irene BloemraadUniversity of California, Berkeleybloemr@berkeley.edu

Prepared for

IMR 50

th

Anniversary Symposium. Tuesday, September 30,

2014. Slide2

Attacking “Multiculturalism” has become cliché…

MC = Policies designed to recognize and promote cultural diversity in societyMulticulturalism is now a dirty word, associated with the failure of immigrants to sufficiently integrate to their host societies either socially or economically

European leaders cannot distance themselves from it fast enoughBoth U.N. and Council of Europe proclaim that it has failed as a political approach to diversityIn academic literature, many theoretical and empirical challenges to MC as well:Undermines national allegiance (Miller, Joppke

)

Undermines linguistic and economic integration (Koopmans)

Undermines “inclusive” definitions of national identity in

native

public opinion (Me)Slide3

The Flip…

But, many proponents of MC argue just the opposite: cultural recognition promotes immigrant incorporation by putting cultural minorities on a plane of equality with the mainstream (e.g. Bloemraad, Kesler

& Bloemraad, etc…)Much of the “MC=bad” literature…Focuses on the mainstream. It is possible that MC can irritate the masses and still be good for immigrants.Is limited to socio-economic rather that socio-cultural integration.Is based on case studies and small-n country comparisons.

Is based on the first generation, ignores “parallel lives” argument

Here, we want to extend our previous work (Wright &

Bloemraad

2012) to the 2

nd

Generation

Do 2

nd

generation immigrants feel more or less “included” in national community in “multicultural” societies?Slide4

Data and Measures

We analyze data from 6 pooled waves of ESS (2002-2012), and, as a supplement, compare Canada and the U.S. directly using several national surveys:U.S.: “Social Capital Benchmark” (2006) Canada: “Equality, Security, Community (2000, 2003) and “Ethnic Diversity Survey” (2002)

Outcomes of interest (in all cases score low=“disaffected” to high=“integrated”)Generalized trustPerceived discriminationSalience of ethnic and national identitiesPolitical trust“Politicians care” and satisfaction with national governmentPolitical interest and participation

All analyses control for

ind

.-level socio-economic status (age, education, unemployment), gender, ethnic “minority” status, and citizenship measures (citizenship and length of residence).Slide5

Basic Question 1: Have MCP Policies Actually “Retreated”?

Data source

: Banting and Kymlicka (2013). Slide6

Basic Question 2: How Does MCP Relate to Other Relevant Policies?

Data sources

: MCP index from Banting and Kymlicka (2013), CIVIX from Goodman (2012b). Only countries scored on both measures are included. Slide7

Analytical Approach for Individual-Level Attitudes…

In order to assess policy effects controlling for individual-level immigrant characteristics, we examine predicted scores obtained from within regime-category regressions and based on 1st and 2

nd generation pooled sample.Within this basic framework, we explore both absolute differences across regime, and differences in gaps between immigrants (1st or 2nd

gen) 3

rd

Gen+

across regime.

Additional leverage is provided by direct comparison of the U.S. and Canada

Both score highly on citizenship liberalization

However, they are different in terms of MC, both

ideologically

and, more importantly for our purposes here,

politically

.Slide8

Results: National and Ethnic Identity, CA & US

Data sources

: U.S. Social Capital Benchmark (2006), Merged ECS (2000/2003). Slide9

Results: Generalized Trust, by Immigrant Generation in Europe, ESS 2000-2012 Slide10

Results: Political Trust, by Immigrant Generation in Europe, ESS 2000-2012 Slide11

Results: Trust in National Government, by Immigrant Generation in the United States and Canada Slide12

All in all, however political elites and mainstream populations feel about multiculturalism, MC does not appear to promote socio-political disaffection among

immigrants.But, there isn’t much downside either among the first generation, whether we consider levels or gaps/3rd Gen+.The results in U.S.-Canada comparisons are unambiguous: regardless of specification, Canadian immigrants always score as more “integrated” than U.S. immigrants,

despite the fact that they are also place substantially more emphasis on their ethnicity.Persists into the second generationQuestions remain, however:Sampling quality/bias?Canadian

exceptionalism

?

Conclusions and Next Steps…