Second Generation Immigrants Attitudes and Behavior under Multiculturalist Policies

1. Second Generation Immigrants Attitudes and Behavior under Multiculturalist Policies Irene Bloemraad University of California, Berkeley bloemr@berkeley.edu Matthew Wright American University mwright@american.edu Prepared for IMR 50th Anniversary Symposium. Tuesday, September 30, 2014.

2. Attacking “Multiculturalism” has become cliché… • MC = Policies designed to recognize and promote cultural diversity in society • Multiculturalism 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 enough • Both U.N. and Council of Europe proclaim that it has failed as a political approach to diversity • In 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)

3. 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 2nd Generation • Do 2nd generation immigrants feel more or less “included” in national community in “multicultural” societies?

4. 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 trust • Perceived discrimination • Salience of ethnic and national identities • Political trust • “Politicians care” and satisfaction with national government • Political 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).

5. Basic Question 1: Have MCP Policies Actually “Retreated”? Data source: Banting and Kymlicka (2013).

6. 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.

7. 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 2nd generation pooled sample. • Within this basic framework, we explore both absolute differences across regime, and differences in gaps between immigrants (1st or 2nd gen) 3rd 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.

8. Results: National and Ethnic Identity, CA & US Data sources: U.S. Social Capital Benchmark (2006), Merged ECS (2000/2003).

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

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

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

12. Conclusions and Next Steps… • 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 generation • Questions remain, however: • Sampling quality/bias? • Canadian exceptionalism?