1 / 12

Second Generation Immigrants Attitudes and Behavior under Multiculturalist Policies

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.

lilli
Download Presentation

Second Generation Immigrants Attitudes and Behavior under Multiculturalist Policies

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  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?

More Related