It is generally assumed that immigrants (including illegal immigrants) gravitate towards the huge American cities where large groups of their fellow nationals have settled. The idea that cities like New York, Los Angeles and Chicago offer better employment opportunities also plays an important role.
According to a report by the well-known scholar William Fray entitled "The Population of the U.S.: Where New Immigrants Live", over the first seven years of the 1990s, 65 percent of all immigrants settled in only 10 large cities. About one million people arrived in New York and Los Angeles, while three times fewer went to San Francisco. Chicago followed with 250,000 immigrants. Taken together, the remaining six – Miami, Washington, Houston, Dallas, San Diego and Boston – welcomed fewer immigrants than New York or Los Angeles alone.
But the situation is gradually changing. According to the Census Bureau and recent demographic studies, the immigrant population in American suburbs is growing faster than in the cities indicated above.
I remember how in the early 1990s some of my émigré acquaintances from Italy ended up in Virginia, Georgia or North Carolina, but moved to New York within six months. “It's simply impossible to live in the sticks in single-story America,” they would complain. “There's basically no chance of getting a job that pays well. It's a dead zone."
Things look completely different now. Specialists have noted that a significant number of new immigrants move to the suburbs as soon as they arrive here. Other immigrants end up there after spending several years in large cities. According to USA Today, “Now you can find recent immigrants in counties in the South and the Midwest, places where their predecessors have not been seen in over 100 years.”
Audrey Singer, a fellow at the Brookings Institution, thinks that the cause of this change is economic. The chances of finding work in suburbs and agricultural areas are much higher now than they were 10 to15 years ago, as is the overall quality of life (lower crime rate, better schools, etc.)
This is an interesting answer to those who claim that new immigrants do not assimilate as quickly as they used to because they have made a conscious decision not to turn into Americans. Such a view is adhered to, for example, by Steven Camarota, director of research at the Center for Immigration Studies and one of the most active proponents of sharply limiting the number of immigrants allowed in the country. It can be concluded from his published materials that immigrants who have isolated themselves in their ethnic ghettos have basically doomed themselves to long years of poverty and destitution. Mr. Camarota is quoted in USA Today as saying, "Twenty years after arriving in this country, foreigners still are not able to emerge from poverty and continue to drain the government of its resources. They are poor, they lack health insurance, and they are on welfare. This is what turns Americans against new immigrants.”
He cites as an example how long it took the Italian community to enter into American life. Italians, he said, needed over 60 years to reach the level of income and education of U.S.-born Americans.
The dubiousness of such conclusions is obvious. When I read Mr. Camarota’s articles, I get the impression that time has frozen. This is clearly wishful thinking on the author’s part aimed at readers who do not know better. And I must admit that he does succeed at the task he has set out for himself. Last year’s failed immigration reform bill serves to confirm this.
In reality, it makes no sense to compare today's immigrants with those of the past, many of whom were not even able to read and write. It truly was not easy for them to find a place in a foreign culture and language.
But times have changed. According to University of Southern California Prof. Dowell Myers most immigrants now spend a long time preparing themselves for life in the United States before they even enter the country.
“More and more new arrivals have a strong knowledge of English and know something about our country's history and traditions," said Prof. Myers. "This generation of immigrants has been able to stand on its own feet faster than previous ones."
Statistics on homeownership speak to this assertion and are proof of the tremendous progress that the wave of immigrants from the last quarter of the twentieth century and the beginning of the twenty-first century has made. Official data show that 68 percent of immigrants who arrived here in the 1970s are homeowners. This figure is identical to the rate of homeownership among U.S.-born Americans. How can we possibly believe the pseudo-scientific calculations of Mr. Camarota?
“We usually draw conclusions about assimilation among new immigrants using two factors: knowledge of English and appearance,” argued Prof. Myers. "Actually, economic mobility and the acquisition of real estate say a lot more about integration into American life. I am simply amazed by the vigorous growth in homeownership among immigrants. It is unlike anything in the past."
It's worth noting that most homes bought by new immigrants are in the suburbs.
“There are two groups of immigrants that come to New Jersey,” said Emilio Fandino, executive director of the Hispanic Institute for Research and Development. “The first group consists of people looking for work in the suburbs. The second group is made up of fairly well assimilated middle class families. Their goal is to buy a house in New Jersey."
Mr. Fandino’s observations also apply to Florida, Virginia, Georgia, North Carolina, Texas and other states. A Census Bureau report states that the highest numbers of immigrants, as compared to the overall population, are found in the following suburban counties: Alexandria, Virginia, a suburb of Washington D. C. – 3.9 percent; Prince William County, Virginia, a suburb of Washington D. C. – 3.2 percent; Henry County, Georgia, a suburb of Atlanta – 3 percent; Gwinnet County, Georgia, a suburb of Atlanta – 2.6 percent; Riverside County, California, a suburb of Los Angeles – 2.6 percent; Loudoun County, Virginia, a suburb of Washington D. C. – 2.4 percent; Fairfax County, Virginia, a suburb of Washington – 2.2 percent; Kings County, California – 2.2 percent; Osceola County, Florida, a suburb of Orlando – 2.1 percent; and Fort Bend County, Texas, a suburb of Houston – 2.1 percent.
USA Today makes the important point that many immigrants who move to the suburbs have a higher education. According to Mark Mather, a deputy director at the Population Reference Bureau, in 2005-2006, 75 percent of immigrants from other states who chose to live in the wealthy state of Connecticut held a Bachelor's, Master's or Ph.D.
Naturally, the vigorous growth of the immigrant population among the homogenous population of counties in the South and Midwest has unsettled parts of the local population. Even well-educated and wealthy immigrants often look like outsiders.
Nevertheless, “single-story America” will have to get used to them. Experts like Mr. Camarota can froth at the mouth as long as they like about how immigrants need years to reach the same level as the average American. But now it only takes them a few years to make the same journey that took earlier immigrants almost their whole lives.
C’est la vie, Mr. Camarota.
