The Atlantic: “Will Immigrants Today Assimilate Like Those of 100 Years Ago?”

Immigrants of all races come to the United States in search of the American Dream. But is that so-called American Dream something attainable by any immigrant to the United States? Or does one’s race factor into it? Alexia Fernandez Campbell of The Atlantic delves into the question of assimilation and economic immigrant success. She explores whether it is different now than it was one hundred years ago when “nearly all immigrants arriving to the United States were poor white Europeans,” whereas now the “vast majority of immigrants are people of color from Asia and Latin America.” 

While there have certainly been many changes in the United States in the past one hundred years, the wealth gap remains one constant in the American economic landscape. Sociologists from the University of Wyoming and Brown University (Matthew Painter and Zhenchao Qian) studied whether the barriers facing certain races with respect to earned wealth also applied to immigrants in those race categories. What they found, published in the June issue of Sociological Perspectives, was not altogether surprising. Generally speaking, wealth inequality can be traced back to race, with “white families having the largest net worth, followed by Asians, Latinos, and then African Americans.” The research found that the “average net worth for all new immigrants was about $63,000…white immigrants had the highest average net worth ($92,965), followed by Asian immigrants ($83,500), then Latino immigrants ($40,073), and black immigrants ($34,318).”

Painter and Qian also adjusted their data to account for other factors that would affect immigrant wealth, such as the ability to speak English and educational background. With those factors taken into account, Painter and Qian found that “an immigrant’s race is strongly associated with their net worth.” Indeed, it costs Asian, black, and Latino immigrants between “$2,000 and $2,700 in net worth.” While this may seem relatively small, it does indicate that white immigrants “possibly because of their skin color, have an automatic advantage when moving to the United States.” There may be numerous reasons for this economic disparity. Black immigrants, for instance, like many black Americans, may face discrimination in the real-estate market and the ability to obtain favorable mortgage loans, and Latino immigrants may, like Hispanics in general, be less likely to invest in stocks, bonds, and mutual funds. Painter says: “Our results show that white immigrants have made a more successful transition into U.S. society and begin to purchase assets and accumulate wealth.” 

The study focused on 8,000 lawful permanent residents who had been living in the United States for less than ten years (and did not account for the nearly eleven million undocumented workers in the US). Painter and Qian note the study did not factor in how much wealth immigrants had when they entered the US and how much wealth they built (or lost) after moving. “Ideally, we would survey them when they arrive at the airport, but that data doesn’t exist,” Painter says in The Atlantic.

While the study by Painter and Qian indicates the difficulties facing many non-white immigrants today, Vivek Wadhwa, a distinguished fellow and professor at Carnegie Mellon University Engineering at Silicon Valley, offers a different point of view. He points out the success of Indian immigrants in particular, noting that the median annual income of US households headed by an Indian immigrant is $103,000—twice the US median. “The greatness of America is that a person who achieves success commands the highest level of respect regardless of his or her background, race, and religion,” he writes. “This is the American Dream: an ethos of freedom that provides anyone who achieves success through hard work with the opportunity for prosperity and equality. There are no absolute barriers to upward social mobility in America; that is why immigrants thrive and why America leads the world.”

OPINION: Obama’s Mixed Legacy on Immigration

Obama’s election signaled a turning point in American politics and was welcomed by progressives everywhere as the culmination of generations of civil rights activism. Immigrant communities, particularly Latin American communities, were a major part of the Obama coalition, and looked forward to significant and long overdue reform of immigration laws that would provide a path to citizenship for the more than 12 million estimated undocumented immigrants in the United States.

Read more

NY TIMES: “Shah Rukh Khan, ‘King of Bollywood,’ Was Detained at a U.S. Airport for the Third Time”

Shah Rukh Khan, the “King of Bollywood” and one of the most popular actors in the world, was detained and questioned at Los Angeles International Airport last week, making it at least the third time he has had difficulty entering the US. While it is not clear exactly why he was held—Customs and Border Protection (CBP) say they cannot comment on specific cases—Khan has expressed that it is most likely because his name is the same or similar to a known or suspected terrorist.      

Khan announced his detention at LAX to his 20.8 million Twitter audience: “I fully understand & respect security with the way the world is, but to be detained at US immigration every damn time really really sucks.” He added: “The brighter side is while waiting caught some really nice Pokemons.” Previously, Khan was detained in 2009 in Newark while in the United States to promote his film My Name is Khan, which deals with racial profiling of Muslims after the 9/11 attacks, and in 2012, when he was detained in White Plains, New York, on his way to address students at Yale. “Whenever I start feeling too arrogant about myself, I always take a trip to America,” he later told the students. “They always ask me how tall I am and I always lie and get away with it and say 5 feet 10 inches. Next time I am getting more adventurous. ‘What color are you?’ I am going to say white.”

Khan’s many fans as well as Indian officials have condemned the stops and accused officials at American airports of racial profiling. In response, Rich Verma, the American ambassador to India, apologized to Khan on Twitter, saying that they are “working to ensure it doesn’t happen again.” Nisha Biswal, the Assistant Secretary of State for South and Central Asia, tweeted: “Sorry for the hassle at the airport, @iamsrk — even American diplomats get pulled for extra screening!”

Khan, who is estimated to have a net worth of $600 million in 2014, making him one of the richest actors in the world after Jerry Seinfeld, wrote in 2013 of being profiled and stopped at airports because of his name:  

I became so sick of being mistaken for some crazed terrorist who coincidentally carries the same last name as mine that I made a film, subtly titled My name is Khan (and I am not a terrorist) to prove a point. Ironically, I was interrogated at the airport for hours about my last name when I was going to present the film in America for the first time. I wonder, at times, whether the same treatment is given to everyone whose last name just happens to be McVeigh (as in Timothy)??

Many innocent individuals have mistakenly ended up on the terror watch list and no fly lists or faced travel problems because of similar names on the lists, including the late Senator Ted Kennedy, Nelson Mandela, and more than one minor, such as six-year-old Ohio girl Alyssa Thomas.

According to an investigation by The Intercept, federal government guidelines allow individuals to be “designated as representatives of terror organizations without any evidence they are actually connected to such organizations, and it gives a single White House official the unilateral authority to place entire ‘categories’ of people the government is tracking onto the no fly and selectee lists.” Curiously, it also allows for dead people to be watchlisted. Political activists as well as Muslims who have refused to become confidential informants have been placed on the lists, leading critics to accuse the federal government of using the no fly list as retaliation. The Guardian reports that Washington had previously denied allegations that Khan was singled out because his name denotes him as a Muslim instead simply stating that someone with the same name is reportedly on the US no-fly list, causing him repeated problems when traveling to the US. 

Summer in St James Park

St James Park, London.

St James Park, London.

Thanks to some beautiful summer weather in London, I was able to enjoy St James Park one evening. Along with the ducks, I admired the view of the London Eye, also known now as the Coca-Cola London Eye. St James's Park, which was once farmland, woods, and a hospital for women lepers, is the oldest of the capital's eight Royal Parks. The park includes The Mall and Horse Guards Parade and provides the setting for spectacular pageants including the annual Trooping the Colour, a traditional ceremony performed by regiments of the British and Commonwealth armies. The ducks here were trying to give me a demonstration of what it's like. I get the idea. Nicely done, ducks.

Joseph McKeown: The DLG-Proust-Actors Studio Questionnaire

The one fact that I love recounting about Joseph is that it took him four years (maybe more) to find a pair of rain boots. This is not an exaggeration. Around the time he first started working at the firm, he was looking for rain boots. He ordered a few boots, didn’t like the fit, ordered more, again didn’t like the fit, left the law firm for an extended trip but still didn’t have the right boots. (He wasn’t afraid of sending a pair of boots back and starting again even when they came all the way from France.) When he came back to the law firm, after a year of traveling the world, he was still without rain boots, and, finally, only in the past year did he find, purchase, and keep a pair of rain boots.

Read more

New York Times: "A Mother’s Love? Of Course. Her Citizenship? Not So Fast"

Twenty-seven countries around the world do not allow or limit the ability of mothers to pass on their citizenship to their children and a non-citizen spouse, according to data from the United Nations. In countries such as Iran and Qatar, for example, restrictive laws state that women cannot pass citizenship onto their children even if the children are left stateless, while in Nepal or the United Arab Emirates, there are exceptions if the father is unknown or stateless himself. Such laws restricting citizenship can potentially leave children and stateless parents without identity documents, access to education, health care, or employment. The New York Times explains:

The laws are not just a measure of the unequal treatment of women. They can also have grievous consequences for the children who, as citizens of nowhere, may be kept from being able to go to school. Syrian refugees born in Lebanon, for instance, may be in especially dire straits because so many of their fathers are dead or missing; Lebanon and Syria are among the 27 countries, and Lebanon is among the most restrictive.

While some countries will let a woman pass on citizenship when she is unmarried—and prevent her from doing so when married—advocacy group Equality Now says this reinforces the belief that “a woman, once married, loses her independent identity[.]”

Examining the UN data and other sources, the Pew Research Center found that these types of laws and policies preventing women from transmitting citizenship were present in most countries around the world sixty years ago. Gradually countries have revised their laws, and recently in the past five years, multiple countries, including Kenya, Monaco, Yemen and Senegal, have decided to change their laws to allow women to transmit citizenship. Only last month, Suriname changed its law and now allows women to transmit citizenship to children and non-citizen spouses.

Such restrictions regarding citizenship are most common in the Middle East and North Africa, where twelve out of twenty countries have restrictive nationality laws. In Jordan, the law prohibits women married to non-citizens from passing citizenship to their children. This potentially affects the 84,711 Jordanian women who are married to non-citizens and their 338,000 children, a figure from a recent statement from the country’s Interior Ministry. Laws in Saudi Arabia prevent women married to non-citizens from transferring citizenship to their children; moreover, they are required to obtain government permission prior to marrying a non-citizen, a rule that also applies to Saudi men who want to marry a non-citizen from outside the Gulf Cooperation Council member states (Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, and the United Arab Emirates). Eight countries in sub-Saharan Africa have laws or policies limiting women’s ability to pass citizenship to their children, even though three of these countries—Burundi, Liberia and Togo—have “enshrined the principle of gender equality” in their constitutions. Men in these listed countries have few if any barriers in transmitting citizenship to their children and non-citizen spouse.

In the Asia-Pacific region five countries have laws or policies limiting women in their ability to pass citizenship to their families. Two in the Americas have similarly restrictive laws, including in the Bahamas, where the law “makes it easier for men with foreign spouses than for women with foreign spouses to transmit citizenship to their children,” according to a State Department Human Rights Report.    

The United Nations tracks citizenship laws as part of its mandate to monitor stateless populations, particularly stateless children who cannot acquire nationality from either parent. While in most circumstances children can obtain nationality from their father, if the father is stateless, the child may also be at risk to become stateless. With nearly one in one hundred people displaced from their homes, the highest amount since World War II, stateless peoples and children are especially vulnerable and at risk.