There is a deep irony about the current political moment. Though having an immigrant background is arguably a core feature of how most Americans understand themselves, the topic of immigration has in recent years risen to a fever pitch of political controversy and polarized views. Of course, the immigrant streams to the United States today differ substantially from those that characterized the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. Instead of bringing in millions of South, Central, and Eastern Europeans looking for better opportunities than were available in their homelands, the current immigrant wave has drawn most heavily from those with Latin American and Asian origins. Concomitant to these changes in economic, cultural, and political context as well as in who constitute the new immigrants, are a series of deep questions about civic belonging, the social consequences of immigration, and what appropriate policy responses to recent immigration should be.

As we write this introduction, Senator Barack Obama, son of an African immigrant to the United States, is in the middle of a fierce fight to secure the Democratic Party's nomination for president. Obama's candidacy brings into stark relief the fluid and evolving status of immigrants of color, regardless of either the outcome of the electoral battle or what one might think of the senator and his politics. Further, the Obama campaign is illuminating the complex and conflicted ways that racial and immigration politics intersect. Questions such as how our understandings of the constitution of racial groups are refigured, how the formation of arguably new racial groups proceeds, and what the role of racial and ethnic conflict and resentment are have all come into play during the course of the Democratic Party's contest. Obama's life story is a new one, in that it is the story of a descendent of an immigrant from a non-European part of the world, but the mythology of his story is also a very familiar one—the children of immigrants who take advantage of the opportunities available in this nation overcome large obstacles, and succeed in previously unimaginable ways.

This article presents an overview of the Hispanic population of the United States, focusing on the sources of its growth, its internal composition, its connections with the countries of origin, its role in the U.S. economy, and the emerging second generation. Intergenerational differences in outlooks and self-identities and the forces leading to the emergence of a “thick” Hispanic identity in the second generation are examined. The obstacles to successful integration faced by this youthful population and evidence of both “upward” and “downward” assimilation among its members are analyzed. Implications for the field of race and ethnic relations and for public policy toward immigrants and their offspring are discussed.

The dawn of the twenty-first century confronts Western democracies with a racialized class problem. The globalization of capitalism—mass geographic movement of peoples, capital, and markets on scales unprecedented since the Atlantic slave trade—has brought poor migrants into affluent nations. Migrants' descendants are replicating conditions associated with poor Blacks. Affluent Western democracies are hurtling toward biplural stratification defined by a multiracial underclass. Racialized class stratification stems from economic policies. Capitalist democracies' edifice of social policies—sanctioning expectations of rising prosperity, welfare “safety nets” for minimal consumption, low-wage migration policies—erroneously assumed that jobs and wages would continuously grow to absorb expanding populations. Overuse of low-wage migration policies commodified work relations in low-skilled jobs. Acculturated to demand affluent living standards and egalitarian human relations, educationally deprived descendants of migrants find commodified work regimens repellent. Despite large populations of jobless natives, some maintain that affluent democracies need more migrants to do the jobs that natives won't do. But jobless youth are alienated and prone to agency, as riots in England, the United States, and, more recently, France and other areas of Europe suggest. To avert the solidification of biplural societies, social policy must slow rates of migration from low living-standard economies, expand minimum wages and income transfers to working-citizen households, and provide documented immigrants clear avenues to citizenship. This agenda is more likely to succeed in the United States, where minority voting strength is gathering considerable momentum.

Are the predictors of anti-immigration attitudes consistent across countries with diverse immigration histories and policies? We hypothesize that the key predictors of opposition to immigration are indeed relatively consistent across industrial nations. We test this hypothesis with two surveys using probability samples of German citizens. We then compare our findings with those obtained in recent studies of immigration opinions in Europe generally, and in two of the world's leading immigration-receiving nations: Canada and the United States. Striking similarities emerge in the findings across structural, demographic, contact, economic, political, personality, and threat predictors. Opposition to immigration is routinely found strongest among the older and less-educated segments of the population who live in areas with anti-immigration norms and little contact with immigrants. Anti-immigration attitudes also correlate with political conservatism and alienation, economic deprivation, and especially with authoritarianism, social dominance orientation, and perceived collective threat.

We examine the interlinked migrations between the Dominican Republic and Haiti, between the Dominican Republic and the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, and, finally, migrations from these three countries to the United States. The literature tends to draw stark differences between race and racism in the United States and the nonracial societies of Puerto Rico and the Dominican Republic. However, although Blackness is a contextual category, through analyzing how “Black” migrants are racialized using these three contexts, we find that there is a simultaneously global and local derogation of “Blackness” that places Black migrants at the bottom of socioeconomic hierarchies. Further, these migrants remain largely outside of conceptions of the nation, and thus Blackness is constructed as a blend of racial phenotype and national origin, whereby native “Blacks” attempt to opt out of Blackness on account of their national identity. This dynamic is particularly true in the Caribbean where Blanqueamiento, or Whitening, is made possible through a dialectical process in which a person's Whiteness, or at least his or her non-Blackness, is made possible by contrast to an “Other.” Consequently, we argue that immigration becomes a key site for national processes of racialization, the construction of racial identities, and the maintenance of and contestation over racial boundaries.

The remarkable increase in immigration from Asia and Latin America requires a rethinking of multiracial analyses of neighborhood racial-composition preferences. This research addresses two interrelated questions: (1) since spatial mobility is so central to social mobility, how do recent Asian and Latino/a immigrants develop ideas about the racial and ethnic composition of the neighborhoods in which they want to live; and (2) what are the implications of processes of immigrant adaptation for the likely dynamics of race and ethnic relations in increasingly diverse communities? Guided by Massey's spatial assimilation model and previous studies of neighborhood racial-composition preferences, this research underscores the critical importance of immigration and assimilation as influences on preferences for same-race, White, and Black neighbors. Data are from the 1993–1994 Los Angeles Survey of Urban Inequality (N = 1921). Results point to the critical role of acculturation—the accumulation of time in the United States and English-language proficiency/use, as well as racial attitudes—in understanding what motivates preferences for these diverse groups, and to the complexities of accurately modeling preferences among largely foreign-born populations. Preferences for both same-race and White neighbors vary by the length of time that immigrants have accumulated in the United States and their ability to communicate effectively in English. English-language fluency is a particularly salient predictor of preferences among recent immigrants. Consistent with prior research on preferences, racial stereotypes stand out as particularly potent predictors of preferences; however, their influence is weakest among the most recent immigrants, coming to resemble those of the native-born with increasing years of U.S. residence.

This article considers how well the existing sociological literature on immigrant integration and assimilation responds to public fears over multiculturalism. The current backlash against multiculturalism rests on both its perceived negative effects for immigrants' socioeconomic integration and its failure to encourage civic and political cohesion. I offer a brief review of multiculturalism as political theory and public policy, demonstrating that multiculturalism addresses questions of citizenship and political incorporation, not socioeconomic integration. We have growing evidence that multiculturalism does not hurt immigrant citizenship or political integration, and might facilitate such processes. We know much less about the relationship between multiculturalism and socioeconomic outcomes. I discuss how sociologists have developed useful models of immigrants' socioeconomic assimilation but have paid scant attention to civic or political outcomes. They also have not adequately addressed the relationship between socioeconomic and political integration. We can, nonetheless, extrapolate from existing scholarship, and I outline two models of political integration that seem to emerge from the sociology of U.S. immigration: one of individual-level political assimilation, another of group-based political incorporation. I conclude by offering a number of hypotheses about the importance of “groupedness” for politics and the relationship between political action, multiculturalism, and socioeconomic integration.

One of the principal theoretical and policy questions in the sociology of international migration is the extent to which post-1965 immigrants are either assimilating in the United States or remain stuck in an ethnic “underclass.” This paper aims to recast conventional approaches to assimilation through a temporal and spatial reorientation, with special attention to the Mexican-origin case. Attending to the effects of the replenishment of the Mexican-origin population through a constant stream of new immigrants shows significant assimilation taking place temporally between a given immigrant cohort and subsequent generations. Thinking outside the national box, through comparing the growing differences between Mexican migrants and their descendants, on the one hand, and Mexicans who stay in Mexico, on the other, reveals, spatially, a dramatic upward mobility and a process of “homeland dissimilation” that conventional accounts miss. We demonstrate the analytic utility of these two perspectives through an empirical comparison with more orthodox approaches to educational stratification.

As a result of urban immigration and White flight over the past three decades, the demography of U.S. cities has changed rather dramatically; approximately one-half of the largest hundred cities are now composed of minority majorities. Many urban scholars expected these demographic shifts to enhance the prospects for minority electoral alliances. In reality, however, few such alliances have emerged. This paper looks to explore the barriers to effective coalition building between native-born African Americans and their immigrant counterparts. In the first half of the paper, I explore the psychological barriers to mass coalitions, focusing on the negative stereotypes and perceived zero-sum conflict that exist between native-born African Americans and Latino immigrants. The second half of the paper argues that material and symbolic incentives fuel ongoing competition between Blacks and Latinos in the political sphere. The paper concludes with a discussion of how immigrant-induced diversity coupled with existing racial hierarchies work against future Black empowerment. Even when changing urban demography makes Whites a numerical minority, White voters often retain their status as urban power players through their ability to divide minority voters at the polls. Divisive electoral strategies that offer political rewards to one group at the expense of others threaten Black incorporation in the urban arena. Unless minority leadership changes the incentive structure embedded in the traditional modes of municipal governance, Whites will persist in their economic dominance, while disadvantaged immigrants and Blacks will continue to make political choices that yield small, short-term rewards at the expense of greater social and economic justice.

Dramatic demographic changes are occurring in the United States, and some of the most dramatic changes are occurring in the South from Latino immigration. Latinos, by and large, are an entirely new population in the region. How are Black southerners reacting to this new population? Using survey data gathered from a southern location, this article explores several questions related to whether Blacks see these new residents as friendly neighbors or economic competitors. Results suggest that Blacks and non-Blacks perceive a potential economic threat from continued Latino immigration, but Blacks are more concerned about the effects of Latino immigration than are Whites.

I examine how and why the social construction of Asian Americans has changed from coolie to model minority over the last century. I examine the role of the U.S. government in creating policies that systematically select particular types of entrants to the United States. Federal immigration policy privileges high-skilled workers, and a disproportionately large number of Asian immigrants are granted the status of lawful permanent resident by the federal government on the basis of employment preferences. U.S. immigration policy thus creates a selection bias, favoring Asian immigrants with high levels of formal education and social standing. I also consider the consequences of this selection bias for the construction of racial tropes and Asian American identity, and argue that the normative content of the dominant tropes of racial identity is critical in establishing the incentives and costs of identifying with racial and ethnic groups. Immigration policy, and the selection biases it may engender, is an important factor in how those tropes are constructed and experienced. Racial identity should, and does, vary as a function of the unique histories of migration, labor market demands, and shared experiences for people classified by race.

The Latino population has grown significantly over the last few decades in the United States and population projections suggest that the number of Latinos will increase disproportionately, relative to other immigrant groups, in the coming decades. These trends have resulted in great concern among some who fear that Latinos, especially Mexicans, are not acculturating and assimilating into mainstream, White America. Fears of the “browning of America” and of Latinos' presumed threat to the American way of life have led some to call for measures to ensure the preservation of America's national identity. Samuel Huntington is the latest public figure to make such claims. This paper provides an overview of Huntington's claims as well as the responses that his work has drawn from supporters and critics. Using data from the 2000 5% Public Use Microdata Sample, we assess the validity of Huntington's claims by examining the extent to which Mexicans, the largest Latino subgroup, have integrated into the United States, basing our assessment on a variety of selected demographic, social, and economic indicators. The results suggest that Mexicans have integrated in various dimensions, with the level of integration increasing with length of residence in the United States. We conclude with a discussion of the historical and contemporary context in which Mexicans have been racialized in the United States.

The federal government created America's historic 1964 Civil Rights Act during a period of low immigration. The primary goal was to create equal opportunities for African Americans by ending Jim Crow discrimination in the South. Focusing on the issue of employment discrimination, and specifically employer preferences for immigrants, this article shows how the current period of high immigration from Latin America and Asia has created new challenges and dilemmas for Title VII, the employment discrimination title of the Civil Rights Act. Specifically, sociological evidence indicates that U.S. businesses are engaging in race-conscious employment focused on the perceived value of racial skills (special abilities of certain racial groups at particular jobs) and racial symbolism (organizational benefits from displaying certain races on the work force). Businesses hire Asians and Latinos, and especially immigrant Asians and Latinos, because of the perceived racial skills of these groups at low-status jobs that require strong work ethics and obedient attitudes. Corporate employers seeking skilled workers do not necessarily prefer immigrants. Instead, they seek minorities for the symbolic value of their diversity, for their general racial skills at bringing new ideas to the workplace, and for their racial marketing skills for growing non-White markets. I assess these developments from a legal perspective, showing that a combination of a lack of litigation and some key court decisions have prevented Title VII from regulating racial skills and racial symbolism and/or from offering protection for immigrants themselves.

Contemporary immigration is affecting U.S. society in many ways, particularly with respect to racial dynamics. Three aspects of these dynamics stand out: the conceptualization of race, the meaning of assimilation, and racial relations between groups. Although contemporary immigration, being largely non-White, is challenging U.S. society's entrenched conceptualization of race as revolving around a Black/White framework, this framework is not being rapidly overturned. Instead, immigrants are increasing social complexity by both adapting to the Black/White dichotomy and seeking alternatives to it through multiculturalism. The conceptualization of race is pivotally important because it determines the shape of assimilation, and, consistent with growing immigration-driven complexity, no one model of assimilation dominates the society. Instead, Anglo-conformity and multiculturalism are competing for preeminence. Blacks, because of U.S. society's failure to completely absorb them, helped to originate multiculturalism, but immigration is strengthening the model's appeal. Blacks and immigrants are adapting to U.S. society by utilizing both Anglo-conformity and multiculturalism. Immigration, increasingly, is also influencing race relations because of its volume and character. Even though Black/White conflict remains unresolved, future race relations will go beyond this nexus to incorporate other groups in complex interactions, revolving around the formation of coalitions and conflict situations as groups pursue particular interests.

This paper examines Korean-Latino relations based on the results of my own research in New York City and review of other empirical studies conducted in New York and Los Angeles. Korean-Latino relations have been established mainly through the employment of Latino immigrants in Korean-owned stores. Since Korean immigrants' heavy dependence on very disadvantaged Latino workers involves labor exploitation, it has been a source of Korean-Latino conflicts. There have been many cases of picketing against Korean stores by Latino employees in both New York City and Los Angeles. But Korean-Latino business-related conflicts have been much less serious than Korean-Black business-related conflicts. Moreover, the relationships between Koreans and Latinos have some positive aspects. First, due to cultural similarities and mutual benefits derived from the employer-employee relationship, many Korean merchants maintain strong personal ties with Latino employees, informally helping them and often sponsoring their applications for green cards. Second, Korean ethnic organizations staffed by 1.5- and second-generation Koreans in Korean enclaves in Los Angeles and New York City have recently expanded their services to Latino immigrant workers and Latino children. In particular, the efforts of the Korean Immigrant Workers Advocates in Los Angeles to protect Latino workers from exploitation by Korean merchants have greatly contributed to establishing cultural, social, and organizational linkages between the two communities.

In discussions of political obligation, it is commonly assumed that duties follow from citizenship. However, the performance of a duty by aliens can lead to citizenship status in at least one critical case: service by noncitizen soldiers. While politicians and pundits recently have called citizenship a just reward for bearing arms and these “green card troops” another example of immigrant entrepreneurship in the United States, there is a good deal of ideological ambivalence about the policy. A clear discussion of its merits is crucial, particularly because in upending the traditionally accepted relationship between obligation and membership in a community, it gives new meaning to citizenship; it also forces a choice between our egalitarian and civic republican values. In this essay, I provide a theoretical framework for evaluating the policy normatively, as well as a political analysis of why—regardless of one's normative stance—the practice of granting citizenship for military service is likely to continue into the future.

This paper provides an overview of the current debate among economists pertaining to the effects of recent immigration on the earnings and employment of native-born workers. Since much of this debate revolves around methodological differences in research design, we devote much of our effort to discussing the various strategies that researchers have used to isolate immigrant competition effects, and attempt to clarify the strengths and weaknesses of each strategy. Our overall assessment is that the central tendency of the research evidence suggests that recent immigration has had only a modest effect on the labor market prospects of native-born Americans. Some potential hypotheses that may explain this lack of a large impact are capital accumulation and the imperfect substitutability between natives and immigrants.

As the new second generation comes of age in the twenty-first century, it is making an indelible imprint in cities across the country, compelling immigration scholars to turn their attention to this growing population. In this essay, we first review the extant literature on immigrant incorporation, with a particular focus on the mobility patterns of the new second generation. Second, we critically evaluate the existing assumptions about the definitions of and pathways to success and assimilation. We question the validity and reliability of key measures of social mobility, and also assess the discrepancy between the “objective” measures often used in social science research and the “subjective” measures presented by members of the second generation. Third, we examine the identity choices of the new second generation, focusing on how they choose to identify themselves, and the mechanisms that underlie their choice of identities. We illuminate our review with some preliminary findings from our ongoing qualitative study of 1.5- and second-generation Mexicans, Chinese, and Vietnamese in Los Angeles. In doing so, we attempt to dispel some myths about group-based cultures, stereotypes, and processes of assimilation.

Little controversy remains about the profound shifts in the demographic landscape of the United States since the mid-1960s. Far more controversial is whether this transformation will bring about a new politics of race. This paper argues that a key to settling this debate is a clearer specification of the “identity-to-politics” link: the nexus between a population defined by shared racial and ethnic labels and a collective group politics based on those definitions. The paper articulates some potential pitfalls in how this nexus is commonly specified in empirical research and proposes an approach that distinguishes five key processes that are typically lumped together in linking shared demographic categories to common political destinies: definition, identification, consciousness, venue selection, and choice. The paper describes an example of this approach (the case of ethnoracial classification and the empirical measurement of race) and concludes by discussing its potential utility and limitations.