1. Second Generation Immigrants Attitudes and Behavior under Multiculturalist Policies Matthew Wright American University mwright@american.edu Irene Bloemraad University of California, Berkeley bloemr@berkeley.edu Prepared for IMR 50 th 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 2 nd Generation  Do 2 nd 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 1 st and 2 nd generation pooled sample.  Within this basic framework, we explore both absolute differences across regime, and differences in gaps between immigrants (1 st or 2 nd gen) 3 rd 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.  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/3 rd 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? Conclusions and Next Steps…