Is there a difference in the immigrants of today vs. the immigrants of years past?

Question

Or is it simply OUR culture has changed so drastically over the past 25 years or so?

By this I refer to women more in the workforce than at home. Men taking on more roles as caregivers of children etc. Many other countries still have our beliefs and roles of years past still in force. So could the differences we see be just changing times of our society and theirs staying the same?

Right Aymee...This is not bashing.

Answer 1

A god question--but the answer is no. The differences are perceived, not real.

What we are seeing today isn't new--it issimply the latest of a series of migrations to the US. But you have to look at the history--and there are a lot of very good books on the topic. But here's a few points to give you an outline:

>the last largel scale waves of immigrants were up to the time of WW1. Following that, a series of racially-motivated immigration quotas were passsed into law that curtailed large numbers of immigratnts until recently.
>There is a popular myth that "women didn't work" (in factories, etc.) in the past. For most of America'shistory, this is simply wrong. Women have always been in the workforce. The so-called traditionof the homemaker who didn't work was never real except for a couple of decades right after WW2--but that--not the working woman--was the anamoloy.
>This is especially true of working-classpeople--and always has been.
>In immigrant communities of the past, women worked. Other than the obvious inequalities along gender lines, the chief difference between men's and women's work is that women often did "home work"--for example, piece-work pay for sewing that was done on a sub-contract basis; such work was often done in the home, rather than the woman going to a specific workplace.

Today's immigrants are different cheifly in three ways:
>the ethnic group happens to be hispanic.
>women are less likely to do home-work; their employment rates are comparable, but they do the work almost entirely outside the home
>unlike the past, we currently have a major policy failure in the US in that we don't have an adequate system for documentationof immigrants, as used to be the case. This is the result of two interacting factors: a)employers who find it advantageous to block the needed reforms because of the profits they make by being able to ignore laws protecting worker's rights, health, etc. when the workers are undocumented and b) the efforts of racist groups tha thave blocked the institution of guest worker programs and other needed measures.

A final note--the continual stream of propaganda against immigrants is not new, either. Ever since the first large-scale immigration (the Irish in the 1840s) racists have mouthed the same ugly bigotry. The Irish "were dirty, criminal," they "wern't white" (yes, the Irish wer NOT considered to be white--by the bigots of the tie). They were "taking jobs from hard-working Americans" despite the fact that the immigrants then, as now, got the jobs no one else wanted. They were "lazy, immoral," I f this sounds exactly like the BS you hear today, you're right. Its the same old song. But with a twist. Today, because these same racists and bigots have been successful in derailing the institution of effective systems of documenting imigrants, they hang their bigotry on the technically illegal status of the immigrants. ALWAYS neglecting to mention the fact tha tbeing an undocumented immigrant is NOT a criminal offense--it is a civil violation, like a parking ticket.

Just to wind this up--one (of several) other non-issues: the language flap. Here's the history again: immigrants have always come to the US not knowing English. They have always formed ethnic communities, schools, etc--all still using their mother tongue--just as Hispanics do now. And, jsut as in the past, they--and especially their children--are learning English, american culture, and assimilating into American culture. The striking thing is how very similar the patterns today are to those of a century ago.

The illusion that this is something new--or that these immigrants are "different"--comes from the fact that the last large-scale immigraiton ws a century ago--so those alive today have not experienced this before, combined with the misinformation tha tmany people have gotten as a result of the hate campaigns of the racists.

A good question--I hope this helps to answer it for you (BTW, I am a historian).

Answer 2

Very simple answer. VERY simple. A hundred years ago, immigrants flooded America to become AMERICANS. To assimilate and help make the Nation a better place for ALL. To be an integral part of shaping a land to be the greatest civilized place in the world. Today's immigrants, for the most part, though some still have the ideals of what it means to be an American, don't give a rats behind about becoming a REAL American. They don't want to assimilate, don't want to learn the language, don't want to become an integral part of it. They don't care if America stays strong, stays safe, and continues to better itself. Hell, they don't even care if America gets blown off the globe, as long as their not here when it happens. They are here to make a dollar, send it back to the mother land, and suck up as much social assistance as they can while the getting is still good. They Love their mother land more than the Nation that is supporting them and keeping them and their families back home (if there are any left behind) alive. They wont pick up a weapon in their own land to make their own paradise, so why would they support or defend this one. Once they have succeeded in destroying the support systems, school systems, and economical systems meant to assist and educate Americas own, and it becomes just like their own homeland, like mexico, they will simply leave and go home. Unforunately, the REAL Americans will be left with the results. Oh well. If we are dumb enough to continue to let it happen, once again, we will get what we deserve.

Answer 3

Huge difference - in the past they came here to become Americans and were from other first world countries. The immigration law change in 1965 just brought third world invaders.

And for those people who said they didn't like the last great wave - they were right and we shouldn't have allowed another one.

Answer 4

Yes, the immigrants have changed drastically thanks to Ted Kennedy's immigraton "reform" law of 1965. Before 1965 most immigrants were white Europeans, after 1965 most immigrants were non-white, third worlders. Here are Pat Buchanan's insightful thoughts about the issue.


What is different about today’s immigration?
First, it is a tsunami unlike any wave ever seen in the history of the world. We have almost as many foreigners here today as came in the first 350 years of our history. Second, most of those coming are breaking in. They have no right to be here. When President George Bush reported in 2006 that 6 million people had been caught breaking into the US in the last five years—more intruders than we had soldiers in Europe in 1945—we are not talking Ellis Island. We are talking
about an invasion.

Third, almost all immigrants today, legal and illegal, come from countries and cultures whose peoples have never before been assimilated into a First World nation.

Fourth, the melting pot is cracked and broken, and our elites believe it should be smashed as a relic of cultural repression. They do not want immigrants reforged into Americans. They want the US to accommodate itself to immigrants, to become a stew of all the languages, creeds, and cultures of the world, a country that looks less like the America we grew up in than the UN General Assembly.

Fifth, among those coming now, many bring with them no love of America or any desire to be one of us. Most come to work; some bring hostility in their hearts. And the president of the US now wants to allow companies to go abroad to find workers to do jobs American can’t take at the wages these companies offer. We are to have Gastarbeiter like the Turks of Germany. The republic is to be sacrificed to Kipling’s “Gods of the Market…and their smooth-tongued wizards.”

As the New Republic writes, these “guest workers” are to be:
“slotted into a caste, with no real hope of ever rising above it. Indeed, Bush’s guest-worker program would codify a large group of people in the US as second-class citizens [who]…would never be viewed…as equals. Instead, they would be seen as transient figures here only to make a buck. They would not be immigrants or future Americans. They would merely be janitors, construction workers and house-workers.”

America would be divided between citizens and the proles of Orwell’s 1984. Far from “humane” and “compassionate,” the New Republic notes, the Bush plan is “un-American.”

What we have today is not immigration as we knew and cherished it, but the perversion of a proud tradition, to convert America into something she never was and our forefathers were determined the never become. Pages 220 – 222 from "State of Emergency," by Patrick Buchanan

Answer 5

Referring to your question regarding difference between immigrants of today and immigrants of the past. Yes, there is a difference, assuming you are referring to legal immigrants. The early immigrants were here for good there was no possibility to return to their country of birth, they were fully committed to learning the language, assimilating and becoming Americans. For good or bad now there is an option to return home or move on to another country. For them it is a plus that they are able to visit their country of birth and much easier to retain customs for their children.

Good or bad, I don't know but I do know I am curious about my parents homeland and delighted that I am able to visit there.

Answer 6

One of the big problems that I see is the huge impact that these male dominate cultural issues will have with social security.

It is already failing yet our politicians keep trying to find new people to collect who NEVER PAID A CENT INTO THE PROGRAM!!

Non-working spouses collect from 33-50% of what the working spouse collects, without ever having to pay a cent into SS.

This is NOT what the program intended and having millions of additional people collect money from SS when they never paid into it will only hasten its demise.

SS should only pay people who paid into it and only based on how much they paid into it. If the politicians would only go back to the programs roots, it would be in great shape.

Answer 7

Today people think they DESERVE or have a right to come here and that we owe them. Used to coming here meant you wanted to be an American and assimilate into local society and culture. Now you see every GD flag there is flying like where they left was so great. I tell many of them to assimilate or vacate. We did not ask you to come here. Especially eastern Europeans and buglarians!

Answer 8

Wow! It seems the Thought Police is on patrol. So much for liberal/progressive thought from these totalitarianists.

The immigrants of yore did have a head-start and this nation was still in development, but those immigrants were from the more developed nations while many of the current immigrants are from the less developed (3rd world) nations. Hence, the apparent difference in mindset and assimilation.

Answer 9

If you're referring to legal immigration - no.

If you're referring to that sieve we call our southern border that allows thousands of illegal immigrants into this country - yes.

The only similarity? They both come here for opportunity. The dissimilarity? The illegals couldn't care less whether or not they become U.S Citizens.

Your question is more rhetorical than anything. I'm not sure what gender roles have to do with immigration one way or the other.

Answer 10

The legal immigrants entered to work hard follow the laws learn to speak English and apply for citizenship. Now they sneak in drain our cities, hospital, jails and our patience.