Donald Trump’s ascension to the presidency means that he will have a chance to implement the “extreme vetting” of immigrants he proposed during the campaign. In a speech at Youngstown, Ohio, back in August, Trump suggested that immigrants would be evaluated not only for their possible connections to terrorism, but also for their commitment to First World values.
The new policy would be timely. As I noted a couple of months ago, no one will be surprised that social views in traditional societies differ from those in the post-industrial West, but the degree of divergence can be striking. Immigration is surging from countries where that divergence is especially large.
Table 1 lists the top 10 “immigration surge” countries – meaning the foreign-born populations in the United States that have increased the most (in percentage terms) between 2010 and 2015. (The table is limited to foreign-born populations with a minimum of 100,000 people in 2010 to avoid including tiny populations.)
Growth of U.S. Foreign-Born Population Between 2010 and 2015, by Country of Birth
|Country of Birth||
World Values Survey?
Source: American Community Survey.
Restricted to foreign-born populations of at least 100,000 people in 2010.
The figures below use questions from the World Values Survey to illustrate the differences in cultural values between the United States and the “surging” countries that are included in the survey. The first three figures on gender equality are reproduced from my previous post on the World Values Survey, while the rest are new.
Immigrants are rarely a cross-section of a sending nation’s population, and people who do immigrate may hold views closer to the American mainstream than those of their countrymen. Indian immigrants to the United States, for example, are a famously educated and cosmopolitan group pulled mainly from India’s upper classes. Indian-Americans clearly do not hold the same social views as typical residents of India.
Another possibility is that immigrants will rapidly assimilate American values. One could argue, for example, that immigrants from the surge countries will stop believing that men should have preference for jobs once they enter a society in which a large number of households are headed by women.
Of course, no one knows how long and to what extent cultural differences will persistent among immigrants or the extent to which these difference will cause social friction. Immigration is a discretionary policy, and we can change the selection criteria or the level of immigration in any direction if we wish to reduce the possibility of social friction in the future.
Click HERE to read more.