American Identity, Immigration, and the Melting Pot Debate

Introduction: Immigration and the American Economy

What does it mean to be "American" in a country as diverse as the United States? It has been decades since the Immigration Act of 1924 (Johnson-Reed Act) was passed. The law established a quota system that slowed the rate at which new migrants entered the United States. Immigration had already brought more than 23.5 million people into the country. Some argue that the Johnson-Reed Act disadvantaged certain regions of the world while giving preference to others, though not explicitly. Among the regions critics consider disadvantaged are Southern and Eastern Europe. Critics also contend that the Johnson-Reed Act was one reason Asian migration into the United States slowed following World War II (Kraut, 2014, p. 707).

The United States holds a reputation as a land of opportunity for nearly all its residents. There are significant avenues for upward mobility, allowing people born into lower socioeconomic levels to change their fortunes and rise on the socioeconomic ladder. Nonetheless, critics of immigration argue that it disadvantages poorer Americans by driving down wages in jobs that would otherwise give the poor a springboard out of poverty. Unskilled immigrants are often willing to accept lower wages. These fears have dominated political and economic debates for several decades (Ran & Fabio, 2006).

A review of contemporary and historical evidence yields several interesting observations. First, over time, the composition of immigration has shifted. In the past, the selection of migrants was mixed, with both skilled and unskilled workers receiving immigration permits. Today, there is far greater emphasis on skills, which have become the most observable characteristic used by immigration authorities (Abramitzky, Platt & Katherine, 2013). This shift can be explained by several factors, including rising income inequality in the United States and the desire of officials to preserve wage opportunities for people at the lower end of the socioeconomic scale. Additionally, from the perspective of self-selection, the process of migrating to the United States is costly, meaning that skilled workers with sufficient resources are the most likely to undertake it. This reality aligns closely with the Roy model of self-selection (Abramitzky & Boustan, 2017).

The second observation is that the socioeconomic situation of immigrants does not always reflect the notion of the "American Dream." Both historically and today, the popular argument holds that migrants arrive with little and gradually rise to catch up with other Americans. The reality, however, is that immigrants and native-born workers experience nearly the same rate of wage growth. Because unskilled migrants start at the bottom, a standard rate of wage growth is insufficient for them to catch up with other Americans within a single generation.

This is especially true today, though it was less the case in the pre-1900 era. During that earlier period, migrants and natives often held similar jobs and experienced comparable wage growth. Today, high-paying positions require advanced specialized skills that may be difficult or unaffordable for immigrants to acquire. Another relevant factor is that a typical immigrant before 1900 came from Europe, which was poorer than the United States but not dramatically so. There were considerable similarities between the jobs available, the skills required, and the technology used in Europe and America at that time. Migrants therefore had a great deal in common with most American workers and could secure comparable employment. The relative heterogeneity of skills meant that immigrants advanced at nearly the same rate as natives and could realistically attain the "American Dream" within their own lifetime (Ran, Platt & Katherine, 2013).

The third observation is that while immigrants entering the workforce may reduce wages for some native workers, there is no evidence to support the claim that immigration has a net negative effect on the national economy. As is common in most economic systems, immigration creates both winners and losers, but the net effect on the U.S. economy is positive. Even in cases where immigrants contribute to lower wages, gateway cities often attract new capital investment in the form of factories and other businesses seeking to take advantage of lower labor costs (Abramitzky & Boustan, 2017, p. 2).

Is the Idea of American Culture as a Melting Pot Still Valid?

Ethnicity theory throughout the twentieth century focused primarily on immigration and the question of how immigrants could culturally assimilate into society. America is composed of many diverse minority communities, yet the desire to assimilate into the American way of life remains strong for most immigrants. Israel Zangwill's The Melting Pot (1908) examined American culture through the lens of its constituent races and helped popularize various theories of ethnic assimilation. The play was celebrated in its time, but many critics now argue that it does not accurately capture how the racial and ethnic composition of the United States should be studied or understood (Mahfouz, 2013, p. 2).

The cultural mosaic, or "salad bowl," theory proposes that the United States should integrate its diverse ethnicities the way different ingredients combine in a salad—each retaining its own distinct characteristics. Under this model, the various ethnicities that make up the United States need not surrender their unique qualities as they interact with other cultures. Just as fruits and vegetables maintain their individual properties in a salad, ethnic communities need not lose their distinctiveness through assimilation. Notably, this model does not require every member of a given culture to assimilate fully into mainstream American culture for integration to be considered successful. Some individuals may choose to assimilate deeply, while others may remain at the margins, preserving their original culture entirely. Payant and Rose (1999) acknowledge the challenges of this dichotomy, as people struggle to determine what balance to strike between maintaining their heritage and engaging with mainstream American culture. This dilemma of assimilation has affected migrant communities throughout the world, not only in the United States.

Several thinkers in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries developed ideas to explore the assimilation of diverse cultures into a mainstream society. It was, however, Israel Zangwill—a British writer—who coined the term "melting pot" in his work The Melting Pot: Drama in Four Acts (1909). Zangwill described the United States as the great melting pot of the world, where all European races were merging and being reformed into something new. He predicted that America would ultimately become a fusion of the world's races. Multiculturalism flourished in America during this era and continued to develop over the following century. As America's political and cultural leadership embraced the melting pot metaphor, it became embedded in the national currency of ideas and in the country's self-image. That idea persists in contemporary America, which remains one of the most ethnically diverse nations on earth.

Moreover, despite its diversity, the United States has made substantial progress in improving cultural relations among its many ethnic groups, fostering a more harmonious coexistence. Cultural, ethnic, and racial relations have generally improved over time, and Americans are broadly more tolerant of cultures different from their own (Bueno, 2017, p. 7).

One important factor sustaining the melting pot ideal is the economic opportunity available to the different communities that arrive on American shores. Children of immigrants tend to outperform their parents socioeconomically, and this intergenerational progress attests to the accessibility of the American Dream across cultures within the melting pot. While this is encouraging, it is important to note that equality of opportunity has not yet been fully achieved. For instance, while second-generation Hispanic immigrants tend to outperform their parents, the third generation often settles at educational and financial levels below the national average. Third-generation Hispanic immigrants and beyond appear to assimilate to the educational norms of their own community rather than to the national average. Accordingly, even as America promotes the prosperity of the melting pot, outcomes within specific communities deserve as much attention as national-level outcomes (Orrenius, 2004, p. 5).

To What Extent Should Immigrants Trade Ethnic Identity for an American Identity?

Identity preservation and the formation of a new identity is a complex process, particularly at the community level. At the individual level, permanent immigrants face the greatest pressure to adopt an identity consistent with their new host nation while leaving behind the identity tied to their country of origin. Nevertheless, identity formation depends heavily on individual attitudes and perceptions. An assimilating immigrant can choose to both preserve elements of their original identity and adapt to the mainstream identity of the host nation. One factor that facilitates this process is the degree of openness to new cultures among citizens of the host nation. When immigration is substantial, certain social changes are inevitable.

The identities of host-country citizens are not fixed. As they interact with immigrants, their own sense of a generalized national identity may shift to accommodate new influences. Furthermore, because law is supreme, the legal framework of the host nation shapes how immigrants conduct themselves within it. Cultural practices that conflict with local law tend to be abandoned, which can itself produce significant identity change for certain communities (Constant & Zimmerman, 2012, p. 15).

In the current highly capitalistic era, the relationship between identity and economic opportunity cannot be ignored. Because identity at the community level can affect a community's economic success, understanding the magnitude of that effect is important. Generally, the closer a community's identity aligns with the national identity, the more easily that community can take full advantage of available economic opportunities.

Given America's capitalistic character, economic opportunity is a powerful predictor of how much an immigrant community will adapt its ethnic identity toward an American one. How a person relates to a particular ethnic group or religion influences behavior in the labor market. This does not mean that immigrant communities must abandon most of their culture and fully assimilate into mainstream American culture to achieve economic success. Rather, it means that their prevailing ways of thinking should not conflict with the cultural practices that drive the American economy. For example, households with two or more incomes have greater opportunities for upward mobility than single-income households. A community that strongly emphasizes traditional gender roles—where the man is the sole breadwinner and the wife remains at home—may find itself at an economic disadvantage if it adheres strictly to that practice after migrating.

The United States remains a free country, and people exercise their free will to change or preserve their identity as much as they choose or need to. Citrin and Sears (2009) observe that U.S. policy grants no preference to any particular religion or ethnicity. Instead, the United States focuses on cultivating a national identity grounded in ideals such as equality, democracy, and tolerance. Therefore, even when cultures and identities do not overlap, competition between them is not inevitable—they can coexist. This leaves individuals free to chart their own course, evaluate how their own beliefs align with their goals, and act according to their own agency (Citrin & Sears, 2009, p. 152).