

The Immigrant Paradox  - maw
http://schott.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/09/29/the-immigrant-paradox/

======
BlazingFrog
Immigrants often bring with them the stigma of poverty, lack of opportunities
and, sometimes, even persecution. However badly skewed the ladder to the top
is in America, it is still the most advanced implementation of a merit-based
system. It's no surprise that immigrant parents impress that on their children
very early and may sacrifice more of their own well-being to ensure their kids
take full advantage of it. An explanation for the waning of that powerful
drive could be that parents of 2nd and 3rd generations become complacent.
Probably pushing the envelope but as a huge "Sopranos" fan, I'm often reminded
of Tony's talk about the strong, silent type "now, that was an American!"
<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gZQ9r7rogNg>

~~~
martythemaniak
Sorry to disappoint, but the data says otherwise - amongst advanced countries
America has some of the lowest social mobility recorded. Your ladder is much
less skewed in other places.

<http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/27/28/38335410.pdf>

I know this is one of the sacred cows of American Mythology, but should it be
surprising given the differences between inner city and white suburban
schools, legacy admissions and any other number of differences between rich
and poor kids?

~~~
BlazingFrog
I have obviously not had the time to read that report (thanks for the link)
but you seem to have left an important word out of your broad assessment about
America's alleged "low social mobility record": intergenerational. This is the
first sentence of the summary (p. 4): "This report surveys the research in
OECD countries on intergenerational mobility – i.e. the extent to which key
characteristics and life experiences of individuals differ from those of their
parents."

You may have wrongly assumed that my observation about the ladder was
comparing one's social achievement to one's parents but that was not the point
I was trying to make. It was a more general point about how who/what you are
has less of an impact than anywhere else on your chances to succeed.

~~~
martythemaniak
But that's what intergenerational studies like this deal with. In essence, the
question it tries to answer is "You're born in a poor household, where do you
end up"?

In a meritocratic society with equal opportunities children from poor
households should be able to end up in all income brackets - some in the top,
some in the middle, some in the poor etc. The more uniform the distribution
the better. What this study shows is that if you're born poor in America, the
odds are very much stacked against you and while no country has an even
distribution, other countries do better.

Why study children? Well, social mobility implies a passage of time - to get a
clear picture you need to track people over time to see the actual movement
and nothing gives a better picture than an entire lifetime.

~~~
pfedor
_In a meritocratic society with equal opportunities children from poor
households should be able to end up in all income brackets - some in the top,
some in the middle, some in the poor etc. The more uniform the distribution
the better._

Have you even read yummyfajitas' reply? Regardless of whether you believe in
nature or nurture, I imagine you wouldn't deny that intelligent and hard
working people's children are more likely to be intelligent and hard working.
Therefore, in a society where these traits on average lead to an increase in
the social status, you should expect some stickiness. A uniform distribution
would prove that a person's merits have no impact on their success in life.

------
joshu
Immigrants are a biased sample + reversion to the mean?

I wonder how various generations do normalized to the baseline.

------
InfinityX0
You can apply this elsewhere - like people who are born into wealth. Those who
are given the riches from the start are less likely to develop a strong work
ethic/will feel a sense of self-entitlement. This goes beyond immigration - it
might better be imagined as a genealogical luxury work-ethic bell curve - one
starts at nothing, and works incredibly hard to get to the top for their
family, and most of the time, the gene pool begins returning back to 0 as it
comes to work ethic - or at least until the pull of said wealth dissipating
begins pulling it back up.

------
VladRussian
"The study found that first generation immigrant children often outperform
second and third generation children in school"

You must be kidding. Second, third, ..., eleventh, ...etc ... generations
aren't "immigrants". They are just citizens.

~~~
shasta
Two corrections to your non sequitur:

1\. The quote you've selected doesn't mention second, third, or eleventh
generation "immigrants", it mentions "second and third generation children".

2\. Many of the "first generation immigrant children" are also citizens.

~~~
VladRussian
you wanna "sequitur". Be my guest. Lets follow you logic.

By definition: children of the first generation = second generation and
children of the second generation= 3rd generation

So according to your logic "The study found that second immigrant generation
often outperform 3rd and 4th generation in school" That is one heck of
sequitur.

The actual meaning of the "first generation immigrant children" here isn't
children parented by the first generation. It is children who are immigrants,
ie. they are first generation themselves, whereis their children and
grandchildren are second and third generation mentioned in the study.

~~~
anigbrowl
You're both correct, but his interpretation is a bit more common.

 _By definition: children of the first generation = second generation and
children of the second generation= 3rd generation_

But that's not the definition that many people use; when people say first
generation, they mean the first generation that was 'generated' (ie born) in
America. Immigrants aren't part of an American generation, they're part of
some other country's generational history that arrived in America.

Usually when someone I meet says 'I'm second-generation (somewhere)-American'
they turn out to mean their grandparents came from that place to the US and
their parents were born here. I tend to meet more Asian- and Irish-Americans.
Perhaps customs vary between different groups due to different traditions of
counting? For example, a newborn baby is traditionally considered to be age 1,
although most western countries would consider the baby's age to be zero (but
some positive # of months).

~~~
anigbrowl
That would have made more sense if the last sentence had still included the
words 'in China'...

------
jellicle
Doesn't seem like much of a paradox. By definition, people who immigrate are:

\--smarter \--wealthier \--better educated \--more ambitious. take-charge
people

than the general population. These are people who have taken the initiate to
uproot themselves from their current NATION, leave everything behind, and
negotiate a difficult and expensive immigration process. These are people that
are deemed worthy in the receiving nation: people who have advanced degrees or
other skills, for instance (legally immigrating to another country is
basically impossible if you are a ditch-digger).

Why wouldn't these kids do well, as a rule? Their parents are people who
valued education and who would enforce that in their kids.

And then in the second and succeeding generations, the effect disappears.

~~~
billybob
"--smarter --wealthier --better educated "

You're talking about legal immigrants, right? Because I would think it's the
opposite with illegals.

If you don't have much education or status in Mexico, for example, you might
be tempted to cross the border to the US; if you're rich and established,
probably not. I spent a semester studying in Guadalajara and was shocked at
the snooty attitudes of students at the private Mexican college I attended,
and the Porche and Lexus dealerships nearby.

Of course, a short bus ride away, I met kids who went hungry and lived in
concrete houses with dirt floors.

We definitely get a biased sample of the Mexican population in our immigrants,
but I think it's biased away from education and money.

On the other hand, if those first-generation kids are in school, it's because
they WANT to be there. It's hard, and they could be making money working.
Whereas the next generation may take things for granted, like the rest of us
Americans.

I dunno - you can explain anything after the fact, so it's hard to say what
the reason is for this finding.

~~~
wazoox
> You're talking about legal immigrants, right? Because I would think it's the
> opposite with illegals.

It depends. It may be true for immigrants coming from the nearby country
(Mexico to US), but it isn't true for instance for illegals from Africa going
to Europe: they must have a lot of money to pay for the travel through the
continent (10000 to 20000 euros or even more).

This has a very bad effect on their countries of origin : both the best people
and their money flow out to richer countries.

------
ajuc
I wonder if they considered as possible explanation better primary schools
outside of USA.

~~~
miloshh
These kids are first generation Americans - they went to school in the US.

------
exit
perhaps first generation immigrants are mistaken about the value of what they
struggle for

------
known
America prospered due to the contribution of H1Bs (Albert Einstein, Linus
Torvalds) Time now for Americans to migrate and contribute to rest of the
world.

~~~
VladRussian
1\. Albert Einstein wasn't an H1B. He would be of either an asylum or
"national interest" category. There is big difference - H1B contribute
significantly as professionals in technical area, yet not in science or
business development.

2\. "Time now for Americans to migrate and contribute to rest of the world."

If you haven't noticed, Americans have been doing it for many, at least,
decades if not centuries. International business development, trade, military
participation and help, at least during WWII, technology dissemination, human
rights, ... i'm not naive and i'm critical enough about American "empire", yet
credit due where credit due.

~~~
known
Rest of the world doesn't need American soldiers. They need American
_intellectuals_ to come, live & work in their countries.

