| Chapter 1: | Introduction |
|
|
This is a limited free preview of this book. Please buy full access.
Stemming from Park and Burgess’ (1924) theory, many sociologists (Caplan, Choy, & Whitmore, 1991; Portes & Rumbaut, 1996; Rumbaut & Portes, 2001; Tuan, 1998; Waldinger & Bozorgmehr, 1996; Waters, 1990; Zhou, 1992) have investigated the degrees to which new immigrants and subsequent generations have been able to become Americans. As can be seen from the parallel studies of Mary Waters (1990) and Mia Tuan (1998), the road to assimilation has been easier for immigrants of European descent, where, after three generations, their ethnic identities have become ethnic options, while for immigrants of Asian descent, they are compelled to ask, “ forever foreigners or honorary whites?” This is demonstrated poignantly in Tuan’s introduction, where she illustrates how a third-generation Italian American could publicly portray a third-generation Japanese American as a foreigner.
Americanization is measured in various ways including but not limited to the following: facility with the English language, economic success, academic success, and political representation. Examining the post-1965 immigrant pool, in the case of many Asian Americans, these categorical factors have been met—more or less. Ruben Portes and Alejandro Rumbaut (1996) showed that in looking at the push factors that precipitated leaving the home country and the pull factors that made the host country attractive as a place to start a new life as well as the conditions of immigration, immigrants from Asian sender countries have been better equipped to become Americanized if upward mobility is what defines becoming American. Since the Immigration Act of 1965, privileged professionals as desirable candidates for immigration, the demographic characteristics of post-1965 immigrants from Asia reflect high levels of social and financial capital in the places of origin that translate to the ability to be upwardly mobile by the second generation. Portes and Rumbaut, therefore, placed emphases on pecuniary and educational assets that immigrants bring with them from their home country, arguing that perhaps the most compelling reason why Asian immigrants seem to do better as compared to other immigrants is that many of the post-1965 immigrants were college educated and were professionals and/or had economic capital to establish themselves in their host country.