Crossroads: The Psychology of Immigration in the New Century

Exclusion Act of 1882) specifically prohibited some groups
from immigrating to the United States. With the arrival of a
new racially diverse wave of immigration, public discourse
in the United States has highlighted the distinctions between
assimilation (i.e., the melting pot) and multiculturalism
(i.e., the salad bowl). This new immigrant wave, unlike the
previous wave of 1880–1920, has been largely non-White and
arriving mainly from Latin America and Asia. Opportunities
for assimilation for people of color, if passing is the standard,
are limited (Gibson, 2001; Murguia & Telles, 1996; Portes &
Zhou, 1993; Waters, 1996):
• Asian Americans are burdened by the “perpetual
foreigner” image held by mainstream Americans that all
Asian Americans are foreigners no matter how many
generations their family has resided in the United States
because they look different from Whites (S. Sue &
Okazaki, 2009; Yogeeswaran & Dasgupta, 2010).
• Although Americans of Latino ethnicity may be of
any “race,” being Latino in the United States has been
“racialized” (Golash-Boza, 2006), making it difficult
to “blend in” with the White middle class. Immigrant
Latinos, in particular, face difficult challenges, as their
opportunities to move up the economic ladder are often
limited by targeted racism and limited resources (Murguia
& Telles, 1996; Orfield & Yun, 1999).
• Arab Muslims, a particularly excluded group at this time
of war, are often made to feel like perpetual outsiders
with limited ability to join the society that distrusts and
excludes them (Sirin & Fine, 2008).
• Other non-White groups, (e.g., South Asians and
Africans) that arrive with social and cultural capital may
attain access through “selective assimilation,” successfully
participating in the American economy and moving into
the middle class while retaining their native culture in
strong ethnic enclaves outside the mainstream (Gibson,
2001).
European immigrants, on the other hand, continue to
assimilate economically, politically, and socially into the White
middle class as they have in previous generations (Alba,
2009). In summary, the possibility of being treated as an equal
American now seems more elusive for most immigrantorigin
individuals than it was during the previous great wave
of immigration. One is unlikely to pass the bar of acting,
speaking, and looking like a mainstream citizen.
research on assimilationist and
Multicultural Ideologies
The debate on assimilation versus multiculturalism parallels
experimental research on prejudice reduction (Dovidio,
Gaertner, & Validzic, 1998). Research in social psychology
has focused on understanding the nature and consequences
of ideologies that individuals hold about living in a diverse
society. In particular, two cultural ideologies are contrasted
in social psychological research: cultural assimilation versus
multiculturalism (Richeson & Nussbaum, 2004).
Proponents of the cultural assimilation ideology believe that
the best approach to managing differences across cultures is for
immigrants (and other minority groups) to rapidly assimilate
to the dominant culture. They argue that assimilation toward
common norms and rules is the desired end state and that by
eliminating ethnic group boundaries, intergroup prejudice
will be drastically reduced. For example, “English-only” laws,
which require all government activities to be conducted in
English (e.g., banning Spanish-language voting ballots), can
be viewed as strategies to aid rapid assimilation, though some
suggest they are instead motivated by concerns some U.S.
citizens have about their own changing cultural and economic
landscape (Zárate & Shaw, 2010).
Conversely, those holding a multicultural ideology believe
that all cultural groups should have the opportunity to retain
their basic cultural norms, values, traditions, and language
within a greater cultural framework. Those who advocate for
multiculturalism believe that prejudice is reduced and selfesteem
enhanced through an appreciation of group differences
(Zárate & Garza, 2002). According to this perspective, the
country benefits from the presence of diverse groups that
bring a broad array of skills. For example, diverse language
skills are necessary for many jobs in the business and service
sectors (Kristoff, 2010).
Perceiving others as belonging to an “outgroup” can
lead to prejudice and discrimination. Consistent with the
assimilationist ideology, the common in-group identity model
posits that prejudice is best reduced through the creation or
identification of a common group membership (Gaertner,
Rust, Dovidio, Bachman, & Anastasio, 1996). In the context of
immigration, by creating a shared national in-group identity,
people who were originally perceived as out-group members
become recategorized as members of a shared common
group, and prejudice is reduced. Within this framework, terms
like Asian American or Mexican American are seen as divisive
22 Report of the APA Presidential Task Force on Immigration