Here is the scene. The American administration, having wound down a military entanglement in a distant part of the world, hopes to head off a humanitarian crisis by admitting refugees. The governor of a large state, who happens to represent the opposing political party, has expressed opposition to the plan. The domestic economy is on shaky ground; the governor's sentiments are echoed by Senators and activists affiliated with the same party. Among other things, opponents of the refugees worry that they pose a threat to Americans and will not assimilate into society.
This scene played out in 1975. The refugees were from Vietnam; Gerald Ford was president. California's Jerry Brown played the role of the contrarian governor.
Vietnamese refugees did arrive in the United States. Today more than one million Vietnamese immigrants live in the United States. And far from becoming an isolated group in society, these migrants have moved very rapidly toward the American mainstream. This figure, taken from my most recent report on immigrant assimilation for the Manhattan Institute, shows that since the 1970s newly arrived Vietnamese immigrants have been very distinct from native-born Americans. As distinct as immigrants from Mexico. Relative to Mexican immigrants, however, those born in Vietnam lose their distinctiveness much more rapidly.
Why did Vietnamese immigrants assimilate so rapidly? As refugees, their prospects of returning home were bleak. They came to think of the United States as home, as the place where their children would construct lives for themselves. Immigrants from Cuba are the most assimilated Latin Americans for much the same reason.
Should we expect anything different from Syrian refugees? Are they different somehow? Do the experiences of European nations, which have in some cases struggled to incorporate immigrants into their societies, suggest caution?
About five years ago, I conducted an analysis comparing the assimilation of Muslim immigrants -- or more precisely, immigrants born in predominantly Islamic nations -- across eight nations: Canada, the United States, and six European countries. The data, summarized in the figure below, reveal a stark contrast in the experiences of immigrants in North America and Europe. Across a range of measures, the gaps between Muslim immigrants and the native born are much lower in the United States than elsewhere.
Almost half of Muslim immigrants to the United States are naturalized citizens. In Switzerland, the comparable figure is 10%; in Italy the rate is even lower. Here, 48% of Muslim immigrants own their own home. In Austria, only 12% do. Only Canada -- a nation whose leaders have wholeheartedly embraced Syrian refugees -- outshines the U.S. when it comes to immigrant assimilation.
Does the United States face a risk of importing terrorists if it permits Syrian refugees to enter the country? Sure it does! But this risk needs to be kept in perspective. In the United States today there are nearly two million residents born in predominantly Muslim countries. We must weigh the risk of admitting enemies against the risk of creating them by means of xenophobic rhetoric.
Those inclined to oppose the admission of Syrian refugees may not be inclined to consider historical evidence. But this evidence is clear. When the United States has followed its humanitarian impulses -- in admitting refugees from Vietnam, Cuba, and other parts of the world -- the result has been to introduce an immigrant group that shows a strong civic commitment to the United States. When it has given in to fear, most notably during World War II, we have never grown to be proud of the result.
