People have the perception that the United States accepts immigrants from all parts of the world, an open door policy. However, immigration policies have always undergone periodic political reviews corresponding to the ups and downs of the U.S. economy and international events. As a result, there is no single historical policy but an enormous number of federal and state laws, judicial cases, administrative decisions and congressional actions which outline admission and eligibility requirements, quotas and preferences. Legally, refugees were not separated from immigrants until the 1950s and socially, they were never completely separated in the public's mind. Therefore both categories groups are examined in this paper.

The United States originally wanted immigrants who were similar to the founding people from Northern and Western Europe, referred to as white Anglo-Saxon protestants or “wasps”. But from 1890 to 1920, the largest wave of "non-wasp" immigration occurred in United States history. These migrants were primarily Southern Europe (Italians, Greeks, Poles, Croats and Slovenians) who were similar in culture but different in appearance. One must remember that this was a period when nationality was associated with race; i.e., the British race, the Aryan race, etc. Starting in 1980s, the second largest wave of immigrants began arriving. They are primarily from Asia and Central and South America, and after 1990, Eastern Europe. Today 10 % of the population is foreign born, an increase of 5 % over 1970, but less than the 15 % in 1910. This is an increase from 10 million in 1970 to 28 million in 2000. Of this 28 million, 8% or 2.4 million were in the category of refugee.

The first major piece of immigrant legislation was the federal Page Law of 1875 that barred Chinese, Japanese, and other Asian laborers “involuntarily" brought into the United States. This was followed by the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882 which excluded all Chinese and prohibited their naturalization. It was the first legislation to use national origin as a basis for admission while the Immigration Act of 1882 barred “mental defectives”, those in poor health, and paupers. The Immigration Act of 1917 "…denied entry to aliens living within a newly-erected geographical area called the “Asiatic Barred Zone”. This “…excluded immigrants from India, Burma, Siam, the Malay States, Arabia, Afghanistan, parts of Russia, and most of the Polynesian Islands (Immigration Act of 1917, [39 Stat. 874]).

The Quota Act of 1921 and the National Origins Act of 1924, both isolationist legislation, established immigrant quotas based upon the composition of the U.S. population of 1920; the larger the resident proportion, the greater the quota. This restricted Eastern and Southern Europeans and virtually excluded Asians. There was to be an overall quota of 150,000 immigrants per year by 1929 reflecting the 1920 composition: e.g., 65,721 from the United Kingdom, 17,853 from Ireland, 5,802 from Italy, 869 from Hungary and 252 from Spain, etc. (Bean, Vernez, and Keely, 1989). In 1934, the Tydings-McDuffe Act made the Philippines independent of the United States. Filipinos, who had been U.S. nationals with free entrance, now had a quota of only 50 people per year. At the same time, local and state agencies deported one million illegal Mexicans. By 1939, since there was no legislation which covered refugees, the United States accepted only an estimated 250,000 refugees as immigrants from Nazi persecution before entering World War II (Congressional Research Service 1991:556).

The 1952 Immigration and Nationality Act reinforced the 1920s quotas but officially recognized refugees and established admission requirements:

1. refugee admissions were handled separately from general immigration, but the number of refugees were counted as part of the immigration quotas;
2. refugee admission concentrated on escapees from communism;
3. voluntary agencies were to play a major role in effecting resettlements;
4. the private sector was to provide for domestic assistance since refugees could not be admitted unless it was guaranteed that they would not become public charges.

The 1952 Act also established a “preference” list or quota based upon family or employment sponsorship which became the basis of U.S. immigration policy. Today, the worldwide level for the family-sponsored preference is 480,000 while the employment preference is equal to 140,000 plus any unused family-sponsored preference from the previous year. As an example, the limit for employment preferences for fiscal year 2000 was set at 142,299 (140,000 + 2,299 unused family preference visas in 1999). In terms of percentages, 69% of immigrants are sponsored by families and private agencies, 13 % received employment preferences, and 8 % are refugees or asylum applications. The major exporting countries are Mexico (173,919), the People's Republic of China (45,652), the Philippines (42,474), India (42,046), and Vietnam (26,747) which combined represents 39 % of all immigrants. The primary destinations for 66% of the legal immigrants since 1971 are California (217,753), New York (106,061), Florida (98,391), Texas (63,840), New Jersey (40,013), and Illinois (36,180).

During World War II, Congress repealed the Chinese Exclusion Act and allowed China a quota based upon the 1924 Immigration Act. After World War II, President Truman addressed the problem of “displaced persons” by allowing 42,000 refugees to be admitted into the United States (Holbom). This led to the passage the Displaced Persons Act of 1948 which permitted the admission of 400,000 refugees over a three year period (1948-1951). However, this amount was “charged” against future national quotas. The refugee acts of 1953, 1957, and 1960 separated refugees from immigrants. They would no longer be counted against the regular immigration quotas.

The first event that prompted a major change in refugee policy was the Cuban Revolution. In January 1959, Fidel Castro came to power in Cuba and the United States became a country of first destination for large numbers of refugees. The Cubans simply came by any means while parents sent an estimated 13,000 unaccompanied children. In two years, a minimum of 100,000 Cuban refugees had reached the Miami area. President Kennedy signed the Migration and Refugee Assistance Act of 1962 which was the first legislation authorizing a broad array of domestic services and federal funding for refugees. In contrast, immigrants do not receive financial support since they were to be supported by their sponsors-family, private agencies, and employers.

When the United States terminated diplomatic relations with Cuba on January 3, 1961, no visas could be issued and Cubans became “asylum” cases. An asylee is an “alien in the United States” who is unable or unwilling to return to his or her country of nationality because of persecution or a well-founded fear of persecution. They must meet the same criteria as a refugee; the only difference is that the potential asylee must be physically present is in the United States or apply for admission at a port of entry. It is immaterial whether the asylee is legal or illegal, but the United States does not recognize an economic asylum case (economic self-improvement). No numerical limits are imposed on grants of asylum as with refugees, but both refugees and asylees have the right to apply for “permanent resident alien status” after one year. At present, only 10,000 asylees can adjust their status in a given year.

Before Cuban asylum cases could be held, President Kennedy granted the Cubans the status of "indefinite voluntary departure" and "paroled" them under the authority of United States Attorney General, Department of Justice. In 1962, between 1,600 and 1,800 refugees were arriving in Miami each week. In order to halt this flow, the United States negotiated a Memorandum of Understanding with Cuba which stated that the United States was willing to accept 3,000 to 4,000 refugees a month. A parolee is an alien, appearing to be “inadmissible” to the inspecting officer, but is allowed to enter the United States. For refugees, there must be an urgent humanitarian reasons or a for significant public benefit. Second, parole may be granted to aliens who are not clearly admissible as an immigrant, mostly documentation problems. Last, parole may be granted for medical or legal reasons. Parole does not constitute a formal admission to the United States. It confers only a temporary status for people denied refugee or immigrant status. Parolees are required to leave when the conditions causing their admission are ended. In 1994, 111,403 parolees were admitted and reached an annual level of 263,755 by fiscal year 1999. Of this amount, humanitarian and public interest parolees [refugees] totaled 49, 783. The largest number of parolees are from Mexico, Cuba, Soviet Union, Canada, and El Salvador.

The Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965 modified previous immigration and refugee laws. The 1924 quotas were replaced by an Eastern hemisphere ceiling of 170,000 immigrants per year with a 20,000 per country limit per year and a Western hemisphere ceiling of 120,000 without per country limits. Eventually, the separate ceilings for each hemisphere were combined into a worldwide ceiling of 270,000, but immediate relatives were not counted. However, with the fall of South Vietnam in 1975, a total of 130,000 Vietnamese, Laotians and Cambodians entered the United States as refugees. Congress moved rapidly to pass the Indo-Chinese Refugee Assistance Act of 1975. This act provided the same level of assistance as the Cuban refugees had received. In the late 1970s, the Soviet Union eased its restrictions on emigration, and a large number of Soviet refugees, mostly Jewish, also came to the United States. Under special Congressional legislation, parolees from Indochina and the Soviet Union were eventually able to become permanent resident aliens after one year.

By 1979, the federal government was providing assistance to refugees through a variety of piecemeal programs. This set the stage for the Refugee Act of 1980 which declared "..that it is the historic policy of the United States to respond to the urgent needs of persons subject to persecution in their homelands including, where appropriate, humanitarian assistance for their care and maintenance in asylum areas, efforts to promote opportunities for resettlement or voluntary repatriation, aid for necessary transportation and processing, admission to this country of refugees of special humanitarian concern to the United States, and transitional assistance to refugees in the United States. The Congress further declares that it is the policy of the United States to encourage all nations to provide assistance and resettlement opportunities to refugees to the fullest extent possible…The objectives of this Act are to provide a permanent and systematic procedure for the admission to this country of refugees of special humanitarian concern to the United States and to provide comprehensive and uniform provisions for the effective resettlement and absorption of those refugees who are admitted.” (Title I of the Refugee Act of 1980).

The 1980 Act clarified the definition of a refugee as “an alien outside the United States” who is unable or unwilling to return to his or her country of nationality because of persecution or a well-founded fear of persecution. Claims of persecution must be based on race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion conforming to the U.N. Protocol on Refugees. Persons within their country of nationality may be treated as refugees, provided that the President, after consultation with Congress, declares that they are of special humanitarian concern to the United States. Each applicant must meet all of the following criteria: be a refugee as set forth in the Refugee Act of 1980; be among the types of refugees determined to be of special humanitarian concern to the United States; be admissible under the Immigration and Nationality Act; and not be firmly resettled in any foreign country. Spouses and minor children of qualifying refugees could also enter the United States as refugees, either accompanying or following. Refugees are eligible to apply for immigrant status one year after their arrival. The term “refugee” does not include any person who ordered, incited, assisted, or otherwise participated in the persecution of any person on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion” (Holman). Last, the act also removed the previous “cold war” requirement that a refugee must have fled from a “communist or communist-dominated country.”

Procedurally, the President, after consultation with Congress, reviews the worldwide refugee situation, determines the number of refugees in need of resettlement who are of special humanitarian concern and establishes the authorized number of admissions or ceiling. The 1980 act initially visualized an annual flow of 50,000 refugees, but admissions have never been at or below that level; a high of 142,000 admissions was reached in 1992 and is now at 91,000 (1999). In the event of an emergency, additional consultations may be held. The increase over the authorized ceiling was largely attributed “emergencies” in Yugoslavia, Croatia, Ethiopia, Somalia, Sudan, and Liberia. In 1999, 75% of the refugees were from Bosnia-Herzegovina (22,699), Yugoslavia (14,280), Vietnam (9,622), Ukraine (8,649), Russia (4,386) and Somalia (4,320).

The 1980 act also revealed a conflict between Congress and the President over the parole authority of the President and the Attorney General. The Carter Administration, like Kennedy's, also decided that illegal Cubans and Haitians would not be treated as refugees but as “entrants” or parolees under the Attorney General's authority. However, they soon applied for political asylum followed by “permanent resident alien status”. To Congress, parole had become a vehicle for the admission of large numbers of non-qualified refugees from Cuba, Vietnam and Haiti. To control Presidential power to grant parole, Congress demanded that “…the Attorney General may not parole into the United States an alien …unless the Attorney General determines that compelling reasons in the public interest with respect to that particular alien require that the alien be paroled into the United States rather than admitted as a refugee….”(212(d)(5) of the INA).

The Immigration Act of 1990 continued the 1965 system but revised the limits. In addition to a ceiling of 675,000, it established a diversity category. This category provided 55,000 additional admissions for countries underrepresented in previous quotas. This was reduced to 50,000 in 1999 to allow 5,000 visas for use under the Nicaraguan Adjustment and Central American Relief Act of 1997. Second, the number of refugee and asylees would still be determined on a yearly basis. Third, a category, Temporary Protected Status, was established for people who were in need of refuge due to temporary conditions including armed conflicts. It was used for El Salvadorans, Kuwaitis, Lebanese, Liberians, Somalians, Bosnians, and Rwandans. The 1990 Act also gave immigrant status to Tibetans and Chinese students in the United States during the Tienanmen Square incident. But even with these provisions, asylum cases soared during the 1990s. Most of these cases were from the Caribbean, Central America, and in particular, Cuba and Haiti. From 1986 to 1992, about half of all asylum applications were filed by Central Americans and still remains about 40 % of the total, particularly Guatemalans, El Salvadorans and Nicaraguans. The number of asylum cases started to decline in 1997. Last, there is a special asylum claim for adjudicating cases based on coercive population control. A person qualifies if forced to undergo, or has a “well founded” fear of being compelled to undergo, or resists a coercive population-control procedure. This category set a combined annual ceiling of 1000 persons who may be granted either refugee status.

In the 1990s, the flow of Cubans and Haitians increased once again with illegal refugees setting out in small boats and rafts. In August 1994, Castro ordered Cuban authorities not to hinder their departure. Within days, the Coast Guard was intercepting over 500 Cuban rafters a day. In response, the Attorney General announced in August that the Cubans would be detained rather than admitted into the United States. They were sent to the U.S. Naval Base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. The United States’ 35-year policy of accepting Cuban boat people as asylees and refugees was reversed. By September 9, the United States and Cuba had reached an agreement under which at least 20,000 Cubans a year would be admitted from Cuba into the United States through orderly procedures as permanent residents, refugees, or parolees. In May 1995, the Justice Department announced that all Cubans at Guantanamo would be admitted into the United States. Under another agreement with Cuba, future rafters would be returned to Cuba. “The new policy of repatriating Cuban rafters,” the Washington Post noted, “completes a change, begun last summer, that ends 35 years of official U.S. treatment of Cuban refugees as heroic freedom fighters” (May 3, 1995. p. Al).

The Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 requires that all asylees must pass a "credible fear" interview. These interviews are not formal asylum hearings, but an attempt to to determine whether an applicant has a credible fear of persecution and are thus eligible to apply for asylum. To be granted asylum, aliens must show they have been persecuted in the past or have a well-founded fear of persecution. An alien may request an immigration judge to review a negative determination by the Immigration and Naturalization Service on their “credible fear” claim. During fiscal year 1999, 32,711 new claims for asylum were filed with the Immigration and Naturalization Service. The People’s Republic of China ranked first with 4,209 new claims followed by Somalia (3,125), Haiti (2,492), Indonesia (2,330), Mexico (2,251), El Salvador (2,008) and the former Soviet Union (2,343), two-thirds of which were from Russia and Armenia (1562).

By 1999, the number of refugee “applications” decreased from 124,777 (1998) to 111,576. In terms of percentages, applicants were from Bosnia-Herzegovina (27%), Yugoslavia (17%, principally Kosovars), the former Soviet Union (15%), Vietnam (8%), Cuba (7%), and Somalia (6%). In terms of geographic regions, the largest increases were from the Near East/South Asia (53%) and Africa (34 %) while decreases occurred in East Asia (-46%), Europe (-15%), and Latin America/Caribbean (-8%) respectively over 1998. However, the total number of refugees “approved” for admission to the United States increased by 17 % (85,592) than in 1998 (73,198). The leading countries were Bosnia-Herzegovina with 24,766 approvals, Yugoslavia (17,970, principally Kosovars), the former Soviet Union (11,696), Vietnam (6,253), Somalia (5,668), Sudan (2,858), Cuba (2,701), and Ethiopia (2,581). These eight countries accounted for 87 % of all refugee approvals. The numbers of approved refugees by region increased in Latin America (131%), Africa (84%), the Near East (20%), and Europe (19%), see Chart XII, XIII.

While the United States government has its policies toward immigrantion and refugees, the general public also has attitudes that, at times, conflict with the government. The two prevailing political views that dominate the political debate over immigrants and refugees can be found in the 1984 Democratic and Republican political platforms. The Democratic Party stated that: “Our nation’s outdated immigration laws require comprehensive reform that reflects our national interests and our immigrant heritage. Our first priority must be to protect the fundamental human rights of American citizens and aliens.” However, the party was opposed to “employer sanctions who hire undocumented workers …[supported] family unification, [was opposed to] “guest worker programs as a form of legalized exploitation, and would support and enforce the Refugee Act of 1980. In contrast, the Republican Party’s position acknowledged the important and positive role that immigrants have played in U.S. history but “affirm our country's absolute right to control its borders… Failure to do so not only is an offense to the American people but is fundamentally unjust to those in foreign lands patiently waiting for legal entry. We will preserve the principle of family reunification. With the estimate of the number of illegal aliens in the United States ranging as high as 12 million and better than one million more entering each year, we believe it is critical that responsible reforms of our immigration laws be made to enable us to regain control of our borders. The refugee problem is global and requires the cooperation of all democratic nations” (reprinted in Simon).

Surveys on public attitudes toward immigrants and refugees date back to the 1930s. At that time, the United States was experiencing its worst economic depression coupled with a strong period of isolationist beliefs. Isolationist policies resulted from the failure of World War I allies to pay back war loans and, secondly, a widely shared belief that the United States had been dragged into an essentially imperial European conflict. Therefore, as preparations for war increased in the 1930s, xenophobia resulted. The public believed that the U.S. should not be involved in any way in another European or Asian conflict. These views were reflected in national polls on European immigration. The first asked:

What’s your attitude toward allowing German, Austrian, and other political refugees to come to the United States?

In January 1939, a national poll asked: “Should we allow a large number of Jewish exiles from Germany to come to the United States to live?”, 71 % said no. This was followed by the question: "If you were a member of the incoming Congress, would you vote yes or no on a bill to open the doors of the United States to a larger number of European refugees than are now admitted under our immigration quota?”, 81 % said no. The responses were overwhelmingly negative to both questions (Simon and Alexander, p. 9). By the end of the war, the public’s opinion on U.S. responsibility toward European refugees changed. Fifty-three percent of respondents were somewhat in favor of admitting refugees.

There are still a lot of refugees or displaced persons in European camps who cannot go back to the homes they had before the war. Which of these four statements comes closest to what you think this country should do about these refugees (Simon and Alexander, p.26)?

By 1952, the country was evenly divided over President Eisenhower’s request to Congress to admit 240,000 refugees from Eastern European nations into the United States over a two-year period. After the Hungarian revolt, 5000 Hungarian refugees were admitted and the public was asked if it supported this action. Fifty-nine percent of respondents had positive attitudes.

Do you feel that the United States is letting in too many refugees from Hungary, about the right number, or not enough?

However, one year later, the public was asked how they felt about giving Hungarian refugees permanent status, 42 % were in favored and 43 % were opposed. Between the time of the Hungarian crisis and the influx of Cubans and Vietnamese in the 1970s, the public was asked if they would be willing to accept a portion of the estimated 15 million refugees in different parts of the world. Secondly, would they allow the refugees to come to the United States to make their homes? Sixty percent said they would favor admitting, 31 % were opposed to admitting any, and 9 % did not know or did not answer (Simon).

By the 1970s, public opinion was influenced by five major factors: an economic recession; the defeat of South Vietnam, changes in Soviet policy in regards to Jewish emigration, Castro’s willingness to allow Cubans to leave their island nation, and the increasing illegal immigration between Mexico and the United States (estimated at hundreds of thousands of Mexicans). While the U.S. govern-ment tended to respond positively to all but illegal immigrants, the public had different views. In 1980, 66% of respondents wanted a halt to immigration.

Some people say that the U.S. government should permit persons who leave other countries because of political oppression to come and live in the United States. Others say that the federal government should halt all immigration until the national employment rate falls below 5 percent. Which point of view comes closer to the way you feel that political refugees should be permitted to immigrate to the United States. or that immigration should be halted until the unemployment rate in the United States drops (Gallup, 1980)?

This was reflected in polls which found that the public was negative toward Vietnamese, Cubans and Soviets due to their large numbers, the cost of services, and the controversy over their legal status. An April 1985 Los Angeleges Times found that 49% the respondents believed that these refugees take more than they contribute to the United States.

Do refugees to the United States take more from th economy through social services and unemployment than they contribute to the U.S. economy?

By 1992, the public was asked: “Do you agree or disagree with the recent U.S. decision to refuse to allow Haitian refugees to immigrate to the United States?” Sixth-seven percent supported a halt to Haitian refugees.

As previously stated, the general public does separate immigrants from refugees but not in actual daily life. However, starting in 1946, the public was asked to compare immigrants and refugees. What should the United States do about “…the refugees in European camps who cannot go back to the homes they had before the war" and “Should we permit more persons [immigrants] from Europe to come to this country each year than we did before the war, or should we keep the number about the same, or should we reduce the number?” The responses in 1946 was primarily neutral as shown below (Simon and Alexander, pp.41-43).

In 1953, a “standard question” concerning immigration appeared on national polls: “Should immigration be kept at its present level, increased, or decreased?” Simultaneously, the public was asked about whether they supported the law that President Eisenhower was asking Congress to pass that would admit 240,000 Eastern European refugees to enter the United States over a two-year period. While a 71% were in favor or had no opinion, 39 % wanted to decrease the number of immigrants and 48 % did not want to admit refugees.

After 1960, the refugee items that appeared on national pools focused on non-European refugees. In 1978, 1979 and 1980 news surveys, questions were asked about (1) Indo-Chinese and Cuban refugees and (2) a general refugee question about whether the U.S. government should permit persons who leave other countries because of political oppression to come and live in the United States. In 1977 and 1981 the standard immigration question was also included on national polls, increase and decrease immigration (Simon and Alexander, pp. 41-43). Except for 1977, their was widespread support for decreasing the number of immigrants and refugees.

In 1986, a national poll asked the same question about refugees that it had asked about immigrants since the late 1953. The results were as follows (Simon and Alexander, p.45).

While there was more support for allowing refugees to enter than for increasing immigrants, it was also and even split.

In conclusion, some general comments should be made concerning migrants in both Europe and the United States. For both areas, the present influx of immigrants (legal and illegal) and refugees has created social and economic problems. First, the economic impact of the newer migrant is debated. Some argue that refugees and immigrants constitute a burden on an already swollen labor pool. This is in contrast to others who argue that domestic services to migrants creates jobs and that migrant professionals are needed, i.e., engineers, doctors, etc. In simple terms, native workers perceive immigrants and refugees as a potential threat. This will become more important as Western fertility rates decline. As Reuters reported, fewer Germans were born last year than in any year since World War II. Germany is now dependent upon immigrants and refugees to maintain its population level (International Herald Tribune, May 22, 2202, p.5). This difference reflects a historical attitude of native labor when faced with an influx of foreign labor during periods of large scale migration and economic change or political instability, domestically and internationally. Second, many believe the “global migration crisis” strains governmental and private resources since a minimum of humanitarian social services has to be provided, but the cost may threaten the native population’s social benefits.

Third, these economic items have lead to the growth of anti-immigrant political parties on the local level in the United States, England, France, Germany, the Netherlands, et.al.. National leaders are sensitive to these “nativist” demands. Starting in 1990, France's Jacques Chirac declared that “immigration must be totally stopped” and eventually restricted the right of foreigners to asylum while former Chancellor Kohl restricted asylum claims in Germany. On May 20, 2002, Spain and Britain have agreed to put asylum claims and immigration at the top of the agenda for the European Union summit meeting. They argue that there must be some order to the European system that is acceptable to EU citizens or the public will move more to the “far right” (International Herald Tribune, May 21, 2002, p.5).

While 66% of European refugees and immigrants are Muslims, Americans perceive immigration as a threat, but a threat that stems from Asia and Latin America. This is reflected in a news poll that asked individuals their perceptions on which nationalities have made “good or bad” contributions to the United States (Simon and Alexander, p.45). The most recent immigrants received the most negative perceptions.

Since the beginning of our country, people of many different religions, races, and nationalities have come here and settled. Here is a list of some different groups. Would you read down that list and thinking both of what they have contributed to this country and have gotten from this country, for each one tell me whether you think on balance, they have been a good thing or a bad thing for this country?

Fourth, excluding economics and perceptions of contributions, it appears that the United States and Europe have a common core problem. How do these nations, areas and unions assimilate refugees and immigrants while still allowing for diversity. The current wave of immigrants and refugees have a tendency to be culturally distinct, ethnocentric, and concentrated in enclaves, voluntarily or involuntarily, and may prefer another language. As one example for the United States, Mexicans differ from other immigrants and refuges in that their homeland is contiguous with the United States. This forms one Mexican cultural area from the Yucatan province of Mexico to Colorado through California and one Hispanic cultural arena from Panama to California. Coupled with the Asian speaking population, English speaking Euro-Americans are now a minority in California.

This whole issue was summarized by Myron Weiner when he stated that western workers and governments fear “…that they are now being invaded not by armies and tanks but by migrants who speak other languages, worship other gods, belong to other cultures, and, they fear, will take their jobs, occupy their land, live off the welfare system, and threaten their way of life” (Weiner, 1995).

However, the issue of assimilation may be a moot point. In the United States, the great influx of immigrants from the 1890s to 1920s were able to assimilate, but their European culture was close to the dominant group. Second, non-European immigrants who arrived at this earlier period (e.g., the Chinese and Japanese) acculturated and are viewed more positively than the present immigrants. Third, the most recent arrivals (Mexicans, Koreans, Vietnamese, Haitians and the Cubans) receive much more negative responses due to language and cultural differences but there is support for diversity. Four, Americans differentiate between a specific refugee and refugees “in general” and will argue politically and legally for an individual’s specific human rights. Refugees are usually treated with sympathy; the greater their hardship, the greater the sympathy. Five, mutual acculturation may occur. Europe may incorporate more Islamic culture while the United States may accept more Hispanic and Asian culture regardless of the dominant groups. If true, this will have great impact on European and United States national cultures, foreign policies and social services for future generations. Last, it is possible that both Europe and the United States will develop split societies encompassing two or more distinct and largely separated communities, each with differing world-views (Huntington, p 204). A totally divisive situation of superior and subordinate positions containing within it the seeds of long term conflict undermining western national stability.

Citations

Bean, Frank, Vernez, George and Charles Keely. 1989. Opening and Closing the Doors:
Evaluating Immigration Reform and Control. Washington, D.C. Urban Institute.

Gallup International, 1980.

Holman, Philip A. 2000. “Refugee Resettlement in the United States” in Refugees in America in the 1990s.

Huntington, Samuel. 1997. The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order. New York: Touchstone.

United States Immigration and Naturalization Service. Statistical Yearbook of the Immigration and Naturalization Service. This yearbook gives data on immigrants, refugees, asylees, and parolees used throughout this paper. The INS has its own web page listing reports that can be downloaded. It can also be reached through the United States Census Bureau which has its own web page.

Simon, Rita. 2000. Public and Political Opinion in Refugees in America in the 1990s.

Simon, Rita and Alexander, Susan. 1993. The Ambivalent Welcome: Print Media, Public Opinion and Immigration. Westport, Connecticut.

Weiner, Myron. 1995. Global Migration Crisis. New York: HarperCollins


Prof Dr Gary Bittner, York College, Department of Behavioral Sciences, USA