Immigrant Settlement Policy in North America: Two Challenges in the Post 9/11 Era 1

Immigrant Settlement Policy in North America: Two Challenges in the Post 9/11 Era 1 By Ronald Schmidt Fulbright-Enders Visiting Research Chair Center for International Studies University of Montreal Email: r.schmidt@cerium.ca Both Canada and the United States are leading immigrant receiving countries in the world today, both having among the highest percentages of foreign-born populations on the globe (see, e.g., Migration Information Source, 2005). As a consequence, the two countries share a large stake in ensuring that their recent immigrants are successfully settled in their new communities. In contrast to immigration policy (which focuses on the gate-keeping questions of how many migrants, with what characteristics, should be authorized to immigrate to a given country), the primary focus of immigrant settlement policy is the efforts by states to help international migrants make a successful adaptation to their new country of residence. Given the continuing large scale of contemporary immigration in North America, the successful integration of international migrants is vitally important to core values of the host countries, as well as to the migrants themselves. Immigrant settlement policies have a wide range of possible foci, but most succinctly these policies are concerned with helping migrants adapt to their new surroundings economically, socially, culturally, and politically. Though each of these aspects of immigrant settlement is important, this essay argues that in the post-9/11 era, two areas of immigrant settlement policy have become especially important, and more challenging, to both the United States and Canada: (1) the need to avoid the racialization of recent immigrants, and (2) the need to come to terms with the apparently increased incidence of transnational political identities among international migrants. These challenges converge in, and raise the stakes of, immigrant settlement policy for the foreseeable future in North America. Challenge 1: Anti-Racialization Policies and International Migrants

In official policy, both Canada and the United States have sought in recent decades to remove racial discrimination and racial barriers to equal opportunity from their societies. Among the most prominent of these policies in the U.S. were the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965. And a third, equally prominent anti-racialization policy in the U.S. the Immigration Reform Act of 1965 dramatically altered the demographic make-up of immigration to the U.S. (Glazer 1985), setting in motion a trajectory that will lead to a non-white (i.e., non- European-origin) majority population sometime near the middle of this century. The 1965 immigration law did this by ending the long-standing policy of allocating immigration authorizations mainly to Northern Europeans. As a consequence, the vast majority of immigrants to the U.S. during the past forty years have come from Latin America, Asia, the Middle East, and Africa, with Europeans becoming a relatively small minority of new immigrants. Canada too, through its multiculturalism and employment equity policies and especially its 1982 Charter of Rights and Freedoms, has sought to eliminate racial discrimination in various forms, and has established a series of official bodies at the Federal government, provincial, and municipal levels of government through which to reach for this objective (Department of Canadian Heritage, 2005). Moreover, while the bulk of Canada s immigrants continue to come from Europe, the percentage of visible minorities in Canada has increased significantly in recent decades, and primarily because of changes in the country s immigration policies (Statistics Canada, 2005). As articulated in detail elsewhere (see, e.g., Schmidt, et. al., 2003) in reference to the United States, these demographic developments have made the struggle for greater racial equality in North America both more challenging and more important for several reasons. The struggle for racial equality is important because the future of democracy in North America depends upon it (i.e., a growing underclass of visible minorities signifies dramatically the failure of any democratic country to live up to its norms), because justice requires it, and because growing inequality

particularly along ethno-racial lines threatens the political stability and social harmony of any country. Even as it becomes more important to Canada and the U.S. as a whole, the effort to achieve greater racial equality is made more challenging by recent immigration because the long-standing visible minority communities at the heart of this campaign have increased in numbers dramatically, and have become more diverse and more complex as population groups (i.e., contemporary Asian and Latin American immigrants come from a broader range of countries with more diverse cultural characteristics than was true in the past). This increased size and diversity, in turn, make the tasks of political organizing and political coalition-building more challenging as well. Further, in the U.S., if not in Canada, public support for some public policies adopted by both countries to advance the cause of racial equality e.g., so-called affirmative action policies, as well as pluralistic language policies has also become more problematic due to the influx of new immigrants (see, e.g., Graham, 2002; Schmidt, 2000). So this is an on-going phenomenon that should be of acute interest to political leaders and policy makers in both Canada and the United States. Now, enter the events of 9/11 and the importance and complexity of the anti-racism efforts in both countries become even more challenging for policymakers and publics alike. The experience of 9/11 seared itself into the minds and hearts of nearly all Americans, and many Canadians as well (though perhaps for reasons somewhat different than for Americans). That searing experience brought into consciousness for most North Americans a sense of fundamental insecurity that will probably remain for the foreseeable future. As a consequence, security became a touchstone issue in politics and social life in a way that has not been true in recent decades. In this context of shock, fear, suspicion and insecurity, the months and years following 9/11 in the United States brought a dramatic increase in the number of reports of incidents of anti-

Arab, anti-south Asian, and anti-muslim violence and verbal abuse by members of the U.S. public (see, e.g., Arab American Institute Foundation, 2002; Abel, 2005). There was a similar, though more muted, increase in anti-arab, Anti-South Asian and Anti-Muslim behavior in Canada (see, e.g., Biles and Ibrahim, 2002; Helly, 2004). Even in the absence of directly hostile or abusive behavior, there is mounting evidence that the stigmatization of members of particular cultural communities through negative stereotyping in the mass media and public opinion can cause psychological damage and negatively affect the behaviors of individuals so stigmatized (see, e.g., Link and Phelan, 2001). In addition to these negative reactions in civil society, there is increasing evidence that U.S. government policies, implemented in the post-9/11 security era (especially the so-called Patriot Act of 2001), have undermined long-standing civil liberties. And the brunt of this policy implementation has been borne especially by Arab, South Asian, and Islamic immigrants to the United States (see, e.g., Cole, 2002; Caincar, 2004; Tirman, 2004). One close observer summed up the transition from shock to policy as follows: The Bush administration s response to the 9/11 attacks, perhaps reflected the public mood, has returned the nation to a mindset of vigilance toward immigrants. What appeared to be a highly arbitrary detention of up to 2,000 Muslim and other Arab men after 9/11 has gradually became a discernable policy (Tirman, 2004). And another researcher, focusing only on federal government actions in New York City, reports: New York s large ethnic and community press contains countless stories of immigrants whose lives have been destroyed and families shattered by federal law enforcement strategies in the wake of 9/11 (Minnite 2005, p. 7). While political leaders in the U.S. have generally avoided inflammatory rhetoric directed against these groups, there is little doubt that these primarily immigrant communities have been hard hit by federal government security policies. Meanwhile, since the immediate aftermath period of 9/11, there have been few efforts by the country s major media (e.g., television, radio, newspapers) to

provide more solid information to the general public on the nature of the Muslim religion, or Arab or South Asian cultures. In contrast, Canadian governmental agencies set up to monitor and resolve emerging issues of ethnic and racial animosity and discrimination, as well as to protect against employment discrimination and governmental bias, seem to have worked more effectively at maintaining an antiracist focus, ameliorating post 9/11 tensions that developed in civil society (see, e.g., Helly 2004). Moreover, apart from a couple of well-publicized cases, Canada s security agencies seem to have avoided the large-scale patterns of profiling widely perceived as racializing that have generated significant feelings of stigmatization among Arab, South Asian and Muslim communities in the United States. This Canadian experience, of course, may also have something to do with the fact that the terrorist events of 9/11 occurred in the United States and not in Canada. In any case, the point here is that in the United States, the combination of the abovedescribed actions on the part of members of the general public and federal officials has led to a widely shared perception among Arab, South Asian, and Muslim immigrant communities that they have become the new racialized Other in U.S. politics. This seems not to be true in Canada, but it is clear that the stakes in avoiding such racialization are equally high there. The stakes for both countries remain clear: the future of democracy and social justice in North America requires that all new immigrant communities be successfully integrated into their host societies without racialization, and failure to do so will surely threaten our countries political stability and social harmony. Challenge 2: Transnational Political Identities in the Post 9/11 Era A second challenge to North American immigrant settlement policies, which overlaps in some ways with the first, is the challenge of coming to terms with the apparent increase in transnational political identities among immigrants. Receiving a good deal of attention from social

scientists and some political actors in recent years, transnational political identity actually refers to several different phenomena. Perhaps the most common form of transnational political identity is that of dual nationality, in which a person is a citizen of two countries simultaneously. More commonly legitimized by migration sending countries than by migration receiving countries, the former have found certain political and economic advantages in ensuring that their diasporic members remain citizens of the countries they have left, at least temporarily. And many migrants, as well as their descendants, also find advantage in such an arrangement (see, e.g., Glick Schiller, et.al., 1992; Portes, et.al., 1996; Guarnizo, 2001; Morawska, 2001). Another form of transnationalism is that of supra-nationalism, wherein the political subject or actor conceives of and experiences her primary political identity as larger than, or beyond the parameters of the nation-state. Perhaps the most common form of this form of transnationalism is derived from religious belief, in which the believer asserts that her highest allegiance is to a higher power, a deity, and she is bound to follow its precepts even if this entails the violation of the laws or norms of the nation-state to which this subject belongs. Other familiar anti-nationstate ideologies (e.g., syndicalism, anarchism, Marxism) make similar claims on behalf of a secular ideology. And many observers have claimed that the behaviors of entrepreneurs and other marketcentered political actors presuppose a belief that their economic activities claim a higher political allegiance than that given to any nation-state. In the academic discourse over transnationalism, some have claimed that new technologies and the increasing globalization of world economic activity have generated a vast increase in this second form of transnationalism, while others have disputed the newness of this phenomenon (see, e.g., Sassen 1991; Glick Schiller, 1996; Kivisto, 2001; Morawska, 2001). Whatever the outcome of this largely academic discourse, there seems little doubt that transnationalism in both of these forms is a widespread phenomenon in the

contemporary world of international migration, and that virtually all nation-states need to come to terms with its implications. For immigrant receiving countries like the United States and Canada, this means some process of rethinking immigrant settlement policies in the light of the widespread reality of transnational identities in immigrant communities. In one sense, this imperative blends with the anti-racialization discussion above. That is, in some forms transnational political identities may entail a commitment to violent action ( terrorism ) on behalf of a secular or religious ideology, and there it is quite possible that the experience of racialization in immigrant communities may be a major factor in inducing some to support or join in such movements and activities (see, Waldman, 2005, for a discussion of the role of racialization in motivating those apparently responsible for the multiple suicide bombings on London subway trains and a bus in July 2005). More generally, however, traditional approaches to immigrant settlement policy have presupposed the goal of transforming the political subject s pre-existing loyalty to a singular ( sending ) nation-state to loyalty to another singular ( receiving ) nation-state. Thus, successful political settlement in this traditional conception involves transforming (say) an Iranian into a (say) Canadian political subject. And much settlement policy continues to hinge on such a conception of primary political allegiance to a singular nation-state. In the United States, for example, despite the fact that the country has no official policy on dual nationality or any other form of transnational political identity, naturalizing citizens continue to be asked to formally renounce their previous political allegiance when becoming U.S. citizens. My point is that political leaders in both the United States and Canada need to think more proactively about the implications of transnational political identities in respect to immigrant settlement policy. Whether the phenomena are new or not is not the primary question. The reality is that on-going technological change, along with increased global trade, render traditional notions

of singular political identities off-point for many international migrants. Whether officially recognized or not, their political identities are going to be transnational. The question is how to help such migrants successfully settle in their new communities in ways that are advantageous to both the migrants themselves and to the larger public good. In this respect, Canada s long-standing policy of multiculturalism offers potential for a transnational approach to immigrant settlement for both Canada and the U.S. The premise of the multicultural policy is that multiple identities are a valuable asset for both individuals and for countries. The assimilationist orientations of many U.S. policies having to do with immigrant settlement, in contrast, assume that having or encouraging multiple political identities is a threat to the common good of any nation-state, a conception that drives much opposition to acceptance of transnational identities in the United States (see, e.g., Renshon, 2005, for an articulation of this position). In contrast, my own position has been that a settlement policy orientation favorable to a pluralistic form of integration offers a better foundation for the successful integration of international migrants than does an assimilationist approach (Schmidt, 2000). I argue, further, that a pluralistic approach does not threaten, but rather strengthens, the larger public good. The point here, in any case, is that a pluralistic or multicultural approach toward immigrant settlement might offer a good foundation for rethinking the implications of transnational political identities for the successful integration of international migrants in the contemporary period. Further, there should be little doubt that the stakes in responding to the transnational political identity phenomena have been raised for both Canada and the United States in the post 9/11 era. Conclusion To sum up: it seems clear that immigrant settlement policy in both Canada and the United States has become more difficult and more important as a consequence of the political world we experience in the aftermath of 9/11. And this seems to be especially true with respect to both

countries commitment to removing the stigma of racialization from both their societies, and also to the apparently increasingly prevalent phenomena of transnational political identities among international migrant populations. The policy agendas of both countries, accordingly, would do well to devote greater attention and resources to the question of immigrant settlement in the post 9/11 world. More specifically, Canada already has in place an excellent institutional and legal foundation in its existing policies of immigrant settlement and multiculturalism), but could strengthen these policies through expanded funding at the federal, provincial and municipal levels of government. Moreover, Canada s political leaders should think seriously about expanding the country s multiculturalist policy toward a more explicitly transnational frame of reference. The United States, in turn, should look to Canada as an inspiration and source of ideas for more productive and proactive immigrant settlement policies in reference to both its antiracialization program, and to adapting a multiculturalist perspective toward the phenomena of transnational political identities. There is not space here to develop these recommendations further, but it is hoped that enough has been articulated to convince the reader that these subjects are worthy of further attention and discussion in both the United States and Canada. Endnote 1 The author thanks the Canada-U.S. Fulbright Program for the support that made this work possible, and the Center for International Studies (CERIUM) at the University of Montreal for providing a very hospitable environment in which to work out the ideas contained in this essay. He also thanks Denise Helly for a very productive discussion of some of the issues discussed herein, and Francois Crepeau for helpful suggestions on an earlier draft of this essay. References

Abel, Jason A. 2005. Americans Under Attack: The Need for Federal Hate Crime Legislation in Light of Post-September 11 Attacks on Arab Americans and Muslims, 12 Asian Law Journal 41. Arab American Institute Foundation. 2002. Profiling and Pride: Arab American Attitudes and Behavior Since September 11. www.aaiusa.org. Biles, John, and Humera Ibrahim. 2002. After September 11, 2001: A Tale of Two Canadas, paper presented to the 7 th International Metropolis Conference, Oslo, Norway. Caincar, Louise. 2004. The Impact of the September 11 Attacks and their Aftermath on Arab and Muslim Communities in the United States, GSC Quarterly 13 (Summer/Fall). Program on Global Security and Cooperation, Social Science Research Council. www.ssrc.org. Cole, David. 2002. Enemy Aliens, 54 Stanford Law Review 953. Glazer, Nathan, ed. 1985. Clamor at the Gates: The New American Immigration (Oakland, CA: ICS Press). Graham, Hugh Davis. 2002. Collision Course: The Strange Convergence of Affirmative Action and Immigration Policy in the United States (New York: Oxford University Press). Guarnizo, Luis Eduardo. 2001. On the Political Participation of Transnational Migrants: Old Practices and New Trends, in Gary Gerstle and John Mollenkopf, eds., E Pluribus Unum? Contemporary and Historical Perspectives on Immigrant Political Incorporation (New York: Russell Sage Foundation), pp. 213-265. Glick Schiller, Nina, Linda Basch, and Cristina Blanc-Szantion. 1992. Transnationalism: A New Analytic Framework for Understanding Migration, Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 645 (July 6), pp. 1-24. Glick Schiller, Nina. 1996. From Immigrant to Transmigrants: Theorizing Transnational Migration, Anthropological Quarterly 68(1), pp. 48-63.

Helly, Denise. 2004. Are Muslims Discriminated Against in Canada Since September 2001?, Canadian Ethnic Studies 36;1, pp. 24-47. Kivisto, Peter. 2001. Theorizing Transnational Immigration: A Critical Review of Current Efforts, Ethnic and Racial Studies 24(4), pp. 549-77. Link, Bruce G., and Jo C. Phelan. 2001. Conceptualizing Stigma, Annual Review of Sociology 27: 363-85. Migration Information Source. 2005. The Migration Policy Institute. (http://www.migrationinformation.org/globaldata/charts/2.1.shtml) Minnite, Lorraine C. August 2005. Immigrant Politics in an Age of Terror, paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association, Washington D.C. Morawska, Ewa. 2001. Immigrants, Transnationalism, and Ethnicization: A Comparison of This Great Wave and the Last, in Gary Gerstle and John Mollenkopf, eds., E Pluribus Unum? Contemporary and Historical Perspectives on Immigrant Political Incorporation (New York: Russell Sage Foundation), pp. 175-212. Portes, Alejandro, Luis Eduardo Guarnizo, and Patricia Landolt. 1999. The Study of Transnationalism: Pitfalls and Promise of an Emergent Research Field, Ethnic and Racial Studies 22(2), pp. 217-37. Renshon, Stanley. 2005. The 50% American: Immigration and National Identity in an Age of Terror. Washington, D.C.: The Georgetown University Press. Sassen, Saskia. 1991. The Global City: New York, London, Tokyo (Princeton: Princeton University Press). Schmidt, Ronald Sr. 2000. Language Policy and Identity Politics in the United States (Philadelphia: Temple University Press).

Schmidt, Ronald, Yvette Alex-Assensoh, Andrew Aoki, and Rodney Hero. 2003. The Impact of Recent Immigrants on Ethno-Racial Politics in the United States, paper presented at the 19 th World Congress of the International Political Science Association, Durban, South Africa. Statistics Canada. 2005. Population Projections of Visible Minority Groups, Canada, Provinces and Regions, 2001-2017. (Ottawa: Research and Analysis Section, Demography Division, Statistics Canada). Tirman, John. 2004. The Migration-Security Nexus, GSC Quarterly, 13 (Summer/Fall). Program on Global Security and Cooperation, Social Science Research Council. www.ssrc.org. Waldman, Amy. 2005. Seething Unease Shaped British Bombers Newfound Zeal, New York Times July 31, p. A-1.