Ran Abramitzky and Leah Boustan on Immigration Then and Now

Episode Summary

Executive Summary: Leah Boustan and Ron Abramitzky argue that American immigration debates are shaped by myths: past immigration was not more harmonious, assimilation was not faster then, and immigrant mobility has long depended on generations, not instant success. Using congressional speech analysis, oral histories, and linked census/Ancestry data, they show immigrants and especially their children remain highly upwardly mobile.

Main Topics: Past vs. present immigration patterns (Priority: 5/5): The guests compare Ellis Island-era immigration with modern immigration, highlighting differences in origins, legal regime, and public debate while stressing that the overall immigrant share of the U.S. population is similar across eras. Historical and modern anti-immigrant rhetoric (Priority: 5/5): They analyze congressional speeches to show that immigration discourse was often more negative in the past than today, even when immigrants were mostly European, and that modern politics is more polarized by party. Immigrant mobility across generations (Priority: 5/5): The book challenges the 'rags to riches' story for first-generation immigrants while finding strong upward mobility for the children of immigrants in both past and present. Why immigrant children outperform (Priority: 4/5): A key explanation is location and underplacement: immigrants move to higher-opportunity places and adult arrivals are often underemployed relative to their skills, allowing their children to realize more of their potential. Assimilation and English acquisition (Priority: 4/5): They measure assimilation through English learning, marriage patterns, neighborhoods, and names, finding that assimilation proceeds at similar rates now and a century ago. Data innovation and methodology (Priority: 5/5): The conversation explains how the authors used machine learning on congressional speeches, oral histories, and linked census records via Ancestry.com to create large historical panel datasets. Personal reflections on immigration (Priority: 3/5): Both hosts connect the research to their own lives as immigrants or descendants of immigrants, underscoring the emotional and long-term nature of migration and identity.

Key Arguments: Immigrants made up about the same share of the U.S. population in 1900 as today, but they came from much different places and faced very different legal constraints. Historical political rhetoric on immigration was overwhelmingly negative in Congress, often more so than today, despite the fact that immigrants then were mostly European. The first generation is not a simple 'rags to riches' story: some immigrants did well immediately, others did not catch up even after decades. The children of immigrants are highly upwardly mobile in both eras and often outperform comparable children of U.S.-born parents. Immigrant advantage is partly explained by selective location choice: immigrants settle in places with higher mobility for everyone, unlike many native-born residents tied to low-mobility regions. Adult immigrants are often underplaced because of language and labor-market frictions; their children benefit by entering the labor market with native fluency and fewer constraints. Assimilation has not slowed dramatically over time; measures such as English use, intermarriage, neighborhood integration, and child naming show similar patterns then and now. The core insight is longitudinal: immigration must be judged over generations rather than on short-run outcomes of recent arrivals.

Data Points: Foreign-born share of U.S. population: around 1 in 7 - Used to compare immigration in 1900 and today; the authors say the proportion is similar across the two periods. Foreign-born share in 1900: around 1 in 7 - Historical comparison point for the immigrant population share. Immigrants today from Asia or Latin America: 75% - Describes the modern origin mix of U.S. immigrants. Undocumented share of immigrant population today: around 1/4 - Immigrants without legal status either overstayed visas or crossed without papers. Congressional speeches analyzed: 8 million - Raw congressional speech corpus used for machine-learning classification. Immigration speeches identified: about 200,000 - Subset of congressional speeches classified as being about immigration. Presidential speeches analyzed: 5,000 - Used to compare presidential rhetoric on immigration with Congress. Attempts to close the border, 1880-1920: 4 - The authors note four major attempts to restrict or close the border before the 1921 closure. Year border effectively closed: 1921 - The border closure was achieved after repeated vetoes were overcome. Household survey size in older mobility research: about 10,000 households - Contrast with the full-population historical census-linked data created by the authors. Population in 1940 U.S. census: about 100 million - Illustrates the scale of the census digitization and linkage effort. Oral histories uncovered: around 1,000 - Recorded interviews with Ellis Island-era immigrants used to study English assimilation. Modern low-income benchmark used in discussion: 25th percentile - Used as an example of comparing equally poor households when studying intergenerational mobility. Children of U.S.-born at 25th percentile: about 45th percentile as adults - Referenced as a modern rank-rank mobility result from Chetty et al. and replicated in spirit by the guests. Children of immigrants at same starting point: about 51st percentile as adults - The authors' estimate that children of immigrants outperform similarly situated children of U.S.-born parents.

Pivotal Quotes: "The first thing that's the same about immigration 100 years ago and immigration today is that immigrants make up the same proportion of the population." — Leah Boustan: Opening comparison between historical and modern immigration levels. "We argue the book is that both those views are wrong: that the past has been overly not as rosy as we think it was, and the present is much better than it looks." — Ron Abramitzky: Summary of the book’s central thesis on mobility and immigrant success. "Immigration is not a short story. So they come, they do by coming to the U.S. They are increasing their income dramatically, then they kind of don't fully catch up in the first generation, but their children are doing great." — Ron Abramitzky: Explains the authors’ generational view of immigrant economic progress.

Implications: The episode suggests immigration policy and public debate should focus on long-run, intergenerational outcomes rather than short-term assimilation fears. It also shows how big historical data can overturn popular myths about both past and present immigrant success.