On February 3, the Immigration and Integration Program at GMF held a rollout event of the 2010 Transatlantic Trends: Immigration survey at the National Press Club. Transatlantic Trends: Immigration, now in its third year, is a public opinion survey that is designed to capture public attitudes about immigration and integration in a transatlantic, comparative context. TTI is a joint project between the German Marshall Fund of the United States, the Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation, the Compagnia di San Paolo, and the Barrow Cadbury Trust, with addition support from the Fundación BBVA.

Ivan Vejvoda, Vice President of GMF, delivered the opening remarks and Delancey Gustin, Immigration and Integration Program Associate, presented the survey results. Susan Martin, Executive Director of the Institute for the Study of International Migration at Georgetown University, and David Frum, Founder and Editor of FrumForum, responded to the findings.

Ms. Gustin’s presentation of the findings included topics such as the effect of economic hardship on attitudes about immigration; public perception of legal and illegal immigration; and approval ratings of government immigration and integration management. In addition to annual trend questions, this year’s survey included new questions on immigrant integration (including the integration of Muslim, Hispanic, and second-generation migrants), requirements for citizenship acquisition, and the role of state governments in enforcing immigration law. One of the key findings of the report was how knowledge of the actual statistics of an immigrant population changed the proportion of respondents who said there are “too many” immigrants in their country. The presentation also pointed out how personal economic factors correlate with a greater fear of labor market competition from immigrants, particularly in the United States. In all the countries surveyed there were mixed views of immigrant integration, but the second-generation immigrants were perceived to be better integrated across the board.

In her response, Susan Martin stressed the usefulness of the comparative aspect of TTI in gauging why people are more satisfied with certain immigration policy options in different countries. Dr. Martin also pointed out the disturbing extent to which the population, in all countries surveyed, over-estimated the proportion of the immigrant population in their own country. This gap in knowledge points to the importance of public information that is provided about immigration and the effect the media can have on public attitudes and perceptions. Dr. Martin was encouraged, however, by the public’s perception of differential labor market impacts. Respondents in general recognized that immigrants fill jobs where there are shortages of native-born workers, create jobs, and set up new businesses. However, they also believe immigrants take jobs away from native-born workers and lower wages.

To listen to a brief podcast with Susan Martin following the event, please click here.

David Frum began his response with the insightful remark that the general public is “not always well informed, but very wise.” He then responded directly to the growing perception among Americans that most immigrants are in their country illegally. Though technically only one-third of the immigrant population in the United States is undocumented, close to half of all recent arrivals over the past ten years have been illegal. Mr. Frum also delved into the fiscal benefits and drawbacks of immigration, stating that for many communities, including the state of California, immigrants are a net fiscal drain, costing California taxpayers an additional $1,400 per household. He made the point that immigrants do provide a net fiscal gain on the federal level but can be a burden for local and state services and could be viewed as providing no net economic benefit for the American economy as a whole. 

To listen to a brief podcast with David Frum following the event, please click here.

Following the presentation, government integration and immigration management was brought up in the Q&A discussion. In the United States, where there are no federal policies on integration, the public generally perceived immigrants as integrating well or very well. The question was raised whether integration occurs more rapidly in the United States because it is not a welfare state, therefore lacking a number of social benefits, but instead requiring immigrants to quickly immerse themselves in society and the job market. Mr. Frum commented that the word integration is problematic, and that those in the United States associate it with segregation and those in Europe see integration in terms of assimilation.

Suggestions were also made to ask questions about birthright citizenship, Chinese immigrant integration, and to include Poland in the survey again.

To view the topline data, key findings report, and more, please visit www.transatlantictrends.org.