Are Immigration Trends New? The Use and Abuse of Data

Radley Balko points to a column by Kathleen Parker on "Full-Blooded Americans." The implication seems to be that "full-blooded Americans" (whoever they may be) should vote for McCain over Obama, apparently because Obama doesn't seem to get... um, something about the importance of full-blooded Americans. Parker goes to great lengths to claim that her column and argument are not racist. I won't touch that part, you can judge for yourself.

I only want to comment on a small part of the article, the only fact (or rather, data) where Parker attempts to show that something new, and perhaps worrying is going on with respect to demographic trends:

Meanwhile, immigration trends have shifted drastically in the past 40 years, as growing percentages of Americans are foreign-born. In 1970, just 4.7 percent of the total population was foreign-born - 9.6 million people. By 2000, 11.1 percent, or 31.1 million individuals, were foreign-born, according to the Census.

Contributing to the growing unease among yesterday's Americans is the failure of the federal government to deal with the illegal immigration fiasco. It isn't necessarily racist or nativist to worry about what these new demographics mean to the larger American story.

Leave aside illegal immigration for the moment, as Parker is concerned with the growth in legal, foreign-born Americans. She is worried about "these new demographics." But are they really new? The data she presents seem to indicate so, with the percentage of the population that is foreign-born growing drastically from 1970 to 2000. But take a look at the full historical series from the same Census bureau that Parker cites.

Parker just happened to choose the low-point (1970) of 150 years of data as her baseline. I can see no logical reason for doing so (maybe someone else can correct me). Not only were there a few years from the early 20th century higher than the percentage in 2000, but every single Census year between 1860 and 1930 had a higher percentage of foreign-born Americans.

Pointing out this fact does not mean that Parker is wrong; their may be a qualitative difference (e.g. willingness to learn English) between past and current foreign-born populations. Maybe. But it can not simply be asserted. Show me the data, then we can have a discussion. Again, data showing qualitative differences does not close the case, as my data does not. But is necessary to start a reasonable discussion.