Engaging Diverse Voices through Research & Resources

According to the U.S. Census Bureau, “The foreign-born population is composed of anyone who is not a U.S. citizen at birth. This includes persons who have become U.S. citizens through naturalization. Everyone else is counted among the native-born population, which comprises anyone who is a U.S. citizen at birth… or abroad to a U.S. citizen parent or parents.” The Census Bureau offers definitions, data tables and datasets about the U.S. foreign born population.  

When using historic documents, researchers need to be aware of the language and terminology used within the publications. Much of the language in these documents is outdated and harmful, and while it is seen as socially inappropriate, many government documents continue to use this language today. Below, there is some context for the language and how the language has evolved into the terms we currently use.

The term “alien” is seen in most government documents from the year 1790 to present (in many states).This term is not currently an appropriate term to refer to these individuals. California, Colorado, and New York are some of the states that have begun to take action to remove the word “alien” from their labor codes. In 2021, The Biden Administration began to seek the change of the word “alien” to “non-citizen” in recognition of the negative connotations behind the word. Currently the term most commonly used is “immigrant”.

The term “illegal” is a word that is still used to describe immigrants who have not yet obtained legal status. This term is not currently an appropriate term to use to refer to these individuals. Referring to individuals as “illegal”, places blame on the individual for an issue that is systematic. The discourse surrounding this change raises the question of the “legality” of the first settlers immigration. Currently the most commonly used term is “undocumented”.

Numerous studies have utilized assimilation theories to guide their inquiry with diverse foci like adolescent educational outcomes, college enrollment, self-esteem, depression and psychological well-being, substance use, language fluency, parental involvement in school, and intermarriage among other things (Waters & Jimenez, 2005; Rumbaut, 1994). Despite such widespread use of assimilation, some scholars have noted that the theory may not adequately explain immigrants’ diverse and dynamic experiences (Glazer, 1993) and some note that other theories such as models of self-esteem or social identity may be added to assimilation to bolster its value (Bernal, 1993; Phinney, 1991).

A further critique is that a push for assimilation may mask an underlying sentiment that immigrants and refugees are unwelcome guests who have to compete for scarce resources (Danso, 1999; Danso & Grant, 2000). These sentiments can impact the reception and adaptation experiences of immigrant populations in the receiving country (Esses, Dovidio, Jackson, & Armstrong, 2001). Extreme nationalism and a sense of fear may encourage ideals of conformity that defines ‘successful integration’ or ‘successful resettlement’ as full adoption of the receiving country’s ways and beliefs while giving up old cultures and traditions. There is little or no support for the maintenance of cultural or linguistic differences, and groups’ rights may be violated. This belief can lead to misunderstandings when new United States residents speak, act, and believe differently than the dominant culture. It can result in an unwelcoming environment and prevent the development and offering of culturally and linguistically appropriate services for immigrant and refugee families, erecting barriers to their opportunity to adapt and thrive in their new homes. Assimilation may implicitly assume that some cultures and traits are inferior to the dominant White-European culture of the receiving nation and therefore should be abandoned for ways more sanctioned by that privileged group.

Transnationalism has been a subject of research in diverse academic disciplines including geography, anthropology, political science, sociology, and planning. The term draws our attention to the emergence, properties, and impacts of transnational flows, networks, and social practices. The term transnationalism generally questions a conception of space that uses nation-states as its primary reference point (see also Taylor 2004). Borders, political regulations, and constructions of national identities still maintain central importance, even if they are challenged by transnational communication and social practices (Smith 2001). With ‘transnationalism’ we refer to border-crossing processes, which are constituted through national conditions, while questioning them at the same time (Sassen 2007).

The growing interconnectedness between political, social, and economic systems beyond national or regional borders. The international regulation of politics, and the global conduct of commerce and finance, is as old as the establishment of individual states. New developments towards the end of the twentieth century were characterized by:

(1) the accelerating pace of communication through the worldwide web and satellite systems. (2) the spread of more global cultures of consumerism and popular culture; (3) the internationalization of domestic problems, e.g. through migration and social movements; (4) the apparent victory of capitalism after 1989, as a result of which the world (exceptions like North Korea notwithstanding) was organized according to similar principles of political economy; (5) a culture of dramatic innovation and fluctuation at the workplace, which caused a great sense of dislocation as jobs and social systems were no longer secure.”