the new gateways: immigrant integration in unexpected places

6

The New GatewaysImmigrant Integration in Unexpected PlacesThe “a-ha!” moment, as the former mayor of Littleton,Colorado, Susan Thornton, describes it, came as shewas driving through the quaintly old-fashioned busi-ness district of her small suburban city south ofDenver and noticed a sign for tax preparation inSpanish. “I was quite surprised, and when I talked tocity staff I found out that we’d gone from about 2percent foreign-born to about 14 percent foreign-born,” says Thornton, who now writes a column onmunicipal issues for the Denver Post. As Thorntonrelates in her contribution to this special of theNational Civic Review, recognition of the changingdemographics in Littleton led to a communitywideconversation on what it meant to be one of America’snew gateways for recent immigrants.

We like to think of ourselves as a “nation of immi-grants”—or at least John F. Kennedy did when hechose that phrase for the title of a book publishedposthumously in 1964. It might be more accurate tosay we are a nation of immigrants and “receivingcommunities” in which succeeding waves of the for-mer have been met with decidedly mixed emotionsby the latter. As Tamar Jacoby, a senior fellow at theManhattan Institute for Policy Research, pointedout to me, Benjamin Franklin complained about thegrowing population of Germans, who he thoughthad different values and even different complexions.This pattern of ambivalence has continued throughsubsequent migrations: the Irish, Asians, Italians,Eastern Europeans, and Latin Americans. “I thinkdifference is what has made America great,” saidJacoby, “and we want to remain a country wheredifference flourishes, but tolerance and diversitydon’t quite capture it. They’re part of what we want,but ultimately what we want is cohesion. We want asociety where there’s room for difference, but whatwe have in common is more important than our differences.”

The disorientation that many receiving communitiesexperience today, she adds, may have something todo with the difference in magnitude—about half amillion a year, as opposed to a mere two hundredthousand in 1960. Until the 1990s, there were effec-tively six gateway states for recent immigrants:California, New York, Texas, Florida, New Jersey,and Illinois. Among the states with the highestgrowth of foreign-born immigrants in recent yearswere North Carolina, Arkansas, Georgia, andNevada. Not having been gateways in the past, com-munities in these states were struggling to come togrips with new languages, cultures, religious prac-tices, responsibilities, and demands on resources.

“Established central cities may have depth of expe-rience in working with diverse populations, butimmigration is forcing suburban municipalities tocatch up on managing diversity,” noted Brian Ray inan article for Migration Information Source, anonline publication of the Migration Policy Institute.He continues:

In the 100 largest metropolitan areas of theUnited States, the rate of immigrant populationgrowth was 54.8 percent between 1990 and2000. The rate of growth in the suburbs of thesesame metropolitan areas, however, was 63.7 per-cent, far outstripping the rate of central cityimmigrant growth (21.7 percent). In only 32 ofthe 100 metropolitan areas did the growth of theimmigrant population in the central city exceedthat in the suburbs during the 1990s.

All over the country, small towns and suburbs thathad never experienced the challenges and benefitsassociated with large-scale immigration are comingto terms with the new realities: multiple languagesspoken in their schools, interpreters needed at

B Y M I C H A E L M C G R AT H

© 2009 Wi ley Per iodicals , Inc .Publ ished onl ine in Wi ley InterScience (www.interscience.wi ley.com)Nat ional Civ ic Review • DOI : 10.1002/ncr.237 • Spr ing 2009

7

county hospitals and courts, religious practices thatrequired accommodations in the workplace, toname a few. “Managing diversity and creating theconditions for social inclusion can no longer be aconcern for old central cities alone,” wrote Ray:

In many cities the majority of immigrants, bothnew and long-established, settle in the suburbs,not the traditional inner-city enclaves that sodominate our imagined ethnic landscapes. In theUnited States, this trend could be observed insome large immigrant gateway cities during the1980s, but in the past decade suburban neigh-borhoods have emerged as new multiethnicimmigrant enclaves in both new and establishedsettlement gateways.

Not surprisingly, the impact of immigration hasbecome a bigger focus of the work of the NationalCivic League (NCL) in recent years. Diversity andimmigration frequently top the list of concerns thatcommunities consider in discussion facilitated by theCommunity Services program, notes NCL vice pres-ident Derek Okubo.

Diversity and immigration programs are often fea-tured in community presentations during the annualAll-America City awards program. A recent exam-ple would be Lewiston, Maine, an All-America Citywinner in 2007, which responded to a large andunexpected local migration of refugees fromSomalia by creating a unique, public-private service-delivery collaboration for the newcomers.

Engaging immigrants in the civic life of one of ournew gateway communities poses particular chal-

lenges. The conditions of daily life for many immi-grants can lead to social isolation. There is a sub-stantial body of social scientific literature thatidentifies lack of social connectedness as a majorcause of poverty and other problems. Social isola-tion of particular groups can have an impact onother groups, leading to cultural misunderstandingsand conflicts and making it more difficult for publicand private agencies to deliver services. Those whowork in communities understand the importance ofpromoting social interaction and civic engagement.

E Pluribus Unum

One of the most incisive thinkers on social trust,civic engagement, and the workings of democraciesis the Harvard political scientist Robert Putnam. Inthe early 1990s, Putnam published a groundbreak-ing book, Making Democracy Work. On the basisof his extensive research on regional governmentsin Italy, he developed a theory about why somedemocracies work better than others. Controllingfor other factors, he identified involvement in vol-untary associations—business groups, social organ-izations, even choral societies—as the mostimportant determinant of success.

Later, Putnam applied his theories to the UnitedStates in an article (and subsequent book) titledBowling Alone. Increasing individualism and fallingmembership in social and civic organizations, hefeared, were reducing the level of “social capital,”which he identifies as

connections among individuals—social net-works and the norms of reciprocity and trust-worthiness that arise from them. In that sense,social capital is related to what some have called“civic virtue.” The difference is that social capi-tal calls attention to the fact that civic virtue ismost powerful when embedded in a dense net-work of reciprocal social relations. A society ofvirtuous but isolated individuals is not necessar-ily rich with social capital [p. 19].

National Civ ic Review DOI : 10.1002/ncr Spr ing 2009

“We want a society where there’s room for dif-ference, but what we have in common is moreimportant than our differences.”

— TA M A R J A C O B Y, S E N I O R F E L L O W,

M A N H AT TA N I N S T I T U T E F O R P O L I C Y R E S E A R C H

8

“A society characterized by generalized reciprocityis more efficient than a distrustful society, for thesame reason that money is more efficient thanbarter,” he writes. “If we don’t have to balance everyexchange instantly, we can get a lot more accom-plished. Trustworthiness lubricates social life.Frequent interaction among a diverse set of peopletends to produce a norm of generalized reciprocity.Civic engagement and social capital entail mutualobligation and responsibility for action” (p. 21).

One of Putnam’s strengths is his ability to makesocial scientific concepts come alive for the lay pub-lic. His use of the metaphor “bowling alone” helpedspread his ideas on the importance of social net-works. After publication of the book in 2000, manya foundation, nonprofit, and social commentatoradopted this language. A word search of an index ofthe National Civic Review, for example, turns uptwenty-five references to “social capital” and elevenreferences to “bowling alone.” The concept is par-ticularly useful in discussing the quandary that manyAmerican communities were finding themselves in:social, demographic, and technological changeswere leading to a more isolated set of individualswith the passing of what Putnam called the “longcivic generation” of joiners that weathered the GreatDepression and World War II.

As Putnam himself pointed out, however, social cap-ital was not some “warm and cuddly” concept thatmade everything better.

Networks and the associated norms of reciproc-ity are generally good for those inside the net-work, but the external effects of social capital areby no means always positive. It was social capi-

tal, for example, that enabled Timothy McVeighto bomb the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building inOklahoma City. McVeigh’s network of friends,bound together by norms of reciprocity, enabledhim to do what he could not have done alone.Similarly, urban gangs, NIMBY (“not in mybackyard”) movements, and power elites oftenexploit social capital to achieve ends that areantisocial from a wider perspective [p. 22].

In 2007, Scandinavian Political Studies, a journal ofthe Nordic Political Science Association, publishedan article by Putnam called “E Pluribus Unum:Diversity and Community in the Twenty-FirstCentury.” As Putnam emphasizes in his introductionto this issue of the National Civic Review, his goalwas not to disparage or discourage immigration; yetthe findings from a survey of thirty thousand peoplein the United States suggested that increasing diver-sity posed an even greater challenge to communitiesthan was previously imagined. There are importantbenefits associated with increased immigration, henoted, but diversity takes a toll on a community’ssupply of social capital. Not only was increaseddiversity associated with a lower level of trustbetween groups; it even seemed to diminish socialtrust within groups.

“E Pluribus Unum” attracted far more interest fromthe press than the usual social scientific journal arti-cle. “It has become increasingly popular to speak ofracial and ethnic diversity as a civic strength,” wroteMichael Jonas in the Boston Globe.

From multicultural festivals to pronouncementsfrom political leaders, the message is the same:our differences make us stronger. But a massivenew study, based on detailed interviews of nearly30,000 people across America, has concludedjust the opposite. Harvard political scientistRobert Putnam—famous for Bowling Alone, his2000 book on declining civic engagement—hasfound that the greater the diversity in a commu-


“A society of virtuous but isolated individualsis not necessarily rich with social capital.”

— R O B E R T P U T N A M , B O W L I N G A L O N E

9

nity, the fewer people vote and the less they vol-unteer, the less they give to charity and work oncommunity projects. In the most diverse com-munities, neighbors trust one another about halfas much as they do in the most homogeneoussettings. The study, the largest ever on civicengagement in America, found that virtually allmeasures of civic health are lower in morediverse settings.

The study was cited as evidence by those commen-tators who were already wary of higher immigra-tion, but it also offered useful insights and hope forthose who were struggling with the challenge ofhelping communities find better ways of incorporat-ing the new level of diversity. In the article, Putnammade three main points:

1. Ethnic diversity “will increase substantially invirtually all modern societies over the next sev-eral decades, in part because of immigration.Increased immigration and diversity are not onlyinevitable, but over the long run they are alsodesirable. Ethnic diversity is, on balance, animportant social asset. . . .”

2. In the short to medium run, however, “immigra-tion and ethnic diversity challenge social solidar-ity and inhibit social capital.”

3. In “the medium to long run . . . successful immi-grant societies create new forms of social solidar-ity and dampen the negative effects of diversityby constructing new, more encompassing identi-ties” (p. 138).

Immigrant Integration

During the late 1990s, The Colorado Trust, aDenver-based foundation with a mission to advancethe health and well-being of Coloradans, conducteda needs assessment for the refugee and immigrantpopulation in the state, which had grown by 160percent between the 1990 and 2000 censuses. Thestudy concluded that many immigrants were experi-encing severe problems with mental health and cul-

tural adjustment. In 2000, the trust launched astatewide project known as the SupportingImmigrant and Refugee Families Initiative (SIRFI) tohelp community agencies dealing with these issues.

“When we first got involved in it, we were lookingat it through the lens of mental health and culturaladjustment,” recalls Susan Downs-Karkos, formerlya senior program officer at the foundation. “It wasto help community-based organizations. But wetook a really broad definition of mental health, so itwasn’t just getting everybody a therapist. Therewere also things like how to build cultural adjust-ment into English ESL [English as a second lan-guage] programs.”

Eventually the scope of the program broadenedfrom working with service agencies that helpedrefugees and immigrants to conducting community-wide dialogues that involved all the relevant stake-holders in the communities. Part of what changed,explains Downs-Karkos, was the embrace of theconcept “immigrant integration.”

Historically, social scientists have focused on theability of immigrants to assimilate or to becomeassimilated into American society, the so-called melt-ing pot theory. When Grantmakers Concerned withImmigrants and Refugees (GCIR) developed theirframework for immigrant integration, however, theyintentionally avoided use of the word assimilate,with its implication that minorities must becomemore like the dominant ethnic or cultural group.“Integration is a two-way process in which new-comer and established residents share responsibilityfor the well-being of one another and of the broadercommunity,” notes GCIR’s Immigrant IntegrationToolkit. “Requiring change on the part of the immi-grant and the receiving community, integration is adynamic give-and-take process that takes place overtime. In the ideal, it transforms both the newcomersand the receiving society, creating a new whole thatis greater than the sum of its parts” (p. 26).


10

“It was really taking what we were doing at an orga-nizational level and thinking about what that wouldmean communitywide,” notes Downs-Karkos,

drawing in some of the larger community insti-tutions like schools, health care providers, localgovernment, folks whose mandate it is to servethe whole community but [who] don’t have the same long-term relationships of trust of theimmigrant communities that some of the serviceproviders did. The idea behind the immigrantintegration planning process was that you wouldbe able to bring everybody together to talk aboutthe concept of immigrant integration, what itmeant for them and how it might work for themin a proactive way. It wasn’t about immigrationpolicy, which is a federal issue. It’s about what ishappening once immigrants are here, ourresponsibility as a community.

To coordinate the statewide SIRFI project, TheColorado Trust brought in the Spring Institute, aDenver-based nonprofit group with an establishedtrack record of working with immigrants. The ideawas to establish a series of planning dialogues,bringing in as many sectors of the community aspossible. Grantees organized community meetingsto engage in-depth discussion, based on a vision/strategic planning model, and planned culturalevents to bring together immigrants and members ofthe receiving community. Outside facilitators, cho-sen for their facilitation skills and their experiencewith cross-cultural interactions, were brought in toassist the community dialogues.

Communities had to submit a request for proposalsto obtain a SIRFI grant. The communities wereselected on the basis of their indication of supportfrom immigrants, immigrant-serving organizations,and mainstream institutions, and whether thereappeared to be a committed spirit of workingtogether. Participants were expected to make a four-year commitment to the process. Ten communities

received grants in 2004 and another nine communi-ties in 2006.

The foundation developed a funding strategy forworking with those nineteen communities:

• A six- to nine-month facilitated planning processwith participants from the health care, education,business, law enforcement, and local governmentsectors; libraries; faith-based organizations;immigrant-serving organizations; and immi-grants and refugees themselves.

• Four-year grants to help the communities under-take their immigrant integration activities withtechnical support from the Spring Institute andother third-party experts, which continued dur-ing the implementation phase.

• An initiative evaluation to share lessons learnedfrom the planning, implementation, and interme-diate outcomes of the statewide immigrant inte-gration efforts.

Bonding and Bridging Social Capital

“The benefits of immigration in a community don’thappen magically,” explains SIRFI project directorJoe Wismann-Horther. “You have to do the workaround bridging social capital.” Wismann-Hortheris referring to the distinction social scientists makebetween two forms of social capital: “bonding net-works” and “bridging” social capital. Bondingsocial networks are those that exist between similargroups of people. Examples of bonding social capi-tal are ethnic fraternal organizations, church groups,and social clubs, mostly inward interactions that


“Integration is a two-way process in whichnewcomer and established residents shareresponsibility for the well-being of one anotherand of the broader community.”

— I M M I G R A N T I N T E G R AT I O N T O O L K I T

11

offered support and solidarity. Bridging social capi-tal allows individuals to benefit from external net-works such as youth service groups and interfaithorganizations, interactions that bring unlike peopletogether. It’s the bridging social capital that groupsworking with immigrants in communities are seek-ing to build.

“Social capital is about the networking that takesplace in communities, but often those networks arebased on people who are already engaged with eachother or have some common likes or dislikes orinterests in a community,” says Wismann-Horther.

Bridging social capital is really importantbecause it’s being intentional about gettingtogether people who don’t talk with each other.When we went around the state and did ourforums with communities, the most commonthing that happened was the established com-munity members said: “Wow. I’ve never reallytalked to an immigrant, and I’ve never really hada conversation where I learned why they’re here,what their dreams and aspirations are for theirfamilies, what they would like their kids to do.”I found that pretty surprising because oftentimesestablished community members have verystrong opinions in a political sense about immi-gration. What bridging social capital does is togive them an opportunity to engage in authenticconversation where they realize that there’s not agreat deal that divides them.

Wismann-Horther cites an example in Fort Morgan,Colorado, a small farming town on the easternplains, where questions about culturally appropriateburial practices for Muslims were worked outbetween Somali elders and the director of a localmortuary. Thanks in part to SIRFI, the bridges hadalready been established and those conversationswere productive. “They had a really good plat-form,” says Wismann-Horther, “the school superin-tendent, the chief of police, city officials, business

leaders, immigrants. The director of the mortuaryknew about SIRFI. He contacted the coordinator.She organized the meeting. It was a perfect exampleof bridging social capital and what SIRFI wasintended to do.”

Community Science (formerly the Association forthe Study and Development of Community) con-ducted an evaluation of the SIRFI program from2004 to 2008, led by senior managing associateKien Lee. Among the key lessons learned listed inthe evaluation are the following:

• There is a high level of community interest in andmotivation to work intentionally to promoteimmigrant integration.

• Prior to the local planning efforts, many longer-term residents had not interacted meaningfullywith immigrants.

• Addressing immigrant integration compre-hensively is challenging because the dynamics of changing demographics affect every aspect ofcommunity life.

• A compatible relationship between the facilitatorand primary community contact is imperative.

• Through careful consideration of communicationstrategies, grantee communities must addresspolitically charged issues and prevent work frombeing undermined by narrow political agendas.

• Even after a plan is established, all parties mustremain open to making adjustments in integra-tion efforts.

• Integration efforts may not always be sustainableat the same scale and scope as originally funded.


“Bridging social capital is really importantbecause it’s being intentional about gettingtogether people who don’t talk with eachother.”

— S I R F I P R O J E C T D I R E C T O R J O E W I S M A N N - H O R T H E R

12

It’s worth noting that some of the community dia-logues initiated by SIRFI took place during a periodwhen immigration was a hot-button political issuein Colorado. In 2006, debate over immigration pol-icy heated up on the national level, spilling over intostate and local politics. Pro-immigrant groups werestaging marches in Denver, and the governor calleda special session of the General Assembly that sum-mer after the state Supreme Court invalidated a pro-posed amendment to restrict state services toundocumented immigrants.

Nowhere was the conversation more difficult thanin Greeley, Colorado, the site of a massive raid bythe Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency(ICE) in 2007 that netted hundreds of workers at alocal meat packing plant. The raid unleashed strongemotions on both sides of the issue just as SIRFI wastrying to begin a community dialogue. “It dividedthe community,” says National Civic League vicepresident Derek Okubo, who facilitated the“Recognizing our Community” (ROC) meetings inGreeley.

There were some that got involved to help thosefamilies and there were others that took theother side, and said, “See? They’re illegal. Let’sget them out of here.” When the press an-nounced that there was going to be a meeting onimmigration, about 180 people showed up, butmany of them were hoping to have a debate onimmigration policy.

Those who did were disappointed. “From the verybeginning, we were very clear,” says Susan Downs-Karkos. “This was not about national immigrationpolicy. This was about immigrant integration. Howdo you feel about your community? How do youdeal with your health care provider, your school sys-tem? When push comes to shove, a lot of it comestogether at a local level.”

Despite the controversy, a core group of committedcommunity members continued to meet, even after

the mayor of Greeley, Tom Selders, who was per-ceived as sympathetic to the local immigrant popula-tion, lost his bid for reelection. ROC membersdeveloped a vision for how immigrants and refugeescould be integrated into the community, and mem-bers of the working groups reached out to the newmayor, Ed Clark, and district attorney Joe Buck, whohad taken a tough law-and-order stand on immigra-tion. Though initially skeptical, they agreed to partic-ipate and continue to contribute their ideas. After aneight-month process, ROC developed an action planfocusing on education, language acquisition, andcommunity relations. Currently, the group is workingon implementing strategies on those three areas.

The Community Science evaluation of SIRFI listedsome of the midterm successes cited by participantsacross the state:

• More interaction among immigrants and receiv-ing community members at community andsporting events, and in public locations

• Increased immigrant involvement in civic affairs• High immigrant enrollment and attendance at

ESL classes• More requests from receiving community mem-

bers for immigrant outreach assistance and trans-lation support

• Increased immigrant attendance at workshops tolearn about their rights, resources available tothem, and how to deal with local systems

• Increased use of immigrant resource centers byboth immigrants and receiving community mem-bers (p. 6)

Cultural misunderstandings continue. Challengesare ongoing as well, but the community work goeson. In a sense, says Joe Wismann-Horther, “It wasgreat validation that communities could still holdreally productive conversations about this subject inthe midst of all that. It got people talking around adialogue. It wasn’t just about debating. It was abouthow people could work through this issue to have ahealthier community.”


13

References“The Immigrant Integration Toolkit: Investing in OurCommunities—Strategies for Immigrant Integration.”Sebastopol, Calif.: Grantmakers Concerned with Immigrantsand Refugees. Retrieved Dec. 15, 2008, from http://www.gcir.org/publications/toolkit.

Jonas, M. “The Downside of Diversity.” Boston Globe, Aug.5, 2007. Retrieved Dec. 15, 2008, from http://www.boston.com/news/globe/ideas/articles/2007/08/05/the_downside_of_diversity/.

Lee, K. “Supporting Immigrant Integration in Colorado:Lessons Learned.” Report for The Colorado Trust,November 2008. Retrieved Apr. 2, 2009, from http://www.coloradotrust.org/index.cfm?fuseAction=publications.welcome&initiativeld=225.

Putnam, R. D. Bowling Alone. New York: Simon andSchuster, 2000.

Putnam, R. D. “E Pluribus Unum: Diversity and Communityin the Twenty-First Century.” Scandinavian Political Studies,2007, 30(2), 137–174.

Putnam, R. D., Leonardi, R., and Nanetti, R. MakingDemocracy Work: Civic Traditions in Modern Italy.Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1992.

Ray, B. “The Role of Cities in Immigrant Integration.”Migration Policy Source (Migration Policy Institute,Washington, D.C.), Oct. 2003. Retrieved Dec. 15, 2008,from http://www.migrationinformation.org/feature/display.cfm?ID=167.

Michael McGrath is the editor of National Civic Review.


the new gateways: immigrant integration in unexpected places

Documents