“Assimilate or go home,” read the sign at Sen. Tommy Tuberville’s side as he held forth on the Senate floor last month about the proposed American System for Sustainable Immigration and Mass Immigration Limitations Achieved Through Imposing Oversight Nationally Act that he and Rep. Andy Ogles were about to introduce (yes, that works out to ASSIMILATION). Tuberville of Alabama and Ogles of Tennessee are both media personalities more than Republican legislators and there’s little chance of their bill becoming law, which would sharply reduce legal immigration and require would-be immigrants to be proficient in English before they arrive. But one thing Tuberville said at least merits public refutation:
For most of our history, people have come here to become Americans. They came here to assimilate. They worked hard. They learned. They followed the law and they contributed. That’s what this country is all about. Today, we’re seeing large numbers, and I mean large numbers, of people coming into this country with no intentions of assimilating into our culture or our way of life.
This is a persistent theme in current right-wing commentary about immigration — that recent arrivals to the U.S. aren’t working hard, aren’t following the law and generally aren’t fitting in as past generations of immigrants did. It’s also a load of hooey.
One can say this with confidence because of extensive efforts by economists Leah Boustan of Yale University, Ran Abramitzky of Stanford University and various co-authors to quantify just how long it took those who arrived during the great wave of immigration to the U.S. in the late 1800s and early 1900s to move up economically and fit in culturally. Boustan (who is not an immigrant) and Abramitzky (who is, from Israel) summed up this research in a book, “Streets of Gold: America’s Untold Story of Immigrant Success,” that received a lot of well-deserved attention and praise when it came out in 2022. But it seems as if a refresher is in order.
It’s not that current immigrants to the U.S. from Africa, Asia and elsewhere in the Americas all find it easy to succeed here or quickly abandon their home languages and customs. But neither did European immigrants more than a century ago. In fact, most of the evidence Boustan and Abramitzky have gathered indicates that recent immigrants are integrating into U.S. society more quickly than was the case during the last big immigration wave.
One of their studies, co-authored with Elisa Jacome of Northwestern University and Santiago Perez of the University of California at Davis and published in the American Economic Review in 2021, examined where the children of parents in the 25th income percentile — which currently works out to...
With your current subscription plan you can comment on stories. However, before writing your first comment, please create a display name in the Profile section of your subscriber account page.
Facts Only
Senators Tommy Tuberville (R-AL) and Rep. Andy Ogles (R-TN) introduced the ASSIMILATION Act, a proposed law to reduce legal immigration and mandate English proficiency for would-be immigrants.
The bill’s full name is the American System for Sustainable Immigration and Mass Immigration Limitations Achieved Through Imposing Oversight Nationally Act.
Tuberville stated on the Senate floor that historical immigrants assimilated by working hard, learning, following laws, and contributing to society.
He claimed current immigrants arrive in large numbers with no intention of assimilating into U.S. culture.
Economists Leah Boustan (Yale) and Ran Abramitzky (Stanford) have researched immigrant assimilation, publishing findings in *Streets of Gold: America’s Untold Story of Immigrant Success* (2022).
Their research compares late 19th- and early 20th-century European immigrants to current arrivals from Africa, Asia, and the Americas.
A 2021 study co-authored with Elisa Jacome (Northwestern) and Santiago Perez (UC Davis) was published in the *American Economic Review*.
The study examined economic mobility and cultural integration of immigrant children in the 25th income percentile.
Boustan and Abramitzky’s work indicates recent immigrants are integrating more quickly than past waves.
Tuberville and Ogles are described as media personalities more than active legislators.
The bill is unlikely to become law.
Executive Summary
Senators Tommy Tuberville (R-AL) and Rep. Andy Ogles (R-TN) introduced the ASSIMILATION Act, a bill proposing sharp reductions in legal immigration and requiring English proficiency before arrival. Tuberville argued that historical immigrants assimilated by working hard, following laws, and contributing, while claiming current immigrants lack such intentions. However, research by economists Leah Boustan (Yale) and Ran Abramitzky (Stanford) challenges this narrative. Their work, including the book *Streets of Gold*, shows that late 19th- and early 20th-century European immigrants faced similar integration challenges as today’s arrivals. A 2021 study co-authored with Elisa Jacome and Santiago Perez found that recent immigrants are assimilating faster than past waves. The article critiques Tuberville’s claims as misleading, emphasizing that economic and cultural integration has historically been gradual for all immigrant groups.
The debate reflects broader right-wing concerns about immigration, often framing current arrivals as resistant to assimilation. Yet empirical evidence suggests continuity in immigrant experiences across eras, with recent cohorts showing measurable progress in economic mobility and cultural adaptation. The bill’s prospects are slim, but the rhetoric underscores persistent tensions in U.S. immigration policy.
Full Take
The strongest version of Tuberville’s argument hinges on a nostalgic view of immigration: past waves assimilated seamlessly, while today’s arrivals resist integration. This narrative taps into a pattern of historical amnesia, where the struggles of earlier immigrants are sanitized to contrast with contemporary groups. The article counters this with empirical research, showing that assimilation has always been a gradual, uneven process. Boustan and Abramitzky’s work provides a robust methodological foundation—longitudinal data, comparative analysis—yet the political rhetoric ignores these nuances, favoring a binary of "good" (past) vs. "bad" (present) immigrants.
Patterns detected: **ARC-0024 Ambiguity** (vague claims about "large numbers" and "no intentions" without evidence), **ARC-0043 Motte-and-Bailey** (shifting from "assimilation" as a broad cultural ideal to specific policy demands like English proficiency).
The root cause here is a paradigm of cultural threat, where immigration is framed as an existential challenge to national identity. This echoes historical nativist movements, from the Know-Nothings to 20th-century quota laws. The implication is that policy should prioritize cultural conformity over economic or humanitarian needs—a stance that benefits political actors leveraging fear but risks marginalizing immigrant communities.
Bridge questions: How would Tuberville’s argument change if confronted with data showing faster assimilation today? What role does economic opportunity play in integration, and how might policy address structural barriers? If assimilation is the goal, why focus on pre-arrival English tests rather than post-arrival support?
Counterstrike scan: A coordinated influence campaign would amplify Tuberville’s claims while dismissing academic research as "elite bias." The article’s reliance on peer-reviewed studies and historical context suggests it resists this pattern, though the framing of "right-wing commentary" could itself be seen as a counter-narrative. No structural alignment with a hypothetical attack playbook is evident.
Sentinel — Human
This text functions as opinion journalism leveraging economic research to support an immigration argument, blending political rhetoric with academic citation.