NYTimes reports on a study comparing the economic status of second-generation immigrants--the children of immigrants--to the child of comparable native Americans. Almost without exception the second generation from whatever country does better than the natives.
The study suggests that the difference relates to where the sons lived--living in urban and growing areas was an advantage over living in rural and stagnant areas. That makes some sense, although as I comment, there's a big range in the results; I'd suspect a range too great to be explained only by location.
What's not emphasized in the article is the fact that immigrants are able to advance, better than natives.
No comments:
Post a Comment