This mid-2018 report has been professionally converted for accurate flowing-text e-book format reproduction. American society conventionally expects immigrants to assimilate, yet contemporary views question whether Latin American immigrants are choosing to conform to this standard. However, this perspective does not account for the structural constraints placed upon immigrants through the influence of U.S. foreign and immigration policy. During the Cold War, two cases—Cuba in the 1960s and El Salvador in the 1980s—demonstrated differential U.S. policy responses to sustained, large-scale exile migrations to the United States, particularly to Miami and Los Angeles. In these cases, the U.S. response was to welcome and provide a positive reception to Cubans in Miami, while Salvadorans were excluded and constrained by the negative reception afforded to them as illegal migrants in Los Angeles, with both responses stemming from U.S. foreign policy interests in Latin America. Twenty-five years after the first wave of exiles from each of these countries, both second generations appear to be assimilating in terms of educational attainment, but Salvadoran-Americans lag behind Cuban-Americans in occupational attainment and income levels. These differential outcomes indicate that reception contexts—government responses, economic opportunity, societal attitudes, and presence of ethnic communities—may accelerate or delay exile groups' rates of structural assimilation, with legal status playing a major role in determining whether groups assimilate upward or downward.

Ultimately, this thesis finds that in the context of the Cold War between 1959 and 1980, U.S. foreign policy determined U.S. immigration policy towards Cuba and El Salvador. In turn, the emerging national position vis-a-vis each country shaped the national and enclave cities'—Miami and Los Angeles—context of reception to each immigrant group: the positive context of reception for Cubans led to successful upward structural assimilation in the second-generation adult children of the initial diaspora, and the negative, later passively accepting, context of reception led to partial upward structural assimilation for the Salvadoran population. Within the reception context, both cases demonstrated that the legal status accorded to them were instrumental to their upward structural assimilation: Cubans were given access to permanent residency and citizenship from their arrivals, but Salvadorans were accorded this privilege a few years after their arrival. This difference in legal status affected the rate of structural assimilation for each case and indicates that according legal status to immigrants—whether refugees, exiles, or illegals—may facilitate structural assimilation in the long-term.

Particularly in today's political and social landscape, this question warrants investigation because immigration policy and assimilation shape American identity. Whether the United States is a "nation of immigrants," as declared by President John F. Kennedy—echoing President Franklin D. Roosevelt's sentiments—or a nation at risk of immigrants, as feared by Samuel Huntington—echoing modern-day nativists across the country—the process of immigration is undoubtedly essential to the future of American identity. Throughout America's immigration history, dating back to the Founding Fathers, society has promoted and expected the assimilation of immigrants into Anglo-American culture. Without arguing the merits or drawbacks of such an expectation, this thesis begins with an understanding that assimilation is a major concern for the emergent...