1.5 Generation Internal Migration in the U.S.: Dispersion from States of Immigration?

Abstract

The issue of immigrant spatial concentration and the possibilities for immigrant dispersion through migration features in at least three interrelated debates about immigration. First, the ethnic enclave literature centers on the question of whether spatial concentration improves or harms the economic well‐being of immigrants. Second, spatial assimilation theory links immigrant relocation away from residential enclaves to socioeconomic gains. Although framed at an intra‐urban scale, we suggest that similar assimilation logics infuse thinking and expectations about immigrant settlement and spatial mobility at other scales. And third, immigrant clustering links to anxieties about the threats posed by non‐European origin newcomers to the traditional cultural fabric of the nation. In the current wave of immigration, research on questions of settlement geography and spatial mobility has so far been restricted to the first generation. But as the current wave of immigration matures there is a growing population of adults who are the children of immigrants. This article investigates the migration behavior of these adult children, specifically the 1.5 generation, seeking to answer the question of whether they will remain in the states in which their parent's generation settled or move on. It also assesses whether the out‐migration response of the 1.5 generation in states of immigrant concentration is similar to that of their parent's generation or the U.S.‐born population.

Residential Integration on the New Frontier: Immigrant Segregation in Established and New Destinations

“…Certainly, many immigrants are drawn to long-standing ports of entry (e.g., New York City and Los Angeles), but even among the major gateways, substantial variation exists in the size and recency of immigrant group populations. The uneven attraction of metropolitan areas is due to a variety of factors, including group differences in socioeconomic and linguistic resources (Gurak and Kritz 2000; Nogle 1997), distance to origin country and strength of coethnic social networks (Bartel 1989; Ellis and Goodwin-White 2006; Kritz and Nogle 1994), and the extent to which housing and labor conditions match needs (Fang and Brown 1999; Kritz and Nogle 1994; Leach and Bean 2008; Ley 2007). Given the diversity in the sociodemographic profiles of immigrant groups and historical and geographical factors that attract immigrants to different regions of the United States, it follows that what is a “traditional” destination for one immigrant group may well be a “new” destination for another.…”

Population Dynamics: The Roles of Natural Change and Migration in Producing the Ethnic Mosaic

“…Little previous work has examined internal migration by ethnic group in Britain, though some studies, notably by Champion (1996), made use of the arrival of an ethnic group question in the census to demonstrate the differing migration experiences of ethnic groups. Recently, in both the USA and Britain, work focusing on migration patterns of immigrant origin populations has begun to challenge established theories about residential dispersion indicating social integration (Ellis and Goodwin-White 2006) and has demonstrated increased residential mixing and dispersal from concentrations as results of migration (Simpson et al 2008a). Indeed, counterurbanisation is evident for all ethnic groups and, when socioeconomic and demographic factors are taken into account, there are few differences in how likely different ethnic groups are to migrate .…”

Will They Stay? Foreign-Born Out-Migration from New U.S. Destinations

“…There are only a few studies, however, that examine whether robust economic conditions also deter immigrants from migrating internally and they show mixed findings. A couple of studies, for instance, found that employment growth deters immigrants from interstate migration (Gurak and Kritz 2000; Frey and Liaw 2005a; Ellis and Goodwin-White 2006) but Bartel and Koch (1991) found that unemployment and wages had no effect on foreign-born SMSA migration. Tienda and Wilson (1992), on the other hand, found that higher SMSA wages increased out-migration of Mexican and Cuban men rather than decreasing it, as expected, but wages had no effect for Puerto Rican men.…”