New faces in new spaces in new places: Residential attainment among newly legalized immigrants in established, new, and minor destinations

Abstract

Immigrants at the beginning of the twenty-first century are located in a more diverse set of metropolitan areas than at any point in U.S. history. Whether immigrants’ residential prospects are helped or hindered in new versus established immigrant-receiving areas has been the subject of debate. Using multilevel models and data from the New Immigrant Survey (NIS), a nationally representative sample of newly legalized immigrants to the U.S., we move beyond aggregate-level analyses of residential segregation to specify the influence of destination type on individual-level immigrant residential outcomes. The findings indicate that immigrants in new and minor destinations are significantly more likely to live in tracts with relatively more non-Hispanic whites and relatively fewer immigrants and poor residents. These residential advantages persist net of individual-level controls but are largely accounted for by place-to-place differences in metropolitan composition and structure. Our exclusive focus on newly legalized immigrants means that our findings do not necessarily contradict the possibility of worse residential prospects in new areas of settlement, but rather qualifies it as not extending to the newly authorized population.

Together but Apart: Do US Whites Live in Racially Diverse Cities and Neighborhoods?

“…For example, we should not equate evidence of increasing white exposure to minority populations as prima facie evidence of greater social integration, such as interracial neighboring or other forms of social integration (Hewstone ; Sin and Krysan ) . Moreover, following previous studies (Frank and Akresh ; South et al. ), we have modeled residential attainment rather than residential mobility (the movement of whites from more—or less—diverse places).…”

“…For example, we should not equate evidence of increasing white exposure to minority populations as prima facie evidence of greater social integration, such as interracial neighboring or other forms of social integration (Hewstone 2015;Sin and Krysan 2015). 11 Moreover, following previous studies (Frank and Akresh 2016;South et al 2011), we have modeled residential attainment rather than residential mobility (the movement of whites from more-or less-diverse places). A next step will be to track the residential mobility patterns of whites both within and between metropolitan places that have different E scores or different racial and ethnic compositions.…”

Differential Returns?: Neighborhood Attainment among Hispanic and Non–Hispanic White New Legal Permanent Residents

“…We further ask whether these patterns are shaped by the metropolitan context in which different neighborhoods are located. An emerging literature has documented the role of metropolitan factors in shaping residential opportunities for blacks and whites as well as for new immigrants (Frank and Akresh ; Pais et al. ; South et al.…”

Assessing the Role of Family Structure in Racial/Ethnic Residential Isolation

“…Differences in socioeconomic status (SES) and for immigrants, acculturation, shapes patterns of segregation. Thus, families with more human capital and better financial resources may be able to access better quality neighborhoods than those with fewer resources (Cort 2011;Frank and Akresh 2016;Friedman and Rosenbaum 2007;Rosenbaum and Friedman 2007;South et al 2008). Additionally, there are well-documented socioeconomic disparities between blacks and whites, and minority families may not be able to afford to live in the same neighborhoods as white families (Clark 1986;Crowder et al 2006;Oliver and Shapiro 1995;South and Crowder 1997).…”