The dimensions and degree of second-generation incorporation in US and European cities: A comparative study of inclusion and exclusion

Abstract

This research compares cities between and within the United States and Europe with respect to their dimensionality and degree of immigrant incorporation. Based on theoretical perspectives about immigrant incorporation, structural differentiation and national incorporation regimes, we hypothesize that more inclusionary (MI) cities will show more dimensions of incorporation and more favorable incorporation outcomes than less inclusionary (LI) places, especially in regard to labor market and spatial variables. We use data from recent major surveys of young adult second-generation groups carried out in Los Angeles, New York, and 11 European cities to assess these ideas. The findings indicate that second-generation immigrants in New York (MI) and in European MI places (i.e. cities in the Netherlands, Sweden and France) show greater dimensionality of incorporation (and thus by implication more pathways of advancement) respectively than is the case in Los Angeles (LI) or in European LI places (i.e. cities in Austria, Germany, and Switzerland). We discuss the significance of these results for understanding how the structures of opportunity confronting immigrants and their children in various places make a difference for the nature and extent of their integration.

The public view of immigrant integration: multidimensional and consensual. Evidence from survey experiments in the UK and the Netherlands

“…We deliver three important findings, all of which open new lines of inquiry into integration. First, we show that there is a clear hierarchy of preference for integration outcomes, which places cultural and social indicators of integration as the most important universally, but also shows a complexity that reflects the multidimensionality and idiosyncrasy of the process as we see it described in some academic studies (Bean et al 2012;Lessard-Phillips 2015). Interestingly, the key aspect of Muslims' contested place in European societies promoted by the media and politicians -their religion (Betz and Meret 2009) -held only a little sway over how the public perceived Muslims' integration; although another construed source of Muslim's 'otherness' -their attitudes towards women (Bracke 2012) -mattered a lot more.…”

“…We also described them all as having immigrated as children, to make sure all our immigrants would be eligible for citizenship (both the Netherlands and the UK have a five-year residence requirement) and they would be expected to have a basic knowledge of the language -also traditionally perceived as a minimum requirement of integration and often also immigrant admission (Hainmueller and Hopkins 2015). Then we added nine attributes measuring main domains of integration as usually described by the literature (for a list of commonly used indicators in research on integration outcomes, see Bean et al (2012); Alba and Foner (2015); Fokkema and de Haas (2015); OECD/EU (2015)): these include citizenship and voting habits as indicators for political integration; intermarriage and cross-ethnic friendship as social integration outcomes; high-and low-skilled occupation and tax status as measures of economic integration; language spoken at home as a measure of cultural integration. To this last category we also added attitude towards women's employment and finally level of religiosity.…”

“…Others have argued that spatial segregation of ethnic minorities in specific urban areas, which is usually presented as lack of social integration, could foster economic (Portes 1987;Balakrishnan and Hou 1999) and political integration (Leighley 2001) or coexist with positive results in these and other arenas (Musterd 2003;Phillips 2007). This idiosyncrasy of integration creates a multidimensional picture in which different routes result in differentially defined integration success on multiple and non-linear axes (Bean et al 2012;Lessard-Phillips 2015).…”

The Socio-cultural Integration of Immigrants: In Between Temporary Migration and Permanent Settlement

“…Řadí k nim na straně samotných imigrantů důvod přistěhování [Doerschler 2006], míru kulturních odlišností mezi zemí původu a cílovou zemí imigranta [Fokkema, Haas 2011], preemigrační faktory, zejména vzdělání a předchozí migrační zkušenost [Fokkema, Haas 2011;Kogan 2011]. Na druhé straně jsou studovány kontextové faktory podmiňující integraci, jako je povaha trhu práce [Kogan 2006], národní či lokální integrační politika [Bean et al 2012] nebo míra předsudků a diskriminace v lokalitách, kde přistěhovalci bydlí [Birman, Trichett, Buchanan 2005].…”

Labor Mobility of the Chinese Graduates from British and Spanish Universities: What Happens to the 'Talent Migration'?

“…Noteworthy, when focusing on migrants' social mobility patterns, scholars dedicate careful attention to the fortunes of the second and third generations (Alba and Nee 2003;Thomson and Crul 2007;Attias-Donfut and Dimova 2012;Bean et al 2012), correctly assuming that these cohorts provide a test for the effectiveness of host states' incorporation policies and a fruitful ground to verify hypotheses on immigrants' economic performance. The mobility patterns of the first generation remain less explored and yet again most studies in this area look at the low skilled migrants.…”