Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Re-conceptualizing the economic incorporation of immigrants: A comparison of the Mexican and Vietnamese

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Latino Studies Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Using data from the 2000 5 per cent Integrated Public Use Microdata Series, this article advocates three shifts in our theoretical and empirical approaches to understanding immigrant economic incorporation. First, through a comparison of Mexican and Vietnamese immigrants, these findings highlight the importance of an immigrant population's relationship to the state for economic outcomes, and cautions against analyses that aggregate the foreign-born population. Second, through a joint analysis of unemployment and poverty outcomes, these findings call for researchers to be specific about the varied aspects of “economic incorporation” and distinguish between factors that drive labor market access, and those that foster material well-being. Lastly, by examining three state economic, demographic and policy variables, this article promotes an approach that takes human capital into account, while also heeding the immigrant context of reception.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Figure 1
Figure 2
Figure 3
Figure 4
Figure 5

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. “Assimilation” typically refers to an analysis of the convergence between immigrants and an often ambiguous mainstream, and can entail various axes such as political, cultural and economic assimilation. The focus of assimilation studies is typically on the eventual convergence – or divergence – between native-born and foreign-born outcomes, controlling for relevant factors. In recent decades, however, there has been a shift in focus and terminology away from “assimilation,” towards “integration” and “incorporation” and a focus on meaningful outcomes and levels of well-being (Hirschman et al, 1999).

  2. Major exceptions include eligibility to work in certain federal employee positions, as well as political offices such as congressional representatives or senators.

  3. According to the US Census, there is a small difference in unemployment rates between the foreign-born and native-born populations in the United States (6.9 per cent versus 6.1 per cent), respectively). However, there is a wide gulf between the poverty rates for the foreign-born and native-born populations. The official poverty rate for all native-born individuals was 11.5 per cent versus 16.6 per cent for all foreign-born individuals in 2002 (Proctor and Dalaker, 2003).

  4. An unemployed person is defined as someone who does not currently have a job, is looking for a job, and has not yet found one. All working age individuals who were in the labor force, and either had a job or were in the armed forces were coded as being employed.

  5. Individuals are identified as living in poverty if their family income falls below 100 per cent of the poverty threshold, as defined by the US Census.

  6. Hu (2000, 368) provides an insightful critique of using Census data for estimating immigrant earnings assimilation over time. The author's claim is based on findings that (1) Census data is selective with respect to return migration; and (2) Census-based estimates of earnings growth “are likely to be overstated.” However, since this article seeks to estimate the effects on a cross-sectional population, while comparing the magnitude of effects across outcomes, I contend that the Census data is still useful and unbiased for these purposes. An admittedly better data source would provide longitudinal data on immigrants over their lifespan, but few data sources would include important immigrant variables such as English proficiency and equal coverage of most immigrant groups may be difficult to attain.

  7. Foreign-born individuals who are born either abroad or at sea to American citizen parents, as well as individuals born in US territories, are excluded from this analysis.

  8. The Census Bureau assigns respondents the poverty status of the family, not household, in which they reside. The variable for poverty reflects the family's total income for the previous year as a percentage of the poverty threshold in the year 2000. Whether a person is living below the poverty line is based on criteria such as their total family income, the size of their family unit, the number of children in that family, and whether or not the householder is under or over 65 years. All income levels over five times the respective poverty threshold are top-coded.

  9. Although it may be argued that entrepreneurial income from a farm or business may overstate the earnings of a typical immigrant worker, to exclude this income understates the earnings of those with farm and business income. The average employment earnings alone for respondents who reported farm or business income alone was only US$13,997.

  10. Four per cent of employed individuals in the full immigrant sample reported no earnings (from employment or farm or business income). Regression analyses of these individuals revealed no single characteristic that made this group of earners particularly unique. On average, the typical employed working age immigrant with no earnings was most likely to be a young, married, non-citizen female who arrived when she was 10-year-old or younger with fewer than average years in the United States, and lower levels of education and English ability. The overall trend is that the coefficient values for the non-zero sample are slightly lower than for the full sample, though none of the significance tests change drastically enough to nullify the validity of any of the results.

  11. Most analyses of earnings employ Ordinary Least Squares (OLS) methods using log earnings, thus providing a “semi-logarithmic specification”. Petersen (2002) argues that the interpretations of results from this type of analysis are slightly flawed because OLS of logged earnings predicts the geometric mean rather than the arithmetic mean, and advocates this GLM model as an alternative.

  12. The predicted probabilities discussed here are calculated based on an interacted model that allows each of these effects to vary distinctly for Mexican and Vietnamese immigrants. This is a statistically more accurate way of calculating model effects, compared to the typical method of conducting separate regressions for each population subgroup. These predicted probabilities were constructed for comparative purposes and represent the average values for each category of immigrant (see Table 1 for further details).

  13. In 2000, Mexican immigrants represented 29.5 per cent of foreign-born individuals, whereas the Vietnamese constituted 3.2 per cent. Chinese immigrants represented 4.9 per cent, Filipino immigrants 4.9 per cent and India 3.3 per cent. There is significant variation in the economic well-being of each of these national origin groups. According to US Census Bureau, in 1999, 24.4 per cent of Mexican immigrants live in poverty, and 14.2 per cent of Vietnamese immigrants lived in poverty, compared to 11 per cent of Chinese immigrants, 4.6 per cent of Filipino immigrants and 5.4 per cent of Indian immigrants (US Census Bureau, 2008).

  14. Bloemraad (2003) also employs a comparative approach to assess the impact of mode of entry on political assimilation.

  15. Existing evidence suggests that cultural patterns may be driving the larger gender gap for Mexican immigrants (Pedraza, 1991; Blau and Kahn, 2005).

  16. A similar use of this can be found in (Lucas et al, 2001). See also Hardin (1996) and Poirier (1980), for additional information on the specification of the bivariate probit model.

  17. This joint estimation allows us to more confidently highlight some significant differences between the factors which affect employment and those that affect poverty. This analysis however stops short of using a method to standardize coefficients. One of the major reasons for this is that comparing standard deviations of some factors may not be a theoretically sensible contrast. For example, one standard deviation of education level may not necessarily coincide with one standard deviation of age.

  18. The 1996 Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act created “the devolution of authority from the federal government to the states to determine immigrants’ eligibility for public benefits” (Zimmerman and Tumlin, 1999).

  19. Owing to space constraints, results for period of entry are not shown here.

  20. These 16 states include: Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Mississippi, Nebraska, North Carolina, North Dakota, South Carolina, Tennessee and Virginia.

  21. As with the predicted probabilities presented in Figures 1, 2, 3 and 4, these values represent are calculated based on an interacted model that allows each of these effects to vary distinctly for Mexican and Vietnamese immigrants. They were constructed for comparative purposes and represent the average values for each category of immigrant.

  22. Such an approach that uses robust census data would be limited by censored data for small places and small sample counts. These challenges are enhanced after 2000, since the census “long form” has been replaced by the American Community Survey, which provides more up-to-date information, but complicates analyses of small populations or small places. Interested researchers may benefit from the US Census Bureau's “Small Area Income and Poverty Estimates” but detailed individual level analyses of particular national origin groups may still be difficult. As such, theoretically driven case study comparisons, or other innovative surveys in specific metropolitan areas, may provide an alternative approach.

References

  • American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU). 2008. English Only. New York: “Lectric Law Library”. ACLU Briefing Paper.

  • Aguilera, M.B. and D.S. Massey . 2003. Social Capital and the Wages of Mexican Migrants: New Hypotheses and Tests. Social Forces 82 (2): 671–701.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ainsworth-Darnell, J.W. and D.B. Downey . 1998. Assessing the Oppositional Culture Explanation for Racial/Ethnic Differences in School Performance. American Sociological Review 63: 536–553.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Alba, R.D. and V. Nee . 2003. Remaking the American Mainstream: Assimilation and Contemporary Immigration. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Aydemir, A. and M. Skuterud . 2005. Explaining the Deteriorating Entry Earnings of Canada's Immigrant Cohorts, 1966–2000. Canadian Journal of Economics 38 (2): 641–672.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Batalova, J . 2008. Mexican Immigrants in the United States. In US in Focus. Washington DC: Migration Policy Institute, www.migrationinofmrationsource.org/usFocus/display.cfm?id=679.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bean, F.D. and G. Stevens . 2003. America's Newcomers and the Dynamics of Diversity. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.

    Google Scholar 

  • Blau, F.D. and L.M. Kahn . 2005. Gender and Assimilation among Mexican Americans. NBER Working Paper W11512.

  • Bloemraad, I . 2003. Institutions, Ethnic Leaders, and the Political Incorporation of Immigrants: A Comparison of Canada and the United States. In Host Societies and the Reception of Immigrants, ed. J.G. Reitz, San Diego, CA: Center for Comparative Immigration Studies.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bloemraad, I . 2006. Becoming a Citizen: Incorporating Immigrants and Refugees in the United States and Canada. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bonilla-Silva, E. and G. Baiocchi . 2001. Anything but Racism: How Sociologists Limit the Significance of Racism. Race and Society 4 (2): 117–131.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Borjas, G . 2001. Heaven's Door: Immigration Policy and the American Economy. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Borjas, G.J . 2002. Welfare Reform and Immigrant Participation in Welfare Programs. International Migration Review 36 (4): 1093–1123.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Borjas, G.J. and M. Tienda . 1993. The Employment and Wages of Legalized Immigrants. International Migration Review 27 (4): 712–747.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bratsberg, B., J.F. Ragan Jr and Z.M. Nasir . 2002. The Effect of Naturalization on Wage Growth: A Panel Study of Young Male Immigrants. Journal of Labor Economics 20 (3): 568–597.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brezis, E.S. and P.R. Krugman . 1993. Immigration, Investment and Real Wages. National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER) Working Paper W4563.

  • Bureau of Labor Statistics. 2008. Statewide Data Tables: Unemployment Rates for States (2000–2005). US Department of Labor, http://www.bls.gov/lau/#tables, accessed 25 January 2009.

  • Capps, R, et al 2002. How are Immigrants Faring after Welfare Reform? Preliminary Evidence from Los Angeles and New York City. Washington DC: Urban Institute.

    Google Scholar 

  • Charney, E. and D.J. Hernandez . 1998. From Generation to Generation: The Health and Well-being of Children in Immigrant Families. Washington DC: National Academy Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chiswick, B.R . 1978. The Effect of Americanization on the Earnings of Foreign-born Men. Journal of Political Economy 86 (5): 897–921.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chiswick, B.R., Y. Cohen and T. Zach . 1997. The Labor Market Status of Immigrants: Effects of the Unemployment Rate at Arrival and Duration of Residence. Industrial and Labor Relations Review 50: 289–303.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cortes, K.E . 2004. Are Refugees Different from Economic Immigrants? Some Empirical Evidence on the Heterogeneity of Immigrant Groups in the United States. Review of Economics and Statistics 86 (2): 465–480.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Duleep, H. and M. Regets . 1996. Admission Criteria and Immigrant Earnings Profiles. International Migration Review 30: 571–590.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Funkhouser, E . 2000. Convergence in Employment Rates of Immigrants. In Issues in the Economics of Immigration, ed. G.J. Borjas, Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research.

    Google Scholar 

  • Glick, J.E. and M.J. White . 2003. The Academic Trajectories of Immigrant Youths. Demography 40 (4): 759–784.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gordon, M.M . 1964. Assimilation in American Life: The Role of Race, Religion, and National Origins. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hardin, J.W . 1996. sg61: Bivariate Probit Models. Stata Technical Bulletin 33: 15–20.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hein, J . 1993. Refugees, Immigrants, and the State. Annual Reviews in Sociology 19 (1): 43–59.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hirschman, C., P. Kasinitz and J. DeWind, (eds.) 1999. The Handbook of International Migration: The American Experience. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hout, M., C. Brooks and J. Manza . 1995. The Democratic Class Struggle in the United States, 1948–1992. American Sociological Review 60: 805–828.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hu, W . 2000. Immigrant Earnings Assimilation: Estimates from Longitudinal Data. American Economic Review 90 (2): 368–372.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kesler, C . 2006. Social Policy and Immigrant Joblessness in Britain, Germany and Sweden. Social Forces 85 (2): 743.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kirschenman, J. and K.M. Neckerman . 1991. “We’d Love to Hire Them, But … ”: The Meaning of Race for Employers. In The Urban Underclass, eds. C. Jencks and P.E. Peterson, Washington DC: Brookings Institution Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kossoudji, S.A . 1989. Immigrant Worker Assimilation: Is It a Labor Market Phenomenon? Journal of Human Resources 24 (3): 494–527.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kossoudji, S.A. and D.A. Cobb-Clark . 1996. Finding Good Opportunities within Unauthorized Markets: US Occupational Mobility for Male Latino Workers. The International Migration Review 30 (116): 901–924.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kwon, H., V.S. Suiker and J. Bauer . 2004. Factors Associated with the Poverty Status of Asian Immigrant Householders by Citizenship Status. Journal of Family and Economic Issues 25: 101–120.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Llull, J . 2008. The Impact of Immigration on Productivity. Centro de Estudios Monetarios y Financieros (CEMFI) Working Paper 0802.

  • Lucas, S.R., P.N. Fucella and M. Berends . 2001. Neo-classical Education Transitions Analyses of Boomers and Post-boomers: A Corrected Tale for Three Cohorts. Paper presented at International Sociological Association, Research Committee Number 28. Montréal, Quebec, August 2007.

    Google Scholar 

  • Malone, N.J., K.F. Baluka, J.M. Costanzo and C.J. Davis . 2003. The Foreign Born Population, 2000. Washington DC: US Department of Commerce, Economics and Statistics Administration, US Census Bureau.

  • Mattoo, A., C. Ozden and I.C. Neagu . 2008. Brain Waste? Educated Immigrants in the US Labor Market. Journal of Development Economics 87 (2): 255–269.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Murthy, H.M . 2007. Cities, Citizenship and Undocumented Aliens: Dilemmas of Law and Political Community in Contemporary America. Berkeley, CA: University of California. Institute for the Study of Social Change Fellows Working Papers, http://escholarship.org/uc/item/57m2g81r.

  • National Council of State Legislatures (NCSL). 2008. 2007 Enacted State Legislation Related to Immigrants and Immigration. In Immigrant Policy Project. Washington DC: National Council of State Legislatures, http://www.ncsl.org/portals/1/documents/immig/2007immigrationfinal.pdf.

  • Newland, K., H. Tanaka and L. Barker . 2007. Bridging Divides: The Role of Ethnic Community-based Organizations in Refugee Integration. Washington DC: Migration Policy Institute.

    Google Scholar 

  • O'Donnell, K. and J. Batalova . 2007. Spotlight on Refugees and Asylees in the United States. In US in Focus. Washington DC: Migration Policy Institute, http://www.migrationinformation.org/usfocus/display.cfm?id=664.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ogbu, J.U . 2008. Minority Status, Oppositional Culture and Schooling, Sociocultural, Political, and Historical Studies in Education. New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Passel, J . 2004. Mexican Immigration to the US: The Latest Estimates. In Feature Story. Washington DC: Migration Policy Institute.

    Google Scholar 

  • Passel, J.S . 2006. Size and Characteristics of the Unauthorized Migrant Population in the US. Washington DC: Pew Hispanic Center, http://pewhispanic.org/reports/report.php?ReportID=61.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pedraza, S . 1991. Women and Migration: The Social Consequences of Gender. Annual Reviews in Sociology 17 (1): 303–325.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Petersen, T . 2002. Functional Form for Continuous Dependent Variables: Raw Versus Logged Form. Unpublished Manuscript, Berkeley, CA: Department of Sociology, University of California.

  • Phillips, J.A. and D.S. Massey . 1999. The New Labor Market: Immigrants and Wages after IRCA. Demography 36 (2): 233–246.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Poirier, D . 1980. Partial Observability in Bivariate Probit Models. Journal of Econometrics 12: 209–217.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Portes, A. and A. Stepick . 1985. Unwelcome Immigrants: The Labor Market Experiences of 1980 (Mariel) Cuban and Haitian Refugees in South Florida. American Sociological Review 50 (4): 493–514.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Portes, A. and M. Zhou . 1993. The New Second Generation: Segmented Assimilation and Its Variants. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 530 (November): 74–96.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Portes, A. and M. Zhou . 1996. Self-employment and the Earnings of Immigrants. American Sociological Review 61 (2): 219–230.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Proctor, B.D. and J. Dalaker . 2003. Poverty in the United States: 2002. Washington DC: US Department of Commerce, Census Bureau.

    Google Scholar 

  • Raijman, R. and M. Tienda . 1999. Immigrants’ Socioeconomic Progress Post-1965: Forging Mobility or Survival? In The Handbook of International Migration: The American Experience, eds. C. Hirschman, P. Kasinitz and J. DeWind, New York: Russel Sage Foundation.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reitz, J.G . 1998. Warmth of the Welcome: The Social Causes of Economic Success for Immigrants in Different Nations and Cities. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rodriguez, C., M. Chishti and K. Nortman . 2007. Testing the Limits: A Framework for Assessing the Legality of State and Local Immigration Measures. In National Center on Immigrant Integration Policy. Washington DC: Migration Policy Institute, http://www.migrationpolicy.org/pubs/NCIIP_Assessing%20the%20Legality%20of%20state%20and%20Local%20immigration%20Measures121307.pdf.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sanders, J.M. and V. Nee . 1987. Limits of Ethnic Solidarity in the Enclave Economy. American Sociological Review 52 (6): 745–773.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Summers, L.H . 2007. Unemployment. In The Concise Encyclopedia of Economics, ed. D.R. Henderson, Indianapolis, IN: Library of Economics and Liberty.

    Google Scholar 

  • Terrazas, A . 2008. Vietnamese Immigrants in the United States. In US in Focus. Washington DC: Migration Policy Institute, http://www.migrationinformation.org/usfocus/display.cfm?ID=197.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tienda, M. and A. Singer . 1995. Wage Mobility of Undocumented Workers in the United States. International Migration Review 29 (1): 112–138.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Trejo, S.J . 1997. Why Do Mexican Americans Earn Low Wages? Journal of Political Economy 105 (6): 1235–1268.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • US Census Bureau. 2008. Foreign-Born Profiles (STP-159): Population Division, Washington, D.C., http://www.census.gov/population/www/socdemo/foreign/STP-159-200tl.html.

  • Van Hook, J. and K.S. Balistreri . 2002. Diversity and Change in the Institutional Context of Immigrant Adaptation: California Schools 1985–2000. Demography 39 (4): 639–654.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van Tubergen, F., I. Maas and H. Flap . 2004. The Economic Incorporation of Immigrants in 18 Western Societies: Origin, Destination, and Community Effects. American Sociological Review 69 (5): 704–727.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Waldinger, R.D. and M.I. Lichter . 2003. How the Other Half Works: Immigration and the Social Organization of Labor. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zavodny, M . 2000. The Effects of Official English Laws on Limited-English-Proficient Workers. Journal of Labor Economics 18 (3): 427–452.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zimmerman, W. and K.C. Tumlin . 1999. Patchwork Policies: State Assistance for Immigrants under Welfare Reform. In Assessing the New Federalism. Washington DC: The Urban Institute, http://www.urban.org/publications/309007.html.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zuberi, D . 2006. Differences That Matter: Social Policy and the Working Poor in the United States and Canada. Ithaca, NY: ILR Press.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This research was supported in part with generous funding from a National Science Foundation Graduate Research Fellowship, a Ford Foundation Predoctoral Fellowship and the University of California Labor Employment and Research Fund. Many thanks go to Samuel Lucas, Irene Bloemraad, Michael Hout and Claude Fischer, as well as the UC Berkeley Dissertation Workshop and Interdisciplinary Immigration Workshop for additional feedback. I also thank the anonymous reviewers for Latino Studies for their many insightful suggestions.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of California, Santa Cruz

    Shannon Gleeson

Authors
  1. Shannon Gleeson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Appendices

Appendix A

See Tables A1–A2.

Table a1 Explanatory model variables
Full size table
Table a2 Outcome model variables
Full size table

Appendix B

See Tables B1–B2.

Table b1 Selected regression results for unemployment, earnings and poverty
Full size table
Table b2 Selected regression results for occupation
Full size table

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Gleeson, S. Re-conceptualizing the economic incorporation of immigrants: A comparison of the Mexican and Vietnamese. Lat Stud 8, 69–92 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1057/lst.2009.43

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/lst.2009.43

Keywords

Search

Navigation