The Second Generation in New York City: A Demographic Overview

The study analyzes the forces leading to or impeding the assimilation of a 18-32 year olds from immigrant backgrounds that vary in terms of race, language, and the mix of skills and liabilities their parents brought to the United States. To make sure that what we find derives specifically from the immigrant experience, rather than simply being a young person in New York, we are also studying a "control group" of people from native born white, black, and Puerto Rican backgrounds. The main sample is drawn from the inner part of the region where the vast majority of immigrants and native born minority group members live and grow up. Our study groups make possible a number of interesting comparisons. Unlike many other immigrant groups, the West Indian first generation speaks English, but the dominant society racially classifies them as black. We are interested in ways that their experiences resemble or differ from native born African Americans. Dominicans and the Colombian-Peruvian-Ecuadoran population both speak Spanish, but live in different parts of New York, have different class backgrounds prior to immigration, and, quite often, different skin tones. We have compared them to Puerto Rican young people, who, along with their parents, have the benefit of citizenship. Chinese immigrants from the mainland tend to have little education, while young people with overseas Chinese parents come from families with higher incomes, more education, and more English fluency. According to the 1990 Census, the base year for looking at the first generation parents, these five groups accounted for 45 percent of the immigrants who had arrived in metropolitan New York since 1970. Our ability to compare these groups with native born whites, blacks and Puerto Ricans has permitted us to analyze the effects of nativity while controlling for race and language background

Becoming American/Becoming New Yorkers: Immigrant Incorporation in a Majority Minority City

Many observers have noted that immigrants to the United States are highly concentrated in the largest metropolitan areas of a relatively few states. Though immigrants diffused into many places that had previously seen relatively few immigrants during the 1990s, as of the 2000 census, 77 percent of the nation's 31.1 million foreign born residents still lived in six states - California, New York, Texas, Florida, New Jersey, and Illinois. According to the 2000 census, the two largest metropolitan areas, Los Angeles and New York, accounted for one third of all immigrants (http://www.census.gov/Press-Release/www/2002/demoprofiles.html). While immigrants moved into many new areas during the 1990s, making the challenge of incorporating their children a national issue, their concentration in our largest cities remained pronounced.Sociolog

Modes of incorporation: a conceptual and empirical critique

Entering the debate over segmented assimilation, this paper seeks to refocus discussion on a core, but neglected claim: that inter-group disparities among immigrant offspring derive from differences in a contextual feature shared by immigrant and immigrant descendants: a nationality’s mode of incorporation.  The paper engages in both theoretical and empirical assessment.  We critically examine the concept of mode of incorporation, demonstrating that its operational implications have not been correctly understood; consequently, the core hypothesis has never been appropriately tested.  The second part of the paper implements those tests, making use of the Children of Immigrants Longitudinal Survey.  We do so by using nationality as a proxy for mode of incorporation, systematically contrasting more advantaged against less advantaged nationalities.    We show: (a) that tests systematically varying modes classified as more or less advantageous yield inconsistent outcomes; (b) that positive or negative modes of incorporation are associated with few long-lasting effects; (c) that differences in governmental reception are particularly unlikely to be associated with interethnic disparities; and (d) that compared to theoretically relevant nationalities, neither Mexicans, a nationality assigned to a negative mode of incorporation, nor pre-Mariel Cubans, a nationality assigned to positive mode of incorporation, prove distinctive

Multifarious Transnational Engagements of Contemporary Diaspora Members: From Revolving-door Universalists to Multi-nationals and Site-Hopping Vagabonds

Drawing on recent studies of diaspora and its members’ transnational engagements, which treat the former as fuzzy-boundary, context-dependent groupings, and the latter as multi-faceted (rather than two-pronged) relationships, in this paper I explore the notion of diasporans’ polymorphous and multi-directional transnational commitments; identify different types of such involvements; and propose a preliminary list of macro- and micro-level circumstances contributing to multifarious transnationalism. In conclusion, I consider the implications of the notion of diaspora members’ multifarious transnational engagements for the study of (im)migrant transnationalism in general and suggest some interesting questions for future research on this phenomenon generated by this discussion