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.

Research on immigrant and second generation outcomes has often examined their locations, following ideas that geographic dispersion facilitates social mobility, and that characteristics of the ethnic environment enable or constrain progress. I contend that second generation socioeconomic outcomes depend in part on the location choices and characteristics of a previous immigrant generation. Further, I suggest that this relationship reflects the changing geography of immigrants and labour markets, rather than geographically unfolding assimilation. Using the 1940, 1970, and 2000 Integrated Public Use Microdata Series files from the US Census, I regress second and 1.5 generation wage and educational outcomes in 1970 and 2000 on metro-area characteristics of a previous generation (1940 and 1970, respectively). Current labour market and second generation characteristics are included as controls and to facilitate interpretation. Characteristics of a previous immigrant generation’s location were more important for second generation outcomes in the 1940–1970 period, while current place characteristics become more significant by 2000. There is evidence of selection operating through the positive intergenerational effects of places where immigrants’ educational levels were high a generation ago. Metro-level immigrant concentration and manufacturing employment also have generally positive effects, although variations across generations and by nationality suggest their significance for social mobility is inadequately understood. The historical immigrant geographies of the US, and the ways in which metro labour market conditions intersect with immigrants’ locational choices, both within and between generations, are thus a critical piece of the economic and spatial assimilation puzzle.

This paper examines determinants of destination choice for foreign-born and 1.5 generation adult children of immigrants in the U.S. An immigrant concentrationweighted accessibility parameter is included to assess the spatial structure of destination AbstractThis paper examines determinants of destination choice for foreign-born and 1.5 generation adult children of immigrants in the U.S. An immigrant concentrationweighted accessibility parameter is included to assess the spatial structure of destination choice. A comparative origin-destination immigrant-native wage gap measure is also a strong determinant of destination choice, indicating the importance of relative labor market position. Although spatial assimilation perspectives would suggest that intergenerational social mobility should be connected with spatial dispersion, these models reveal the continuing importance of immigrant concentration for the 1.5 generation. Further, the increased model strength and parameter estimates associated with immigrant concentration and the accessibility measure suggest the spatial structure of destination choice depends on immigrant concentration at multiple scales -both to metro areas and to immigrant states or regions. The paper thus presents evidence for and suggests more attention to theorizing the geographic contexts of intergenerational immigrant incorporation.2

No abstract

Objective The maturing of the post-1965 children of immigrants and the recent emergence of immigrant settlement outside of traditional locations have implications for understanding immigrant economic incorporation. This analysis examines how changing immigrant geographies will affect the economic prospects of immigrants and a maturing second generation, and addresses sociological and economic perspectives on internal migration and immigrant progress. Methods Using the 2000 5 percent Public Use Microdata Files (PUMS), I employ endogenous switching regression models in analyzing the selectivity of internal migration and state residence patterns to the wages of immigrant, 1.5 generation, and U.S.-born workers. Results Nonwhite immigrant and 1.5-generation workers evade racial wage penalties through migration, but not through residing in emerging immigrant states. Conclusions Understanding the selectivity of internal migration to wages across racialized labor markets is important in assessing new immigrant geographies and prospects for the second generation.