Dispersion or concentration for the 1.5 generation? Destination choices of the children of immigrants in the US

Abstract

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

The Internal Migration of Immigrants: Differences between One‐Time and Multiple Movers in Spain

“…The use of the municipality as primary unit of analysis, in this study, makes it possible to capture a wide array of short‐distance and long‐distance movements between different types of places of origin and destination, and by covering the entire country, it is possible to extend the scale of many spatial studies of immigrants assimilation (for a review of works in this regard, see e.g. Goodwin‐White, ; further studies are cited in this article).…”

“…In this regard, the retaining or attracting power of immigrant concentrations is emphasised in many studies (e.g. Kritz and Nogle, ; Moore and Rosenberg, ; Liaw and Frey, ; Zavodny, ; Åslund, ; South et al ., ; Ellis and Goodwin‐White, ; Goodwin‐White, ; Le, ; Zorlu and Mulder, ; Tammaru and Kontuly, ; Kritz et al ., ; Xu, ). Likewise, in the literature, the estimated coefficients of variables indicating place of birth often remain significant when the rest of the variables are controlled for.…”

Placing Progress: Contextual Inequality and Immigrant Incorporation in the United States

“…It may also not hold up when the relative wages of racial/nativity groups are considered visà-vis those of U.S.-born whites across an entire distribution of wages and when an intergenerational perspective on immigrants' economic progress is taken. This comparative approach graphically illustrates that relative position may be just as important in terms of considering immigrants' economic incorporation as absolute wages are and lends support to the suggestion that the contexts of labor market inequality vary geographically in ways that affect the progress of immigrants (for additional support for this argument and the link to immigrants' and the 1.5 generation's destination choices, see Goodwin-White 2007).…”

“…A recent attempt to link geographic context to spatial assimilation critiques found that metropolitan and state-level immigrant concentrations have continuing importance for the 1.5 generation's internal migration and choice of destination, with little evidence of negative economic effects (Ellis and Goodwin-White 2006;Goodwin-White 2007). The more specifically geographic (rather than sociological) nature of all this research has turned on the investigation of where immigrants and natives have what kinds of jobs and how the jobs are rewarded, rather than on cities as concentrations of immigrants.…”

Inter-metropolitan migration of the newly landed immigrants in Canada: 1991–1996 and 1996–2001

“…With few exceptions (e.g., Goodwin-White 2007;Liaw et al 1986;Moore and Rosenberg 1995;Newbold 2007Newbold , 1999aShaw 1985;Trovato 1988), previous empirical studies have primarily used provinces, states or regions as the basic geographical units. Comprehensive research on internal migration at the metropolitan scale is hampered by the lack of appropriate data.…”