Migration Propensities, Patterns, and the Role of Human Capital: Comparing Mexican, Cuban, and Puerto Rican Interstate Migration, 1985–1990

Abstract

This paper expands the human capital model to compare the migration propensities of Cubans, Mexicans, and Puerto Ricans within the U.S. between 1985 and 1990. Using the 5% PUMS from the 1990 U.S. Census, both aggregate migration streams and micro-level migration propensities are estimated for Cubans, Mexicans, and Puerto Ricans. The effects of personal factors, the economic environment, and the presence of fellow nationals are examined in the context of larger geographic patterns, and discussed in terms of each nationality's immigration history and cultural context. While many factors effect migration behavior similarly, there are notable differences in the way education, English fluency, and unemployment rate affect migration propensity of the native-born and foreign-born of each nationality. Differences are also apparent at the macro-level. Puerto Ricans show signs of dispersing out of New York; Mexicans are redistributing within the Southwest; and Cubans are re-concentrating in Florida. Both levels of analysis point to how immigration history, settlement patterns, and cultural context influence migration behavior. The results demonstrate the benefits of using an expanded human capital approach to explain migration differences, and highlight the diversity of population redistribution occurring within Hispanic nationalities.

Internal Migration of Ethnic Minorities – Evidence from Western Germany

“…Keeping in mind that immigrants mostly first settle in regions and communities where their co-nationals already reside in order to benefit from the advantages of the existing immigrant networks (Heckmann, 1992;Friedrichs, 2008), the nativity concentration of the region can also be considered as a proxy of existing social capital in that region as it is mostly done in U.S. American research. Proximity to co-nationals -measured as state level ethnic concentration in the US -in fact has been observed as a migration deterrent factor (Kritz / Nogle, 1994;Gurak / Kritz, 2000;Foulkes / Newbold, 2000;Newbold, 1999;Ellis / Goodwin-White, 2006). But, reducing social capital to a constant determinant for all members of a given nativity group is based on the assumptions that the networks of co-nationals are homogenous and the network effects are unidirectional.…”

“…Issues of particular interest are the migration process embedded in the life course perspective (Kley, 2009;2010;Huinink / Kley, 2008;Kalter, 1997;Wagner, 1989), the association of migration with regional labor market characteristics (Windzio, 2004a;2004b;Mertens / Haas, 2006;Arntz, 2005), migration in the context of family (Jürges, 2005;1998) and the relation of geographic mobility with social ties (Vidal Torre / Kley, 2010;Vidal Torre, 2009) as well as with regional ties or regional identities (Kley, 2008;Abraham / Nisic, 2007). Also the internal migration of ethnic minorities in a host country has been well documented (Ellis / Goodwin-White, 2006;Finney / Simpson, 2008;Foulkes / Newbold, 2000;Gurak / Kritz, 2000;Kritz / Nogle, 1994;Newbold, 1999;Spilembergo / Úbeda, 2004;Kulu / Billiari, 2004;. Research in this latter field, however, comes mainly from Anglo-American literature and little is known about internal migration of ethnic minorities in Germany apart from a few exceptions (Schündeln 2007).…”

Dynamics of Internal Migration Determinants for American Jews, 1985–1990 and 1995–2000

“…The youngest to leave home are people with no religious affiliation, presumably for ''non-family reasons, especially non-traditional family formation'' (p. 28). Foulkes and Newbold (2000) utilized data from the 1990 decennial census in an attempt to evaluate the effects of demographic, cultural and economic factors on 5-year interstate migration among three Hispanic groups: Cubans, Mexicans and Puerto Ricans. With the exception of foreign-born Cubans, the other groups, both by nationality and nativity (i.e.…”

Segmented Paths and the Differential Role of Primate Immigrant Centers

“…Reflecting broader social, cultural, and economic influences, in-and out-migration may alter the nature of immigrant communities by connecting local, intermediate (i.e., metro), and national scales (Foulkes and Newbold 2000;McHugh, Miyares, and Skop 1997). Segmented paths may therefore be revealed by migrant selectivity with respect to primate immigrant centers, with tables 3 and 4 detailing in-and out-migration rates by personal attributes and capturing variability in migration with respect to geography and national origin.…”