Spatial dispersion of U.S. national origin groups: Characteristics of dispersed immigrants and settlement places

Abstract

This article examines the individual and economic context correlates of foreign‐born dispersion in the 2007–2011 period using confidential American Community Surveys and census data. For 40 national origin groups and other foreigners from 7 world regions, group‐specific settlement indicators for 741 geographic areas were used to estimate dispersion relationships to human capital, acculturation, settlement region, and economic context. A fixed‐effect model estimated with individual indicators, net of national origin, indicated that human capital and acculturation had relationships to dispersion that conformed to human capital and spatial assimilation theories but found that those relationships were attenuated or no longer significant after controlling for economic context. Individual and economic context correlates of dispersion also differed for Mexicans and non‐Mexicans. For both groups, the economic context measures that had the strongest relationships to dispersion were labour force shares in education/research/technology fields, and native‐born employment change between 1990 and 2000. Employment in agriculture and the military were significant for both Mexicans and non‐Mexicans but shares employed in manufacturing and construction were only significant for non‐Mexicans. Ordinary least squares (OLS) models for 40 origin countries indicated that internal migration status, residence in a household with a native‐born head, never married status, and English language fluency were significant correlates of dispersion for most groups. Having an advanced degree was also significantly related to dispersion for over half of the groups. Future studies should focus on the linkages between immigration histories and immigrants' human capital and how they shape the dispersion pathways that national origin groups take to different economic contexts.

Internal migration patterns of foreign citizens in Italy

“…The greater propensity of foreigners to migrate is the main shared result (Finney & Catney, 2012 ;Silvestre & Reher, 2014 ). While the results of studies on migration distance for foreigners in comparison to that of nationals are controversial (Casacchia et al, 2019 ;Sapiro, 2017 ) some researchers have identified remarkable differences among the internal migration patterns of ethnic groups (Kritz & Gurak, 2018 ;Sapiro, 2017 ;Trevena et al, 2013 ). Different levels of migration -and of the distance migrated -have also been observed in diverse ethnic groups (Finney & Simpson, 2008 ).…”