America and the New Immigrants: 1965 – the present

1. America and the New Immigrants: 1965 – the present • 1990; foreign-born population is 8% (20 million) • 2000; foreign-born population is 10% (28 million) • 2008; foreign-born population is 11% (30 million)

4. Diversity of the New Immigrants • Diversity of origins (100s countries vs. 10s); every continent is well represented • Ethnicity • Language • Religion • Largest share = Mexico (29.5% of total) • Diversity of education and skills • 33% are professional (HB1 Visas) • Labor Migrants (58%) • Entrepreneurial Immigrants (5%) • Political Refugees and Asylees (9%)

9. Other Key Differences with the past • Internal Geography • Very Metropolitan (urban) • 95% metropolitan • 5% rural/small town • Highly concentrated pattern (71% in just 5 states) • California • New York • Texas • New Jersey • Illinois

12. What Explains this resurgence in immigration? • Conventional Wisdom (mostly wrong) • Overpopulation • Poverty • Economic Stagnation • Concept of “Relative deprivation” • The Mechanic in Mexico • The medical researcher in India

13. A complex array of factors explain the New Immigration • 1. Legal Framework changes • 2. Globalization • US as a “global culture” • Internationalization of Production • New Labor Demand in the US • G(entrification) • H(igh tech) • I(nformalization of manufacturing) • Specific Actors • Universities • The Military

14. Changes in the legal framework • 1965 Immigration Act • Reverses the 1924 restrictions • Removes quotas that favor Europe, and Europeans • Family reunification • Political Asylum considerations • HB1 Visas

15. Globalization • US as a “global culture”

16. Internationalization of Production

17. New Labor Demand in the US • 1: Gentrification (when neighborhoods transition from working-class to professional class

18. New Labor Demand in US • 2: High-Tech • HB1 Visa increase in tandem with high-tech boom of the 1990s • Decrease after high-tech bust

19. New Labor Demand in US • 3: Informalization of Manufacturing • Industrial sweatshops • De-unionization • Food processing/packaging has increased in relative importance.

20. Other Contributing Factors: • 1: Universities • American universities collectively are the largest grouping of post-secondary institutions in the world • Much of “cutting-edge” research occurs in the US (although decreasing a share) • 2: The role of the military • Bases and operations • Past example: Korea, Vietnam, Dominican Republic, Phillippines • Current examples: Afghanistan, Iraq

22. Summary of Geographic Propinquity, “gateway centers”, and Chain Migration Patterns (1965 – present) • Regional Variance San Francisco – Mexico, Philippines Los Angeles – Mexico, El Salvador Houston – Mexico, El Salvador Chicago – Mexico, Poland New York – Dominican Republic, Jamaica Washington – El Salvador, Korea Miami – Cuba, Columbia

23. “Melting Pot Metros”: metropolitan areas with NO racial/ethnic majority • Miami-Fort Lauderdale • Hispanics 40.3% • Whites 36.3% • Blacks 20.6% • Asians 2.2%

24. Los Angeles • Hispanics 40.7% • Whites 39.0% • Asians 11.5% • Blacks 7.8%

25. Close to “metro magnet” status • San Francisco • Whites 50.6% • Asians 20.5% • Hispanics 19.7% • Blacks 7.8%

26. Chicago-Gary-Kenosha • Whites 59.4% • Blacks 18.8% • Hispanics 16.4% • Asians 4.7%

27. New Immigrant Typology (types) • 1. Labor Migrants (58%) • 2. Professional Immigrants (33%) • 3. Entrepreneurial Immigrants (5%) • 4. Political Refugees and Asylees (9%)

28. Median Household Income by Immigrant National Group (1989) • Above national average ($32,000) • Indians 48,320 • Iranians 35,836 • Greeks 33,500 • Around national average • Irish 31,562 • Chinese 30,597 • Jamaicans 30,590 • Poles 29,964 • Below national average • Mexicans 21,926 • Cambodians 19,671 • Ex USSR 19,125

29. Labor Migrants • Where from? • Mexico • Central America • Eastern Europe • Who? • The most ambitious of the working class, not the poorest of the poor, “relative depravation” • Why? • Wage differentials • Contract labor • Marriage, family reunification • Who supports and who doesn’t? • Dependent businesses support • Unions sometimes do not • Environmentalists sometimes do not

30. Professional Immigrants • Where from? • China/Taiwan • India • Western Europe • Why? • Relative depravation, reach the upper tiers of their chosen career paths • Role of technology in allowing for “dual citizenship”, and trans-national identity. • Who? • Technical elite, educated elite (HBI Visas) • Who supports, who doesn’t? • Businesses generally support • Environmentalists sometimes do not • Property owners in fast-growing, high-tech areas

31. Entrepreneurial Immigrants • Where from? • Korea • India • China • Who? • Why? • Who supports, who doesn’t?

32. Political Asylees • Where from? • Countries effected by US military campaigns • Those from communist countries • Those from countries considered by the US government to have dictatorial government • Key distinction here is that is the decisions made by GOVERNMENT that matter • Why? • Human rights policy, geo-political strategy • Who? • Often displaced peasants, and middle-class business owners • Who supports who doesn’t • Case Studies of Hmong, Vietnamese, Iranians, Cubans

39. Case Study: Small town North Carolina

41. *North Carolina is representative of the South as a whole • *Arkansas has the fastest growing Hispanic population (149%) • *The South is attracting people from CA, TX, Mexico etc.., but it is • also becoming a site of “family re-unification”.

42. PUSH *collapse of the “California” dream *high-rents/housing costs *gang activity *racist backlash PULL *promise of rural lifestyle *low rents/housing costs *changes in the configuration of local/regional labor market *H2-A visas *labor recruitment -furniture/poultry What accounts for recent Hispanic migration to North Carolina?

43. Conflict and Accommodation *Context: the historical demography of the American South. • “Nativist backlash” - police harassment - robberies - general cultural unease expressed by locals - political backlash - calls for an end to all immigration - INS - nativist/racist “populism”