forces social - university of washington pubs/a15.pdf · n82 socialforces vol. 56:4, june1978 tion...

SOCIALFORCESAN INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SOCIAL RESEARCH

ARTICLES

Jonathan H. Turner, Royce Singleton, JrA THEORY OF ETHNIC OPPRESSION:Toward Reintegration of Cultural and StructuralConcepts in Ethnic Relations Theory/1001

Wayne J. Villemez, Candace Hinson WiswellTHE IMPACT OF DIMINISHING DISCRIMINATION ON THEINTERNAL SIZE DISTRIBUTION OF BLACK INCOME:1954-74/1019

Patricia KloOus-Edwards, John N. Edwards,David L. KlemmackDIFFERENCES IN SOCIAL PARTICIPATION:Blacks and Whrtes/1035

Steven Martin Cohen, Robert E. KapsisPARTICIPATION OP BLACKS, PUERTO RICANS,AND WHITES IN VOLUNTARY ASSOCIATIONS:A Test of Current Theories/1053

DavidF. Sly, Louis G. PolTHE DEMOGRAPHIC CONTEXT OF SCHOOLSEGREGATION AND DESEGREGATION/1072

Gerald C. Wnght. JrRACISM AND THE AVAILABILITY OF FAMILYPLANNING SERVICES IN THE UNITED STATES 1087

Mane Withers Osmond, Chartes M. GriggCORRELATES OF POVERTY: The Interaction of Individualand Family Characteristics/1099

Fred C. Pampel, Harvey M. CholdinURBAN LOCATION AND SEGREGATION OF THE AGED:A Block-Level Analysis/1121

James 0. Wrighl. Richard F. HamiltonWORK SATISFACTION AND AGE: Some Evidence (or the’Job Change Hypothesis/1140

John R. LoganRURAL-URBAN MIGRATION AND WORKING-CLASSCONSCIOUSNESS: A Spanish Case/1159

Charles HirschmanPRIOR U.S. RESIDENCE AMONGMEXICAN IMMIGRANTS/1179

Barry SchwartzTHE SOCIAL ECOLOGY OF TIME BARRIERS 1203

Paul D. StarrCONTINUITY AND CHANGE IN SOCIAL DISTANCE:Studies from the Arab East-A Research Report/1221

Kart Schuessler, Larry reshnock

MEASURING ATTITUDES TOWARD SELF ANDOTHERS IN SOCIETY: State of the Art/1228

BOOKS REVIEWS/1245

TAKE NOTE/1295

INDEX TO VOLUME 56/1304

Prior U.S. ResidenceAmong Mexican Immigrants*

CHARLES HIRSCHMAN, Duke University

ABSTRACTFrom a survey of legal Mexican immigrants to the U.S. in late 1973

and early 1974, over 60 percent of the sample report having previously lived inthe United States for some time. This suggests the modal path of legalimmigration begins with an illegal stay in the U.S. which often makes possiblelegal entry. Return-immigrants to the U.S. (legal immigrants with prior U.S.residence) have lower socioeconomic origins, educational attainment, andoccupational levels than first-time immigrants. While part of the lower occu-pational attainment of return-immigrants is due to their poorer social originsand educational attainment, most of it can be attributed to their prior residencein the U.S. This effect is interpreted as a measure of the occupational dis-crimination that was encountered during their prior residence in the UnitedStates.

The impact of immigration on a society and on the immigrants themselveshas been a recurring issue of popular concern and of academic inquiry.Since the end of large-scale immigration to the United States in the early1920s, the study of the consequences of immigration and of the assimila-tion of immigrants has ebbed. This was probably a reflection of the changein both the magnitude and nature of immigration to the U.S. The restrictivelegislation in the post World War era sharply reduced the number ofimmigrants and fixed quotas by national origin to give a predominantNorthwest European character to immigration for the next 40 years (for anoverview of immigration in the twentieth century, see Taeuber and Taeu-ber).

With the change in immigration laws in 1965, both the volume andcomposition of immigration were altered. This has brought about a re-newed interest in the issue; recent studies have documented the increasefrom about 300,000 to about 400,000 immigrants annually and composi-

*This research report is based on data collected in the first stage of the project, "Assimilationof Latin American Minorities in the United States" (Alejandro Fortes, principal investigator)which is supported by Grants MH 23262-02 from the National Institute of Mental Health andSOC75-16151 from the National Science Foundation. On-Jook Kim provided able researchassistance. am grateful to Alejandro Fortes, On-Jook Kim, Avery Guest, Mark Evers, andJames House for constructive comments and suggestions.

1179

n8o Social Forces vol. 56:4, June 1978

tional shifts which increased the proportion with Southern European andAsian national origins, as well as an increase in the number of professionals(Fortney; Irwin and Warren; Keely, a, b, c). Aside from the restraineddebate over the demographic contribution of immigration to populationgrowth as fertility has declined (Commission on Population Growth andthe American Future) there appears to be relatively little concern about theimpact of legal immigration on society and the absorption of recent immi-grants into American society and culture.

However, the evidence of increasing illegal migration, primarilyfrom Mexico, has caused quite a strong reaction. The Commissioner ofImmigration and Naturalization has defined the situation in his annualreport:

one of the Nation’s most pressing problems is the continuing surge of illegalaliens into the United States. Persons are illegally entering the country across ourborder and through the ports of entry by the millions. While Border Patrolofficers and INS investigators in 1974 apprehended a record 788,000 illegal aliens, itis estimated that this represented only about 20-25 percent of those who enteredillegally or otherwise violated the terms of their entry. With such entries growingeach year, it is estimated that the number illegally in the United States totals at least6 to 8 million persons, and it is possibly as great as 10 or 12 million (U.S. Depart-ment of Justice: iii).

This alarmist statement and the official recognition of some questionablestatistics has sparked a great number of stories in the mass media sug-gesting that Mexican aliens in the U.S. (over 90% of the apprehendedillegal aliens are from Mexico) have taken jobs away from U.S. citizens,abused the benefits of various social welfare programs and constitute agrowing social menace.

A number of academic studies have sought to put a more balancedperspective on the problem with a knowledgeable debate on the conse-quences of illegal immigration (Briggs, a; Gordon) and have also providedgreater insight into the secondary labor market in which most illegalmigrants find work (Fogel, Piore). Portes (a) has argued that any under-standing of the causes of illegal immigration must go beyond the simpleperspective of a push-pull model which contrasts a poor underdevelopedMexican society with the neighboring U.S. society containing numerouseconomic opportunities and social welfare benefits. The stimulus to migra-tion is not caused by a stagnant economy in Mexico, but rather a dynamicone that is breaking down the bonds of a rural feudal society, but is unableto provide sufficient employment in the growing industrial sector which isgeared to the needs of other social classes (Portes, a). Moreover, theeconomic roles filled by illegal immigrants in the United States are not onesfor which there is a sufficient supply of domestic labor in spite of relativelyhigh unemployment; Portes (b) notes that illegal migrants work in manysectors of the economy at minimal wage levels and working conditions,

Mexican Immigrants 1181

and thereby help to maintain the rate of profit, a functional necessity in anadvanced capitalist economy (see Castells for a comparable analysis ofmigrant workers in Europe). As the controversy continues and more re-search is generated, a clearer understanding of the effects of large scaleillegal immigration on U.S. society should emerge.

In this research paper, I address the other classic question: theimpact of immigration on the immigrants themsleves. Because of the verynature of their status, illegal immigrants avoid the routine statistical in-

quiries that allow for systematic empirical investigation. They are missedin the official counts of immigrants to the United States and are probablyseriously underenumerated in national censuses and surveys. This reportwill first review the public data on the recent growth of the Mexican-origincommunity in the United States, and then look at the extent and socio-economic effects of prior residence in the United States (as an indicator ofillegal residence) among a sample of legal Mexican immigrants to theUnited States.

Growth of the Mexican-Origin Community in the U.S.

Contrary to widespread belief, the overwhelming majority of the U.S.population with Mexican ancestry has been born and reared in the UnitedStates. Of the 4.5 million persons of Mexican-origin1 counted in the 1970census, 82 percent were native-born (U.S. Bureau of the Census, c). The1975 March Current Population Survey estimated that the Mexican-originpopulation was almost 6.7 million (U.S. Bureau of the Census, 3). Thiswould represent an almost 50 percent increase in the Mexican-origin popu-lation over the five-year period compared to about a 3 percent increase ofthe total U.S. population for the same period. However, the Spanish-origin data are not exactly comparable between the 1970 Census and recentCurrent Population Surveys because of questionnaire design and codingprocedures,2 which might have inflated the measured increase of theMexican-origin population. Nonetheless, it appears that there has been a

substantial increase in the Mexican-origin population which is in excess ofreasonable estimates of natural increase and legal immigration.3 A cautious

interpretation would be that at least one million persons have been addedto the Mexican-origin population through illegal immigration during thefirst half of the 1970s.

Of course it is unlikely that all illegal immigrants are located inofficial counts by governmental interviewers. Census underenumerationof young black males is estimated to range up to 20 percent (Siegel) and theproblems of finding and interviewing young, mobile, and worried Mexican

illegal immigrants may be even greater. But must register some scepticismabout the estimates of the Commissioner of Immigration and Naturaliza-

n82 Social Forces vol. 56:4, June 1978

tion that the figure of illegal immigrants may be between 6 to 12 million(assuming 90% are from Mexico). Not only do such figures suggest analmost impossible rate of natural increase in Mexico (Gordon) but alsoan underenumeration rate of 75 to 90 percent of illegal Mexican immigrantsin the Census and the Current Population Survey. More likely the Commis-sioner of INS has based his implausible estimates on the assumption thatmost illegal immigrants stay in the United States, whereas a more likelyassumption is that the process is one of a circular flow with a high propor-tion of illegal immigrants eventually returning to Mexico.

Legal Immigration to the U.S. From Mexico

The 1965 Immigration Act created a quite complex set of rules, categories,and exceptions that govern the flow of legal immigration to the U.S.(Abrams and Abrams; Keely, a, b). Immigrants from Mexico can be in-cluded in two basic categories: (1) Non-ceiling (no numerical limitation)immigrants, consisting of spouses, children, and parents of U.S. citizens(for parents, the child must be at least 21 years of age), and (2) Any nativeof a Western Hemisphere country, but with an annual quota limitation of120,000 for the entire Western Hemisphere.4 While there is theoretically nopreference system attached to the second category, each potential immi-grant must pass a labor certification requirement, unless he is an immediaterelative of a resident alien in the U.S. Basically, labor certification almostrequires that the potential immigrant have a job guarantee in the U.S.

More than one million legal migrants have come to the U.S. fromMexico from 1951 to 1974 and the annual flow for the two most recent yearshas been over 70,000 (U.S. Department of Justice). In 1974, over one-thirdof the Mexican immigrants arrived under the non-ceiling category of im-mediate relatives of U.S. citizens, while the remaining two-thirds cameunder the category for natives of the Western Hemisphere (U.S. Depart-ment of Justice). Constituting about one out of every six immigrants to theU.S., Mexicans are the single largest nationality group of legal immigrants.

It is well-recognized that many if not most Mexican immigrants tothe U.S. in recent years have lived here already (illegally) and have suc-cessfully obtained a spouse or a job guarantee that enables them to returnto the U.S. as a legal immigrant (Fortes, a). In the rest of this paper, Iwill measure the extent of this pattern of return-immigration among a

specially designed sample of Mexican legal immigrants and then examinehow prior residence affects the socioeconomic status of immigrants.


The 1973-74 Survey of Mexican Immigrants

The subsequent analysis is based on data collected in a survey of legalMexican immigrants entering the United States through the border stationsat Laredo and El Paso, Texas from the Fall of 1973 to early Spring of 1974.The eligible respondents were defined as non-dependent (economicallyself-supporting) males between the ages of 18 and 60 and were inter-viewed in Spanish after they had completed immigration proceedings.While it cannot be claimed that the resulting sample of 822 interviewedimmigrants (only 15 immigrants refused to be interviewed) is representa-tive of Mexican immigrants crossing at other border stations at other times,it seems unlikely that there would be any unusual selection bias in thesample (see Fortes and McLeod for more discussion of the representa-tiveness of the sample).

Prior Residence in the United States

The popular image of international migration is one of a person or familysetting off on a journey into the unknown. Whether this is really anaccurate image in other cases, it is certainly not for the flow of legalimmigrants from Mexico. Responding to a question on the place of lastpermanent residence (permanent residence being at least four months), 40percent of the sample of Mexican immigrants gave a place in the UnitedStates. In response to another question which asked whether the respon-dent had ever lived in the United States (not including visits), 62 percentsaid "yes" and 31 percent indicated their stay(s) totaled three years ormore. These three indicators of U.S. residence: (1) whether the respondenthad ever lived in the United States, (2) whether the respondent had livedin the United States for three years or more, and (3) whether the respon-dent’s last place of permanent residence was in the United States, are

presented as proportions of the total sample and of various other subpopu-lations in Table 1.

Prior U.S. residence among Mexican immigrants is closely asso-ciated with stage in the life cycle. Younger immigrants and especiallyunmarried ones were the least likely to have ever lived in the U.S. or tohave had their last permanent residence there. Interestingly, older mi-

grants (above age 35) were not as likely to have lived in the U.S. before as

immigrants age 25-34.There is good reason to suspect that some immigrants were reluc-

tant to admit prior residence in the United States because it might indicate

they were there illegally. Some evidence on this potential measurement

problem is given in the lower two panels of Table 1. Of the 356 immigrants

Table 1. PROPORTION OF MEXICAN IMMIGRANTS WITH SOME PRIOR RESIDENCE IN THE U.S. OR LAST PERMANENT RESIDENCE INTHE U.S. BY AGE. MARITIAL STATUS, VISA TYPE, AND FAMILY RESIDENCE

Some Prior

Residence in the

Age

Less than 25

25-34

34 or more

Marital Status

Single

Married

Formerly married

Visa Type

%

45.0

74.8

63.6

15.0

71.4

40.0

U.S.

N*

(296)

(368)

(118)

(140)

(666)

(5)

Three or More

Prior Residence in

%

13.2

43.8

35.6

5.0

36.0

20.0

Years

the U.S.

N*

(296)

(368)

(118)

(140)

(666)

(5)

Last Permanent

in the U.S.

%

29.8

50.8

37.5

4.9

47.7

50.0

Resilience

N*

(299)

(370)

(120)

(143)

(669)

(6)

(356) (358)(356) 55.933.7

(46) (47)8.7 14.9(46)

(378) (382)30.130.4 (378)

Visa Type

IR-1: Spouse of U.S.

citizen 74.7

IR-2 to IR5: Other im-

mediate relative of

U.S. citizen 17.4

SA-1: Native of wes-

tern hemisphere

(subject to ceiling) 54.7

Table 1, continued

Family Accompanying R+Single

Yes, with respondent

No, family in Mexico

No, family in U.S.

Total Sample

Source: 1973-74 Survey

*The sample frequencies

tSurvey question was "Isthe United States?"

Some Pn<

Residence in tj

%

17.0

73.2

45.1

77.9

61.6

of Mexican Immigrants

differ because of

your family (wife

>x

fie U.S. Pri(

N*

(141)

(186)

(113)

(358)

(814)

the exclusion

and children,

Three 01

ir Reside

%

5.7

43.0

15.9

38.0

30.5

of cases

if any)

Wore Years

nee in the U.

N*

(141)

(186)

(113)

(358)

(814)

with missing

accompanying

Last Permanent Res

S. in the U.S.

%

6.9

51.3

14.2

55.7

40.2

data on each variable.

you on this trip to ^

idence

K*

(144)

(187)

(113)

(361)

(821)

2AX

1S

"tug.01

00yi


in the sample who were admitted with an IR-1 visa, indicating they were aspouse of an American citizen, almost a quarter claimed never to havelived in the U.S. and an even higher fraction said their last permanentresidence was in Mexico. It is indeed possible that these men met theirAmerican citizen wives in Mexico or on a brief visit to the U.S. But it ismore likely that the respondents have lived in the U.S., but did not reportit in our interviews. Another inconsistency emerges in the last panel whichshows data on whether the respondent’s family (if married) accompaniedthe immigrant on this trip from Mexico to the U.S., remained behind inMexico, or was already living in the United States. About 22 percent of therespondents who said their families were already in the U.S., also claimedthat they were first-time immigrants. Again plausible explanations couldaccount for some cases of this nature, but it seems more likely that the trueextent of prior U.S. residence among legal immigrants has been under-reported in this survey.

Our conclusion is that the modal pattern of legal Mexican immigra-tion to the United States is a first venture to the U.S. as an illegal immigrantfollowed by a return trip as a legal immigrant. The first illegal trip is oftennecessary to acquire the credentials (an American spouse or a job guar-antee to pass labor certification) necessary for legal entry. It is still possiblefor a minority to obtain legal entry without prior residence-perhaps bybeing an immediate relative of a resident alien (enables one to be animmigrant under the ceiling limitation, but without the requirement oflabor certification) or else by having a friend or relative in the U.S. arrangea job (to pass labor certification.)

Prior Residence and Socioeconomic Status

Although there are other measures of prior residence that could be con-structed by adjustment of the data, the subsequent analysis will use thereported responses on "ever lived in the United States before" to distin-guish return-immigrants to the U.S. (and assuming the prior stay wasillegal) and first-time immigrants. While this may be underestimating thenumber who have lived in the U.S. before (reported figure is 62%), anyadjustment could contribute additional errors of unknown magnitude.

According to the conventional expectations based on the immigra-tion-assimilation literature, experience in the receiving country should bea positive factor in promoting socioeconomic achievement. The reasoningis that such experience adds to language skills and general knowledge ofthe opportunity structure so enabling the immigrant to find suitable em-ployment. Thus, the basic hypothesis guiding our analysis is that return-immigrants will be more successful in their socioeconomic assimilation inthe United States than first-time immigrants. But the testing of this hy-


pothesis is not exactly straightforward. First, because the survey data werecollected at the time of legal entry into the U.S., there is no available mea-sure of their post-immigration SES in the U.S. Second, return-immigrantsmay differ in many other respects from first-time immigrants, not only interms of age and marital status, but also in socioeconomic backgroundwhich could have affected prior illegal immigration or the availability ofcredentials needed for legal immigration. These issues will first be con-sidered in order to construct a reasonable model of prior residence and thestratification process.

Although there is no possible measure of the immigrant’s subse-quent socioeconomic position in U.S. society, one survey question yieldeda possible surrogate measure, the respondent’s main occupation. It ap-pears that this question was designed to measure the respondent’s usualoccupation-one which he has had in the past and the one that he mightreasonably expect to have in the future. For most respondents, mainoccupation was the same as the reported "last occupation."5 I think thatmain occupation of return-immigrants will be partially based on their pastjob experience in the U.S., while for the first-time immigrants it will reflecttheir prior work experience in Mexico and perhaps their expected level ofemployment in the U.S. About 12 percent of the first-time immigrants and3 percent of the return-immigrants did not report a main occupation andwill be excluded from parts of the analysis. To the extent that prior ex-

perience in the United States affects occupational level, return-immigrantsshould have a higher net level of main occupation than first-time immi-grants.

A number of other factors may confound the expected relationshipbetween prior residence and main occuaption among the Mexican immi-

grants in our sample. The most obvious are the socioeconomic origins andeducational attainment of the immigrants, both of which should havepositive effects on occupational attainment, but may be negatively relatedto prior residence.

Mexicans who have migrated to the U.S. without going throughlegal immigration proceedings may have been driven more by desperationand poorer socioeconomic environments than those who waited (or wereable) to go through the legal immigration process on their first trip to theU.S. This hypothesis cannot be tested with the present survey because theimmigrants in our sample with prior U.S. residence are not necessarilyrepresentative of those coming to the U.S. in a non-legal status; they arethe successful ones who have decided (and were able) to reenter theUnited States as legal immigrants. Thus it may be that our sample of legalimmigrants with prior U.S. residence is a very select group of illegalmigrants-maybe with superior educational or occupational skills. Anotherconsideration may be that the labor certification requirement (applied tothose without family ties in the U.S.) may affect the socioeconoic status of


first-hme immigrants relative to return-immigrants to the U.S. Unfortu-nately no data on whether the immigrant required labor certification weregathered in the survey. Thus there seems no unambiguous expectation ofthe association of prior-residence and socioeconomic origins in our sample,and because of this it cannot be assumed that the expected positive neteffect of prior residence on main occupation will be reflected in a grossassociation.

Some of these theoretical expectations can be examined with thedata in Table 2 which shows the summary values (means or proportions) ofsocioeconomic background and attainment for the sample of Mexican

immigrants and separately for return-immigrants and first-time immi-

grants. Before discussion of the differences in Table 2, it is necessary toreview the measurement and coding of the socioeconomic variables in the1973-74 Mexican Immigrant Survey. Four variables are used to indexsocioeconomic origins: Father’s Occupation, Father’s Education, Mother’sEducation, and Size of Community of Origin. Each respondent was askedthe main occupation of his father. This was coded into two variables: (1) anordinal scale of occupational rank, based on previous research in LatinAmerica (Portes, b), and (2) Duncan’s Socioeconomic Index (SEI). Eachrespondent also was asked the number of years of formal schooling com-pleted by his father and mother and this was coded in single years. The

community of origin is the town or settlement in which the respondentgrew up. It was coded by size of place (according to the Mexican censusnearest to the year in which the respondent was sixteen years old), andTable 2 simply shows a dichotomy setting the cutting point at 100,000 ormore. The respondent’s own education and main occupation were mea-

sured and coded in a manner similar to the parental SES variables. Englishlanguage ability is an index constructed as the sum of the normalizedscores of seven translation items (English to Spanish) included in theinterview, with higher score indicating greater comprehension.

In general, the total Mexican immigrant sample is considerablybelow the total male United States population on measures of educationand occupational distribution and also below that of the toal male Mexican-

origin population in the United States, but roughly comparable to the

foreign-born male Mexican-origin population in the United States (U.S.Bureau of the Census, a, b, c). Within our sample, first-time immigrantsare generally superior to return-immigrants on all measures of socio-

economic origins and attainment, with the one exception being the Englishlanguage index which indicates return-immigrants had a better compre-hension of English. Return-immigrants were more likely to be the sons offarm laborers and have parents with lower education than first-time immi-

grants. Additionally, they were much less likely to have grown up in largecities over 100,000. Based on these findings, it appears that first-time

immigrants are a much more positively select group in terms of social


origins than return-immigrants. Return-immigrants may be a select groupof illegal immigrants who were able to obtain the necessary credentials fora legal entry/ but this still left them below the origin-status level of thosecrossing the border for the first time.

Considering these conditions/ it is not surprising to note that return-immigrants also have lower educational attainment and an inferior occupa-tional distribution relative to first-time immigrants. There is a gap of 7.5SEI points in the mean occupational levels of return and first-time immi-grants. The difference is most noticeable when comparing the proportionsin professional occupations.

Tabte 2. COMPARISON OP SOCIOECONOMIC BACKGROUND AND ATTAINMENT OFRETURN-IMMIGRANTS AND FIRST-TIME IMMIGRANTS FROM MEXICO TO THE UNITED STATES*

Background Factors

Father’s Occupation

White collar

Intemediate service worker

Skilled/semi-skilled worker

Laborer/minor service worker

Agricultural laborer

in labor force

Father’s Socioeconomic

Index (SEI)

Father’s of Schooling

Mother’s of Schooling

Proportion from Origin Community

of 100,000

Respondent’s of Schooling 6.3

English Language Index

Respondent’s Main Occupation

White collar

Intermediate service worker

Skilled/semi-skilled worker

Laborer/minor service worker

Agricultural laborer

in labor force

Respondent’s Socioeconomic

Index (SEI)

tetum-.

7.9

18.4

18.4

13.4

41.4

19.4

3.1

3.2

25.8

0.68

3.9

3.0

51.8

25.6

13.0

2.6

19.2

Tmmigrant

ft

(36)

(84)

(84)

(61)

(189)

(2)

(458)

(333)

(372)

(496)

(501)

(501)

(19)

(15)

(255)

(126)

(64)

(13)

(480)

First-Til

9.6

16.8

30.6

19.2

23.4

21.1

4.5

4.0

50.0

7.9

0.07

15.0

10.7

37.1

15.0

9.4

12.7

26.7

Immigrant

(s)

(20)

(49)

(89)

(56)

(68)

(1)

(291)

(194)

(218)

(312)

(313)

(313)

(46)

(33)

(114)

(46)

(29)

(39)

(268)

Total

8.5

17.7

23.3

15.7

34.4

20.1

3.6

3.5

35.1

6.9

0.45

8.2

6.1

46.2

21.4

11.5

6.6

21.9

Sample

Vean (H)

(64)

(133)

(175)

(118)

(259)

(3)

(749)

(527)

(590)

(814)

(814)

(814)

(66)

(49)

(373)

(173)

(93)

(53)

(748)

*Each summary index is based upon the number of for which there missing values

See for explanation of each variable.

Source: 1973-74 Survey of Mexican Immigrants.

1190 Social Forces vol. 56:4, June 1978

A Model of Occupational Attainment

From these summary measures, it is clear that return-immigrants are lowerin socioeconomic origins, educational attainment, and occupational level atthe time of legal entry into the United States. The effect of prior residenceon occupational level is still unclear. Is the inferior occupational distribu-tion of return-immigrants due to their poorer social origins, or is theresome additional positive advantage or negative handicap due to havinghad the experience of living in the United States before-in an illegalstatus? Recall that our expectation expressed earlier was that prior resi-dence would have a net positive effect on occupational level, because itcontributed to a better knowledge of English and familiarity of the UnitedStates opportunity structure. This line of reasoning would suggest that thepositive net relationship between prior residence and occupation is sup-pressed because of the joint relationship with socioeconomic origins andeducational attainment. In order to answer the empirical question, it is firstnecessary to develop a model of the stratification process which includesthe prior residence variable.

The model developed here is informed by prior literature of the life-cycle model of status attainment (Blau and Duncan; Sewell and Hauser).The form of the structural equations used to test the relevant hypothesis isillustrated in Figure I.6 The usual arrows of a path diagram are eliminatedhere for the sake of clarity, but each variable is assumed to have direct andindirect effects on all other variables that follow it in the model. Socio-economic background consists of the four measured variables: father’seducation and occupation, mother’s education, and the size of the com-munity of origin. These background factors are hypothesized to affect priorU.S. residence directly and through their impact on educational attainment.Education is expected to have an independent effect on whether theimmigrant is a return or first-time immigrant. And all background variablesare assumed to have direct and indirect effects on the occupational statusof the immigrants. Ability to understand English is posited as an inter-vening variable between U.S. residence and occupational status.7 Theunstandardized and standardized regression coefficients of the reducedform and complete models based on Figure 1 are shown in Tables 3 and 4.For each dependent variable, an additional .model with age (as a linearvariable) as an additional independent variable is estimated and theseresults are shown in the last row of each set of models.8

Figure 1. MODEL OF THE HYPOTHESIZED EFFECTS OF SOCIAL BACKGROUND ON PRIOR U S RESIDENCEAND THE OCCUPATIONAL STATUS OF MEXICAN IMMIGRANTS

FATHER’S EDUCATION

FATHER’S OCCUPATION PRIOR U.S. RESIDENCE

MOTHER’S EDUCATIONENGLISH ABILITY

SIZE OF COMMUNITYOF ORIGIN .MAIN

OCCUPATION

Table 3. MODELS* OF THE STRATIFICATION PROCESS AMONG MEXICAN IMMIGRANTS TO THE UNITED STATES: UNSTANDARDIZEDREGRESSION COEFFICIENTS (WITH STANDARD ERRORS IN PARENTHESES)

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

(7)

(8)

(9)

Dependent

Variables

Educ.

attainment

Educ.

attainment

Prior U.S.

residence

Prior U.S.

residence

Prior U.S.

residence

English

ability

English

ability

English

ability

English

ability

Father’s

Occupation

.014

(.006)

.017

(.006)

.003

(.001)

.003

(.001)

.003

(.001)

.007

(.003)

Father’s

Education

.192

(.038)

.151

(.037)

-.029

(.007)

-.025

(.007)

-.024

(.007)

.054

(.020)

.056

(.018)

.060

(.018)

Mother’s

Education

.308

(.041)

.300

(.040)

-.053

(.009)

-.048

(.009)

-.048

(.009)

.062

(.021)

.085

(.025)

Size

CO

.252

(.051)

.235 -.082

(.049) (.011)

.067

(.026)

Indt

of Origin

mmunity

.084

(.025)

’pendent Varia

Educational

Attainment

-.019

(.006)

-.016

(.006)

.118

(.018)

.137

(.016)

.144

(.017)

it.les

Prior U.S.

Residence

.990

(.092)

.978

(.092)

English

Ability Age

.005

(.002)

.010

(.006)

Constant

3.617

6.090

.819

.887

.739

-.036

-.733

-1.611

-1.910

Tabla3, continued

(9)

(10)

(ID

(12)

(13)

(14)

Dependent

Variables

English

ability

Main

occupation

Main

occupation

Main

occupation

Main

occupation

Main

occupation

Father’s

Occupation

.060

(.018)

.150

(.033)

.122

(.031)

.134

(.031)

.133

(.031)

.121

(.030)

Father’s

Education

.402

(.211)

Mother’s

Education

.696

(.230)

Inde

Size of Origin

Coitsnunity

.084

(.025)

1.319

(.282)

.828

(.268)

.635

(.270)

.591

(.272)

.592

(.268)

pendent Var

Ectucatlona

Attainment

.144

(.017)

1.947

(.181)

1.871

(.181)

1.800

(.188)

2.013

(.192)

labi

Prior U.S.

Residence

.978

(.092)

-4.000

(1.010)

-4.512

(1.079)

-4.747

(1.067)

English

UHlty

.010

(.006)

.519

(.384)

.418

(.380)

.284

(.062)

Constant

-1.910

10.900

3.858

7.40

8.240

-0.871

The first model for each dependent variable only includes the four social origin variables inthe equation. Each subsequent equation adds independent variable in the hypothesizedmodel shown in Figure 1, with age added in the last equation. All prior variables includedin each equation, but presented here if the regression coefficient is not twice its standard

(this rule is occasionally relaxed).

Source: 1973-74 survey of Mexican Immigrants

Table 4. MODELS* OF THE STRATIFICATION PROCESS AMONG MEXICAN IMMIGRANTS TO THE UNITED STATES; STANDARDIZEDREGRESSION COEFFICIENTS

Dependent

Variables

Father’s Father’s Mother’s

Occupation Education Education

Independent Variables

Size of Origin Educational Prior U.S.

Consttunittf___attainment Residence

English

Ability

(1) Educ.

attainment

(2) Educ.

attainment

(3) Prior U.S.

residence

(4) Prior U.S.

residence

(5) Prior U.S.

residence

(6) English

ability

(7) English

ability

(8) English

ability

(9) English

ability

.097

.155

.274

-.203

-.166

.131

.121

.126

.115 .303

Table 4, continued

Independent Variables

Dependent Father’s Father’s Mother’s size of Origin Educational Prior U.S. Englishvarlables-----Occupation--Education Education Co.nmmJf, Waln^nt Residence Milltv Age_______^_

(10> Main .169 .088 .127 .162occupation

(11> Main .138

occupation-102 -389.254

<12) Main -151 -"8 .374 -.125 267 Ioccupation Xft

(13) Main -150 3.360 -.141 .047occupation 26B

9(1’" Main -136

403 -.148 .038 rXoccupation 2"6 OSoccupation

footnote to Table

Source: 1973-74 Survey of Mexican Immigrants 1-*

’J1


EDUCATIONAL ATTAINMENT

The four social origin variables explain almost 31 percent of the variance ineducational attainment and age adds another 4 percent. The effect ofparental education, especially mother’s, is the most important determinantwith father’s occupation of only minor importance. In general, there ap-pears to be a moderately strong relationship between social backgroundand schooling in the Mexican immigrant population that is roughly com-

parable to the strength of relationships in the general U.S. population,though the levels of schooling are much lower for Mexican immigrants.

PRIOR U.S. RESIDENCE

It appears that social background is only modestly related to prior U.S.residence among the immigrant sample-explaining only about 10 percentof the variance. Three background variables (father’s education, com-

munity size, and educational attainment) show a negative relationshipwith having lived in the U.S. before legal immigration, but there is a smallpositive relationship between father’s occupation and prior residence. Ingeneral, it can be said that return immigrants have less education, are more

likely to come from smaller communities and homes where the father hasless education than is the case for first-time immigrants. But the reverse

pattern for father’s occupation and the very small magnitude of all coeffi-cients make any conclusion of negative selectivity of return immigrantsvery weak. The introduction of age into the model has little direct effectand does not change other relationships in the model.9

ENGLISH LANGUAGE ABILITY

English language comprehension is moderately related to social origins.Most of the effects of social origins are mediated by educational attainmentas shown in model 7. The inclusion of prior residence in model 8 adds 10more percentage points to the variance explained by social background.Knowledge of English was fairly low in general, with more than half of thesample not knowing any English. But having been to the U.S. before madea difference, as did educational attainment.

OCCUPATION

The relationship of main occupational level and social background is theprimary focus of our inquiry. The four socioeconomic variables explain 15percent of the variance in the first reduced form model with father’soccupation and size of community of origin having the largest total effects.Much of the effect of social origins, especially parental education, is medi-ated by educational attainment which adds an additional 10 percentage


points of variance explained. Most interesting for our study is the net effectof prior residence.

As reported in Table 2, return migrants have, on the average, anoccupation that is over 7 SEI points lower than the average first-timeimmigrant. This is quite a significant difference considering the mean forthe entire sample is only about 22 points. One possible hypothesis ex-pressed was that this difference is simply due to joint association of poorersocial origins and education with the prior residence variable. However,model 12 in Table 3 shows that even controlling for social background,return migrants will still have an occupation 4 points lower than first-timeimmigrants. This finding is contrary to our original hypothesis. Perhapsother variables excluded from this model would explain this findings.10But I think this basic finding-that prior U.S. residence itself serves toreduce occupational levels from what would be expected on the basis ofsocial background alone-is a plausible one. I will discuss it more in thefinal section. English language ability has only a very modest effect onoccupational status (one that would not be statistically significant usingconventional standards), but it partially suppresses the negative effect ofprior U.S. residence. Controlling for English language ability and age, thefinal model shows return migrants are lower by almost 5 occupational SEIpoints than first-time migrants, almost 70 percent of the bivariate effect(-4.7/-7.5).

Discussion and Conclusions

The latest official statistics for 1975 provide an estimate of the population ofMexican-origin in the United States of about 6 to 7 million, about one outof every 20 Americans. Only a small minority of this Mexican-Americanpopulation, perhaps one milion or so, were born outside of the U.S. To thisestablished community of Americans with Mexican heritage is added everyyear an increment of 50,000-70,000 of legal immigrants from Mexico. Theremay be a small return flow of Mexican-Americans to Mexico every year,but we have no reliable figures on this. Because birth and death statisticsare not tabulated separately for those of Mexican-origin, it is difficult totrace the growth and population dynamics of this community.

There is another population of Mexican-origin in the United Statesconsisting of persons who have migrated from Mexico outside the normallegal channels of immigration. Because of the very nature of their status,they are missed in the official statistics of immigrants and presumably aresignificantly under-counted in regular censuses and national surveys. Wehave no real idea of their numbers or growth in recent years, althoughsome have given estimates that range from 5 to 10 million. If true, thissuggests errors in national statistics of unprecedented proportions.


The implications of this dual nature of the Mexican-origin com-

munity pose some very critical questions about the functioning of theAmerican political economy as well as the effects of ethnicity in a pluralsociety. Immigrants are motivated to cross international borders in order toseek a better life, largely but not entirely, in socioeconomic terms. This istrue for both those who pass through the legal channels of immigration aswell as those who cross the border in an undocumented status. Theapparent fact that both legal and illegal migration from Mexico have con-tinued and even expanded in recent years suggests that some needs of theimmigrants and of United States economy are being met. But saying thistells us little about the part played by immigration in American society andthe effects on immigrants themselves. It is difficult to thoroughly investi-

gate the determinants and consequences of these migration streams whenour empirical net catches only one part (legal) of the How in one direction.But in several ways, our present study has contributed to a greater under-standing of the situation.

First it is clear that legal and illegal immigration cannot meaningfullybe separated as pertaining to different populations. It appears that priorresidence in the United States is widespread among legal Mexican immi-

grants and the process of immigration is not a single step phenomenon.The modal process seems to be circular flow in which knowledge, experi-ence, and family ties are acquired in the United States which may enablesome immigrants to legitimize their status in the U.S. While this findingmay not be surprising to many knowledgeable observers, it does representan atypical pattern of international migration.

In another direction, our study questions the usual assumption thatlength of residence in a host society has a positive impact on the SES ofimmigrants. The usual expectation is that the very fact of living in the hostsociety will enable immigrants to improve their socioeconomic position.However our finding was that persons who had lived in the U.S. werelower in their educational and occupation levels than those entering theU.S. for the first time. Part of the explanation seems to be that the return

migrants reflect the poorer circumstances that led to their illegal migration.Perhaps it is also the case that a large proportion of first-time migrantsmust meet firmer quality checks due to the selective application of thelabor certification requirement. But even controlling for social backgroundand educational attainment, return-migrants seem to encounter an addi-tional obstacle in acquiring occupational status relative to first-time mi-

grants. What is it about prior residence in the U.S. among immigrants thatcreates a handicap rather than an advantage? The most obvious explana-tion is that Mexican immigrants encounter discrimination in American

society in the process of acquiring an occupation. This process has affectedreturn-immigrants, but the penalty has yet to hit the first-time immigrants.But how can this interpretation be reconciled with the fact of the increasing


number of immigrants? If occupational status is more fairly distributed toMexicans before migration to the U.S., what is the driving motivationbehind the migration? The reasons may lie in the simple opportunities forwork and higher monetary reward that are unavailable in Mexico. Toobtain these ends, immigrants may have to work at lower occupationallevels than their social background would otherwise predict.

Notes

1. The Mexican-origin population was measured as a category of the Spanish-origin questionwhich asks about the person’s "origin or descent." The question was asked of a 5 percentsample of the census population. For the official definition see U.S. Bureau of the Census (a,App.-18). For a concise review of measures to identify persons with a Latin Americanheritage in U.S. Censuses, see Redden.2. There was only one category denoting Mexican-origin (Mexican) in 1970 Census, whilerecent Current Population Surveys have four (Mexican American, Chicano, Mexican, andMexicano). Also in the CPS, all children under age 14 were assigned to Spanish-origin ifeither of their parents were Spanish-origin, while in the 1970 Census each respondentdetermined the origin of household members, including children. For more details, see U.S.Bureau of the Census, (d, 7-9; e, 62).3. Of the 2.2 million increase, assume that 400,000 were a result of natural increase (basedupon 1.8% annual rate of natural increase, see U.S. Bureau of the Census, e, 62) and that therewere 329,000 legal immigrants (based on reported INS figures for 1970-74 fiscal years andassuming 1975 immigration equals 1974 immigration, see U.S. Department of Justice, 59); thisleaves about a 1.4 or 1.5 million increase in the Mexican-origin population that could resultfrom measurement differences in the two data sources and/or illegal immigration.4. These regulations have just been changed by new legislation effective in 1977.5. The correlation between main occupation and last occupation (both scored using theDuncan SEI) of immigrants reporting both was .91.6. The correlation matrix of all variables in this model is presented in an appendix to thispaper.7. Father’s occupation and respondent’s occupation are scored using the Duncan Socio-economic Index. Parental and respondent’s education are measured in the number of formalyears of schooling completed. Size of community of origin is a seven category scale of thepopulation size of the community in which the respondent grew up. The scale ranged from avalue of 1 for communities of less than 10,000 to a value of 7 for communities greater than onemillion population. The English language index is a measure of comprehension of Englishbased on the respondent’s ability to translate seven English sentences into Spanish. Theindex is the sum of the normalized scores of the seven items.8. Since our sample is not a probability sample, the usual statistical rules of inference are notapplicable. But since there is no alternative in judging whether small, but interpretable,effects are within the margins of error, the standard error, based on assumptions of randomsampling are reported below each unstandardized coefficient in Table 3. Our general rule ofthumb is to report and discuss coefficients twice their standard error, with occasional excep-tions for variables with an important substantive interpretation.9. If age is entered as a series of dummy variables to account for the curvilinear relationshipnoted earlier, it does add another 4 percentage points to R2.10. It is impossible to control for labor certification with the present survey data. But since sofew immigrants must pass this and since it represents a job guarantee more than a qualitycriterion, doubt that its inclusion in the model would change the results.


References

Abrams, E., and F. S. Abrams. 1975. "Immigration Policy-Who Gets In and Why?"Public Interest 38(Winter):3-29.

Blau, Peter, and Otis Dudley Duncan. 1967. The American Occupational Structure.New York: Wiley.

Briggs, V. M. a:1975. "Illegal Aliens: The Need for a More Restrictive BorderPolicy." Socfa; Science Quarterly 56(December):477-84.

b:1975. "Mexican Workers in the United States Labour Market." Interna-tional Labour Review 112(0ctober):351-68.

Castells, M. 1975. "Immigrant Workers and Class Struggles in Advanced Capi-talism: The Western European Experience." Politics and Society 5(1):33-66.

Commission on Population Growth and the American Future. 1972. Population andthe American Future. Washington: Government Printing Office.

Duncan, 0. D. 1961. "A Socioeconomic Index For All Occupations." In Albert J.Reiss (ed.). Occupations and Social Status. Glencoe: Free Press.

Fogel, W. A. 1975. "Immigrant Mexicans and the U.S. Work Force." Monthly LaborReview 98(May):44-6.

Fortney, J. 1972. "Immigration into the United States with Special Reference toProfessional and Technical Workers." In U.S. Commission on PopulationGrowth and the American Future, Charles F. Westoff and Robert Parke Jr.(eds.). Demographic and Social Aspects of Population Growth. Washington: Gov-ernment Printing Office.

Gordon, W. 1975. "The Case for a Less Restrictive Border Policy." Soda; Science

Quarterly 56(December):485-91.Irwin, R., and R. Warren. 1972. "Demographic Aspects of American Immigration."

In U.S. Commission on Population Growth and the American Future, CharlesF. Westoff and Robert Parke Jr. (eds.). Demographic and Social Aspects of Popula-tion Growth. Washington: U.S. Government Printing Office.

Keely, C. a:1971. "Effects of the Immigration Act of 1965 on Selected PopulationCharacteristics ofImmigrants to the United States." Demography 8(May):157-69.

b:1972. "Immigration: Considerations on Trends, Prospects, and Pol-

icy." In U.S. Commission on Population Growth and the American Future,Charles F. Westoff and Robert Parke Jr. (eds.). Demographic and Social Aspects ofPopulation Growth. Washington: Government Printing Office.

c:1975. "Effects of U.S. Immigration Laws on Manpower Characteris-tics of Immigrants." Demography 12(May):179-92.

Piore, M. 1975. "Impact of Immigration on the Labor Force." Monthly Labor Review

98(May):41-4.Fortes, A. a:1974. "Return of the Wetback." Society ll(March-April):40-6.

b:1976. "Occupation and Lower-Class Political Orientations in Chile."In Arturo Valenzuela and J. Samuel Valenzuela (eds.) Chile: Politics and Society.New Brunswick: Transaction Books.

c:1976. "Why Illegal Migration? A Structural Perspective." Occasionalpaper, Latin American Immigration Project. Department of Sociology, Duke

University.Fortes, A., and S. A. McLeod. 1977. "Immigrant Migration." Unpublished paper,

Department of Sociology, Duke University.Redden, C. 1976. "Identification of Spanish Heritage Persons in Public Data."

Reuiew of Public Data Use 4(May):3-ll.Sewell, William, and Robert Hauser. 1975. Education, Occupation, and Earnings. New

York: Academic Press.


Siegel, J. 1974. "Estimates of Coverage of the Population by Sex, Race, and Age inthe 1970 Census." Demography ll(February):l-24.

Taeuber, Irene, and Conrad Taeuber. 1971. People of the United States (a CensusMonograph). Washington: Government Printing Office.

U.S. Bureau of the Census. a:1973. Census of the Population: 1970. Vol. 1, Characteris-tics of the Population. Parti, U.S. Summary- Section 1. Washington: GovernmentPrinting Office.

b:1973. Census of the Population: 1970. Subject Reports. Final Report PC(2)-1A National origin and J^anguage. Washington: Government Printing Office.

c:1973. Census of the Population: 1970. Subject Reports. Final Report PC(2) -1C. Persons of Spanish Origin. Washington: Government Printing Office.

d:1974. Current Population Reports, Series P-20, No. 264, "Persons ofSpanish Origin in the United States: March 1973" Washington: GovernmentPrinting Office.

e:1976. Current Population Reports, Series P-20, No. 290, "Persons ofSpanish Origin in the United States: March 1975." Washington: GovernmentPrinting Office.

U.S. Department of Justice. 1974. Annual Report: Immigration and NaturalizationService, 1974. Washington: Government Printing Office.

APPENDIX-OVER

Appendix. ZERO-ORDER CORRELATIONS. MEANS, AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS OF VARIABLESAMONG MEXICAN IMMIGRANT SAMPLE

Father’s

Education

Father’s

education

Father’s

occupation .469

Mothers

education -636

Size of

origin

community .342

Education -479

Prior U.S.

residence -.218

English

ability .282

Age -.216

Main

occupation .303

Father’s

Occupation

.281

.255

.297

-.046

.205

-.042

.287

Mother’s

Education

.270

.478

-.141

.257

-.161

.274

Size

Co

of Orig

mmunlty

.323

.249

.191

.113

.269

in

Educattc

-.211

.359

-.309

.474

Prior U.S.

Restdence

.214

.150

-.230

English

Ability

-.045

.190 -.021

Main

Occupation Means

3.507

20.032

3.491

3.133

6.411

0.616

0.448

27.929

21.870

Standard

Deviations

3.401

17.579

2.847

1.917

3.122

0.487

1.409

7.905

15.613

forces social - university of washington pubs/a15.pdf · n82 socialforces vol. 56:4, june1978 tion...

Documents