A bevándorlók és azok beilleszkedési modelljei

Nemzetközi Migráció

Models of adaptation Upward mobility and incorporation into the host

society – assimilation model (e.g. Gordon 1964) Pluralist model – (Klaff 1980, Peach 1997) Segmented Assimilation Framework (Portes and

Böröcz 1989, Skop 2001, Portes-Zhou 1993) Segmented Assimilation Framework extended

with place and time factors (Skop 2001, Woltman and Newbold 2009, Hardwick 1993)

Heterolocalism (Zelinsky and Lee 1998) Acculturation strategies of ethno-cultural groups

and larger society (Berry 2011)

The assimilation model

Significant numbers of immigrants initially occupy less desirable tracts near a large city center

Residental mobility (toward the more attractive zones) follows from the acculturation and the social mobility of individuals

Residental mobility is an intermediate step on the way to more complete assimilation

The model may have been temporally- and country-specific, a creature of a unique period in American history

The pluralist model

Mosaic of self-sustaining ethnic communities, each firmly engaged in the larger polity, economy and society but still retaining a traditional identity and complex of cultural practices in perpetuity

At the metropolitan level: population is both highly diverse and highly segregated

At the group level: there is strong spatial overlap among residential, economic and social spheres, influenced in only a minor fashion by upward mobility, English language acquisition.

Segmented Assimilation Framework(Portes and Böröcz 1989, Portes - Zhou 1993,

Skop 2001)

Segmented assimilation framework

Nature of immigration

(condition of exit)

Voluntary

Forced

Resources and characteristics of

immigrants

(the class origin of immigrants)

savings, human capital,

culture, nationality, ethnicity, religion, race, etc.

Host country reception

(the contexts of reception)

policy,immigration law,

level of discrimination,

racism

culture, etc.

Segmented Assimilation Framework extended with place and time factors

(Woltman - Newbold, 2009; Hardwick, 1993)

Segmented assimilation framework

Nature of immigration

Voluntary

Forced

Resources and characteristics of

immigrants

savings, human capital,

culture, nationality, ethnicity, religion, race, etc.

Host country reception

policy,immigration law,

level of discrimination,

racism

culture, etc.

Time and spatial factors

Period of arrival (regional,

national forces: labor markets,

economic opportunities)

Place of resettlement

(rural or urban area)

Heterolocalism model

Immediate or prompt spatial dispersion Spatial disjuncture between home and work, or

home and sites of social activity Absence of spatial propinquity, but strong ethnic

community ties via telecommunications Time-dependent phenomenon – technological

conditions Can be observed in both metropolitan and non-

metropolitan settings

IMMEDIATE OR PROMPT SPATIAL DISPERSION

CAN BE OBSERVED IN BOTH METROPOLITAN AND NON-METROPOLITAN SETTINGS

More than 76% of them came directly to this areaMore than 84% of them had friends or relatives in

this area before they cameEveryone has friends now in the area where they

liveAround 73% of them live in the area where other

Russians live7 months after they entered the US they found a job

QUESTIONNAIRE SURVEY

Spatial disjuncture between home and work, or home and sites of social activity

ABSENCE OF SPATIAL PROPINQUITY, BUT STRONG ETHNIC COMMUNITY TIES VIA TELECOMMUNICATIONS

TIME-DEPENDENT PHENOMENON – TECHNOLOGICAL CONDITIONS

Russian Speaking Students Unit

Russian Seattle

Heterolocalism Discussion

What new factor(s) do Zelinsky and Lee identify in their model (spatial/socio-spatial behaviors)? Why do they consider this factor to be so significant? Do you agree with them?

How does this new sociospatial behavior/factor impact the integration/assimilation process? What is the difference between a traditional “diaspora” and the new transmigrants? According to the authors, what is the relationship between heterolocalism, transnationalism

and the changing role of technology? Does their model work without these technological changes? Is technology alone enough to predict that this “heterolocal” migration trend will become more widespread?

What is the impact of time and/or generational factors on the strength and sustainability of transnational and/or heterolocal migrant communities?

What role does privilege and access to resources play in the establishment and continued viability of transnational and/or heterolocal migrant communities? How might these communities be strengthened over time?

Based on any or all of the following: internal logic of the argument, alternative theories, or evidence based on course materials, your own research or your own experiences, do you find any weaknesses in Zelinsky and Lee’s theory? On balance do you find their contribution useful in thinking and theorizing transnational migration?

Acculturation strategies of ethno-cultural groups and larger society (Berry 2011)

• Exclusion• Segregation

• Melting pot• Multiculturalism

Integra-tion

Assimi-lation

Margina-lization

Separa-tion

+ -

Maintenance of heritage culture and identity

Rel

atio

nshi

ps s

ough

t am

ong

grou

ps

+

-

Migration

Place of DeparturePlace of Destination

PE IG

Distance

Political and Natural Borders

Model of migration and integration

Model of immigration and integrationEffects on the migration:• Characteristics of the potential

emigrants,• Perceived condition of the place of

departure by the potential emigrants,• Bond with the place of departure and

its people by the potential emigrants or immigrants (size of the group!),

• Experience of immigrants in the place of destination

• Existence and nature of relationship, and information exchange between potential emigrants of the place of departure and immigrants of the destination

Effects on the migration:• Characteristics of the place of departure,• Characteristics of the distance between the places of departure and destination,• Permeability (politically and physically) of the border(s) between the places of departure and destination• Characteristics of the place of destination,• Macro level relationship between the places of departure and destination,• Information exchange between the places of departure and destination

Time and space factors

Model of immigration and integration

Time and space factors

Characteristics of respondents (immigrants). Attitude: happiness and national identityPerceived condition of and bond with the place and its people

Washington State

Scotland

How happy they were/are (scale 1-5)to live in their countries of origin 3.43 3.61when they entered 3.63 3.61now 4.22 4.11

Their national identity (%)

Russian 66.7 73Russian American 3.7 -Russian with Jewish roots 5.6 -Ukrainian 5.6 -Estonian - 2.7No 7.4 18.9

Proud of their nationalities (scale 1-5) 3.56 4.19

Perceived condition of and bond with the place and its people

Statistics, scale 1-5 (1= the worse, 5=the best)

1. happiness level of living in their home

country

2. satisfaction when they

arrived at the USA/UK

3. how they like living in the

USA/UK now

difference between 2-1

difference between 3-1

better future for their children

3.35 3.62 4.49 0.27 1.14

bad economic situation in their home countries

3.46 3.64 4.42 0.18 0.96

all economic related reason

3.51 3.67 4.36 0.16 0.85

better economic situation in the new places

3.52 3.69 4.35 0.17 0.83

ethnic discrimination in their home countries

2.80 3.53 4.31 0.73 1.51

religious discrimination in their home countries

3.27 3.45 4.09 0.18 0.82

family reason 3.86 3.48 3.95 -0.38 0.10

How distance and the permeability of the borders could have effects on the migration and on immigrants integration?

Washington State (%)

Scotland (%)

Know people (relatives/friends) in the area before they came here

77.8 45.9

Would they like to return their Country of Origin?

no63 43.2

yes7.4 13.5

maybe27.8 37.8

The foreign born populationfrom 1850 to 2007 – former USSR source: US Census Bureau: http://www.census.gov/population/www/documentation/twps0029/tab04.html

0

200,000

400,000

600,000

800,000

1,000,000

1,200,000

1,400,000

1,600,000

1,800,000

1850 1870 1890 1910 1930 1950 1970 1990 2010

former USSR

Perceived condition of and bond with the place and its people

Washington State %

Scotland %

Live in the area where other people from their countries of origin live 68.5 64.9They have friends among them 53.7 51.4

Their friends’ nationalities

Only people with the same nationalities than they are

11.1 10.8

Closest friends among local Americans, Scottish, British people

26.2 27

Their closest friends’ nationalities The same nationalities than they are 65.6 64.9

Characteristics and reception of the place of destination

Supporting émigrésWashington

State %Scotland %

Received help when they moved to the USA / UK 66.7 29.7Received help to settle down, financial support 50 18.9

Financial support fromfamily 13 2.7government 16.7 5.4friends, company 5.6 -

Social network of the local Americans/Scottish people Washington State %

Scotland %

They have friends in their neighbourhood 84.3 86.7Their friends are only Americans/Scottish people - Sc+Br+En

11.8 36.7 - 63.7

Closest friend’s nationality is American/Scottish people -Sc+Br+En (Sc=Scottish; Br= British; En= English)

78.4 86.7 - 96.7

Characteristics of immigrants: education

Eston

ia

Latv

ia

Lithu

ania

Armen

ia

Azerb

aijan

Belaru

s

Georg

ia

Mold

ova

Russia

Ukrain

e

USSR

Kazak

hsta

n

Uzbek

istan

tota

l0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

2000 has a degree older than 20 2006-08 has a degree older than 20

per

cen

t

source: U.S. Census Bureau. 2006-2008 ACS 3-year PUMS files and 2000 PUMS files

How religion could have effect on immigrants integration?

Russians have not been typical of other Euroamerican immigrant groups in North America (Hardwick, 1993) Russian residential enclaves

have been relatively slow to disperse through time – slow assimilation

because of their religion (Orthodox, Old Believers, Doukhobors, Molokans, Baptists, Pentacostals)

because of their experience at home (persecution, discrimination, etc.)

Characteristics of respondents: making decision about leaving their country

Washington State %

Scotland %

Why did they leave their home countries?

Unfavourable economic circumstances in the CoO (Country of Origin)

24.1 29.7

Religious discrimination 22.3 2.7Ethnic discrimination 26 5.4Better economic situation in the USA /UK 37 62.2Better future for their children 38.9 43.2Family reason 18.5 29.7

Reception of the place of destination: discrimination

Scale 1: never – 5: alwaysWashington

StateScotland

discrimination because of their nationalities 1.37 1.35uncomfortable feeling because they are foreign 1.98 2.0feeling that they are not welcome because of their nationalities

1.77 1.57

disadvantages because of their English 2.59 2.37

Reception of the place of destination: attitude toward immigration in Scotland

What benefits/difficulties are there in Scotland in receiving immigrants

BenefitsDisadvantage

sCultural diversity 56.7 16.7Regarding employment 13.3 60Regarding qualification 30 3.3Growing population 10 -Increasing housing costs - 16.7Having problem to provide additional support - 16.7Some immigrants only use benefits but cannot give anything back to the country

- 6.7

Increasing crime level - 3.3

How micro-environment could have effect on immigrants integration?

“We have lots of help. Lots of people, American people around offering help like once a week, twice a week you could come they could help with the language, it was amazing. And one person who we used to live with in an apartment building, her name is Miss C, at the time when we met she was an international counselor at the Seattle Pacific University. She offered us help, right away when we came after a week, she helped us with language, and she helped Michael, my husband, and he started a couple of courses at the Seattle Pacific University. This lady was amazing to us.” (Lena, November 2009)

Summary – Two stories of the immigration

-Receiving society is more open: „We are also immigrants”

-Only 11,8% of them had no international friends

-Immigrants from the countries of the former SU were more desperate to leave their home country,

-They were the most unhappy at their home countries and now they are the happiest

Washington State -Multiculturism is rather a

good thing, but local citizens are concerned about its disadvantages

-For a Scottish person an English man or woman can be perceived as a foreigner

-More immigrants are thinking about moving back to their home countries,

-Mainly economic immigrants

-They are more proud to their nationalities

Scotland