Upload
zvaldez
View
222
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
8/4/2019 Segmented Assimilation Among Mexicans in the Southwest
1/28
The Sociological Quarterly 47 (2006) 397 424 2006 Midwest Sociological Society 397
The Sociological Quarterly ISSN 0038-0253
ac we u s n . x or , an a en, e oc o o ca uar er y - ac we u s n . Segmente Assm atonZuema Va ez
*Please direct all correspondence to Zulema Valdez, Department of Sociology, Texas A&M University, 4351TAMU, College Station, TX 77843-4351; e-mail: [email protected]
SEGMENTED ASSIMILATION AMONG
MEXICANS IN THE SOUTHWEST
Zulema Valdez*
Texas A&M University
This article examines segmented assimilation among foreign-born and U.S.-born Mexicans.
Using the 2000 census, this article investigates how immigrants length of residence in the
United States and nativity affect the earnings and self-employment outcomes of low- and high-
skilled Mexican men and women in the Southwest. Findings reveal that the earnings of low-
skilled, foreign-born Mexicans decrease as immigrants reside in the United States longer and
are generally lower among the U.S. born than the foreign born. In contrast, the earnings of high-skilled, foreign-born Mexicans increase as immigrants reside in the United States longer and are
generally higher among U.S.-born Mexicans than foreign-born Mexicans. Moreover, self-
employment participation decreases as immigrants reside in the United States longer and is lower
among the U.S. born than the foreign born, regardless of skill. Since self-employment results in
lower earnings, a decline in self-employment indicates economic progress. Furthermore, men are
generally better off than women. Drawing from segmented assimilation theory, findings support
the downward assimilation hypothesis among low-skilled Mexicans and the Anglo-conformity
hypothesis among high-skilled Mexicans. Overall, this research provides evidence of intragroup
differences in segmented assimilation among foreign-born and U.S.-born Mexicans in the
Southwest.
Socioeconomic assimilation refers to the gradual process of incorporation, as immigrants
and their descendants integrate into the United States economy (Myrdal 1944; Park 1950;
Warner and Srole 1945; Lieberson 1963; Gordon 1964; Alba 1990; Waters 1990; Gans
1992). Classic assimilation theory, specifically that of Anglo-conformity, predicts a grad-
ual convergence to the socioeconomic outcomes of middle-class, non-Hispanic whites
(Lieberson 1963:8; Gordon 1964:74; Gans 1992:174; Portes and Zhou 1993:82). Yet, this
upwardly mobile path is not guaranteed. Contemporary research on immigrant adapta-
tion observes a mismatch between the assumptions of classic assimilation theory and the
empirical reality of newer non-European ethnic and racial groups (Borjas 1990; Portesand Rumbaut 1990; Glazer 1993; Portes and Zhou 1993; Alba and Nee 1997; Zhou 1997;
Kasinitz, Mollenkopf, and Waters 2004:394). Rather than a pattern of gradual conver-
gence to the white middle class, some ethnic and racial groups proceed in the opposite
direction, toward permanent poverty and assimilation into the underclass (Portes and
Rumbaut 2001:82)what has been coined downward assimilation (Model 1991;
Portes and Zhou 1993; Butcher 1994; Fernandez-Kelly and Schauffler 1994; Zhou 1997;
8/4/2019 Segmented Assimilation Among Mexicans in the Southwest
2/28
398
The Sociological Quarterly 47 (2006) 397 424 2006 Midwest Sociological Society
Segmented Assimilation
Zulema Valdez
Portes and Rumbaut 2001). For example, Kalmijn (1996) finds that Spanish- and French-
speaking Caribbean immigrants experience a decline in their socioeconomic outcomes
that eventually reflect those of the U.S.-born black population.
Recent studies on Mexicans socioeconomic assimilation observe two contradictorytrends. The first reveals a trend toward declining socioeconomic outcomes. This research
shows that Mexicans socioeconomic development is arrested (Schoeni 1997), on the
decline (Morales and Bonilla 1993; Ortiz 1996), and may reflect a pattern of downward
assimilation (Fernandez-Kelly and Schauffler 1994; Portes and Rumbaut 2001). A second
trend suggests that Mexicans are making economic progress; although disadvantaged,
this group remains distinct from the underclass (Moore and Pinderhughes 1993;
Waldinger and Feliciano 2004).
This article expands upon previous research by examining Mexicans segmented
assimilation. Using the 2000 census, this study investigates how immigrants length of
residence in the United States and nativity affect socioeconomic assimilation, as mea-sured by workers earnings, self-employment participation, and self-employment earn-
ings. Assimilation takes place over time and generations; therefore, this investigation
attempts to capture assimilation in progress by conducting an analysis of the socioeco-
nomic outcomes of foreign-born Mexicans (as length of residence increases) and U.S.-
born Mexicans against U.S.-born, non-Hispanic whites. Furthermore, since differences
in Mexicans economic incorporation are rooted in gender (Xu and Leffler 1992;
Hondagneu-Sotelo 1994; Schoeni 1998) and skill-level (Enchautegui 1998), I conduct
separate analyses by these factors to expose divergent trends in Mexicans socioeconomic
assimilation.This research uses one common measure of socioeconomic attainmentworkers
hourly earningsand further develops this concept to include self-employment partici-
pation and self-employment earnings (as two additional measures). Self-employment
participation is associated with economic mobility among entrepreneurial ethnic
groups, such as Cubans and Koreans (Portes and Bach 1985; Light and Bonacich 1988;
Waldinger et al. 1990; Rath 2000; Lee 2002). However, since Mexican self-employment
participation is negligible, it is often overlooked (Raijman and Tienda 2000:783).
Whether this economic activity contributes to Mexicans economic progress is unclear.
Thus, this research expands the scope of socioeconomic status beyond workers outcomes
only and contributes to the ethnic entrepreneurship literature by examining this under-studied group.
The question of Mexican socioeconomic assimilation is important to the U.S. econ-
omy in general and the Mexican community in particular, since the Mexican population
is large and growing. Recent census figures show that Mexicans, the largest Hispanic
group in the United States, increased their numbers by 52.9 percent from 1990 to 2000
(from 13.5 to 20.6 million) (Guzman 2001). Although migration patterns are increasingly
expanding across the United States, three-fourths of the Mexican population remains
concentrated in the Southwest (Guzman 2001).
1
This research focuses on the Southwest
for two reasons. First, the Southwest contains a large and diverse Mexican population
spanning time and generations. As such, the Southwest provides the most diverse
8/4/2019 Segmented Assimilation Among Mexicans in the Southwest
3/28
Zulema Valdez
Segmented Assimilation
The Sociological Quarterly 47 (2006) 397 424 2006 Midwest Sociological Society
399
Mexican-origin population in the United States from which to assess variation in hourly
earnings across length of residence, nativity, gender, and skill level. Second, the Southwest
is a geographically concentrated area of immigrant and ethnic settlement, a necessary
ingredient for the formation of ethnic economies and ethnic entrepreneurs (Wilson andPortes 1980; Wilson and Martin 1982; Portes and Bach 1985:343; Logan et al. 1994:694).
Since self-employed Mexicans constitute a small subgroup of the Mexican-origin popu-
lation, the Southwest provides a large, ethnically concentrated, geographic region from
which to draw a sufficient number of self-employed Mexicans for analysis.
SEGMENTED ASSIMILATION
Segmented assimilation attempts to explain destinies of convergence and divergence
(Zhou 1997:984) among todays ethnic and racial minority groups (Alba and Nee 1997;
Zhou 1997, 2001; Portes and Rumbaut 2001; Kasinitz et al. 2004:395). Segmented assim-ilation theory offers two hypotheses to explain Mexicans socioeconomic assimilation:
downward assimilation and Anglo-conformity.
2
The downward assimilation hypothesis suggests that individual and group disadvan-
tages combine with a negative context of reception, which results in a downward trend in
socioeconomic outcomes. On average, Mexicans are a disadvantaged group, as they
possess limited human capital (education and work experience) and English skills
(Borjas 1985, 1990; Borjas and Tienda 1993; Phillips and Massey 1999; Portes and
Rumbaut 2001). Portes and Rumbaut (2001:282) argue that such deficiencies are repro-
duced over time, as Mexican immigrants and their descendants acculturate into the U.S.economy and society. For example, they observe a decline in educational attainment as
foreign-born Mexicans reside in the United States longer, and they note that U.S.-born
Mexicans dropout rates are higher than those of their foreign-born counterparts (chaps.
8 and 9). Similarly, Fernandez-Kelly and Schauffler (1994:678) characterize Mexicans as
a highly homogenous and vulnerable group whose declining educational attainment
and skills constitute downward assimilation. Furthermore, research on wage inequality
demonstrates that the wage gap between Mexicans and non-Hispanic whites is partially
explained by human capital differences. Low human capital relegates Mexicans to low-
wage, low-skilled occupations with limited opportunities for advancement (Schoeni
1997). Such occupations maintain wage discrepancies over time and in some instancesincrease the wage gap (Schoeni 1997; Enchautegui 1998).
A negative context of reception also contributes to Mexicans socioeconomic decline.
Nativist policies, a demand for low-wage, low-skilled labor, citizenship status, and poor
returns on human capital combine to ensure Mexicans weak economic performance
(Portes and Rumbaut 2001; Sanders and Nee 1996). In particular, legal status affects labor
market outcomes. Undocumented immigrants face greater hardships in employment
and wages (Kossoudji and Cobb-Clark 2002) and are more likely to face exploitation and
discrimination than permanent legal residents or naturalized citizens (Donato, Durand,
and Massey 1992). Moreover, a continued climate of hostility against Mexican
immigration (Fernandez-Kelly and Schauffler 1994:681) leads to persistent
8/4/2019 Segmented Assimilation Among Mexicans in the Southwest
4/28
400
The Sociological Quarterly 47 (2006) 397 424 2006 Midwest Sociological Society
Segmented Assimilation
Zulema Valdez
discrimination that affects their economic development. Purveyors of the downward
assimilation hypothesis conclude that human capital constraints coupled with an
unfavorable context of reception hinders economic progress. Under these conditions,
Mexican immigrants and their descendants may not improve their economic conditionsover time; what is more, they may experience downward assimilation.
In contrast to the downward assimilation perspective, the Anglo-conformity hypoth-
esis posits that assimilating into a mainstream American (white) middle class culture
(Kasinitz et al. 2004:395) provides an opportunity for upward mobility. Historically,
southern central Europeans, such as Germans, followed this path (Glazer and Moynihan
1963:313); today, eastern European Jews are following in their footsteps (Alba and Nee
1997:836). As Kasinitz et al. (2004) conclude, we now know that those with European-
born grandparents or even more distant European ancestors did assimilate, even as they
reshaped that mainstream and created new meanings for their ethnic ancestries (p. 394).
Similarly, Alba and Nee (2003) argue that existing immigration policy and civil rights leg-islation allow contemporary immigrant groups from Asia, Africa, and Latin America to
assimilate into and remake the mainstream. Accordingly, although evidence reveals a
downward trend in Mexicans socioeconomic outcomes (Tienda and Wilson 1992;
Tienda and Singer 1995; Schoeni 1997), research also demonstrates economic progress.
In comparing joblessness among Mexicans, non-Hispanic whites, blacks, and Puerto
Ricans, Waldinger and Feliciano (2003) find that Mexicans are closer to non-Hispanic
whites in their rates of joblessness than blacks or Puerto Ricans, groups perceived to expe-
rience downward assimilation. Consequently, they argue that Mexicans are moving
ahead (Waldinger and Feliciano 2004:29). Allensworth (1997) also reveals uniform evi-dence of Mexicans economic advancement. He finds that as foreign-born Mexicans
reside in the United States longer, their earnings increase and eventually reach parity with
those of their U.S.-born counterparts (although earnings do not converge with those of
U.S.-born, non-Hispanic whites). Smiths (2003) findings are more optimistic, as he con-
cludes, Each new Latino generation not only has higher incomes than their forefathers,
but their economic status converged toward the white men with whom they competed
(p. 319). Hence, although disadvantaged, these studies find evidence of Anglo-
conformity among Mexicans.
Overall, such convincing and contradictory evidence suggests that two divergent
trends explain the Mexican case. Whereas some Mexicans experience a decline in socio-economic outcomes, others experience improvement. To illustrate, Zhou (2001) main-
tains that on some measures, such as education, Mexicans continue to lag behind other
ethnic groups, but on others, such as gainful employment, Mexicans fare better (Zhou
2001:203). Additionally, Rodriguez (1993) concedes that a majority of Mexicans in the
Southwest face high rates of joblessness, poverty, and crime; yet, he also observes a vibrant
and thriving Mexican ethnic economy. Similarly, Valdez (1993) suggests that in high-
crime, high-poverty Southwest border towns, social mobility is possible for a small pro-
portion of Mexican Americans whose class interests often conflict with a majority of this
population (p. 173). Camarillo and Bonilla (2001) echo this sentiment, and conclude
that tens of thousands of second- and third-generation Mexican Americans . . . seem to
8/4/2019 Segmented Assimilation Among Mexicans in the Southwest
5/28
Zulema Valdez
Segmented Assimilation
The Sociological Quarterly 47 (2006) 397 424 2006 Midwest Sociological Society
401
be following a stair-step rise in status, while others remain trapped as a class of severely
impoverished people living in urban barrios
. . . . The Hispanic underclass (p. 131). Ulti-
mately, it is likely that Mexicans socioeconomic assimilation patterns are segmented,
with signs of group progress matched by signs of decline and stagnation (p. 104).In this article, I investigate how these two divergent patterns of segmented assimila-
tion affect Mexicans socioeconomic outcomes, as measured by workers earnings, self-
employment participation and self-employment earnings. Since assimilation is a gradual
process, I compare the socioeconomic outcomes of foreign-born Mexicans (as length of
residence increases) and U.S.-born Mexicans to those of U.S.-born, non-Hispanic whites.
In addition, I conduct separate analyses by gender and skill-level since these factors
have been shown to affect the economic incorporation of women and ethnic and racial
minority groups. For example, gender discrimination in the workplace decreases
womens wages relative to men (Xu and Leffler 1992). Furthermore, low-skilled workers
face greater hardships and disadvantages in the U.S. economy. To illustrate, Enchautegui(1998) finds that the wages of low-skilled workers are on the decline and further notes
that low-skilled, foreign-born workers are more likely to face poverty than the U.S.-born
(p. 812). Hence, I consider gender and skill level to expose divergent trends in Mexicans
socioeconomic assimilation, which may inform patterns of segmented assimilation.
Below, I briefly summarize each hypothesis of segmented assimilation theory as it applies
to the socioeconomic outcomes of Mexicans and draw out the empirical implications of
each.
EMPIRICAL IMPLICATIONS
The downward assimilation hypothesis posits that Mexicans will experience a decline in
socioeconomic outcomes as they integrate into permanent poverty and assimilation into
the underclass (Portes and Zhou 1993:82). Thus, as foreign-born Mexicans reside in the
United States longer, their socioeconomic outcomes will not improve and may even
decline. Furthermore, U.S.-born Mexicans will not outperform their foreign-born coun-
terparts, nor will their socioeconomic outcomes converge with those of U.S.-born, non-
Hispanic whites.
3
Finally, if skill-level affects economic integration, its consideration may
expose divergent trends in Mexicans socioeconomic outcomes. Specifically, low-skilled
Mexicans may lag behind high-skilled Mexicans and experience downward assimilation.The second hypothesis maintains a classic notion of Anglo-conformity and eventual
integration into the white middle class (Warner and Srole 1945; Gans 1992:175; Portes
and Zhou 1993:82). Specifically, a gradual increase in foreign-born Mexicans socioeco-
nomic outcomes will be observed as they reside in the U.S. longer. Moreover, U.S.-born
Mexicans will outperform their foreign-born counterparts (although the socioeconomic
outcomes of U.S.-born Mexicans may lag behind those of U.S.-born, non-Hispanic
whites). Furthermore, if skill-level exposes divergent trends, then high-skilled Mexicans
will outperform low-skilled Mexicans. Last, although men and women may experience
similar trends in segmented assimilation rooted in skill-level, womens socioeconomic
outcomes may trail those of men.
8/4/2019 Segmented Assimilation Among Mexicans in the Southwest
6/28
402
The Sociological Quarterly 47 (2006) 397 424 2006 Midwest Sociological Society
Segmented Assimilation
Zulema Valdez
DATA
This analysis is based on the 5 percent sample of the 2000 census (Integrated Public Use
Microdata Series [IPUMS]). The sample is drawn from working-age (25 to 64 years old),
U.S.-born, non-Hispanic white, U.S.-born Mexican and foreign-born Mexican men andwomen who live in the Southwest (N =
845,122). The Southwest includes Arizona, Cal-
ifornia, Colorado, New Mexico, and Texas. I identify Mexicans using the census questions
on race and Hispanic origin. Mexicans are those who report their race as non-Hispanic
white and/or other race (Hispanic origin or Spanish write-in) in response to the race
question and Mexican in response to the Hispanic origin question.
4
Foreign-born and
U.S.-born status is determined using the census questions on ancestry and country of
birth. The foreign-born Mexicans are further classified by length of residence. Length of
residence is defined categorically using the census variable, year of immigration. In the
2000 census, year of immigration refers to the year that the respondent came to live in theUnited States (Ruggles et al. 2003).
5
Recent immigrants are those who arrived between
1990 and 2000 (10 years or less). Intermediate residents are those who immigrated
between 1980 and 1989 (11 to 20 years). Long-term residents are those who immigrated
before 1980 (21 years or more).
Some research cautions that using a single cross section of data to predict self-
employment participation (Borjas 1986:490) and earnings (Borjas 1985:467) over time
assumes that the quality of different immigrant cohorts is constant, which leads to
biased results. Regarding the Mexican-origin population, however, this assumption is
reasonable given that Mexico has been one of the top sending countries of legaland
undocumented
immigration since the 1960s. Legal immigrants tend to have higher skills,education, and English proficiency, while undocumented immigrants tend to have lower
skills, education, and English proficiency. Since the composition of this group includes
both legal and undocumented immigrants in large numbers (Fix and Passel 1994:2935),
the quality of this group is arguably stable over time.
The sample is further separated by gender and skill, the latter measured by Duncans
socioeconomic index of occupations (SEI), which classifies occupations based on educa-
tion and income (Duncan 1961; Ruggles et al. 2003). I define low-skilled persons as those
whose occupations fall in the bottom one-third of the SEI scale (lower skill and lower
wage); high-skilled persons are those whose occupations are found in the top one-third
of the SEI scale (higher skill and higher wage). Those who fall in the middle (approxi-
mately 40 percent of the original sample) are dropped from this analysis for a total of
507,855 persons. By using the SEI scale of occupations to classify respondents, economic
returns are more closely aligned with actual labor market experience and prospects.
Socioeconomic Status
I use three indicators of socioeconomic status: hourly earnings, self-employment partici-
pation, and self-employment earnings. I measure hourly earnings using the census
variables total personal earned income, which includes earnings from wages and salaries,
hours usually worked, and number of weeks worked among persons who identify as an
8/4/2019 Segmented Assimilation Among Mexicans in the Southwest
7/28
Zulema Valdez
Segmented Assimilation
The Sociological Quarterly 47 (2006) 397 424 2006 Midwest Sociological Society
403
employee (as someone who works for someone else). Because earnings vary at the
extremes, I use logged earnings in the analysis. Self-employment is defined using the cen-
sus variable, class of worker. Although self-employment encompasses a wide range of
activities, the majority of the self-employed (approximately 80 percent) are small busi-ness owners who work on their own account, hire one or no employees, or rely on
unpaid family labor (Hakim 1988; Rath 2000). Respondents are classified as self-
employed (coded 1) if they identify as self-employed in their own incorporated or
unincorporated business, professional practice, or farm, or coded 0 if not (i.e., work-
ers). Furthermore, I assess self-employment earnings using the census variable total per-
sonal earned income, among those who identify as self-employed (someone who works
on his or her own account or own enterprise). The self-employment earnings variable is
also logged.
Background Characteristics
Differences in hourly earnings, self-employment participation, and self-employment
earnings are affected by human capital (education and work experience). In this analysis,
age is included as a human capital variable since as people get older, they are likely to
acquire more work experience (Borjas 1985; Archer 1991) and skills and knowledge
valued in the U.S. economy (Tienda and Singer 1995). Education is defined as a series of
dummy variables that capture eighth grade or less (reference group), ninth grade through
high school graduate, some college through bachelors degree, and graduate or profes-
sional degree. In addition, I include English proficiency as an indicator of human capital,
since English proficiency has been shown to be a valued skill in the mainstream econ-omy, especially among immigrants (Tienda and Wilson 1992; Light and Roach 1996).
English proficiency is dummy coded, with the ability to speak English well or very
well coded as 1 and not well or not at all coded as 0.
Married status affects socioeconomic outcomes. Specifically, being married improves
mens earnings (Kalmijn 1996) and increases mens self-employment participation (Light
and Bonacich 1988). Whether married status has the same effect on womens earnings
and self-employment will be assessed here. Married status is defined as married (coded
as 1) and other (single, widowed, divorced) (coded as 0).
Citizenship status affects the labor market prospects and socioeconomic outcomes of
the foreign-born Mexicans (Tienda and Singer 1995). Citizenship status is defined as U.S.citizen or U.S. citizen by naturalization (the latter among the foreign born) (coded as 1)
and not a citizen (i.e., legal permanent residents and the undocumented) (coded as
0). There are differences among noncitizens. For instance, undocumented workers are
more likely to face exploitation (Portes and Bach 1985; Donato et al. 1992), fewer job
opportunities, and slower wage growth than legal permanent residents (Kossoudji and
Cobb-Clark 2002). Still, immigrants who have adjusted their status from undocumented
to legal, permanent residents are, on average, younger, less educated, and report fewer
years of U.S. residence than the total foreign-born population (Tienda and Singer
1995:115). Hence, although this latter category includes undocumented immigrants and
permanent legal residents (e.g., those with a green card), it is likely to capture the
8/4/2019 Segmented Assimilation Among Mexicans in the Southwest
8/28
404
The Sociological Quarterly 47 (2006) 397 424 2006 Midwest Sociological Society
Segmented Assimilation
Zulema Valdez
harsher context of reception among noncitizens, many of whom are younger, less edu-
cated, report fewer years of U.S. residence, and entered the United States illegally.
Finally, industry is included as an additional control variable, with retail industry
serving as the reference group.Table 1 presents some descriptive characteristics of the sample. With respect to age,
the U.S.-born, non-Hispanic, white population is at least three years older than the U.S.-
born Mexican or foreign-born population, on average (43 years compared to 40 years
among U.S.-born Mexicans and 37.5 years among foreign-born Mexicans).
Findings also indicate that foreign-born Mexicans are less educated than their
U.S.-born counterparts, and U.S.-born Mexicans are less educated than U.S.-born,
non-Hispanic whites. Fully 85.7 percent of foreign-born men and 81.5 percent of
foreign-born women report earning a high school education or less, but only around 5
percent report earning a bachelors degree or better. In comparison, 13 percent of U.S.-
born Mexican men and 15 percent of U.S.-born Mexican women received a bachelorsdegree or better. U.S.-born, non-Hispanic whites are twice as likely to hold a graduate
or professional degree as U.S.-born Mexican men and women. Moreover, and not
surprisingly, U.S.-born, non-Hispanic whites and Mexicans are fluent in English;
however, only 50 percent of foreign-born Mexicans report speaking English well or
very well.
Around 60 percent of this working-age population is married. The U.S.-born,
non-Hispanic white men are more likely to be married (66.5 percent), followed by
foreign-born Mexican men (64.3 percent), U.S.-born, non-Hispanic, white women
(61.5 percent), and U.S.-born Mexican men (60.3 percent). The U.S.-born Mexicanwomen are least likely to be married (56.4 percent).
Citizenship status is a birthright for those born in the United States, so citizenship sta-
tus is recorded here for the foreign-born only. Only 25.3 percent of men and 31.7 percent
of women identify as naturalized citizens, and approximately 75 percent of foreign-born
men and 60 percent of foreign-born women are noncitizens (legal permanent residents
or the undocumented).
The residential distribution of U.S.-born, non-Hispanic whites, U.S.-born Mexicans,
and foreign-born Mexicans is similar across the Southwest. Fully 85 percent of non-
Hispanic whites and Mexicans reside in just two states with differences among Mexicans
noted by nativity. The majority of U.S.-born, non-Hispanic whites (45 percent) andforeign-born Mexicans (55 percent) reside in California, followed by Texas. The majority
of U.S.-born Mexicans reside in Texas (48 percent), followed by California (38 percent).
Following California and Texas, non-Hispanic whites concentrate in Colorado, Arizona,
and then New Mexico; Mexicans concentrate in Arizona first, Colorado second, and New
Mexico third.
Just over 30 percent of foreign-born Mexican men and women identify as recent
immigrants to the United States (10 years or less). This number increases among interme-
diate residents (11 to 20 years); 42 percent of men and 39 percent of women are found in
this mid-range category. A decrease is noted among long-term, foreign-born men and
women (26 percent and 30 percent, respectively).
8/4/2019 Segmented Assimilation Among Mexicans in the Southwest
9/28
Zulema Valdez
Segmented Assimilation
The Sociological Quarterly 47 (2006) 397 424 2006 Midwest Sociological Society
405
TAB
LE1.
MeansofVariablesforU.S.-BornWhites,U.S.-BornMexicans,andForeign-BornMexicansinthe
Southwest,Aged2564in2000
White
Mexican
Men
Women
Men
Women
U.S.-born
U.S.-bo
rn
US-born
Foreig
n-born
U.S.-born
F
oreign-born
Age
43
43
40
37
40
38
Edu
cation
E
ighthgradeorless
0.9
0
.6
7.0
45.4
5.3
40.8
N
inththroughhighschoolgraduate
27.4
25
.7
45.4
39.4
41.4
39.8
S
omecollegethroughbachelors
58.5
62
.1
42.7
13.2
48.0
17.2
G
raduateorprofessionaldegree
13.2
11
.6
5.0
2.0
5.3
2.1
SpeaksEnglish
99.7
99
.7
97.2
50.4
97.8
47.9
Marriedstatus
66.5
61
.5
60.3
64.3
56.4
61.6
Citizenshipstatus
25.3
31.7
State(percent)
A
rizona
9.0
9
.2
6.9
7.0
7.1
6.4
C
alifornia
44.7
44
.6
37.7
54.6
38.8
56.9
C
olorado
10.3
10
.4
3.7
3.0
3.5
2.4
N
ewMexico
2.3
2
.3
3.4
1.6
3.0
1.6
T
exas
33.7
33
.4
48.3
33.8
47.6
32.8
Len
gthofResidenceinUnitedStates(percent)
R
ecent(lessthan10years)
NA
NA
NA
32.1
NA
31.6
Intermediate(1120years)
NA
NA
NA
41.9
NA
38.4
L
ong-term(21yearsormore)
NA
NA
NA
26.1
NA
30.0
Sou
rce:20005percentIntegratedPub
licUseMicrodataSeries(IPUMS),U.S.BureauoftheCensus.
Notes:NA,notapplicable;SEI,socioeconomicindex.
8/4/2019 Segmented Assimilation Among Mexicans in the Southwest
10/28
406
The Sociological Quarterly 47 (2006) 397 424 2006 Midwest Sociological Society
Segmented Assimilation
Zulema Valdez
Earnings
H
ourlyearnings
24.00
15
.75
15.65
10.86
12.25
8.06
L
oggedhourlyearnings
2.8
2
.4
2.4
2.1
2.2
1.7
T
otalearnings
55,617
31,645
34,395
23,171
24,166
1
4,949
Occ
upationalstatus(SEIscore):
S
EI
48.6
52
.8
37.7
23.8
46.5
27.0
L
ogofSEI
3.7
3
.9
3.4
2.9
3.7
3.0
Self-employedtotalearnings
68,724
33,632
44,903
30,613
26,129
1
7,307
Self-employedoccupationalstatus(SEIscore)
S
elf-employedSEI
49.5
49
.4
39.3
28.9
39.7
25.4
L
ogofself-employedSEI
3.7
3
.7
3.4
3.1
3.4
2.9
Self-employed(percent)
16.0
10
.2
8.9
8.7
4.9
7.8
UnweightedN
392,098
339,379
31,039
35,998
27,730
1
8,878
White
Mexican
Men
Women
Men
Women
U.S.-born
U.S.-bo
rn
US-born
Foreig
n-born
U.S.-born
F
oreign-born
Sou
rce:20005percentIntegratedPub
licUseMicrodataSeries(IPUMS),U.S.BureauoftheCensus.
Notes:NA,notapplicable;SEI,socioeconomicindex.
TAB
LE1.
Continued
8/4/2019 Segmented Assimilation Among Mexicans in the Southwest
11/28
Zulema Valdez
Segmented Assimilation
The Sociological Quarterly 47 (2006) 397 424 2006 Midwest Sociological Society
407
Generally, foreign-born Mexicans are younger, more likely to concentrate in Califor-
nia, and are less educated than their U.S.-born counterparts. U.S.-born Mexicans are
younger, more likely to concentrate in Texas, and are less educated than U.S.-born, non-
Hispanic whites. These factors, along with differences in married status, citizenship sta-tus, and industry, contribute to each groups overall socioeconomic outcomes. To exam-
ine segmented assimilation among Mexicans, I conduct a multivariate analysis that
investigates how immigrants length of residence in the United States and nativity affect
the socioeconomic outcomes of Mexicans, as compared to those of U.S.-born, non-
Hispanic whites, while holding constant these influential background factors and consid-
ering gender and skill level.
ANALYSIS STRATEGY
In Table 2, I present the unstandardized ordinary least squares (OSL) regression coeffi-cients of hourly earnings and the logistic regression odds ratios of self-employment par-
ticipation among foreign-born Mexicans (as length of residence increases) and U.S.-born
Mexicans against U.S.-born, non-Hispanic whites. In Table 3, I present OLS regression
coefficients of self-employment earnings among foreign-born Mexicans (as length of res-
idence increases) against U.S.-born Mexicans. Findings are presented in terms of percent
change.
FINDINGS
Earnings
To observe gradual changes in hourly earnings, I focus on length of residence among the
foreign born and nativity in model 1 of Table 2. Background characteristics that include
human capital, married status, citizenship status, and industry are added to the model in
model 2 of Table 2.
Model 1 of Table 2 reveals large differences in the hourly earnings of foreign-born and
U.S.-born Mexicans, when compared to U.S.-born, non-Hispanic whites. The hourly
earnings of foreign-born and U.S.-born Mexicans are significantly lower than those of
U.S.-born, non-Hispanic whites. Moreover, although foreign-born earnings improve as
immigrants reside in the United States longer, the hourly earnings of U.S.-born Mexicansremain significantly higher than those of their foreign-born counterparts.
With the inclusion of background characteristics in model 2 of Table 2, foreign-born
and U.S.-born Mexicans continue to earn less than U.S.-born, non-Hispanic whites,
more so among males than females, regardless of skill. In addition, findings reveal differ-
ences in earnings by skill, length of residence, and nativity. Specifically, and regardless of
gender, the earnings of low-skilled, U.S.-born Mexicans are lower than those of their
foreign-born counterparts, while the earnings of high-skilled, U.S.-born Mexicans are
higher
than those of their foreign-born counterparts. For example, as length of residence
increases, the earnings of low-skilled, foreign-born men increase from 15 percent lower
earnings among recent immigrants to 6 percent lower earnings among long-term
8/4/2019 Segmented Assimilation Among Mexicans in the Southwest
12/28
408
The Sociological Quarterly 47 (2006) 397 424 2006 Midwest Sociological Society
Segmented Assimilation
Zulema Valdez
TAB
LE2.
RegressionofHourlyEarningsandSelf-EmploymentParticipationbyImmigrantsLengthofResidenceintheUnitedStatesandNa
tivityamong
MexicansandagainstU.S.-bornWhite
s,Aged2564in2000(Models1an
d2)
Independent
Variables
Men
Women
Loghourlyearnings
Self-employment(oddsratios)
Loghourlyearnings
Self-employment(odds
ratios)
Lowskilled
Highskilled
Lowskilled
H
ighskilled
Lowskilled
H
ighskilled
Lowskilled
Highskilled
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
Age
0.051***
(0.002)
0.102***
(0.002)
1.123***
(0.006)
1.186***
(0.007)
0.042***
(0.003)
0.074***
(0.002)
1.050***
(0.009)
1.163***
(0.009)
Age(squared)
0.001***
(0.000)
0.001***
(0.000)
0.999***
(0.000)
0.999***
(0.000)
0.000***
(0.000)
0.001***
(0.000)
1.000***
(0.000)
0.999***
(0.000)
Educ
ation
Ninththrough
highschool
0.149***
(0.008)
0.091**
(0.031)
1.246***
(0.035)
1.075
(0.099)
0.133***
(0.014)
0.186***
(0.041)
1.199***
(0.051)
0.778
(0.148)
So
mecollege
throughBA
0.307***
(0.008)
0.351***
(0.030)
1.745***
(0.036)
0.733**
(0.098)
0.383***
(0.015)
0.474***
(0.041)
1.715***
(0.054)
0.887
(0.147)
Graduate/
Professional
0.463***
(0.018)
0.674***
(0.031)
3.011***
(0.062)
1.040
(0.099)
0.565***
(0.030)
0.818***
(0.041)
2.030***
(0.086)
1.246
(0.148)
SpeaksEnglishwell
0.121***
(0.010)
0.154***
(0.026)
1.408***
(0.045)
0.958
(0.090)
0.101***
(0.018)
0.068*
(0.032)
1.408***
(0.068)
0.708**
(0.126)
Married
0.297***
(0.004)
0.224***
(0.005)
1.398***
(0.016)
1.088***
(0.017)
0.072***
(0.007)
0.084***
(0.005)
1.554***
(0.023)
1.373***
(0.022)
Citiz
en
0.099***
(0.012)
0.021
(0.035)
1.080
(0.056)
1.038
(0.120)
0.088***
(0.021)
0.047
(0.046)
0.972
(0.085)
1.206
(0.191)
Indu
stry
Ag
riculture
0.290***
(0.012)
0.173***
(0.026)
27.531***
(0.048)
1.185
(0.092)
0.322***
(0.026)
0.073
(0.047)
6.594***
(0.070)
1.607**
(0.150)
Mining
0.130***
(0.016)
0.280***
(0.021)
1.936***
(0.087)
0.971
(0.078)
0.466***
(0.092)
0.506***
(0.043)
0.844
(0.372)
0.521**
(0.206)
Eigh
thgradeorlessisthereferencecategory.
Reta
ilisthereferencecategory.
U.S.-bornwhitesarethereferencegroup.
*p