Age-of-Arrival Effects on the Education of Immigrant Children: A Sibling Study

Abstract

We analysed the effects of late entry on the human capital of immigrant children, and investigated the channels via which age-at-migration affects the native-immigrant education gap. Ordinary-least-squares estimates could have been biased if parents factored the age of children into their migration decision. Using a sample of siblings from the 2000 US Census, we employed a family fixed-effects estimation strategy and found a negative and convex relationship between human capital and age-of-arrival. Teenage entrants’ outcomes were worst affected compared to younger entrants. Language was found to be an important mediating factor via which age-of-arrival influenced education. The critical age for English proficiency was 8–10. Age-of-arrival affected education not only through language but also via heterogeneous origin country conditions. The additional privileges of birth-right citizenship, if any, were disentangled from the benefits of zero age-of-arrival for natives. Citizenship by birth provided few advantages, except for college enrollment. Results were robust to sample selection changes.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Fig. 1

Source: Census 2000 IPUMS sample. Age-of-arrival effects estimated using dummies. All estimates use the Sibling sample with multiple childhood immigrants. Dependent variable is a dummy = 1 if individual speaks good English, 0 if not. FE estimates and the 95% CIs are shown, and standard errors are clustered by household. OLS effects from the same sibling sample are also shown

Fig. 2

Source: Census 2000 IPUMS sample. Age-of-arrival effects estimated using dummies. All estimates use a subsample of the Sibling sample—of households with multiple childhood immigrants. Dependent is total years of schooling. FE estimates with and without controls for English and citizenship are shown. 95% CIs of the latter are shown. FE standard errors are clustered by household. OLS effects from the same sibling sample are also shown

Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Source: Census 2000 IPUMS. Age-of-arrival effects estimated using dummies. All estimates use households with multiple childhood immigrants. Dependent in (3) is a binary variable for hIgh-school graduation and in (4) for ever enrolling in college. FE estimates with and without controls for English and citizenship are shown. 95% CIs of the latter are shown. FE standard errors are clustered by household. OLS effects from the same sibling sample are also shown

Fig. 5
Fig. 6

Source: Census 2000 IPUMS sample. Age-of-arrival effects estimated using dummies. Fixed effects estimates are calculated for a subsample of the sibling sample which excludes households with Mexican childhood immigrants. FE estimates from the entire Sibling sample and the 95% CIs are shown for comparison. FE standard errors clustered by household

Fig. 7
Fig. 8

Source: Census 2000 IPUMS sample. Age-of-arrival effects estimated using dummies. Fixed effects estimates are calculated for a subsample of the sibling sample which excludes households with Asian childhood immigrants. FE estimates from the entire sibling sample and the 95% CIs are shown for comparison. FE standard errors clustered by household

Fig. 9
Fig. 10

Source: Census 2000 IPUMS. Age-of-arrival effects estimated using dummies. Fixed effects estimates in Fig. 5 are calculated for a sample of siblings aged 11–17, and in Fig. 6 for siblings aged 16–17. Original FE estimates from the Sibling sample and the 95% CIs are shown for comparison in Fig. 5 not Fig. 6. FE standard errors clustered by household

Fig. 11

Source: Census 2000 IPUMS sample. Age-of-arrival effects estimated using dummies. Fixed effects estimates calculated for a subsample which includes households with childhood immigrants who are within 3 years of age. FE estimates from the entire sibling sample and the 95% CIs are shown for comparison. FE standard errors clustered by household

Fig. 12

Source: Census 2000 IPUMS sample. Age-of-arrival effects estimated using dummies. Fixed effects are calculated for a subsample which includes households with only sisters and only brothers in panels A and B respectively. FE standard errors clustered by household

Notes

  1. 1.

    An immigrant is an individual born outside the 50 US states and the district of Columbia, including those born in US territories. People born abroad to American parents are excluded. In this work, the terms immigrant and foreign-born were used interchangeably.

  2. 2.

    Jus Soli or “citizenship by birth” is a right by which a child has the citizenship of the country in which they were born, and not necessarily the nationality of either parent which is the principle of Jus Sanguinis.

  3. 3.

    This was also an assumption made by Bohlmark (Bohlmark 2008). Taking the opposite view, van Ours and Veenman (2006) viewed age-of-arrival as being exogenous claiming that children merely follow the parents.

  4. 4.

    If parents can afford to bring only one child to US, they will probably be accompanied by the younger child. Conversely, if parents need assistance in the host country, they may bring the older child who enters the labor market soon, and the investment in education will be low.

  5. 5.

    Detailed results available upon request.

  6. 6.

    Censuses prior to 2000 and the Current Population Surveys provided multi-period intervals for the year of migration and years of stay. Precise age of arrival measures could not be constructed.

  7. 7.

    Basu and Insler (2017) detailed the merits of using the 2000 Census over merged ACS years in terms of larger sample size and consistent sample weighting.

  8. 8.

    These sample restrictions implied that members of the sample immigrated to the US between 1945 and 1990.

  9. 9.

    1979 childhood immigrants only had a US-born sibling in the household, and no childhood immigrant sibling.

  10. 10.

    The sibling sample also had lower average years of residence in the US of about 4 years. We may be concerned that immigrants who have trouble forming attachments to the host country are living together.

  11. 11.

    The differences in OLS estimates between the all childhood immigrants and sibling samples was confirmed by a test-of-difference. Results available upon request.

  12. 12.

    Clustering standard errors increased confidence intervals on the fixed effects estimates because we allowed for correlation between observations.

  13. 13.

    Households with one immigrant sibling and only US-born siblings were excluded.

  14. 14.

    OLS estimates included these controls. 95% CIs for FE estimates with controls were also shown.

  15. 15.

    Recall that the sibling sample was characterized by positive selection, hence fixed effects estimates removed some of this bias. The OLS estimates from the “all childhood immigrants” sample were more significantly more negative than fixed estimates at teenage ages of entry. Results are available upon request.

  16. 16.

    The US education system may adapt better to younger versus older entrants. Hence education itself can affect language.

  17. 17.

    Anyone filing for naturalization for themselves and their family must meet certain eligibility criterion. He/she must be a legal permanent resident of the US for 5 years less 90 days before they apply. Rules are relaxed if they have been married to and living with a citizen for the past 3 years. The applicant must be “of good moral character,” and pass a test on US history and government.

  18. 18.

    A joint test of significance was unable to reject the null of no difference in age-of-arrival coefficients for high school graduation and total years of education. The null was rejected at 10% significance for college enrollment.

  19. 19.

    The restriction that the child must live in the US for at least 10 years was not imposed. Such a restriction in the year 2000 would limit the sample to children to those who arrived at ages 0–7.

  20. 20.

    If childhood immigrants aged 11–17 were compared to their US-born sibling, the critical age of English acquisition was 8, as seen for the adult sibling sample.

  21. 21.

    Beck et al. (2012) found using an instrumental variables approach that the probability of being a high-school dropout increases significantly each year after the age of arrival of eight.

References

  1. Akbulut-Yuksel, M., Bleakley, H., & Chin, A. (2011). The effect of English proficiency among childhood immigrants: Are Hispanics different? In D. Leal & S. Trejo (Eds.), Latinos and the Economy: Integration and Impact in Schools, Labour Markets, and Beyond (pp. 255–283). New York: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Åslund, O., Bohlmark, A., & Skans, O. (2015). Childhood and family experiences and the social integration of young migrants. Labour Economics, 35(C), 135–144. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.labeco.2015.05.004.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Basu, S., & Insler, M. (2017). Education outcomes of children of Asian intermarriages: Does gender of the immigrant parent matter?. The B.E. Journal of Economic Analysis and Policy, 17(1). https://doi.org/10.1515/bejeap-2016-0214.

  4. Beck, A., Corak, M., & Tienda, M. (2012). Age at immigration and the adult attainments of child migrants to the United States. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 643(1), 134–159. https://doi.org/10.1177/0002716212442665.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Belmont, L., & Marolla, F. A. (1973). Birth order, family size, and intelligence: A study of a total population of 19-year-old men born in the Netherlands is presented. Science, 182(4117), 1096–1101.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Black, S., Devereux, P., & Salvanes, K. (2005). The more the merrier? The effect of family size and birth order on children’s education. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 120(2), 669–700. https://doi.org/10.1093/qje/120.2.669.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Bleakley, H., & Chin, A. (2004). Language skills and earnings: Evidence from childhood immigrants. Review of Economics and Statistics, 86(2), 481–496. https://doi.org/10.1162/003465304323031067.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Bleakley, H., & Chin, A. (2010). Age at arrival, English proficiency and social assimilation among immigrants. American Economic Journal: Applied Economics, 2(1), 165–192. https://doi.org/10.1257/app.2.1.165.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Bohlmark, A. (2008). Age at immigration and school performance: A siblings analysis using Swedish register data. Labour Economics, 15(6), 1366–1387. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.labeco.2007.12.004.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Booth, A. H., & Kee, H. J. (2009). Birth order matters: The effect of family size and birth order on educational attainment. Journal of Population Economics, 22(2), 367–397. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00148-007-0181-4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Borjas, G. (1985). Assimilation, changes in cohort quality, and the earnings of immigrants. Journal of Labour Economics, 3(4), 463–489.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Borjas, G. (1987). Self-selection and the earnings of immigrants. American Economic Review, 77(4), 531–53.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Bound, J., & Solon, G. (1999). Double trouble: On the value of twins-based estimation of the returns to schooling. Economics of Education Review, 18(2), 169–182. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0272-7757(98)00048-X.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Cameron, J., Heckman, J., Knudsen, E., & Shonkoff, J. (2006). Economic, neurobiological and behavioral perspectives on building America’s future workforce. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 103(27), 10155–10162. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0600888103.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Card, D. (2009). Immigration and inequality. American Economic Review, 99(2), 1–21. https://doi.org/10.1257/aer.99.2.1.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Cheng, S., & Starks, B. (2002). Racial differences in the effects of significant others on sudents’ educational expectations. Sociological Education, 75(4), 306–327. https://doi.org/10.2307/3090281.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Chiswick, B., & Deb-Burman, N. (2004). Educational attainment: Analysis by immigrant generation. Economics of Education Review, 23(4), 361–379. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econedurev.2003.09.002.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Chiswick, B., & Miller, P. (2008). Linguistic distance: A quantitative measure of the distance between English and other languages. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 26(1), 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1080/14790710508668395.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Clarke, A. (2016). Age at immigration and the educational attainment of foreign-born children in the United States: The Confounding Effects of Parental Education. International Migration Review. https://doi.org/10.1111/imre.12294.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Cohner Goldner, S., & Epstein, G. (2014). Age at immigration and high school dropouts. IZA Journal of Migration, 3, 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40176-014-0019-2.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Cortes, K. (2006). The effects of age at arrival and enclave schools on the academic performance of immigrant children. Economics of Education Review, 25(2), 121–132. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econedurev.2004.12.001.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Dahl, G., & Moretti, E. (2008). The demand for sons. The Review of Economic Studies, 75, 1085–1120. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-937X.2008.00514.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Erikson, E. (1959). Identity and the life cycle: Selected papers. Psychological Issues (Vol 1, pp. 1–171), Madison: International Universities Press.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Falbo, T., & Polit, D. (1986). A quantitative review of the only child literature: Research evidence and theory development. Psychological Bulletin, 100, 176–189. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.100.2.176.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Falbo, T., & Poston, D. (1993). The academic, personality, and physical outcomes of only children in China. Child Development, 64(1), 18–35.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Glick, J., & White, M. (2003). The academic trajectories of immigrant youth: Analysis within and across cohorts. Demography, 40(4), 759–783. https://doi.org/10.1353/dem.2003.0034.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Goldberg, R., Tienda, M., & Adsera, A. (2017). Age at migration, family instability, and timing of sexual onset. Social Science Research, 63, 292–307. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssresearch.2016.09.021.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Hakuta, K., Bialystok, E., & Wiley, E. (2003). A test of the critical period hypothesis for second-language acquisition. Psychological Science, 14(1), 31–38.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Härkönen, J. (2014). Birth order effects on educational attainment and educational transitions in West Germany. European Sociological Review, 30(2), 166–179. https://doi.org/10.1093/esr/jct027.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Heath, A., & Kilpi-Jakonen, E. (2012). Immigrant children’s age at arrival and assessment results. OECD Education Working Paper No. 75. Retrieved from: https://doi.org/10.1787/5k993zsz6g7h-en.

  31. Hernendez, D. (2004). Demographic change and the life circumstances of immigrant families. The Future of Children, 14(2), 17–48.

    Google Scholar 

  32. Hoefer, M., Rytina, N., Baker, B. (2010). Estimates of the unauthorized immigrant population residing in the United States: January 2009. Washington, DC: US Department of Homeland Security, Office of Immigration Statistics. Retrieved from http://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/statistics/publications/ois_ill_pe_2009.pdf.

    Google Scholar 

  33. Lenneberg, E. H. (1967). The biological foundations of language. Hospital Practice, 2(12), 59–67. https://doi.org/10.1080/21548331.1967.11707799.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Leuck, K. (2017). Socioeconomic success of Asian immigrants in the United States. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369183X.2017.1320940.

    Google Scholar 

  35. Liscow, Z., & Woolston, W. (2017). Does legal status affect educational attainment in immigrant families? Working Paper, Yale Law School, Yale University. Retrieved from https://ssrn.com/abstract=3083026.

  36. Marcia, J. (1980). Identity in adolescence. In J. Adelson (Ed.), Handbook of adolescent psychology. New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  37. Mayer, S. (2010). Revisiting an old question: How much does parental income affect child outcomes? Focus, 27(2), 21–26.

    Google Scholar 

  38. Mincer, J. (1974). Schooling, experience, and earnings. New York: Columbia University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  39. Myers, D., Gao, X., & Emeka, A. (2009). The gradient of immigrant age-at-arrival effects on socioeconomic outcomes in the US. International Migration Review, 43(1), 205–229. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1747-7379.2008.01153.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Ruggles, S., Alexander, T., Genadek, K., Goeken, R., Schroeder, M., & Sobek, M. (2010). Integrated Public Use Microdata Series: Version 5.0. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota.

    Google Scholar 

  41. Schoeni, R. F. (1998). Labour market assimilation of immigrant women. Industrial and Labour Relations Review, 51(3), 483–504.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Shonkoff, J. P., & Phillips, D. A. (2000). From neurons to neighborhoods: The science of early childhood development. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

    Google Scholar 

  43. Van Ours, J., & Veenman, J. (2006). Age at immigration and educational attainment of young immigrants. Economics Letters, 90(3), 310–316. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econlet.2005.08.013.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

I am grateful to seminar participants at the University of Rochester and Vassar College. I would also like to thank conference participants at the Western Economic Association International Conference and participants at the CeMent workshop of the CSWEP program. I would also like to thank Sarah Pearlman and Ross Messing for valuable comments on an earlier draft of this paper, and Amanda McFarland for excellent research assistance on this project.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Sukanya Basu.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

Sukanya Basu declares that she has no conflict of interest.

Ethical Approval

This article does not contain any studies with human participants or animals performed by any of the authors.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Basu, S. Age-of-Arrival Effects on the Education of Immigrant Children: A Sibling Study. J Fam Econ Iss 39, 474–493 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10834-018-9569-4

Download citation

Keywords

  • Age-of-arrival
  • Education
  • Immigrant children
  • Siblings study
  • Family fixed-effects

JEL Classification

  • I20
  • J1
  • J13
  • J15