Demography

, Volume 38, Issue 3, pp 349–356 | Cite as

How enduring were the inequalities among European immigrant groups in the United States?

Immigration, Assimilation, and Inequality

Abstract

A long-standing and unresolved issue in the study of racial and ethnic groups concerns the persistence of initial inequalities among groups. Recently it has surfaced again in the study of U.S. immigrant groups, in George Borjas’s (1994) claim that the human capital differences among early-twentieth-century immigrant groups are reflected in the relative socioeconomic achievements of their third generations. Reexamining this claim, we find that Borjas’s analysis hinges on a series of problematic decisions, such as his inclusion of non-European groups as well as his failure to take ethnically mixed ancestry into account and to compensate for the weak correspondence in eastern Europe between ethnic ancestry and the national frontiers of the early 1900s. We replicate a portion of his analysis, correcting for these problems. Our results reveal no correspondence between the literacy of the first generation and the educational attainment of the third among European groups. Borjas’s analysis seems to go farthest astray in including non-Europeans, especially Mexicans, because of the more systematic legal and social liabilities suffered by these groups.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Acuña, R. 1988. Occupied America: A History of Chicanos. 3rd ed. New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
  2. Alba, R. 1985: Italian Americans: Into the Twilight of Ethnicity. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
  3. — 1990. Ethnic Identity: The Transformation of White America. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  4. Alba, R. and V. Nee. 1997. “Rethinking Assimilation Theory for a New Era of Immigration.” International Migration Review 31:826–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bean, F., J. Chapa, R. Berg, and K. Sowards. 1994. “Educational and Sociodemographic Incorporation Among Hispanic Immigrants to the United States.” Pp. 73–100 in Immigration and Ethnicity, edited by B. Edmonston and J. Passel. Washington, DC: Urban Institute Press.Google Scholar
  6. Borjas, G. 1994. “Long-Run Convergence of Ethnic Skill Differentials: The Children and Grandchildren of the Great Migration.” Industrial and Labor Relations Review 47:553–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. — 1999. Heaven’s Door: Immigration Policy and the American Economy. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  8. Calavita, K. 1992. Inside the State: The Bracero Program, Immigration, and the INS. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  9. Chiswick, B. 1988. “Differences in Education and Earnings Across Racial and Ethnic Groups: Tastes, Discrimination, and Investments in Child Quality.” Quarterly Journal of Economics 103:571–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Davis, J. and T. Smith. 1996. General Social Surveys, 1972–1996: Cumulative Codebook. Chicago: National Opinion Research Center.Google Scholar
  11. Gordon, L. 1999. The Great Arizona Orphan Abduction. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  12. Gordon, M. 1964. Assimilation in American Life. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  13. Lee, S. 1993. “Racial Classifications in the U.S. Census: 1890–1990.” Ethnic and Racial Studies 16:75–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Lieberson, S. 1961. “A Societal Theory of Race and Ethnic Relations.” American Sociological Review 26:902–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. — 1980. A Piece of the Pie: Blacks and White Immigrants Since 1880. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  16. Lieberson, S. and M. Waters. 1988. From Many Strands: Ethnic and Racial Groups in Contemporary America. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.Google Scholar
  17. — 1993. “The Ethnic Responses of Whites: What Causes Their Instability, Simplification, and Inconsistency?” Social Forces 72:421–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Lopez, D. and R. Stanton-Salazar. 2001. “Mexican Americans: A Second Generation at Risk.” Pp. 57–90 in Ethnicities: Coming of Age in Immigrant America, edited by R. Rumbaut and A. Portes. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  19. Massey, D. 1995. “The New Immigration and Ethnicity in the United States.” Population and Development Review 21:631–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Neidert, L. and R. Farley. 1985. “Assimilation in the United States: An Analysis of Ethnic and Generation Differences in Status and Achievement.” American Sociological Review 50:840–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Portes, A. and R. Rumbaut. 1996. Immigrant America: A Portrait. 2nd ed. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  22. Portes, A. and M. Zhou. 1993. “The New Second Generation: Segmented Assimilation and Its Variants.” The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 530:74–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Sánchez, G. 1993. Becoming Mexican American: Ethnicity, Culture, and Identity in Chicano Los Angeles, 1900/2-1945. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  24. Schooler, C. 1976. “Serfdom’s Legacy: An Ethnic Continuum.” American Journal of Sociology 81:1265–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Waters, M. 1990. Ethnic Options: Choosing Identities in America. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  26. Wojtkiewicz, R. and K. Donato. 1995. “Hispanic Educational Attainment: The Effects of Family Background and Nativity.” Social Forces 74:559–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Population Association of America 2001

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of SociologyState University of New York at AlbanyAlbany

Personalised recommendations