Post-1965 immigration to the United States has given rise to a vigorous literature focused on adult newcomers. There is, however, a growing new second generation whose prospects of adaptation cannot be gleaned from the experience of their parents or from that of children of European immigrants arriving at the turn of the century. We present data on the contemporary second generation and review the challenges that it confronts in seeking adaptation to American society. The concept of segmented assimilation is introduced to describe the diverse possible outcomes of this process of adaptation. The concept of modes of incorporation is used for developing a typology of vulnerability and resources affecting such outcomes. Empirical case studies illustrate the theory and highlight consequences of the different contextual situations facing today's second generation.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
1. Alejandro Portes and Alex Stepick, City on the Edge: The Transformation of Miami (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1993), chap. 8.
2.
2. Defined as native-born children with at least one foreign-born parent or children born abroad who came to the United States before age 12. See Leif Jensen, Children of the New Immigration: A Comparative Analysis of Today's Second Generation, paper commissioned by the Children of Immigrants Research Project, Department of Sociology, Johns Hopkins University, reprinted as Institute for Policy Research and Evaluation Working Paper no. 1990-32 (University Park: Pennsylvania State University, Aug. 1990).
3.
3. Joan N. First and John W. Carrera, New Voices: Immigrant Students in U.S. Public Schools (Boston: National Coalition of Advocates for Students, 1988).
4.
Herbert Gans , “Second-Generation Decline: Scenarios for the Economic and Ethnic Futures of the Post-1965 American Immigrants,”Ethnic and Racial Studies15:173-192 (Apr. 1992).
5.
5. Irving L. Child, Italian or American? The Second Generation in Conflict (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1943).
6.
6. See, for example, Saskia Sassen, “Changing Composition and Labor Market Location of Hispanic Immigrants in New York City, 1960-1980,” in Hispanics in the U.S. Economy, ed. George J. Borjas and Marta Tienda (New York: Academic Press, 1985), pp. 299-322.
7.
7. Jeffrey S. Passel and Barry Edmonston, “Immigration and Race: Recent Trends in Immigration to the United States” (Paper no. PRIP-UI-22, Urban Institute, May 1992), tab. 2.
8.
8. The new immigration is defined as that which started after the 1965 Immigration Act. Inclusion of 1960-65 immigrants in the totals just mentioned leads to only a slight overcount due to the relatively low numbers arriving before passage of the act. See ibid., tab. 9.
9.
9. Ibid.
10.
10. U.S., Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, Race by Hispanic Origin, 1990 Census of Population and Housing, special tabulation prepared by the Ethnic and Hispanic Branch (Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Commerce, 1992).
11.
11. In most cases, before age 12. See Jensen, Children of the New Immigration.
12.
12. Because of data limitations, comparisons of years of education completed and high school dropouts are limited to persons aged 20 or older still living with their parents. These results may not be representative of the respective universes of adult individuals. See ibid.
13.
Alex Stepick and Alejandro Portes, “Flight into Despair: A Profile of Recent Haitian Refugees in South Florida,”International Migration Review, 20:329-350 (Summer 1986).
14.
14. This account is based on fieldwork in Miami conducted in preparation for a survey of immigrant youths in public schools. The survey and preliminary results are described in the final section of this article.
15.
Kenneth Wilson and W. Allen Martin, “Ethnic Enclaves: A Comparison of the Cuban and Black Economies in Miami,”American Journal of Sociology, 88:135-160 (1982).
16.
Thomas Sowell , Ethnic America: A History (New York: Basic Books, 1981).
17.
17. See Alejandro Portes and Rubén G. Rumbaut, Immigrant America: A Portrait (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1990), chap. 3.
18.
18. See Mercer L. Sullivan, “Getting Paid”: Youth, Crime, and Work in the Inner City (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1989), chaps. 1, 5.
19.
19. U.S., Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, Census of Population and Housing, 1980: Public Use Microdata Samples A (MRDF) (Washington, DC: Department of Commerce, 1983).
20.
20. Thomas Bailey and Roger Waldinger, “Primary, Secondary, and Enclave Labor Markets: A Training System Approach,”American Sociological Review, 56:432-445 (1991).
21.
21. Professionals and executives represented 25.9 percent of Cuban-origin males aged 16 years and over in 1989; the figure for the total adult male population was 26 percent. See Jesus M. García and Patricia A. Montgomery, The Hispanic Population of the United States: March 1990, Current Population Reports, ser. P-20, no. 449 (Washington, DC: Department of Commerce, 1991).
22.
Robert L. Bachet al. , “The Economic Adjustment of Southeast Asian Refugees in the United States,” in World Refugee Survey, 1983 (Geneva: United Nations High Commission for Refugees, 1984), pp. 51-55.
23.
On the Irish in Boston, see Karen Tumulty, “When Irish Eyes Are Hiding...,”Los Angeles Times, 29 Jan. 1989.
24.
Suzanne Model , “The Ethnic Economy: Cubans and Chinese Reconsidered” (Manuscript, University of Massachusetts at Amherst, 1990).
25.
25. U.S., Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, Survey of Minority-Owned Business Enterprises, 1987, MB-2 and MB-3 (Washington, DC: Department of Commerce, 1991).
26.
Bailey and Waldinger, “Primary, Secondary, and Enclave Labor Markets.”
27.
Jake C. Miller , The Plight of Haitian Refugees (New York: Praeger, 1984).
28.
This study is summarized in Rubén G. Rumbaut, “Immigrant Students in California Public Schools: A Summary of Current Knowledge” (Report no. 11, Center for Research on Effective Schooling for Disadvantaged Children, Johns Hopkins University, Aug. 1990).
29.
29. Matute-Bianchi, “Ethnic Identities and Patterns,” p. 253.
30.
30. Rumbaut, “Immigrant Students,” p. 25.
31.
31. M. A. Gibson, Accommodation without Assimilation: Sikh Immigrants in an American High School (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1989), p. 268.
32.
The study is summarized in Rumbaut, “Immigrant Students,” pp. 22-23.
33.
U.S., Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census , Survey of Minority-Owned Business Enterprises, MB-2.
34.
34. Portes and Stepick, City on the Edge, chap. 7.
35.
35. Alejandro Portes and Lisandro Perez, Children of Immigrants: The Adaptation Process of the Second Generation (Project conducted at the Department of Sociology, Johns Hopkins University, in progress).
36.
36. Because of the large sample size, .001 is used as the criterion of statistical significance in these tabulations. Cramér's V2 is used as the principal measure of strength of association. In comparison with other coefficients, it has the advantage of a constant range between 0 and 1. Higher values indicate stronger association. Eta is similarly defined but is used only for the continuous parental occupational status variables.
37.
37. West Indian self-identification was not coded separately and hence is classified under “Other nationality” in Table 2.
