what is migration? do you have to cross international borders? do you have to cross any border at...
TRANSCRIPT
What is migration?
Do you have to cross international borders? Do you have to cross any border at all?
Does it matter how long you stay at your destination?
If you move to a new house, are you definitely a migrant?
Can you be a migrant without changing jobs?
MIGRATION is not the same as MOBILITY
Definitive
Minimal
Soc
ial b
reak
Distance movedLow High
A loose definition of migration, with four key patterns identified
Career
Chain
Circular
Local
Not migration
Local
But does any of this matter?
MAYBE NOT!
Precise definitions are often irrelevant because
We’re always limited by the data itself
We usually know about people who cross an administrative boundary
We usually know very little about social integration
We usually know very little about duration of stay
Example of identifying migrants to the U.S.
Distance moved country of birth
Duration of time spent in the U.S. Exact number of years in 1900-1920 and 1970-2000 census Can make inferences based on children’s birthplaces in other years
Social integration Can make inferences based on
Ethnic intermarriage Naming patterns (some years) Language spoke at home (some years) Residential isolation at the destination
Example of identifying migrants within the U.S.
Distance moved State of birth and current state of residence
Duration of time spent at the destination No knowledge prior to 1940 Can identify those who moved >5 & <5 years ago in 1940-2000
Social integration Can make inferences based on
intermarriage with similar migrants residential isolation in the city
The most common definition of a migrant is“someone who has moved since being born”
Presents a problem for comparing populations:
A population with lots of children will have few migrants
Children just haven’t had that long to move
Even keeping things simple can get messy
Figure 1. Percent of Native Population Residing Outside State of Birth by Race, United States, 1850-1990
White
Black
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
1850 1860 1870 1880 1890 1900 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000
Census Year
Per
cen
t M
igra
nt
Figure 2. Percent of Native Born Migrant at Ages 50-59 by Race: United States, 1850-2000
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
1850 1860 1870 1880 1890 1900 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000
Census Year
Per
cen
t M
igra
nt
White
Black
So the big definition doesn’t matter?
ACTUALLY MAYBE IT DOES
Precise definitions developed to address earlier beliefs that
Migration was only barely existent prior to industrialization
Rural to urban migrants were “grist in the mill” of industrialization Migration was permanent and devastating for them
Migration goes hand-in-hand with nation-building
Migrants were “poor huddled masses” Undifferentiated and unprepared foreigners
Definitive
Minimal
Soc
ial b
reak
Distance movedLow High
A definition of migration, with four key patterns identified
Career
Chain
Circular
Local
Not migration
Local
New emphases in study of migration
Migration has always been a part of U.S. and European life
Migrants tend to be positively selected
Migrants’ often plan to return home even among migrants to the U.S. affects their attitudes towards the destination point
Assimilation is not a given
Migration as a process to be understood in its own right
...Give me your tired, your poor, Your huddled masses yearning to
be free, The wretched refuse of your
teeming shore. Send these, the homeless,
tempest-tossed to me: I lift my lamp beside the golden
door!
The New Colossus (1886)Emma Lazarus
Common images of migration
Issues that complicate these portraits Many early 1900s migrants returned home
South Italians, Croats, Slovenians, Slovaks, Hungarians: 50-60% North Italians, Poles: 30-50% Finns, Serbs, Bulgarians: 20-30% Germans, Scandinavians, English: 10-20% Irish, “Hebrews”: <10%
Large numbers of Europeans went instead to... Brazil and Argentina: about 1 for every 4 who came to the U.S. Canada: about 1 for every 5 who came to the U.S. Towns and cities all across Europe: many more than came to U.S.
The U.S. was one destination in a complex migration system
Issues that complicate these portraits
Most were doing pretty well before leaving Migration is usually a selective process
Traveling long distances costs money Families send their most promising members Education and experience with migration seems to make people more
inclined to move
Many avoided assimilation quite successfully People planned to make a little money and return home People lived here in perfectly happy ethnic isolation
Relevant immigration laws
Chinese Exclusion Act, 1882 (made permanent 1902)
“Gentleman’s Agreement” with Japan, 1908
National Origins Act of 1924 Established a tight quota system Based on origins of the US population in 1890
Immigration and Naturalization Act of 1965 Larger quotas for Asian and African countries Family reunification privileged Particular professions priviledged
"Old immigration": Origins: German, Scandinavian, and Scotch-Irish1820s-1880s Destinations: Midwest rural and urban, Upper MW
Type of work: farm, some urbanTraveling alone: mostly familiesReligion: Protestant
"New Immigration": Origins: Italian, Greek, Polish, Russian1880s-1920s Destinations: Urban northeast and mid-Atlantic
Type of work: urban factory workTraveling alone: yes, mostlyReligion: more Catholic, Jewish
“Really new Immigration": Origins: Latin America, Asia, Africa1960s-2000s Destinations: Florida, Texas, California, cities
Type of work: professions and clericalTraveling alone: mixedReligion: Catholic, Protestant, Muslim
Main periods in US Immigration
Figure 1. Percent of Native Population Residing Outside State of Birth by Race, United States, 1850-1990
White
Black
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
1850 1860 1870 1880 1890 1900 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000
Census Year
Per
cen
t M
igra
nt
Figure 7. Interstate Migration Destinations for Native-Born Whites Aged 50-59: United States 1850-2000
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
1850 1860 1870 1880 1890 1900 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000
Census Year
Per
cen
t M
igra
nt
Farm
Rural Nonfarm
Towns
Cities
Suburbs
Source: Integrated Public Use Microdata Series
Figure 8. Interstate Migration Destinations for Native-Born Blacks Aged 50-59: United States 1870-2000
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
1870 1880 1890 1900 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000
Census Year
Per
cen
t M
igra
nt
Cities
Suburbs
Farm
Rural Nonfarm
Towns
Source: Integrated Public Use Microdata Series
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
1870 1880 1890* 1900 1910 1920 1930* 1940 1950 1960 1970
Black
White
Southern out-migrants as a proportion of all southern-born persons, by race
* Data not available for 1890 and 1930.Source: Integrated Public Use Microdata Series files (IPUMS), 1870-1970.
Proportion southern-born whiteLess than 2.5%2.5% - 5%5% - 10%More than 10%
Southern-born whites as a proportion of the population in each State Economic Area, 1870
Source: IPUMS file, 1870
Proportion southern-born whiteLess than 2.5%2.5% - 5%5% - 10%More than 10%
Southern-born whites as a proportion of the population in each State Economic Area, 1900
Source: IPUMS file, 1900
Proportion southern-born whiteLess than 2.5%2.5% - 5%5% - 10%More than 10%
Southern-born whites as a proportion of the population in each State Economic Area, 1920
Source: IPUMS file, 1920
Proportion southern-born whiteLess than 2.5%2.5% - 5%5% - 10%More than 10%
Southern-born whites as a proportion of the population in each State Economic Area, 1950
Source: IPUMS file, 1950
Proportion southern-born whiteLess than 2.5%2.5% - 5%5% - 10%More than 10%
Southern-born whites as a proportion of the population in each County Group, 1980
Source: IPUMS 1980 5% State file, Sample A
Southern Appalachian Studies
Appalachian Regional Commission
Map 1Two definitions of Appalachia:
Appalachian Regional Commission and Southern Appalachian Studies group
1940 State Economic Areas
1980 County Groups
Map 2SAS definition of Appalachia:
Using 1940 State Economic Areas and 1980 County Groups
1940 State Economic Areas
1980 County Groups
Map 3ARC definition of Appalachia:
Using 1940 State Economic Areas and 1980 County Groups
Main sources of Appalachianmigration to the North, 1940-1980
Persistently distressed Appalachian counties, 1960-1990
Map 4Key areas of northward out-migration and economic distress in Appalachia
NAll recent southern-born white migrants $15,405 1183
Recent Appalachian white migrants $13,685 177Selected subregions: Appalachian West Virginia $13,195 86 Appalachian Kentucky $11,505 38
All recent foreign-born migrants (all races) $10,405 1536Selected subregions: Canada $20,005 51 Western Europe $18,005 180 Phillipines $12,005 59 India $11,670 164 Korea $11,505 82 Eastern Europe $10,405 199 Africa $8,005 69 Mexico $8,005 223
Average wage incomes of recent Southern and Foreign-born men aged 25-60in the East North Central region, 1980
Source: IPUMS, 1980 5% State file, Sample A.
NAll recent southern-born white migrants 14% 1838
Recent Appalachian white migrants 22% 327Selected subregions: Appalachian West Virginia 23% 165 Appalachian Kentucky 28% 83
All recent foreign-born migrants (all races) 29% 2100Selected subregions: Phillipines 10% 86 Canada 11% 71 Western Europe 12% 177 India 14% 162 Korea 21% 100 South America 23% 73 Eastern Europe 27% 249 Mexico 30% 256 Vietnam 33% 64 Puerto Rico 37% 127 China 40% 91 Africa 40% 112
Percent of recent migrant households in poverty, East North Central region, 1980
Source: IPUMS, 1980 5% State file, Sample A.
Figure 11. Percent of Native Born Whites Migrant at Ages 50-59 by Literacy and Educational Attainment: United States, 1850-2000
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
1850 1860 1870 1880 1890 1900 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000
Census Year
Pe
rce
nt
Mig
ran
t
Literate
Illiterate
5th grade or more
4th grade or less
Source: Integrated Public Use Microdata Series