Receptivity Attitudes and the Occupational Attainment of Male and Female Immigrant Workers

Population Research and Policy Review 23: 91–116, 2004.© 2004 Kluwer Academic Publishers. Printed in the Netherlands.

91

Receptivity attitudes and the occupational attainment of maleand female immigrant workers

GORDON F. DE JONG & MICHELE STEINMETZPopulation Research Institute and Department of Sociology, Pennsylvania State University,601 Oswald Tower, University Park, PA 16802, U.S.A.

Abstract. This paper seeks to extend assimilation scholarship by focusing on the impact ofimmigrant receptivity attitudes. We test the hypotheses that receptivity attitudes toward im-migrants held by citizens of metropolitan and regional labor markets will have a direct impact,and/or interact with the educational human capital of immigrants, in explaining the occupa-tional attainment of male and female immigrant workers. Multi-level modeling is used to testthe impact of aggregated immigrant receptivity attitude measures, derived from the GeneralSocial Survey, which are spatially merged with immigrant worker human capital, individual-level assimilation, and area labor market indicators to predict managerial/professional andservice/labor occupation attainment of immigrant workers from a merged 1995–97 CurrentPopulation Survey data file. The results provide support for the receptivity attitudes thesiswith statistically significant effects on service and labor attainment, but show minimal effectson managerial and professional occupational attainment. The key receptivity dimensions af-fecting occupational attainment are native-born citizens’ attitudes concerning the impact ofimmigrants on American society, and attitudes on English-only language policies. The resultsshow no systematic support for the reverse causation hypothesis that the occupational patternsof immigrants determine the immigrant receptivity attitudes of citizens.

Keywords: Gender, Immigrant occupations, Receptivity attitudes

Introduction

With immigration to the U.S. continuing at a level approaching one millionper year and showing no signs of abating, immigrant occupational assim-ilation will remain a salient public policy issue into the foreseeable future(Powers & Seltzer 1998). The stock of knowledge for what governs modes ofincorporation of immigrants is based, according to Protes (1995: 23–24), onfour major perspectives. The most widely promulgated explanation focusedon the human capital characteristics-education, knowledge of the Englishlanguage, work experience – which individual immigrants bring with themto the U.S. In an assessment of this research, Borjas (2000: 2) concludesthat “a key insight provided by the existing literature is that the labor marketimpact of immigration on the host country hinges critically on how the skills

92 GORDON F. DE JONG AND MICHELE STEINMETZ

of immigrants compare to those of natives in the host country”. While clearlya dominant research and policy perspective, this individual skills paradigmis a necessary but not a sufficient scientific explanation for successful orunsuccessful immigrant adaptation because it fails to incorporate the impactsof important receiving country social contexts (Raijman & Tienda 1999).

Three additional perspectives focus on different aspects of the host countrycontexts in immigrant adaptation. The first is the government’s policy towarddifferent immigrant groups arriving in the U.S. (i.e., refugees, asylum seekers,legal and illegal immigrants from different countries), which grants specialresettlement assistance to some groups while denying assistance or activelyprosecuting others. The second perspective emphasizes the role of immigrantentrepreneurship and ethnic communities in immigrant adaptation, and theliterature shows the variation in economic and social adaptation across eth-nic communities and ethnic enclave economics (Alba & Nee 1999; Bohon2001). A third less researched perspective involves native citizen attitudestoward immigrant receptivity. The concept of nativism – the attitude of favor-ing native inhabitants of a country as against immigrants – is used by someresearchers in discussing this research perspective (Sanchez 1999). With thepost-1965 policy-related changes in dominant countries of origins of U.S.immigrants from Europe to Latin America and Asia, Reitz (1998) argues thatthe warmth of the welcome has also changed. Indeed Espenshade and Hemp-stead (1996), using national-level survey responses, have shown cyclical butgenerally rising public attitude support over the past 30 years for restrictingimmigration to the U.S.

In this research we test the thesis that receptivity attitudes held by U.S. cit-izens toward immigrants have a direct impact on the occupational attainmentof male and female immigrant workers. It is also possible that receptivityattitudes toward immigrant workers are conditioned by and interact with theeducational attainment level of immigrants to explain occupational outcomesin local and regional labor markets.

Objectives

We seek to extend the scholarship on the immigrant receptivity perspectiveof immigrant assimilation by addressing the following questions.

1. What is the relationship between the receptivity attitudes toward im-migrants held by residents in major U.S. metropolitan areas and censusregions and the occupational attainment patterns of immigrant workersin those areas? What specific dimensions of receptivity attitudes are mostcritical in explaining the occupational attainment of immigrant workers?

RECEPTIVITY ATTITUDES OF MALE AND FEMALE IMMIGRANT WORKERS 93

2. Do receptivity attitudes toward immigrants, held by U.S. citizens, interactwith the educational human capital of immigrant male and female work-ers to provide an enhanced explanation of the occupational attainmentpatterns of immigrants?

3. Controlling for receptivity and human capital indicators, what alterna-tive factors help explain the occupational attainment of male and femaleimmigrant workers?

4. Or is the cause-effect logic of the immigrant receptivity argument re-versed, so that low occupational skill characteristics of immigrants pre-cipitate negative attitudes by native citizens toward immigrants, and highoccupational skill characteristics of immigrants create positive attitudesby native citizens toward immigrants?

We focus on occupational attainment rather than the more usual emphasison immigrant earnings because of the clear causal order priority of occupa-tional attainment patterns in understanding immigrant economic assimilation.We intentionally model high skill (managerial/professional) and low skill(service/labor) immigrant occupational attainment separately, as opposed toa continuous occupational status score, to test for possible differences in theimpact of U.S. citizens’ receptivity attitudes by sector of immigrant workactivity.

Immigrant economic assimilation receptivity frameworks

Recent reviews of the immigrant occupational status and socioeconomic pro-gress literature by Powers and Seltzer (1998) and Raijman and Tienda (1999)identify four major theoretical and empirical explanatory perspectives. Thehuman capital and status attainment theoretical frameworks in economicsand sociology, respectively, have been the dominant explanations for labormarket assimilation and occupational mobility of immigrants. Focusing onhuman capital characteristics, such as education, and on the selectivity ofimmigrants, this literature has demonstrated that immigrants with greaterwork-related human capital skills are more successful in the labor marketthan those with less human capital (Chiswick 1978; Borjas 2000). Assim-ilation theory extends the scope of individual immigrant characteristics ofinterest by focusing on the upward mobility process by which immigrantsstart out at a labor force disadvantage because of their comparative lack ofEnglish language skills, often reduced levels of education, and relatively littleknowledge of the host society, and move up the occupational hierarchy as theybecome acculturated (Gordon 1964; Gans 1992; Alba & Nee 1999). However,recent assimilation theory posits that this process may be mediated by uniquecultural differences among race and ethnic immigrant groups, resulting in


segmented patterns of occupational mobility. Some recent theoretical frame-works have moved away from a focus primarily on individual characteristicsand instead focus on structural conditions that affect the immigrant’s abilityto become integrated into the labor market. Economic sector niches, en-clave economies, minority “middlemen”, and social capital research studieshave demonstrated that economic opportunities can be created and enhancedby immigrant communities, which in turn affect upward mobility, notablythrough self-employment (Piore 1979; Sassen 1989; Waldinger 1994).

In his modes of incorporation framework, Portes (1995) explicitly recog-nizes that individual labor force attainment and outcomes depend critically onstructural receptivity contexts as well as on individual human capital charac-teristics. The receptivity attitudes perspective seeks to extend this frameworkby explaining immigrant economic assimilation based on the warmth-of-the-welcome attitudes held by U.S. citizens toward immigrants. As relatedto occupational attainment, we test the general hypothesis that immigrants’job opportunities are enhanced in metropolitan and regional labor marketswhere U.S. citizens hold more positive attitudes toward immigrant workers,compared to labor markets where U.S. citizens hold more negative attitudestoward immigrant workers.

Sanchez (1997), following on earlier historical analyses of Higham(1988), identifies three American anti-foreign sentiments that he argues markcurrent nativism attitudes. The first is an antipathy toward non-English lan-guages as a fear that linguistic differences will undermine American society.The second source of nativism attitudes, explored only for illegal workers inthe present study, is tied to multi-culturalism and affirmative action, whichare manifested in the belief that immigrants, according to Lind (1995: 133),“take advantage of a country in which racial preference entitlements andmulti-cultural ideology encourage them to retain their distinct racial and eth-nic identities”. The third source of anti-immigrant attitudes today, accordingto Sanchez, is based on the belief that both legal and illegal immigrantsdrain public resources, particularly their utilization of welfare, education, andhealth care services. Based on these arguments, we would expect a negativeimpact on immigrant occupational attainment in metropolitan and censusregions where native-born citizens’ support for these attitudes is greater.

Further elaboration of the more general receptivity theoretical perspectiveby Espenshade and Hempstead (1996) reinforces one of Sanchez’s argumentsand adds additional theoretically salient attitude dimensions. Espenshade andHempstead argue that citizens engage in generalized cost-benefit evaluationsof immigrants. This position suggests that U.S citizens hold a more negativeattitude toward immigrants if they are viewed as taking jobs away from na-tive workers and are perceived as more likely than natives to utilize public


welfare. It follows that native citizens who believe that immigrants havea more beneficial social and economic impact on U.S. society are likelyto be more supportive of immigration and immigrant workers occupationalopportunities.

Espenshade and Hempstead (1996) further argue that direct labor marketcompetition, particularly for low-skilled and low-wage occupational pos-itions, engenders negative receptivity attitudes from immediately affectedlow-skilled U.S. workers. From this argument it would be expected thatlocal metropolitan and regional labor markets with substantial concentra-tions of lower educated workers, higher unemployment, and higher povertypopulations would have citizens who manifest less tolerant attitudes towardimmigrant workers and their occupational attainment opportunities. Otherpossible sources of receptivity attitudes suggested by Espenshade and Hemp-stead, but not tested in this study, include the cyclical health of the U.S.economy, social and political alienation, isolationism views, and culturalaffinity attitudes held by earlier generations of Latino and Asian immigrants.

The reverse cause-effect logic of the immigrant receptivity attitudes isbased on the argument that as immigrants become established in particularoccupations within receiving societies, those jobs become culturally labeledas “immigrant jobs”, and native workers may be reluctant to apply for and/orcompete with immigrants for these jobs (Massey 1999). Furthermore, the es-tablishment of patterns of communication and job search assistance betweenprevious and potential immigrants facilitates occupational selective migrationto different labor markets. Immigration thus changes the social definition ofwork, causing some types of jobs to be stigmatized and viewed as less appro-priate for native workers (Bohning 1984; Piore 1979). From this perspectivethe attitude stigmas of natives result from the presence of immigrants, notfrom the characteristics of the occupation.

Data and methods

The research questions in this study are addressed by creating a uniquedata set which combines information from three sources: (1) individual-level information, including occupational attainment measures, for a sampleof 12,379 foreign-born workers ages 18–64, based on a merged 1995–1997 U.S. Bureau of the Census Current Population Survey (CPS) file; (2)aggregated immigrant receptivity attitude responses by U.S. citizens fromthe 1994 General Social Survey (GSS) conducted by the National Opin-ion Research Center; and (3) area labor market structure and demographiccharacteristics from the 1990 census summary tape file. Individual-level im-migrant human capital is measured by the educational attainment level of


workers. Other individual-level indicators include dummy variables for self-employment, year of entry into the U.S., country of origin, out-of-countyinternal U.S. migration within the past year, and the employing firm size innumber of workers, and control variables for race and family type. Thesevariables are included in the analytical model based on the evidence thatmanagerial/professional occupational attainment of immigrants is positivelyassociated (and service/labor occupational attainment negatively associated)with higher educational attainment, longer length of time in the receivingcountry, self-employment as business owners, European countries of origin,employment in larger size firms, and relocation within the U.S. for economicopportunities (Powers & Seltzer 1998).

The data are integrated via geo-coding for major metropolitan areas, forsummarized smaller metropolitan populations in the nine census regions, andfor non-metropolitan area residents in the nine census regions. We use pro-prietary geo-coding information in the GSS to identify sample respondents’metropolitan area and region of residence. The GSS is a national probabilitysurvey that is representative of the English-speaking adult American popula-tion. In 1994, 1,361 U.S.-born respondents answered the immigration-relatedquestions. Area social, economic, and demographic characteristics from the1990 Census Summary Tape Files 3C were used to control for alternativeexplanations for metropolitan and regional receptivity attitude differences.

Receptivity attitudes of native-born citizens toward immigrants wereexamined for four dimensions: (1) immigrants are hard-working, (2) English-only policies, (3) immigrant impact, (4) illegal immigrants’ privileges. Thesefour dimensions were derived through factor analysis of thirteen items inthe GSS (available from the authors). Because the responses to the separ-ate attitude items used in the factor analysis varied from a two-point to aseven-point scale, responses were equally weighted within each dimension.Item responses were recoded so that higher score values reflected more openand receptive positions toward immigration. Factor scores for each dimensionwere converted to standardized scores for analysis purposes.

The English-only attitude scale was based on three items (alpha = 0.58):children should be taught in English only, ballots should be printed in Englishonly, and English should be the official language by law. The immigrants’impact attitude scale was based on five items (alpha = 0.70): the numberof immigrants should be decreased; immigrants result in higher unemploy-ment; immigrants make it hard to keep the country united; immigrants are toodemanding for equal rights; and immigrants should not receive any special fa-vors. The illegal immigrants’ privilege attitude scale was based on three items(alpha = 0.62): illegal immigrants should be entitled to work permits; illegalimmigrants should be allowed to attend public universities as other students;


and illegal immigrants’ children should continue to qualify as American cit-izens. The attitude that immigrants are hardworking scale was based on twovariables (alpha = 0.67): legal immigrants are hardworking, and illegal im-migrants are hardworking. Unlike the three previous receptivity dimensions,viewing immigrants as hard working is a positive attitude, notably for ser-vice/labor sector workers, although perhaps not for high skilled occupationpositions where intellectual abilities of workers may be emphasized.

The proprietary information regarding the respondents’ area of residence(primary sampling unit) from NORC permitted the calculation of U.S. re-spondents’ mean immigrant receptivity scores for 38 geographic units. Thesummarized smaller metropolitan area and non-metropolitan area data arefor the nine census divisions: New England, Mid-Atlantic, South Atlantic,East North Central, West North Central, East South Central, West SouthCentral, Mountain, and Pacific. The 20 larger metropolitan areas for whichdata are available are Boston, New York, Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, Baltimore,Washington D.C., Atlanta, Tampa, Miami, Chicago, Detroit, Minneapolis, St.Louis, Dallas, Houston, Phoenix, Seattle, San Francisco, Los Angeles, andSan Diego.

Labor market social, economic, and demographic data from the 1990census are used to capture four arguments concerning area variation in nativ-ism attitudes: cultural affinity, labor market competition, economic insecurity,and education level of the population. The cultural affinity indicators are thepercent of population not speaking English well and the percent that is foreignborn. Labor market competition variables include the white population andblack population unemployment rates. An economic insecurity indicator isthe percent of the white population in poverty, and the education level variableis the percent of the white population with a BA degree or higher. Percentof the population that is white is a demographic composition variable. Thesecontextual-level indicators provide alternative host area explanations, in addi-tion to the four immigrant receptivity dimensions, in testing the hypothesizedreceptivity attitude impact on immigrant occupational attainment models.

Occupational attainment of immigrants is measured in two ways.

1. A dummy variable for higher skilled occupational attainment (executive,administrative, managerial, and professional) vs. all other occupations.Examples of these higher skilled occupations include business owners,teachers, computer engineers, and nurses.

2. A dummy variable for lower skilled occupational attainment (service,laborers, farming, transportation) vs. all other occupations. Examplesof these lower skilled occupations include farm and garden workers,dishwashers, animal slaughter house workers, and private householdworkers.


Multi-level hierarchical non-linear (HGLM) modeling is used to test theeffect of (1) metropolitan area/census region immigrant receptivity attitudesummary scores for U.S. citizens; (2) metropolitan area/census region social,economic, and demographic characteristics; and (3) immigrant worker indi-vidual characteristics, including human capital measures, year of entry, andother explanatory variables, on the two occupational attainment dependentvariables for male and female immigrant worker (Raudenbush et al. 2000).1

A Heckman sample selection correction factor for immigrants ages 18-64who are excluded from the analysis because they are not in the labor forcealso is included in the multivariate analysis (Heckman 1979).2

While this multi-level modeling strategy permits a test of both direct andinteractive impacts of U.S. citizen receptivity attitudes on the occupationalattainment patterns of immigrants, indicators of possible linking mechanismsare not available in the data. One obvious mechanism is employer discrimina-tion. Alternatively, employers may hire immigrants but hold stereotypes aboutthem, which results in the tracking of immigrants with specific backgroundsinto certain occupations. Another mechanism may be discrimination by na-tive workers in their job performance interactions with immigrant workers.Tests of these and other possible mechanisms are fruitful topics for futureresearch.

Mapping receptivity attitudes toward immigrants

Receptivity attitude indicator data are presented in Maps 1–4, which are basedon the geo-coded information from the 1994 General Social Survey. Thesemaps document the considerable metropolitan vs. non-metropolitan, regional,and substantive issue diversity in the receptivity attitudes toward immigrantsheld by native-born U.S. citizens (De Jong & Tran 2001). Map 1, Are Immig-rants Hardworking?, shows that a more positive attitude toward immigrantsis held by native-born citizens living in major east coast and mid-west met-ropolitan areas, and in the west south-central and Pacific census regions,with the exception of residents of Dallas, San Diego, and San Francisco. Theview of immigrants as lazy was more likely held by metropolitan and non-metropolitan Americans in the east-south central and west-north areas of thecountry.

The view of immigrants as having a more positive impact on U.S. society(Map 2) shows a distinctive metropolitan vs. non-metropolitan area pattern,with a more positive view held by native-born citizens in most major met-ropolitan areas. On the other hand immigrants are viewed as having a morenegative impact on U.S. society by residents of non-metropolitan and smaller


Map 1. Are immigrants hardworking?

Map 2. Do immigrants have a positive impact?


Map 3. Should there be English only policies?

Map 4. Are undocumented immigrants entitled to benefits?


metropolitan areas, except those living in the west-north central and mid-westcensus regions.

The divisive issue of English-only language policies (Map 3) shows greatdiversity across metropolitan and non-metropolitan areas of the U.S. Ingeneral the greatest support for English-only language policies is held byAmericans in metropolitan and non-metropolitan Pacific coast and south-westcentral regions of the country, along with non-metropolitan residents in theSouth Atlantic region. Native-born metropolitan and non-metropolitan cit-izens in the industrial mid-west and mountain regions were the most opposedto English-only policies.

Finally, attitudes by Americans concerning undocumented immigrants’entitlements to societal benefits (Map 4) show a very diverse pattern acrossthe country and between metropolitan and non-metropolitan residents, withthe greatest support in the industrial mid-west and the east-south centralregions, and among non-metropolitan citizens in the Pacific regions.

In summary, these indicators of receptivity attitudes held by native-born citizens show striking variation among the four dimensions and acrossmetropolitan and non-metropolitan populations in the U.S.

Descriptive results

Table 1 provides descriptive data for the variables included in the analysis.These data show that during the 1995–97 period, 19 percent of immigrantmale and 21 percent of immigrant female workers were employed in mana-gerial and professional occupations. By comparison, 35 percent of male and32 percent of female immigrant workers were employed in service and laboroccupations. These two occupational categories are the focus of the analysisbecause of the potential divergence in receptivity attitudes toward higher andlower skilled immigrant workers.

The bi-variate correlation data confirm the expected statistically signific-ant explanations for immigrant occupational attainment based on the pastliterature and on the major hypothesis of this study. Individual-level humancapital, as measured by increased educational attainment, is strongly andpositively associated with managerial/professional and negatively associatedwith service/labor occupational positions for both male and female workers.Other individual-level indicators show that immigrants who have been in theU.S. for more years; who have European, Middle Eastern, and Asian origins;who migrated within the U.S. last year; and who work for larger firms aremore likely to have managerial/professional positions and less likely to haveservice/labor occupations. Turning to labor market area indicators, mana-gerial and professional occupational attainment is positively associated with a


Tabl

e1.

Des

crip

tive

stat

isti

csof

vari

able

sus

edin

the

anal

ysis

Var

iabl

esM

ale

imm

igra

ntw

orke

rsF

emal

eim

mig

rant

wor

kers

(N=

7,17

0)(N

=5,

209)

Mea

nor

Biv

aria

teco

rrel

atio

nM

ean

orB

ivar

iate

corr

elat

ion

perc

ent

perc

ent

Man

ager

ial

Ser

vice

Man

ager

ial

Ser

vice

Man

ager

ial&

Pro

fess

iona

lOcc

upat

ions

0.19

(0.3

9)–

–0.

21(0

.41)

––

(1=

Yes

,0=

Oth

erw

ise)

Ser

vice

&L

abor

Occ

upat

ions

0.35

(0.4

8)–

–0.

32(0

.47)

––

(1=

Yes

,0=

Oth

erw

ise)

Indi

vidu

al-l

evel

expl

anat

ory

vari

able

s

•Edu

cati

onal

atta

inm

ent

Les

sth

anH

igh

Sch

ool(

refe

renc

e)0.

39(0

.49)

−0.3

38∗∗

∗0.

269∗

∗∗0.

30(0

.46)

−0.2

94∗∗

∗0.

302∗

∗∗H

igh

Sch

oolD

iplo

ma

0.23

(0.4

2)−0

.159

∗∗∗

0.05

2∗∗∗

0.25

(0.4

4)−0

.169

∗∗∗

0.04

7∗∗∗

Som

eco

lleg

e0.

16(0

.37)

−0.0

19−0

.082

∗∗∗

0.23

(0.4

2)0.

018

−0.1

31∗∗

∗C

olle

gedi

plom

aor

mor

e0.

22(0

.41)

0.57

6∗∗∗

−0.2

97∗∗

∗0.

22(0

.42)

0.48

3∗∗∗

−0.2

50∗∗

∗•S

elf-

empl

oyed

(1=

Yes

,0=

No)

0.10

(0.2

9)0.

150∗

∗∗−0

.104

∗∗∗

0.07

(0.2

5)0.

099∗

∗∗−0

.014

•Yea

rof

entr

yto

U.S

.:

1990

orla

ter

(ref

eren

ce)

0.15

(0.3

6)−0

.034

∗∗∗

0.04

6∗∗∗

0.14

(0.3

4)−0

.063

∗∗∗

0.09

6∗∗∗

1984

–89

0.17

(0.3

8)−0

.079

∗∗∗

0.06

5∗∗∗

0.15

(0.3

6)−0

.031

∗0.

050∗

∗∗19

75–8

40.

20(0

.40)

−0.0

080.

002

0.20

(0.4

0)−0

.017

−0.0

30∗

Bef

ore

1975

0.16

(0.3

7)0.

099∗

∗∗−0

.089

∗∗∗

0.21

(0.4

0)0.

069∗

∗∗−0

.087

∗∗∗

Unk

now

n0.

32(0

.46)

0.01

9−0

.020

0.30

(0.4

6)0.

025

−0.0

08


Tabl

e1.

Con

tinu

ed

Var

iabl

esM

ale

imm

igra

ntw

orke

rsF

emal

eim

mig

rant

wor

kers

(N=

7,17

0)(N

=5,

209)

Mea

nor

Biv

aria

teco

rrel

atio

nM

ean

orB

ivar

iate

corr

elat

ion

perc

ent

perc

ent

Man

ager

ial

Ser

vice

Man

ager

ial

Ser

vice

•Cou

ntry

ofor

igin

:

Eur

opea

n(r

efer

ence

)0.

13(0

.33)

0.19

4∗∗∗

−0.1

27∗∗

∗0.

16(0

.37)

0.13

4∗∗∗

−0.1

00∗∗

∗M

iddl

eE

ast

0.03

(0.1

8)0.

127∗

∗∗−0

.077

∗∗∗

0.02

(0.1

3)0.

070∗

∗∗−0

.058

∗∗∗

Asi

a0.

16(0

.37)

0.19

3∗∗∗

−0.1

30∗∗

∗0.

21(0

.41)

0.12

0∗∗∗

−0.1

11∗∗

∗C

entr

al/S

outh

Am

eric

a0.

62(0

.48)

−0.3

75∗∗

∗0.

248∗

∗∗0.

56(0

.50)

−0.2

40∗∗

∗0.

197∗

∗∗E

lsew

here

0.06

(0.2

3)0.

103∗

∗∗−0

.071

∗∗∗

0.05

(0.2

2)0.

051∗

∗∗−0

.038

∗∗•I

nter

nalm

igra

tion

:

Out

ofco

unty

mov

ela

stye

ars

0.14

(0.3

5)0.

063∗

∗∗−0

.006

0.12

(0.3

2)0.

053∗

∗∗0.

018

(1=

Yes

,0=

No)

•Em

ploy

ing

firm

size

:

Sm

all=

<10

empl

oyee

s0.

24(0

.42)

−0.0

01−0

.000

0.24

(0.4

1)−0

.053

∗∗∗

0.17

2∗∗∗

Med

ium

=10

–499

empl

oyee

s0.

44(0

.49)

−0.1

59∗∗

∗0.

074∗

∗∗0.

38(0

.47)

−0.0

84∗∗

∗−0

.013

Lar

ge=

500+

empl

oyee

s0.

32(0

.46)

0.17

2∗∗∗

−0.0

80∗∗

∗0.

38(0

.47)

0.13

0∗∗∗

−0.1

35∗∗

∗•R

ace

(1=

Bla

ck,0

=O

ther

wis

e)0.

06(0

.24)

−0.0

05−0

.006

0.08

(0.2

7)0.

010

0.06

7∗∗∗

•Fam

ily

type

0.79

(0.4

1)0.

017

−0.0

41∗∗

∗0.

82(0

.39)

−0.0

01−0

.057

∗∗∗

(1=

Pri

mar

yFa

mily

,0=

Oth

erw

ise)

Hec

kman

labo

rfo

rce

sele

ctio

nfa

ctor

1.89

(1.2

1)0.

022

−0.0

150.

24(0

.72)

0.03

9∗−0

.016


Tabl

e1.

Con

tinu

ed

Var

iabl

esM

ale

imm

igra

ntw

orke

rsF

emal

eim

mig

rant

wor

kers

(N=

7,17

0)(N

=5,

209)

Mea

nor

Biv

aria

teco

rrel

atio

nM

ean

orB

ivar

iate

corr

elat

ion

perc

ent

perc

ent

Man

ager

ial

Ser

vice

Man

ager

ial

Ser

vice

Lab

orm

arke

tcha

ract

eris

tics

(N=

38)

(N=

38)

•Im

mig

rant

rece

ptiv

ity

attr

ibut

edsc

ale

scor

es(c

onti

nuou

s)H

ardw

orki

ng(0

–1st

anda

rdiz

edsc

ore)

0.61

(0.0

4)−0

.035

∗∗∗

−0.0

070.

61(0

.04)

−0.0

140.

016

Impa

ct(0

–1st

anda

rdiz

edsc

ore)

0.43

(0.0

4)0.

075∗

∗∗−0

.032

∗∗0.

43(0

.04)

0.04

0∗∗∗

−0.0

08E

ngli

sh-o

nly

opin

ion

(0–1

stan

dard

ized

scor

e)0.

66(0

.05)

0.05

4∗∗∗

−0.0

170.

66(0

.05)

0.03

4∗0.

005

Ille

gals

’pr

ivil

eges

(0–1

stan

dard

ized

scor

e)0.

66(0

.04)

0.18

4−0

.039

∗∗∗

0.66

(0.0

4)0.

004

−0.0

26∗

•Soc

iala

ndec

onom

icch

arac

teri

stic

s(c

onti

nuou

s)P

erce

ntw

hite

popu

lati

on0.

83(0

.10)

0.05

5∗∗∗

0.00

20.

83(0

.10)

0.04

0∗∗

−0.0

14P

erce

ntfo

reig

nbo

rn0.

07(0

.08)

−0.0

53∗∗

∗−0

.018

0.07

(0.0

8)−0

.054

∗∗∗

−0.0

02P

erce

ntw

hite

sin

pove

rty

0.08

(0.0

3)−0

.080

∗∗∗

0.09

2∗∗∗

0.08

(0.0

3)−0

.061

∗∗∗

0.05

7∗∗∗

Per

cent

poor

Eng

lish

spea

king

0.05

(0.1

2)−0

.001

−0.0

110.

05(0

.12)

0.00

3−0

.026

Per

cent

whi

tes

coll

ege

grad

s0.

22(0

.07)

0.02

6∗−0

.023

∗0.

22(0

.07)

0.02

3−0

.000

Per

cent

whi

tes

unem

ploy

ed0.

05(0

.12)

−0.0

64∗∗

∗0.

053∗

∗∗0.

05(0

.12)

−0.0

45∗∗

0.02

3P

erce

ntbl

acks

unem

ploy

ed0.

22(0

.07)

−0.0

05−0

.013

0.22

(0.0

7)−0

.022

−0.0

10P

erce

nton

publ

icas

sist

ance

0.05

(0.0

1)0.

006

0.00

70.

05(0

.01)

−0.0

04−0

.015

•Met

-non

met

area

s(c

ateg

oriz

ed)

Top

20m

etar

eas

0.53

(0.5

1)0.

002

−0.0

66∗∗

∗0.

53(0

.51)

−0.0

05−0

.021

Oth

erm

etar

eas

0.24

(0.4

3)0.

008

0.04

5∗∗∗

0.24

(0.4

3)−0

.013

0.00

9N

onm

etar

eas

(ref

eren

ce)

0.23

(0.4

3)−0

.017

0.04

1∗∗∗

0.23

(0.4

3)0.

029∗

0.02

1

(.xx

)=

Sta

ndar

dD

evia

tion

;∗p

<0.

005;

∗∗p

<0.

01;∗

∗∗p

<0.

001.


higher percentage of white population and college graduates, and negativelyassociated with a higher percentage of foreign born, white unemploymentrates, and with residence in the largest metropolitan areas. The pattern of therelationships for service and labor occupational positions reflects the inverseof the managerial and professional relationships.

Table 1 also shows that receptivity attitudes held by citizens toward im-migrants are significantly related to the occupational attainment of immigrantworkers. More positive attitudes by natives concerning the impact of immig-rants on American society, more tolerant attitudes on English-only policies,but a more negative attitude of immigrants as hardworking (perhaps a ste-reotype for unskilled workers) are all associated with greater managerialand professional occupational attainment of immigrants in metropolitan labormarket areas and regions. Bi-variate data show that service and labor occu-pational status of immigrants is less likely in areas where citizens supportgranting educational and work privileges to illegal immigrants.

Multivariate model results

The results for the hierarchical non-linear logistic model of service andlabor occupational attainment of male and female immigrant workers arepresented in Table 2. The first panel shows the impact of area variation inthe four native-born citizens’ receptivity attitudes in explaining lower-statusoccupational attainment of immigrant workers, controlling for the effect ofeducational attainment and all other individual- and area-level variables inthe model. The results show that a more positive attitude about the impactof immigrants on U.S. society is strongly associated with service and laboroccupational employment by both male and female immigrant workers. Thissuggests that, controlling for area employment and individual characterist-ics, this receptivity attitude fosters employment opportunities in lower-skilledoccupations for immigrant workers.

Furthermore, a more tolerant view by native-born citizens on English-onlylanguage policies is negatively associated with service and labor occupationalemployment for male immigrant workers. And the analysis of interactioneffects between English-only language policies and high school and col-lege educational attainment is negatively associated with service and laboroccupational employment for female immigrant workers. These main andinteraction effects of Americans’ English-only language policies attitudes onimmigrant occupational attainment may suggest that alternative occupationalsector employment opportunities are more likely available to poor Englishspeaking immigrant workers in the more tolerant receptivity attitude areas.


Table 2. Hierarchical non-linear logistic model of service and labor occupational attainmentof male and female immigrant workers

Explanatory variables Male workers Female Workers

Coefficient Std. errors Coefficient Std. errors

Area Immigrant Receptivity Attitudes

Hardworking −2.34 1.44 −0.44 1.94

Impact 10.32∗∗∗ 2.43 8.03∗∗ 3.10

English-only opinion −3.73∗∗ 1.58 2.56 2.00

Illegals’ privileges −3.05 1.93 −3.07 2.66

Human Capital of Immigrants

Educational attainment (<H.S.= reference)

High school −2.24 2.22 4.96 2.84

Some college −2.16 2.64 1.02 3.06

College or more −1.64 3.12 −1.36 3.42

Self-employed −0.57∗∗∗ 0.12 −0.42∗∗ 0.14

Educational Attainment × Receptivity Attitudes

H.S. × hardworking 1.80 1.93 −1.26 2.45

H.S. × impact −2.70 2.49 2.53 3.13

H.S. × English-only 3.42 1.97 −7.73∗∗∗ 2.36

H.S. × illegal’s privileges −0.26 3.04 −1.51 3.82

S. College × hardworking −1.12 2.34 −0.18 2.68

S. College × impact −0.38 3.11 −0.24 3.47

S. College × English-only 0.47 2.32 −2.87 2.57

S. College × illegals’ privileges 2.81 3.60 −0.51 4.12

College × hardworking 1.74 2.70 0.71 3.21

College × impact −0.23 3.61 0.09 4.02

College × English-only 0.98 2.59 −6.70∗ 2.89

College × illegals’ privileges −3.02 4.11 4.65 4.49

Other Individual-Level Characteristics

Year of Entry (1990+ = reference)

1984–89 0.01 0.09 −0.20 0.12

1975–84 −0.26∗∗ 0.09 −0.60∗∗∗ 0.12

Before 1975 −0.54∗∗∗ 0.10 −0.75∗∗∗ 0.12

Unknown −0.48∗∗∗ 0.11 −0.53∗∗∗ 0.13

Country of origin (European = reference)

Middle East 0.04 0.21 −0.48 0.33

Asia 0.10 0.12 −0.01 0.12

Central/South America 0.59∗∗∗ 0.10 0.37∗∗∗ 0.10

Elsewhere 0.09 0.16 −0.01 0.19

Internal migration (No = Reference) −0.01 0.08 0.17 0.11


Table 2. Continued



Employing firm size (Small = Reference)

Medium −0.05 0.07 −0.91∗∗∗ 0.09

Large −0.03 0.08 −0.97∗∗∗ 0.09

Heckman labor force selection factor −0.16∗∗∗ 0.03 −0.02 0.06

Labor Market Area Characteristics

% White population −1.93∗ 0.79 −2.18∗ 0.94

% Foreign born −0.79 0.78 −1.79∗ 0.90

% Whites in poverty 8.04∗∗ 2.84 8.33∗∗ 3.27

% Poor English speaking −0.04 0.19 −0.65∗∗ 0.22

% Whites college grads. 1.64 1.07 1.47 1.37

% Whites unemployed 8.90 7.83 10.95 8.63

% Blacks unemployed 1.37 1.83 0.66 2.18

% On public assistance −0.53∗ 0.25 −1.26∗∗∗ 0.33

Met-nonmet area (Nonmet = Reference)

Top 20 met areas −0.52∗ 0.24 −0.20 0.29

Other met areas −0.04 0.16 −0.20 0.18

Intercept 1.98 1.66 −0.83 2.22

Least-squares likelihood −4381.17 −2969.68

Sigma-squared 0.196 0.180

Controlled for race and family type demographic characteristics.∗p =< 0.05; ∗∗p =< 0.01; ∗∗∗p =< 0.001.

Turning to the findings for the other individual-level immigrant workervariables in the model, educational human capital has no direct effect on ser-vice and labor occupational attainment when educational interaction effectsand all other variables in the model are controlled. However, self-employmentis highly negatively related to service and labor employment of all immig-rant workers, as is employment in medium- and large-sized firms for femaleimmigrant workers. Central and South American immigrant workers aremore likely to be employed in service and labor occupations, compared toEuropean immigrant workers, but regardless of country of origin, increasedlength of residence in the U.S. is negatively associated with service andlabor occupational employment. The Heckman labor force selection factoris statistically significant and negative for male but not for female workers,indicating that low-skilled male workers tend to be younger, in poorer health,and less likely to be married with spouse present than the entire immigrantsample of male immigrants.


Moreover, area labor market characteristics matter for service and laboremployment patterns of immigrants. Most notable is the positive associationof white poverty rates with service and labor occupational employment ofboth immigrant males and females. This association has been interpretedby Huber and Espenshade (1997) as indicative of economic insecurity andfinancial hardship by native workers, which push immigrant workers downthe occupational status hierarchy to service and labor positions. Service andlabor occupational employment of both immigrant male and female workersis negatively associated with the percent of the total population that is onpublic assistance and that is white.

Results of the hierarchical non-linear logistic model for managerial andprofessional occupation attainment of male and female immigrant workersare presented in Table 3. The first panel shows that area variation in noneof the four receptivity attitude measures of native-born citizens is directlyrelated to managerial and professional occupational attainment of either maleor female immigrant workers, controlling for the effect of educational at-tainment and all other variables in the model. The interaction coefficientsshow that college or greater educational attainment of male immigrant work-ers interacts with a more positive assessment by native-born citizens of thesocietal impact of immigrants to enhance the managerial and professionaloccupational attainment of immigrant males. For immigrant females, areavariation in the view by Americans that immigrants are “hardworking” – astereotype usually targeted at lower-skilled workers – interacts with some col-lege attainment to negatively affect managerial and professional occupationalattainment. Although only statistically significant for one coefficient, this res-ult suggests that where native citizens hold the stereotype of immigrants as“hardworking”, this attitude may limit higher-skilled immigrant occupationalopportunities, particularly for college educated immigrant women.

Turning to the impact of other individual-level human capital and as-similation explanatory variables in the model, managerial and professionaloccupational attainment of both male and female immigrant workers is pos-itively associated with self-employment, employment in larger-sized firms,and internal migration. However, male immigrant workers from Asia andboth male and female workers from Central and South America are signi-ficantly less likely to attain managerial and professional positions, comparedwith European immigrants, although the length of time in the U.S. improvesthe managerial and professional occupational attainment for all workers. TheHeckman labor force selection coefficient is statistically significant and pos-itive for males but negative for female immigrant workers in this model. Thissuggests that managerial and professional attainment is selective of somewhatolder, better health, married with spouse present males, but younger, smaller


Table 3. Hierarchical non-linear logistic model of managerial and professionaloccupational attainment of male and female immigrant workers



Area Immigrant Receptivity Attitudes

Hardworking −0.62 3.91 9.96 5.70

Impact −3.00 5.17 −8.27 5.92

English-only opinion 0.45 4.11 3.23 6.57

Illegal’s privilege 2.18 5.71 −6.59 4.93


Educational attainment

(<H.S. = Reference)

High school 6.57 5.11 −0.44 6.39

Some college 2.35 4.92 5.66 5.93

College or more 2.94 4.55 2.57 5.75

Self-employed 1.04∗∗∗ 0.13 1.20∗∗∗ 0.17

Educational Attainment × Receptivity Attitudes

H.S. × hardworking −1.23 4.69 −5.87 6.53

H.S. × impact 1.44 5.72 2.50 6.99

H.S. × English-only −1.70 4.84 2.42 5.53

H.S. × illegals’ privileges −6.91 7.11 4.10 8.09

S. College × hardworking −1.53 4.44 −12.94∗ 6.15

S. College × impact 2.69 5.44 4.32 6.53

S. College × English-only −0.45 4.60 −2.04 5.18

S. College × illegals’ privileges −1.03 6.66 6.10 7.50

College × hardworking −3.38 4.02 −9.45 6.04

College × impact 10.15∗ 4.89 6.81 6.41

College × English-only 1.91 4.19 −2.58 5.03

College × illegals’ privileges −4.58 6.08 8.80 7.25

Other Individual-Level Characteristics

Year of Entry

(1990+ = Reference)

1984–89 −0.06 0.15 0.27 0.17

1975–84 0.42∗∗ 0.14 0.43∗∗ 0.16

Before 1975 0.84∗∗∗ 0.14 0.81∗∗∗ 0.15

Unknown 0.78∗∗∗ 0.19 0.74∗∗∗ 0.19


Table 3. Continued



Country of origin

(European = Reference)

Middle East −0.23 0.18 0.09 0.26

Asia −0.36∗∗ 0.12 −0.21 0.11

Central/South America −1.09∗∗∗ 0.11 −0.45∗∗∗ 0.10

Elsewhere −0.29 0.16 −0.28 0.19

Internal migration (No = Reference) 0.30∗∗ 0.11 0.28∗ 0.13

Employing firm size

(Small = Reference)

Medium −0.15 0.12 0.34∗∗∗ 0.13

Large 0.39∗∗ 0.12 0.64∗∗∗ 0.13

Heckman labor force selection factor 0.16∗∗ 0.05 −0.45∗∗∗ 0.11


% White population −0.07 0.11 −0.74 1.15

% Foreign born −0.10 0.10 −1.81 1.07

% Whites in poverty −0.26 0.39 −9.11∗ 4.02

% Poor English speaking −0.01 0.02 0.01 0.27

% Whites college grads. −0.34∗ 0.15 −1.62 1.69

% Whites unemployed −0.06 1.02 21.41∗ 9.87

% Blacks unemployed −0.33 0.24 −6.60∗∗ 2.60

% On public assistance 0.54 0.03 0.89∗ 0.40

Met-monmet area

(Nonmet = Reference)

Top 20 met areas 0.03 0.03 −0.15 0.35

Other met areas −0.01 0.02 −0.43∗ 0.22

Intercept −2.33 4.48 −3.30 5.70

Least-squares likelihood −1863.29 −1873.66

Sigma-squared 0.096 0.118


number of children, and not married with spouse present females comparedwith the entire sample of U.S. immigrants.

Finally, while area labor market control characteristics have minimal im-pact on male immigrant managerial and professional occupational attainment,for females the unemployment rate for whites has a positive impact but the


unemployment rate for blacks has a negative impact on employment in thissector. These findings suggest that higher occupational attainment by femaleimmigrants is sensitive to the local labor economy and job competition, aswell as the economic insecurity of whites, which is indicated by the negativeeffects of white poverty.

Testing the reverse causation hypothesis

Is the cause-effect logic of the immigrant receptivity argument reversed, sothat low occupational skill characteristics of immigrants precipitate negativeattitudes by native citizens toward immigrants, and high occupational skillcharacteristics create positive attitudes by native citizens toward immigrants?We test this argument in Table 4 with four OLS models in which the attitudesabout immigrants held by U.S. citizens in different regional and labor mar-ket areas are treated as the consequences of immigrant occupational skills,other human capital and individual-level immigrant attributes, as well asregional and area labor market characteristics. The results show that of theeight occupational coefficients (high and low skilled immigrant occupationalattainment categories by four receptivity attitudes), seven of the coefficientsare not statistically significant, controlling for all other variables in the mode(Table 4). This evidence thus provides no systematic support for the argumentthat the high or low occupational skills of immigrants in a regional or metro-politan labor market are major determinants of the variation in native citizenreceptivity attitudes toward immigrants across the United States.

Other human capital attributes are selectively related to citizen receptivityattitudes toward immigrants. College educational attainment by immigrantsis related to more positive attitudes concerning English-only language policyand to illegal immigrants’ privileges, and immigrant self-employment isstrongly related to positive attitudes by U.S. citizens concerning immigrantsas hardworking, the impact of immigrants on American society, and illegalimmigrants’ privileges. Overall, the evidence in Table 4 shows that regionaland local labor market characteristics rather than individual-level immigrantattributes are major determinants of immigrant receptivity attitudes held byU.S. citizens. Comparing these regional and local labor market characteristicsresults with those in Tables 2 and 3 suggests that area characteristics aredeterminants of both citizen receptivity attitudes and immigrant occupationalattainment.


Table 4. OLS regression models of immigrant receptivity attitudes held by U.S. citizens inregional and metropolitan areas

Explanatory variables Immigrant receptivity attitude coefficients

Hardworking Impact English-only Illegals’

opinion privileges


Occupational attainment

Managerial & prof. occup. (1 = yes, 0 = other) −0.009 0.001 0.005 −0.012

Service & labor occup. (1 = yes, 0 = other) 0.005 0.022∗∗∗ 0.004 −0.005

Educational Attainment (H.S.+ Reference)

High school 0.001 −0.006 0.017 0.021∗∗Some college 0.001 0.009 0.037∗∗∗ 0.023∗∗College or more −0.018 0.007 0.040∗∗∗ 0.019∗

Self-employed 0.049∗∗∗ 0.030∗∗∗ 0.014 0.037∗∗∗Other Individual-Level Characteristics

Year of entry (1990+ = Reference)

1984–89 −0.023 0.004 0.002 −0.010

1975–84 −0.017 −0.013 −0.025∗ −0.021∗Before 1975 −0.030∗ 0.003 −0.005 −0.020∗Unknown −0.015 0.016 0.008 −0.005

Country of origin (European = Reference)

Middle East −0.022 −0.003 0.048 0.048

Asia −0.054∗∗∗ 0.012 −0.024 −0.024

Central/South America −0.027∗ −0.023∗∗ 0.001 0.001

Elsewhere 0.008 0.009 0.036∗ 0.037

Employing firm size (Small = Reference)

Medium 0.002 0.004 −0.003 −0.003

Large −0.005 −0.004 −0.019∗ −0.019∗Internal migration (No = Reference) 0.000 0.000 0.009 0.009

Sex 0.013 0.010∗ 0.012 0.012


% White population −0.307∗∗∗ 0.138∗∗∗ 0.248∗∗∗ −0.003

% Foreign born −0.032∗∗ 0.093∗∗∗ 0.270∗∗∗ 0.069∗∗∗% Whites in poverty −0.805∗∗∗ −0.245∗∗∗ 0.262∗∗∗ −0.240∗∗∗% Poor English speaking 0.010∗∗∗ 0.037∗∗∗ −0.054∗∗∗ 0.013∗∗∗% Whites college grads. −0.162∗∗∗ 0.241∗∗∗ 0.166∗∗∗ −0.009

% Whites unemployed 1.155∗∗∗ −0.982∗∗∗ −3.589∗∗∗ 0.333∗∗∗% Blacks unemployed 0.395∗∗∗ 0.200∗∗∗ 0.235∗∗∗ 0.245∗∗∗Met-nonmet area (Top 20 Met = Reference)

Other met areas 0.014∗∗∗ 0.021∗∗∗ 0.044∗∗∗ 0.017∗∗∗Nonmet areas 0.031∗∗∗ 0.003∗∗∗ 0.051∗∗∗ 0.016∗∗∗

Intercept 0.844∗∗∗ 0.289∗∗∗ 0.501∗∗∗ 0.616∗∗∗F-value 215.3∗∗∗ 435.1∗∗∗ 305.5∗∗∗ 36.8∗∗∗R2 0.477 0.648 0.564 0.132



Summary and conclusion

The goal of this research was to extend the literature on the receptivityperspective of immigrant assimilation by testing the impact of four spe-cific receptivity attitudes held by native-born citizens – (1) immigrants arehardworking, (2) societal impacts of immigrants, (3) English-only languagepolicies, and (4) illegal immigrants’ privileges – on the occupational attain-ment of immigrants in major U.S. metropolitan areas and census regions. Theanalysis explicitly explored gender differences in the immigrant receptivitythesis.

Overall, the results provided partial support for the main hypothesisthat receptivity attitudes toward immigrants have a direct or an education-conditioned interactive effect on the occupational attainment of immigrantworkers. This general conclusion was consistent for male and female im-migrant workers as the gender patterns of relationships were overall quitesimilar.

Although the attitudinal measures were not gender specific, occupationalpatterns do differ by sex. Support for the receptivity thesis was found in theresult that a more positive attitude about the impact of immigrants on U.S.society is strongly associated with service and labor occupational employ-ment opportunities for immigrant workers. These findings suggest that a moresupportive local metropolitan or census region attitudinal climate promotesincreased employment opportunities for lower skilled immigrant workers anda more negative attitudinal climate decreased these opportunities. Furthersupport for the general receptivity hypothesis comes from the finding thata more tolerant attitude on (less support for) English-only language policiesby native-born citizens is negatively associated with service and labor oc-cupational employment of male immigrant workers and from the significantinteraction effects for English-only language policies and education for fe-male immigrant workers. These results can be interpreted as supportive ofbroader occupational sector employment opportunities for immigrant workersin metropolitan areas and census regions where citizens have more tolerantattitudes toward non-native language communication. Some support for thereceptivity thesis also is evident for higher skilled occupational attainment inthe interaction effect between a more positive receptivity attitude concerningthe impact of immigrants on U.S. society and the managerial and professionaloccupational attainment of college-educated immigrant males.

On the other hand, the lack of significant direct effect relationships amongany of the four receptivity attitude measures for native-born citizens and themanagerial and professional occupational attainment of either male or femaleimmigrant workers does not support the general receptivity hypothesis. Whilethis finding may be affected by the strong predictive power of length of time in


the U.S. on immigrant managerial and professional occupational attainment,the results may also reflect social class as well as ethnic bias in native-borncitizens’ immigrant receptivity attitudes. The latter perspective would supportEspenshade and Hempstead’s (1996) argument that receptivity attitudes aremost salient in (often lower-skilled) occupational sectors where there is directjob competition between immigrants and U.S. citizens.

The empirical evidence also validates two salient receptivity attitudetheoretical positions as they related to service and labor sector immigrantoccupational attainment. The first is Sanchez’s (1997) argument of the neg-ative impact of Americans’ antipathy toward non-English languages basedon a fear that linguistic differences will undermine national culture. PoorEnglish language ability thus becomes a “double disadvantage” – both inindividual employment outcomes and as community context – for immig-rant workers in metropolitan and regional labor markets where U.S. citizenshold this nativism attitude more strongly. The second salient receptivity at-titude theoretical position supported is Espenshade and Hempstead’s (1996)generalized cost-benefit analysis of immigrants and Sanchez’s (1997) morerestricted argument of immigrant drain on public resources. The empiricalresults suggest that a more positive view by native-born citizens on thesetheoretical propositions promotes enhanced opportunities for both male andfemale immigrant workers. And the items which constitute our immigrantimpact scale suggest that the basis for Americans’ cost-benefit evaluation ofimmigrants extends beyond unemployment rates to include national unity andequality issues. In summary, our results support two (antipathy toward non-English languages and cost-benefit evaluation of drain on public resources)and rejects one (multi-culturalism and affirmative action advantage) of Sanc-hez’s (1997) three explanations for current U.S. nativism attitudes related toimmigrant worker occupational attainment.

The validity of our immigrant receptivity argument is strengthened by theresults of the reverse causation analysis which provided no systematic supportfor the argument that immigrant receptivity attitudes of U.S. citizens are aresult of the occupational characteristics of immigrants to regional and locallabor markets. While a strong test of this reverse causation hypothesis wouldrequire time series labor market receptivity attitude data, which unfortunatelyare not available, the test provided does demonstrate solid evidence in supportof our argument that the occupational structures of immigrants are influencedby natives’ attitudes toward immigrants.

Overall the implication of this research is that immigrant occupationalattainment is explained by multiple and not competing theories. To the mul-tiple theoretical explanations our research adds empirical evidence for theimmigrant receptivity attitude perspective.


Acknowledgement

This project acknowledges support by the Pennsylvania State University Pop-ulation Research Institute Grant from the National Institute for Child Healthand Human Development (No. 1 R24 HD1025).

Notes

1. The logic underlying this analytical model is that receptivity attitudes of the majoritypopulation affect the occupational attainment of the minority immigrant population. Thetime-order of our data reflect this logic: 1994 receptivity attitude survey data for U.S.citizens preceding 1995–1997 immigrant occupational attainment data.

2. In this study sample selection occurs because the immigrant adults who are out of thelabor force have been excluded from the study. Correction for sample selection is madeby estimating a labor force participation model to determine the odds of being in the laborforce or not, and then including this factor in the multivariate analysis of occupationalattainment as a control variable. The variables used in the labor force participation modelare (1) age; (2) currently enrolled in high school or college (yes vs. no); (3) health self-assessment (poor vs. otherwise); (4) married, spouse present (yes vs. otherwise); and (5)number of children (for female workers).

References

Alba, R. & Nee, V. (1999), Rethinking assimilation theory for a new era of immigration, pp.137–160 in C. Hirschman, P. Kasinitz & J. DeWind (eds.), The handbook of internationalmigration: The American experience. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.

Bohning, W.R. (1984), Studies in international labour migration. New York: St. Martin’sPress.

Bohon, S. (2001), Latinos in ethnic enclaves: Immigrant workers and the competition for jobs.New York: Garland Publishing.

Borjas, G.J. (2000), Issues in the economics of immigration. Chicago: University of ChicagoPress.

Borjas, G.J. (1994), The economics of immigration. Journal of Economic Literature 32: 1667–1717.

Chiswick, B.R. (1978), The effect of Americanization on the earnings of foreign-born men.Journal of Political Economy 86: 897–921.

De Jong, G.F. & Tran, Q.-G. (2001), Warm welcome, cool welcome: Mapping receptivitytoward immigrants in the U.S., Population Today 29(8): 1, 4–5.

Espenshade, T.J. & Hempstead, K. (1996), Contemporary American attitudes toward U.S.immigration, International Migration Review 30: 535–570.

Gans, H.J. (1992), Second-generation decline: Scenarios for the economic and ethnic futuresof the post-1965 American immigrants, Ethnic and Racial Studies 15: 173–192.

Gordon, M. (1964), Assimilation in American life: The role of race, religion, and nationalorigin. New York: Oxford University Press.

Heckman, J. (1979), Sample selection bias as a specification error. Econometrika 47: 153–161.


Higham, J. (1988), Strangers in the land: Patterns of American nativism 1896–1925, secondedition. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.

Huber, G. & Espenshade, T. (1997), Neo-isolationism, balanced-budget conservatism, and thefiscal impacts of immigrants, International Migration Review 31: 1031–1054.

Lind, M. (1995), The next American nation: The new nationalism and the fourth Americanrevolution. New York: Basic Books.

Massey, D. (1999), Why does immigration occur? A theoretical synthesis, pp. 43–52 in C.Hirschman, P. Kasinitz & J. DeWind (eds.), The handbook of international migration: TheAmerican experience. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.

Piore, M. (1979), Birds of passage: Migrant labor in industrial societies. New York:Cambridge University Press.

Portes, A. (1995), Economic sociology and the sociology of immigration. New York: RussellSage Foundation.

Powers, M.G. & Seltzer, W. (1998), Occupational Status and mobility among undocumentedimmigrants by gender, International Migration Review 32: 21-55.

Raijman, R. & Tienda, M. (1999), Immigrants’ socioeconomic progress post-1965: Forgingmobility or survival?, pp. 239–256 in C. Hirschman, P. Kasinitz & Josh DeWind (eds.),The handbook of international migration: The American experience. New York: RussellSage Foundation.

Raudenbush, S., Bryk, A., Cheong, Y.F. & Congdon, R. (2000), HLM5: Hierarchical linearand nonlinear modeling. Lincolnwood, IL: SSI International.

Reitz, J.G. (1998). The warmth of the welcome. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.Sassen, S. (1989), New York City’s informal economy, pp. 60–77 in A. Portes, M. Castells

& L. Benton (eds.), The Informal Economy: Studies in Advanced and Less DevelopedCountries. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins Press.

Sanchez, G.J. (1997), ‘Face the nation: Race, immigration, and the rise of nativism in the latetwentieth-century America’, International Migration Review 31: 1109–1130.

Waldinger, R. (1986), Through the eye of the needle: Immigrants and enterprise in New York’sgarment trades. New York: New York University Press. Waldinger, R. (1994). The makingof an immigrant niche, International Migration Review 28: 3–30.

Zhou, M. (1992), Chinatown: The socioeconomic potential of an urban enclave. Philadelphia,PA: Temple University Press.

Address for correspondence: Gordon F. De Jong, Population Research Institute and Depart-ment of Sociology, Pennsylvania State University, 601 Oswald Tower, University Park, PA16802, U.S.A.Phone: 814-863-2277; Fax: 814-863-8342; E-mail: [email protected]

Date post:	28-Nov-2023
Category:	Documents
Upload:	independent
View:	0 times
Download:	0 times

Receptivity Attitudes and the Occupational Attainment of Male and Female Immigrant Workers

Documents