Читать книгу To Be An American - Bill Ong Hing - Страница 22

The array of studies that have examined the labor market effects of immigration can be categorized as regional or sectoral. Regional studies examine the effects of immigrants upon the entire labor market of a particular geographical segment of the country, such as Miami or California. Sectoral studies examine the effects of immigrants upon a single labor market—that related to a particular job sector such as the automobile or restaurant industry. Each perspective has its own advantages and disadvantages, and both are helpful to a better understanding of the way immigrants impact America’s labor market.

Looking at job displacement and wage issues from a regional perspective causes us to consider the significance of variations in regional economies and demographic characteristics. Jobs are not distributed equally across the country. Nor are immigrants distributed evenly throughout the United States; different immigrant groups have unique histories in different regions of the country. For example, those who are foreign-born make up approximately 22 percent of the total population in California, about 10 percent in the Northeast (16 percent in New York and 13.5 percent in New Jersey), 13 percent in Florida, and about 9 percent in Illinois and Texas. Most of the foreign-born in Florida are Cuban, in Texas Mexican, in California Mexican and Asian, and in New York a small percentage of each. The majority of Asian Indians reside in a single state, New Jersey.

Given regional variations in labor markets as well as the uneven geographic and ethnic distributions of immigrants, the impact of immigrants no doubt varies according to the region of the country. Consequently, we should wonder about the impact of Cubans and Haitians in Miami versus that of Mexicans, Central Americans, and certain Asians in Los Angeles. But even considering Cubans in Miami, one might wonder about differences between the effects of Cubans who entered in the 1960s versus those who entered as part of the Mariel boatlift around 1980. And given the long social and economic relationship between the United States and Mexico, one also suspects that there is a unique set of effects in places such as California, New Mexico, Arizona, and Texas.

Some general themes emerge with respect to regional differences. In terms of geographic distribution, Asian and European immigrants tend to be dispersed throughout the general population, in contrast to Mexicans, Cubans, and other Latinos, who tend to be concentrated in particular regions. The legalization (or amnesty) program in the late 1980s revealed that a substantial portion of the undocumented population in the United States enters from Mexico and resides in the West. During a period of significant labor force growth between 1970 and 1980 in the West, foreign-born workers contributed nearly 20 percent of the growth. Differences between jobs held by foreign-born and native workers are greater between Latinos and natives than between Asians and natives, and greater for women than for men. Occupational differences between immigrants and natives are greater in California, Texas, and Illinois than in Florida and New York. And the data suggest that the concentration of Mexican immigrants in the West depresses the average human capital and earnings of the foreign-born population in the region.¹²

A sectoral perspective compels one to consider the different effects that might be found between different industries such as manufacturing versus agriculture, or food processing compared to high-tech industries. Sectoral studies raise the further question of whether the presence of immigrant workers causes a delay in implementing technological advances or prompts reconsideration about the relocation of certain plant facilities to a different country. In the latter situation, the unavailability of immigrant workers would not necessarily open up jobs for native workers.

Regional studies are considered first.