Presentation on theme: "Immigrants Raising Citizens: The Second Generation in the First Years of Life Hirokazu Yoshikawa, Harvard Graduate School of Education Baruch College,"— Presentation transcript:
Immigrants Raising Citizens: The Second Generation in the First Years of Life Hirokazu Yoshikawa, Harvard Graduate School of Education Baruch College, CUNY, April 2009 Thanks: Catherine Tamis-LeMonda, Ronit Kahana-Kalman, CRCDE researchers at NYU and Harvard, and the NSF, Russell Sage Foundation, and William T. Grant Foundation
Overview of Research Programs Impact on children of efforts to improve the quality of early childhood care and education: –Cluster-randomized trial in Chile (Fundacion Oportunidad) –Regression-discontinuity study in Boston (IES) –Meta-analysis of policies and programs across prenatal period to age 5 (Buffett Early Childhood Fund) Parental employment and child development –Low-wage workers in the US: welfare to work and antipoverty experiments –Parent work trajectories, parenting and child development in urban China The development of young children in low-income immigrant families
Overview 1)Undocumented Status: An understudied factor in theories and studies of the second generation 2)Description of study sample and methods 3) Tales of Fujian and Puebla – mechanisms of how parent undocumented status could affect child development
1)Undocumented Status: An understudied factor in theories and studies of the second generation? 2)Description of study sample and methods 3) Tales of Fujian and Puebla – different mechanisms of how parent undocumented status could affect child development
Demographic Overview (Capps & Fix, 2005; Passel & Cohn, 2008) Estimated 11.9 million undocumented immigrants in the U.S. in 2008; 30% of foreign-born –59% from Mexico –22% other Latin Am –12% Asia (principally China, India, Korea, Philippines) Of all Mexican foreign-born 56% are unauthorized; of those in US for 10 years or less, 80-85% Of Mexican unauthorized, estimated 25%-40% visa overstayers; rest (60%-75%) border crossers No clear path to citizenship (Motomura, 2006) Two-thirds of children of undocumented parents are U.S.- born (i.e., citizen children in “mixed-status” families)
An overlooked factor in studies of the second generation Assimilation theories and the 2 nd generation – citizenship and documentation part of theoretical frameworks, but emphasis on peer effects, community norms, neighborhood economic opportunity, intergroup contact. Factors most studied in segmented assimilation of 2 nd generation not as relevant to 0 to 3. Transnational theories emphasize political, institutional and network participation across borders. Both sets of theories: little empirical work on parent citizenship / documentation status and development of the 2 nd generation.
Undocumented status and recent waves of immigration from Mexico and China in NY Mexicans from Puebla / Guerrero / Mixteca region, Chinese from Fujian: Relatively early in waves of immigration to NY (Liang, 2001; Smith, 2006) Most have arrived in the last years Numbers growing Relatively high rates of disadvantage, undocumented status
Apparent reasons not to worry about this group Recent immigrants: Lower levels of racial/ethnic discrimination At school entry: MX and Asian children’s attentiveness and persistence higher than other groups of similar backgrounds; internalizing and externalizing no different (Crosnoe, 2006) Our data: –Mexicans: lower economic hardship than Dominicans, African Americans –Mexicans: higher system justification (perceived fairness of US society as a whole) than African Americans or Dominicans (Godfrey, 2008) –Mexicans: US government more generous than MX re: children, families
Reasons to worry about this group Non-citizens: higher food insecurity (Van Hook & Balistreri, 2006; Kalil & Chen, 2008) Mexican children: low preschool enrollment (4-year olds: 55% in US vs. 80% in MX; Hernandez, Denton, & Macartney, 2007; Yoshikawa et al., 2007) At school entry: MX’s lower on overall physical health, math scores, controlling for SES indicators (Crosnoe, 2006); lower on reading scores (Han, 2006) Mexican adolescents: high dropout rates Chinese adolescents: lower self-esteem, higher depression and social isolation relative to White, Black, and Latino counterparts in urban multi-ethnic schools (Fuligni; Qin, Way, & Mukherjee, 2008; Kao, 1999)
Early cognitive development –MX children at 24 months: Lower than African Americans on expressive language using Mullen Scales; lower than Dominicans on MacArthur Communication Inventory (each word asked in Spanish and English; difference due to English vocabulary of Dominican children); videotaped language in process –MX children at 36 months: Lower than African Americans on expressive language (by.66 SD) Difference not explained by indicators of family structure, mother / father education, employment, occupational complexity; household earnings; # adults in household; # children in household; child sex, birth order; language(s) spoken at home
US frameworks of disadvantage and poverty may be inadequate Traditional theories of disadvantage (poverty- based) or discrimination: don’t measure everyday experiences of incorporation or exclusion (might not be accompanied by perceptions of discrimination or exclusion) Social exclusion theory: A more promising theory to inform research on this group (Alba, 2005; Burchardt, LeGrand, & Piachaud, 2002; Lenoir, 1974) Indicators of social marginalization and disadvantage beyond poverty
Social exclusion is distinct from poverty Social exclusion applied to civic membership: Low participation in and access to institutions and resources driven by citizenship status –Public – e.g., education, legal, health care, policy –Private – social institutions, organizations, networks Not simply material disadvantage Overlooked in US work on poverty and children’s development (Kamerman & Kahn, 2002; Micklewright, 2002) EU: prominent in theory & policy (National Action Plans Against Poverty and Social Exclusion)
Research Question What are everyday experiences as a parent that might be associated with being undocumented? Are parents’ everyday experiences of being undocumented associated with very early development, controlling for indicators of SES?
1)Undocumented Status: An overlooked factor in theories and studies of the second generation? 2)Description of study sample and methods 3) Tales of Fujian and Puebla – different mechanisms of how parent undocumented status could affect child development
Center for Research on Culture, Development and Education Aim – How do family, peers, schools, and parental employment influence child and adolescent development in multiple ethnic and immigrant groups in New York City? 2 cohorts: birth (Tamis-LeMonda, Yoshikawa) and adolescent (Hughes and Way) CRCDE birth cohort: 3 NYC hospitals serving Mexican, Dominican, Chinese, & U.S.-born African American 374 mothers of newborn infants: –114 African American (100% 2 nd + generation) –113 Dominican (86% 1 st generation) –93 Mexican (100% 1 st generation): (MX births > DR births for first time in NYC, ) –54 Chinese (100% 1 st generation)
CRCDE Birth Cohort Study: Assessment Schedule Baseline interviews with mothers in hospitals’ post-partum wards Phone interviews at 1 month and 6 months 14-, 24-, 36- and 52-mo home visits (2-3 hours): survey, videotaped observation of mothers and children, direct child assessment
CRCDE Qualitative Studies (Yoshikawa, Chaudry, Torres, Rivera) Two studies ( and ): Study I (prior to larger cohort recruitment) –Families with children between 9 and 36 months Study II: stratified random subsample of birth cohort Both studies: –7-10 visits total per family –Study I: visits every 2-3 weeks –Study II: visits every 8-10 wks (child 9 to 30 months) –6 semi-structured Interviews + participant observation (all visits) with extensive field notes –Transcription, translation Combined N: 11 Dominican, 13 Mexican, 5 Chinese families
CRCDE Birth Cohort: Likely variation in undocumented status across groups Chinese and Mexicans: Highest proportions undocumented Dominicans: Moderate proportion African Americans: All U.S.-born Today: focus on CH, MX
African Americans in sample relative to African American concentration, 2000 Census
Mexicans in sample relative to Mexican concentration, 2000 Census
Chinese in sample relative to Chinese concentration, 2000 Census
Dominicans in sample relative to Dominican concentration, 2000 Census
Puebla and Fujian Largest sending regions to New York City from MX and CN Puebla – 7 th highest in economic disadvantage among 31 states (2000 CONAPO index). Fujian – one of the wealthier provinces; increasing inequality post-economic reforms (Liang, 2001) Both groups: –Relatively large proportions of undocumented –Recent increases (since early 1990’s) in emigration to NYC –Chain migration; international smuggling operations –Remittances and economic development in sending regions What about family life and implications for children’s development?
1)Undocumented Status: An understudied factor in theories and studies of the second generation? 2)Description of study sample and methods 3) Tales of Fujian and Puebla – different mechanisms of how parent undocumented status could affect child development
Ling and Guang Ling, late 30’s and husband Wei, also late 30’s come to New York in late 1980’s Met in early 1980’s at a tire factory in Fujian Son: Guang, age 11 (2 younger kids as well) Family of farmers; “I had nothing to do in the countryside.” $28,000 (now upwards of $60,000-80,000) Prayed to Stone Bamboo Mountain Hardships of early crossings: mountain crossing to Thailand; thefts.
Guang to Fujian province Sent Guang back to China: 2 months to 4 years Remittances: ~ $1,500 a year. Ling: Separation is why Guang is less close to her and husband than other 2 children. US preschool teacher - “Did your dad and mom treat you nice?” “No – only my grandparents.” Age 4 “Old enough to study. And he can attend preK.” Theory of ability not effort: “I told my husband, I think we don’t have the talent; we didn’t have people who study in our last generation.” Used to send Guang to Chinese shadow schooling – “But I am busy and sometimes lazy. I don’t think they could learn much there.”
CRCDE rates of sending back to home country in first 6 months Chinese: 72% Dominican: 22% Mexican: 1%
Reasons for sending home
Changle County, Fujian Primary sending county to US (others JP, AU / NZ, EU) Airport in Changle: No accident! (Liang, 2001) Hx of emigration: economic development post tied to foreign trade Once chain migration starts, relative deprivation drives emigration. Remittances, fancy apartment buildings, returnees’ lavish spending Those with no interest in leaving – mei chu xi [no great future]
Men who return Male marriage market advantages: Ling: “If they came back to the US and go back to get married, if they choose, the first ones they choose are very beautiful women. So many women, they put the women’s pictures there to let you choose. So they all wanted to come to the U.S. They almost all came. Like my family, there’s only my mom there.”
Mei – later in wave of Fujianese migration Mei – arrival 10 yrs after Ling. Immediate family is almost all in US. No extreme hardships, land crossings. Parents farmers too: “When I asked her about her childhood she was ashamed and thought it worthless to talk about it. Because there was nothing special. Without toys she grew up hanging out with a group of children in the village.” Life now in Fuzhou is so different – her cousin just had a newborn girl. After the birth her cousin stopped working. They hired a live-in nanny and bought their own house. “With a good job life in China it’s really better than here. You see we have to pay for such a living condition.”
Inscription on gate 日射晓露华光万道金世界 月临 XXX 映照千里玉乾坤 The Sun shines upon morning dews reflecting a thousand rays in the gold world The Moon shines upon XXXX reflecting thousands of miles in the jade universe 美籍华人杨业准献身敬建 2003 年 10 月 Donated and built by Chinese American Mr. Yang Yezhun in October 2003
Consequences for children of sending and return? Rong et al. (2007) Fuzhou Normal University: preschool “sent-back” children raised by grandparents lower on cognitive and socioemotional assessments than children being raised by own parents. Why? –Large generational differences in China: education, rural / urban origins, human capital, wages. –Implications for parenting practices (Rong et al. preschool feeding story; Nanjing project) –Possible implications for attachment Long-term implications for Fujianese-origin children following returns to US unknown; reports of behavior problems in NY Head Start Contributions to lower psychological well-being later in life?
NYC contexts: Employment Parental Employment of undocumented Fujianese: Nearly entirely restricted to restaurants Restaurant pathway to economic mobility for Fujianese: –70-80K monthly take (NYC) –60-70K start up for storefront restaurant, 400K for buffet –“She told me every visit that one of her friends owns 3 buffet restaurants and is thinking of opening a 4 th.” –Typically 12+ hours a day of work plus commute; 6 days a week –Average work hours for Chinese (63.6) > MX > DR and AA Wage / hours violations extremely common (Ollie’s; Saigon Grill; Silver Palace cases) Extremely high mobility across eastern U.S. – snakeheads, E Broadway employment agencies. Network lending, but doesn’t want to participate in formal lending pool: “but if someone runs away there goes the organization.”
Early 30’s, living in E Harlem, came 5 years ago Grew up in Puebla in a village outside city Oldest; received “order” from husband Horacio (already in US) that he had arranged for her crossing; came within a week. “I had no choice.” 3 children, Angel (3), Lucero (7), and Jorge (11), one of whom (the middle one) is husband’s child with another woman
Yolanda Horacio: Restaurant delivery, work-related injury – dream to become a taxi driver – “doesn’t want his son now that he is older to see him as his father who never amounted to anything.” Drives friend’s gypsy cab but spends hours not picking up customers. No access to taxi license in NY (SSN). Quits job to go to MD to find work – they give out drivers’ licenses there to undocumented? Horacio doesn’t want Yolanda to work more than P/T. She reaches a point in which “me empezo a pisar, y yo saque las uñas.” Yolanda: Food Stamps for children but hides this from Horacio; he’s “man enough” to provide for his family. US economic hardship driven by emergency remittance needs in MX.
Yolanda Housing – ceiling of BR; trash cans. Rats, cockroaches and mold “no matter how much she cleans and disinfects.” Repairs only when building inspected. No quiet lighted place for studying in house – Jorge and Lucero often get annoyed with Angel because he gets in their way when they try to do schoolwork. Sometimes when depressed wants to kill herself.
Yolanda and her Family: Hypotheses Experiences associated with undocumented status and child development? –1) Lack of access to resources requiring identification –2) Access to policy supports for children and families and take-up of policies for which children eligible –3) Low quality and recourse in housing, work, and other contexts Mechanisms of effects on young child development – economic hardship; parent psychological distress?
Access to institutional resources that require identification Why are undocumented immigrant parents less likely to take up conditional cash transfers / formal job training? –1) Formal exclusion (cf. NC community colleges) but also: –2) Avoid accessing resources that require identification Resources that require identification: –Formal banking (checking account, savings account) –Credit –Drivers’ license Index measure
Do rates of access to resources requiring identification differ? Full Sample MexicansDominicans African Americans Percentage Checking account61%37%79%66% Savings account56%36%73%58% Credit Card46%27%63%47% Driver’s License54%31%76%51%
Conceptual Model: Access to Resources Requiring Identification Household- level Access to institutional resources Cognitive stimulation index Psychological distress Economic hardship Receptive Language Fine Motor Expressive Language Ethnic/ immigrant group (Mexican 1 st gen./ Dominican 1 st gen./ AfAm U.S.-born); Mexicans higher rates of undocumented status than Dominicans Visual reception
Figure 3. Institutional Resources Model: Full Sample. Dominican (AfAm reference group) Institutional resources (14 mos.) Daily cogstim activities index (24 mos.) Psychological distress (24 mos.) Economic hardship (24 mos.) Mullen Early Learning Composite (24 mos.) Mexican (AfAm reference group) Daily cogstim activities index (14 mos.) Psychological distress (14 mos.) Economic hardship (14 mos.) Fit Statistics 2 (51) = NNFI =.97 CFI =.98 RMSEA =.022 (.000 to.043) Notes: Paths in bold are statistically significant Numbers in diagram are standardized path coefficients -.21* -.28*.14 t -.20* -.28*.46*.75*.49*.19* -.20*.22*
Figure 4. Institutional Resources Model: Mexicans and Dominicans Institutional resources (14 mos.) Daily cogstim activities index (24 mos.) Psychological distress (24 mos.) Economic hardship (24 mos.) Mexican (Dominican reference group) Daily cogstim activities index (14 mos.) Psychological distress (14 mos.) Economic hardship (14 mos.) Notes: Paths in bold are statistically significant Numbers in diagram are standardized path coefficients -.41* -.30* -.20* -.25*.50*.73*.43* Fit Statistics 2 (43) = NNFI = CFI = 1.00 RMSEA =.000 (.000 to.004) -.37*.18* Mullen Early Learning Composite (24 mos.)
Model fits equally well in each group, suggesting that markers of social exclusion may differ across groups, but also have similar consequences within groups
2) Access to Policies and take-up of policies for which children are eligible
Immigrant parents’ NY eligibility No access to Medicaid for themselves No access to public housing Access to prenatal (and postnatal care up to 6 weeks) in NY Access to emergency medical care for themselves
Lower levels of take-up of policies for which US-born children are eligible U.S.-born children are fully eligible (e.g., for Food Stamps, TANF, CCDF child care subsidies, Title I, well-child visits, etc.); however, undocumented parents often do not take up programs, policies for eligible children (Capps et al., 2005; Matthews & Ewen, 2006) Low rates of use of Food Stamps, health insurance coverage, TANF, relative to children of citizen immigrant parents (Kalil & Chen, 2008, ECLS- K) Low rates of use of preschool education, relative to children of native parents (Hernandez, Denton, & Macartney, 2006)
Program Use at 14 months (since child’s birth) Full Sample MexicansDominicans African Americans Percentage WIC98% 100%95% Food Stamps60%59%52%69% Child Care Subsidies*21%2%17%35% TANF † 28%12%20%46% Public Housing/Section 8 † 27%15%21%39% SSI6%7%0%11% Unemployment Benefits5%0%6% * Racial/ethnic differences are significant across all groups. † Mexicans and Dominicans significantly different from African Americans.
Reasons for low take-up of policies and programs Fewer sources of information about policy (Yoshikawa, Rivera, Chaudry & Tamis- LeMonda, 2005) MX’s: lower availability of multiple forms of social support (child, financial, job related) Among MX’s lower social support predictive of Food Stamp take-up (Little & Yoshikawa, 2007) Beliefs about consequences of program use Messages dissuading use from providers (given complex public charge laws in uncertain policy context)?
Beliefs re: Consequences of Benefit Use Mexican families’ concern that their U.S.-born children would be required to “pay back” the government for any public aid they receive now Mexican mother: M: Ladies, like when I went to the park, they told me [about welfare.] When [I] was not working, a Puerto- Rican lady told me that I should ask for that, that for almost all the children, the ladies ask for that help. That I should ask for that help, that the majority of people ask for help, that children born here should. But my husband doesn’t want to. I: And why doesn’t he want to? M: He says no because, according to a guy who was telling him that when they are older they send them to war. And he wouldn’t like that for him [baby]. Because of the same, if the government helps us, after, that is, they will force us to help. They count on him, and that’s why he doesn’t want to.
Beliefs re: Negative Consequences of Benefit Use Mexican mother: I tell you that as much as a girl wants to study [go to university], that the government gives us the loan, so that they can go to university…. And you say that because of their work, or sometimes they [use benefits] for everything. So if the person or the person’s mother [takes advantage of this aid], then there isn’t much left [for student loans] because it’s like their savings that the government is going to lend them. These kinds of beliefs also widespread among LPR immigrant parents
4) Low quality and recourse in housing, work, and other contexts
Housing Quality and Undocumented Status? She says it makes it hard to get a lease; without a lease, the super can neglect upkeep. The apartment building has been in horrible condition, and the super does a very poor job of maintaining the place. The walls are constantly being scratched at by rats. She has about three holes that she covers up with glue traps so that the rats don’t come in to their apartment. The kitchen sink was leaking causing the wood from the cabinet underneath to rot. The toilet in the bathroom was also loose and water would leak out from the base, causing the bathroom to stink whenever they would use it. Since bathroom is right next to the kitchen, this especially bothered her. Child diagnosed with chronic respiratory condition at 12 months
Rates of overnight hospitalization, 0-24 mos, Mexican infants (Holding & Yoshikawa, 2008) 20% of Mexican infants hospitalized in the first 24 months; 46% of those hospitalized: for respiratory symptoms National data (Harris, 1999; Mendoza & Dixon, 1999): Mexican young children higher asthma than other groups; differences disappear by adolescence – Hispanic Health and Nutrition Examination Survey
Work Quality Wage growth and returns to education: MX documented > MX undocumented (Rivera-Batiz, 1999) Unsafe work conditions, payment problems, and working without breaks: Latino undocumented > Latino LPR (Mehta, Theodore, Mora, & Wade, 2002 Chicago study) Only 6% of immigrants experiencing unsafe conditions reported them to OSHA due to fear of employer reprisal or belief that it would not help In our sample: MX’s significantly lower levels of occupational complexity than AA, DR, CH
Community Organizing? Distressingly, virtually no reports from our ethnographic samples, despite immigration policy debate Only link to organizing: CBO serving MX community in E Harlem (1 mention in pilot ethnography) Conflicting opinions re: 2006 immigration policy debate: risk of being deported has increased; now there’s hope of a path to citizenship Hospital-based birth cohort: lower rates of organizing and resistance than prior studies of undocumented immigrants sampled in other ways? (e.g., Zlolniski, 2006)
In-process assessments to further explore everyday experiences of undocumented status Housing problems and repair dynamics Likelihood of contacting authority figures in situations of everyday injustice: –Boss owes you money but refuses to pay you –Experiences of discrimination towards self or child, in work or school –Someone cheated you in a service context Likelihood of hearing about organizing efforts in situations of injustice With full qualitative analyses – more comparisons of documented vs. undocumented within group
Effects of parent undocumented status on children? A potential additional explanation beyond poverty and forms of capital for later disparities Exclusion might affect child development without a pathway through parents’ perceptions of exclusion or discrimination Chinese – potential effects on well-being through separations and parental transitions in first years of life Mexicans – effects on early cognitive development through economic hardship and higher parental distress, perhaps affecting quality of parent-child interactions Other potential mechanisms – point in wave of immigration – network characteristics (proportion of undocumented adults / age / experience raising children; support and investments in chidlren)
Questions / Next Steps Full qualitative sample analyses Growth curve analyses of child outcomes and family processes (14, 24, 36 mos) More exploration of employment; organizational / network data; and new measures
Thanks Participating families National Science Foundation, Russell Sage Foundation, William T. Grant Foundation PI’s Catherine Tamis-LeMonda, Ronit Kahana-Kalman, Diane Hughes, Niobe Way ECC Team at NYU Field workers: Boon Ngeo, Qing Xue, Ximena Acevedo, Gigliana Melzi, Margaret Caspe, Nia Ebon West-Bey, Kimberly Torres, Hirokazu Yoshikawa, Ann C. Rivera, Patricia Ruiz-Navarro, Frank Gaytan, Maria Reyes Lopez, Maria Ramos Olazagasti, Ajay Chaudry, Renelinda Arana, Monica Brannon, Erin B. Godfrey, Eva Ruiz, Bronwyn Becker, Carolin Hagelskamp
Employment: MX Lowest occupational complexity Fathers – most common delivery or work in a restaurant Typically 12+ hours a week plus commute; 6 days a week and sometimes 7 days a week Mothers – lower rates of employment Typical – garment; factory; housecleaning Wages at or near minimum wage Experiences of lacking English knowledge: –Co-workers with English knowledge get easier more clerical tasks mixed in (Elda packing boxes) 1 mother – worked for months in a home with her employer calling her “Maria”