Copyright. Pamela Ann Rogers

Copyright by

Pamela Ann Rogers 2006

The Dissertation Committee for Pamela Ann Rogers

certifies that this is the approved version of the following dissertation:

INTRAURBAN MOBILITY, IMMIGRATION, AND URBAN SETTLEMENT PATTERNS: THE CASE OF TEXAS GATEWAYS

Committee:

______________________________

Peter M. Ward, Supervisor

______________________________ Thomas W. Pullum ______________________________ Bryan R. Roberts ______________________________ Arthur Sakamoto Jr. ______________________________ Robert H. Wilson

INTRAURBAN MOBILITY, IMMIGRATION, AND URBAN SETTLEMENT PATTERNS: THE CASE OF TEXAS GATEWAYS

by

Pamela Ann Rogers, B.A; M.A.; M.P.Aff.

Dissertation

Presented to the Faculty of the Graduate School of the University of Texas at Austin

in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements

for the Degree of

Doctor of Philosophy

University of Texas at Austin May 2006

Dedication

This dissertation is dedicated to all of the immigrants who come to this country to make a better life and

from whom we could all learn lessons of courage, dedication, and endurance.

Acknowledgments

First and foremost, I would to acknowledge the support and cooperation that I received from Peter Ward, my supervisor, who has been a great friend, advisor, and collaborator. Without his knowledge and forethought, this would not have been possible. “You must see the forest not the trees!” he would remind me as I became mired in detail and overwhelmed by the task. Yet through it all, we both endured and the dissertation is testament to that. I admire his and Victoria’s enthusiasm with students, his breath of knowledge of Latin America and housing issues, and the contribution he makes to the university community. Secondly, I would like to acknowledge the academic community for their assistance and suggestions, particularly Kelly Raley, Bryan Roberts, Tom Pullum, Art Sakamoto, Bob Wilson, and Peter Morrison. Tom Pullum provided invaluable expertise on the regression analysis and the years to homeownership, which would not have been possible without his assistance. Peter Morrison’s enthusiasm and insights were also extremely helpful. I would also like to thank the staff at the U.S. Census Bureau, in particular, Warren Nozick and Paul Maken, whose assistance with the PUMS was greatly appreciated. As I became obsessed with the dissertation for more than a year, I would also like to thank Chuck and all of our friends who provided moral support throughout the process. Finally, I would also like to acknowledge the financial support from the Office of University Partnerships, the Doctoral Dissertation Research Grant program, and the University of Texas at Austin Department of Sociology -- without which this would not have been possible. This dissertation was prepared under grant (H-21475SG) from the Department of Housing and Urban Development, Office of University Partnerships. Points of view or opinions in this document are those of the author and do not necessarily represent the official position or the policies of the Department of Housing and Urban Development.

INTRAURBAN MOBILITY, IMMIGRATION, AND URBAN SETTLEMENT

PATTERNS: THE CASE OF TEXAS GATEWAYS

Publication No. ___________

Pamela Ann Rogers, Ph.D. The University of Texas at Austin, 2006

Supervisor: Peter M. Ward

The 2000 census identified changes in immigrant settlement patterns and the emergence of new immigrant gateways during the 1990s; however, few immigration studies to date have studied the intra-urban or local residential mobility of immigrants in metropolitan areas or the forms of spatial assimilation taking place. This dissertation examines the recent trends occurring in intra-urban mobility, immigration, and urban settlement patterns in Texas gateways, which have attracted an unprecedented number of Mexican immigrants since the 1970s. By examining the residential and social mobility of immigrants in metropolitan areas, the study clarifies how the discipline defines gateway cities and furthers our understanding of intra-urban mobility versus inter-urban migration, the

determinants of immigrant homeownership, and the spatial transitions that immigrants, ethnic communities, and metropolitan areas are undergoing. Using the 2000 Census and the 5% PUMS, the dissertation examines the socioeconomic characteristics of immigrant movers and non-movers in Public-Use Microdata Areas (PUMAS) in Houston, Dallas-Fort Worth, San Antonio, and Austin-San Marcos and the housing outcomes (homeowner versus renter), settlement patterns (central city, inner ring, and suburb), and socioeconomic characteristics of the native-born and immigrants. The findings do not support theories of spatial assimilation proposed and indicate that while the majority of immigrant movers arrived ten to fifteen years prior to the census, the majority were primarily renters, residing in urban areas in central cities or in older suburbs adjacent to Latino barrios and living in overcrowded large apartment settings typical of the “vecindad” rather than the New Urbanist “barrio.” Through spatial analysis, the dissertation identifies the extension of immigrant communities towards older working-class suburbs. A logistic regression analysis of the main determinants of Mexican immigrant homeownership differentiates the main predictors of homeownership by metropolitan area. Age, household type, income, location of metropolitan residence, and citizenship were the most significant predictors of homeownership. The study introduces a Time to Homeownership variable to estimate the number of years immigrants require to become homeowners. Overall, immigrants may not initially become homeowners in the first decade upon arrival, but homeownership is evident for some immigrants who have lived in the United States for ten years or more.

Table of Contents

List of Tables xi

List of Charts, Graphs, and Figures xvii

List of Maps and Aerial Views xviii

List of Illustrations xx

Quotations 1

Chapter 1. Introduction to Intra-Urban Mobility Patterns 2

Intra-Urban Mobility and Inter-Urban Migration 15

Overall Significance of the Dissertation 18

Research Questions 22

Data Sources 25

Methodology of the Dissertation 27

Organization of the Dissertation 30

Conclusions 33

Chapter 2. Literature Review and Theory 35

Residential Mobility, Migration, and Household Strategies 37

Ecologists and Early Assimilation Theories 52

Theories of Spatial and Segmented Assimilation 56

Ethnic Resources Model 65

Measures of Segregation and Residential Segregation 73

Population and Housing 80

Chapter 3. Migrant Flows, Demographic Patterns, and Texas Gateways 99

Texas Gateways and Immigration 107

Mobility Trends in Gateway Cities 118

Conclusions 124

Chapter 4. Types of Moves, Metropolitan Case Studies in Intra- and Inter-Urban Mobility, and Segregation 125

Metropolitan Moves for Native-Born and Mexican Immigrant Householders 133 Metropolitan Case Studies 137

Houston-Galveston-Brazoria CMSA 138

Dallas-Fort Worth 150

San Antonio 165

Austin-San Marcos 175

Segregation of Mexican Foreign-Born 185

Conclusions 191

Chapter 5. Characteristics of Immigrant Movers 195 Mobility by Race and Nativity 199

Household Characteristics of Intra-Urban Movers 203

Residential Mobility and Housing Tenure 208

Residential Mobility by Year of Arrival and Citizenship 211

Households and Residential Mobility 214

Residential Mobility and Income 222

Other Socioeconomic Characteristics 224

Conclusions 229

Chapter 6. Immigrant Homeownership 232

Homeownership and Income 249

Years to Homeownership 251

Determinants of Homeownership: Logistic Analysis 255

Conclusions 268

Chapter 7. Conclusions 270

Appendix 287

Bibliography 361

List of Tables

1.1 Ranking of Metropolitan Areas with Largest Foreign-Born

Populations, 2004 8

1.2 Ranking of Metropolitan Areas with the Largest Hispanic

Foreign-Born Populations, 2000 13

3.1 Percent Change in Total and Foreign-Born Populations in Selected

New Latino Destinations and Texas Gateways, 1990-2000 102 3.2 Immigrant Gateway Types and Metropolitan Areas, 2000 106 3.3 Demographic Distribution of Native-Born and Immigrant

Populations in Select Metropolitan Areas, 2000 111 3.4 Comparison of Geographic Mobility of Households in Los Angeles

and Select Texas Immigrant Areas, 1985-2000 120 3.5. Occupied Housing in Major U.S. Cities — Non-Hispanic White

and Minority Renters, 1990 and 2000 123

4.1 Type of Metropolitan Move for Native-Born and Mexican

Immigrant Householders Aged 20-64 135

4.2 Settlement Patterns of Mexican Foreign-Born Movers in

Houston CMSA, 2000 141

4.3 Characteristics of Native and Mexican Immigrant Movers and

Non-Movers in Houston PMSA, 2000 144

4.4 Settlement Patterns of Mexican Foreign-Born Movers in

Dallas-Ft. Worth CMSA, 2000 153

4.5 Characteristics of Native and Mexican Immigrant Movers and

Non-Movers in Dallas PMSA, 2000 156

4.6 Ethnic Composition and Characteristics of Central City

4.7 Settlement Patterns of Mexican Foreign-Born Movers in

San Antonio MSA, 2000 168

4.8 Characteristics of Native and Mexican Immigrant Movers and

Non-Movers in San Antonio MSA, 2000 170

4.9 Settlement Patterns of Mexican Foreign-Born Movers in

Austin MSA, 2000 177

4.10 Characteristics of Native and Mexican Immigrant Movers and

Non-Movers in Austin MSA, 2000 180

4.11 Percent Change in Residential Segregation in Immigrant

Gateways, 1980-2000 187

4.12 Index of Dissimilarity for Immigration Counties, 2000 190 5.1 Residence in 1995 of Native-born and Hispanic and Asian

Foreign-Born Householders Aged 20 to 64 in Houston, Dallas- Fort Worth, San Antonio, and Austin-San Marcos

Metropolitan Areas, 2000 197

5.2 Geographic Mobility of Native-born and Immigrant Householders in Houston, Dallas-Fort Worth, San Antonio, and Austin-San Marcos

Metropolitan Areas, 1995 to 2000 200

5.3 Geographic Mobility by Place of Birth of the Population Aged Five Years and Older in Houston, Dallas-Fort Worth, San Antonio, and

Austin-San Marcos Metropolitan Areas, 1995 to 2000 202 5.4 Residence Five Years Ago of the Native-Born and Mexican-Born

Population Five Years and Older in Houston, Dallas-Fort Worth, San Antonio, and Austin-San Marcos Metropolitan Areas,

1995 to 2000 204

5.5 Age Distribution by Residence Five Years Ago and Type of Mover for Native-born and Mexican Immigrant Householders Aged 20-64

in Houston, Dallas-Fort Worth, San Antonio, and Austin

5.6 Housing Tenure and Place of Birth by Type of Move and Residence in Houston, Dallas-Fort Worth, San Antonio, and

Austin Metropolitan Areas, 2000 209 5.7 Year of Arrival of Mexican Immigrant Householders by Residence

Five Years Ago in Houston, Dallas-Fort Worth, San Antonio, and

Austin Metropolitan Areas, 2000 212

5.8 Housing Tenure by Nativity and Citizenship for Native-Born and Immigrant Households Aged 20-64 in Houston, Dallas, San Antonio,

and Austin 213

5.9 Household Type by Geographic Mobility for Householders Aged 20-64

in Houston, Dallas, San Antonio, and Austin Metropolitan Areas, 2000 215 5.10 Household Size by Household Type for Native-born and Immigrant

Householders Aged 20-64 Who Moved 218

5.11 Household Type by Type of Residence for Native-born, Hispanic and Asian Foreign-Born Residents Aged 20-64 in Houston, Dallas-Ft. Worth,

San Antonio, and Austin Metropolitan Areas, 2000 219 5.12 Room Occupancy by Household Type for Native-Born and Immigrant

Household Movers in Houston, Dallas-Fort Worth, San Antonio, and

Austin Metropolitan Areas, 2000 221 5.13 Share and Percentile Household Total Income in 1999 by

Residence 5 years ago and Nativity for Householders Aged 20-64 223 5.14 Descriptive Statistics for Native Born and Foreign-Born Groups

Aged 20-64 (Household, English Ability, Education, and Citizenship) 225 5.15 Descriptive Statistics for Native Born and Foreign-Born Groups

Aged 20-64 (Income, Housing, and Mobility) 228

6.1 Housing Outcomes and Differentiation in Native-born and Immigrant Householders Aged 30 and Over in Houston, Dallas-Fort Worth,

San Antonio, and Austin Metropolitan Areas, 2000 239 6.2 Native-born and Mexican Immigrant Movers Aged 20 to 64 by

Year of Arrival in Houston, Dallas, San Antonio, and

Austin, 2000 247

6.3 Household Total Income in 1999 and Homeownership Rates for Native Born and Immigrant Householders Aged 20-64 in

Houston, Dallas, San Antonio, and Austin Metropolitan Areas, 2000 250 6.4 Range of Years of Year Moved In and Eliminated Cohorts that Fall

Within Two Time Periods in Years to Homeownership Variable 252 6.5 Years to Homeownership for Immigrant Householders Aged 20-64

in Houston, Dallas, San Antonio, and Austin, 2000 254 6.6. Coefficients from the Logistic Regression of Homeownership on

Selected Independent Variables for Native-Born and Immigrant Householders Aged 20 to 64 in Houston, Dallas, San Antonio,

and Austin-San Marcos, 2000 262

6.7 Coefficients from the Logistic Regression of Mexican Immigrant Homeownership on Selected Independent Variables and Interaction Terms in Texas Metropolitan Areas 2000 (Mexican Immigrant

Householders, Aged 20-64) 266

A.1 Nativity of U.S. State Populations and Mexican Foreign-Born

Populations: 1990 to 2000 288

A.2 Nativity of the Population for the 50 Largest Urban Places: 1970-2000 290 A.3 Ranking of Largest Foreign-Born Populations (including Mexican

and Central American Foreign-Born) of Texas Cities with 50,000

or More Population, 2000 292

A.4 Percent of Foreign-Born in Dallas, Houston, San Antonio,

Fort Worth, and Austin, 1900-2000 294

A.5 Ranking of Largest Foreign-Born Populations (including Mexican and Central American Foreign-Born) of Texas Cities with 10,000

to 50,000 Population, 2000 295

in Texas Aged 5 Years and Older, 1996 to 2000 300 A.7 Geographic Location by Metropolitan Area Type for Texas and

Metropolitan Areas, 2000 301

A.8. Type of Housing and Metropolitan Area Type for Texas and Metropolitan

Areas, 2000 302

A.9. Type of Housing by Nativity for Texas Metropolitan Areas, 2000 303 A.10 Demographic Distribution of Native-Born and Immigrant Householders

Aged 20-64 in Houston Public-Use Microdata.doc 304 A.11 Metropolitan Origin, Settlement Patterns, and Housing Tenure

of Mexican Immigrant Household Movers Aged 20-64 in

Houston CMSA (Includes Movers from Abroad), 1995 to 2000 308 A.12 Metropolitan Origin, Settlement Patterns, and Housing Tenure

of Mexican Immigrant Household Movers Aged 20-64 in

Houston CMSA (Excludes Movers from Abroad), 1995 to 2000 311 A.13 Demographic Distribution of Native-Born and Immigrant

Householders Aged 20-64 in Dallas-Ft. Worth CMSA Public-Use

Microdata Areas (PUMAS) by Type of Metropolitan Area, 2000 314 A.14 Metropolitan Origin, Settlement Patterns, and Housing Tenure

of Mexican Immigrant Household Movers Aged 20-64 in Dallas-Fort Worth CMSA (Includes Movers from Abroad),

1995 to 2000 318

A.15 Metropolitan Origin, Settlement Patterns, and Housing Tenure of Mexican Immigrant Household Movers Aged 20-64 in Dallas-Fort Worth CMSA (Excludes Movers from Abroad),

1995 to 2000 321

A.16 Demographic Distribution of Native-Born and Immigrant

Householders Aged 20-64 in San Antonio Public-Use Microdata

Areas (PUMAS) by Type of Metropolitan Area, 2000 324 A.17 Metropolitan Origin, Settlement Patterns, and Housing Tenure

of Mexican Immigrant Household Movers Aged 20-64 in

San Antonio MSA (Includes Movers from Abroad), 1995 to 2000 325 A.18 Metropolitan Origin, Settlement Patterns, and Housing Tenure

of Mexican Immigrant Household Movers Aged 20-64 in

San Antonio MSA (Excludes Movers from Abroad), 1995 to 2000 327 A.19 Demographic Distribution of Native-Born and Immigrant

Householders Aged 20-64 in Austin-San Marcos Public-Use

Microdata Areas (PUMAS) by Type of Metropolitan Area, 2000 329 A.20 Metropolitan Origin, Settlement Patterns, and Housing Tenure

of Mexican Immigrant Household Movers Aged 20-64 in Austin-San Marcos MSA (Includes Movers from Abroad),

1995 to 2000 330

A.21 Metropolitan Origin, Settlement Patterns, and Housing Tenure of Mexican Immigrant Household Movers Aged 20-64 in Austin-San Marcos MSA (Excludes Movers from Abroad),

1995 to 2000 332

A.22 Variables in the Regression Analysis 334

A.23 Geographic Mobility by Nativity and Race for Native Born and Immigrant Populations Aged 20 to 64 in Houston, Dallas,

San Antonio, and Austin 1995 to 2000 336

A.24 Population by Race and Ethnicity in Houston, Dallas, San Antonio,

Austin, and Fort Worth, 2004 American Community Survey 337 A.25 General Characteristics of Native and Mexican Immigrant Household

Movers or Non-Movers Aged 20 to 64 in Houston CMSA, Dallas-Fort

Charts, Graphs, and Figures

1.1 Number of Foreign-born Immigrants in the United States,

1900-2004 3

3.1 Percent of Native-Born and Foreign-Born, 2000 108

3.2 Percentage of Foreign-born by Census Year, 1900-2000 113

3.3 Year of Arrival of Mexican Immigrants 116

4.1 Types of Moves and Destinations of Mexican Household Movers in

Metropolitan Areas 128

6.1 Median Prices of New and Existing Homes in Metropolitan

Gateways, 2002-2004 236

6.2 Hispanic Immigrant Homeownership Rates by Age in Select

Metropolitan Gateways, 2000 241

6.3 Hispanic Foreign-born Homeownership Rates by Period of Arrival

in Select Metropolitan Gateways, 2000 243

6.4 Housing Outcomes for Hispanic and Asian Immigrant Householders Aged 30 to 64 by Year of Arrival in Houston, Dallas, San Antonio,

and Austin, 2000 245

6.5 Native-born and Immigrant Residential Mobility by Metropolitan

Area for Householders 30 Years or Older, 2000 248

A.1 Household Incomes in 1995 for Native Born and Immigrant

List of Maps and Aerial Views

Maps

4.1. Percent of Persons Who Are Mexican and Central City and 5% PUMA

Identifiers for Dallas PMSA, Texas, 2000 131

4.2 Percent of Foreign-Born in Houston CMSA by Census Tract, 2000 140 4.3 Percent of Foreign-Born in Houston CMSA by Census Tract, 1990 140 4.4 Percent of Hispanic or Latino Renters in CT 2225 147 4.5 Percent of Hispanic or Latino Renters in CT 4214 148 4.6 Percent of Foreign-Born in Dallas-Fort Worth CMSA by

Census Tract, 2000 152

4.7 Percent of Foreign-Born in Dallas-Fort Worth CMSA by

Census Tract, 1990 152

4.8 Map of Dallas-Fort Worth Mid-Cities and North Dallas County 155 4.9 Percent of Hispanic or Latino Renters in CT 72.02 160 4.10 Percent of Hispanic or Latino Renters in CT 98.04 161 4.11 Percent of Hispanic or Latino Renters in CT 6.01 162 4.12 Percent of Foreign-Born in San Antonio MSA by Census Tract, 2000 167 4.13 Percent of Foreign-Born in San Antonio MSA by Census Tract, 1990 167 4.14 Percent of Hispanic or Latino Renters in CT 1613.01 172 4.15 Percent of Hispanic or Latino Renters in CT 1910.02 173 4.16 Percent of Foreign-Born in Austin-San Marcos by Census Tract, 2000 176 4.17 Percent of Foreign-Born in Austin-San Marcos by Census Tract, 1990 176 4.18 Percent of Hispanic or Latino Renters in CT 23.04 182 4.19 Percent of Hispanic or Latino Renters in CT 18.12 183 A.1 Total population in Houston-Galveston-Brazoria CMSA by County, 2000 341 A.2 Total population in Dallas-Fort Worth CMSA by County, 2000 342 A.3 Total population in San Antonio MSA by County, 2000 343 A.4 Total population in Austin-San Marcos MSA by County, 2000 344

A.5 Percent of Persons Who Are Foreign Born in Houston-Galveston-

Brazoria CMSA by County, 2000 345

A.6 Percent of Persons Who Are Foreign Born in Dallas-Fort Worth CMSA

by County, 2000 346

A.7 Percent of Persons Who Are Foreign Born in San Antonio MSA

by County, 2000 347

A.8 Percent of Persons Who Are Foreign Born in Austin-San Marcos MSA

by County, 2000 348

A.9 Percent of Persons Who Are Mexican and Central City and

5% PUMA Identifiers for Fort Worth PMSA, Texas: 2000 349 A.10 Percent of Persons Who Are Mexican and Central City and 5% PUMA

Identifiers for Austin MSA, Texas: 2000 349

A.11 Percent of Persons Who Are Mexican and Central City and 5% PUMA

Identifiers for Houston PMSA, Texas: 2000 350

A.12 Percent of Persons Who Are Mexican and Central City and 5% PUMA

Identifiers for San Antonio PMSA, Texas: 2000 350

Aerial Views

4.1 Residential Area #1: Houston 147

4.2 Residential Area #2: Houston 148

4.3 Residential Area #1: Dallas-Fort Worth 160

4.4 Residential Area #2: Dallas-Fort Worth 161

4.5 Residential Area #3: Dallas-Fort Worth 162

4.6 Residential Area #4: Dallas-Fort Worth 163

4.7 Residential Area #1: San Antonio 172

4.8 Residential Area #2: San Antonio 173

4.9 Residential Area #1: Austin 182

Illustrations

Photo 6.1 Upscale Hispanic Immigrant Home #1 233

Photo 6. 2 Upscale Hispanic Immigrant Home #1 233

Photo A.1 Veronica and Children at Garden Villa 351

Photo A.2 Garden Villa in Wooten Park Residential Area 351

Photo A.3 Resident in Wooten Park 352

Photo A.4 Typical Apartment Complex in Wooten Park Area 352

Photo A.5 Typical Apartment in Dallas-Fort Worth 353

Photo A.6 Typical Immigrant Apartment Signage #1 353

Photo A.7 Typical Apartment in Dallas-Fort Worth Area 354

Photo A.8 Modern “Vecindad” in Austin area 354

Photo A.9 Crossroads Shopping Center, Dallas, Texas 355 Photo A.10 Scenes from a local immigrant flea (“pulga”) market #1 355 Photo A.11 Scenes from a local immigrant flea (“pulga”) market #2 356 Photo A.12 Scenes from a local immigrant flea (“pulga”) market #3 356

Photo A.13 Poor Immigrant Housing #1 357

Photo A 14 Poor Immigrant Housing #2 357

Photo A 15 Poor Immigrant Housing #3 358

Photo A 16 Poor Immigrant Housing #4 358

Photo A 17 Room with a View 359

Photo A.18 Crime in the Neighborhood 359

Americans rightly glorify our heritage of absorbing immigrants. Over time, they move into the economic, political and social mainstream; over time, they become American rather than whatever they were—even though immigrants themselves constantly refashion the American identity. But no society has a boundless capacity to accept newcomers, especially when many are poor and unskilled.

Robert J. Samuelson1 Columnist

What Americans need to understand is that there are Latinos and Latinos. We are very different from the Mexicans who have been here for generations. Latinos are Mexicans, Argentineans, Colombians, El Salvadorans. We don’t want to live south where the Mexicans live – who we call Chicanos. They are different. They have been here for generations and own their own homes. It’s a different culture. Their children are American. I want to be where people have been for only 10 years or so. We have more in common--customs and so on. You understand, right?

Francisco Rayo2

Mexican Immigrant, 1980s

Publisher, El Heraldo, a Spanish weekly Dallas, Texas

I remember the day I arrived. It was July 2, 1992. I remember it because July 4th was just 2 days away. Today I work for my sister’s husband who owns a restaurant. I own my own home in the Pflugerville area. There aren’t many Vietnamese living close to me. They usually like to live downtown or closer in the city. They want to be close to good schools and everything happening in the city.

Mr. Son3 Vietnamese Refugee, 1992 Restaurant Server Austin, Texas 1

Quotes are from Robert J. Samuelson, “The Hard Truth of Immigration,” Newsweek, June 13, 2005.

2

Personal interview, October 2005, Dallas, Texas.

CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION TO INTRA-URBAN MOBILITY PATTERNS

The most recent U.S. Census estimates of the foreign-born population calculate that over 34.2 million immigrants have settled in the United States and currently make up 12 percent of the total population.4 Overall, the number of immigrants represents the nation’s highest and reflects continuing high levels of immigration since the 1970s. The 1990s were especially significant as the influx of immigrants, estimated at 1.3 million annually, totaled 13 million people over the decade. By 2000 the number of immigrants had increased by 57.1 percent from 19.8 million to 31.1 million in 2000. In addition 11.5 to 12 million undocumented immigrants, of which 6.2 million are unauthorized Mexican migrants in 2005, or 56 percent of the unauthorized population, were estimated to be living and working in the United States.5 The term immigrant or foreign-born here is defined as someone who was not born in the United States and may or may not be documented. In the strictest sense the term immigrant implies some sort of legal status as a worker, tourist, or student. In contrast, an international migrant does not imply legal status (Bean and Stevens 2003, 11).

While the number of the foreign-born living in the United States has more than tripled during the last three decades from 9.6 million in 1970 to 34.2 million in 2004, as a

4

U.S. Census Foreign-Born Population Tops 34 Million, Census Bureau Estimates, February 2004.

5

Jeffrey Passel, Size and Characteristics of the Unauthorized Migrant Population: Estimates from the 2005 Current Population Survey Report, Pew Hispanic Center, March 2006; see also Estimates of the Unauthorized Immigrant Population Residing in the United States: 1990–2000, Annual Population

Figure 1.1 Number of Foreign-Born Immigrants in the United States, 1900-2004 13.5 13.9 14.2 11.6 10.3 _{9.7 9.6} 14.1 19.8 31.1 34.2 0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0 35.0 40.0 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2004 N u m b e r ( in m il li ons

Source: US Census, Campbell J. Gibson and Emily Lennon, Historical Census Statistics on the Foreign-born Population of the United States: 1850-1990, Table 1, Nativity of the Population and Place of Birth of the Native Population: 1850 to 1990, February 1999; 2000 and 2004 counts are from 2000 Census SF3 and Current Population Survey 2004.

percentage of the total U.S. population, however, current immigration levels are still below the record 15 percent set in 1900. The 2000 census recorded the highest percent of the foreign-born in the decennial census since 11.6 percent in 1930.6 In 1970 immigrants accounted for 4.7 percent of the population in 1970, 11.1 percent in 2000, and 12 percent in 2004. Figure 1.1 illustrates how until the 1970s the immigrant population remained at around 10 or 11 million but in the mid-1960s the annual level of legal immigration began to rise steadily, from about 300,000 in the 1960s to 800,000 in the 1990s. As a result,

6

between 1970 and 1980 the number of immigrants living in the United States grew by 4.5 million, or by 46.9 percent, and between 1980 and 1990 by 40.4 percent. Stephen Camarota (2001) notes that current immigration levels have set record highs as a result of the continuing increase in both legal and illegal immigration. In the 1980s the immigrant population rose by 5.7 million, and by 8.6 million in the 1990s, surpassing previous decades.7 The foreign-born population’s growth rate since 1970 has also been higher than at any other time in the century. Between 1900 and 1910, the immigrant population grew by 31 percent, less than the 47 percent increase in the 1970s, the 40 percent increase in the 1980s, and the 57.1 percent growth of the 1990s.

Linked to continuing migration flows of both documented and undocumented immigrants that began in the 1970s, the majority of newly arrived immigrants are primarily Hispanic in origin, and to a lesser extent, Asian. Overall, Mexican foreign-born immigrants make up more than one-third of the total foreign-born population today.8 The March 2002 Current Population Survey (CPS) noted that Latin American immigrants from Mexico, Central America, Caribbean, and South America accounted for 53 percent of the total foreign-born population, estimated at 32.4 million. Moreover, data from the Pew Hispanic Center estimate that these figures represent more than a thirteen-fold increase over the 1970 census. Among other groups, Asian immigrants were the second largest majority and in 2000 made up 25.5 percent of the foreign-born population;

7

Stephen Camarota, Immigration from Mexico: Assessing the Impact on the United States (Washington, DC: Center for Immigration Studies, 2001).

8

Diane Schmidley, The Foreign-Born Population in the United States: March 2002, Population Characteristics, Current Population Reports (Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of

European immigrants, 14 percent; and the remaining 8.3 percent were from Africa and other regions. 9

The increase in migration flows during the last three decades has been attributed to multiple factors, including changes in immigration quotas and immigration law, the promotion of family reunification programs, and the end of temporary migrant worker programs.10 The Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA) enacted in 1986 legalized a large number of undocumented immigrants and allowed documented immigrants to bring additional family members to the United States.11 The effect of legal immigration has been supported by findings from the Mexican Migration Project and the recent survey of Mexican migrants by the Pew Hispanic Center that indicate that one of the primary factors influencing a person’s decision to emigrate is whether a family member or someone from their home community has already come to United States (Massey and Espinosa 1997; Pew Hispanic Center 2005). However, the growing demands of U.S. employers for cheap immigrant workers in primarily four economic sectors--construction, services, agriculture, and manufacturing--as well as the deteriorating economic and social conditions in sending countries are also contributing factors linked to immigration (Massey 2005). Overall, the effects of the increase in immigration since the 1990s have served to fuel employment in the U.S. economy, as immigrants have contributed to the nation’s job growth by filling an increasing share of jobs, taking jobs in labor-scarce

9

See John M. Liu et al., “Dual Chain Migration: Post-1965 Filipino Immigration to the United States,”

International Migration Review 25, no. 3 (Fall 1991): 487-513.

10

Douglas Massey, Testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee on Immigration Reform, October 18, 2005. Massey links the end of the bracero program in the 1960s with the rise in undocumented immigration.

11

regions, and filling the types of jobs avoided by native workers. However, the data also show that the immigrant share of the labor force is not evenly distributed and varies widely across the United States.12

Recent immigration trends are most remarkable not only because of the net numbers of immigrants but because they have permanently changed the demographic make-up of the United States, contributed to domestic migration, and led to the concentration of the foreign-born in gateway cities. With the growth in Latin American immigration during the 1990s, the 2000 Census showed that Hispanics are now the largest minority group in the United States. In twenty years, the Latino population nearly doubled in size between 1980 and 2000. In 1980 over 14.6 million people were identified as “Hispanic” 13 (6.4 percent of the total population); by 1990 this number had grown by 53 percent to 22.4 million people (9.0 percent of the total population); and by 2000 the Hispanic population totaled 35.3 million people, or 12.5 percent of the total U.S. population.14 Between 1990 and 2000, the growth rate of the Hispanic population was 57.9 percent. By March 2002 the CPS estimated that one in eight people in the United States were of Hispanic origin, totaling 37.4 million Latinos in the civilian

12

Federal Reserve Bank, 2003.

13

Hispanic is an ethnic category, which includes Mexican, Puerto Rican, Cuban, South or Central American, or other Hispanic/Latin, regardless of race. The 2000 census counts have been estimated as seriously undercounting the minority, elderly, and homeless populations of the United States. Using CPS data, John Logan has noted that certain states and metropolitan areas where New Latinos are concentrated were dramatically affected by a severe underestimation of the numbers of Hispanic groups in 2000 because of the poor estimates of Origin on the questionnaire. The Mumford Center estimates that the Mexican group was by far the largest and increased by 70 percent between 1980 and 2000, not the 54 percent indicated by the U.S. Census. At the same time, the New Latino groups grew by 104 percent as opposed to 32 percent. For more information about the undercounting of the 2000 Census, see Barry Edmonston, “The Case for Modernizing the U.S. Census,” Society 39, no. 1 (November 2001): 42-53.

14

institutionalized population.15 The decade also saw a more diverse immigration to the United States of other Hispanic population groups from the Dominican Republic and Central and South America.16 El Salvadoran immigrants arrived in the United States during the 1980s as a result of war and political upheaval. By the 1990s they were the second largest Hispanic immigrant group in the United States and the fastest growing group from Central America. This dramatic increase in the Hispanic population has been attributed to both high levels of immigration from Latin America and the relatively high fertility levels of young immigrants. As the proportion of the Hispanic population has increased by nearly twice its size in twenty years, this significant demographic trend has changed the racial and ethnic composition of the United States. By the end of the 1990s not only did the Hispanic population become the largest minority group in the United States, it surpassed all other minority groups, particularly African Americans, which make up 12.3 percent of the total population. Similarly, the growth rate of the Hispanic population was faster than the non-Hispanic White population, which grew by less than one fifth the rate, at only 12.3 percent between 1980 and 2000.17

The majority of immigrants continue to settle in the traditional metropolitan gateways of Los Angeles, New York, San Francisco, and Miami, as noted in table 1.1. With high immigration during the last three decades, the demographic compositions of these cities have changed dramatically. As many non-Hispanic Whites and other groups

15

Roberto R. Ramirez and Patricia de la Cruz, The Hispanic Population in the United States: March 2002, Current Population Reports (Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, June 2003), 1.

16

John R. Logan, “Hispanic Populations and Their Residential Patterns in the Metropolis,” Lewis Mumford Center for Comparative Urban and Regional Research, University at Albany, May 2002.

TABLE 1.1 Ranking of Metropolitan Areas with Largest Foreign-Born Populations, 2004 Metropolitan Area Metro population (2004) Foreign-born population (2004) Latino foreign-born population (2004) Percent Foreign -born (2004) Percent Latino / Foreign -born (2004) Los Angeles--Riverside--Orange County 17,199,115 5,318,009 3,252,954 30.9% 61.2%

New York City 9,218,889 3,106,097 1,629,115 33.7% 52.4%

San Francisco--Oakland--San Jose 6,951,260 2,000,702 666,473 28.8% 33.3%

Miami--Fort Lauderdale 4,051,442 1,690,309 1,487,886 41.7% 88.0% Houston--Galveston--Brazoria 4,526,770 938,052 633,547 20.7% 67.5% Dallas--Fort Worth 5,676,651 924,559 622,598 16.3% 67.3% Boston--Worcester--Lawrence 5,749,197 801,807 256,513 13.9% 32.0% San Diego 2,833,275 657,183 369,209 23.2% 56.2% Atlanta 4,477,579 544,882 284,617 12.2% 52.2% Detroit--Ann Arbor--Flint 5,437,277 453,698 50,518 8.3% 11.1%

Source: 2004 American Community Survey; counts include metropolitan statistical areas (MSAs). Note: Data are limited to the household population and exclude the population living in institutions, college dormitories, and other group quarters.

moved increasingly towards the suburbs during the 1990s and before, immigration has also contributed to overall population growth in the central cities of large metropolitan gateways amidst domestic out-migration (Frey 2000). The largest immigrant gateways are now characterized as “minority-majority” as minorities make up the majority of residents. In Los Angeles, for example, the Hispanic population in 2000 represented 45 percent of the city’s total population while the non-Hispanic White population made up only 31 percent. In New York City the non-Hispanic White population represented only 40 percent and in Miami, 21 percent. William Frey estimated that whereas the nation’s largest metropolitan areas gained the greatest number of immigrants; they also lost the largest number of domestic migrants. One-fifth of the leading U.S. metropolitan areas

recorded an overall population decline in the Anglo population. 18 In these terms the influx of Latino immigrants has served to revitalize areas that were experiencing slow growth or population flight from outdated and older central city areas.

As the Mexican-origin foreign-born population increased nationally by 113.5 percent during the 1990s, the population distribution of both native- and foreign-born Hispanics also became more widespread geographically and increasingly spread from the Southwest to other regions (Passel and Zimmerman 2000; Suro and Singer 2002; Guzmán and McConnell 2002). Although the vast majority of Mexican immigrants continued to settle in a selected number of states -- California, Texas, Illinois, and Arizona -- the demographic increases experienced in the Mexican foreign-born populations in California (59 percent), Texas (107 percent), Illinois (119 percent), and Arizona (191 percent) were not the highest recorded in the United States. The most remarkable increases occurred in other areas, such as Tennessee (2165.8 percent), Alabama (2053.7 percent), North Carolina (1864.9 percent), Kentucky (1637.0 percent), South Carolina (1377.4 percent), and Mississippi (1251.0 percent) (see table A.1 in the appendix). In contrast, other regions, such as the Northeast and the Midwest continued to register the lowest share of Hispanics.

The changes in population distribution of the Mexican foreign-born in the 1990s also resulted in unprecedented numbers of immigrants settling in what has been described as “emerging” gateway cities such as Dallas, Phoenix, Atlanta, and Washington, D.C., and “new Latino destinations,” such as Las Vegas, Austin, and Raleigh (Suro and Singer

18

2002). At the same time, the so-called old gateways of the past -- Boston, Cleveland, St. Louis, Buffalo, Detroit, and Milwaukee -- which attracted the majority of immigrants at the turn of the century, have been replaced with the post-1960s gateways of Los Angeles, San Diego, Miami, and Houston (see table A.2 in the appendix). 19 Dallas and Houston, which were at best secondary destinations for immigrants, are now gateway cities par excellence. Similar to Los Angeles, Miami, and San Diego, Houston also witnessed dramatic immigration after 1970. By 2000 more than 25 percent of the total population in both Houston and San Diego was foreign-born. Dallas also witnessed large-scale immigration after 1970 but the most dramatic increase occurred during the 1990s. In 2000 the share of the foreign-born population in Dallas surpassed 24 percent of its total population, placing it alongside Washington, D.C., and Atlanta as one of the newer immigrant gateways. Other medium-sized cities such as Austin, Las Vegas, and Raleigh, which never before experienced such immigration, are now among the new destinations of immigrants as noted in the dramatic percentage increase in their Hispanic foreign-born populations during the 1990s.

New settlement trends also indicate that while the vast majority of Mexican immigrants continue to settle in the central city, Hispanic native-born and other immigrants are increasingly settling in the nation’s suburbs. The population growth outside of the metropolitan areas may indicate the rising assimilation of immigrants who have already been in the United States for several years toward more prosperous areas and the growth in domestic migrants (including Hispanic). According to the U.S. Census,

19

there has been a dramatic increase of Hispanics living in the suburbs in the top 100 metropolitan areas, which increased from 8.7 million in 1980 to almost 15 million in 1990. In 2000, 54 percent of all Latinos lived in the suburbs, and the number of Latinos living in suburban areas grew by 61 percent in the 1990s.20 While Hispanic immigrants have contributed to reverse declining population growth in Dallas and Washington, DC, native-born Hispanics and non-Hispanic Blacks moved increasingly into the suburbs in these metropolitan areas during the 1990s both as a result of rising incomes and housing markets.21 In Chicago, for example, population growth in the suburbs attributed to 63 percent of the Hispanic population and 96 percent in Miami. Approximately half of the nation’s ten fastest-growing counties between April 1, 2000, and July 1, 2005, were located in Georgia, particularly those closest to Atlanta, one of the new gateway cities.22 Rockwall County (46.1 percent population change), located in the northern Dallas-Fort Worth area, was the third fastest-growing county during this period; considerable growth also occurred in other counties located in high immigration areas, particularly Collin (34.1 percent), Williamson (33.4 percent), Ft. Bend (30.8 percent), Montgomery (28.7 percent), and Denton (28.1 percent) counties.23

Some researchers believe that these patterns may indicate that as newly arrived immigrants settle in the central neighborhoods, more established Latinos are moving

20

Roberto Suro and Audrey Singer, Latino Growth in Metropolitan America: Changing Patterns, New Locations, The Brookings Institution Survey Series: Census 2000 (Washington, DC: The Brookings Institution and the Pew Hispanic Center, July 2000), 7-8.

21

See Alan Berube, Racial Change in the Nation’s Largest Cities: Evidence from the 2000 Census

(Washington, DC: The Brookings Institution, 2001); and William Frey, Melting Pot Suburbs: A Census 2000 Study of Suburban Diversity (Washington, DC: The Brookings Institution, 2001).

22

Population Division, U.S. Census, Table 9: Population Estimates for the 100 Fastest Growing U.S. Counties with 10,000 or more Population in 2005: April 1, 2000 to July 1, 2005 (CO-EST2005-09); “Five Georgia Counties Among the Top 10 Fastest-Growing,” press release, U.S. Census Bureau, April 8, 2004.

toward outer suburban areas, attracted by the lower cost of living, job growth, and suburban amenities. All in all, the dramatic shift in immigration which began in the 1970s and escalated in the 1980s and 1990s paralleled the suburbanization of several population groups and demands further research to analyze to what extent the suburbs are becoming “ports of entry” for many newly arriving immigrants. Research is already emerging as Robert Puentes and David Warren have recently noted the rising demographic trends of immigrants and the elderly in older suburbs, and William Frey has noted that Hispanic, Asian, and non-Hispanic Black populations have begun to spread out in new destinations.24 As noted by these researchers, the growth in areas outside of traditional central city enclaves was higher in the new Latino destinations, or those metropolitan areas which experienced dramatic growth in the 1990s.

Overall, the “explosive” growth in the new gateways and Latino destinations highlights the importance of studying immigrant settlement patterns and urbanization trends in these areas. The new metropolitan gateways and Latino destinations of immigrants present ample opportunities for fresh areas of research and a launching point for this dissertation. Considerable studies in the last thirty years document the patterns of assimilation and integration, the diverse social networks, socioeconomic characteristics, labor markets and wage trends, ethnic entrepreneurship, residential segregation, return migration, health care, and educational trends in older gateways. However, few studies have examined in depth the residential mobility of immigrants.

24

Robert Puentes and David Warren, One-Fifth of the Nation: America's First Suburbs (Washington, DC: Brookings Institution, February 2006); William Frey, Diversity Spreads Out: Metropolitan Shifts in Hispanic, Asian, and Black Populations since 2000 (Washington, DC: The Brookings Institution, Center on Urban and Metropolitan Policy, The Living Cities Census Series, March 2006).

Source: US Census 2000. Summary Files, PCT 19; Central American includes Costa Rica, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Nicaragua, Panama, and other Central America.

At the same time, the majority of immigration studies have drawn our attention toward select metropolitan places, such as Los Angeles, Chicago, and Miami, while the experiences of other metropolitan areas are left open for speculation. Houston, Texas, for example, has the second largest Mexican and Central American community in the United States as indicated in table 1.2, and the total number of foreign-born immigrants in Houston (516,105) is comparable to Chicago’s (628,903) and twice as large as Miami’s

TABLE 1.2 Ranking of Metropolitan Areas with the Largest Hispanic Foreign-Born Populations, 2000 Rank City Foreign-born population (2000) Foreign-born from Mexico/Central America (2000) Percent Foreign-born from Mexico/Central America, 2000 1 Los Angeles, CA 1,512,720 942,203 62.3% 2 Houston, TX 516,105 351,119 68.0% 3 Chicago, IL 628,903 317,740 50.5% 4 New York, NY 2,871,032 245,142 8.5% 5 Dallas, TX 290,436 227,547 78.3% 6 Phoenix, AZ 257,325 198,761 77.2% 7 Santa Ana, CA 179,933 151,221 84.0% 8 El Paso, TX 147,505 133,775 90.7% 9 San Diego, CA 314,227 129,834 41.3% 10 San Jose, CA 329,757 108,520 32.9% 11 San Antonio, TX 133,675 101,127 75.7% 12 Anaheim, CA 123,976 79,255 63.9% 13 Long Beach, CA 132,168 78,968 59.7% 14 Austin, TX 109,006 67,701 62.1% 15 Fort Worth, TX 87,120 66,596 76.4% 16 Denver, CO 96,601 65,707 68.0% 17 Las Vegas, NV 90,656 55,045 60.7% 18 Miami, FL 215,739 52,690 24.4% 19 San Francisco, CA 285,541 51,530 18.0% 20 Tucson, AZ 69,476 48,211 69.4%

(215,739). Yet few scholars have documented Houston’s immigrant experience.25 The geographic size of the Dallas-Fort Worth metropolitan area (6,063.2 sq. ml.) with its adjoining “bedroom” communities of Irving, Arlington, Grand Prairie, Farmer’s Branch, Carrollton, and Richardson is larger in square miles than Los Angeles-Long Beach (4,465.2 sq. ml.) and denser in population per square mile (Dallas County=2,522.6, versus Los Angeles County, 2,344.1) yet research is only now beginning to emerge on the immigrant communities there.26 In Dallas the net number of immigrants (290,436) surpassed the number of foreign-born in both San Francisco (285,541) and Miami (215,739) in 2000, placing it in fifth place among the largest international cities in the United States.

As the steady growth of the immigrant population over several decades in both Houston and Dallas have transformed these urban hubs into gateway cities and Austin and Fort Worth into new Latino destinations, this dissertation is about the intra-urban mobility patterns of immigrants as they transition from being renters to homeowners and from central city dwellers to suburbanites in these metropolitan places. As the data will show, these cities can rightfully be called immigrant gateways not only because of the mere percentages of the foreign-born or the high numbers of recent arrivals, which are impressive by all accounts, but also for the 1) concentration and absolute size of immigrant communities; 2) the growth of recognized immigrant enclaves; 3) the rising

25

See research by Nestor Rodríguez, University of Houston, on social networks and immigrant communities.

26

Estimates of land square miles are from the American Housing Survey for Dallas and Los Angeles Metropolitan Areas 2002, Current Housing Reports, (U.S. Housing and Urban Development, U.S. Department of Commerce, issued July 2003); see the recent work by anthropologist Caroline Brettell at

segregation from the majority; and 4) the diverse yet polarized socioeconomic status of immigrants in these cities. These are all common tendencies of the Mexican foreign-born population of traditional gateways and have been found to be important in other studies. The findings also demonstrate that as immigrants seek out new settlement areas in search of greater economic opportunity, alternative forms of accommodation have emerged as immigrants adapt not only to their economic environment but to their spatial or geographic surroundings (Ward 2005). Considerable evidence will show the influx of immigrants into the “hinterland” of the emerging gateways and more alternative housing arrangements than have previously been documented.

Intra-Urban Mobility and Inter-Urban Migration

With the scale of immigration during the last three decades, understanding intra-urban mobility patterns of Mexican immigrants is important as immigrants have tended to settle permanently in the United States since the 1980s and contribute to both local demographic changes and metropolitan housing markets. All in all, the 2000 Census identified that the foreign-born were more mobile than the native-born, that is, they were more likely to have moved in the last five years. Nationally 57.4 percent of the foreign-born reported living at a different residence in 2000 than the one they had in 1995, compared to 44.3 percent of the native-born.27 The volume of international migration as well as the migration of immigrants from traditional gateway states toward new

27

Marc Perry and Jason P. Schachter, “Migration of Natives and the Foreign-Born: 1995 to 2000,” Census 2000 Special Reports (Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, August

metropolitan areas certainly provided evidence of this in the past decade. To examine these trends in depth, important distinctions exist between migration and mobility that need to be clarified based on how the data is made available to researchers in the decennial census. As defined by the Census, migration refers to long-distance moves across jurisdictional boundaries, such as states, counties, and international boundaries. Mobility, on the other hand, refers to what is most commonly referred to as residential mobility, that is, local or intra-urban moves that involve short-distances and adjustments to housing needs.

While both types ultimately involve changing residences, the distinguishing characteristics of migration and mobility are often very complex, involving one or multiple factors that develop over the life course such as age, family size, and housing needs or structural factors such as eviction and housing conditions, temporary housing, income and real estate prices, labor markets, secure neighborhoods and better school districts, as well as the whims of real estate agents, mortgage lenders, and landlords. Individual choice is also a factor in moving decisions as individuals often prefer living close to family and friends or consider place amenities. Immigrants may have additional reasons such as fear of detection propelling them to move from metropolitan area to metropolitan area (Guzman 2001; Jones and Murray 1986).

Despite the complexities, the dissertation distinguishes between the two most common types, intra-urban mobility and inter-urban migration. Most moves are

intra-urban as local movers, usually households, seek to adjust their housing needs by either moving upwards from an apartment to a single-family home or in search of new

apartments. Local moves usually involve short distances either within the same neighborhood or just a few miles outside of it. In Peter Rossi’s work (1955) on mobility in the 1950s, he found that the most important predictor of local mobility was the life cycle, followed by housing tenure, building type, family type, and family structure. As individuals aged, their mobility increased when they left their parents home, married, and had children. Each one of these life changes required adjustment in the housing needs of the individual. Mobility began to decline as housing needs were met and once again increased as couples downsized or reached retirement. Most contemporary studies have supported Rossi’s findings despite the growth and transformation that metropolitan areas have experienced in the last thirty years. In one of the few studies on the intra-urban mobility patterns of immigrants based on personal interviews with parents of school-aged children, Kai Schaft found that push and pull factors influenced the residential mobility of low-income immigrant families in upstate New York. While most moves were short, they were most often driven by housing issues (Schaft 2005).28 However, considerable studies have noted that local movers also move because of the physical characteristics of the residence as well as neighborhood amenities such as parks, security, or better school districts.

In contrast, long-distance moves, or what may be broadly defined as migration, involve inter-urban migration. As noted, these moves take place across jurisdictional areas, namely counties, states, and international boundaries, and are most often associated with employment rather than housing needs. This type of mover is commonly

28

characterized as an intra-state or inter-state “migrant,” depending upon the origin of the mover. Research has shown that individuals and households tend to embark on long-distance moves primarily because of job opportunities. International migration provides an excellent example of how inter-urban migration is tied to employment as the majority of studies have found that Mexican immigrants migrate to the United States to work (Massey 2006). For example, in the recent survey by the Pew Hispanic Center of immigrants in several metropolitan areas, the majority of immigrants had emigrated to the United States primarily for employment purposes although migration destinations were determined most by family, relatives, and social networks.29

Overall Significance of the Dissertation

As international migration increased to record levels in the 1990s and continues to grow, understanding current migration and mobility trends has become increasingly important. Not only have recently arrived immigrants had a dramatic impact on the demographic composition of metropolitan areas and cities and settled in new destinations, but as they remain in the United States over the long-term they increasingly contribute to local residential mobility and impact neighborhoods and metropolitan areas in diverse ways. Recent research has tended to concentrate on the new destinations of immigrants yet our knowledge of mobility trends occurring within central cities and metropolitan areas is still fragmentary and somewhat distorted by international migratory flows.30

29

Pew Hispanic Center, Survey of Mexican Migrants, December 6, 2005.

30

See the edited volume by Víctor Zúñiga, and Rubén Hernández-León, New Destinations: Mexican Immigration in the United States (New York: Russell Sage Foundation, 2005); however, this recent work

Since the 1980s immigrants have tended to settle more permanently than temporarily in the United States for a variety of reasons including the establishment of transnational migrant communities, stricter border control policies, and job markets, and understanding overall mobility behavior contributes to our understanding of the integration of immigrants.31 The primary significance of the dissertation is that it serves to begin to fill that gap in the literature and documents how immigrants have contributed to overall mobility rates, impacted existing residential neighborhoods, and created new patterns of settlement. Thus the dissertation examines concepts such as spatial assimilation and segmented assimilation as presented in the literature and tests the relevance of these theories in metropolitan areas in Texas.

Secondly, the dissertation fills a gap in the Texas literature regarding the intra-urban mobility of immigrants and contributes to studies on inequalities in Texas gateways.32 To my knowledge, few studies have addressed the intra-urban mobility

31

See the work on transnational migrant communities in the United States by Bryan Roberts, Reanne Frank, and Fernando Lozano-Asencio, “Transnational Migrant Communities and Mexican Migration to the U.S.,” Ethnic and Racial Studies 22 (1999): 238-63.

32

To acknowledge only a few of the many studies on Texas immigrants, see the chapter on San Antonio’s growing inequality by Gilberto Cardenas, Jorge Chapa, and Susan Burek, in LatinosIn A Changing U.S. Economy: Comparative Perspectives On Growing Inequality, edited by Rebecca Morales (Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications, Inc., 1993), and Cardenas’s earlier work on San Antonio women, “Undocumented Immigrant Women in the Houston Labor Force,” California Sociologist 5, no. 2 (Summer, 1982): 98-118; Teresa A. Sullivan, Harley L. Browning, Stephen McCracken, and Audrey Singer, “Self-Employment of Immigrants in Texas,” Texas Population Research Center Paper no. 9.008 (The University of Texas at Austin, 1987); Harley Browning and Nestor Rodríguez, “The Migration of Mexican ‘Indocumentados’ as a Settlement Process: Implications for Work,” Texas Population Research Center Paper no. 4.008 (The University of Texas at Austin, 1982); Richard C. Jones and William B. Murray, “Occupational and Spatial Mobility of Temporary Mexican Migrants to the U.S.: A Comparative Analysis,” International Migration Review 20, no. 4 (Winter 1986): 973-85; Frank D. Bean, Parker Frisbie, B. Lindsay Lowell, and Edward E. Telles, “The Spanish-Origin Population in the American Southwest,” in Mexican and Central American Population and U.S. Immigration Policy, edited by Frank D. Bean, Jurgen Schmandt, and Sidney Weintraub (Austin: The Center for Mexican American Studies, The University of Texas at Austin, 1989), 65-112.

patterns of immigrants with the exception of Harley Browning and Nestor Rodríguez’s study of San Antonio settlement patterns (1982) and Richard Jones and William Murray’s study of the spatial mobility of undocumented Mexican migration in South Texas (1986). Peter Ward’s work on the linkages between the colonias and public policy along the Texas-Mexico border is the only study to address inequality and housing issues (1999). However, since the 1980s considerable migration towards the state’s largest metropolitan areas has contributed to distinct local mobility patterns. Only second to California, nearly two million Mexican foreign-born immigrants live in Texas and approximately 50 percent are located in the state’s largest metropolitan areas, Dallas-Ft. Worth and Houston. The state serves as a natural laboratory for studying immigrants and different types of gateways – traditional gateways, emerging gateways, and new Latino destinations – as all of these are found within its borders. In contrast to the past, approximately 60 percent of the Mexican immigrant population resides in the largest metropolitan areas in the state - the Houston Primary Metropolitan Statistical Area (PMSA), Dallas-Plano-Irving PMSA, Ft. Worth-Arlington PMSA, San Antonio Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA), and Austin-San Marcos MSA. At the same time, these metropolitan areas comprise approximately 62 percent of the state’s population, including 57.7 percent of the foreign-born population, and 85 percent of Asian and other major immigrant groups.

The greater Houston area is an older and more traditional post-1960s gateway that comprises nearly one third of the state’s immigrant population and almost a million immigrants. In contrast, Dallas represents a relatively new gateway as the area only

began attracting large numbers of immigrants during the 1980s with the most significant number of immigrants arriving during the 1990s. Nevertheless, its current immigrant population is over 600,000. San Antonio is an older gateway primarily made up of second- and third-generation Hispanic immigrants but during the 1990s it only attracted 1.6 out of every 10 immigrants. On the other hand, Austin and Fort Worth are considered new Latino destinations as few immigrants settled in these areas prior to the 1990s. Among these metropolitan areas, the most dramatic increase in immigration during the 1990s occurred in Austin with the arrival of 61 percent of its foreign-born population. Other Latino destinations such as El Paso and Laredo are important ports of entry to interior destinations, but because of the transitional and contextual nature of immigrant communities along the Texas-Mexico border, these are not considered here.

Finally, the dissertation is significant because it clarifies how we define gateway cities in the sociological literature. So often immigration literature and policy studies make casual references to “traditional” gateways or “immigrant” cities, making assumptions or inferences of what such terms represent without providing a more conceptual notion of gateways. As noted earlier, more often than not gateways are determined by the mere percentages of the foreign-born, which is certainly impressive by all accounts, or time of arrival. Suro and Singer’s views of gateways certainly help to remind us of the importance of the historical nature of immigration trends. However, gateway cities are distinguished by several dimensions that underscore their nature: 1) the concentration and absolute size of their immigrant communities; 2) the growth of recognizable immigrant enclaves; 3) high intra-urban mobility patterns that characterize

areas with considerable in-migration; 4) the rising segregation from the majority; and 5) the diverse yet polarized socioeconomic status of immigrants in these cities. These are all themes that will be addressed in this dissertation and underscore the importance and significance of the work.

This research extends naturally from existing work on remittances and migration behavior among Central and North Texas Mexican residents, and upon colonia-type housing developments both in the Texas-Mexico border and, more recently recognized, in the hinterland of emerging gateway cities. Peter Ward’s work on the development of colonias in Texas has been centered in the border region area. That research has proven expertise in the methods proposed here and will also build upon existing survey materials that are being gathered by several universities. To date this work has been carried out at the Lyndon B. Johnson School of Public Affairs, the University of Texas at Austin, and embraces a consortium of universities within the University of Texas System and Texas A&M System as well as several other government and non-governmental organizations. During 2001-04 Southern Methodist University (SMU) and the University of Texas at Arlington received a National Science Foundation grant to conduct a study of four foreign-born ethnic communities in the emerging gateway area of Dallas-Fort Worth. The dissertation will also consider the findings of the SMU study in its research.

Research Questions

The changing distribution patterns of immigrants in the United States during the 1990s toward new gateways and emerging Latino destinations provide a unique backdrop

to explore how local mobility patterns have changed in metropolitan areas. Yet in order to discuss the implications for residential mobility, how do we separate the effects of international migration, local (intra-urban) mobility, and inter-metropolitan migration? To what extent are cities now characterized by large “restless” immigrant populations, high turnover, and extensive geographic mobility in central cities? What is the relationship between permanent residence and migration and the reciprocal effect upon the geographic mobility of current residents within metropolitan areas? The first hypothesis is that as recent arrivals and more established immigrants in the United States have been attracted to new metropolitan areas, they have also contributed to changes in local mobility rates and overall patterns. Mobility here is defined as residential mobility, that is, local or intra-urban moves that involve short-distances and are most often associated with adjustments in housing needs. Research here will show that over the course of twenty years immigrant communities have extended and some neighborhoods with high percentages of immigrants have experienced a decline in population from other groups, namely, non-Hispanic Whites and Blacks.

Second, how does the timing of immigration, citizenship, and length of time spent in the United States affect the residential mobility of Mexican foreign-born immigrants in Texas gateways? As immigrants have tended to settle permanently in the United States, and all of the research supports this, the second hypothesis is that the determinants of residential mobility (life course, housing tenure) which have long been established in the literature for the native-born only partially describe immigrant mobility. Other intervening factors (citizenship, timing of immigration, and years in the United States)

also play an important role in determining the mobility outcomes of immigrants. In contrast, inter-metropolitan migrants and international migrants will be more drawn to employment opportunities than changes in residential opportunities.

Third, what evidence is there for spatial mobility among immigrants? It is generally accepted that the longer an immigrant remains in the United States, the more likely the individual will move out of impoverished and deteriorating inner-city areas toward more affluent neighborhoods in a process called spatial assimilation. As the majority of Mexican householders in the four metropolitan areas arrived during the 1980s, the hypothesis is that those immigrant householders who reported a change of address in the decennial census will likely show evidence of spatial assimilation or upward residential mobility to homeownership. Related to this is the concentration and dispersal of immigrants. However, not all immigrants move to the suburbs. Mexican immigrants with poor educational skills, dead-end jobs, scant incomes, and low levels of citizenship, nevertheless, still impact neighborhoods and residential patterns in distinct ways depending upon the size of the community.

Metropolitan place and the establishment of ethnic communities also matter. The residential impact of immigrants is partly determined by the economic and spatial environment in metropolitan areas. While immigrant residential patterns reflect the size and historical growth of immigrant communities, they also reflect current zoning codes, the reception of immigrants, and the decision of policy makers. The fourth hypotheses is that the impact of neighborhood integration or residential patterns will be distinct than that of older, more established residents. All in all, these research questions and

hypotheses seek to expand our knowledge of the intra-urban mobility patterns of immigrants and add a new dimension to the current debate on immigration by identifying the metropolitan transitions which took place during and since the 1990s compared to earlier decades.

Data Sources

The data are from the 2000 Census 5% Public-Use Microdata Sample (PUMS) for Texas. The weighted dataset includes 20,848,171 individuals (native-born and immigrants) and 7,392,832 households, including 1,912,047 Mexican foreign-born individuals and 679,908 Mexican foreign-born households. The PUMS file is a sub-sample of the decennial census based on data collected from the census long form sent to 17 percent of all housing units, or one in every six households, and includes all the information to answer the questions posed by the dissertation. For each household, it indicates whether the household is an owner-occupant or a renter, whether the householder moved in 1995, what type of move (intra-urban or inter-urban) was made, and the geographic origin and destination of the mover in 1995 and 2000. In addition it includes the age, race, and ethnicity of the householder, the type of household, and household income. It also contains considerable information on immigration, namely citizenship, linguistic ability, and year of entry into the United States. The PUMS allows one to disaggregate the Mexican immigrant movers and non-movers from the rest of the population and to identify the most important socioeconomic characteristics.