0020Z
The Americanization of Immigrant Children from Mexico
Thomas DeLeire
University of Chicago
Michigan State University
Brian Jacob
Harvard University
Aitor Lacuesta
University of Chicago
Robert LaLonde
University of Chicago and NBER
July 2004
Abstract
A sizeable literature in the social sciences argues that experiences during childhood can have
large impacts on subsequent development and well-being as an adult. A largely unrelated
literature on the economics of immigration has sought to determine whether and how long it will
take immigrants to “catch-up” when they arrive in a new country and whether they acquire “host”
country-specific skills. In this paper, we are interested in whether and how the assimilation
process differs between immigrants who arrive during early childhood and those who arrive at
later ages. We find in samples of Mexican immigrants who migrated as young children that it
may not matter whether she arrives as an infant or in early primary school. As adults, these
immigrants have wages and other socio-economic outcomes that are comparable to or exceed
those of natives with Mexican-American ancestry. Beyond age 10, however, it is clearer that the
older are children when they immigrate to the United States, the lower are their earnings as adults
and the more likely they exhibit social characteristics similar to immigrants who arrive as adults.
A reason for the poorer performance of immigrants who arrive between the ages 10 and 19 is that
their chances of graduating from high school decline with the age of arrival. Overall we find that
each year in the U.S. beyond age 10 is associated with approximately 2 percent higher wages.
There does not appear to be much difference between this relation during immigrants’ teens and
twenties. We find little evidence that there is any age at migration effect associated with this
experience.
This research has been supported by Center for Human Potential and Public Policy at the Irving
B. Harris Graduate School of Public Policy. We have benefited from comments by Kevin
Murphy, Fred Morrison, and Larry Stienberg and workshop participants at the University of
Chicago. All errors are ours.
1
I. Introduction
Large literatures spanning the fields of economics, sociology and developmental
psychology emphasizes that experiences during childhood can have large impacts on subsequent
development and well-being in terms of health and cognitive skills, and the ability to invest
productively in schooling and other forms of human and social capital. This literature suggests
that investments early in life have large returns. Unfortunately, measuring the returns to these
early investments on adult attainments is difficult because with relatively few exceptions, it is
almost impossible to distinguish the returns to early childhood investments in skills from the
returns to investments made in later years. Thus, there have been relatively few empirical
estimates of the relative returns to such investments. (See Heckman, 2000; Barnett, 1993)
There also is a large and mostly unrelated literature in economics on immigrant
assimilation. Much of this literature has sought to determine whether and how long it takes for
immigrants, mainly those who arrived as young adults, to “catch-up” to the native born or
whether they acquire “host” country-specific skills. Evidence that experience in the host-country
is associated with higher wages is taken to imply that immigrants acquire new skills after they
arrive or that they learn to adapt their existing skills to their new environment (Eckstein and
Weiss, 2000).
The assimilation of immigrant children has become an important topic for policy analysts
and researchers as this group has grown in size. Approximately 20 percent of all U.S. children
are immigrants or are children of immigrants. Of this percentage about 55 percent is from Latin
America and about one third is from Mexico (Hernandez, 1999). In this paper, we examine
whether the benefits from time spent in the United States depends on the age when an immigrant
arrived. In particular, we are interested in whether the assimilation process differs for immigrants
2
who arrive during early childhood compared with those who arrive as adolescents or at later ages.
Broadly speaking, we propose to estimate the effect of “Americanization” of Mexican
immigrants at different stages of childhood and young adulthood on wages and a variety of other
socio-economic outcomes.
This paper is motivated by the idea that individuals may acquire different quantities and
types of human and social capital at different ages. The experiences that a typical young child
has in the United States might include play with American children, exposure to English
language and American culture, access to American education, diet, and medical services.
Exposure at young ages may be beneficial to a child’s development and enhance her social and
economic success as an adult. Alternatively, at young ages, parents and parenting behavior may
be of primary importance, with external environmental factors playing a secondary role. Only
later as children mature does exposure to these external factors, such as the public school system,
begin to become valuable and influence how the child fares as an adult.
By comparing Mexican immigrants who arrived in the U.S. during early childhood with
their counterparts who arrived later in their childhood or as young adults with ethnically
comparable natives, we can assess the “return” to early Americanization. We estimate the
relative “return” to experience acquired at different ages in the United States. In order to control
for many of the unobservable differences between immigrants and natives, we restrict our
analysis to immigrants from a single source country and natives of the same ethnicity as these
immigrants.
For immigrants who arrive when they are very young children, we find that experience in
United States does not influence a variety of labor market and social outcomes as adults. As
along as an immigrant arrives prior to age 10, it does not appear to matter much whether the child
3
arrives as an infant or in early primary school. In either instance, the immigrant will perform
identically in the labor market as an ethnically comparable native and also will have similar
socio-economic outcomes. Beyond age 10, however, the older immigrants are when they arrive
in the United States, the lower are their wages as adults and the more they exhibit socialeconomic characteristics similar to immigrants who arrive as adults. One reason for the poorer
labor market performance of immigrants who arrive between ages 10 and 19 is that they acquire
less U.S. schooling and their chances of graduating from high school decline with the age of their
arrival.
In the remainder of the paper we first summarize some of the existing literature. In
section 3, we present a simple model of accumulation of country-specific skills. In section 4, we
describe our data from the 1970, 1980, 1990, and 2000 U.S. Censuses. Our empirical findings are
discussed in section 5. Section 6 concludes and discusses some policy implications of our results.
II. Previous Literature
Previous research on the well-being and development of immigrant children observes that
those from Latin America and the Caribbean, in particular, are more likely living in poverty, less
likely to have access to health care, have parents who are less involved in their schooling, less
likely to attend pre-school programs such as Head Start, and have lower measures of “selfefficacy” than native children. Not only do these tendencies hold relative to the native
population, but they also hold relative to ethnically comparable native children. The literature on
child development associates these characteristics with poorer economic, social, and emotional
outcomes later in life. Yet despite these factors, immigrant children tend to be healthier and
engage in fewer risky behaviors as adolescents. Many immigrant children also earn better grades
and score higher on standardized tests than their native counterparts, although this tendency
4
holds less for Hispanic immigrants than it does for other immigrant groups (National Research
Council, 1995; Fuligni, 1997). Some researchers speculate that status as an immigrant child may
to some degree insulate an individual from the adverse effects of poverty (Herdandez and Drake,
1999; Nord and Griffen, 1999).
The status of immigrant children concerns policy makers and those interested in child
development because they constitute a substantial fraction of U.S. children and because events
and conditions that occur at early ages may have lasting influences on individuals’ lives.
Developmental psychologists argue that family, socio-economic and cultural settings affect a
child’s cognitive growth even before formal schooling. Further, these factors influence school
performance and cognitive ability. (Christian, Bachnan, and Morrison, 2001). In principle,
immigration marks a potentially dramatic change in a child’s environment that in turn may have
an especially large impact (positive or negative) on a child’s subsequent development. It is
possible that the stress and effort associated with parents adapting to a new country may affect
the quantity and quality of parental inputs, especially for their young children. If this were the
case, then children might be better off if their parents immigrated when they were older, say
already school-aged, than when they were very young.
Alternatively, very young children may be more resilient than older children and adults.
As a result, we would expect them to adjust to the stresses and challenges associated with
immigration and to acquire more easily the necessary skills associated with a new culture
(National Research Council, 1995). Under these circumstances, experience in an immigrant’s
host-country would have a higher “return” if this time in the host country is spent when the
immigrant is a child instead of as an adolescent or adult.
5
Finally, experience in the host-country at very young ages might be unimportant in
facilitating the assimilation process. The most important investments in young children may
come directly from parents in a way that is independent of their country of residence. If parental
inputs do not change with immigration, it might not make much difference whether an immigrant
acquires these skills in their source country or the host-country. If the essential skills that
immigrants acquire in their host-country come from contact with schools and the labor force,
immigrating at an early age may not be important. It is possible that when it comes to immigrant
assimilation, there is nothing special or critical about early childhood experiences.
Economists have given relatively little attention to the question of how the assimilation
process differs between immigrant children and adults (Kossoudji, 1989; Friedberg, 1993, 2000;
Borjas, 1995; Schaafsma and Sweetman, 2001). Instead, this literature largely focuses on the rate
that immigrants assimilate into labor markets (and participation in social programs) by either
explicitly or implicitly estimating the returns to a year spent in the host country. It attempts to
address one of two questions: (I) do immigrants “catch-up’’ with natives during their lifetimes;
and (ii) do immigrants appear to adopt or to acquire host-country specific skills (LaLonde and
Topel, 1997; Borjas, 1999).
Much of the assimilation research in the economics literature is based on Chiswick’s
model that relates experience in the host-country with wages (Chiswick 1978). As immigrants
spend time in the host country, they adapt pre-existing skills and acquire new country specific
skills that yield a payoff in the host country’s labor market. To estimate the gains associated with
immigrants’ experience in the United States, Chiswick estimated the “assimilation profile” of US
immigrants in 1970 using an econometric specification similar to the following:
(1)
lnwi = ß Xi + aAi + gYi + ei.
6
In (1), lnwi is the log of a worker’s wage, Xi is a vector of individual characteristics, Ai denotes
and individual’s current age (or potential experience), and Yi is years spent in the host country.
Years in the host country are defined as an individual’s current age minus their age of migration,
ai. Under some assumptions, the “return” to a year spent in the U.S. is equal to g (LaLonde and
Topel, 1997).1 This specification can capture increasing or decreasing returns to years spent in
the United States. But it does not distinguish between experience in the host-country as a child
and experience as an adult.
Studies using U.S. Census data indicate that for immigrant groups that are on average
low-skilled when they arrive in the United States have higher “returns” to U.S. experience
(LaLonde and Topel, 1991; Duleep and Regets, 1992; 1997). Among Mexican immigrants, g is
approximately 0.02. This figure suggests that 10 years of experience in the United States is
associated with 20 percent higher wages (LaLonde and Topel, 1991).
III. Theory and Empirical Methodology
The idea that motivates our analysis is that the return to experience in the host-country
may depend on the age when individuals acquire this experience. Not only do the number of
years in the host-country matter, but so do the ages at which these years occur. One reason that
age of migration might matter is that individuals acquire different skills and knowledge at
different ages. Adults likely will collect job-specific training, knowledge of job prospects, and
U.S. job experience. Young adults and teenagers likely receive general training and formal
schooling. Children are likely to receive formal schooling as well as ‘socialization’ with other
1
There are several reasons why this interpretation could be incorrect. First the unobserved skills of successive
immigrant cohorts may change. So that evidence of assimilation may result from more recent cohorts being less
skilled than prior cohorts (Borjas, 1985). Second, selective emigration patterns may leave the most successful
immigrants in the host-country (Jasso and Rosenwieg, 1982; Brojas and Bratsberg,. 1997; Edin, LaLonde, Aslund,
2000).
7
children. Very young children also may receive age-specific U.S.-specific investments as well,
including exposure to language, access to health care, and diet.
A second reason age at migration might matter is that the returns to these various skillsacquired at different ages–may not be the same. Some skills--speaking a language without an
accent or acquiring grammar--may be gained more efficiently at younger ages than at older ages.
The same might be true for other country-specific skills. It also is possible that young children
adapt more readily to the “stress” associated with immigration and are in a better position to
acquire new skills.
A learning-by-doing model that accounts for age-dependent returns to host-country
experience assumes that each year of experience in the host-country increases an immigrant’s
productivity by an amount dk,a, where 0 < dk,a. The amount by which immigrants’ productivity
rises depends on how many years they have been in the host-country, indexed by k, and the age
when they arrived in the host country, a. During early childhood, a year in the host-country
increases an immigrants’ subsequent productivity by a different amount than when the immigrant
is a teenager or an adult. Further, when an immigrant has been in the host-country for five years,
the amount that an additional year of experience raises productivity depends on her age when she
migrated.
More formally, we define an immigrant’s earnings after being in the United States for Y
years as follows:
Y
W
Y
= W
0
J
k=1
( 1 + δ k,a )
,
8
where W is an individual’s wage after being in the host-country for Y years, W0 is her stock of
human capital that is not due to experience in the host-country, and Y=A-a. Taking logs we
obtain the following expression:
(2)
lnwi = ßXi + Σ55j=25 αj Ι(agei = j) + ΣΑk=a δk,a I(Zi = k) + εi
where I(Zi = k) is a dummy variable indicating whether immigrant i was in the U.S. at age k.
This model predicts that the difference between the earnings of two immigrants who are the same
age, A, but one who arrived at age a and the other who arrived at age b (a<b) is given by:
A
3 δ
k =a
A
k,a
−
3 δ
k = b
k,b
An implication of this expression is that five years experience in the host-country has different
impacts on productivity depending on an immigrant’s age-of-migration.
A special case of the foregoing model is the familiar expression estimated by Chiswick
and others in their studies of immigrant assimilation. When productivity increases associated
with a year of experience in the host-country do not depend on how long an individual has been
in the host country nor do they depend on the age-of-migration, then dk,a = d for all ages, k. In this
case, expression (3) simplifies to the more familiar expression (1). We can estimate the
parameter d using years since migration, Y, as a regressor instead of the vector of dummy
variables indicating whether an immigrant was in the host-country at age k.
The idea underlying expression (2) is that the age when an individual acquires hostcountry experience may matter. The impact of an additional year of host-country experience
depends on both immigrants’ age at migration and accumulated years of experience in the host
country. Because these two variables are related through a person’s age, it also is true that the
9
impact of experience in the host-country is a function of both an immigrant’s age at migration
and her current age.
Our conjecture implies that expression (1) should include an interaction between years in
the host country, Yi, and the age-of-migration, ai. An extension of (1) yields the following
expression:
(3)
lnwi = ßXi + aAi + g1Yi + g2Yiai + g3ai + εi.
In (3), we include the interaction between years in the host-country and age-of-migration, as well
as the main effect for age-of-migration. This specification captures the idea that not only is the
gain from an additional year of experience in the host-country dependent on age-of-migration,
but that age at migration may be associated with an independent impact on an individual’s
productivity. Individuals who come at older ages may miss out on the opportunity to acquire
developmentally dependent skills.
The literature underscores several problems with expression (3). First, the parameters are
not identified. This identification problem is seen by substituting for years since migration, Yi (=
Ai - ai), in expression (3) to yield the following:
(3’)
lnwi = ßXi + (a + g1)Ai + (g1 + g3)ai + g2Ai*ai + g2ai2 + εi.
As shown by (2’) the effect of experience in the host country on wages is identified from
variation in age-of-migration. But if this variable has its own impact on earnings, then returns to
host-country experience are not identified.
The interaction between current age and age at migration in (3’) identifies how returns to
host-country experience vary with age at migration. But, this interpretation depends on the
restrictions implied by (3). There, we assume that log wages are linearly related to years in the
host-country. Alternatively, if the true relationship between log wages and time in the host
10
country is quadratic and age at migration does not matter, the variables in (3’) are exactly those
that we would include in our estimation. The true assimilation profile might be nonlinear if there
are decreasing or increasing returns to time spent in the U.S. For example, the first few years of
learning English might have greater returns than the next few years, regardless of the age at
which the language proficiency is gained.
Accordingly, the only way to identify the impact of age at migration on the “returns” to
host country experience is to restrict the functional relationship between years in the host country
and wages. In the special case in which this relationship is linear, evidence of non-linearities in
this relationship might be taken as evidence that age at migration matters.
Even if we impose sufficient restrictions to separately identify the impact of experience in
the host country and the effects of age-of-migration, the samples used for these analyses may
produce biased estimates. The first problem is that in a cross section, experience in the hostcountry may be correlated with changes in the skills of successive immigrant cohorts. If earlier
immigrant arrivals were more skilled or had skills that could be more easily adapted to the host
country, the positive relation between years in the host country and wages results, at least in part,
from “declining cohort quality” (Borjas, 1985). In the U.S., new immigrants are less skilled than
the old (Chiswick, 1986; Borjas 1995). One way to address this problem is to use two or more
cross sections in the analysis and control directly for cohort effects (Borjas, 1985). Another way
to address the problem in a study of U.S. immigration is to estimate the model separately for
immigrants from different countries of origin (LaLonde and Topel, 1991). This approach works
in practice, because the skills of successive immigrant cohorts declined largely because of the
shift in the countries of origin of U.S. immigrants.
11
Another problem that may produce spurious results on the importance of age at migration
is that in cross sectional data individuals who migrated as young children must have been in the
host country for many years and as a result must be part of a different arrival cohort than
immigrants who migrated as young adults (Friedberg, 1993).
Any estimated relationship
between wages and age at migration may result from changes in “cohort quality.”
The
interaction between years in the host country and age at migration may control for higher returns
to experience for more skilled immigrants and not the impact that immigrating young has on the
returns to host country experience. In our empirical work below, we attempt to address these
issues by pooling cross sections from the 1980, 1990, and 2000 U.S. Censuses and including
controls for birth cohort and year of interview. We hope to mitigate the effects of declining
cohort quality by analyzing only Mexican immigrants.
An objective of this study is to show what the data reveal about the likely importance of
an individual’s age-of-migration, recognizing that this information is obtained by imposing
restrictions on the relationship between experience in the host country and socio-economic
outcomes, such as wages.
Because of the identification problem discussed above, any
relationship that we find that relates age at migration to socio-economic outcomes, could be
explained by an alternative functional relationship that relates experience in the host country and
these outcomes. Nevertheless, as indicated below, we believe that the patterns that we observe in
the data are probably not the result of restrictions that we impose on the data.
In our empirical work below we estimate more general versions of (3’). Our rationale
follows from (2). In that framework, the impact on wages for an immigrant who has been in the
host country for Yi years and who migrated at age ai is given by:
γA,a = ΣΑk=ai δ k,a
12
If we define I(AIi = j) as a dummy variable which equals 1 if the age at migration for individual i
equals a’, then the γ parameters as defined above are the coefficients on age at migration from
the following relationship:
(4)
lnwi = ßXi + Σ55j=25 αj Ι(agei = j) + ΣΑk=a γA,a I(AIi = j) + εi
We might estimate (4) simply by controlling for a vector of dummy variables indicating the age
when the immigrant arrived in the host country. This relationship is consistent with the concepts
underlying expression (2), but also with other specifications of the relationship between
immigrants’ productivity and skills acquired in the host country.
In principle, the γ parameters have an important structural interpretation, knowledge of
which enable us to answer several theoretical and policy related questions for the U.S.: (1) Does
the age at which immigrants arrive matter? (2) How important are “early childhood experiences”
in the host country?
(3) What are the relative returns to U.S. schools versus U.S. work
experiences or U.S. childhood experiences? (4) Are there policy implications for existing or
alternative interventions? (We discuss the policy implications of age-dependent returns to
Americanization in Section 6.)
For estimation purposes, a problem with expression (4) is that the each of the γ
parameters depends on an individual’s current age. As a result, the estimation is sensitive to not
only when individuals migrated, but also to the age distribution of the sample. Nonetheless, we
observe below that despite this shortcoming associated with (4), the estimated coefficients are
revealing about the assimilation patterns in the data. However, we also consider two
modifications of our analysis that address this issue. First, we estimate our model when we limit
the sample to immigrants who arrived prior to age 25 and who are between 25 and 54 years (in
13
the 2000 Census). In this case, the estimated coefficients measure the cumulative impact of hostcountry acquired skills up to age 25.
In our empirical work below, we follow standard methods to estimate the different rates
of returns to being in the United States as a young child, adolescent, or young adult. The log
wage specification of equation (4) allows us to estimate whether the impact of years of U.S.
experience differs by age and whether differences in the returns to U.S. experience correspond to
phases of development (e.g., early childhood, adolescence, adulthood). The differences among
the estimated age at migration parameters, gamma, determine the rate of return for a specific set
of years in the U.S. For example, the quantity, γj - γj’ is equal to the return on the (j-j’) years of
U.S. experience that occur between ages j and j’. If Americanization is to have a differential rate
of return for different ages spent in the U.S., then the return on (j-j’) years of U.S. experience
which occur between different ages, say z and j-j’-z, should be different. If these quantities are
equal, then there are no age-dependent effects of U.S. experience–a year in the U.S. is a year in
the U.S. no matter at what age it occurs.
There might be nonlinearities in the assimilation profile for reasons other than the
influence of age-of-migration. As discussed above, the assimilation profile might be nonlinear
simply because there are decreasing or increasing returns to Americanization. For example, the
first few years of learning English might have greater returns than the next few years, regardless
of the age at which the language proficiency is gained. The key difference between a model in
which age at migration matters and one in which experience in the U.S. does not depend upon
age of arrival is that the points of non-linearity should differ among people of different (current)
ages in the latter case, while the points of non-linearity due to age at migration effects should
occur at the same ages among people of different current ages.
14
To illustrate this point, suppose the returns from assimilation were substantially greater
during the first ten years in the host-country than during the remaining years, and there is no age
at migration effect. In this case, the assimilation profile is nonlinear. But, the point of nonlinearity occurs at different ages for two immigrants with the same number of years in the U.S.
but whose current ages are different. A 30-year-old immigrant with twenty years in the U.S. will
have a “kink” in his assimilation profile at age 20 while a 40-year-old immigrant with the same
U.S. experience will have a kink at age 30. By contrast, non-linearities due to an age-ofmigration effect imply “kink points” at the same age for individuals of different cohorts or
current ages. The impact U.S. Experience prior to a particular age will appear to be the same
regardless of an individual’s current age. Therefore, below we explore whether the “kink points”
relating age at migration and wages appear to depend on an immigrant’s age.
IV. Data from the U.S. Census
Our primary source of data in this study is the five percent public use micro data samples
(PUMS) from the 1980, 1990, and 2000 decennial U.S. Censuses of Population and Housing.
Because of the size of the five percent PUMS, limiting the sample of immigrants to those from a
single source country, Mexico, still yields a large number of relatively homogeneous immigrants
compared to immigrant population as a whole. In addition, we use the one percent PUMS from
the 1970 decennial U.S. Census to conduct some additional analyses.
We define the respondent’s age at migration as the difference between the respondent age
at the time of the Census (April) minus the number of years elapsed between the year of the
Census and the year in which they last entered the United States. Because the year of entry
question on the 1980 and 1990 Censuses only provides categorical responses that usually cover 5
to 10 year periods, it is rarely possible to determine the exact age at which the respondent
15
immigrated. Based on the respondents’ age and the range of years in which they entered the
U.S., we calculate maximum and minimum values for the age at migration and then compute the
mean of these values to obtain an estimated age-of-migration. For older respondents in these
Censuses it is not possible to determine the age of entry, even within five or ten years.
Accordingly, in this study, we limit our sample to the 25 to 35 year olds in the 1980
Census and 25 to 45 year olds in the 1990 Census. For individuals in these age cohorts it is
possible to determine year of entry within five years. For individuals in the 2000 Census, we can
determine age of entry. For these immigrants we limit our sample to those 25 to 55 years of age
at the time of the Census.
We report sample sizes and summary statistics for our sample of Mexican immigrants
and Mexican-American natives for all three Census years in Tables 1A and 1B. The first table
reports these statistics for all individuals in the combined sample; the second table reports
statistics for individuals born between 1945 and 1955. In the full sample, the average age at
migration is about 20 indicating that a large percentage of these Mexican immigrants arrived as
children. But we do have a large number of Mexicans who arrived as adults, which in our
analysis constitutes another comparison group besides Mexican-American natives.
On the one hand, it is clear that natives are more advantaged than immigrants in terms of
education, English ability, and labor market performance. According to 2000 Census, about 76
percent of Mexican-American natives had a high school degree compared with only 31 percent of
Mexican immigrants. Mexican-American natives were less likely to reside in the traditional
entry states for Mexican immigrants, namely, California, Illinois, and Texas, where large
enclaves exist. On the other hand, we see that immigrants are less likely to receive public
assistance and less likely to have a work preventing disability. Immigrants also are more likely
16
to be married and have more children than natives. Finally, real wages and earnings for both
groups have generally decreased from 1980 to 1990, reflecting the decline in real wages among
low-skilled workers over this period.
These same patterns hold in Table 1B in which we hold constant an individual’s birth
cohort across Census years. Immigrants are again less educated, earn less, and speak English
more poorly than natives. Age at migration is higher for immigrants because the way we
constructed our sample it is possible to be an older immigrant in 2000, whereas it is not in 1980.
V. Empirical Findings
5.1
Basic results
We begin by presenting conventional estimates of the relationship between Mexican
immigrant wages and years in the United States. These estimates are based on the pooled samples
of Mexican immigrants described in the previous section. We include controls for current age
through a series of dummy variables indicating each possible age in the sample and Census year.
We base our first group of estimates on the conventional “assimilation” specification
summarized by expression (1). As shown by the first column of Table 2A, immigrants who have
been in the U.S. the longest have significantly higher wages. We see that for Mexican immigrants
each year in the U.S. is associated with approximately 1.5 to 2 percent higher wages. The
quadratic term suggests that this rate rises, but at a decreasing rate.
Subject to the aforementioned concerns about identification, the figures in the second
column in Table 2A suggest that the benefits of time in the U.S. decline with age. The negative
coefficient for the “age times years in the U.S.” interaction term suggests that the assimilation
profile is flatter for older immigrants. Because years since immigration and age at migration are
directly related to each other through an individual’s current age, the relationship between wages
17
and years since immigration is inversely related to the relationship between wages and age-ofmigration. This inverse relationship is seen in column 3 of the table. Finally in column 4 we add
an interaction between age and age at migration term. These relationships hold for our subsample of Mexican immigrants who were born between 1945 and 1955.
As discussed above, without restrictions on the foregoing relationships it is impossible to
identify them separately. Our approach is to let the data suggest the appropriate restrictions.
Accordingly we estimate a model that includes a vector of dummy variables denoting age at
migration. We summarize our results for Mexican immigrants by plotting the coefficients on age
at migration in Figure 1 for our full sample and in Figure 2 for our sample of individuals born
between 1945 and 1955.
Our results from this exercise are mixed. The results summarized in Figure 1 are
consistent with the notion that a year in the U.S. is worth a year in the U.S. no matter what the
individual’s age. Closer inspection of the coefficients in Table 3 suggests that the foregoing
contention is true, except possibly during the pre-school years. However, beyond those years
time spent in the U.S. increases wages by about the same amount in percentage terms. The linear
shape of this relation during the school and early work years also suggests that the payoff to U.S.
experience is comparable during these two life stages.
The results shown in Figure 2 indicate that this wage/age at migration effect may have
birth cohort effects. The relation is striking for the 1945 to 1955 birth cohort. Their age at
migration profile is relatively flat from ages 0 to 9. One interpretation of this pattern is that
experience in the United States prior to age 10 did not matter. It makes no difference for these
individuals’ wages as adults whether they immigrated at age 1 or at age 9. Further, immigrants
who arrive prior to age 10 on average, earn approximately the same amount as native Mexican-
18
Americans. Time in the United States prior to age 10 might matter, but these results suggest that
immigrants acquire these age-specific skills quickly.
By contrast to Mexicans who arrived during early childhood, we find in both samples that
Mexicans immigrants who entered the U.S at age 10 or beyond earn significantly less as adults
than native-born Mexican Americans. We observe that wages decline sharply with age at
migration to the United States–at a rate of roughly 2 percent per year. We estimate that as an
adult an immigrant who arrived at age 20 receives wages that are about 25 percent lower than his
native counterpart (of the same age).
The estimated nonlinearities in the age at migration profile provide mixed evidence in
favor of the view that the returns to Americanization differ by age-of-migration. A Mexican
immigrant born between 1945 and 1955 who arrived at age 4 has five more years of U.S.
experience than a similarly aged immigrant who arrived at age 9. But as adults both immigrants
earn on average the same wages. Likewise, an immigrant in this birth cohort who arrived at age 9
has five more years of U.S. experience than a similarly aged immigrant who arrived at age 14.
But, now five years difference in U.S. experience is associated with about a 10 percent difference
in wages. Similarly, U.S. experience acquired during the next five years (i.e. between ages 14 to
19) also is associated with an additional 10 percent impact on earnings.
The first part of this relationship between age at migration and wages does not look like
an assimilation profile, but the part to the right of the “kink” in Figure 2 does. One possibility,
however, is that this pattern mirrors a non-linear relation between wages and years since
migration in which after a period of time, experience in the host country has no additional impact
on productivity. However, this point does not hold for our full sample of Mexican immigrants.
19
In the full sample, 5 years of U.S. experience starting at age 4 appears to be worth the same as 5
years starting at age 9.
The evidence presented here indicates that immigrating during early childhood might not
be important in determining future success in the labor market. If there is a critical age of arrival,
our evidence suggests that it occurs somewhere between age 4 and 9 or as late as the fourth
grade. Whatever Mexican immigrants acquire that is important for them to succeed in the U.S.
workforce as well as their native counterparts can be acquired during these ages in school, in the
community, or on the job. Beyond this age our evidence is consistent with the standard view that
years of experience in the U.S. are associated with higher earnings, and it does not matter at what
ages individuals acquire this experience.
5.2
The Mechanisms of Assimilation: Why Is it Important to Arrive By Age 10?
Why are immigrant children who arrive by age 9 more productive than their counterparts
who arrive at later ages? One can imagine various explanations for this evidence of assimilation:
Immigrants who arrive as children have better language skills, acquire more schooling, and are
more familiar with cultural and social institutions. The process of assimilation may be different
depending on an individual’s age-of-migration. Among adult immigrants labor force experience
would seem to be an essential mechanism for this assimilation, whereas for immigrant children
other mechanisms must be at work.
We examine two potential channels through which
assimilation may operate–education and language ability.
The two broken lines in Figure 1 illustrate the relative earnings of immigrants by age at
migration holding constant (i) high school graduation status and (ii) high school graduation status
as well as English fluency. (We present regression coefficients for the first 24 years in Table 3.)
Controlling for a high school degree, we see that age at migration is not associated with wages
20
for those who arrived prior to age 15. An immigrant who arrived at age one and earned a high
school degree would be expected to have similar earnings to an otherwise comparable immigrant
who arrived at age 14 and earned a high school degree.
By contrast, immigrants who arrive after the age of 15 suffer a roughly 2 percent earnings
penalty for each year later they arrive. This evidence suggests that Americanization of Mexican
immigrant children works through the U.S. schooling system or through some factor that is
highly correlated with high school completion. Once we account for educational attainment, the
first 14 years in the U.S. as a child appears to have no additional impact on subsequent earnings.
Further, a Mexican immigrant who arrives in the U.S. by 14 will do as well as a MexicanAmerican native with similar educational attainment. (Note that this schooling adjustment does
not even take into account that some immigrants’ schooling was obtained in Mexico.)
The apparent importance of high school graduation as the mechanism that predicts
whether child immigrants from Mexico are assimilated as adults is underscored by the
differences in the amount of U.S. schooling acquired by immigrants who arrived prior to age 10
and their counterparts who arrived between the ages of 10 and 19. The first two histograms in
Figure 3 present the distributions of years of schooling for Mexican immigrants who migrated
prior to age 10 (Figure 3a) and who migrated between the ages of 10 and 19 (Figure 3b). The
modal number of years of U.S. schooling among immigrants who migrated as young children is
10. By contrast, among those migrated in their teens, the modal years of U.S. schooling is zero.
Indeed, nearly 60 percent of these immigrants did not acquire any U.S. schooling. The last two
histograms make the point that the distribution of U.S. schooling among immigrants who came
as young children (Figure 3c) is similar to the distribution of U.S. schooling among MexicanAmerican natives (Figure 3d).
However, it is worth observing that even though young
21
immigrants perform as well as natives in the labor market, these immigrants acquire somewhat
less schooling. This evidence is consistent with the findings in the literature that suggest that to
some degree immigrant status insulates individuals from adverse socio-economic outcomes.
We also considered whether an immigrant’s fluency (in English) as an adult could explain
the relationship between age at migration and adult wages. Our rationale is that immigrants who
arrive later in their childhood may not learn to speak English as well as their compatriots who
arrived at younger ages. Accordingly, they earn less as adults. When we condition on fluency
we find as with high school graduation status that age at migration is a less important
determinant of adult earnings. In other words, among immigrants with similar language speaking
skills as adults, age at migration does not appear to be an important determinant of earnings until
the end of their high school years. But we also find that among immigrant children our measure
of fluency is less highly correlated with age at migration than is high school graduation status.
Therefore, when we only condition on fluency, we find that age at migration as a child still
predicts earnings as an adult.
When we control for both fluency and high school graduation status, we find that
immigrants who arrived before age 15 earn about the same if not slightly more than MexicanAmerican natives. (See the small dashed line in Figure 1.) Further, there still does not appear to
be a relationship between age at migration and wages for this group of immigrant children. This
evidence reinforces our earlier point that among immigrant children, gains from time in the U.S.
largely depends on whether they acquire proficient language skills and whether they graduate
from a U.S. high school. For children, experience in the U.S. has little additional impact on
subsequent productivity.
22
Turning to Mexican immigrants who arrived at older ages, we find that schooling does
not appear to explain the impact of U.S. experience on wages. This finding makes sense because
these immigrants acquired their schooling in Mexico rather than in the U.S., and so U.S.
schooling could not be a mechanism for their assimilation. It could still be possible that those
with more schooling abroad would have faster assimilation rates in the U.S., but among adults,
education attainment is not sufficiently correlated with age at migration to affect these results.
Age at migration is correlated with having a high school degree among child immigrants but not
among adult immigrants.
5.3
Do Immigrants Arriving Later in Childhood Have Less Able Parents?
It is possible that the reason immigrants who enter the U.S. later in their childhood earn
less as adults than those who arrive earlier is that they come from more disadvantaged
backgrounds, and not simply that they had fewer opportunities to receive U.S. education or to
learn English or that it is more difficult for children of this age to assimilate. To assess this
possibility, we compared the parents of foreign-born children in the 1970 and 1990 Censuses.
The 1970 Census provides particularly useful information because the immigrant children in
1970 Census are in principle from the same population as the adult immigrants the 1990
Censuses, whose labor market outcomes we analyze in this paper.2 For each child, we calculate
2The
sample of immigrant children in 1970 may be from a different population of individuals than the samples of
adult immigrants in the 1980 and 1990 Censuses because of emigration. There are not official measures of
immigrant emigration in the U.S., although the existing evidence suggests that emigration rates among Mexican
immigrants are especially high (LaLonde and Topel, 1997). Less clear is how emigration rates vary by age-ofmigration. Our analysis in this paper assumes that emigration rates among immigrants who arrive as children are low.
23
their age at migration into the U.S. and the education, earnings, and labor and language ability of
the head of their household.3
As shown by Table 4, in the 1990 Census child immigrants from Mexico who arrived
later in their childhood have somewhat less able parents. The top panel of the table shows that
the parents of children who entered the United States between 11 and 15 years of age earned
approximately 7.5 percent less than parents whose children entered the U.S. when they were
between 0 and 5 years old. Similarly, the parents who migrated with older children were 4.5
percentage points less likely to have graduated high school and 2.5 percentage points less likely
to be fluent in English.
The foregoing results include all foreign-born children in the 1990 Census, regardless of
country of origin.
It is possible that individuals from more advantaged countries tend to
immigrate to the United States at earlier ages, or have younger children when they immigrate. In
this case, the above specifications would confound the effect of country of origin and age-ofmigration. The second panel shows the same results when we limit the sample to parents of
children who immigrated from Mexico. Although we still see a negative relationship between
age of entry and parental ability, the effects are between one and three percentage points lower
than in the full sample.
These results are suggestive indicating that at least some of the age at migration effects
discussed above result from teenage immigrants having less skilled parents. But analysis using
parents of the cohort of child immigrants in 1990 is not ideal because these parents are different
than the immigrants whose labor market outcomes we observe in 1980, 1990, or 2000. In order
to examine the possible selection issues for the immigrants we study, we performed a similar
3
We limit our sample to foreign-born children under the age of 21 who were listed as the son/daughter of the
24
analysis using the 1970 PUMS. We present these results in the third and fourth panels of Table
4. Here the sample sizes are considerably smaller, both because there were fewer immigrants in
1970, but also because the 1970 PUMS was based on only a one percent sample of the
population.
In the 1970 sample of all immigrant children, we again find evidence of a negative
relationship between age at migration and parental ability. However, in the sample of Mexican
immigrants, we find mixed evidence. There is some evidence of a small negative association
between age at migration and parental skill, but standard errors are large. Given the results based
on the larger 1990 Census, and that intergenerational correlation in skills is substantially less than
one, we conclude that although some of the decline in immigrant’s relative earnings is due to a
negative correlation between age at migration and parents skills, this fact likely does not explain
much of the pattern observed in either Figure 1 or Figure 2.4
5.4
Characteristics of the Parents of Mexican-American Natives
Throughout this analysis, we have been comparing the Mexican immigrants to MexicanAmericans born in the U.S. However, in order to better interpret these findings, it is useful to get
a better sense of whether these natives of Mexican ancestry were second generation, or had been
in the U.S. for several generations. We might imagine that the childhood and upbringing of
second generation Mexican-Americans may more closely match that of immigrant children (first
generation) as compared with the childhood of third generation Mexican-Americans.
To
examine information on the parents of Mexican-American children, we again used the 1970
household head.
Solon in his review of the literature reports that studies of the intergenerational elasticity of son’s wage to father’s
wage ranges between 0.3 and 0.5. Studies based on single year earnings measures report smaller elasticities (Solon,
1999). A more recent study, based on a long earnings panel from the U.S. Social Security Administration, finds
elasticities both for son’s and daughter’s earnings to father’s earnings to be on the order of 0.6 (Mazumder, 2001).
4
25
Census. In principle, these children are from the same population as the adult natives in our
sample from the 1980, 1990, and 2000 Censuses.
As shown by Table 5, nearly 80 percent of the Mexican-American children in 1970 were
at least third generation–that is, at least one of their parents also was born in the United States.
Hence, our findings are not due to most Mexican-American natives being the children of
immigrants. Although the third generation children tend to have slightly better educated parents
than second generation children, they do not seem to come from families with appreciably higher
earnings or employment patterns. By comparison, children, who were not born in the United
States, appear to have less skilled parents as measured by earnings and education levels.
The foregoing results from the 1970 Census make our finding that Mexican immigrants
who arrive before age 10 earn just as much as Mexican-American natives even more striking.
Not only do these individuals acquire less schooling than natives, but they also likely were raised
by less educated parents who earned lower wages than parents of the natives in our sample. The
Mexican-American native sample that we use as a comparison group consists of mostly 3rd
generation (or greater) individuals. This group is likely relatively assimilated.
5.5
Other Socio-economic Outcomes
If the timing of Americanization influences labor market performance, it is likely that it
also influences other socio-economic outcomes. Table 7 illustrates the relationship between age
at migration and a variety of social outcomes. To simplify the specification, we divided age at
migration and current age into several categories.5
5
Models that use a completely flexible specification with individual age indicators for entry and current age yield
comparable results. The age-of-migration categories are 0 to 5; 6 to 10; 11 to 15; 16 to 20; and 21 and over. The age
categories are 25 - 30; 31 - 35; and 35 and over.
26
To begin, as with wages, we found a nonlinear relationship between age of entry and
average weekly earnings, with a sharp change occurring after the age of 10. We also observe this
pattern for measures of marital status and fertility.
As shown in the table, we find that
immigrants are more likely to be married and have more children than Mexican-American
natives. However, just as with wages, we see that immigrants who arrived prior to age 10 are
significantly different than those who arrived after the age of 10. Mexican immigrants who
arrived between the ages of 6 and 10 are roughly five percentage points less likely to be married
and female immigrants have 0.25 fewer children than their counterparts who arrived between the
ages of 11 and 15.
The evidence on marital status and fertility suggests that immigrants who come as young
children also later exhibit some of the same social behaviors as natives. By contrast, immigrants
who come as older children are more like their counterparts who immigrated when they were
adults. This evidence is consistent with that reported in the developmental psychology literature
(Hernandez, 1999). But, this pattern does not hold for all of our socio-economic outcomes.
Immigrants are less likely than natives to be disabled or receive public aid, but there does not
appear to be a relationship among immigrants between age at migration and disability or public
aid receipt.
VI. Conclusions
The pattern of assimilation for young children differs from that for adolescents and young
adults. Among Hispanic immigrants, additional years of experience in the United States prior to
age 10 are not associated with significantly higher earnings as adults. Beyond age 10, each year
of experience in the U.S. is associated with one to two percent higher earnings. This pattern also
holds for schooling, and schooling attendance appears to be an important mechanism for
27
assimilating early adolescents. Accordingly, we find that conventional empirical models of
immigrant assimilation might be better specified if they counted time in the U.S. starting at about
age 10.
There are several policy implications for our findings. First, policy makers should not
target childhood intervention programs on immigrants rather than on poor children as a whole.
Hispanic immigrant children are poorer than native children, but not substantially poorer than
ethnically comparable native children. Their economic performance as adults is more closely
linked to their status of having come from a low SES household, than their status as an
immigrant child. Indeed, the literature and the evidence presented here suggests that a child’s
immigrant status to some extent may insulate her from the ill effects of growing up in a low
income household. Further, even though Hispanic immigrant children may not perform as well
in school as their native peers, or have parents that are as actively involved in their schooling,
studies suggest that their parents place more emphasis on academic success and that they have a
broader family and peer group that supports this emphasis (Fuligni, 1997).
Second, contrary to what has been recommended elsewhere, it does not seem “worthwhile
for programs like Head Start and other early childhood programs to target children of immigrants
in order to help them adapt more quickly to American culture and language so that they are ready
to learn upon entry into school (Nord and Griffin, 1999).”
The cohorts of immigrant children
studied here did not benefit significantly from such programs. Relatively few of the individuals
in our sample likely attended programs such as Head Start.
Funding for ESL, bilingual
education, and related programs was not significant until most immigrant children in our sample
28
were adults.6 Nonetheless, despite the absence of such programs for these immigrant children,
they have performed at least as well in the labor market as ethnically comparable natives.
Finally, the evidence presented here suggests that early childhood interventions may not
the most efficient use of resources designed to facilitate the assimilation of immigrant children.
Instead, our results indicate it might be better to target public funds for immigrants toward those
who arrive after age 9 and to provide them with additional services until they graduate from high
school. These programs should encourage graduation and fluency. But further research might
indicate the benefits of more comprehensive services including those that help young immigrants
acquire social capital, self esteem, and other non-cognitive skills.
6
Immigrants with LEP are eligible to participate in programs funded by the Bilingual
Education Act (Title VII of ESEA) Emergency Immigrant Education Act of 1984.
29
References
Barnett, W. Steven (1993). “Economic Evaluation of Home Visiting Programs,” The Future of
Children, Vol 3(3): 93 - 112.
Borjas, George (1985). “Assimilation, Changes in Cohort Quality, and the Earnings of
Immigrants,” Journal of Labor Economics, 3: 463 - 489.
Borjas, George (1995). “Assimilation and Changes in Cohort Quality Revisited: What Happened
to Immigrant Earnings in the 1980s,” Journal of Labor Economics, 13(2): 201 - 245.
Borjas, George and Brent Bratsberg (1996). “Who Leaves? The Outmigration of Foreign Born
Men,” Review of Economics and Statistics, 78 (1): 165 - 176.
Borjas, George (1999). “The Economic Analysis of Immigration,” in O. Ashenfelter and D. Card,
eds, Handbook of Labor Economics, Volume 3A, Amsterdam: Elsevier Science B.V., Chapter
28, 1698 - 1760.
Christian, Kate, Heather J. Bachnan, and Fredrick J. Morrison (2001). “Schooling and Cognitive
Development,” in Robert J. Sternberg and Elena L. Grigorenko, eds., Environmental Effects on
Cognitive Abilities, Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers, Chapter
10, 287 - 335.
Chiswick, Barry (1978). “The Effect of Americanization on the Earnings of Foreign Born Men,”
Journal of Political Economy, 86: 897 - 921.
Chiswick, Barry (1986). “Is the New Immigration Less Skilled Than the Old,” Journal of Labor
Economics, 4: 168 - 192.
Duleep, Harriet O. and Mark Reget (1992). “The Elusive Concept of Immigrant Quality,”
unpublished working paper.
Duleep, Harriet O. And Mark Reget (1997). “Are Lower Immigrant Earnings At Entry
Associated With Faster Growth? A Review,” unpublished mimeograph, The Urban Institute.
Eckstein, Zvi and Yorem Weiss (2000). “The Absorption of Highly Skilled Immigrants: Israel,
1990 – 1995,” unpublished working paper.
Edin, Per-Anders, Robert J. LaLonde, and Olof Aslund (2000). “Emigration of Immigrants and
Measures of Immigrant Assimilation: Evidence From Sweden,” Swedish Policy Review, 7, 163 204.
Friedberg, Rachel M. (1992). “The Labor Market Assimilation of Immigrants in the United
States: The Role of Age at Arrival,” unpublished mimeograph, Brown University.
30
Friedberg, Rachel. M. (2000). “You Can’t take it With You: Immigrant Assimilation and the
Portability of Human Capital,” Journal of Labor Economics, 18(2): 223 – 251.
Fuligni, Andrew J. (1997). “The Academic Achievement of Adolescents From Immigrant
Families: The Roles of Family Background, Attitudes, and Behavior,” Child Development,
68(2): 351 - 363.
Heckman, James J (2000). “Policies to Foster Human Capital,” Research in Economics, 54(1,
March): 3 - 56.
Hernandez, Donald, J. (1999). “Children of Immigrants: Health Adjustment, and Public
Assistance,” in Children of Immigrants: Health Adjustment, and Public Assistance, National
Research Council and Institute of Medicine, Chapter 1, pp. 1 - 18.
Hernandez, Donald, J. and Katherine Drake (1999). “Socioeconomic and Demographic Risk
Factors and Resources Among Children in Immigrant and Native-Born Families:1910, 1960 and
1999,” in Children of Immigrants: Health Adjustment, and Public Assistance, National Research
Council and Institute of Medicine, Chapter 2, pp. 19 - 125.
Jasso, G. And M. Rosenzweig (1982). “Estimating the Emigration Rates of Legal Immigrants
Using Administrative and Survey Data,” Demography, 19: 279 - 291.
Kossoudji, S. (1989). “Immigrant Worker Assimilation: Is it a Labor Market Phenomenon?”
Journal of Human Resources, 24, 494-527.
LaLonde, Robert and Robert Topel, (1991). “Immigrants in the American Labor Market: Quality,
Assimilation, and Distributional Effects,” American Economic Review, 81: 297 - 302.
LaLonde, Robert, and Robert Topel (1997). “Economic Impact of International Migration and
The Economic Performance of Migrants,” in M.Rosenzweig and O. Stark, eds., Handbook of
Population and Family Economics, vol 2, Amsterdam: Elsever Science B.V., Chapter 14, 799 850.
Mazumder, Bhashkar (2001). “Earnings Mobility in the U.S.: A New Look at Intergenerational
Inequality,” Center For Labor Economics Working Paper, University of California, Berkeley
(March).
National Research Council, Board on Children and Families, Commission on Behavioral and
Social Sciences and Education (1995). “Immigrant Children and Their Families: Issues for
Research and Policy,” The Future of Children, 5(2 Summer/Fall): 72 - 89.
Nord, Christine Winquist and James A. Griffin (1999). “Educational Profile of 3 to 8 Year Old
Children of Immigrants,” in Children of Immigrants: Health Adjustment, and Public Assistance,
National Research Council and Institute of Medicine, Chapter 7, pp. 348 - 409.
31
Solon, Gary (1999). “Intergenerational Mobility in the Labor Market,” in O. Ashenfelter and D.
Card, eds, Handbook of Labor Economics, Volume 3A, Amsterdam: Elsevier Science B.V.,
Chapter 29, 1761 - 1800.
Schaafsman, Joseph, and Arthur Sweetman (2000). “Immigrant Earnings: Age at Immigration
Matters, Canadian Journal of Economics, 34(4): 1066 – 1099.
Wilkins, Roger (2003). “Immigrant Earnings Adjustment: The Impact of Age at Migration,
Australian Economic Papers, X: 292-315.
32
Table 1A: Summary Statistics for Samples of Mexican Immigrants and Mexican-American Natives
2000
Immigrant
N 257,542
Native
137,748
1990
Immigrant
100,061
Native
93,257
1980
Immigrant
31,314
Native
53,275
37.05
37.51
33.34
33.68
29.53
29.46
21.38678
0
20.21569
0
19.87482
0
High School Graduate
31%
76%
27.64%
72.12%
28.34%
65.64%
College Graduate
4%
13%
3.90%
10.09%
3.90%
8.44%
Female
44%
52%
44.01%
51.51%
45.54%
50.33%
Fluent in English
26.01%
86.87%
27.37%
85.05%
23.04%
78.24%
Received Public Assistance
3.00%
3.39%
3.68%
6.11%
3.17%
5.82%
Disability that Limits Work
3.92%
6.45%
2.99%
5.06%
Disability that Prevents Work
1.67%
3.10%
1.15%
2.20%
Age
Age of Immigration
Married
72.47%
60.20%
72.12%
63.71%
77.19%
69.16%
Log(Hourly Wage)
1.97
2.22
1.90
2.14
2.01
2.15
Log(Average weekly earnings)
NA
NA
5.58
5.80
5.66
5.78
12.66%
22.59%
10.64%
26.12%
Does not reside in NY, TX, FL, IL or CA
Notes: Authors’ calculations from the 1980, 1990, and 2000 US Censuses. Sample limited to Mexican
Immigrants between 25 and 35 in the 1980 Census, 25 to 45 in the 1990 Census, and 25 to 55 in the
2000 Census. Sample also includes Mexican American Natives.
33
Table 1B: Summary Statistics for Samples of Mexican Immigrants and Mexican-American Natives
Born Between 1945 and 1955.
N
2000
Immigrant
Native
52,350
33,568
1990
Immigrant
Native
40,590
39,942
1980
Immigrant Native
31,314 53,275
Age
49.3059
49.47569
39.38815
39.50606
29.53
29.46
Age of Immigration
26.63047
0
22.90623
0
19.87482
0
High School
24.63%
72.87%
24.46%
70.80%
28.34%
65.64%
College Graduate
4.05%
12.81%
4.04%
11.21%
3.90%
8.44%
Female
47.14%
51.50%
46.06%
51.49%
45.54%
50.33%
Fluent in English
24.51%
83.84%
26.87%
82.92%
23.04%
78.24%
Received Public Assistance
2.81%
2.38%
4.24%
5.55%
3.17%
5.82%
Disability that Limits Work
5.25%
8.17%
2.99%
5.06%
Disability that Prevents Work
2.39%
4.03%
1.15%
2.20%
Married
75.14%
66.66%
78.59%
70.27%
77.19%
69.16%
Log(Hourly Wage)
2.02
2.33
1.969364
2.231359
2.01
2.15
Log(Average weekly earnings)
NA
NA
5.642066
5.898036
5.66
5.78
12.48%
23.11%
10.64%
26.12%
Does not reside in NY, TX, FL, IL or CA
Notes: Authors’ calculations from the 1980, 1990, and 2000 US Censuses. Sample limited to Mexican
Immigrants between 25 and 35 in the 1980 Census, 35 to 45 in the 1990 Census, and 45 to 55 in the
2000 Census. Sample also includes Mexican American Natives.
34
Table 2A: Estimates of Relationship Between Years in the U.S., Age at Migration and Relative Wages of
Mexican Immigrants.
Age
Age Square
Years in U.S.
Years in U.S. Squared
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
0.0340
(0.0016)*
*
-0.0005
(0.0000)*
*
0.0176
(0.0004)*
*
-0.0001
(0.0000)*
*
0.0299
(0.0017)*
*
-0.0004
(0.0000)*
*
0.0238
(0.0007)*
*
-0.0000
0.0529
(0.0016)*
*
-0.0005
(0.0000)*
*
0.0537
(0.0016)*
*
-0.0006
(0.0000)*
*
-0.0189
(0.0005)*
*
0.0001
(0.0000)*
*
-0.0238
(0.0007)*
*
-0.0000
(0.0000)
Age of Immigration
Age of Immigration Squared
Age*Years in U.S.
Age*Age of Immigration
Female
1990 Census
2000 Census
Before 1968
Constant
Observations
R-squared
(0.0000)
-0.0002
(0.0000)*
*
-0.2275
(0.0026)*
*
-0.1500
(0.0058)*
*
0.1711
(0.0060)*
*
0.0547
(0.0057)*
*
1.3049
(0.0292)*
*
273,774
0.11
-0.2288
(0.0026)*
*
-0.1539
(0.0058)*
*
0.1656
(0.0060)*
*
0.0452
(0.0058)*
*
1.3343
(0.0294)*
*
273,774
0.11
-0.2286
(0.0026)*
*
-0.1560
(0.0058)*
*
0.1606
(0.0060)*
*
0.0287
(0.0054)*
*
1.2995
(0.0292)*
*
273,774
0.11
0.0002
(0.0000)*
*
-0.2288
(0.0026)*
*
-0.1539
(0.0058)*
*
0.1656
(0.0060)*
*
0.0452
(0.0058)*
*
1.3343
(0.0294)*
*
273,774
0.11
Notes: Sample of Mexican Immigrants and Mexican-American Natives defined in Table 1. Models include controls
for Census year and whether immigrant arrived prior to 1968. Robust standard errors are in parentheses. ** indicates
significant at 1% level.
35
Table 2B: Estimates of Relationship Between Years in the U.S., Age at Migration and Relative Wages of
Mexican Immigrants Born Between 1945 and 1955
Age
Age Square
Years in U.S.
Years in U.S. Squared
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
0.0314
(0.0041)*
*
-0.0004
(0.0000)*
*
0.0170
(0.0007)*
*
-0.0001
(0.0000)*
*
0.0256
(0.0042)*
*
-0.0003
(0.0001)*
*
0.0296
(0.0017)*
*
0.0000
0.0511
(0.0042)*
*
-0.0005
(0.0000)*
*
0.0552
(0.0042)*
*
-0.0006
(0.0001)*
*
-0.0196
(0.0011)*
*
0.0001
(0.0000)*
*
-0.0296
(0.0017)*
*
0.0000
(0.0000)
Age of Immigration
Age of Immigration Squared
Age*Years in U.S.
Age*Age of Immigration
Female
1990 Census
2000 Census
Before 1968
Constant
Observations
R-squared
(0.0000)
-0.0004
(0.0000)*
*
-0.2667
(0.0048)*
*
-0.1443
(0.0126)*
*
0.1625
(0.0179)*
*
0.0599
(0.0078)*
*
1.3589
(0.0801)*
*
86,740
0.11
-0.2678
(0.0048)*
*
-0.1662
(0.0128)*
*
0.1271
(0.0184)*
*
0.0255
(0.0088)*
*
1.3811
(0.0802)*
*
86,740
0.11
-0.2674
(0.0048)*
*
-0.1558
(0.0128)*
*
0.1398
(0.0183)*
*
0.0326
(0.0088)*
*
1.3385
(0.0800)*
*
86,740
0.11
0.0003
(0.0000)*
*
-0.2678
(0.0048)*
*
-0.1662
(0.0128)*
*
0.1271
(0.0184)*
*
0.0255
(0.0088)*
*
1.3811
(0.0802)*
*
86,740
0.11
Notes: See Table 1B. Models include controls for Census year and whether immigrant arrived prior to 1968. Robust
standard errors are in parentheses. ** indicates significant at 1% level.
36
Table 3: Relative Wages of Mexican Immigrants who Immigrated to the U.S. as Children
(1)
Variable
Coeff
fluent
gths
iaged1
iaged2
iaged3
iaged4
iaged5
iaged6
iaged7
iaged8
iaged9
iaged10
iaged11
iaged12
iaged13
iaged14
iaged15
iaged16
iaged17
iaged18
iaged19
iaged20
iaged21
iaged22
iaged23
iaged24
-----0.015
-0.034
-0.049
-0.012
-0.045
-0.072
-0.065
-0.078
-0.096
-0.123
-0.150
-0.141
-0.143
-0.155
-0.177
-0.183
-0.204
-0.219
-0.236
-0.252
-0.272
-0.293
-0.310
-0.324
(2)
(3)
S.E.
Coeff
S.E.
0.017
0.016
0.016
0.016
0.017
0.018
0.015
0.016
0.015
0.014
0.015
0.012
0.011
0.009
0.008
0.007
0.006
0.006
0.006
0.006
0.007
0.007
0.008
0.007
--0.254
0.029
0.004
-0.013
0.024
0.002
-0.017
-0.012
-0.017
-0.025
-0.042
-0.058
-0.041
-0.026
-0.024
-0.042
-0.043
-0.065
-0.081
-0.101
-0.122
-0.144
-0.165
-0.185
-0.197
--0.003
0.017
0.016
0.016
0.015
0.017
0.018
0.015
0.015
0.014
0.014
0.015
0.011
0.011
0.009
0.008
0.007
0.006
0.007
0.006
0.007
0.007
0.007
0.008
0.007
Coeff
0.102
0.236
0.037
0.014
-0.003
0.034
0.013
-0.003
0.004
0.003
0.000
-0.013
-0.026
0.000
0.017
0.023
0.009
0.011
-0.010
-0.025
-0.044
-0.064
-0.085
-0.106
-0.125
-0.137
S.E.
0.003
0.003
0.017
0.016
0.016
0.015
0.017
0.018
0.015
0.015
0.014
0.014
0.015
0.011
0.011
0.009
0.008
0.007
0.007
0.007
0.006
0.007
0.007
0.007
0.008
0.008
Notes: Dependent variable is weekly wages. Wages are relative to wages of Mexican-American Natives. Prefix
“iaged” means immigration age dummy variable; “iaged1” is a dummy variable equal to 1 if individual was 1 year
old when s/he immigrated to the U.S. The variable “gths” is a dummy variable indicating whether the individual
graduated from High School. See notes to Table 1, Table 2, and text for description of the sample.
37
Table 4: The Relationship Between Age of Entry and Parent Quality
Parental Characteristics
High School Graduate
Average Weekly Earnings
Immigrant Children in 1990
N
117,113
97,569
Immigrated 6-10 yrs
-.017 (.003)
-.017 (.006)
Immigrated 11-15 yrs
-.041 (.004)
-.074 (.008)
Immigrated 16-20 yrs
-.074 (.006)
-.101 (.011)
Mexican Immigrant Children in 1990
N
34,627
30,320
Immigrated 6-10 yrs
-.018 (.005)
-.003 (.010)
Immigrated 11-15 yrs
-.038 (.006)
-.068 (.013)
Immigrated 16-20 yrs
-.041 (.009)
-.042 (.018)
Immigrant Children in 1970
N
8,325
7,732
Immigrated 6-10 yrs
-.051 (.013)
-.030 (.019)
Immigrated 11-15 yrs
-.064 (.016)
-.036 (.024)
Immigrated 16-20 yrs
-.143 (.025)
-.115 (.037)
Mexican Immigrant Children in 1970
N
1,220
1,156
Immigrated 6-10 yrs
-.038 (.024)
.022 (.042)
Immigrated 11-15 yrs
-.011 (.030)
.052 (.051)
Immigrated 16-20 yrs
-.044 (.045)
-.031 (.077)
Fluent in English
117,133
-.014 (.003)
-.025 (.004)
-.025 (.006)
34,627
-.013 (.005)
-.012 (.006)
-.024 (.009)
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
Note: OLS regressions of parental characteristics on parental age, gender and age at which the
children arrived in the U.S. Sample includes immigrant children age 0-21 years who were listed
as the son or daughter of a household head who was also an immigrant. Parental information
refers only to the parent who is listed as the household head. Source: Authors’ calculations
based on samples from the 1970 and 1990 PUMS of the U.S. Censuses.
38
Table 5: Parental Characteristics of Mexican-American Children in 1970
Native Children
Parental Characteristics
Total
Parent Born
Outside U.S.
0.00
41.3
.09
6.9
.22
.03
.91
.06
.13
.16
.10
131
.04
8816
.09
1652
Immigrant
Children (who
arrived at 0-9
years)
Parent Born In
U.S.
1.00
38.4
.13
8.6
.41
.03
.91
.09
.10
.08
.09
136
.05
6368
.10
1758
Born in United States
.79
.24
Age
39
41.8
Female
.12
.10
Education
8.3
6.0
High School Graduate
.37
.21
College Graduate
.03
.04
Employed Last Year
.91
.93
Professional/Manager
.08
.05
Laborer (non-farm)
.11
.13
Farm Laborer
.10
.19
Service
.10
.11
Average Weekly Earnings
135
104
Fraction Self-Employed
.05
.04
Self-Employed Income
6816
2871
Fraction on Public Aid
.10
.11
Public Aid Income
1737
1225
Years in the U.S.
N
19,927
4,236
15,691
1,126
Note: These statistics are derived from information on the parents of Mexican-American children ages 0-21 in 1970
Census who were identified as the son/daughter of the household head. These children were either born in Mexico
or born in the United States. Parental information here refers to the head of the household.
39
Table 6: Regression of Age of Entry on Individual Socio-Economic Outcomes
(1)
(2)
Average Weekly
High School
Earnings
Graduate
coef
se
coef
se
(3)
Fluent
(4)
Married
(5)
Receives Public
Aid
coef
se
coef
se
coef
se
Age of Entry
0-5
-0.028
0.012
-0.159
0.007
-0.121
0.007
0.040
0.007
-0.021
0.003
6-10
-0.068
0.011
-0.267
0.006
-0.217
0.007
0.063
0.006
-0.022
0.003
11-15
-0.147
0.007
-0.522
0.004
-0.438
0.004
0.119
0.004
-0.017
0.002
16-20
-0.218
0.005
-0.640
0.002
-0.513
0.003
0.118
0.003
-0.022
0.001
21+
-0.370
0.004
-0.667
0.002
-0.478
0.002
0.074
0.002
-0.026
0.001
Current Age
30-35 years
0.120
0.004
-0.002
0.002
-0.024
0.002
0.103
0.002
0.004
0.001
35-40 years
0.210
0.005
-0.005
0.002
-0.031
0.003
0.152
0.003
0.003
0.001
40-45 years
0.236
0.005
-0.028
0.003
-0.079
0.003
0.179
0.003
-0.001
0.001
Before 1968
0.092
0.008
0.088
0.004
0.096
0.004
-0.011
0.004
0.009
0.002
1990 Census
-0.072
0.004
0.071
0.002
0.061
0.002
-0.102
0.002
0.005
0.001
Female
-0.409
0.003
-0.006
0.001
-0.008
0.002
0.009
0.002
0.050
0.001
Constant
5.920
0.004
0.788
0.002
0.686
0.002
0.637
0.002
0.030
0.001
Note: These estimates are based on men and women from the pooled 1980-90 Census samples. Number of children is
based on a sample of women only. The categories native and current age 25-30 are omitted.
40
(6)
Disabl
coef
-0.031
-0.025
-0.028
-0.035
-0.047
0.018
0.034
0.067
0.010
0.003
-0.015
0.073
se
Figure 1: Relative Wages of Mexican Immigrants by Age-at-Migration
Returns to years in U.S.
0.100
0.000
1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31 33 35 37 39 41 43 45 47 49 51 53 55
P e rc e n t W a g e g a p w it h n a tiv e M e x ic a n s
-0.100
-0.200
-0.300
Unconditional
High School Graduate
English Fluency +HSG
-0.400
-0.500
-0.600
-0.700
-0.800
-0.900
Age of Immigration
Note: See Table 3 and discussion in text.
41
Figure 2: Relative Wages of Mexican Immigrants Born Between 1945 and 1955 by Age-at-Migration
Returns to years in U.S.
0.2
Percent W age gap w ith native M exican-Am ericans
0.1
0
1
3
5
7
9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31 33 35 37 39 41 43 45 47 49 51 53 55
-0.1
-0.2
-0.3
Unconditional
High School Graduate
English Fluency +HSG
-0.4
-0.5
-0.6
-0.7
-0.8
-0.9
Age of Immigration
Notes: See Tables 1B and 2B.
42
Table A1: Relative Wages of Mexican Immigrants Born Between 1945 and 1955
(1)
Coeff
fluent
gths
iaged1
iaged2
iaged3
iaged4
iaged5
iaged6
iaged7
iaged8
iaged9
iaged10
iaged11
iaged12
iaged13
iaged14
iaged15
iaged16
iaged17
iaged18
iaged19
iaged20
iaged21
iaged22
iaged23
iaged24
iaged25
iaged26
iaged27
iaged28
iaged29
iaged30
iaged31
iaged32
iaged33
iaged34
iaged35
-0.014
-0.012
-0.012
0.010
-0.002
-0.019
0.003
0.010
-0.070
-0.053
-0.111
-0.118
-0.112
-0.127
-0.169
-0.177
-0.203
-0.219
-0.227
-0.218
-0.224
-0.276
-0.285
-0.302
-0.321
-0.350
-0.349
-0.398
-0.444
-0.472
-0.460
-0.478
-0.490
-0.509
-0.503
(2)
S.D.
0.044
0.033
0.030
0.029
0.037
0.045
0.034
0.033
0.034
0.030
0.042
0.029
0.030
0.027
0.023
0.023
0.015
0.015
0.014
0.014
0.013
0.013
0.014
0.013
0.014
0.014
0.016
0.017
0.018
0.019
0.020
0.020
0.021
0.024
0.024
Coeff
0.306
0.024
0.013
0.010
0.037
0.029
0.013
0.049
0.041
-0.007
0.010
-0.025
-0.008
0.015
0.022
-0.024
-0.014
-0.041
-0.049
-0.058
-0.049
-0.060
-0.106
-0.118
-0.135
-0.154
-0.188
-0.187
-0.236
-0.278
-0.303
-0.298
-0.313
-0.323
-0.350
-0.336
(3)
S.D.
0.005
0.041
0.032
0.030
0.028
0.036
0.044
0.034
0.033
0.033
0.029
0.041
0.029
0.030
0.027
0.022
0.023
0.015
0.015
0.014
0.015
0.014
0.013
0.014
0.014
0.014
0.014
0.016
0.018
0.018
0.019
0.020
0.020
0.021
0.024
0.024
Coeff
0.115
0.280
0.026
0.022
0.020
0.044
0.038
0.024
0.066
0.058
0.011
0.032
0.000
0.029
0.054
0.067
0.023
0.037
0.014
0.007
0.001
0.010
-0.002
-0.046
-0.058
-0.073
-0.093
-0.126
-0.125
-0.173
-0.215
-0.239
-0.234
-0.248
-0.259
-0.285
-0.272
S.D.
0.006
0.005
0.041
0.031
0.029
0.028
0.036
0.044
0.034
0.033
0.032
0.029
0.041
0.029
0.030
0.027
0.022
0.023
0.015
0.016
0.014
0.015
0.014
0.014
0.015
0.014
0.015
0.015
0.016
0.018
0.018
0.020
0.020
0.020
0.021
0.024
0.024
Notes: In Figure 2, we plot the coefficients in this table. Dependent variable is weekly wages. Prefix “iaged” means
immigration age dummy variable; “iaged1” is a dummy variable equal to 1 if individual was 1 year old when s/he
immigrated to the U.S. The variable “gths” is a dummy variable indicating whether the individual graduated from
High School. See Tables 1B and 2B. The even numbered columns are the standard errors.
43