Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Ethno-Racial and Nativity Group Differences in U.S. Intercounty Migration and Move Distances

  • Published:
Spatial Demography Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This paper examines nativity differences in intercounty migration and move distances for U.S. Asian, Black, Hispanic, and White ethno-racial groups drawing on confidential micro-data samples from the 2007–2011 multiyear ACS. Human capital and spatial assimilation theory guided the research. The analysis shows that net of group differences in individual characteristics, all foreign- and native-born minority groups were significantly less likely to move counties than native-born non-Hispanic Whites. The differential was greatest for foreign-born Hispanics. If nativity is not considered, Asians have a higher rate of intercounty migration than non-Hispanic Whites. The findings for ethno-racial nativity differences in move distances indicated that native born Asians and Hispanics moved comparable distances as native-born Whites but that was not the case for native-born Blacks. All the foreign-born groups moved significantly shorter distances than native-born non-Hispanic Whites. We found that the correlates of migration are consistent with human capital and spatial assimilation theory. Compared to non-migrants, migrants have more education and English language fluency, and are more likely to be men, never married, younger, school attendees, and non-citizens. Longer distance movers are younger, more educated, and residents in mixed nativity households. The examination of racial differences within 13 national origin groups found evidence of racial effects on migration and migration distance for only a few groups. Non-Whites from five of 13 origins had higher rates of county migration than Whites, but those differentials disappeared after controlling for individual characteristics. Non-Whites from Mexico, Honduras and the Dominican Republic migrated significantly shorter distances than did their White co-ethnics.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. We did not obtain disclosure for the metro concentration statistics that correspond to those shown in Table 1, we did get disclosure of other statistics that show large differences across the four groups in nativity concentration in metropolitan areas. For instance, 45% of foreign-born Whites but only 16% of native-born Whites live in metro areas with large foreign-born concentrations. The corresponding foreign-born and native-born figures for Blacks are (54 and 22%), for Asians (57 and 66%), and for Hispanics (58 and 48%), respectively.

  2. The remaining 11 counties were: Phoenix (Maricopa), Tampa (Hillsborough), Orlando (Orange), Atlanta (Gwinnett), Chicago (Cook), Las Vegas (Clark), El Paso (El Paso), San Antonio (Bexar), Edinburg-Brownsville (Hidalgo), Houston (Harris), and Seattle (King).

  3. Molloy et al. (2011) pointed out that estimates of annual intercounty migration rates vary in different data sets. In 2010, those rates were just over 3 percent based on Current Population Survey (CPS) data but 5.2 and 5.6 percent based on ACS and IRS (Internal Revenue Service) data. They argue that the differences occur because definitions and measurement differ in the three datasets. Nonetheless, they found that there was consistency in migration trends across the three data sources. However, because the IRS and ACS estimates are from larger samples, they argued that they were more reliable.

  4. While coefficients in Heckman models that are only included in the selection or outcome model represent the marginal effect of a one-unit change in a given variable on the dependent variable that is not the case for variables included in both equations. The adjusted coefficients, however, are usually not reported and we follow that practice here.

References

  • Alba, R. D., Logan, J. R., Stults, B. J., Marzan, G., & Zhang, W. (1999). Immigrant groups in the suburbs: A reexamination of suburbanization and spatial assimilation. American Sociological Review, 64, 446–460.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baird, J., Adelman, R. M., Reid, L. W., & Jaret, C. (2008). Immigrant settlement patterns: The role of metropolitan characteristics*. Sociological Inquiry, 78(3), 310–334. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-682X.2008.00242.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bartel, A. P., & Koch, M. J. (1991). Internal Migration of US Immigrants. In J. Abowd & R. Freeman (Eds.), Immigration, trade, and the labor market (pp. 121–134). Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Belanger, A., & Rogers, A. (1994). The internal migration and spatial redistribution of the foreign-born population in the United States: 1965–70 and 1975–80. International Migration Review, XXVI(4), 1342–1369.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bishop, B., & Cushing, R. (2008). The big sort: why the clustering of like-minded America is tearing us apart. New York: Mariner Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Choldin, H. M. (1973). Kinship networks in the migration process. International Migration Review, 7, 163–176.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clark, W. A. (2015). Residential segregation: Recent trends. In J. D. Wright (Ed.), International encyclopedia of the social & behavioral sciences (2nd ed., pp. 549–554). Oxford: Elsevier.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Cohn, D. V., & Morin, R. (2008). American mobility: Who moves? Who stays put? Where’s home? Social & demographic trends report. http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/files/2010/10/Movers-and-Stayers.pdf. Accessed 25 Jan 2018.

  • DaVanzo, J. (1983). Repeat migration in the United States: Who moves back and who moves on? The Review of Economics and Statistics, 65(4), 552–559. https://doi.org/10.2307/1935923.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Denton, N. A., & Massey, D. S. (1988). Residential segregation of Blacks, Hispanics, and Asians by socioleconomic status and generation. Social Science Quarterly, 69, 797–817.

    Google Scholar 

  • Donato, K. M., Tolbert, C. M., Nucci, A., & Kawano, Y. (2007). Recent immigrant settlement in the nonmetropolitan United States: Evidence from internal census data. Rural Sociology, 72(4), 537–559.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eldridge, J. D., & Jones, J. P. (1991). Warped space: A geography of distance decay. The Professional Geographer, 43(4), 500–511. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0033-0124.1991.00500.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ellis, M., & Goodwin-White, J. (2006). 1.5 Generation internal migration in the US: Dispersion from states of immigration? International Migration Review, 40(4), 899–926. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1747-7379.2006.00048.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ellis, M., Wright, R., & Parks, V. (2006). The immigrant household and spatial assimilation: partnership, nativity, and neighborhood location. Urban Geography, 27(1), 1–19. https://doi.org/10.2747/0272-3638.27.1.1.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Finney, N., & Simpson, L. (2008). Internal migration and ethnic groups: Evidence for Britain from the 2001 census. Population, Space and Place, 14(2), 63–83. https://doi.org/10.1002/psp.481.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Frey, W. H. (2015). Diversity explosion: How new racial demographics are remaking America. Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Frey, W. H., & Liaw, K.-L. (1999). Internal migration of Foreign-born Latinos and Asians: Are they assimilating geographically? In K. Pandit & S. D. Withers (Eds.), Migration and restructuring in the United States (pp. 212–230). New York: Rowman and Littlefield.

    Google Scholar 

  • Frey, W. H., & Liaw, K. L. (2005). Migration within the United States: Role of race-ethnicity. Brookings-Wharton Papers on Urban Affairs, 207–262. www.jstor.org/stable/25067420. Accessed 25 Jan 2018.

  • Frey, W. H., & Park, J. (2011) Migration and dispersal of Hispanic and Asian Groups: An analysis of the 2006–2008 multiyear American community survey. In C. Grim (Vol. Ed.), Center for economic studies papers CES-WP- 11-33. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Census Bureau.

  • Gordon, M. M. (1964). Assimilation in American Life: The role of race, religion, and national origins. Lexington: D.C. Health.

    Google Scholar 

  • Greenwood, M. J. (1981). Migration and economic growth in the United States. New York: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Greenwood, M. J. (1985). Human migration: Theory, models, and empirical studies. Journal of Regional Science, 25(4), 521–544.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gurak, D. T., & Caces, F. (1992). Migration networks and the shaping of migration systems. In M. Kritz, L. L. Lim, & H. Zlotnik (Eds.), International migration systems (pp. 150–176). Oxford: Clarendon.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gurak, D. T., & Kritz, M. M. (2000). The interstate migration of U.S. immigrants: Individual and contextual determinants. Social Forces, 78(3), 1017–1039.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gurak, D., & Kritz, M. M. (2016). Pioneer settlement of U.S. immigrants: Characteristics of pioneer migrants and places. Demographic Research, 34(25), 705–740.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hall, M. (2013). Residential integration on the new frontier: Immigrant segregation in established and new destinations. Demography, 50(5), 1873–1896. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13524-012-0177-x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Henrie, C. J., & Plane, D. A. (2008). Exodus from the California core: Using demographic effectiveness and migration impact measures to examine population redistribution within the Western United States. Population Research and Policy Review, 27, 43–64.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Iceland, J. (2009). Where we live now: Immigration and race in the United States. Berkeley: University of California Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Iceland, J., Weinberg, D., & Hughes, L. (2014). The residential segregation of detailed Hispanic and Asian groups in the United States: 1980–2010. Demographic Research, 31(20), 593–624.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ihrke, D. (2014). Reason for moving: 2012 to 2013. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Commerce, Economics and Statistics Administration, U.S. Census Department. https://www.census.gov/library/publications/2014/demo/p20-574.html. Accessed 25 Jan 2018.

  • Jaret, C., & Baird, J. (2013). Patterns of interstate migration in the mid-2000s: Are racial groups moving in different directions? The Journal of Public and Professional Sociology, 5(1/3), 1–42.

    Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, K. M., & Lichter, D. T. (2016). Diverging demography: Hispanic and Non-Hispanic contributions to U.S. population redistribution and diversity. Population Research and Policy Review. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11113-016-9403-3.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kandel, W., & Cromartie, J. (2004). New patterns of Hispanic settlement in rural America. Retrieved from Washington, D.C. https://www.ers.usda.gov/webdoc/publications/47077/rdrr-99.pdf?v=41056. Accessed 25 Jan 2018.

  • Kandel, W., & Parrado, E. A. (2005). Restructuring of the U.S. meat processing industry and new Hispanic migrant destinations. Population and Development Review, 31(3), 447–471.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kritz, M. M., & Gurak, D. T. (2015). U.S. immigrants in dispersed and traditional settlements: National origin heterogeneity. International Migration Review, 49(1), 106–141. https://doi.org/10.1111/imre.12177.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kritz, M. M., Gurak, D. T., & Lee, M.-A. (2013). Foreign-born out-migration from new destinations: Onward or back to the enclave? Social Science Research, 42(2), 527–546. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssresearch.2012.09.013.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kritz, M. M., & Nogle, J. M. (1994). Nativity concentration and internal migration among the foreign-born. Demography, 31(3), 509–524.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Liaw, K.-L., & Frey, W. H. (1998). Destination choices of the 1985–90 young adult immigrants to the United States: Importance of race, educational attainment, and labour market forces. International Journal of Population Geography, 4, 49–61.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lichter, D. T., & Johnson, K. M. (2006). Emerging rural settlement patterns and the geographic redistribution of America’s new immigrants. Rural Sociology, 71(1), 109–131.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lichter, D. T., & Johnson, K. M. (2009). Immigrant gateways and Hispanic migration to new destinations. International Migration Review, 43(3), 496–518.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lichter, D. T., Johnson, K. M., Turner, R. N., & Churilla, A. (2012). Hispanic assimilation and fertility in new destinations. The International migration Review, 46(4), 767–791. https://doi.org/10.1111/imre.12000.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lieberson, S. (1963). Ethnic patterns in American cities. New York: Free Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lieberson, S., & Waters, M. (1987). The location of ethnic and racial groups in the United States. Sociological Forum, 2, 780–810.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Logan, J. R., Alba, R. D., & Zhang, W. (2002). Immigrant enclaves and ethnic communities in New York and Los Angeles. American Sociological Review, 67(2), 299–322.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Logan, J. R., & Schneider, M. (1984). Racial segregation and racial change in American suburbs, 1970–1980. American Journal of Sociology, 89(4), 874–888.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Martin, M. J. R., Matthews, S. A., & Lee, B. A. (2017). The spatial diffusion of racial and ethnic diversity across U.S. counties. spatial. Demography, 5(3), 145–169. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40980-016-0030-8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Massey, D. S. (1990). Social structure, household strategies, and the cumulative causation of migration. Population Index, 19(3), 3–26.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Massey, D. S. (2008a). Assimilation in a new geography. In D. S. Massey (Ed.), New faces in new places: The changing geography of American immigration (pp. 343–354). New York: Russell Sage Foundation.

    Google Scholar 

  • Massey, D. S. (Ed.). (2008b). New faces in new places: The changing geography of American immigration. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.

    Google Scholar 

  • Massey, D. S., & Denton, N. A. (1993). American apartheid: Segregation and the making of the underclass. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Massey, D. S., & Garcia-España, F. (1987). The social process of international migration. Science, 237, 733–738.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Molloy, R., Smith, C. L., & Wozniak, A. (2011). Internal migration in the United States. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 25(3), 173–196.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moretti, E. (2012). The new geography of jobs. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt.

    Google Scholar 

  • Newbold, K. B. (1996). Spatial distribution and redistribution of the foreign-born in the U.S.: 1980 and 1990. Economic Geography, 75, 254–271.

    Google Scholar 

  • Newbold, K. B. (1999). Internal migration of the foreign-born: Population concentration or dispersion? Population and Environment, 20(3), 259–276.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pandit, K., & Withers, S. D. (Eds.). (1999). Migration and restructuring in the United States: A geographic perspective. New York: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • Park, R. E. (1950). Race and culture. Glencoe: Free Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Partridge, M. D., Rickman, D. S., Olfert, M. R., & Ali, K. (2012). Dwindling U.S. internal migration: Evidence of spatial equilibrium or structural shifts in local labor markets? Regional Science and Urban Economics, 42(1–2), 375–388. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.regsciurbeco.2011.10.006.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Perez, A. D., & Hirschman, C. (2009). The changing racial and ethnic composition of the US population: Emerging American identities. Population and Development Review, 35(1), 1–51. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1728-4457.2009.00260.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ritchey, P. N. (1976). Explanations of migration. Annual Review of Sociology, 2, 363–404.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rogers, A., & Henning, S. (1999). The internal migration patterns of the foreign-born and native-born populations in the United States: 1975–80 and 1985-90. International Migration Review, 33(2), 403–429.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sharmeen, F., Arentze, T., & Timmermans., H. (2014). Dynamics of face-to-face social interation frequency: Role of accessiblity, urbanization, changes in geographical distance and path dependence. Journal of Transport Geography, 14, 211–220.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Singer, A. (2004). The rise of new immigrant gateways. Retrieved from Washington D.C.

  • South, S. J., Crowder, K., & Chavez, E. (2005). Geographic mobility and spatial assimilation among U.S. Latino immigrants. International Migration Review, 39(3), 577–607.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Spring, A., Ackert, E., Crowder, K., & South, S. J. (2017). Influence of Proximity to kin on residential mobility and destination choice: Examining local movers in metropolitan areas. Demography, 54(4), 1277–1304. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13524-017-0587-x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • StataCorp. (2013). Stata statistical software: Release 13.1. College Station: Stata Corporation LP.

    Google Scholar 

  • Taeuber, K. E., & Taeuber, A. F. (1965a). The changing character of negro migration. American Journal of Sociology, 70(4), 429–441.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Taeuber, K. E., & Taeuber, A. F. (1965b). Negroes in Cities. Chicago: Aldine.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thomas, K. J. A. (2016). Highly skilled migration from Africa to the US: Exit mechanisms, demographic determinants, and the role of socioeconomic trends. Population Research and Policy Review, 35(6), 825–849. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11113-016-9402-4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thomas, W. I., & Znaniecki, F. (1984). The Polish peasant in Europe and America, Abridged Version. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tienda, M., & Angel, R. J. (1982). Headship and household composition among blacks, hispanics and other whites. Social Forces, 61(2), 508–531.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Timberlake, J. M., & Iceland, J. (2007). Change in racial and ethnic residential inequality in American cities, 1970–2000. City & Community, 6(4), 335–365. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6040.2007.00231.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tolnay, S. E. (2003). The African American ‘Great Migration’ and Beyond”. Annual Review of Sociology, 29, 209–232.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tolnay, S. E., Curtis White, K. J., Crowder, K. D., & Adelman, R. M. (2005). Distances traveled during the great migration: An analysis of racial differences among male migrants. Social Science History, 29(4), 523–548.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Warren, R. (2016). US undocumented population drops below 11 million in 2014. Journal of Migration and Human Security, 4(1), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.14240/jmhs.v4i1.58.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zelinsky, W. (1971). The hypothesis of the mobility transition. Geographical Review, 61, 219–249.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zúñíga, V., & Hernández-León, R. (Eds.). (2005). New destinations: Mexican immigration in the United States. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

Any opinions and conclusions expressed herein are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the U.S. Census Bureau. All results have been reviewed by the Bureau to ensure that no confidential data are disclosed. Support for this research at the New York Census Research Data Center (NYCRDC, Cornell) from NSF (ITR-0427889) is gratefully acknowledged. We also acknowledge grant support from the Russell Sage Foundation (RSF #88-07-03) for an initial phase of the research.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Sociology, Center for Demography and Ecology, University of Wisconsin-Madison, 5550 Far Look Road, Spring Green, WI, 53588, USA

    Mary M. Kritz

  2. Department of Development Sociology, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY, USA

    Douglas T. Gurak

Authors
  1. Mary M. Kritz
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Douglas T. Gurak
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Mary M. Kritz.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Appendix 1

Appendix 1

Descriptive statistics for ethno-racial and nativity groups for selected covariates used in Heckman Selection Models, ACS 2007–2011

 

Non-Hispanic Asians

Non-Hispanic Blacks

Hispanics

Non-Hispanic Whites

 

Total

NB

FB

Total

NB

FB

Total

NB

FB

Total

NB

FB

% Migrated state/puma

5.5

6.3

5.3

4.9

4.9

5.1

3.9

4.9

3.2

4.8

4.9

4.5

% Native Born

18.2

100.0

0.0

88.7

100.0

0.0

43.1

100.0

0.0

95.6

100.0

0.0

% Citizens

66.8

100.0

59.4

94.8

100.0

54.1

60.3

100.0

30.2

98.1

100.0

56.1

% Male

46.6

50.6

45.7

44.7

44.3

47.7

50.2

47.9

52.0

49.4

49.4

48.9

Age in years

42.0

38.2

42.9

42.9

42.9

42.7

40.1

39.6

40.5

44.7

44.7

45.0

% Never married

21.0

42.1

16.3

38.3

39.9

25.8

26.7

31.4

23.1

18.5

18.7

13.8

% Speaking English very well/only

62.0

94.2

54.9

97.2

99.7

78.0

54.1

88.6

28.0

98.4

99.6

71.3

% Attended school in past 3 months

8.9

12.5

8.1

9.6

9.0

13.8

5.9

8.6

3.9

5.6

5.6

6.7

% Less than HS degree

11.2

3.7

12.9

13.6

13.5

14.1

35.5

17.6

49.0

6.8

6.7

9.2

% HS and some college

36.6

42.3

35.3

66.9

68.0

57.7

51.0

64.2

40.9

59.1

59.7

47.2

% With Bachelor’s degree

31.2

35.4

30.2

13.1

12.5

17.9

9.5

12.8

7.0

22.0

21.9

23.9

% With graduate/professional degree

21.0

18.6

21.6

6.4

5.9

10.4

4.1

5.4

3.1

12.1

11.7

19.8

% In northeast year ago

20.8

13.7

22.4

16.4

13.0

42.3

14.6

15.5

13.8

19.4

18.8

31.7

% in west year ago

46.4

62.9

42.8

8.7

8.8

7.9

40.4

40.0

40.8

19.7

19.3

28.0

% In midwest year ago

10.5

7.9

11.0

16.8

17.9

8.4

8.2

8.2

8.3

23.9

24.2

16.1

% In south year ago

22.3

15.6

23.8

58.2

60.3

41.2

36.8

36.3

37.2

37.0

37.6

24.2

  1. The statistics in this table were estimated from the PUMS ACS file. Because county of residence is not in the ACS PUMS file, the percent migrating states and PUMAs within states was used to estimate the statistics. The % migrated state/puma is coded 1 if R moved to a different state or moved to a different PUMA in the same state in the past year

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Kritz, M.M., Gurak, D.T. Ethno-Racial and Nativity Group Differences in U.S. Intercounty Migration and Move Distances. Spat Demogr 6, 179–205 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40980-018-0041-8

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40980-018-0041-8

Keywords

Search

Navigation