Characteristics of Eastern European Immigration in the United States. (22 -SEP -08) Journ

Characteristics of Eastern European Immigration in the United States. (22 -SEP -08) Journ ... Page 1 of 13

Characteristics of Eastern European Immigration in the United States.(Report) Source: Journal of Comparative Family Studies Publication Date: 22-SEP-08 INTRODUCTION

In the last centuries, Eastern Europe has been characterized by dramatic socio-political and economic transformations. Countries were formed and revised, political ideologies were imposed and then dropped leaving lasting marks on individuals and families. Immigration from that region towards United States mirrors this region's course of events, registering various trends throughout the history. The recent overall increase in the number of immigrants in the US has been calling for more research on the immigrant adaptation processes. Although the literature on some immigrant groups has been enriched in the past years, the research on Eastern European (EE) immigrants has been lacking. This may be explained by the fact, that the communist regimes of more than half a century significantly limited the emigration from this region. The fall of communism in late 1980s and the post-communist socio- economic and political transition determined a resurgence of EE immigrants as a new phenomenon and require their systematic study. Examining EE immigrants will increase the understanding of today's diverse immigrant population and their adaptation in the host society.

The purpose of this article is to facilitate an understanding of the characteristics of Eastern European immigration. Systematic research on EE immigrants can help advance the current knowledge on Eastern European immigrants and how they adapt to the United States. As such, the goal of the study is to examine Eastern European immigrants' human capital (education level), length of US residence and their adaptation, as measured by income and possession of health insurance.

FACTORS IMPACTING THE EASTERN EUROPEAN IMMIGRATION PROCESS

Immigration Policies

The immigration process is determined largely by the immigration laws of the receiving countries. These policies regulate the characteristics of the immigrant cohorts, indicating how many people are allowed to immigrate, their nationalities, and their human capital (education levels, occupations). Following is a brief summary of these policies, with a focus on their impact on Eastern European immigration.

Until the later 1800s, immigrants entered freely into the United States. Later on, several immigration acts in 1875, 1903, and 1917 limited the number of immigrants on a variety of moral, economic and physical grounds (Edmonston, and Passel, 1994; U.S. INS, 1991). Until 1860, almost all immigrants to US were from Germany, Ireland and the United Kingdom. After 1860, a growing number came form Scandinavia, Asia, and South America. Another shift occurred in the 1880s with a considerably increase in the number of immigrants from Southern and Eastern Europe, mainly from Austria-Hungary, Italy, Greece, Poland, and Russia peaking with several years of over one million per year in the first two decades of the twentieth century. Immigration lessened during the World War I but increased again after the war (Edmonston, and Passel, 1994; U.S. INS, 1991).

In 1921 the Quota Act was passed which limited immigration to 3 percent of the foreign-born population by national origin groups in the US. This restricted sharply the number of immigrants from Southern and Eastern Europe (and favored those from Western Europe since these were the largest groups in the US). After the World War II changes were made again to the immigration laws. The 1952 Act introduced a preference structure with separate categories for types of relatives and worker skills, but it retained the national origins quotas. In 1965 amendments eliminated the national origins quotas and gave preferences to family members of US citizens and legal residents. While before 1965 the immigration was predominantly from Europe, after that the immigration from Asia and Latin America has steadily increased, and that from Europe decreased. The Immigration Act of 1990 revised the immigration laws, supporting family reunification, imposing labor shortages-restructuring the number of visas for unskilled workers and increasing the number of visas for priority workers and professionals with US job offers, encouraging entrepreneurial immigrants (investors), and promoting a more diverse immigrant stream by using a ''diversity visas" for underrepresented countries, Eastern European countries being included (Edmonston, and Passel, 1994; U.S. INS, 1991).

Contemporary Eastern European Context http://www.accessmylibrary.com/comsite5/bin/aml_landing_tt.pl?purchase_type=ITM&ite... 3/19/2009 Characteristics of Eastern European Immigration in the United States. (22 -SEP -08) Journ ... Page 2 of 13

During the communist time in Eastern Europe, the immigration to US came mainly from capitalist countries. Also, the United States was more involved in capitalist countries than in the socialist ones (Yang, 1995). The patterns of immigration to the United States are related to the U.S. military, political, economic and cultural interests and involvement in the sending regions and countries (Rumbaut and Portes, 2001). These interests and ties increase the opportunities for immigration. Since the fall of the communist regime in the Eastern Europe, the involvement of U.S. (and other western countries) in this region has increased. For example after 1990 NATO (the North Atlantic Treaty Organization is a military alliance of 26 countries from North America and Europe) incorporated several Eastern European countries: Czech Republic, Hungary and Poland in 1997; in 2004 Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania, Slovakia, and Slovenia, and three aspirants, Albania, Croatia, and the former Yugoslavian Republic of Macedonia, hope to be invited to join NATO in the future (NATO Transformed, 2005). The aim of each round of enlargement has been to extend Euro-Atlantic security and to increase NATO's strength, and cohesion. This involvement of the U.S. in EE suggests that the number of EE immigrants will continue increase considerably in the future.

After spending decades under basically the same political authority and central economy, the transformation phase began in all the ex-communist EE countries. The post-communist inter- and intra- country differences started to widen rapidly, due partly to the different speeds at which the market economies were developing (Robila, 2004). Today there is a wide variation of socio-economic development among Eastern European countries. For example, the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) per capita in 2004 varies from $19,600 in Slovenia, $16,800 in Czech Republic, $14,500 in Slovakia, $12,000 in Poland, $9,800 in Russia, $8,200 in Bulgaria, $7,700 in Romania, $6,300 in Ukraine, to $2,400 in Serbia and Montenegro, and $1,900 in Moldova (U.S. GDP per capita: $40,100) (CIA, 2005). The EE nations began to integrate into the international economy in 1990. As a result, their non-capitalist patterns of social and economic organizations were changed (Massey et al., 1998). In the process of democratization and transition to a market economy, a large number of people in Eastern Europe were displaced from their secure living arrangements, many of them losing their previously stable jobs in the state-owned industries when these closed due to their inefficiency. Unemployment rates reached 30% in Serbia, 19.5% in Poland and 12.7% in Bulgaria (CIA, 2005).

The economic situation pushed many people to emigrate abroad for work. While under communism the mobility had been very low and dominated by state-sponsored activities, after its fall, mobility rose considerably. Studies conducted in Poland (Okolski, et al., 1995), Lithuania (Sipavicience, Ciurlonyte, and Kanopiene, 1995) and Ukraine (Pyrozhkov, Malinovskaya, and Marcenko, 1995) indicate that, in general, the more integrated a country is with Western markets, the higher the rate of out-migration. In this case the mobility was greatest in Poland, followed by Lithuania and then Ukraine. It is therefore expected that, as market forces penetrate more deeply, geographically, socially and economically into the Eastern European countries, the out-migration to West will increase (Massey et al., 1998). Similarly, the more integrated the country is with Western markets the better the country is developed and the better prepared its people are to immigrate (Robila, 2007).

Types and Numbers of Immigrants

Earlier flows of Eastern European immigrants consisted in majority of manual workers-labor migrants in search of menial, agricultural, and generally low paid jobs. They settled along the north-and mid-Atlantic regions, mainly due to the proximity of their home-lands, which would make their trip from home and return(s) less expensive. However, some Central and Eastern European groups settled in Midwest due to the turn-of-the-century development of industry (e.g., auto-making) and to the minimal skills required by these jobs (Portes, and Rumbaut, 1990). For example, in 1980, only 5% of the population living in Ohio reported foreign ancestry, but those represented 15% of all nation's Croatians, 14% of Hungarians, 15% of Serbians, 22% of Slovakians, and 45% of Slovenes (Lieberson, and Waters, 1987). Other EE immigrants settled as Midwest farmers (e.g., in Iowa, Wisconsin). In mid-1800s, many of them formed the well-known Czech enclaves which attracted Czech immigrants throughout the century (Allen and Turner, 1986).

At the beginning of the twentieth century most of the European immigration did not come from the cities but from rural areas and it was formed by peasants. Their goal was not to immigrate to America but to save enough money in order to buy land in their home villages (Rosenblum, 1973). Other immigrants, such as Russian Jews were leaving without the intention to turn back to the oppressive political system (Portes, and Rumbaut, 1990; Kasinitz, Zeltzer-Zubida, and Simakhodskaya, 2000).

http://www.accessmylibrary.com/comsite5/bin/aml_landing_tt.pl?purchase_type=ITM&ite... 3/19/2009 Characteristics of Eastern European Immigration in the United States. (22 -SEP -08) Journ ... Page 3 of 13

Refugees and asylees are those who came to the US due to fear of persecutions or physical harm. During the communism political regime in Eastern Europe many people came as refugees asking for political asylum. For example, in 1987 a total of 7,318 of refugees came from Soviet Union, Poland, and Romania (INS Annual Report, 1987). More recently, many people came form Bosnia trying to escape the challenges of the war conflict. The granting of asylum had significant advantages over the other alternatives: they had legal status, the right to work, and obtained welfare benefits.

Currently, the majority of the contemporary immigrants from Eastern Europe are coming mainly in two ways: as part of family reunification and as professionals. Professional immigrants are those with high professional abilities and are coming here on job-sponsored visas. Many of then are coming as Masters and Doctoral students and upon graduation receive US-based job offers. The reason they immigrate is "the gap between available salaries and work conditions in their own countries and those regarded there as acceptable for people with their education" (Portes, and Rumbaut, 1990, p. 18). Professionals who earn enough at home to sustain a middle-class standard of living and who are reasonably satisfied about their chances for advancement are seldom migrating.

Unlike at the beginning of the century, the United States is not the immigration destination for Eastern Europeans who have fewer human capital and economic resources. In research done on Mexican immigrants Portes, and Rumbaut (1990) indicate that those who lack the resources to cover their costs of transportation and the other expenses are not able to emigrate. A similar process is occurring for people from Eastern Europe. Those who have more resources (human, social, economic capital) are trying to come to the US. Those who have fewer resources are trying and are able to migrate to closer geographical destinations such as Western Europe. For example, many manual labor and agricultural workers are going to Germany, Italy, or Spain.

Immigration to the United States has experienced a considerably increase in the last decades (Schmidley, 2003). During the communist regime, immigration from the former communist countries to the U.S. was limited. Between 1971 and 1985, the total numbers of immigrants from several of Eastern European countries were as follows (with the average per year given in parenthesis): from Poland-79,790 (5,319/year), former Yugoslavia-50,193 (3,037/year), Romania-34,313 (2,288/year), former Czechoslovakia-15,293 (1,020/year), Hungary-15,270 (1,018/year), East Germany-3,649 (243/year), Bulgaria-3,331 (222/year), Albania-1,086 (72/year)(INS, various years; Yang, 1995).

Following the fall of the communism in the late 1980s and early 1990s, Eastern European countries have allowed their residents to emigrate. The number of Eastern European immigrants admitted for legal permanent residence grew from 18,260 in 1987 to 121,083 in 2001 (Migration Information Source, 2004; Schmidley, 2001). Moreover, since 1990, several Eastern European countries have qualified among the top 10 immigrant-sending countries: Russian Federation (former USSR) (in 1995, 7th with 21,344), Poland (in 1994, 7th place with 28,048), Ukraine (in 1994, 8th place with 21,010), and Bosnia and Herzegovina (in 2001, 9th place with 23,640) (Migration Information Source, 2004).

Eastern European Immigrants Adaptation to the United States

Immigrants' adaptation to the United States is a very important issue for themselves as well as for the host society. While adaptation is associated with upward mobility, social and economic success, difficulties in adaptation are associated with downward mobility, social and psychological distress (e.g., Portes, and Rumbaut, 1996). Human capital and the length of US residence are among the most important factors impacting immigrants' adaptation to the host society.

2000 Census data indicate that there are wide differences in EE immigrants' educational level (Robila, 2007). For example, countries sending a high percentage of people with graduate/professional degree are Bulgaria (32.8%), and Russia (27.8%). The countries with a low percentage of people with graduate/professional degree are Bosnia/Herzegovina (4.4%), Macedonia (5.4%), and Yugoslavia (8.2%). Whether the education is credible in the American labor market depends, to a large degree, on the educational system in the EE countries. Although the main schooling structure is similar (elementary, middle school, high school, college, and postgraduate), education was largely under the control of the central government, funded by the state (free tuition), and there was no private education under the communist regime. The admission to college was very competitive, based on tough entrance examinations, with relatively few admissions available each year. After the fall of the communism in the region, private universities have emerged, and more people have the opportunity to have a college education if they can afford to pay for tuition. The competition for the public higher education is still high because it is free and admissions remain low. Recently, the college admission process has started to http://www.accessmylibrary.com/comsite5/bin/aml_landing_tt.pl?purchase_type=ITM&ite... 3/19/2009 Characteristics of Eastern European Immigration in the United States. (22 -SEP -08) Journ ... Page 4 of 13

adopt an application system, more similar to the western/ American style. Because of differences in requirements (e.g., types of courses and number of credits), levels of technology, and economic systems, EE immigrants' education may be greatly discounted in the U.S.

The literature on recent Eastern European immigrants' adaptation to U.S. is very limited. The following review is based on research conducted on other immigrant groups. The purpose is to summarize major indicators of the adaptation of the immigrant population as a whole, which will be used to measure the adaptation of EE immigrants. Immigrants' level of adaptation is usually indicated by their economic attainment and material well-being in the host society (Suarez-Orozco, C. and Suarez-Orozco, M., 2001; Borjas 1990). The indicators of economic adaptation include income and possession of health insurance.

Immigrants are likely to be engaged in unstable, low-paid jobs because of low skills or discounted skills and have low income (Schmidley, 2001). They also encounter economic difficulties such as unemployment, due to the fact that some of their capabilities such as professional or language skills might not be perfectly transferable in the new society. For example, in 2001, 16.1 % of foreign-born were living below the poverty line (compared with 11% of natives) (Schmidley, 2001). However, naturalization, a sign of longer stay in the U.S. and assimilation to the mainstream, makes a large difference. The poverty rate was 9.1% for naturalized citizens, compared with 21.3% for non-citizens. The recent EE immigrants have been living in the US for a relatively short period of time (less than 15 years) and are more likely to be non-citizens (Schmidley, 2001), and in the process of becoming U.S. citizens.

Another important indicator of wellbeing is the possession (or lack) of health insurance. Immigrants are less likely to have health insurance. Data from the 2002 Current Population Survey indicate that of the 33.5 million foreign-born people, 33% (11.2 million people) have no health insurance coverage compared with 13% for natives (Migration Policy Institute, 2004). Among the foreign-born, non-citizens are more than twice likely to be uninsured than the naturalized citizens. In 2002, of the 12.8 million naturalized foreign-born, 2.3 million or 18% were uninsured. Out of the 20.6 million non-citizens, 8.9 million or 43% were uninsured (Migration Policy Institute, 2004).

Human capital theory explains immigrants' economic adaptation by level of educational attainment (Borjas 1990; Urban Institute 2003). Immigrants' level of education and length of US residence are important factors of immigrants' economic outcomes and adaptation. The transfer of human capital of immigrants is imperfect because immigration to a new country involves acculturation, such as learning a new language and customs (Massey et al., 1998). In addition the labor market skills, including professional skills, may not be perfectly transferable unless English is proficient.

The resurgence of EE immigrants, many of whom are highly educated, provides researchers an unprecedented opportunity to examine this group's adaptation to US. Comparisons among Eastern European nationality groups will offer a deeper understanding of this immigrant group.

METHODS

Data

The study draws data from the 2002-2004 Annual Social and Economic Supplement (March Supplement) of Current Population Survey (CPS). March CPS includes information on country of birth, human capital, and economic activities which allows studying EE immigrants in the larger context of immigrant population. The CPS March Supplements are particularly suited for this study for several reasons. First, the CPS includes information on country of birth of respondents and year of arrival. Second, CPS captures a significant presence of EE immigrants. In particular, since 2002 the CPS March Supplement has expended from 50,000 to 80,000 households, 10,000 of which are headed by immigrants. Pooling the three March CPS provides sufficient sample sizes for each nationality group. Third, the March CPS contains data on labor force characteristics, income and health insurance coverage. CPS March Supplement data are of high quality because much work has been done to ensure consistency of coding and adjustment for missing data through imputation of a plausible response based on answers to other questions and the response of other cases with similar characteristics (Urban institute, 2003). The data used in this study includes immigrants from Czech/Slovak Republics (N = 123), Hungary (N = 89), Latvia (N = 20), Lithuania (N = 54), Poland (N = 626), Romania (N = 129), Russia (N = 652), Ukraine (N = 272), and Yugoslavia (N = 223). The units of analysis are adults aged 16-64 years old.

Data Analysis http://www.accessmylibrary.com/comsite5/bin/aml_landing_tt.pl?purchase_type=ITM&ite... 3/19/2009 Characteristics of Eastern European Immigration in the United States. (22 -SEP -08) Journ ... Page 5 of 13

The CPS March Supplement instrument contains questions that operationalize key concepts such as country of origin, human capital, and adaptation, as well as demographics. As a measure of human capital was used educational attainment. Income and the possession of health insurance were used to measure adaptation. The study provides detailed descriptions about the contemporary EE immigrants, including their origin country conditions, human capital, and adaptation, which are understudied in the literature. Because Eastern European immigrants are heterogeneous, the disparities among origin- country groups are emphasized.

ANOVA with post hoc multiple comparisons using Scheffe test was performed in order to examine income differences among the immigrant groups. Scheffe test simultaneously compares all pairs of means on a single variable. It is the most conservative multiple comparisons test because it requires larger differences between pairs of means to achieve statistical significance at the .05 level (Jones and Brayfield, 1997). Chi-square was run to examine if there is any significant difference among immigrants in terms of education levels.

RESULTS

Descriptive statistics are presented in Table 1. The mean age for all groups is around 40 years, the youngest for those from Yugoslavia and Ukraine (37 years old) and oldest for Hungarians (45 years old). The gender distribution is almost even. The mean length of residence varies between 10 years for those form Latvia and Lithuania, and 22 for those from Czech and Slovak Republic, and from Hungary. It can be observed that the mean length of Hungarians and Czech/Slovakians is higher than that of the others. A couple of reasons are in order. First, the other countries (e.g., Romania, Ukraine) were the most closed societies among the Eastern European ones studied here, the immigration laws being very rigid during the communism. Second, many people from Yugoslavia came during the conflict in Serbia and Bosnia in early 1990s.

Education levels are presented in Table 2 and it can be observed that they are relatively high, majority of the respondents having at least high school education, many of them having a college degree (e.g., Hungarians 32%) or postgraduate degree (e.g., Czech/Slovak 21%). The group with the lowest educational levels is the one from Yugoslavia (61% have high school or less). Many of the people from Yugoslavia are coming as refugees while the other Eastern European groups arc mainly coming on job- sponsored visa which requires high educational attainment.

Chi-square was run to examine whether there are significant differences among immigrants in terms of education levels. The results presented in Table 3 indicate significant differences in education, with Latvian immigrants having the highest levels while the immigrants from Yugoslavia have the lowest, significantly different than most of the other groups.

Table 1.

Descriptive Statistics

Country Age Length of Residence in US

M S M SD

Czech/Slov. Rep. 43.50 12.07 22.66 13.56 Hungary 45.22 12.20 22.89 17.51 Latvia 39.70 18.49 21.20 22.13 Lithuania 40.20 13.63 10.05 12.51 Polish 39.98 12.54 15.62 11.62 Romania 39.65 13.02 16.67 9.29 Russia 38.28 12.84 11.94 8.01 Ukraine 37.28 12.47 10.04 8.13 Yugoslavia 37.04 12.26 12.05 12.11

Note. Source: 2002-2004 March Supplement of the Current Population Survey.

Table 2. Education Levels

Education Less than High Some BA/BS high school college schooL Associate

N % N % N % N %

Immigrants 1 2 3 4 from: Czech/Slov. 4 45 22 17.9 29 0.8 36.6 23.6 Hungary 4 24 20 22.5 29 4.5 27 32.6 Latvia 0 0 0 0 8 40 9 45 Lithuania 0 0 15 12 22.2 17 27.8 31.5 Polish 39 6.2 261 155 24.8 104 41.7 16.6 Romania 1 46 29 22.3 32 0.8 35.7 24.6 Russia 19 165 109 16.7 193 2.9 25.3 29.6 Ukraine 7 81 51 18.8 67 2.6 29.8 24.6 20 117 46 20.6 20 9.0 52.5 9.0 Yugoslavia 20 117 46 20.6 20 9.0 52.5 9.0

Education MA/Ph.D. Total

N % N %

Immigrants from: 5 Czech/Slov. 26 21.1 123 100 Hungary 12 13.5 89 100 Latvia 3 15 20 100 Lithuania 10 18.5 54 100 Polish 67 10.7 626 100 Romania 22 16.9 130 100 Russia 166 25.5 652 100 Ukraine 66 24.3 272 100 9.0 223 100 Yugoslavia 20 9.0 223 100 Note. Source: 2002-2004 March Supplement of the Current Population Survey.

Table 3.

Differences in Education

Country High School College

Yugoslavia 66.8 33.1

Latvia 22 78

Poland 56 44

Hungary 44.1 55.9

Country High school College Chi-square Sig.

Czech/Slovak 48.3 51.7 22.56 .000

Hungary 44.1 55.9 36.6 .000

Latvia 22 78 32.80 .000

Lithuania 39.3 60.7 31.14 .000

Poland 56 44 15.84 .003

Romania 49.4 50.6 21.25 .000

Russia 44.1 55.9 36.60 .000

Ukraine 48.3 51.9 44.66 .000

Czech/Sl. 48.3 51.7 15.34 .004

Hungary 44.1 55.9 11.85 .018

Poland 56 44 19.59 .001

Romania 49.4 50.6 15.40 .004

Czech/Sl. 48.3 51.7 17.56 .002

Lithuania 39.3 60.7 18.92 .001

Romania 49.4 50.6 13.71 .008

Ukraine 48.3 51.8 23.02 .000

The data also indicate that the level of unemployment is very low (2.7%). An index has been created measuring labor market skills training (e.g., attending a job search program, learning about resume writing). The results indicate that only a very limited number of EE immigrants had this type of training (1%). Several explanations are possible. On one hand, many of the EE immigrants were admitted on the employment basis, which requires an advanced degree (and therefore they do not take additional training). On the other, for those with limited educational levels (who may come as part of reunification process

or as refugee) these job training programs might not be available. It may also be an underreport issue: the question asks about participation in job training programs refers to the year before the interview (and some may have participated the previous years).

The indicators for the adaptation levels were income levels and the possession of health insurance. Income levels were measured with a 5-point Likert scale (see Table 4). The data indicate that majority of people had incomes lower than $50,000. Among the Eastern European groups, those from Yugoslavia have the lowest income level, 70% having less than $25,000 per year, and those from Romania have the highest income levels, 23.29% having more than $50,000.

ANOVA with Sheffe post hoc comparison test was run to examine whether there is any difference in household income levels. The results indicate significant difference only between immigrants from Yugoslavia (M = 47,472), and those from Russia (72,416), Ukraine (M = 73,713) and Poland (69,946).

Table 4. Income Levels

Income $9,999 $10,000- $25,000- or less $24,999 $49,999

Immigrants from: 1 2 3

N % N % N %

Czech/Slov. 46 37.4 25 20.3 25 20.3 Hungary 34 38.2 20 22.5 19 21.3 Latvia 5 25 5 25 3 15 Lithuania 16 29.6 19 35.2 15 27.8 Polish 190 30.4 131 20.9 190 30.4 Romania 40 31 28 21.7 32 24.6 Russia 219 33.6 142 21.8 160 24.5 Ukraine 88 32.4 65 23.9 71 26.1 Yugoslavia 89 39.9 69 30.9 44 19.7

Income $50,000- 75,000- Total $74,999 $100,000

Immigrants from: 4 5

N % N % N %

Czech/Slov. 17 13.8 10 8.1 123 100 Hungary 8 9 8 9 89 100 Latvia 5 25 2 10 20 100 Lithuania 3 5.6 1 1.9 54 100 Polish 78 12.5 37 5.9 626 100 Romania 15 11.5 15 11.5 130 100 Russia 61 9.4 70 10.7 652 100 Ukraine 24 8.8 24 8.8 272 100 Yugoslavia 16 7.2 5 2.2 223 100

Note. Source: 2002-2004 March Supplement of the Current Population Survey.

An index has been created to measure the possession of health insurance either from Medicare, Medicaid, private or employer. The results are presented in Table 5. The data indicate that while majority of respondents have employer or private insurance, some of them (e.g., from Lithuania, Latvia) reported the lack of any type of insurance. This situation has important implication on these people's level of adjustment to the Untied States.

Table 5. Health Insurance

Insurance Medicare Medicaid Employer based

Immigrants from: N % N % N %

Czech/Slov. 2 1.6 3 2.4 38 30.9 Hungary 4 4.5 7 7.9 36 40.4 Latvian 2 10 1 5 8 40 Lithuania 1 1.9 2 3.7 14 25.9 Polish 16 2.6 21 3.4 256 0.9 Romania 3 2.3 9 7.0 50 38.8 Russian 19 2.9 71 10.9 253 38.8 Ukraine 5 1.8 33 12.1 102 37.5 Yugoslavia 4 1.8 20 9.0 89 39.9

Insurance Private No insurance

Immigrants from: N % N %

Czech/Slov. 82 66.7 38 30.9 Hungary 63 70.8 13 14.6 Latvian 10 50 10 50 Lithuania 20 37 31 57.7 Polish 45 72 128 25.2 Romania 79 61.2 37 28.7 Russian 467 71.6 115 17.6 Ukraine 186 68.4 56 20.6 Yugoslavia 151 67.7 52 23.3

Note. Source: 2002-2004 March Supplement of the Current Population Survey. Note that the total N and percentages exceed the number of people from each country and 100% because some people have more than one insurance type.

CONCLUSION

The purpose of this article was to provide an examination of the characteristics of Eastern European immigrants. Contemporary immigrants from this region http://www.accessmylibrary.com/comsite5/bin/aml_landing_tt.pl?purchase_type=ITM&ite... 3/19/2009 Characteristics of Eastern European Immigration in the United States. (22 -SEP -08) Jou ... Page 10 of 13

present different traits than those who came in the first waves. While the majority of those were coming for mainly agricultural and manual work, the current-day ones are mainly well-prepared and highly qualified professionals.

The article examined Eastern European contemporary immigrants' human capital and adaptation which was measured by the income levels and the possession of health insurance. The findings indicate that the level of education is relatively high compared to other immigrant groups (e.g., Hispanics). This supports previous research (Robila, 2007) that examined Eastern European immigrants using the data from Census 2000. The results also indicate significant differences among the groups. The data indicate significant differences between immigrants from Yugoslavia and the other Eastern European groups. This is due to the difference in their immigration process. Many people from Yugoslavia came during the armed conflict and arrived in the U.S. as refugee. There were no human capital requirements (e.g., education) for them. Many of the other Eastern European immigrants come with job-sponsored visas that require advanced professional degrees.

In terms of income the data indicate that there is a wide diversity among Eastern European immigrants, with immigrants from Yugoslavia having the lowest and Romanians and those from Czech and Slovak Republics having the highest incomes. These data support the results from another recent study on the EE immigrants using the data from the 2000 U.S. Census Bureau, which also indicated a wide diversity within this immigrant group (Robila, 2007). That study showed that while some immigrants from this region have relative low levels of poverty (e.g., Slovenia), the majority of them are confronted with high levels of economic strain. Immigrants coming from Albania, Belarus, Bosnia/Herzegovina, Moldova, and Yugoslavia have the highest economic disadvantages (Robila, 2007). The poverty rates of the immigrants coming from these countries are similar to those of people coming from Mexico. While there is a broad awareness of economic struggles among Mexican immigrants (e.g., Partes, and Rumbaut, 2001), there is no public awareness of the struggles that immigrants from some of the EE countries experience. The study indicates a wide diversity within the Eastern European group and calls for more research on these immigrants.

REFERENCES

Alba, R., and Nee, V. (2003). Remaking the American mainstream: Assimilation and contemporary immigration. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Allen, J. P., and Turner, J. (1986). We the People: An atlas of America's ethnic diversity. New York: Macmillan.

Borjas, G. (1990). Friends and strangers: The impact of immigrants on the

U.S. economy. New York: Basic Books.

Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) (2005). Country Reports.

Edmonston, B., and Passel, J. S. (1994). Ethnic demography: US immigration and ethnic variations. In B. Edmonston and J. Passel (Eds.), Emigration and ethnicity: The integration of America's newest arrivals (pp. 1-31). Washington, DC: The Urban Institute.

Kasinitz, P., Zeltzer-Zubida, A., and Simakhodskaya, Z. (2000). The Next Generation: Russian Jewish Young Adults in Contemporary New York. Russell Sage Foundation. INS Annual Report (1971-1987).

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

Massey, D. S., Arango, J., Hugo, G., Kouaouci, A., Pellegrino, A., and Taylor, J. E. (1998).

Worlds on motion: Understanding international migration at the end of the millennium. Oxford: Claredon Press.

Migration Information Source. (2004). www.migrationinformation.org/globaldata/countrydata.

Migration Policy Institute. (2004). Health insurance coverage for the foreign born in the United States: Numbers and trends.

Portes, A., and Rumbaut, R.G. (1990). Immigrant America: A portrait Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

Portes, A., and Rumbaut, R.G. (1996). Immigrant America: A portrait Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

Portes, A., and Rumbaut, R.G. (2001). Legacies: the story of immigrant second generation. New York, NY: Russell Sage. NATO Transformed. (2005). www.nato.org

Okolski, M., Giza-Poleszezuk, A., Iglicka-Okolska, K., Jazwinska, E., Poplawski, T, and Tefelsk, M. (1995). Causes and consequences of migration from Central and Eastern Europe: The case of Poland. Report presented as the Third Training Workshop on International Migration Surveys in Central and Eastern Europe. Geneva: United Nations.

Pyrozhkov, S., Malinovskaya, E., and Marcenko, N. (1995). Causes and consequences of migration from Central and Eastern Europe: the case of

Ukraine. Report presented as the Third Training Workshop on International Migration Surveys in Central and Eastern Europe. Geneva: United Nations.

Robila, M. (2007). Eastern European Immigrants in the United States: A Socio- Demographic Profile. The Social Science Journal, 44(1), 113-125.

Robila, M. (2004). Families in Eastern Europe: Context, trends and variations. In M. Robila (Ed.), Families in Eastern Europe (pp. 1-14). San Diego, CA: Elsevier.

Rosenblum, G. (1973). Immigrant workers: Their impact on American Radicalism. New York: basic Books.

Rumbaut, R.G., and Portes, A. (2001). Ethnicities: Children of immigrants in America. New York: NY: Sage.

Schmidley, A. D. (2001). Profile of the Foreign-Born Population in the United States: 2000. Current Population Reports, Series P23. U.S. Census Bureau, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC.

Schmidley, A. D. (2003). Foreign born population in United States. Current Population Reports: March 2003. 20-539. U.S. Census Bureau, Washington, DC.

Sipavicience, A., Ciurlonyte, R., and Kanopiene, V. (1995). Causes and consequences of migration from Central and Eastern Europe.: The case of Lithuania. Report presented as the Third Training Workshop on International Migration Surveys in Central and Eastern Europe. Geneva: United Nations.

Suarez-Orozco, C. and Suarez-Orozco, M (2001). Children of Immigration. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Urban Institute. (2003). The new neighbors: A user's guide to data on immigrants in U.S. Communities.

U.S INS (Immigration and Naturalization Services). (1971-1985; 1991). An immigrant Nation: United States Regulation of Immigrants, 1798-1991. Washington, D.C.: US. Government Printing Office.

Yang, P. Q. (1995). Post-1965 Immigration to the United States. Westport, CT: Praeger Publishers.

Mihaela Robila *

* Family Sciences, Department of Family, Nutrition and Exercise Sciences, 306 F Remsen Hall, Queens College, City University of New York, 65-30 Kissena

Blvd., Flushing, New York, 11367-1597, USA.

http://www.accessmylibrary.com/comsite5/bin/aml_landing_tt.pl?purchase_type=ITM&ite... 3/19/2009