Cross-Border and Transnational in the United-States Inbar Weiss Population Research Center- The University of Texas at Austin

Contemporary communication technologies, relatively low travel cost, reduced travel times, and mass migration expand the possibilities of individuals to contract marriages across borders (Williams 2010; Charsley 2013). Current literature on migration is mostly focused on transnationalism and gender. Transnational marriage is defined as members of a diaspora who marry individuals from the homeland (Kibria 2012). In this sense, researchers focus on the integration implication of immigrants and their children in transnational unions. While intermarriage is a proxy for assimilation, within-group marriages resemble cultural segregation (Lieberson and Waters 1988; Merton 1941). When spouses share the same cultural traits, their integration process is delayed, and the cultural transmission process from parents to children is more efficient (Bisin and Verdier 2000). Another aspect of transnational marriage is the fact that in many immigrant-receiving countries, marriage is almost always the only option for . Transnational marriages are how immigrants’ communities continue to increase (Beck-Gernsheim 2007). In terms of gender, most of marriage migration involves the migration of wives. As result, immigrants’ civic status is dependent on the survival of the marriage and the goodwill of their spouses (Narayan 1995). This dependency not only affects the women’s participation in the labor market (Adserà and Ferrer 2014) and their positions at home, but it also can have serious negative effects on their health and safety. For example, civic status can prevent women from reporting or getting help in domestic violence cases (Menjívar and Salcido 2002). Most studies on marriage migration use qualitative methods and focus on marriage migration in Europe and East-Asia. The goal of this paper is to shed light on marriage migration in the U.S. Specifically, it focuses on patterns, practices, and estimates of cross-border and transnational marriages in the U.S. Preliminary results indicate that marriage migration is not an esoteric phenomenon in the U.S., rather it is an especially frequent practice among immigrants. These results highlight the importance of expanding the research on cross-border and transnational marriages in the U.S.

Study Design Data- The study describes trends in the volume of cross border marriages using the 2008 to 2015 American Community Surveys (ACS). The sample contains around 1.3 million married couples who married up to ten years prior the survey, beginning in 1998. Couples who arrived in the U.S. already married and couples who arrived in the United States the same year and married within a year of their arrival were excluded from the sample. This minimized the cases of unions that formed before arrival to the United States. Measures- Because I am interested in the practices of cross border marriages, the unit of analysis is not the immigrant partner, rather the spouse that was in the U.S. before the marriage occurred. I define cross border marriages in two ways: Recent Arrival Spouse (RAS) and spouse importation. RAS indicates whether the individual’s spouse is an immigrant who arrived in the U.S. less than a year before the marriage occurred. In a less conservative version of RAS I define RAS as an immigrant who arrived in the U.S. less than two years before the marriage. Imported spouse indicates whether the individual’s spouse arrived married to the U.S. and the individual was living in the U.S. at least five years before the marriage occurred. The less conservative version requires that the individual has lived in the U.S at least two years before the marriage occurred. Transnational marriage refers only to foreign born individuals who engaged in one of the two practices of cross-border marriage (using the less conservative version) and that their spouse is

1 1 from their country of origin. Other variables that are being used in this paper are birth place, marriage cohort, age at marriage, age at migration, and education. Method- In this version of the paper, I present some descriptive statistics on cross-border and transnational marriages by sex, nativity, country of birth, marriage cohort, age at marriage, age at migration and education level. Further analysis will describe the age gap in cross border marriages, the role of sex ratio in transnational marriages, and with whom non-transnational partners marry. Since the data only capture currently married couples, the underlining assumption in the analysis is that mortality and divorce rates are equality distributed across time, sex, nativity and place of birth.

Preliminary Findings Table 1 presents the percentage of cross border marriages by sex, nativity, and type of marriages. It also compares the conservative and less conservative measurements. In both measurements, the practice of RAS is more common than spouse importation, men are more likely to engage in cross-border marriage than women and immigrants are more likely than natives. The table also shows the percentage of transnational marriage among immigrants who have RAS or imported spouse. Interestingly, the percentage of transnational marriages is almost the same for men and women (85% and Male Female 84.5% respectively), meaning Natives Immigrants Natives Immigrants that the vast majority of cross- Cross border- conservative: border marriages among RAS 1.4% 12.1% 0.6% 4.4% immigrants are with partners Imported spouse 0.6% 4.8% 0.4% 1.6% Total 2.1% 16.9% 1.0% 6.0% from the homeland. Cross border- less conservative: Table 1. Percentage of cross- RAS 1.7% 14.9% 0.8% 6.9% border and transnational Imported spouse 0.6% 6.1% 0.4% 2.0% Total 2.3% 21.0% 1.2% 8.9% marriages by practice, measurement, nativity and sex. Transnational marriage 85.0% 84.5%

Figure 1 presents trend in cross-border marriages that occurred between 2007 and 2014. To minimize bias that might occur due to selectivity .3 in divorce, the figure includes only marriages that occur in the year of the survey or the year before the survey. The percentages of cross border .2 marriage are relatively stable over time for the four populations and thus, the gaps between native

.1 and foreign born and between males and females

Crossborder marriages (%) remain over time.

0 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Figure 1. Percentage of cross-border marriages Marriage cohort by nativity and sex, 2007-2014. Native males Immigrant males Native females Immigrant females Since cross border marriages are much more pervasive among immigrants in all years, the following analyses will include only immigrants and will be based on the less conservative measurement. Table 2 summarized the top ten and bottom two countries of origin in terms of percentage of cross border and transnational marriages. Indian immigrant males have the highest percentage of cross border marriages and the second highest percentage among transnational marriages. Indian females are third in terms of cross border marriage and first in transnational marriages. Other South-Asian countries are also ranked high in the four columns, together with Albania. Middle-Eastern and African immigrants have high

2 2 percentage of cross-border marriages, but these marriages do not rank high in terms of . In contrast, Mexicans and Chinese are less likely to engage in cross-border marriages, but among those who use these practices the rate of endogamy is very high. Western immigrants are the least likely to have cross-border and transnational marriages.

Table2. Ten countries of origin1 with the highest percentage of cross border and transnational marriages among immigrants and the lowest two, by sex Male Female Cross border marriage Transnational marriage Cross border marriage Transnational marriage 1 India 53.5% Albania 97.6% Saudi Arabia 29.5% India 97.9% 2 Bangladesh 51.1% India 96.8% Bhutan 27.5% Algeria 96.1% 3 Sudan 47.9% China 95.3% India 24.0% Albania 94.8% 4 Nepal 47.5% Ethiopia 94.7% Afghanistan 23.4% Bhutan 94.6% 5 Pakistan 41.4% Yemen 94.3% Sri Lanka 23.4% Haiti 93.9% 6 Albania 38.4% Mexico 94.2% Ethiopia 21.6% Sri Lanka 93.4% 7 Syria 37.7% Philippines 93.6% Somalia 20.4% China 93.3% 8 Yemen 37.6% Somalia 93.4% Micronesia 20.1% Mexico 93.3% 9 Sri Lanka 37.5% Nepal 93.0% Bangladesh 20.0% Nigeria 93.0% 10 Myanmar 34.4% Bangladesh 92.6% Yemen 19.7% Bangladesh 92.9%

131 Scotland 2.3% New-Zealand 15.8% Belgium 2.1% Latvia 0% 132 Australia 2.2% Belgium 12.3% New-Zealand 1.2% Switzerland 0%

Figures 2 and 3 describe the percentage of cross-border marriage among male and female immigrants by age at migration and age at marriage, respectively. In Figure 2, for both sexes, the percentage of these marriages increases with the age at migration peaks in their mid-20s and then .3 decreases. Those who arrive at later ages are less likely to integrate and might experience more .25

difficulties in the local marriage market. In addition, .2 the network of these immigrants with the homeland

is stronger than of those who arrived at earlier ages, .15 which eases the cross-border marriage process for .1 them. Crossborder marriages (%)

Figure 2. Percentage of cross-border marriages .05 0 10 20 30 40 among foreign born, by sex and age at migration Age at migration

Males Feamles

.25 When comparing the percentage of cross- .2 border marriages by age at marriage the patterns of males and females are quite different. While the

.15 percentage of these marriages among males remains high in all ages, the percentage for females decrease

.1 substantially after age 25, when their parents’ Crossborder marriages (%) influence decreases.

.05 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 Age at marriage Figure 3. Percentage of cross-border marriages

Males Feamles among foreign born, by sex and age at marriage

1 The analysis is based on immigrants from countries with at least 100 observations.

3 3 Lastly, I test the association between education and cross-border marriages. Figure 3 describes the percentage of cross-border marriages by

.25 education level and sex for foreign born. For both sexes, the frequency of these unions is highest among those with .2 a college degree. One possible explanation for this

.15 relationship is selectivity. Immigrants from South-Asia have high percentage of cross border marriage and are .1 also highly educated. Crossborder marriages (%) .05 Figure 4. Percentage of cross-border marriages among 0 Less than HS HS Some college College foreign born, by sex and level of education Females Males In order to test the effect of education on cross- border marriage I use a set of logistic regressions for both males and females with place of birth, age, age at migration and age at marriage as control variables. Table 3 shows the odds ratio of cross- border marriage by education level, with Less than high-school as the omitted category. When controlling for age, age at marriage, and age at migration the odds of cross-marriage for college educated males are 50% higher than the odds for males with less than high-school education (not shown). When adding country of origin to the model, the odds of marrying a cross border wife for an immigrant male with a college degree are 7.8% lower than the odds for an immigrant with less than high-school education. For females, the odds of cross-border marriage for college educated immigrants are 31% higher than female immigrants with less than high school, before controlling for country of origin (not shown). When the model includes country of origin the effect is no longer significant. Males Females High school 0.911*** 0.892*** Table 3. Odds ratio of cross-border marriage for male (0.016) (0.023) and female immigrants Some college 0.892*** 0.924** (0.018) (0.027) Notes: *p<0.05 **p<0.01 ***p<0.001 College + 0.922*** 0.969 Models control for age, age at marriage, age at migration and country of (0.018) (0.027) origin (not shown). N 223,676 236,398 Less than high-school is the omitted category. Pseudo r-square 0.089 0.063

References Adserà, Alícia, and Ana Ferrer. 2014. “Immigrants and Demography: Marriage, Divorce, and Fertility.” In Handbook of the Economics of International Migration: The Immigrants, 315–67. Beck-Gernsheim, Elisabeth. 2007. “Transnational Lives, Transnational Marriages: A Review of the Evidence from Migrant Communities in Europe.” Global Networks 7 (3): 271–88. Bisin, Alberto, and Thierry Verdier. 2000. “‘Beyond the Melting Pot’: Cultural Transmission, Marriage, and the Evolution of Ethnic and Religious Traits.” The Quarterly Journal of Economics 115 (3): 955–88. Charsley, Katharine. 2013. Transnational Marriage: New Perspectives from Europe and Beyond. Routledge. Kibria, Nazli. 2012. “Transnational Marriage and the Bangladeshi Muslim Diaspora in Britain and the United States.” Culture and Religion 13 (2): 227–40. doi:10.1080/14755610.2012.674957. Lieberson, Stanley, and Mary C. Waters. 1988. From Many Strands: Ethnic and Racial Groups in Contemporary America. Russell Sage Foundation. Menjívar, Cecilia, and Olivia Salcido. 2002. “Immigrant Women and Domestic Violence Common Experiences in Different Countries.” Gender & Society 16 (6): 898–920. Merton, Robert K. 1941. “Intermarriage and the Social Structure.” Psychiatry 4 (3): 361–74. Narayan, Uma. 1995. “‘Male-Order’ Brides: Immigrant Women, Domestic Violence and .” Hypatia 10 (1): 104–19. Williams, Lucy. 2010. Global Marriage: Cross-Border Marriage Migration in Global Context. Springer.

4 4