IRANIAN- IN ORANGE COUNTY, : A SURVEY OF SOCIOECONOMIC, ATTITUDINAL, AND DEMOGRAPHIC CHARACTERISTICS ______

A Thesis

Presented to the

Faculty of

California State University, Fullerton ______

In Partial Fulfillment

of the Requirements for the Degree

Master of Arts

in

Sociology ______

By

Daniel Dariush Tanara

Thesis Committee Approval:

Professor Berna Torr, Chair Professor Eileen Walsh, Department of Sociology Professor Anthony Alvarez, Department of Sociology

Fall, 2017

ABSTRACT

The latest data from US Census (2013) estimate the Iranian immigrant population at 470,000 in the US and 215,000 (46%) in California. County has the highest concentration of Iranian immigrants population. Orange County, adjacent to L.A.

County, is the second largest concentration of Iranian immigrants with estimated population of 36,000. Unfortunately not much is known about this small group of immigrants beyond the basic demographics provided by the census data.

Census data suggest that Iranian immigration continue to grow. The preferred destination for most is Orange County, specifically south Orange County that is the most affluent section of the County.

In order to better understand the characteristics of this growing immigrant population, I conducted a pilot study of the socioeconomic and attitudinal characteristics of the Iranian immigrant population in city of Mission Viejo in Orange County. The scope of the study was limited mainly due to budget constraints, however, the purpose of the study is not just to collect data, but provide guidelines for more comprehensive, larger study/ies. The data were collected via an online survey in both English and Persian, that included questions outside the scope of the Census, including religions and religiosity, political affiliation, civic engagement, health, and sexual orientation, as well as basic demographics (e.g., age, gender, marital status, etc.) of 1st, 1.5, and 2nd generations of the Iranian immigrants.

ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ABSTRACT ...... ii

LIST OF TABLES ...... v

LIST OF FIGURES ...... vi

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ...... vii

Chapter 1. INTRODUCTION ...... 1

2. HISTORICAL OVERVIEW OF IRANIAN IMMIGRATION TO THE U.S. .... 5

Pre-1950 Immigration ...... 5 1950 – 1977 Immigration ...... 6 Post 1977 Immigration...... 6 Anti U.S. Sentiment and Hostage Crisis ...... 8 The Unwelcomed Immigrants ...... 9 Current social and political environment ...... 10

3. DATA AND METHODS ...... 13

4. DESCRIPTIVE ANALYSES AND DISCUSSION ...... 18

Demographics ...... 18 Educational Attainment ...... 18 Religions and Religiosity ...... 19 Civic/Political and Engagement and Affiliation ...... 20 Self-Rated Health and Health-Related Behaviors ...... 23 Language Proficiency ...... 23 Political Views ...... 25 Sexuality and Sexuality-Related Behaviors ...... 26 Employment and Income ...... 29 Social Life ...... 31

5. CONCLUSION ...... 34

iii

APPENDICES ...... 38

A. SURVEY INSTRUMENT ...... 38 B. SOLICITATION LETTER ...... 67

REFERENCES ...... 68

iv

LIST OF TABLES

Tables Page

4.1 Demographics ...... 19

4.2 Educational Level ...... 19

4.3 Religions and Religiosity ...... 21

4.4 Political/civic Participation...... 22

4.5 Self-Rated Health ...... 24

4.6 Language Proficiency ...... 25

4.7 Political Views ...... 26

4.8 Sexuality and Sexuality-Related Views ...... 27

4.9 Employments and Income ...... 30

4.10a Social Interactions ...... 31

4.10b Social communications and Technology ...... 32

4.10c Selected Social Views and Activities ...... 33

v

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure Page

1 Iranian Immigration to the US ...... 7

2. Iranian Immigrant Population in the US ...... 8

3. Educational Attainment, US ...... 11

4. Educational Attainment, California ...... 12

5. English Proficiency ...... 12

vi

ACKNOWLEDGMENT

It is customary that an author acknowledges the people who have made the research possible by providing their professional guidance, valuable assistance, participation, etc. I would try to do the same here, though not in a traditional manner.

There is no alphabetical, hierarchal, and/or chronological order to the people/places/objects mentioned here.

I was born into a socioeconomically “privileged” family, so naturally, my first and foremost gratitude is for whomever made it possible. My utmost recognition, however, goes to my 1st grade teacher, Mr. Rafati, who in 1964 in a small city in southern part of (Masjed Solaiman), not only taught me how to read and write, but also cultured me how to be a life-long “student.” Also, my 9th grade literature teacher, Mr.

Ghaffari, who introduced me to Chekhov, Rumi, J. Steinbeck, Nabokov, Marx, M.L.

King, Weber, Mao, M. Twain, Hafiz, F. Douglas, and so many other giants in literature, philosophy, history, etc.; and also showed me how to have a “universal” view of the world.

For this project, however, my deepest gratitude is to my cohort who accepted, respected, and guided me with kindness, tolerance, and lucidity. I am also truly indebted to every faculty and staff at California State University in Fullerton’s Sociology department, who shared with me their knowledge, wisdom, and guidance. My special thanks to Dr. Fontevila, late Dr. Emery, Dr. Alvarez, Dr. Literte, Ms. Fletcher, and Dr.

vii

Rakovski. However, I cannot thank enough the Department’s chair, Dr. Eileen Walsh, my committee chair Dr. Berna Torr, and my advisor Dr. Dana Collins who have taken me under their angelic wings from the first day and taught me everything; and still shadowing me so graciously.

I would also like to recognize and wholeheartedly thank my son, Neima, my daughter, Lily, and my dog, Her Majesty Princess Foxy; for their utmost support, honesty, understanding, and unconditional love.

Lastly, I’d like to thank my 39-year friend, companion, partner, and wife, Sheila

(Sholeh), whom I owe my entire life to, physically and spiritually. Her love, kindheartedness, and rectitude are beyond words and human comprehension. I am truly fortunate to have her in my life, and thank her for everything she has done for me, and my love ones.

I shall also like to thank those who stayed out of my life, willingly or otherwise, so I could devote some of my time to the convictions I value the most.

viii 1

CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION

Iranian immigration to the U.S. up to 1977 was minimal. However, since the

Islamic Revolution of 1977-1978, the rate of immigration has increased drastically.

Between 1978 and 1986 Iranian immigration increased almost three-fold, from 5,861 to

16,505 (Bozorgmehr, 1998). The affluent population opposing the new Islamic régime, religious minorities fearful of Islamic theocracy, and middle and upper class secular

Muslims comprised the early Iranian immigrants. Additionally, most of estimated 75,000

Iranian students enrolled in colleges and universities throughout the U.S. before the revolution, chose to settle permanently in the U.S.

We know that this immigrant population is highly educated, professional, and financially well off compared to other immigrants in the US (U.S. Census Bureau 2013).

There have been some studies targeting the socioeconomic status of Iranian immigrants in the US, but they mostly concentrated on either the entire population in the US, or Los

Angeles County, as a largest community.

The Iranian immigrant population, however, has been growing in Orange County in recent years, and is anticipated to surpass the LA County in near future.

2

Currently there are an estimated 470,000 Iranian immigrants / in the U.S. (U.S. Census Bureau, 2013).1 An estimated 215,000 or 46% of total population reside in the state of California (Figure A). By far, Los Angeles County represents the largest population of Iranians with over 83,000. The Iranian immigrant population in some cities within L.A. County, such as Beverly Hills, is as high as 25% of total population and 65% of all foreign-born residents (U.S. Census Bureau, 2013).

Several studies have examined different characteristics of the Iranian immigrants in the

U.S. Most of the studies (e.g., Bozorgmehr, 1997; 2000; Light, Sabagh, & Bozorgmehr,

1991) have focused on the Iranians residing in Los Angeles County because of the high concentration of the Iranian population in that county.

Orange County, however, has become the second largest home to Iranians in the nation with estimated population of 36,000 (U.S. Census Bureau, 2013). Iranians are actually a larger percentage of the foreign-born population in Orange county representing

3.58% of overall foreign-born population compared to 2.4% in Los Angeles County.

Additionally, the Iranian immigrant population in Orange County has increased 33% since 2000 from 24,229 compared to only 16% increase in L.A. County (from 72,044 in

2000 to 83,243 in 2013).

Census data show that Iranian immigrants in the U.S. and Orange County are highly educated, professional, and fluent in English language. However, their social,

1 Census data are based on self identified ethnicity, therefore, it is widely suspected, even by the Census Bureau, that Iranian immigrant population is undercounted. Islamic Republic of Iran Interest Section in Washington, DC claims to hold passport information for approximately 900,000 Iranians in the U.S (Fata and Rafii 2003). This discrepancy could be attributed to two main reasons: 1) that Census does not provide adequate questions on census forms for most minorities including Iranians; and 2) that Iranians, for most parts, consider themselves as “Whites” (Erlich, R., & Scheer, R. 2016) and identify themselves as whites in most formal forms, including the census.

3 political, and cultural characteristics are almost unknown. Though small, compared to other immigrants in the US, Iranian immigrants are influential in their communities. They are mostly engaged in private industries, specially high tech and new start-ups, medical field, and higher education. So, it is essential that this group of immigrants be further studied and analyzed. To initiate this process, I conducted an online survey of a sample

Iranian-Americans/immigrants residing in city of Mission Viejo in southern part of the county.

The City of Mission Viejo, one of 34 incorporated cities in Orange County with total population of 94,000, including 20% foreign born and 3,200 Iranian-

Americans/immigrants was selected as a sample population for a “pilot study.” Data (US

Census, 2013) show that Iranian immigrants are the third largest foreign-born residents of

Mission Viejo (14.4%) and Persian is the second most spoken foreign language (3.4%).

A mailing list of those with Iranian surnames who resided in Mission Viejo was purchased (1,200 names and addresses). First and last names, and addresses were verified, a number of names had to be eliminated due to ambiguity of names and/or addresses being out of city limits. A total of 889 names were selected and solicited via

US mail and emails to participate in the online survey during summer of 2016 (for more detailed explanation see Chapter 3).

The survey instrument consisted of 92 questions probing participants’ inter- ethnicity, ethnic language(s), religions and religiosity, political affiliation, civic engagement, health and health-related behaviors, sex and sexuality, education, profession, income, basic demographics and other characteristics (the full instrument is

4 included in Appendix A). A total of 82 (9.2%) complete responses were received and selected results are presented in the subsequent chapters.

5

CHAPTER 2

HISTORICAL OVERVIEW OF IRANIAN IMMIGRATION TO THE U.S.

Iranian immigration to the U.S. is relatively recent. The earliest published data tabulated for Iranian immigrants, nonimmigrants, and persons naturalized by the

Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) are for 1950 (Lorentz & Wertime, 1980).

Iranian immigration to the United States fits into the following three chronological phases: 1) before 1950, 2) the period from 1950 until the Iranian Islamic Revolution

(1950-1977), and 3) the post-revolution years (1978-present).

Pre1950 Immigration

There was minimal immigration from Iran to the U.S. prior to 1950 (Figure 1).

Iranian immigrants entering the U.S. numbered only130 during the 1842-1903 period.

Immigration increased to 780 between 1925 and 1932 (Lorentz & Wertime, 1980). While immigration data on Iranians are not available for 1904-1924 and 1933-1944 periods,

Lorentz and Wertime (1980) report that based on their calculations there were only 910

Iranian immigrants to the U.S. recorded for nearly a century (1842-1944). Although the

Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) only reported data on Iranian immigrants for 1949, their number was very small (195). In any case, it is clear that Iranian immigration to the United States before 1950 was negligible.

6

1950 to 1977 Immigration

After 1950, immigration from Iran increased. In the second phase, Iranian immigration arrivals averaged 369 per year in the 1960s, increasing noticeably to 1,253 per year during 1970-1977, and reached a peak of 2,351 in 1977 (Bozorgmehr & Sabagh,

1988). However, The number of nonimmigrant arrivals (visitors, students, etc.) also climbed sharply from an annual average of about 1,400 in the 1950s to 6,000 in the

1960s, and to 39,583 in 1970-1977, reaching the highest figure of 98,018 in 1977. Based on data presented by Bozorgmehr and Sabgh (1989), from 1950 to 1977 inclusive, a total of 34,855 Iranian immigrants were admitted, and 8,877 became naturalized U.S. citizens.

During this period 391,027 nonimmigrants (various visa holders) from Iran were also admitted. Students, in particular, had made up a sizable proportion of this growing volume of nonimmigrants. The number of students entering the U.S. during 1960-1977 periods was 82,288 or 21 percent of total nonimmigrants. The drastic increase in student arrivals coincides with the rapid industrialization of Iran during this period.

Post 1977 Immigration

The of 1977/1978 led to marked changes in the volume and pattern of Iranian migration to the U.S. (Ansari, 1992). The third phase, which includes the years since the Iranian revolution (1978-present), may be distinguished from the previous ones by (1) a steady and noticeable increase in the number of Iranians classified as immigrants, (2) a drastically fluctuating volume of nonimmigrant arrivals including students and visitors, and (3) a new pattern of immigration.

The annual number of Iranian immigrants, excluding those with visitor or student visas, increased from 5,861 in 1978 to 11,105 in 1981 and 16,505 in 1986 (U.S. Census

7

Bureau, 2013). In other words, Iranian immigration nearly doubled in size in three years and almost tripled in eight years. The number of nonimmigrant Iranians admitted reached its all-time peak of 130,545 in 1978, the year of revolutionary upheaval. After that year, however, there was an initial downward trend in this type of international migration, which dwindled to 16,926 by 1981. While for every Iranian immigrant admitted to the

U.S. in 1978, 22 nonimmigrants were granted entry, by 1981, this ratio had decreased to

1:1.5 (Bozorgmehr, 1998).

Figure 1. Iranian immigration to the U.S. 1842 to 2004.

Iranian immigrants concentrated on the West Coast, with four out of ten Iranian residents living in California alone and one out of five living in the Los Angeles metropolitan area. Orange County, CA has become the second largest concentration of

Iranians in recent years (Figure 2).

8

Figure 2. Iranian immigrant population in the U.S. 2013.

Anti U.S. Sentiment and Hostage Crisis

The Iranian Islamic revolution of 1977-1978 carried strong anti U.S. rhetoric.

Iranians resented and condemned the CIA covert overthrow of the popular and democratic government of Prime Minister Mosadeq in 1953, as well as robust support of

Mohammad Reza ’s dictatorial and corrupt régime by the American administrations since the World War II, and the U.S. extensive military and intelligence presence in Iran

(Rubin, 1980).

The anti U.S. sentiment intensified both in Iran and abroad after President Carter allowed the deposed Shah to come to the U.S., which resulted in occupation of American embassy in by group of militant college students (Carter, 1995). The “hostage crisis” and faith of 52 American embassy personnel became a worldwide concern and focus of media in the U.S. For 444 days the American public watched special nightly TV programs such as “America Held Hostage” and “Nightline” (Larson, 1986).

9

The Unwelcomed Immigrants

The Americans' reaction to the hostage crisis was outrage, anger, and frustration channeled into an economic and political "miniwar" against Iran and Iranians, mostly students, in the United States and elsewhere (Carswell & Davis, 1985). According to the

Houston Post hundreds of American demonstrators burned the Iranian flags and carried placards reading "Go Home Dumb Iranians," "Have a Happy Thanksgiving-Hold an

Iranian Hostage," "Deport Iranians," "Send in Marines," and "Iranians Go Home" (Rubin,

1980). The catastrophic and fatal failure of attempted military rescue mission authorized by President Carter, and the invasion of southern part of Iran by in 1980 (an act considered by many Iranians endorsed and supported by American government) escalated the situation both in Iran and the U.S. (Sick, 2001).

Iranians in the United States felt the ire and frustration of their host society and in some cases, blatant and prejudice against them. At times Iranians were refused service at restaurants and retail stores; a sign posted in front of a restaurant and disco in Oceanside, California, read "We Reserve the Right to Refuse Service to Iranian

Citizens” (Rubin, 1980).

In almost every major university across the country, students organized protests to vent rage against the Iranian students. In addition to students, some teachers, administrators, and university boards acted prejudicially and implemented discriminatory policies. The board of Greenville College, a two-year college in South Carolina, voted to bar Iranian students from classes during the quarter after the hostage crisis, if the

American hostages were not released. State universities in Louisiana and New Mexico

10 stopped enrolling Iranian students all together. The Mississippi legislature passed a bill doubling the tuition for Iranian students attending public universities in that state.

Local radio and television programs throughout the U.S. also expressed and incited anger and hostility against Iranians by encouraging the listeners to boycott

Iranian-owned businesses and to carry anti-Iranian bumper stickers (Rubin, 1980).

The American public opinion against Iran and Iranian immigrants lasted long after the hostage crisis was resolved in 1980. A Harris poll taken about seven years after the release of the hostages showed that a majority of the Americans believed that Iran was the only enemy country compared to only 39% who considered the as an enemy (Gerges, 1997). After an Iranian civilian passenger airliner was “mistakenly” shot down by the U.S. Navy in July 1989, a poll revealed that 71% of Americans said the missile attack on the plane was justified and nearly two thirds of the respondents opposed any compensation for the victims (Ansari, 1992).

Current Social and Political Environment

Iran and the U.S. never reestablished diplomatic relationship after the hostage crisis. However, both countries engaged in collaborative actions throughout the following years. The Iran-Contra scandal of 1980s during the Reagan administration, the Iranian military and political involvement assisting the U.S. in both Gulf wars in Iraq, the war against Taliban in Afghanistan, and the recent collaboration in fighting the Islamic State

(IS, formally known as the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria: ISIS), are major engagements that mutually benefited both Iran and the U.S.

Although the Iranian nuclear program has been the focal point and a source of friction between the two countries in recent decade, the anti-Iranian sentiments among

11 the American public have subsided (Ansari, 1992). Iranian immigrants, despite the hostilities endured for almost three decades, for most part, are well assimilated (Ansari,

1992). Additionally, Iranian immigrants’ impressive educational attainment as well as widely publicized academic, entrepreneurial, and professional involvement and achievements have made them the “other ” (Sullivan, 2003).

As depicted by Figures 3 and 4, Iranian immigrants in the U.S. and California are among the most educated, especially in advanced degrees, and proficient in English language (Figure 5). Educational attainment/capital and language proficiency are considered, by immigration scholars, to be among the main factors establishing strong social assimilation and economic success of any immigrant group.

Figure 3. Educational attainment, US 2013.

12

Figure 4. Educational Attainment – California 2013.

Figure 5. English Proficiency: “Speak less than very well.”

13

CHAPTER 3

DATA AND METHOD

Due to budget constrains, a small population pool had to be identified within the county for this study. Orange County consists of 34 incorporated cities and some unincorporated areas. Iranians count for about 0.1% of the total county and 3.58% of the foreign born population. They (Iranians) reside in almost every city within the county ranging from few hundreds in some cities such as Santa Ana and Garden Grove to over

9,000 in Irvine. However, most Iranians reside in the southern part of the county.

The city of Mission Viejo was selected as a sample representative of the county for this pilot study based on several criteria: 1) it is located in the southern part of the county, where most Iranians reside, 2) it has an estimated 3,249 Iranians/Iranian

Americans residing within the city limits which is the second largest concentration of

Iranians after city of Irvine, and 3) Iranian residents of Mission Viejo are socioeconomically comparable to other major cities in the county (US Census 2013).

Based on numerous studies concerning sampling of ethnic minorities, there are several ways to identify the pool population. The most widely used method is by the surnames, especially those with unique last names (e.g., Hispanics, Koreans). Random digital dialing (RDD) used in telephone surveys is the least common method in ethnical studies unless it targets a densely populated enclave. I decided to choose the surnames method because 1) Iranian surnames, specially combined with first names, are

14 very unique and easily identifiable by any Persian speaking individual, 2) since this was an online survey, a number of qualifying questions could be asked to further eliminate the possibility of any errors if the participants were not actually Iranians and/or did not reside within the city limits, and 3) a list with Iranian surnames was commercially available.

The most efficient way to compile a list based on surnames is commercially available lists provided by data mining entities. This has become the preferred method for ethnic studies (e.g., Zogby Research Services’ [2011] study of Iranian Americans).

Another method practiced in the passed by the researchers was to manually examine telephone directories (white pages), identifying individual ethnic names. Obviously this method is almost obsolete as fewer people utilize landline telephone services and many who do decline listings for privacy reasons. It is also time consuming and inefficient.

Therefor, a mailing list with the Iranian surnames residing in the city was purchased from a commercial data mining entity. The list consisted of 1,200 names and addresses. It should be noted that difference between census and the list figures could be attributed to the fact that census data concerning race and ethnicity is self-reported, where as the data obtained from the mining company is compiled from many sources such as credit applications, existing and past loans and mortgages, real property profiles, other publically available identifying information (e.g., birth and marriage certificates), online data (e.g., search engines and browsing history), and social media profiles.

The list was examined by myself and another Persian speaking Iranian-born individual for accuracy of the names. A number of names had to be eliminated from the list because of ambiguity of surnames/first names. Addresses outside of the city limits were also eliminated. The final list with total of 889 names was compiled.

15

An online survey instrument in English and Persian2 languages was designed in

Qualtrics, a secure web-based survey platform (Appendix A). A dedicated website

(http://www.IranianResearch.US) was set up for the respondents to take the survey online. The instrument consisted of 92 questions covering the following categories:

. Basic demographics

. Social characteristics

. Family structures

. Educational attainment / language proficiency

. Civic / political engagement and participation

. Religions and religiosity

. Sexuality and sexuality-related behaviors

2 Iranian people in the English-speaking countries are probably the only community who use two different terms to refer to their language, "Farsi" and "Persian." This behavior has caused some confusion among the Westerners as to the appropriateness of these terms. "Farsi" (an Arabic adaptation of the word "Parsi"), is the indigenous name of the . Just as the German-speaking people refer to their language as 'Deutsch', the Greek 'Ellinika' and the Spanish ‘Spañol', the use 'Farsi' or 'Parsi' to identify their native form of verbal communication. In English, however, this language has always been known as "Persian" ('Persane' in French and 'Persisch' in German). But many Persians migrating to the West (particularly to the USA) after the 1979 revolution continued to use 'Farsi' to identify their language in English and the word became commonplace in English-speaking countries. In the West when one speaks of 'Persian Language', people can immediately connect it with several famous aspects of that culture and history such as Persian Gulf, Persian Carpet, Persian food, Persian poetry, Persian cat, etc. But "Farsi" is void of such link, which is only obvious for people in Iran. The Academy of the Persian Language and Literature, the official regulatory body of the Persian language, headquartered in Tehran, Iran (http://www.persianacademy.ir) has also delivered a pronouncement on this matter and rejected any usage of the word "Farsi" instead of Persian/Persa/Persane/Persisch in the Western languages. The first paragraph of the pronouncement states: "PERSIAN has been used in a variety of publications including cultural, scientific and diplomatic documents for centuries and, therefore, it connotes a very significant historical and cultural meaning. Hence, changing 'Persian' to 'Farsi' is to negate this established important precedence. Changing 'Persian' to 'Farsi' may give the impression that it is a new language, and this may well be the intention of some Farsi users..." Most International broadcasting radio and TV stations with Persian language service (e.g., VOA, BBC, DW, RFE/RL, etc.) use "Persian Service", in lieu of the incorrect "Farsi Service." That is also the case for the American Association of Teachers of Persian (http://aatpersian.org), The Centre for Promotion of Persian Language and Literature (http://cppll.com), and several American and European notable universities and organizations (e.g., Jordan Center for Persian Studies at University of California, Irvine; http://www.humanities.uci.edu/persianstudies)

16

. Immigration status

. Technology

. Employment / income

. Health (self-rated) / health insurance

A solicitation postcard was produced, in English and Persian, and mailed/emailed to the population pool, asking them to take the online survey (Appendix B). The mailing/emailing process was repeated four times during summer of 2016.

A total of 82 (9.2%) responses were received. Although the percentage of the response rate seems low, studies have shown that most immigrants and ethnic minorities, specially those from undemocratic countries, are not familiar with social research and hesitant to take part in studies probing their personal information despite the anonymity offered by the researchers (Rong, 1998). I received a number of emails and phone calls from the solicited population, registering their concern about the anonymity, security, and overall dissatisfaction with this type of surveys.

Obviously in any research, the larger the sample size and higher the response rate, the more accurate, and reliable, the results. According to several studies (e.g., Deding,

Fridberg, & Jakobson; 2008), response rate of about 10% is sufficient for most social science studies, targeting the immigrant groups. Therefore, to increase the number of respondents, future studies should consider to: 1) increase the solicitation frequency to achieve a higher cooperation (response) rate, and 2) compile a pool size proportionate to a desired number of participants (i.e., to achieve total of 500 responses at 10% rate, the sampling size should be around 5,000). However, combination of both approaches, and other methods, will probably be most constructive.

17

Each participant was informed of the nature of the study and they had to verify that they were 18 years or older, reside within city limits of Mission Viejo, born in Iran or at least one of their parents were Iranian born (Appendix A: qualifying questions).

The collected survey data was examined, tabulated, and is presented in the following chapters. It should be noted that due to the small sample size, the standard error is rather large. For example the Confidence Interval for age of men and women are 32 to

40 years and 28 to 39 years respectively, which are quite large. Therefor the results presented in the tables should be viewed as descriptive statistics for the sample, rather than attempts to make inferences about parameters for the entire population.

Also this is not a comparison study. Data collected include some of the characteristics of the Iranians/Iranian-Americans who reside in a city in Orange County, as a pilot study, to be used by the scholars and others interested in this group of immigrants and more importantly a roadmap for further, more comprehensive study/ies.

18

CHAPTER 4

DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS AND DISCUSSION

The survey probed many characteristics of Iranian immigrants in Mission Viejo.

Some of the most interesting findings have been analyzed, using the “Statistical Program for Social Sciences” (SPSS) and being discussed here, though there are many more [data] that might be interesting to others (see Appendix A for full survey instrument). The complete raw data is also available in different formats upon request from the author.

Demographics

The respondents appear to be middle age. The average age of the male participants is 39 (M = 39), and females mean age is almost 34 (Table 4.1). Almost 87% indicated that they were born in Iran. Surprisingly men were much more likely to complete the survey, with women making up just 27% of respondents and men 73%, despite the fact that the original sample was evenly distributed by gender based on the first names analysis. This is an area of concern, which subsequent studies should address.

Educational Attainment

The participants’ responses to the educational attainment questions confirm the census data and other studies indicating high level of education among the Iranian immigrants in the US, although the percentages are higher in this study. The vast majority of the respondents indicated that they have at least a four-year college degree (81%), almost 36.5% claimed to have post baccalaureate degrees (Table 4.2).

19

Table 4.1. Demographics

Demographics Number / % Sample size 82 Response rate 9.20% Average age – males (mean) 37.09 Average age – females (mean) 33.69 Males 73.00% Females 27.00% Iranian born 86.60% Mother born in Iran 45.10% Father born in Iran 45.10%

Table 4.2. Educational Levels

Educational level % Less Than High School 1.35% High School/GED 9.46% Some College/AA 4.05% 4-Year College Degree 44.59% Post Baccalaureate Degree 17.57% Doctoral/PHD 9.46% Professional (MD, JD, Etc.) 9.46% Unspecified/missing 4.06% Total 100.00%

Religions and Religiosity

The responses regarding religions are perhaps the most surprising data in this study. According to the Statistical Centre of Iran website (2016), Iranians residing in Iran are 99.4% . However, majority of the Iranians participating in this survey (over

20

63%), indicated that they are not affiliated with any religions and/or claimed to be either agnostics or atheists. Only 27% identified as Muslims (Table 4.3).

This data is further confirmed by other related questions and self-rated religiosity question. Over 82% rated themselves as either none religious at all or not practicing any faith. Furthermore, majority of the respondents indicated that they never pray or visit places of worship, 59% and 69% respectively (Table 4.3). These responses suggest that the Iranian immigrants in this study are mostly non-religious and very secular.

Civic/Political Engagement and Affiliation

As illustrated by Table 4.4, over two thirds (77%) of the participants reported that they are registered to vote. However, it appears that they mostly vote in general (e.g.,

Presidential elections) than local elections. Over 63% indicated that they were “very likely” to vote in 2016 Presidential election, though just 50% had voted in the previous

Presidential election. It should be noted that survey was conducted during summer of

2016, prior to the November election. Iranian immigrants in this survey are mostly

Democrats (58%), followed by 34% who reported no affiliation with any political parties or independents. Only 6.8% claimed to be Republicans.

Beyond voting, the respondents are not politically active. Over two thirds (76%) of the respondents reported that they are not engaged in any other political activities such as volunteering for campaigns or running for an office.

21

Table 4.3. Religions and Religiosity

Major Religions % Christianity 1.42% Islam 26.76% Judaism 1.41% Baha'i 2.82% 4.23% Atheists / Agnostics 11.27% Not affiliated with any religion 52.11% Total 100.00% How Often Do You Pray? All Religions Every Day 7.40% Few Times a Week 7.40% Once a Week 4.40% Few Times a Month 4.40% Special Occasions 17.60% Never 58.80% Total 100.00% How Often Do You Visit Your Place of Worship? All Religions Daily 1.50% Once a Week 2.90% Special Occasions 26.50% Never 69.10% Total 100.00% Self Rated Religiosity All Religions Very Religious 2.94% Somewhat Religious 2.94% Moderately Religious 11.76% Not Religious At All 36.76% Do Not Practice Any Religion 45.60% Total 100.00%

22

Table 4.4. Political Participation and Affiliation

Are You Registered to Vote? % Yes 76.70% No 15.10% Not Eligible 8.20% Total 100.00% Political Affiliation Republican 6.80% Democrats 57.51% Libertarian 1.40% Independent 8.20% Not Affiliated with Any Party 26.00% Others/Missing 0.09% Total 100.00% Did You Vote for Any of the Following Elections?

2012 Presidential Election 50.00% Gubernatorial Election 26.80% Federal Senate/House Election 26.80% State Senate/House Election 24.40% Local Election 18.30% Special Election 4.90% Not Voted at All 29.30% Not Sure 7.30% How Likely Are You to Vote In 2016 Presidential Election? Very Likely 63.40% Somewhat Likely 6.10% Not Likely 7.30% Not Sure 4.90% Does Not Apply to Me 7.30% Missing 11.00% Total 100.00% Have You Ever Participated in ANY Political Activities? No 75.60%

23

Self-Rated Health and Health-Related Behaviors

Participants were asked to self-rate their health. Studies have found that Self-rated health is as reliable and valid as physician examinations (Fayers and Sprangers, 2002;

Idler and Benyamini, 1997; Strawbridge and Wallhagen; 1999). Over 82% of the participants rated themselves in excellent and/or good health. Also, as illustrated in Table

4.5, over 98% of respondents reported to have some kind of health insurance.

In terms of behavioral risk factors, the respondents fare relatively well. Almost

65% indicated that they exercise at least several times a week. Almost 92% of respondents reported that they never used tobacco products or they do not do currently.

However, over 82% reported that they consume alcoholic beverages, from socially to daily. Though depending on the amount of alcohol consumed, this is not necessarily a negative risk factor for health.

Language Proficiency

Language proficiency is one of the key factors for any immigrant groups’ success and assimilation in their adopted (destination) nation (Chiswick and Miller, 1996;

Espenshade and Fu, 1997). Some scholars (Rivera-Batiz, 1990) even claim that language proficiency is “the major” factor impacting the economic progress of immigrants in the

U.S. As illustrated by Table 4.6, over 86% of Iranian immigrants in this study reported that they are either fluent in English language or have very good verbal and written communication skills. Furthermore, over 34% indicated that they speak at least another language beside English and Persian

24

Table 4.5. Self-Rated Health, and Health-Related Behaviors

How Do You Rate Your Health? % Excellent 32.90% Good 50.00% Fair 7.30% Poor 1.30% Missing 8.50% Total 100.00% What Kind of Health Insurance Do You Have? Private 18.90% Through Employer 47.30% Government Assisted (Medicare, Medical, Etc.) 18.90% Affordable Health Care Act 13.50% Do Not Have Health Insurance 1.40% Total 100.00% How Often Do You Exercise? Every Day 8.10% Few Times a Week 56.80% Once a Week 9.50% Few Times a Month 8.10% Once a Month 2.70% Few Times a Year 1.40% I Rarely Exercise 13.40% Total 100.00% Tobacco Usage Never Smoked 48.70% I Did in the Past, But Not Now 43.20% I Currently Smoke 8.10% Total 100.00% Alcohol Usage Do Not Drink at All 17.60% Drink Socially 74.20% Drink Weekly 6.80% Drink Daily 1.40% Total 100.00%

25

Table 4.6. English language Proficiency

How Well Do You Speak English? % Not at All 2.70% Less Than Well 4.10% Good Verbal 5.50% Good Verbal and Written 23.30% Fluently 63.00% English Is My First Language 1.40% Total 100.00% Do You Speak Any Other Language(S) Other than English and Persian? Yes 34.20% No 65.80% Total 100.00%

Political Views and Opinion

Despite decades of hostility between governments of Iran and the U.S., and more recent anti-Middle Eastern behavior by both American government and the native citizens, most Iranian immigrants (60%) in this survey are satisfied with the American government. Again, it should be noted that survey was conducted during the Obama administration. On the other hand, 82% of respondents registered their dissatisfaction with current Iranian government and as Table 4.7 shows almost 64% prefer a secular government in Iran.

26

Table 4.7. Political Views and Opinion

How Satisfied Are You with Current American Government? % Very Dissatisfied 4.20% Somewhat Dissatisfied 16.70% Dissatisfied 6.90% Neutral 12.50% Somewhat Satisfied 27.80% Satisfied 25.00% Very Satisfied 6.90% Total 100.00% How Satisfied Are You with Current Iranian Government? Very Dissatisfied 54.20% Somewhat Dissatisfied 9.70% Dissatisfied 18.10% Neutral 6.90% Somewhat Satisfied 6.90% Satisfied 2.80% Very Satisfied 1.40% Total 100.00% What Type of Government Do You Think Would Work Best In Iran? Reformed Islamic Republic 5.60% Secular Democracy 63.90% Monarchy 5.60% None of the Above 5.60% Not Sure 19.30% Total 100.00%

Sexuality and Sexual Related Views

Sexuality and sexual related views are the least studied among the Iranian immigrants. In this study, 7.5% of respondents identified as non-heterosexual which is

27 close to the famous 10% figure established by the U.S. National Gay Task Force (NGTF) in 1977. Bruce Voeller, a scientist who was a founder and first director of the NGTF, got the round 10% from famous Alfred Kinsey’s surveys in 1940s America, which were groundbreaking at the time but are now seen as archaic in their methods3.

The answer options for sexual orientation in this survey, however, are based on

The National Survey of Sexual Attitudes and Lifestyles (NATSAL). NATSAL surveys ask the following question and answer options: “which best describes how you think of yourself?” a) heterosexual/straight; b) gay/lesbian; c) bisexual, d) other.

On sexuality-related attitudes, most (56%) respondents support same sex marriage, 79% approve of unmarried couples having sex, but about 64% disapprove, or prefer not to have children outside of marriage. Over 71% approve cohabiting, almost

86% think that abortion is the woman’s choice. However, slightly over half of respondents (51%) indicated that minor girls should have consent of their parents/guardians in order to have abortion (Table 4.8).

Table 4.8. Sexuality and Sexuality-Related Views

What Is Your Sexual Orientation? % Bisexual 1.50% Heterosexual 92.50% Gay/Lesbian/Other 6.00% Total 100.00%

3 Kinsey did not believe that sexual identity was fixed and simply categorized, and perhaps his most lasting contribution was his scale, still used today, in which individuals are rated from exclusively heterosexual to exclusively homosexual on a scale of 0 to 6.

28

Table 4.8., cont.

Do You Support Same Sex Marriages? Yes 56.10% No 28.70% Not Sure 15.20% Total 100.00% Is It OK For Unmarried Persons To Have Sex? Yes 78.80% No 6.00% Not Sure 15.20% Total 100.00% Is It OK for Unmarried Persons To Have Children? Yes 28.80% It Is Better To Be Married 31.80% No 31.80% Not Sure 7.60% Total 100.00% Is It OK For Unmarried Persons To Live Together? Yes 71.20% If Ends in Marriage 10.60% No 7.60% Not Sure 10.60% Total 100.00% How Do You Feel About Abortion? It Is the Woman’s Decision 85.90% Should Be Legal Only in Cases of Incest or Rape 4.70% Not Sure 9.40% Total 100.00% Should Minor Girls Have Consent of Their Parents for Abortion? Yes 51.50% No 26.60% Not Sure 21.90% Total 100.00%

29

Employment and Income

Employment and income of most individuals are directly related to the person’s level of education and skill. Iranian immigrants with high level of education are expected to have higher incomes as well. As illustrated by Table 4.9, over 60% of respondents reported that they are employed full time, over 54% are employed by private entities, and about 21% are self employed. Self-employment is a preferred occupation for some immigrants, in part due to lack of proficiency in language. Small self-employed businesses such as dry cleaners, small convenient stores and such, are most attractive. For instance 40% of Korean immigrants in Orange County own their business, over 27% run small neighborhood grocery stores and over 70% of dry cleaners. Iranians, however, are engaged with larger enterprises, professional services, and high tech industry (Min and

Bozorgmehr, 2000).

Over 75% of the respondents reported annual individual incomes of over $50,000.

According to the Census ACS (2015) survey, the median household income for the

United States was $55,775 in 2015, the latest data available. Almost 50% reported annual individual income of over $100,00.00

Most western societies, including the United States, are made of various ethnicities and culture, although it is usually the host society’s culture that is dominant.

Assimilation and acculturation are examples of the way sociologists measure integration of different immigrant groups. As shown by Table 4.10a, the survey asked the participants to indicate how often they socialize with major ethnic groups in the U.S.

Almost 34% of respondents reported that they socialize with whites on daily basis, even higher than their own ethnicity (20%), however, 46% (highest number) reported that they

30 have weekly contacts with their fellow Iranians. On the other end of the spectrum, blacks and “others” are the ones that participants indicated having rare contact with (47% and

52% respectively).

Table 4.9. Employments and Income Employment Status % Fulltime 60.60% Less Than Fulltime 10.60% Homemaker 4.50% Unemployed 1.50% Retired 16.70% Student 6.10% Total 100.00% Employers Private Entities 54.50% Non Profit 3.00% Federal Government 1.50% State Government 6.10% Local Government 7.60% Self Employed 21.20% Other 6.10% Total 100.00% Annual Income ($) 0 - 25,000 9.10% 25,001 - 50,000 15.20% 50,001 - 75,000 22.70% 75,001 - 100,000 4.50% 100,001 - 150,000 22.70% 150,001 - 200,000 10.60% More Than 200,000 15.20% Total 100.00%

31

Social Life

Table 4.10a. Social Interaction

How often do you socialize Middle with: Iranians Whites Blacks Hispanics Asians Eastern Others Daily 20.00% 33.80% 9.20% 18.50% 12.30% 7.70% 10.80% Weekly 46.20% 10.80% 12.30% 12.30% 13.80% 6.20% 7.70% Monthly 12.30% 15.40% 4.60% 13.80% 7.70% 10.80% 3.10% Occasionally 16.90% 27.70% 26.20% 18.50% 27.70% 33.80% 26.20% Rarely 4.60% 12.30% 47.70% 36.90% 38.50% 41.50% 52.30% Total 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.10%

Internet is the main source of the news for the participants (67%), and over 44% reported that they use the Internet more than three hours each day. However, only about

11% watch more than three hours of television (Table 4.10b).

Participants were asked some random questions in order to establish their level of social interactions. Table 4.10c illustrates few of them.

Norooz (), the Iranian New Year, as expected, is the mostly celebrated event among Iranians (67%), and Thanksgiving is the second (64%) most popular. More than 52% of participants indicated that they celebrate Christmas, which is somewhat surprising since most respondents identified as non-religious (Table 4.3). The high percentage of Iranian immigrants celebrating the Christmas denotes that the holiday is viewed and celebrated as a secular event by most Iranians and their level of acculturation/assimilation of American culture.

32

Table 4.10b. Social Communications and Technology

Where Do You Get Your News? % Television 20.00% Internet 67.70% Radio 12.30% Total 100.00% On Average, How Many Hours of TV Do You Watch Each Day? None 23.10% About an Hour 26.10% 1 - 3 Hours 40.00% 3 - 5 Hours 7.70% More Than 5 Hours 3.10% Total 100.00% On Average, How Many Hours Do Spend on the Internet Each Day? About an Hour 15.40% 1 - 3 Hours 40.00% 3 - 5 Hours 21.50% More Than 5 Hours 23.10% Total 100.00%

One of the highly debated issues in today’s America is gun ownership, gun control, and regulations governing the sales of fire arms and assault weapons. American population, in general, is divided as either “pro gun” or “anti gun.” So, the participants were asked if they are satisfied with current gun laws and if they would like to see a change. Most (70%) registered their dissatisfaction with current gun laws, and over 54% would like to see more restricted gun laws (Table 4.10c).

33

Table 4.10c. Selected Social Views and Activities

Do You Celebrate: % yes Christmas 52.40% Thanksgiving 64.60% 4th Of July 52.40% Easter 15.90% New Year 67.10% Norooz (Iranian New Year) 76.80% Mehregan 35.40% Are You Satisfied with Current State and Federal Gun Laws? Yes 9.40% No 70.30% Not Familiar with Laws 15.60% Not Sure 4.70% Total 100.00% Do You Believe Current Gun Laws Should Be: More Relaxed 3.10% More Restricted 54.70% All Guns Should Be Illegal 32.80% Not Sure 9.40% Total 100.00%

34

CHAPTER 5

CONCLUSION

As previously mentioned, the purpose of this study was to collect socioeconomic, attitudinal, and demographic data about the Iranian immigrants residing in Orange

County, California. Orange County in Southern California (adjacent to Los Angeles

County) has become the second largest community for the Iranian immigrants in recent years and the growth is expected to continue. However, not much is known about this small immigrant community beyond Census data, which report only the basic demographic characteristics. The city of Mission Viejo in southern part of the county was selected (see chapter three for explanation of selection criteria and process) to conduct a pilot study to collect additional data and also as a guideline for future, more comprehensive study/dies of this immigrant population.

The survey revealed some interesting and surprising results. Religions and religiosity, and sexual behaviors, as discussed in detail in chapter four, were the most interesting findings. The majority of the participants claim that they are either non- religious or agnostic/atheist (82.3% combined); and very liberal views on sexual behaviors and opinions are to be noted and explored further in the future studies since most Iranian are considered, by the host population, and others, to be predominately

Muslims and highly religious and conservatives.

Another surprising component of the study was the low level of participation of women (27%). Demographic data provided by the Census Bureau (U.S. Census, 2013),

35 report almost equal number of male and female (49% and 51% respectively) for Iranians nationwide including Orange County. The mailing list used for this study was also almost evenly distributed between the genders, as noted by the first names. Iranian women are as educated and professionally employed as Iranian men, both in Iran and the States.

Women respondents in this study reported “more than high school education” levels equal to men respondents (56%). Also, Iranian women represent over 60% of all universities’ student body in Iran (Rezai-Rashti, Goli M. 2015). Therefore, the low level of participation by women in this study cannot be attributed to their educational level, as might be the case for other groups of minority immigrant women. Future studies should address this low level of female participation and adopt a methodology to increase the response rate.

Another concern, and probably the most important one, is the total population of

Iranian immigrants, which according to extrapolated U.S. Census data and other independent surveys done by Iranian-Americans themselves, there are an estimated one million Iranian-Americans living in the U.S. However, the latest census data available

(2013), estimates the total population at 470,000, which is much lower than the unofficial number. This is probably due to self-selecting format of race and ethnicity on census questionnaire. Since there is no option for Iranian, one has to check either “other” and write in the ethnicity/nationality, or “White.” Iranians are considered White in terms of race by the census definition; therefore, many Iranians choose this option if no other is available. Another point to consider is that due to the hostility and political friction between the US and Iranian governments, some Iranians tend to shy away from identifying as Iranians, mostly using “Persian” as the nationality or race, which is not a

36 correct term. It is supposed that sample population for this study is not any different than overall population of Iranian immigrants in the US, and low response rate could have a direct relation to the political issues surrounding this immigrant population.

As in most studies concerning immigrants, this project highlights the issues of surveying smaller populations, and concerns about low response rates to surveys and the subsequent accuracy of the results. Options to increase the sample size include: having a very large sampling frame to increase the number of respondents, have substantial resources for follow-up to increase response rates, or perhaps as an alternative conduct a comprehensive qualitative, in-person or telephone interviews.

Iranian immigrants, although mostly concentrated in southern part of Orange

County do not have a real enclave as Vietnamese in Tri-City in Orange County or

Turkish immigrants in Keruzberg, Germany. Therefore, it is a challenge to adopt any other method to compile a sample population. They (Iranian immigrants) have established numerous cultural, political, professional, and social organizations throughout the country that could be good sources of dissemination and endorsements for further studies. Furthermore, an approach to advertise the study in Persian speaking radio and

TV stations as well as an online campaign effort would probably encourage more participation. Most Iranian immigrants in the US were Westernized, secular, and modernized before moving to the States. They were able to immigrate to U.S. rather effortlessly due to their higher socioeconomic status, professionalism, political views, and high working skills. Iranians sense of whiteness, education, wealth, and other unique socioeconomic characteristics make them an interesting group of immigrants to study. They mostly own their businesses but due to absence of lower class population,

37 small business owners employ others rather than their owns as most other immigrant groups in the U.S. do. They also work in the high tech industry. So, in order to study this group a researcher has to be creative in identifying the Iranian immigrants community within other immigrant communities.

All in all, the survey confirmed most of the current demographics data provided by the census and other independent researchers. It is crucial and recommended, however, that future studies address the concerns outlined above.

38

APPENDIX A

SURVEY INSTRUMENT

39

40

41

42

43

44

45

46

47

48

49

50

51

52

53

54

55

56

57

58

59

60

61

62

63

64

65

66

67

APPENDIX B

SOLICITATION LETTER

68

REFERENCES

Ansari, M. (1992). The making of the Iranian community in America. Pardis.

Bozorgmehr, M. (1997). Internal Ethnicity: Iranians in Los Angeles. Sociological Perspectives, 40(3), 387-408.

Bozorgmehr, M. (1998). From Iranian studies to studies of Iranians in the United States. Iranian Studies, 31(1), 4-30.

Bozorgmehr, M. (2000). Does host hostility create ethnic solidarity? The experience of Iranians in the United States. Bulletin of the Royal Institute for Inter-Faith Studies, 2(1), 159-178.

Bozorgmehr, M., & Sabagh, G. (1988). High status immigrants: A statistical profile of Iranians in the United States. Iranian Studies, 21(3-4), 5-36.

Bozorgmehr, M., & Sabagh, G. (1989). Survey research among middle eastern immigrant groups in the United States: Iranians in Los Angeles. Review of Studies, 23(1), 23-34.

Bleakley, H., & Chin, A. (2010). Age at arrival, English proficiency, and social assimilation among US immigrants. American Economic Journal. Applied Economics, 2(1), 165.

Casey, T., & Dustmann, C. (2008). Intergenerational transmission of language capital and economic outcomes. Journal of Human Resources, 43(3), 660-687.

Carswell, R., & Davis, R. (1985). The economic and financial pressures: Freeze and sanctions. In W. Christopher et al. (Eds.), American hostages in Iran: The conduct of a crisis (pp. 173-200). New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

Carter, J. (1995). Keeping faith: Memoirs of a president. University of Arkansas Press.

Chiswick, B. R., & Miller, P. W. (1996). Ethnic networks and language proficiency among immigrants. Journal of Population Economics, 9(1), 19-35.

Deding, M., Fridberg, T., & Jakobsen, V. (2008). Non-response in a survey among immigrants in Denmark. Survey Research Methods, 2(3), 107-121.

Erlich, R., & Scheer, R. (2016). Iran Agenda: The Real Story of US Policy and the Middle East Crisis. Routledge.

69

Espenshade, T. J., & Fu, H. (1997). An analysis of English-language proficiency among US immigrants. American Sociological Review, 288-305.

Fata, S., & Rafii, R. (2003). Strength in numbers: The relative concentration of Iranian Americans across the United States. Iran census report.

Fayers, P. M., & Sprangers, M. A. (2002). Understanding self-rated health. The Lancet, 359(9302), 187-188.

Gerges, F. A. (1997). Islam and Muslims in the Mind of America: Influences on the Making of US Policy. Journal of Palestine Studies, 26(2), 68-80.

Idler, E. L., & Benyamini, Y. (1997). Self-rated health and mortality: a review of twenty- seven community studies. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 21-37.

Laipson, E. (1981). Paved with Good Intentions, The American Experience and Iran.

Larson, J. F. (1986). Television and US foreign policy: The case of the . Journal of Communication, 36(4), 108-130.

Light, I., Sabagh, G., Bozorgmehr, M., & Der-Martirosian, C. (1997). The four Iranian ethnic economies in Los Angeles. Immigrant entrepreneurs and immigrant absorption in the United States and .

Lorentz, J. H., & Wertime, J. T. (1980). Iranians. Harvard Encyclopedia of American Ethnic Groups, 52, 1-4.

Min, P. G., & Bozorgmehr, M. (2000). Immigrant entrepreneurship and business patterns: A comparison of Koreans and Iranians in Los Angeles. International Migration Review, 707-738.

Rezai-Rashti, G. M. (2015). The politics of gender segregation and women's access to higher education in the Islamic Republic of Iran: the interplay of repression and resistance. Gender and Education, 27(5), 469-486.

Rong, X. L. (1998). The New Immigration: Challenges Facing Social Studies Professionals. Social Education, 62(7), 393-99.

Rubin, B. (1980). American relations with the Islamic Republic of Iran, 1979– 1981. Iranian Studies, 13(1-4), 307-326.

Sick, G. (2001). The Clouded Mirror: The United States and Iran, 1979–1999. In Iran at the Crossroads (pp. 191-210). Palgrave Macmillan US.

Statistical Center of Iran (2016). “Censuses 2016 General Results.” Retrieved April 22, 2017. (https://www.amar.org.ir/english/Population-and-Housing- Censuses/Census-2016-General-Results)

70

Strawbridge, W. J., & Wallhagen, M. I. (1999). Self-rated health and mortality over three decades: results from a time-dependent covariate analysis. Research on Aging, 21(3), 402-416.

Sullivan, Z. (2003). Exiled memories: Stories of . Temple University Press.

U.S. Census Bureau. (2009-2015). “American Community Survey 5-year estimate.” Retrieved April 1, 2015. (http://factfinder.census.gov/faces/nav/jsf/pages/community_facts.xhtml).

US Virtual Embassy, Tehran. (2015). “Visa Applicants from State Sponsor of Terrorism Countries - Frequently Asked Questions.” Virtual Embassy of the United States, Tehran, Iran. Retrieved April 1, 2015.