THE SPATIAL DISTRIBUTION AND SOCIOECONOMIC IMPACTS OF AFRICAN IMMIGRANTS IN THE US: THE CASE OF NIGERIANS IN TOLEDO METROPOLITAN REGION, NORTHWEST OHIO
Olasunkanmi Abiola Busari
A Thesis
Submitted to the Graduate College of Bowling Green State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of
MASTER OF SCIENCE
December 2019
Committee:
Kefa M.Otiso, Ph.D, Advisor
Kelly S. Balistreri, Ph.D
Andrew J. Gregory, Ph.D © 2019
Olasunkanmi A. Busari
All Rights Reserved iii ABSTRACT
Kefa M. Otiso, Advisor
This study describes the spatial distribution of Nigerian immigrants in the Toledo
Metropolitan Area and their socioeconomic characteristics including income, education
attainment, housing, and occupation. Moreover, the study examines the socioeconomic
contributions of Nigerian immigrants to the region, USA, and Nigeria.
Using US Census and survey data, the study finds that Nigerians in the US have high
Socioeconomic Status (SES) and are concentrated in specific cities, regions, and states of the US.
The study also finds that Nigerians in the Toledo MSA have a clustered geographic distribution
pattern, an impressive socioeconomic profile, and have contributed immensely to the
socioeconomic life of the region, the US, and Nigeria.
Data for this research came from an online survey as well as from secondary sources such
as the U.S. Census Bureau. The data were analyzed using various qualitative and quantitative
techniques and were further analyzed and mapped using ESRI’s ArcMap 10.3.
Keywords: Spatial distribution, socioeconomic characteristics and impacts, Nigerian Immigrants,
African immigrants, Toledo Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA), Ohio, USA. iv
I dedicate this research work to the Almighty God. Also, to my beautiful wife and daughter – Mrs. Royal Busari and Princess Favour Olamide Busari.
I also dedicate this work to my Late Grandma – Mrs. Iyabo Ronke Adegbite and Late
Deacon J. Bolaji Oyesola. v ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
My appreciation goes to the Almighty God for giving me the grace, knowledge, wisdom
and understanding to put this beautiful research work together. I give Him all the Glory and
praise in Jesus name [Amen].
I would also like to thank my supervisor and advisor Prof. Kefa M. Otiso for his advice,
encouragement, patience, and fatherly guidance and contributions to the success of this project.
I record my appreciation to my committee members - Dr. Andrew J. Gregory, and Dr.
Kelly S. Balistreri. I will not forget to thank my Graduate Coordinator – Prof. Kurt Panter, Vice
Provost for Academic Affairs - Prof. Sheila Roberts, former Director of Africana Studies - Prof.
Apollos Nwauwa and Dr. Vera J. Lux (Librarian) for their contributions to my academic success.
I express my gratitude to all of my other professors – Dr. Peter V. Gorsevski, Dr. Enrique
Gomezdelcampo, Dr. Anita Simic, Dr. Nathan Hensley and to all of the faculty and staff
members who have taught me much from their wealth of experience and knowledge throughout my stay at Bowling Green state University. They have taken time to prepare me for the future by stimulating my intellect and fortifying my mind with sound geographic knowledge and
geospatial skills.
My special appreciation goes to my caring and wonderful parents Mr. and Mrs. Ayinde
and Olufunke Busari for their support and sacrifice over the years. I am grateful to have you as
parents.
I also want to use this opportunity to thank my wife and daughter for their love. Both of
you have been my strongest support and I am blessed to have you. Thank you for making my life wonderful. vi I am delighted to say a big thank you to my aunt Mrs. Bola Dickson for her motherly love and financial support.
My profound gratitude goes to my uncle – Mr Oseni Waheed for sponsoring this higher degree. I can’t thank you enough uncle.
Also, my sincere appreciation goes to Mrs. Modupe Akinola, Mrs. Olajumoke Oyesola,
Mr. and Mrs. Pius and Bola Dickson, Alhaji Yunusa Adesokan, Mr. Tunde Adegbite, and Mr.
Lanre Adegbite for their moral and material support during my stay at the university and for the success of this project.
I appreciate the moral support of my siblings: Olamide, Olateju, Olatunde, Kehinde
Idowu, and Alaba.
I am indebted and grateful to members of the Nigerian Association of Greater Toledo
(NAGT) and all respondents of my thesis survey for their contributions to the success of this project.
I am highly grateful to these wonderful set of family members and friends: Jide Akinola,
Kunle Akinola, Damola Afuwape, Patrick Reil, John Woloschuck, Chad Mason, Nahom,
Kumolu-Johnson Bankole, Tawose Olakunle, Kuti Oluwasegun, Legunsen Oladipupo and
Okunola Ayodeji for their immense contributions to my success.
I also thank all the members of Dayspring Church Bowling Green, The Redeemed
Christian Church of God (RCCG) Toledo, and Cornerstone church, Toledo for making my life beautiful while on campus.
Finally, I extend my gratitude to all the staff and students of the School of Earth,
Environment and Society, College of Arts and Sciences, Bowling Green State University for making my stay in the university meaningful and worthwhile. vii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND TO THE STUDY ...... 1
1.1 Introduction ...... 1
1.2 Purpose of Study ...... 9
1.3 Aim and Objectives ...... 10
1.4 Significance of Study ...... 11
1.5 Research Questions ...... 12
1.6 Definition of Terms ...... 13
1.7 Scope of Study ...... 13
1.8 Study Limitations ...... 14
1.9 Thesis Structure ...... 15
CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW AND THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK ...... 16
2.1 Introduction ...... 16
2.2 Literature Review ...... 16
2.3 Theoretical Framework ...... 20
2.3.1 Push-Pull Theory ...... 21
2.3.1.1 Push Factors...... 21
2.3.1.2 Pull Factors ...... 21
2.3.2 Neoclassical Economic Theory ...... 22
2.3.3 The New Economics of Labor Migration (NELM) ...... 23
2.3.4 The Dual-Labor Market Theory ...... 23
2.3.5 The Social Network Theory ...... 24 viii
2.3.6 Myrdal’s Cumulative Causation Theory ...... 25
2.3.7 Institutional Theory ...... 25
2.3.8 The World Systems Theory ...... 26
2.4 The Legal Framework of US Immigration...... 27
2.4.1 Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) of 1952 ...... 28
2.4.2 Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) of 1965 ...... 28
2.4.3 Refugee Act of 1980 ...... 29
2.4.4 The Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 ...... 29
2.4.5 The Diversity Visa Program (Immigration Act of 1990) ...... 29
2.4.6 The Immigration Reform and Immigration Responsibility
Act of 1996 ...... 30
2.4.7 USA PATRIOT Act of 2001...... 30
2.5 Framework of US Immigrant Incorporation ...... 30
2.5.1 Assimilation ...... 31
2.5.2 Separation ...... 32
2.5.3 Marginalization ...... 32
2.5.4 Integration ...... 32
CHAPTER THREE: RESEARCH METHODOLOGY ...... 34
3.1 Introduction ...... 34
3.2 Research Design ...... 34
3.3 Study Population and Selection Methods ...... 34
3.4 Data Sources and Collection Methods ...... 35
3.5 Methods of Data Analysis ...... 35 ix
3.6 The Study Area: Toledo Metropolitan Region ...... 36
3.7 Detailed Demographic Profile of Zip Codes with Nigerians in Toledo MSA .... 43
3.7.1 Bowling Green (43402) ...... 44
3.7.2 Toledo (43614) ...... 44
3.7.3 Toledo (43615) ...... 44
3.7.4 Toledo (43607) ...... 45
3.7.5 Sylvania (43560) ...... 45
3.7.6 Perrysburg (43551) ...... 45
3.7.7 Holland (43528) ...... 45
3.7.8 Maumee (43537) ...... 45
CHAPTER FOUR: PROFILE AND DESCRIPTION OF NIGERIAN IMMIGRANTS
IN THE USA AND TOLEDO MSA ...... 47
4.1 Introduction ...... 47
4.2 Nigerian Pathways of Migration to the US ...... 50
4.2.1 Nigeria - US Direct...... 50
4.2.2 Nigeria - Other Country - US (UK, Canada) ...... 50
4.3 Census Portrait of Nigerian Immigrants in the USA ...... 51
4.3.1 Number of Nigerian Immigrants ...... 53
4.3.2 Sex and Age Distribution...... 53
4.3.3 Income ...... 58
4.3.4 Educational Attainment ...... 59
4.3.5 Industry and Profession ...... 61
4.3.6 Housing ...... 62 x
4.3.7 Marital Status ...... 64
4.3.8 Race and Language ...... 65
4.3.9 Vehicle Ownership ...... 66
4.3.10 Geographical Distribution in the US ...... 66
4.3.11 Year of Entry to the US ...... 68
4.4 US Census Profile of Nigerian Immigrants in the Toledo MSA ...... 68
4.4.1 Income ...... 68
4.4.2 Education ...... 70
4.4.3 Housing ...... 76
4.4.4 Industry/Occupation ...... 80
4.4.5 Age ...... 80
4.4.6 Race ...... 83
4.4.7 Marital Status ...... 84
4.5 Implications of this Census Portrait of Nigerians to the USA and Nigeria ...... 86
CHAPTER FIVE: DATA PRESENTATION, ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION .... 87
5.1 Introduction ...... 87
5.2 Biographical Data of Survey Respondents ...... 87
5.2.1 Sex Distribution ...... 87
5.2.2 Age Distribution ...... 88
5.2.3 Country and Place of Birth ...... 88
5.2.4 Ethnicity ...... 88
5.2.5 Marital Status ...... 89
5.2.6 Employment Status...... 90 xi
5.2.7 Occupation/Industry of Nigerian Immigrants in Toledo MSA ...... 91
5.2.8 Educational Attainment ...... 92
5.2.9 Monthly Individual Income in Dollars ...... 92
5.2.10 Monthly Household Income in Dollars ...... 93
5.2.11 Distribution of Nigerians in Toledo MSA ...... 95
5.2.12 Push/Pull Factors of Survey Respondents to the Toledo MSA ...... 96
5.2.13 Information/Links to Toledo Metropolitan Area ...... 97
5.2.14 Support from Other Nigerians or Community of Nigerians in
Northwest Ohio ...... 98
5.2.15 Socioeconomic Status of Survey Respondents ...... 98
5.2.16 Contributions of Survey Respondents to the Socioeconomic Welfare
of Toledo MSA ...... 99
5.2.17 Socioeconomic Contribution of Survey Respondents to Nigeria ...... 100
5.2.18 Role of Survey Respondents in Bringing Other Nigerians
to the United States ...... 101
5.2.19 Future Plans of Contributing to the Socioeconomic
Development of Toledo MSA ...... 102
5.2.20 Future Plans of Contributing to the Socioeconomic
Development of Nigeria ...... 102
5.2.21 Intent to Return to Nigeria ...... 102
5.2.22 Effectiveness of Nigerian Immigrant’s
Contributions to Toledo MSA ...... 103
5.2.23 Spatial Spread of Nigerian Immigrants in Toledo MSA ...... 104 xii
5.2.24 The Reception of Survey Respondents by the Host Society ...... 105
5.2.25 Concerns on Raising Children in Toledo MSA ...... 105
5.2.26 Influence of Toledo MSA on Children’s Life Outcomes ...... 106
5.2.27 Influence of Growing Up in Toledo MSA on Children’s
Chances of Success in USA ...... 107
5.2.28 Influence of Growing Up in Toledo MSA on Children’s Chances of
Success in Nigeria ...... 107
5.2.29 The Concerns of Nigerians in Toledo MSA ...... 108
5.2.30 Nigerian Associations, Churches (worship places) and
Businesses in Toledo MSA ...... 108
5.3 Bio-Sketches of Three Self-Volunteered Nigerian Individuals ...... 109
5.3.1 Background and Entry into the USA ...... 110
5.3.2 Why Did You Relocate to the US? ...... 110
5.3.3 Then and Now Status Comparison ...... 111
5.3.4 Ethnic Matters ...... 111
5.3.5 Socioeconomic Contributions ...... 112
5.3.6 Future Plans for Nigeria and Toledo MSA ...... 112
5.3.7 Relationship with the Host Society ...... 113
5.3.8 Ties with Nigeria ...... 113
5.3.9 Socioeconomic Status (SES) of Nigerians in Toledo MSA ...... 114
5.4 Hotspot Analysis of the Distribution of Nigerians in Toledo MSA ...... 114
5.5 Measure of Centers: Nigerian Immigrants Distribution in Toledo MSA ...... 120
5.5.1 Geographic Center of Nigerian Immigrants in Toledo MSA ...... 120 xiii
5.5.2 Mean Center ...... 120
5.5.3 Median Center ...... 121
5.5.4 Standard Deviation Ellipse ...... 122
5.5.5 All Centers ...... 122
5.6 Testing of Hypotheses...... 123
5.6.1 Hypothesis One ...... 123
5.6.2 Hypothesis Two ...... 124
5.6.3 Hypothesis Three ...... 125
CHAPTER SIX: DISCUSSIONS AND CONCLUSIONS ...... 127
6.1 Introduction ...... 127
6.2 Summary of Findings ...... 127
6.3 Limitations of the Study ...... 128
6.4 Policy Recommendations ...... 129
6.5 Suggestions for Further studies ...... 130
6.6 Conclusions ...... 130
REFERENCES ...... 131
APPENDIX A. SURVEY INSTRUMENT ...... 147
APPENDIX B. CONSENT LETTER ...... 154 xiv
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure Page
1.1 Percentage of Immigrants by US State ...... 3
1.2 African Immigration (000) to the US, 1970 - 2015 ...... 5
1.3 Nigeria: Relative Size and Location in Africa ...... 5
1.4 Distribution of African Immigrants by Continental US State...... 6
1.5 Distribution of African Immigrants by US Major Metropolitan Area ...... 6
1.6 Immigration to the US by African Country, 2015...... 8
1.7 Distance from the United States to Nigeria ...... 12
2.1 Acculturation Model ...... 31
3.1 Location of Ohio in the United States ...... 36
3.2 Map of the State of Ohio Showing Toledo Metropolitan Region ...... 37
3.3 Toledo Metropolitan Area...... 37
3.4 Economic Make-Up of Toledo Metropolitan Region...... 40
3.5 Population Distribution of Toledo MSA by Tract and Zip Code ...... 42
3.6 Population Density of Toledo MSA by Tract ...... 42
3.7 Population Density of Toledo MSA by Tract with Nigerian Tracts
Highlighted in Green ...... 43
4.1 Regional Map of Nigeria ...... 48
4.2 Ethnic Map of Nigeria ...... 48
4.3 Location of Biafra in Nigeria ...... 50
4.4 Inferred Per Capita Income Characteristics of Nigerians in Toledo MSA ...... 69
4.5 Inferred Median Household Income Characteristics of Nigerians in Toledo MSA .. 73 xv
4.6 Inferred Graduate/Professional Degree Attainment of Nigerians
in Toledo MSA by Tract ...... 74
4.7 Inferred Bachelor’s Degree Attainment of Nigerians in Toledo MSA by Tract...... 75
4.8 Inferred High School Diploma Attainment of Nigerians in Toledo MSA by Tract.. 75
4.9 Inferred Educational Base Characteristics of Nigerians in Toledo MSA by Tract ... 76
4.10 Inferred Renter Occupied Housing Characteristics of Nigerians in
Toledo MSA by Tract ...... 77
4.11 Inferred Owner-Occupied Housing Characteristics of Nigerians in
Toledo MSA by Tract ...... 78
4.12 Inferred Median Home Value Characteristics of Nigerians in
Toledo MSA by Tract ...... 79
4.13 Inferred Home Value Base Characteristics of
Nigerians in Toledo MSA by Tract ...... 79
4.14 Inferred Industry/Occupation Characteristics of Nigerians in
Toledo MSA by Tract ...... 81
4.15 Inferred Median Age of Nigerians in Toledo MSA ...... 83
4.16 Inferred Race Characteristics of Nigerians in Toledo MSA ...... 84
4.17 Inferred Marital Status Base Characteristics of Nigerians in Toledo MSA ...... 85
4.18 Inferred Marital Status Characteristics of Nigerians in Toledo MSA ...... 85
5.1 2009 – 2017 Hotspots Analysis of Nigerian Spatial Distribution in Toledo MSA ... 116
5.2 Hotspots Analysis of Aggregate Nigerian Distribution in
Toledo MSA ...... 118 xvi
5.3 Spatial Distribution of Nigerian Immigrants in Toledo MSA Compared to the Region
Total Population ...... 118
5.4 Spatial Distribution of Nigerian Immigrants in Relation to Race in Toledo MSA ... 119
5.5 Spatial Distribution of Nigerian Immigrants in Relation to
Housing in Toledo MSA ...... 119
5.6 Geographic Center of Nigerian Immigrants in Toledo MSA ...... 120
5.7 Mean Center of the Distribution of Nigerian Immigrants in Toledo MSA ...... 121
5.8 Median Center of the Distribution of Nigerian Immigrants in Toledo MSA ...... 121
5.9 Standard Deviation Ellipse of the Distribution of Nigerian Immigrants
in Toledo MSA ...... 122
5.10 All Centers of the Distribution of Nigerian Immigrants in Toledo MSA...... 123
5.11 Spatial Autocorrelation Analysis of Nigerian Immigrants in Toledo MSA ...... 124
5.12 Areas of Nigerian Immigrants Contributions to Toledo MSA ...... 125
5.13 Areas of Nigerian Immigrants Contributions to Nigeria ...... 125
5.14 Ratings of Nigerian Immigrants Socioeconomic Status (SES) in Toledo MSA ...... 126 xvii
LIST OF TABLES
Table Page
1.1 Foreign-Born Population in the United States, 1970 - 2016 ...... 3
2.1 Nigeria: Remittances Received by Country of Origin in Millions of USD (2017)... 23
3.1 Decennial Population Trend of Toledo Metropolitan Region ...... 41
3.2 Racial Composition of Toledo MSA, Ohio and US in 2013 ...... 43
3.3 Summary Table of Zip Code Areas of Nigerian Survey Respondents ...... 44
4.1 Nigerian Immigrants Versus the US Population in 2000, 2010 and 2017 ...... 54
4.2 Nigerian Immigrants Versus US Foreign Born in 2000, 2010 and 2017 ...... 55
4.3 Socioeconomic Characteristics of Nigerian and African Immigrants
in the US for the year 2000, 2010 and 2017 ...... 56
4.4 Nigerian Immigrants Versus US Native Born in 2000, 2010 and 2017 ...... 57
4.5 Distribution of Nigerian Immigrants in the US by State, 2012 - 2016 ...... 67
4.6 Demographic Characteristics of Tracts with Nigerians in Toledo MSA ...... 71
5.1 Survey Response Rate ...... 87
5.2 Sex Ratio of the Respondents ...... 88
5.3 Age Distribution of the Respondents...... 88
5.4 Ethnic Distribution of the Respondents ...... 89
5.5 Marital Status of the Respondents ...... 90
5.6 Employment Status of the Respondents ...... 91
5.7 Employer/Occupation/Industry of the Respondents ...... 91
5.8 Education Attainment of the Respondents ...... 92 xviii
5.9 Monthly Individual Income of the Respondents in US Dollars ...... 93
5.10 Monthly Household Income of the Respondents in US Dollars ...... 94
5.11 Monthly Individual and Household Income of the Respondents in US Dollars ...... 94
5.12 Place/City of Residence of the Respondents...... 95
5.13 Zip Code of Place of Residence of Respondents ...... 96
5.14 Summary Table of Zip Code Areas of Nigerian Survey Respondents ...... 96
5.15 Push/Pull Factors of Nigerians to the US ...... 97
5.16 Percentage of Nigerians Who Had Information/Links to
Toledo Metropolitan Area...... 97
5.17 Information/Links to Toledo Metropolitan Area ...... 98
5.18 Percentage of Support from Nigerian Community ...... 98
5.19 Kinds of Support Received ...... 98
5.20 Socioeconomic Status of Survey Respondents in the Toledo MSA ...... 99
5.21 Survey Respondents’ Standard of Living in USA Compared to Nigeria ...... 99
5.22 Impact of Survey Respondents in Toledo MSA...... 100
5.23 Specific Contributions of Survey Respondents to Toledo MSA ...... 100
5.24 Percentage of Respondents Who Have Contributed to
Nigeria Socially and Economically ...... 101
5.25 Specific Area of Contributions to Nigeria ...... 101
5.26 Percentage of Respondents that Helped Others from Nigeria to US...... 101
5.27 Percentage of Those Who Intend to Return or Stay in the US Permanently ...... 103
5.28 Effectiveness of Nigerian Contributions in Toledo MSA ...... 103
5.29 Spatial Spread of Nigerians in Toledo MSA ...... 104 xix
5.30 Relationship of Survey Respondents with the Host society ...... 105
5.31 Concerns on Raising Children in Toledo MSA...... 106
5.32 Can Toledo MSA Prepare and Position Children for Success in life? ...... 106
5.33 Can Toledo MSA Prepare and Position Children for Success in the US? ...... 107
5.34 Can Toledo MSA Prepare and Position Children for Success in Nigeria? ...... 108
5.35 Do You Know Nigerian Associations, Churches and Businesses in Toledo MSA? . 109
5.36 Nigerian Establishments in Toledo MSA ...... 109 1
CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND TO THE STUDY
1.1 Introduction
The United States of America is home to many immigrants from all over the world. In the eighteenth century, more than half of American residents were immigrants (Arthur, 2000 pg. v).
While the proportion of immigrants in the country has dropped since then, today immigrants account for 13.7% of the US population. The flow of African immigrants into the US has, for instance, varied greatly over time because of many reasons including changes in US immigration and economic policies. Between 1981 and 1995, for instance, the US witnessed an influx of immigrants that were both skilled and unskilled because of its high capital formation economy.
Immigration studies are increasingly sensitive in many parts of the globe. While the receiving countries have the advantage of attracting the best brains from developing countries because of it; they are also concerned about the externalities (e.g., security threats, economic burdens, stress on infrastructure) they can be exposed to by accommodating many immigrants from the less developed world. Conversely, while the sending countries benefit from emigration through the trading activities and flow of remittances it creates to grow their economies; they also often worry about the brain drain that comes with it. Although, both the receiving and sending countries have positive and negative migration experiences, neither should over react.
Sending countries should not over stress the issue of brain drain because the emigration of their citizens also causes them to benefit from “brain build” in the more developed countries. For instance, many of the African and Nigerian immigrants in the US came to pursue advanced degrees (Ette, 2012).
Immigration can thus be beneficial to both the receiving and sending countries. While immigrants use their skills in the major economic sectors of the receiving countries, they also use 2 their expertise and acquired skills to build their home countries. For instance, the US education system has greatly impacted African countries since their independence in the 1950s and 1960s.
This is because many of their independence struggle leaders including Dr. Nnamdi Azikiwe of
Nigeria, Dr. Kwame Nkrumah of Ghana, and Dr. Kamouze Banda of Malawi are alumni of
American universities (Takougang, 1995 and Ette, 2012). Moreover, the US has for many years been a beacon of hope for immigrants from all over the globe including those from Africa who are in search of a better life, security, quality education and medical care, and job opportunities
(Ette, 2012; Konadu-Agyemang, et.al, 2006; Portes and Rumbaut, 2006; Arthur, 2000).
Immigration has been part of America from the beginning. As Oscar Handlin said in
1951 “Once I thought to write a history of the Immigrant in America. Then I discovered that the immigrants were the American history” (Oscar, 1951 pg3). Over 400 years ago, the first set of immigrants, including Africans though as slaves, came to the US and their imprint laid the foundation for the country’s greatness. Apart from their demographic impact which is key to cultural diversity and population growth (Figure 1.1), immigrants have contributed so much to the economic, social and political life of the United States (Hipsman and Meissner, 2013).
In the early 1800s, most of the voluntary immigration to the United States was from
Europe and was mainly driven by industrialization and other economic forces. Later in the
1850s, Chinese immigrants began to flow in owing to the discovery of gold in California in 1848
(Saxton, 1971 pg3, Hirota, 2018 and Foster, 2019). In 1882, an Immigration Act was passed to start the collection of a fee to regulate immigration. This act was basically passed to screen immigrants entering into the United States. In the same year, the Chinese Exclusion Act was passed to stop the immigration of Chinese laborers, to put an end to Chinese naturalization, and to make provision for the deportation of illegal Chinese immigrants. 3
Figure 1.1: Percentage of Immigrants by US State (Source: Cooper et al., 2016)
While the Chinese were restricted from immigrating into the US, the influx of immigrants from countries such as Italy, Germany, Russia, Britain, Ireland, Sweden and Canada between
1880 and 1930 was over 27 million. Today, there are over 43.7 million immigrants who account for about 13.5% of the United States population (US Census Bureau, 2016). Table 1.1 shows the numerical and percent increase in the foreign-born population in the US from 1970 to 2016.
Table 1.1: Foreign-Born Population in the United States, 1970 - 2016
(Source: Migration Policy Institute, 2018) 4
The number of African immigrants in the US now is over 2.1 million with Nigerians accounting for the largest share of this population (Anderson, 2017, and Zong and Batalova
2017). Yet, Africans have been part of the United States since the beginning. While America was founded by European settlers, Africa was also a major source of immigrants into the United
States for the first 300 years, even though millions of them were involuntary immigrants who were brought in as slaves (Kennedy, 1996, Arthur, 2000). In other words, Africans were there from the country’s inception and were part of those who built the “New World” and continued to be part of it when it was named the United States of America. Thus, the history of Nigerian immigration to the US can be traced to the 1500s when Africans were forced against their will by
European entrepreneurs to involuntarily immigrate into the US as slaves to work on farms and engage in mining activities. Not only that, these Africans came with their unique culture, traditions and skills which today have made the US more culturally diverse and great. These
Africans were farmers, builders, artisans, craftsmen, healers, and rulers before they were captured and brought to the US (Arthur, 2000).
Voluntary immigration of Africans into the US is a recent phenomenon that started in the
1970s with a minimal number of African immigrants. Since then, the population of Africans in the US has grown steadily from approximately 80,000 in 1970 to 130,000 in 1980, to over 2 million people by 2015 (Migration Policy Institute, 2017, Figure 1.2). Today, the number of
African in the US is over 2.1 million (Anderson, 2017).
Most of the African immigrants in the US are from major African countries including
Nigeria (which is the largest contributor to this number), Ethiopia, Egypt, Ghana, Kenya, South
Africa and Somalia. Although Nigeria, in terms of geographical coverage, is not the biggest country in Africa (Figure 1.3), it has the continent’s largest population (World Population 5
Figure 1.2: African Immigration (000) to the US, 1970 - 2015 (Source: Pew Research Center, 2017)
Figure 1.3: Nigeria: Relative Size and Location in Africa (Source: Ogbeba, 2018)
Prospects, 2017) and economy (Business Report, 2018). Hence Nigeria’s place as the leading source of African immigration to the US. 6
According to the Pew Research Center (2017), about 39% of African immigrants in the
US are found in the South, 25% in the Northeast, 18% in Midwest, and 17% in the West (Figure
1.4). More specifically, the majority of these African immigrants live and work in the major metropolitan areas of Texas, California, New York, Maryland, New Jersey, Massachusetts and
Virginia (Figure 1.5). This is because these metro areas have many educational opportunities, are
Figure 1.4: Distribution of African Immigrants by Continental US State (Source: Zong and Batalova, 2017)
Figure 1.5: Distribution of African Immigrants by Major US Metropolitan Area (Source: Limits to Growth, 2014) 7 their primary entry points, have similar weather to that of their home countries in Africa, and have large existing networks that help them to settle easily in the US. All of these factors have played a key role in Nigerian immigration to the US (Ette, 2012).
Although Ohio is not the leading home of African immigrants in the US, it has an estimated 100,000 of them in major cities like Columbus, Cincinnati, Cleveland, Dayton, and
Toledo (New African Immigrants Commission, 2018). Nigerians and other African immigrants have undoubtedly made an economic, social, demographic and cultural impact on Ohio and the
US at large. However, much cannot be said about Nigerians in the US without the context of
African immigration studies in the US even as the history of Africans in the US is not also complete without the history of Nigerians in the US and elsewhere given their prominence.
Indeed, according to Prof. PLO Lumumba, “Africa will be ready to take its rightful position in the world only when Nigeria is ready” (Speech at Cleveland State University in 2018).
Africans, whether through forced or voluntary migration have culturally impacted the
United States and are now the third largest racial group in the country. Therefore, the cultural imprint of Africans on the US is, for instance, self-evident in many of its metropolitan regions.
African immigrants have for many years contributed both culturally and economically to the US in areas such as medicine, education, and engineering (Arthur, 2000). Moreover, Nigerians and other African immigrants in the US contribute to its population growth by helping to counter its low fertility rate, which is now below replacement level — at this level, natural mortality rates could reduce the nation’s population to unsustainable levels. According to the US Census
Bureau, immigration adds a net gain to the US population every twenty-nine (29) seconds (US and World Population Clock – Census Bureau, 2018), thereby helping to give the US a small positive annual population growth rate of 0.62% (Frey, 2018). 8
Nigerians account for the largest share of the African immigrant population in the US.
Between 1974 and 1995, the number of Nigerian immigrants rose from 670 to 6,818 (Gordon,
2000). As shown in Figure 1.6 only nine (9) African countries accounted for 65.7% of the
African immigrant population in the US in 2015, while another twelve (12) accounted for 19.7%, and the remaining thirty-three (33) countries accounted for 14.6%. In other words, the 21 African countries in Figure 1.6 accounted for 1,760,000 (or 85.4%) of the 2,060,000 African immigrants in the US in that year.
Figure 1.6: Immigration to the US by African Country, 2015 (Source: Pew Research Center, 2017)
Specifically, Nigeria had the highest number of African immigrants (327,000 or 15.87%) in the US in 2015 followed by Ethiopia (222,000 or 10.77%), Egypt (192,000 or 9.32%), Ghana
(155,000 or 7.5%), Kenya (136,000 or 6.6%) South Africa (92,000 or 4.5%), Somalia (80,000 or
3.9%), Morocco (76,000 or 3.7%), and Liberia (74,000 or 3.6%). Together, these countries accounted for 65.7% of the African immigrants in the US in that year. These countries had most 9 of the African immigrants in the country because they either have the largest economies in
Africa (e.g., Nigeria, South Africa and Egypt), went through devastating civil wars (e.g., Liberia and Ethiopia) and famines (Ethiopia), speak English (e.g., Nigeria, South Africa, Kenya) and/or have a long history of association with the US (e.g., Kenya and Egypt).
In contrast, the majority of the 888,000 African immigrants in the United States a decade earlier (in year 2000) were from Nigeria, South Africa, Liberia, Cape Verde, Egypt, Ghana,
Kenya, Ethiopia, Somalia and Eritrea (Figure 1.2). The difference in order can be attributed to political and socioeconomic circumstances in the US and these nations in 2000. For instance, the
Liberian civil war of 1989 -1996 brought many Liberian refugees to the US around the year
2000. Similarly, the end of the minority white apartheid regime in South Africa in 1994 led to significant South African emigration to the US in the period leading up to 2000. Despite changes in the national origins of African immigrants in the United States, Nigeria remains at the top of the ladder. In 2000, Nigerians constituted 17 percent of the African immigrant population in the
United States (Gordon, 1998 and Arthur, 2000) and continued to increase their dominance (Pew
Research Center, 2017).
Currently, an estimated 376,000 Nigerian immigrants reside in the United States. Aside from being the largest African immigrant population in the US, Nigerians account for 0.6% of the total United States’ population (MPI, 2015). Hence, it is worthy to study their spatial spread and socioeconomic impacts at the local and regional level.
1.2 Purpose of Study
The contributions of African and Nigerian immigrants to the United States’ social and economic growth is substantial. Yet, African and Nigerian immigrants in the US are sometimes seen as an economic burden. While many American citizens recognize the positive impact of 10
African and Nigerian immigrants on the country’s cultural diversity and economic growth, some see them as a threat to national security and as a burden on the US economy. According to Jones
(2019), 62% of Americans are of the opinion that immigrants strengthen the US because they are hardworking, talented and skilled. However, 28% of Americans believe that immigrants are a burden to America because they reduce the jobs, housing, and healthcare resources that are available to Americans.
Although most immigrants leave their home country to seek a better life in the United
States, things do not always work out for them once they get here. In the case of Nigerian immigrants, while some are successful, some are also struggling because the cost of living in the
US is not only high, but many have difficulty finding good jobs because they lack work permits and residency documents. Some are also illegal immigrants in the United States by virtue of overstaying their visas.
To get a better understanding of the contributions and situation of Nigerian immigrants in the US, it is important to study them closely in order to properly characterize them, know what they are doing, their academic status, and life outcomes.
Specifically, this study looks at the geographical distribution and situation of Nigerian immigrants in Northwest Ohio, more so in the Toledo metropolitan region in order to understand their well-being and socioeconomic contribution to the US and Nigeria. This study also adds to the few studies on Nigerian immigrants in the USA, particularly in the Midwestern region that has received less scholarly attention because of its relatively low concentration of Nigerians.
1.3 Aim and Objectives
This research looks at Nigerians in Toledo metropolitan area in terms of their spatial distribution, socioeconomic status, and contributions to their former and current homeland. 11
Specifically, the study’s objectives include:
1. Mapping the distribution of Nigerian immigrants in Toledo metropolitan region.
2. Outlining the socioeconomic make up of Nigerian immigrants in the area.
3. Understanding why they have chosen to settle in the Toledo, Ohio, area.
4. Understanding Nigerian Immigrants socioeconomic well-being.
5. Understanding their dominant push factors out of Nigeria and pull factors into the US and
specifically the Toledo MSA.
6. Understanding their contribution to Toledo MSA and their former homeland (Nigeria).
1.4 Significance of Study
The issue of US immigration is constantly in the minds of academicians, administrators, government, and the general public; with immigration from Mexico receiving more attention than that from Africa. This is not surprising because distance is a big factor in spatial interaction; a country like Mexico that shares a boundary with the US is thus bound to have a higher influx of emigrants to the US than the African continent because of geographic proximity. Conversely,
African countries like Nigeria with no shared land boundaries with the US and that are thousands of miles away from the US by air and sea, send fewer migrants to the country. Nevertheless,
African immigrants, despite coming from countries like Nigeria which is approximately 6,624 miles (10,661 kilometers) from the US or about 11.83 hours away by air (Figure 1.7) also deserve scholarly attention in order to fully understand the current US immigration landscape.
Therefore, the importance of this study lies in its quest to understand the spatial distribution, socioeconomic status, and developmental contributions of Nigerian immigrants in the Toledo Metropolitan Area. Moreover, this study seeks to highlight the reasons why Nigerians 12 are migrating to Toledo even though studies show that most Nigerian immigrants in the US are based in Texas and New York (Anderson, 2017).
Figure 1.7: Distance from the United States to Nigeria (Source: www.distancefromto.net)
The study also adds to the existing literature on Nigerian (African) immigration studies that cuts across fields such as geography and sociology. It also explores the application of geospatial analysis tools in such endeavors. Moreover, this study hopes to inform immigration policy in addition to laying a foundation that future studies on Nigerian (and African) immigration to the US can build on. This study also unveils the characteristics of Nigerian immigrants in the Toledo metropolitan region in relation to their socioeconomic wellbeing, incorporation process, and their contribution to the economies of Toledo metropolitan region, the broader US, and Nigeria.
1.5 Research Questions
This study is supported by the following questions which create the basis for the research: 13
1. What is the spatial distribution of Nigerian immigrants in the Toledo Metropolitan
Region?
2. What are the socioeconomic contributions of Nigerian immigrants to the Toledo
Metropolitan region, the US, and Nigeria?
3. How has the socioeconomic status (SES) of Nigerian immigrants in the Toledo
Metropolitan region changed since their immigration to the United States?
1.6 Definition of Terms
Spatial Distribution: This refers to the geographical spread of phenomena and/ or their graphical representation on map. In this study, we are mainly concerned with the spatial distribution of Nigerians in the Toledo metropolitan region.
Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA): This term describes a region with a concentration of people and a center of economic activities. In the US, it describes regions with a minimum population of 50,000 that are connected to the surrounding rural population (Lush and Hinton,
2007).
Immigration: This term refers to the permanent or temporal in-movement of people from their home country to a foreign country.
Emigration: This involves the out-movement of people from their country of origin to another on a permanent or temporal basis.
Immigrants: People coming into a foreign country to live permanently or temporarily
Emigrants: People leaving their home country to another to live permanently or temporarily.
1.7 Scope of Study
This study is focused on the geography and socioeconomic characteristics of Nigerian immigrants in the Toledo Metropolitan Region in Northwest Ohio, USA. The data used in the 14 study were obtained from primary (survey) and secondary sources such as the US Census
Bureau. The Toledo Metropolitan Region consists of Lucas, Wood, Ottawa, and Fulton counties.
The main cities in this region are Toledo (pop. 278,508), Bowling Green (pop. 31,820),
Perrysburg (pop. 21,482), Maumee (pop. 13,787), Sylvania (pop. 18,941), Oregon (pop. 19,973),
Rossford (pop. 6,524), Northwood (pop. 5,396), and Wauseon (pop. 7,342).
1.8 Study Limitations
Time and social Constraints: Because of the short duration of my master’s degree program, time for data collection, analysis and interpretation was quite limited. In particular, this research could have benefited from more time to collect survey data since it took a while to prepare the survey instrument, get institutional Human Subjects Research approval, and to get my respondents to trust me enough to respond to my Qualtrics survey. These factors delayed my survey responses and inevitably limited the time available to me for data analysis and interpretation.
Financial Constraints: These mainly took the form of insufficient financial resources to collect data. Movement to and from Bowling Green to my (mostly Toledo) study area to canvass for study participants was financially challenging and this negatively impacted the number of respondents (Nigerian Immigrants) I was able to connect with and obtain survey data from.
Legal Constraints: I conducted this data at a time of heightened change and enforcement of US immigration laws by the Trump administration. As a result, it took a longer time to get enough respondents for my study. Many others did not participate out of fear that the study could somehow expose them to the government.
Sources of Data: I used primary and secondary data sources in this study. The main primary data source used is a survey of Nigerian immigrants in the Toledo Metropolitan region. In 15 addition, I relied on secondary data sources such as the US Census, and existing publications, and newspaper articles on Nigerian immigrants in the US. There were however hardly any sources on Nigerian immigrants in the Toledo MSA and Ohio in general. This limited available background information for this study, though it also underscored the need for this study.
1.9 Thesis Structure
This thesis is broken down into six chapters. Chapter One introduces the study and its objectives, Chapter Two focuses on the literature review and the theoretical framework of the study, while Chapter Three is devoted to the research methodology. In Chapter Four, I present a profile of Nigerian immigrants in the USA and Toledo MSA while in Chapter Five, I specifically deal with data presentation, analysis, and interpretation. Finally, in Chapter Six, I present a summary of study findings, limitations of the study, policy recommendations, suggestions for further studies, and conclusions. 16
CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW AND THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK
2.1 Introduction
This chapter reviews the literature and theoretical frameworks that inform this study on the geographical and socioeconomic characteristics and contributions of Nigerians in the Toledo
Metropolitan Area to the US and Nigerian economies. In this chapter, I review the literature on
Nigerian immigrants in the US to identify the areas that previous research has covered to not only form the basis of this study but to also identify the gaps that this study can fill.
2.2 Literature Review
Nigerians in the US have an interesting socioeconomic profile that put them among the most accomplished and successful immigrant groups in the US (Fosco, 2018). For instance, 29 percent of Nigerians in the US have graduate degrees compared to 11 percent of the entire US population, 45 percent of Nigerians in the US work in education services (Fosco, 2018 and ACS,
2016), while others work in medical and health services, information technology, sales, and public offices.
Many Nigerians have created prominent profiles in the US and have contributed significantly in several areas. In the area of athletics, for instance, prominent Nigerians include people like Hakeem Olajuwon who was a professional NBA basketball player, Ade Coker and
Jean Harbor, who played for the US national soccer team, and Victor Adeyanju a former
American footballer (Books LLC, 2010). Because of their high level of education, many
Nigerians (e.g., Williams S. Dodge, Michael C. Mbabuike and Francis Abiola Irele) are professors in US universities and Victor Ukpolo, a former chancellor of Southern University in
New Orleans, (SUNO) is believed to be the first native African to head a university in the US
(Books LLC, 2010). In the area of medicine, Dr. Oluyinka Olutoye recorded a major feat in 17 modern medicine by removing a 23-week-old baby from her mother’s womb, operating on it, and returning it to the womb to be born normally at 36 weeks (Popoola, 2017).
For these and many other reasons, it is pertinent to study the contributions of Nigerians closely at the national and local levels. Before focusing on the socioeconomic characteristics of
Nigerians in the Toledo MSA, below I describe their national profile as captured in various US databases in the 2000-2017 period.
The growing socioeconomic diversity of immigrants in the US requires more attention from policy makers and researchers, because immigrants have become a major component of
American society (Grieco, 2003). Since the literature has not paid as much attention to African immigration to the US (Kamya, 1997), Nigerians as a sub-group of African immigrants have also been under-studied. Nevertheless, past research on Nigerian immigrants in the US has concentrated on issues like employment and income (Rodriquez, 2009), incorporation, assimilation, race, identity, acculturation, and challenges (Ette, 2012; Ukochovwera, 2014), gender and leadership roles (Mouka, 2016), experience and challenges of newcomers
(Nwabuzor, 2017), health issues and gender (Ezeobele et. al, 2010), education, acculturation and adjustment in America (Morgan, 1963; Ndika, 2013; Onwujuba and Marks, 2015), demographic factors and attitudes (Okafor, 2009), and adaptation (Onwujuba, 2015). In 2014, Ukochovwera explored the experiences of Nigerians in adjusting and settling in North Carolina while
Rodriquez (2009) studied the economic adaptation and self-employment experience of Nigerian immigrants in New York.
Ezeobele, et. al (2009) in their study of depression as a health issue found that Nigerian- born immigrant women in the US find it difficult to differentiate depression from other mental illnesses, relating it to craziness and attacks by evil spirits. Their study also revealed that they 18 viewed depression, in most cases, in spiritual and religious terms. While they found that acknowledging one’s depression could lead to isolation, rejection, and conflicts; they also identified education as a factor that can improve the situation of depressed Nigerian women in the US. The study revealed that their cultural beliefs biased their perception of depression.
Ukochovwera (2014) found that Nigerians in North Carolina did not always find what they came for in the US. They struggled to adapt to the unfamiliar and to adjust to the culture of the host society. They lacked adequate health care and had various marital challenges and broken relationships. Finding a job was also problematic for them. This is in part attributed to their accent that Americans found difficult to understand, even though Nigeria was a British colony that has English as one of its primary languages. But, despite their struggles, they managed to retain some of their cultural values and maintain ties with their home country. This situation is however different from the “high socioeconomic status” picture painted of Nigerians at the national level (Fosco, 2018). My study therefore seeks to find if the socioeconomic characteristics of Nigerians in Toledo MSA agree or disagree with this picture of success.
Rodriguez (2009) found in his study of the economic adaptation and self-employment experience of Nigerian immigrants in New York City that, unlike the explanation provided by many theories that immigrants become self-employed because of issues like lack of educational skills or inability to speak English; Nigerians in the US choose to become entrepreneurs because they value self-employment. Therefore, many of them aspire to create jobs for themselves instead of working for government or private sector entities for the rest of their lives. Rodriguez also discovered that in the long term, self-employment reduced long hours of work and produced more income, even though things may be rough and tough in the beginning. In the early years, self-employed individuals often have to work long hours without pay and have to find ways to 19 finance their businesses. The study also revealed that women are more likely to be self-employed than men who often engage in hourly paid jobs, in government or the private sector. Through my study, I also hope to find out if Nigerians in Toledo MSA are mostly employees or entrepreneurs and/or job creators.
Morgan (1963) looked at the adjustment of Nigerian students to the academic life and teaching methods of the US. He found that unlike other foreign students, Nigerian students were performing as well as Native-borns because of their willingness to excel, their good educational background, training and learning methods, and the fear of not wanting to be seen as failures
(Morgan, 1963).
Onwujuba and Marks (2015) examined the experiences of Nigerians in the US as parents.
Their study revealed that Nigerians instill their homeland values and culture into their children while raising them in the US given its often strongly divergent cultural values.
Ndika’s (2013) study that sought to identify the acculturation group memberships of
Nigerian immigrants in the US on the basis of sociodemographic data, classified study participants into “five acculturation groups, which were integration, assimilation, separation, assimilation and separation, as well as integration and assimilation” (pp.1). The study found that majority of the Nigerians in her study endorsed the assimilation and separation strategy, with integration being the least favored option. This led Ndika to conclude that “Nigerians in the
United States, and perhaps Africans in general, may be using two parallel acculturation strategies to navigate the mainstream culture in plural societies” (pp. 1). Most of them may thus be pursuing assimilation in some areas of life (e.g., work) and separation in others (e.g., some social aspects like selection of marriage partners). This dual strategy “is likely linked to their multicultural backgrounds. Therefore, integration as an acculturation strategy may not be the 20 favored option among Nigerians living in the United States. Furthermore, immigration support and self-efficacy were revealed as important markers for the classification of the Nigerian sample into acculturation groups” (pp.1). The acculturation strategy of Nigerians in Toledo MSA is something that I also wish to explore.
Ette (2012) found that many Nigerians in the US still maintain ties with their homeland, send money to family members and friends, and value and retain their culture despite going through the US acculturation process thereby exposing themselves to significant acculturative stress (Berry et al, 1987) as also noted by Ndika (2013). Ette also found that social networks and education have played a key role in Nigerian immigration to the US.
Although these studies have addressed many issues relating to Nigerians in the US, none has focused on those in the Midwest nor considered the spatial pattern and distribution of
Nigerians in the US at the intra-metropolitan scale. Hence, the reason for this study’s focus on this issue using the case study of Nigerians in the Toledo MSA.
2.3 Theoretical Framework
Because of the complexity of immigration, scholars in the fields of geography and sociology have advanced a number of theories to explain its various aspects e.g., its causes and consequences. The main theories that help us to understand why people migrate from place to place include: Push-Pull Theory, Neoclassical Economic Theory, The New Economics of Labor
Migration (NELM), The Dual-Labor Market Theory, The Social Network Theory, Myrdal’s
Cumulative Causation Theory, Institutional Theory, and The World System Theory. The following is a brief discussion of these theories and their application to Nigerian immigration to the US. 21
2.3.1 Push-Pull Theory
This theory argues that people move from one country to another based on some factors that are present or absent in a country. It differentiates poor countries from the rich countries in terms of living standards, infrastructure, and freedom. According to Porte and Rumbaut (2006), immigrants come to the US because they desire a better standard of living and to be financially stable.
2.3.1.1 Push Factors
According to push-pull theory, the movement of people from one country to another can be traced to differences in development that are evident in different parts of the world. A number of push factors are responsible for why people migrate from one country to another. Push factors are those that influence the voluntary or forceful movement of people out of a country (Heisel,
1982, Adepoju, 1998). These factors may be economic, environmental, cultural and socio- political in nature. Poor economic conditions are the major force behind emigration in most parts of the world. Natural disasters, which may include floods, earthquakes, fire outbreaks, droughts and famine, are common push factors. Political instability and religious crises are also major social factors. Many of these factors e.g. poor economic conditions in Nigeria help to explain the migration of Nigerians to the USA.
2.3.1.2 Pull Factors
Many factors attract and influence people’s decision to migrate to another country from their home country or another host country. Some of these factors include job opportunities, a better political and economic environment, quality of education, infrastructure and access to better life and improved standards of living. In most cases, these factors are those that are lacking 22 in the immigrant’s home country. Many Nigerian immigrants thus come to the US in search of better opportunities.
2.3.2 Neoclassical Economic Theory
Neoclassical theory argues that the main cause of international migration is the difference that exists between the demand and supply of labor in a geographic location. This theory stresses the importance of labor migration in affecting economic development (Todaro, 1976) as people move from places where wages are low to places where wages are high or reasonable (Massey et al, 1993). Using the wage disparity model, Harris and Todaro (1970), argued that job opportunities and differences in wages in different parts of the world are the main reasons why people migrate from one country to another. While the labor sending country is compensated with remittances to support family members and to add to the GDP of the country, the receiving country’s economy is boosted through the labor and consumption of the immigrants (Prakash,
2009).
Many of the Nigerians in the US today relocated here because of lack of jobs and low income in Nigeria. Although, Nigeria is endowed with highly skilled people, its economy is not able to support all of them. The number of the working age Nigerians has long outnumbered the available jobs and those that are fortunate to secure jobs are not well paid. Therefore, neoclassical theory not only helps to explain why Nigerians seek greener pastures in the United
States but also why they migrate from rural to urban areas in Nigeria. Most of those who migrate are either underemployed or unemployed and are looking for a better way of earning a reasonable income. 23
2.3.3 The New Economics of Labor Migration (NELM)
Unlike the neoclassical theory, this theory assumes that the decision to migrate is not solely made by an individual but by families, households, or similar groups. This decision however may not be for income alone but is often a proactive measure to guard against economic and market failures that could negatively affect the income of a family (Stark, 1984 and 1991).
When the economy of Nigeria was stable in the 1960s, few people really wanted to migrate abroad. Parents even used to encourage or force their children to seek quality education outside the country. Since the onset of the economic crises of the 1970s, it has become normal for families to invest in their future by sending some members of their families abroad. This is partly why remittances from the US to Nigeria in 2017 (Table 2.1) amounted to $6,190.5 million dollars (countryeconomy.com).
Table: 2.1 Nigeria: Remittances Received by Country of Origin in Millions of USD (2017) Country Amount United States $6,190.5 United Kingdom $4,119.0 Total $10,309.5 (Source: countryeconomy.com)
2.3.4 The Dual-Labor Market Theory
Piore developed this theory in 1979. It suggests that people migrate from one country to another when the receiving country is in need of workers to fill certain job positions due to a shortage of labor. It focused on changes in the economic structure and how they trigger demand for workers leading to migration (Massey et al, 1993). This theory divides the labor market into the primary and secondary sectors. The highly skilled immigrants work in the primary sector and earn high income while the unskilled ones work in the secondary sector for low wages. 24
The American economy has labor shortages in the primary and secondary sectors that are filled by immigrants from all over the world, including Nigeria. While there are a lot of unemployed skilled and unskilled workers in Nigeria because of lack of jobs, the United States economy requires more workers than are locally available. Therefore, Nigerian immigrants are part of the labor migration meeting the US demand for workers in various sectors of the economy. Thus, Nigerian immigrants in the US work in many sectors e.g. as professors in education, as physicians in the medical sector, and as engineers, in many public and private entities. While most Nigerians work in the high skill US economic sectors, others work in lower skill areas like in nursing homes for the elderly.
2.3.5 The Social Network Theory
This theory focuses on people migrating to reunite with families and friends abroad.
Migratory movements stem from links between sending and receiving countries, e.g. family ties or trading activities (Castles and Miller, 2009). Because of the existing network and information provided by those in the diaspora about job opportunities, standards of living and wage disparities, those left at home are directly or indirectly encouraged to migrate to join them
(Vertovec 2002; Dustmann and Glitz, 2005). As a result of this, international migration is promoted through family reunification and other social avenues.
Many Nigerians have relocated to the United States because they have family members, friends or social groups in the country that they wish to join based on the information they have received from them regarding better standards of living, job opportunities, better incomes, security, and freedom from religious persecution and other factors. These social networks are central to the quick settling and stabilization of new Nigerian immigrants in the US as the gain accommodation, financial support, and job-hunting skills through them. 25
2.3.6 Myrdal’s Cumulative Causation Theory
As the name implies, Gunnar Myrdal developed this theory in 1956. Cumulative causation theory argues that immigration is influenced by the rate and migratory experience of a sending country to a particular destination country such that certain migration streams build on their own momentum. Individual decisions to migrate to another country could also be influenced by demand from the destination country for nationalities from a given sending country. This decision is influenced by better opportunities such as better pay, infrastructure, and job opportunities available at the destination country.
The United States has been a choice country for many Nigerians migrating abroad. The demand for skilled Nigerians in various sectors in the US is enormous with, for instance,
Nigerians alone accounting for 77% of the black medical doctors in the US (AfricaDigest, 2019).
They number around 5,000 and have their own Association of Nigerian Physicians in the
America which has been in existence since 1993 (Africa Prime News, 2018; ANPA, 2019). The representation of Nigerians in engineering, law, and education is also high. America has also become the destination of choice for most Nigerians seeking higher education abroad as prior
Nigerian graduates of US universities recruit other Nigerians into them. This theory also helps to explain the concentration of Nigerian immigrants in places like Houston, which now has one of the largest clusters of Nigerians in the USA.
2.3.7 Institutional Theory
This theory emphasizes the role of institutions in legal and illegal international migration.
According to Massey et. al, 1993, there is a wide mismatch between the number of people seeking job opportunities in industrialized countries and the limited immigrant visas that these countries are willing to make available. While non-profit organizations focus on humanitarian 26 services to immigrants, profit making, or profit-oriented organizations focus on maximizing profit by taking advantage of cheap illegal immigrant labor (Massey et. al, 1993).
This theory applies to a few Nigerian immigrants in the US since Nigeria does not share a border with the US like Mexico and Canada. Therefore, it is rare for Nigerians to immigrate into the US without proper documentation. Nevertheless, some Nigerians fall out status and continue to stay and work in the US illegally.
2.3.8 The World Systems Theory
Also referred to as globalization theory, this theory claims that people migrate internationally because globalization has integrated the world and fostered easy interaction between the countries across the globe. World systems theory relates the determinants of migration to structural changes in the world labor market leading to migration that is enabled by modern global transport and communication systems (Wallerstein, 1974). The theory argues that while developing countries depend on developed nations for investment and economic growth, developed nations also look to developing nations for resources such as land, materials and labor.
This is because there is an interdependence of economies as new forms of global production have arisen (Massey et al. 1993, Sassen 1988, Skeldon 1997, Silver 2003). The influence of this theory is country specific; with developing nations mostly sending immigrants to the developed countries that colonized them and to countries with which they have mutual cultural or historical links.
Even though Nigeria was colonized by the British, the country has developed close cultural (both speak English), military, economic (e.g., oil sector) ties with the US. For instance,
CAMAC Corporation is a US-based Nigerian immigrant owned global energy company with operations in the US, Nigeria, and other parts of the globe (Palk, 2010). Thus, while Nigeria 27 depends on the US for technology, ammunitions, finished products and basic services, the US also looks to Nigeria for raw materials, laborers (skilled) and trading/business activities. These relationships are mediated by their direct transport and communication links e.g., direct daily
Delta Airline flights between Atlanta and New York City, US, and Lagos, Nigeria (Webmaster,
2017).
In summary, the neoclassical, social network and world system theories are more applicable to Nigerian immigrants. These theories better explain Nigerian immigrants’ desire to access the education and better socioeconomic opportunities in the US.
2.4 The Legal Framework of US Immigration
Over the years, immigrants into the US have changed and become more diverse because of globalization and changes in US immigration laws. The national origin of the new immigrants is much broader now compared to what it was in the beginning. In addition, the quality of new immigrants to the US in terms of socioeconomic status (e.g., level of education, profession and income) is varied. Therefore, their integration into American society involves different laws and processes.
In attempt to protect and satisfy its interests, the US continues to amend its immigration laws. For instance, between 1986 and 2013, the US immigration Act was amended 143 times
(Peters et al, 2013 pp 226) to tackle issues relating to immigrant origins, the dominance of
European immigrants, and the need to satisfy US citizen interests.
Although, the US had a variety of immigration laws and regulations before 1952, the turning point of contemporary US immigration began with the enactment of the Immigration and
Nationality Act (INA) of 1952. This law formed the foundation on which subsequent immigration acts were built. These include; The Immigration and Naturalization Act of 1965, 28
The Refugee Act of 1980, The Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986, The Immigration
Act of 1990, The Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrants Responsibility Act of 1996, and
The USA PATRIOT Act of 2001. Since 2001, there have been many other attempts in the US congress to reform US immigration policy. However, none of these attempts have had as much impact on Nigerian immigration to the US as the laws reviewed below.
2.4.1 Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) of 1952
This Act is the foundation of subsequent US immigration laws because it updated and reorganized the Immigration Act of 1924 and upheld immigrant quotas based on national origin
(Peters et al, 2013). The Act gave priority to the immigration of Europeans and other Westerners while Africa was excluded. Therefore, Nigerians could not participate in the US immigration programs of the time partly because they were still under British colonial rule until October 1,
1960.
2.4.2 Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965
This Immigration Act dropped the national origins quota system and gave preference to family reunification and to the attraction of skilled workers to the US (Smith, 2009). The Act made the US less dependent on European immigrants as it opened doors to immigrants from
Latin America, Asia and Africa. Since this Act allows US citizens and legal residents to bring their spouses, children and other close family members to the US; it is one of the most crucial avenues through which many Nigerians gain entry into the US. Nigerians in Toledo metropolitan area are not exempt from this.
The Immigration Act of 1965 also made it possible for highly skilled immigrants to migrate to the US permanently or on a temporal basis. Many Nigerians in the US today came as professionals with valuable skills acquired in their home country or elsewhere; skills that 29 qualified them to benefit from US employment-based immigration avenues like the H-1B employment visas that were introduced later by The Immigration Act of 1990. Majority of the
Nigerian medical doctors and engineers in Toledo metropolitan area migrated to the US on H-1B visas and eventually became citizens or US permanent residents.
2.4.3 Refugee Act of 1980
The US government, through the Refugee Act of 1980, made provision for people who are in danger of persecution in their home countries because of politics, race, religion or civil conflict to seek refuge or protection in the US. Although, there are political and religious crises in the Northern parts of Nigeria where the Islamic Boko-Haram group is active, few Nigerians in the US enter the country as refugees. Most come here to study, work and to reunite with their families.
2.4.4 The Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986
This immigration law was enacted to curb the flow of illegal immigrants into US.
Primarily, this law was passed to legalize the existence of millions of undocumented immigrants in the US. Some Nigerians benefited from the status adjustment that this Act offered.
2.4.5 The Diversity Visa Program (Immigration Act of 1990)
This immigration policy was created in 1990 to attract immigrants from countries that are underrepresented in the US population (i.e., those with a low number of immigrants). The purpose of this program is to embrace and encourage cultural diversity in the US, attract skilled/educated immigrants, and investors to the US. Nigerians participated in this program until
2015 when they were excluded because they are now well represented in the US population.
Therefore, Nigerians in the Toledo metropolitan area and other parts of the US who came in or before 2015 might have benefited from the program. 30
2.4.6 The Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996
This Act was introduced to strengthen US immigration systems by tightening the border against illegal immigrants with fake documents and by creating a system of confirming the eligibility of immigrants to work in the US. Aside from the work eligibility requirement, this Act has not had much impact on Nigerian immigration to US since most Nigerian immigrants to the
US are documented or come in legally.
2.4.7 USA PATRIOT Act of 2001
Owing to the 9/11 terrorist attack on the US, this Act was enacted to protect major US borders against terrorism. This led to more strict immigration policies that are designed to weed out potential terrorists. Although, Nigerians pose little to no terrorist threat to the US, it is likely that the ACT has somewhat slowed down Nigerian immigration to the US.
Overall, Nigerian immigrants benefitted more from the Immigration and National Act of
1965 and the Immigration of Act 1990 which embrace family reunification, skilled workers and cultural diversity in the US immigration stream.
2.5 Framework of US Immigrant Incorporation
Immigrant incorporation in the US occurs through the processes of assimilation, separation, marginalization and integration (Berry, 1997). These processes can be best described using the acculturation model in Figure 2.1 (Berry, 1997).
Acculturation a two-way process whereby the host and immigrant try to accommodate each other by learning each other’s cultures, values, languages and practices. Acculturation results in two-way changes between the host society and its immigrants though the degree to which this happens varies (Gibson, 2001). 31
Figure 2.1: Acculturation Model (Source: Berry, 1997 and Hoai-Thu Truong, 2016)
2.5.1 Assimilation
Assimilation requires immigrants to learn, understand and fully adopt the social characteristics of the host society. In most cases, assimilation occurs unconsciously in the process of interaction with the host society though the immigrant must show believe that one’s culture is less important than that of the host society. Therefore, the immigrant exhibits low identification with his/her heritage culture while identifying highly with US culture. While some
Nigerians in the United States have assimilated, many have not because they came in recently in the global era. Their race, strong ties to Nigeria, and the existence of good modern transport and communication systems complicate assimilation and makes them transnational migrants.
Transnational migration is a “process of movement and settlement across international borders in which individuals maintain or build multiple networks of connection to their country of origin while at the same time settling in a new country” (Fouron & Glick-Schiller 2001, p.60). 32
Moreover, Nigerians are highly educated and are not as intimidated or pressured to assimilate into US society. Nevertheless, they do adjust to it in areas such as adopting US accents in order to succeed professionally. Those who become US citizens assimilate progressively into
US culture.
2.5.2 Separation
This occurs when immigrants hold on to their heritage’s cultural values, norms, languages and beliefs. Unlike assimilation, they refuse to take up new cultures and seek to distinguish themselves from the host society (Berry, 1997). Nigerians in the US do this selectively. Although, they value their cultures, they are willing to learn the cultures of their host society in order to be relevant and successful here. They thus retain some of their cultural values, practices, and languages while also acquiring those of the host society.
2.5.3 Marginalization
Immigrants are marginalized when they show little or no interest in their original cultures as well as those of their host society. This situation is rare but could result from a sense of cultural loss and discrimination by the host society. This model does not describe Nigerians in the US well because they value their culture and as well as that of the host society. Nevertheless,
Nigerian immigrants experience some degree of marginalization due to anti-black racism from the host society.
2.5.4 Integration
According to Migration Policy Institute (2019), immigrant integration involves processes that facilitate economic mobility and social inclusion of the foreign born. It transitions the immigrant from an outsider to an insider of the host society. Most Nigerians in the US belong to this category because they are highly educated. Nigerians can adopt the cultures, norms, values, 33 and language of the host society while retaining their heritage values and cultures. While
Nigerians in the US do not necessarily assimilate, their skills enable them to integrate successfully into US society. They are thus less subject to separation and marginalization.
Because most Nigerians are highly educated, majority of them integrate easily into the
US society rather than being assimilated. Although, some of them are of low SES which forces them to be assimilated, they rarely become separated or marginalized.
34
CHAPTER THREE: RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
3.1 Introduction
This section is focused on the processes, methods and sources of data used to carry out this study. This also involves exploring the functionalities of geospatial and statistical tools in gathering, analyzing, and interpreting data relating to Nigerian immigrants in the Toledo MSA.
3.2 Research Design
In this study, I used both quantitative and qualitative methods (or mixed methods) to collect and analyze data on Nigerian immigrants. The primary data which I collected via an online survey provided complementary data to pre-existing US Census data on the socioeconomic characteristics of Nigerians in the Toledo MSA. The analysis of the spatial distribution of Nigerians in the Toledo MSA was done using US Census Bureau data. In other words, the GIS mapping of Nigerian immigrants was based on census data.
Because US immigration issues are sensitive, especially in the current Trump administration, the original data I collected via online survey can only be used for basic descriptive statistics, tables, and charts. The process of this study included identifying the study population and where to find them, selection methods, sources and collection of data, as well as identifying the methods of data analysis.
3.3 Study Population and Selection Methods
My target population for this study was Nigerian immigrants in Toledo MSA (Lucas,
Wood, Ottawa and Fulton Counties) regardless of their citizenship status or visa type. I recruited my survey participants from local colleges, work places, and Nigerian associations, churches, and social gatherings. 35
In gathering the primary data, I used a cluster sampling technique to randomly select my study subjects. This was done by recognizing that the different categories (students, workers, and association and church members) of Nigerian immigrants in Toledo MSA are unique. This ensured that the study did not over-focus on a particular set of people. Within each cluster, snowball methods were used to recruit respondents.
3.4 Data Sources and Collection Methods
This study used primary and secondary data sources. The primary data source was a structured questionnaire that was developed and deployed through the Qualtrics online platform.
The questionnaire contained questions on various aspects of Nigerian immigrants in the Toledo
(Appendix I). Also, a face to face interview with three (3) self-volunteered Nigerian immigrants provided additional useful data for the study.
The study also relied on secondary data from different publications, journals, newspapers, magazines and the Internet. More importantly, the study used secondary data from US Census
Bureau and derivative data from ESRI’s 2016 Business Analyst tool. These sources were used to obtain background data on the spatial distribution, socioeconomic characteristics, and contributions of Nigerian immigrants in the Toledo Metropolitan Area.
3.5 Methods of Data Analysis
Data collected for this study were analyzed using qualitative and quantitative methods.
The qualitative methods involved organizing and analyzing qualitative data like interview quotes while the quantitative data analysis involved the use of descriptive statistical tools e.g. tables, graphs and charts.
Moreover, for GIS mapping, I used ESRI’s ArcMap 10.3 to analyze the spatial distribution pattern of Nigerian immigrants in the Toledo MSA. 36
3.6 The Study Area: Toledo Metropolitan Region
This project’s study area is in the Northwestern part of the US State of Ohio (Figure 3.1).
Ohio is one of the most important states of the US. It is ranked 34th in terms geographic coverage, and 7th in terms of population among the 50 US states.
Figure 3.1: Location of Ohio in the United States (Source: OnTheWorldMap, 2019)
Specifically, this study was carried out in Toledo metropolitan area. As shown in Figures
3.2 and 3.3, the Toledo metropolitan region consists of four counties in Northwest Ohio and has an areal extent of 1,619 sq. mi. These are Lucas, Wood, Fulton, and Ottawa Counties. Figure 3.2 shows the precise location of the study counties in the state of Ohio.
Toledo Metropolitan Area comprises of Lucas county, Wood county, Ottawa county and
Fulton county (Figure 3.3). It borders the State of Michigan to the North and has strong ties with
Metro Detroit, which is located 40 miles to the north. The vastness of this metropolitan region can be appreciated by its areal extent of 1,619 sq. mi (4,190 km2). Its geographical centroid is at
41.6656’N 83.5753’W. 37
Figure 3.2: Map of the State Ohio Showing Toledo Metropolitan Region
Figure 3.3: Toledo Metropolitan Area 38
According to the US Census Bureau (2016), the population of the Toledo metropolitan area was 651,429 in 2010. It is the sixth largest Metropolitan area, in terms of population in the state of Ohio after the 3Cs- Columbus, Cleveland and Cincinnati plus Dayton and Akron (OH
HomeTownLocator, 2019).
However, Toledo is the study region’s largest city and center of economic activity; it is also the capital of Lucas County and has an area of 84.12sq mi (217.87 km2 Toledo was founded in 1833 as a city in Monroe County, Michigan. It was later re-founded in 1837 after the war of
Toledo which made it a part of Ohio. In 1845, Toledo benefited from the Erie Canal that was used for easy movement of people and trade between it and neighboring regions. With the construction of railroads in the 1880s, immigrants were attracted to Toledo city to set up businesses that led to the economic boom of Toledo Metropolitan Region. This is because rail transport allows for easy trading activities because it can carry bulky goods.
Immigrants were attracted to Toledo beginning in the 19th century because of the opportunities the city offers. People could get good factory jobs made possible by the railroad and local waterways. The city also benefited from the railroad because it encouraged immigration to the city (Federal Reserve Bank of Cleveland, 2018).
The basic economic activities of the Toledo Metropolitan region include manufacturing, transportation, education, health services, leisure activities, trade, and business. In the mid to late
1800s, the city of Toledo attracted many manufacturing industries (including glass, auto, furniture and breweries) when it became a key railway transportation hub of the US Midwest.
This situation also led to population growth because of the influx of immigrants seeking jobs.
Soon, the city became one of the largest in the US, the Glass capital of the world, and a major
Jeep vehicle production center. 39
In 1888, Edward Libby moved his glass factory to Toledo from Massachusetts. The glass industry became a large source of income for the city and employed thousands of people, both citizens and immigrants. This period marked the beginning of Toledo’s economic boom, which affected the region as a whole. Later, in the early 1900s, Toledo became the glass capital of the world and thrived even more (Robert, 2015 pp.106).
By 1970s, major industries in the US embraced the concept of globalization because it offered them avenues to reduce the cost of production with cheap labor. Therefore, Toledo’s glass industry moved to China where regulation was minimal and plenty of cheap labor was available. This marked the beginning of the decline of Toledo and the entire metropolitan area
(Robert, 2015 pg106). Thus, the population of Toledo was 287,208 in 2010 and dropped to
278,508 in 2019 (World Population Review, 2019) though the city is still ranked fourth in population in the state of Ohio.
The city was growing in population and thriving economically until the 1980s when economic downturn hit the city because of industrial restructuring which led to serious declines in the city’s population. Recent efforts to revitalize the economy of Toledo and reverse its population decline have not worked well primarily because of the 2007 -2009 recession that hit major sectors of the city’s economy including manufacturing, transportation, utilities, information, education, health, and professional and business services (Federal Reserve Bank of
Cleveland, 2018). This situation continues to slow down the growth of Toledo MSA despite some recent economic recovery.
As shown in Figure 3.4, the economy of Toledo Metropolitan Region is heavily reliant on manufacturing, education and health services, leisure and hospitality, and mining and construction. The region is weak in financial activities and information because most of these 40 activities are located in bigger cities such as Columbus and Cleveland though some of them exist in Toledo, the heart of the region.
Figure 3.4: Economic Make-Up of Toledo Metropolitan Region (Source: Federal Reserve Bank of Cleveland, 2018)
More than any other sector, manufacturing provides jobs for most of the people in the region. The region is home to large manufacturers such as the Toledo Jeep plant.
Toledo is doing far better in manufacturing activities than Ohio (Figure 3.4) and even the
United States. Using 2014 locational quotients, the concentration of manufacturing industries in
Toledo was 1.7 in that year. This was higher than that of Ohio at 1.5 and the US average of 1.0.
Manufacturing jobs accounted for over 15% of non-farm activities in that year. Before the great recession in 2007 – 2009, the region attracted large number of manufacturing industries because of existing intermodal water, road and rail transportation networks.
In 2016, the population of Toledo Metropolitan area was over 600,000 people which made it the 7th largest metropolitan area in the State of Ohio. Specifically, Toledo MSA had a total population of 605, 221 people in 2016; a slight drop from the 605,956 people that it had in
2015. In 2010, the population of Toledo MSA was 651,429 meaning that the population of 41
Toledo MSA has been declining over the last decade (US Census 2010); a trend that requires urgent government attention to reverse.
The MSA has a median age of 37.3 years. Between 2015 and 2016, the MSA’s median household income grew from $47,093 to $48,822.
Table 3.1 shows the decennial trends of the population of Toledo Metropolitan Region between 1970 and 2016. Although the region’s population was slightly higher (645,857) in 2016 compared to 1970 (644,262), it actually peaked at 658,188 in 2000. Much of the decline in this period is linked to unfavorable economic conditions and to a drop in the fertility rate of the native-born to below replacement level. Nevertheless, domestic in-migration and immigration have helped to steady the region’s population despite mostly recording a negative percentage (-
%) growth rate in the 1970 – 2016 period.
Table 3.1: Decennial Population Trend of Toledo Metropolitan Region Census Year Population % Increase/Decrease 1970 644,262 - 1980 656,940 2.0% 1990 654,157 -0.4% 2000 659,188 0.8% 2010 651,429 -1.2% 2016 645,857 -0.9% (Source: US Census Bureau, 2016)
Majority of the Toledo MSA residents live in Lucas and Wood Counties (Figure 3.5), though the region’s densely populated tracts are in Lucas County (Figure 3.6). This population distribution is responsible for the concentration of most of the region’s economic activities in
Toledo city and its suburbs. Figure 3.7 presents a close-up view of the region’s densely populated census tracts of Lucas and Wood Counties; with the tracts with Nigerian immigrants highlighted in green. 42
Figure 3.5: Population Distribution of Toledo MSA by Tract and Zip Code
Figure 3.6: Population Density of Toledo MSA by Tract
The Toledo MSA is predominantly White. In 2010, for instance, 83.03% of the region’s population was white, while 12.01% was African American, and 4.6% was other race including
Hispanics and Latinos. Conversely, in 2016 the population of the Toledo MSA was 74.6%
White, 14.1% Black and 6.73% Hispanic. Currently, the racial makeup of Toledo MSA is 81.2%
(523,445) white, 14.1% (or 91,006) black, and 4.7% (29,558) other (US Census, 2018). Overall, 43
Figure 3.7: Population Density of Toledo MSA by Tract with Nigerian Tracts Highlighted in Green as shown in Table 3.2, the Toledo MSA’s percent Black population is higher than that of Ohio and the US (Federal Reserve Bank of Cleveland, 2019).
Table 3.2: Racial Composition of Toledo MSA, Ohio and US in 2013 Toledo MSA Ohio United States Total Population (millions) 0.6 11.5 311.5 White 79.2 82.9 74.0 Black 14.3 12.1 12.6 Other 6.5 5.0 13.4 (Source: 2009 – 2013 American Community Survey 5 Years Estimates)
3.7 Detailed Demographic Profile of Zip Codes with Nigerians in Toledo MSA
Below is the demographic and income characteristics of the Zip Code areas that contain most of the Nigerians who participated in the study survey. Table 3.3 summarized this information. 44
Table 3.3: Summary Table of Zip Code Areas of Nigerian Survey Respondents Zip City Population Median Per Household Race Race Race Code Age Capita Income (White) (Black) (Other) Income ($) % % % ($) 43402 Bowling 32,240 27.7 26,673 42,585 87.8 3.6 5.4 Green 43614 Toledo 31,334 39.9 28,128 47,622 74.5 15.4 5.5 43615 Toledo 40,501 38.1 29,634 43,355 65.7 24.6 3.7 43607 Toledo 21,560 33.3 16,567 27,390 65.89 3.8 6.28 43560 Sylvania 32,226 41.3 41,769 85,743 87.7 4.56 7.74 43551 Perrysburg 40,193 38.4 39,014 74,214 89.37 1.73 8.84 43528 Holland 16,551 41.3 38,537 73,948 79.24 9.47 11.29 43537 Maumee 28,163 42.9 38,465 70,541 86.13 5.73 8.14 (Source: US Census, 2017, Cubit, 2019 and Zipdatamap, 2019)
3.7.1 Bowling Green (43402)
Zip Code 43402, excluding 43403 which covers Bowling Green State University, is the only code for the entire city of Bowling Green. The population of the Zip Code is 32,240 and is ranked as the 84th most populous in the State of Ohio and has a median age of 27.7 years (Cubit,
2019). This Zip code area is dominated racially by Whites (87.8%). While Blacks account for
3.6% and others 8.6% of its population (Cubit, 2019). It has a per capita income of $26,673 and a median household income of $42,585 (US Census, 2017, Cubit, 2019).
3.7.2 Toledo (43614)
This Zip code area has a population of 31,334 and a media age of 39.9 years. It is the 91st most populous Zip code in Ohio. Its racial composition is Whites (74.5%), Blacks (15.4%) and
Hispanics (5.5%) (Cubit, 2019). It’s per capita and median household incomes are $28,128 and
$47,622 respectively (Cubit, 2019).
3.7.3 Toledo (43615)
With a population of 40,501 people, this Zip Code area is ranked as the 45th most populated in Ohio and it has a median age of 38.1 years. Its racial breakdown is Whites (65.7%), 45
Blacks (24.6%), and other racial groups (9.7%). Its per capita income is $29,634 while the median household income is $43,355 (Cubit, 2019).
3.7.4 Toledo (43607)
The population of this Zip Code area is 21,560 making it the 190th most populous in the
State of Ohio. It has a median age of 33.3 years. Its racial composition is 24.03% White, 65.89%
Black, and 3.8% Hispanic while others represent 6.28% (Cubit, 2019). Its per capita income is
$16,567 and the median household income is $27,390.
3.7.5 Sylvania (43560)
This Zip Code has a racial breakdown of Whites (87.7%), Blacks (4.56%) and other groups (7.74%) (Zipdata, 2019). This Zip Code has 32,226 people, a per capita income of
$41,769 and a median household income of $85,743.
3.7.6 Perrysburg (43551)
This Zip Code has a total population 40,193 people that is 89.37% White, 1.73% Black and 8.84% other racial groups (Zipdata, 2019). The current per capita income of this Zip Code is
$39,014 while its median household income is $74,214.
3.7.7 Holland (43528)
This Zip Code has 16,551 people whose racial composition is Whites (79.24%), Blacks
(9.47%), and others (11.29%) (Zipdata, 2019). The per capita income of this Zip Code area is
$38,537 while its median household income is $73,948.
3.7.8 Maumee (43537)
This Zip Code has a population of 28,163 people who are 86.13% White, 5.73% Black, and 8.14% other. The per capita income of this Zip Code area is $38,465 while the median household income is $70,541. 46
According to the study survey, these Zip Codes areas have most of the Nigerians in the
Toledo MSA and we can therefore infer that Nigerians in these Zip Codes possesses similar socioeconomic characteristics as those of the residents. 47
CHAPTER FOUR: PROFILE AND DESCRIPTION OF NIGERIAN IMMIGRANTS IN THE USA AND TOLEDO MSA
4.1 Introduction
Nigeria is one of Africa’s 54 countries. It has Africa’s largest economy (about $376 billion) and a population of about 200 million people. Nigeria is located in West Africa and has a very rich culture that consists of over 250 ethnic groups.
Nigeria’s history dates to 1100 BC when the ancestors of modern Nigerians settled in what is today called Nigeria. Over time, they formed diverse kingdoms and empires with various cultural practices. Today, the large number of ethnic groups in Nigeria can be traced to these precolonial African communities that settled in different parts of the country. The Southern part of the country is dominated by Yorubas and Igbos while Hausas and Fulanis dominate the
Northern part. Figure 4.1 shows the spatial extent of the Nigeria’s main regions and their states.
Before colonization in the late 1800s by the British, the notable empires in the Northern part of Nigeria were the Hausa –Bokwoi and Kanem-Bornu which were known for trading in gold, slaves, salt, leather and clothes. In the Southwestern part of the country were the Oyo
Empire headed by Alaafin of Oyo, Ile-Ife headed by Ooni of Ife, and Benin Empire which was the most powerful and influential and was headed by Oba of Benin, while Nri Kingdom emerged in the Eastern part. Although, Nigeria is a nation of over 250 ethnic groups (Figure 4.2), the largest ones are Yoruba (21%), Hausa-Fulani (29%), and Igbo (18%) (Finlay, 2018; Yusuf,
2016).
In the 16th century, Portuguese and Spanish explorers began trading with modern day coastal Nigeria eventually leading to the transatlantic slave trade. During this period, Nigeria became one of the largest points of the transatlantic slave trade in West Africa. Subsequently, the
British took control of the region from the Portuguese and abolished the slave trade in 1807. But 48
Water body Sokoto
Katsina Jigawa Yobe Zamfara Kebbi Kano Borno
Gombe Kaduna Bauchi Niger Adamawa Plateau Kwara Federal Capital Territory Nassarawa ± Oyo Taraba Ekiti Kogi Osun Benue Ogun Ondo Regions of Nigeria Lake Chad Lagos Edo Enugu Anambra Ebonyi Northern Region Cross River Western Region Delta ImoAbia Eastern Region MidWestern Region Rivers Akwa Ibom Bayelsa
0 80 160 320 Miles
Figure 4.1: Regional Map of Nigeria (Source: Author Based on DIVA-GIS Data)
Figure 4.2: Ethnic Map of Nigeria (Fragile States, 2019) 49 over time, the British exerted colonial control over the entire country. In 1914, the Southern protectorate was joined with the Northern protectorate under one government as recommended by Sir Fredrick Lugard; with the seat of the colonial government being in Lagos (Campbell,
2018).
On October 1st, 1960, Nigeria became an independent nation with three main regions –
Northern, Western and Eastern. In 1963, Nigeria became a republic consisting of these three regions. But, in 1967, the Eastern region decided to secede and create the sovereign Republic of
Biafra. It thus declared war against the Nigerian government because it felt discriminated against in governance relative to the Northern and Southern regions. This period marked the beginnings of Nigeria’s crisis and the economic downturn which brought about political, ethnic, cultural and religious divisions in the country. This led to a series of military coups that further set back the country before eventually, former president Olusegun Obasanjo, ushered in the start of a democratic system of government in 1999.
When Nigeria gained independence in 1960, its economy was thriving on petroleum and agricultural products. The economy of Nigeria at the time was stable and strong to the extent that the Nigerian currency – the Naira, was more valuable than the American Dollar and equal to the
British Pound sterling in value. No citizen wanted to travel and stay abroad except to study; many who did, returned to the country because Nigeria then was prosperous, peaceful, and economically stable.
Today, Nigeria’s economy is ruined thanks to decades of mismanagement of resources and government funds, corruption, failed economic policies, religious crises and the re- emergence of the Biafra (Figure 4.3) quest for independence. Because of these socioeconomic challenges, many Nigerians are increasingly seeking greener pastures abroad. 50
Figure 4.3: Location of Biafra in Nigeria (Source: Pinterest, 2019)
4.2 Nigerian Pathways of Migration to the US
Nigerians in the US come through many pathways. Some come directly while others come indirectly as outlined below.
4.2.1 Nigeria - US Direct
Some Nigerian immigrants were lucky enough to migrate directly to the US as students, expatriates (skilled workers), diversity lottery winners, or as spouses of US citizens. These categories of people face less scrutiny during visa interviews. Until 2015 when Nigerians were excluded from the diversity lottery, many entered the US as green card holders through the program. Prior to that, many came (and still do) to the US directly as students (on F1 visas) who at the conclusion of their studies get US jobs and work permits that eventually enable them to become US permanent residents or citizens. Like the diversity lottery winners, the spouses of US citizens travel directly to the US with their green cards.
4.2.2 Nigeria - Other Country - US (UK, Canada)
The pathway of some Nigerian immigrants to the US is however not direct. They had to visit many countries before securing a US visa. Prior to doing so, some visit many African, 51
European and Asian countries in order to prove to their local US embassy, that given their extensive travel record, they would return to their homeland if granted a US student or visitors’ visa. Some do, and some stay on in the USA.
Some Nigerians come to the US through Europe e.g. the UK or from another North
American country like Canada. These are often people that studied, worked or had families abroad before relocating to the US for different purposes including better job offers, reunification with family, study, better standard of living, and health related issues.
4.3 Census Portrait of Nigerian Immigrants in the USA
Nigerians in the United States are the pride of Africa and have many impressive qualities.
Nigerians bring a wealth of experience from Africa to the US (Fosco, 2018). Their contributions to the social and economic fabric of the United States cannot be over-emphasized since Nigeria has the highest number of black African immigrants in the US. The Nigerian population in the
US was estimated to be 134,940 in 2000 (US Census, 2000). This number (134, 940) is definitely less than the actual value for that year since some Nigerians may not have been counted by the
2000 decennial census (Butler, 2014).
Thus, according to Mongabay.com report (2004 - 2014), the Nigerian population in the
US was closer to 164,691 (or 0.1% of the US population) in 2000. Nevertheless, the Decennial
2000 and 2010 censuses were the first to provide a detailed profile of Nigerian (and African) immigrants in the US because of their exponential growth in that period.
The socioeconomic characteristics of Nigerians in the United States in 2000, 2010 and
2017 are interesting because they have many implications for the US and Nigeria. Just as Nigeria is the “Giant of Africa” in terms of population and economic power, Nigeria is also Africa’s leading source of immigrants to US. In summary, Nigerians in the US are highly educated 52 professionals in diverse fields and are generally well paid. To understand their potential socioeconomic contribution to the US and Nigeria, it is thus important to understand their socioeconomic profile as reported by the 2000, 2010 and 2017 US Census data. The key census characteristics of Nigerians in the US are outlined in Tables 4.1, 4.2, 4.3 and 4.4, which compare the socioeconomic characteristics of Nigerian immigrants in the US with those of the general US population, the US foreign-born population, other African immigrants in the US, and the US native-born population.
As shown in Tables 4.1, 4.2, 4.3 and 4.4, the socioeconomic characteristics of Nigerians in the US when compared to those of other US populations are quite interesting. As noted by
Fosco (2018), Nigerians are among the most successful ethnic groups in the US with high levels of education and income (Casimir, 2008 and BET, 2012).
The Tables show that Nigerian immigrants in the US are doing well and are being incorporated well into US society. On average, their profiles show that they earn more than their
African counterparts and the entire US foreign born. In terms of educational attainment, their achievements are quite impressive; with Nigerians in the US having leapfrogged whites and
Asians to be the most educated group in the country (Casimir, 2008).
The profile of Nigerians in the US shows that they are integrating well into US system rather than being assimilated. They are doing well in all variables that define their socioeconomic status except housing where more than half (54.9%) of them were renters compared to the US population which had a larger percent of its population being homeowners
(63.8% vs 36.2%) in 2017 (Table 4.1). Nevertheless, it is encouraging to note that the Nigerian renter percentage declined from 60.9% in 2000 to 54.9% in 2017 even as their homeownership increased from 39.1% in 2000 to 45.1% in 2017 (Table 4.1). 53
4.3.1 Number of Nigerian Immigrants
The number of Nigerian immigrants in the US grew from 134,940 in 2000 to 344,979 in
2017; which translates to an increase of 210,039 or 155% (Tables 4.1, 4.2, 4.3 and 4.4). Among
Ohio’s 58,359 African immigrants in 2016, about 4,000 were from Nigeria making them the fifth largest African immigrant group in Ohio after Somalis (about 8,500), Ghanaians (about 8,200),
Ethiopians (nearly 5,000), and Kenyans (about 4,200). Most of Ohio’s African immigrants were in five counties, namely Franklin (31,795), Hamilton (6,761), Cuyahoga (4,645), Montgomery
(3,111) and Butler (2,048). These counties include Ohio’s largest metropolitan areas of
Columbus, Cleveland, and Cincinnati (New African Immigrants Commission, 2018).
4.3.2 Sex and Age Distribution
According to 2000 US census, most of the Nigerian immigrants in the US were male (57.1% or
76,995 people) with females constituting 43% (or 57, 945) of them. This is partly because males tend to outnumber females in long distance migration (Gros, 2018). At the time, this population was relatively young with a median age of 38.1 years. Although 8% of Nigerians in the US in the year 2000 were under 5 years old, 90% of them were 15 to 64 years old, with 80.6% of them in the working age of 20 – 54 years old, and 64.1% being aged 20 – 44 years old. Only 2% of this population was aged 65 years and above (US Census Bureau, 2000).
In 2010, unlike in 2000, the gender gap was narrower with the percentage of males being
52.9% while that of females was 47.1% and virtually identical in 2017 (Tables 4.1, 4.2, 4.3 and
4.4). In the 2000-2017 period, the Nigerian sex ratio (male) was higher than that of the US while the converse was true of the female ratio (Table 4.1). In this period, the Nigerian sex ratio (male) was higher than that of the US foreign-born population (Table 4.2), all African immigrants 54
Ta ble 4.1: Nigerian Immigrants Versus the US Population in 2000, 2010 and 2017 Nigerians in the USA Total US population Year 2000* 2010+ 2017+ 2000* 2010+ 2017+ Number 134,940 219,309 344,979 281,421,906 309,349,689 325,719,178 Sex ratio (% Male) 57.1 52.9 51.9 49.1 49.2 49.2 Sex ratio (% Female) 42.9 47.1 48.1 50.9 50.8 50.8 Median age 38.1 41.3 41.5 35.3 37.2 38.1 Educational attainment (4-yr degree 30.3 35.4 32.2 15.5 17.7 19.7 %) Educational attainment (Graduate 28.3 25.8 28.3 8.9 10.4 12.3 degree %) Per capita income ($) 26,956 36,405 38,984 21,587 26,059 32,397 Median Household income ($) 45,072 61,120 65,979 41,994 50,046 60,336 Housing (Owner- occupied %) 39.1 52.6 45.1 66.2 65.4 63.9 Housing (Renter- occupied %) 60.9 47.4 54.9 33.8 34.6 36.1 Median House Value ($) 135,900 239,900 264,900 119,600 179,900 217,600 Median gross rent ($) 655 926 1,140 602 855 1,012 Source: US Census Data, 2000, 2010 and 2017 Keys: * = Census (Decennial), + = American Community Survey (ACS) 1 Year Estimates
Nigerian sex ratio (% male) - is higher than the US population equivalent in 2000, 2010, and 2017 Nigerian sex ratio (% female) - is lower than the US population equivalent in 2000, 2010, and 2017 Nigerian median age (years) - is higher than the US population equivalent in 2000, 2010, and 2017 Nigerian education attainment (bachelor’s degree %) - is higher than the US population equivalent in 2000, 2010, and 2017 Nigerian education attainment (Graduate degree %) - is higher than the US population equivalent in 2000, 2010, and 2017 Nigerian per capita income ($) - is higher than the US population equivalent in 2000, 2010, and 2017 Nigerian median household income ($) - is higher than the US population equivalent in 2000, 2010, and 2017 Nigerian median house value $ (Owner- occupied) - is higher than the US population equivalent in 2000, 2010, and 2017 Nigerian house ownership (Owner- occupied %) - is lower than the US population equivalent in 2000, 2010, and 2017 Nigerian house ownership (Renter- occupied %) - is higher than the US population equivalent in 2000, 2010, and 2017 Nigerian median gross rent $ (Renter- occupied) - is higher than the US population equivalent in 2000, 2010, and 2017
55
Table 4.2: Nigerian Immigrants Versus US Foreign Born in 2000, 2010 and 2017 Nigerians in the USA Foreign born Year 2000* 2010+ 2017+ 2000* 2010+ 2017+ Number 134,940 219,309 344,979 31,107,880 39,955,854 44,525,855 Sex ratio (% Male) 57.1 52.9 51.9 49.8 49.1 48.4 Sex ratio (% Female) 42.9 47.1 48.1 50.2 50.9 51.6 Median age 38.1 41.3 41.5 37.5 41.4 44.8 Educational attainment (4-yr degree 30.3 35.4 32.2 13.7 15.9 17.6 %) Educational attainment (Graduate 28.3 25.8 28.3 10.3 11.1 13.4 degree %) Per capita income ($) 26,956 36,405 38,984 21,543 27,236 35,810 Median Household income ($) 45,072 61,120 65,979 39,444 46,224 56,743 Housing (Owner- occupied %) 39.1 52.6 45.1 49.8 52.5 52.4 Housing (Renter- occupied %) 60.9 47.4 54.9 50.2 47.5 47.6 Median House Value ($) 135,900 239,900 264,900 150,800 239,800 291,700 Median gross rent ($) 655 926 1,140 658 956 1,169 Source: US Census Data, 2000, 2010 and 2017 Keys: * = Census (Decennial), + = American Community Survey (ACS) 1 Year Estimates
Nigerian sex ratio (% male) - is higher than the US foreign-born equivalent in 2000, 2010, and 2017 Nigerian sex ratio (% female) - is lower than the US foreign-born equivalent in 2000, 2010, and 2017 Nigerian median age (years) - is higher than the US foreign-born equivalent in 2000, equal in 2010, and but lower in 2017 Nigerian education attainment (bachelor’s degree %) - is higher than the US foreign-born equivalent in 2000, 2010, and 2017 Nigerian education attainment (Graduate degree %) - is higher than the US foreign-born equivalent in 2000, 2010, and 2017 Nigerian per capita income ($) - is higher than the US foreign-born equivalent in 2000, 2010, and 2017 Nigerian median household income ($) - is higher than the US foreign-born equivalent in 2000, 2010, and 2017 Nigerian median house value $ (Owner- occupied) - is equal to the US foreign-born equivalent in 2010, lower in 2000 & 2017 Nigerian house ownership (Owner- occupied %) - is equal to the US foreign-born equivalent in 2010, lower in 2000 & 2017 Nigerian house ownership (Renter- occupied %)- is equal to the US foreign-born equivalent in 2010, higher in 2000 &2017 Nigerian median gross rent $ (Renter- occupied) - is similar to that of the US foreign-born equivalent in 2000, 2010, and 2017 56
Table 4.3: Socioeconomic Characteristics of Nigerian and African Immigrants in the US for the year 2000, 2010 and 2017 Nigerians in the USA Africans in the USA Year 2000* 2010+ 2017+ 2000* 2010+ 2017+ Number 134,940 219,309 344,979 881,300 1,606,914 2,293,028 Sex ratio (% Male) 57.1 52.9 51.9 55 52.6 51.7 Sex ratio (% Female) 42.9 47.1 48.1 45 47.4 48.3 Median age 38.1 41.3 41.5 36.1 38.0 39.3 Educational attainment (4-yr degree %) 30.3 35.4 32.2 24.3 24.2 24.5 Educational attainment (Graduate 28.3 25.8 28.3 18.6 16.1 17.3 degree %) Per capita income ($) 26,956 36,405 38,984 25,836 30,071 35,269 Median Household income ($) 45,072 61,120 65,979 41,196 45,926 52,429 Housing (Owner- occupied %) 39.1 52.6 45.1 36.2 39.8 37.7 Housing (Renter- occupied %) 60.9 47.4 54.9 63.8 60.2 62.3 Median House Value ($) 135,900 239,900 264,900 164,100 250,600 271,500 Median gross rent ($) 655 926 1,140 669 888 1,095 Source: US Census Data, 2000, 2010 and 2017 Keys: * = Census (Decennial), + = American Community Survey (ACS) 1 Year Estimates
Nigerian sex ratio (% male) - is higher than the other Africans equivalent in 2000, 2010, and 2017 Nigerian sex ratio (% female) - is lower than the other Africans equivalent in 2000, 2010, and 2017 Nigerian median age (years) - is higher than the other Africans equivalent in 2000, 2010, and 2017 Nigerian education attainment (bachelor’s degree %) - is higher than the other Africans equivalent in 2000, 2010, and 2017 Nigerian education attainment (Graduate degree %) - is higher than the other Africans equivalent in 2000, 2010, and 2017 Nigerian per capita income ($) - is higher than the other Africans equivalent in 2000, 2010, and 2017 Nigerian median household income ($) - is higher than the other Africans equivalent in 2000, 2010, and 2017 Nigerian median house value $ (Owner- occupied) - is lower than the other Africans equivalent in 2000, 2010, and 2017 Nigerian house ownership (Owner- occupied %) - is higher than the other Africans equivalent in 2000, 2010, and 2017 Nigerian house ownership (Renter- occupied %) - is lower than the other Africans equivalent in 2000, 2010, and 2017 Nigerian median gross rent $ (Renter- occupied) - is lower than the other Africans equivalent in 2000, but higher in 2010, and 2017
57
Table 4.4: Nigerian Immigrants Versus US Native Born in 2000, 2010 and 2017 Nigerians in the USA Native Americans Year 2000* 2010+ 2017+ 2000* 2010+ 2017+ Number 134,940 219,309 344,979 250,314,015 269,393,835 281,193,323 Sex ratio (% Male) 57.1 52.9 51.9 48.9 49.2 49.4 Sex ratio (% Female) 42.9 47.1 48.1 51.1 50.8 50.6 Median age 38.1 41.3 41.5 35.0 35.9 36.2 Educational attainment (4-yr degree %) 30.3 35.4 32.2 15.8 18.1 20.1 Educational attainment (Graduate 28.3 25.8 28.3 8.6 10.3 12.1 degree %) Per capita income ($) 26,956 36,405 38,984 21,592 25,884 31,856 Median Household income ($) 45,072 61,120 65,979 42,999 50,541 60,786 Housing (Owner- occupied %) 39.1 52.6 45.1 68.3 67.4 65.9 Housing (Renter- occupied %) 60.9 47.4 54.9 31.7 32.6 34.1 Median House Value ($) 135,900 239,900 264,900 117,000 174,400 209,100 Median gross rent ($) 655 926 1,140 590 883 975 Source: US Census Data, 2000, 2010 and 2017 Keys: * = Census (Decennial), + = American Community Survey (ACS) I year Estimates
Nigerian sex ratio (% male) - is higher than the US native-born equivalent in 2000, 2010, and 2017 Nigerian sex ratio (% female) - is lower than the US native-born equivalent in 2000, 2010, and 2017 Nigerian median age (years) - is higher than the US native-born equivalent in 2000, 2010, and 2017 Nigerian education attainment (bachelor’s degree %) - is higher than the US native-born equivalent in 2000, 2010, and 2017 Nigerian education attainment (Graduate degree %) - is higher than the US native-born equivalent in 2000, 2010, and 2017 Nigerian per capita income ($) - is higher than the US native-born equivalent in 2000, 2010, and 2017 Nigerian median household income ($) - is higher than the US native-born equivalent in 2000, 2010, and 2017 Nigerian median house value $ (Owner- occupied) - is higher than the US native-born equivalent in 2000, 2010, and 2017 Nigerian house ownership (Owner- occupied %) - is lower than the US native-born equivalent in 2000, 2010, and 2017 Nigerian house ownership (Renter- occupied %) - is higher than the US native-born equivalent in 2000, 2010, and 2017 Nigerian median gross rent $ (Renter- occupied) - is higher than the US native-born equivalent in 2000, 2010, and 2017 58
(Table 4.3), and that of native-born Americans (Table 4.4); with the smallest gap being between
Nigerians and other African immigrants (Table 4.3).
Slightly more than 85.3% of them were in the working ages and had a median age of 41.3 in 2010 (Table 4.1). Specifically, 50% of them were aged between 18 to 44 years old, 35.3% were between the ages of 45 to 64, 8.7% were 7 years old and below and just 6% were 65 and above. Since most of them were in the labor force, they were contributing members of the US economy. Overall, between 2000 and 2017, Nigerian immigrants in the US had a higher median age than the total US population (Table 4.1), all African immigrants (Table 4.3), and native-born
Americans (Table 4.4). However, their median age was slightly lower than that of the US foreign-born population in 2010 and 2017 (Table 4.2).
4.3.3 Income
Nigerians were among the top earning Africans in the United States in 2000, 2010, and
2017, with their respective per capita incomes (e.g., 26,956 in 2000) being higher than those of the general US population (Table 4.1), the US foreign-born population (Table 4.2), all African immigrants (Table 4.3), and native-born US citizens (Table 4.4). Between 2000 and 2017, the
Nigerian immigrant per capita income grew by $12,028 from $26,956 to $38,984 while that of the general US population grew by $10,810 from $21,587 to $32,397 (Table 4.1), that of the US foreign-born population grew by $21,891 from $13,919 to $35,810 (Table 4.2), that of all
African immigrants in the US grew by $9,433 from $25,836 to $35,269 (Table 4.3), and that of
US native-born population grew by $10,264 from $21,592 in 2000 to $31,856 in 2017 (Table
4.4). Available census data also shows that Nigerian men made over $20,000 more than their women counterparts in 2017 because they tend to be more educated and in more lucrative occupations (US Census, 2010). 59
The median household income of Nigerians in the US was similarly higher than that of the other populations in Tables 4.1, 4.2, 4.3 and 4.4 in the years 2000, 2010, and 2017. In 2000,
Nigerian immigrants also had a reasonable retirement income of about $15,000 that was higher than that of immigrants from most other African countries but lower than that of Egyptian
($19,000) and South African ($30,000) immigrants because these two groups enter the US with more resources than most other African immigrants do.
Nigerian immigrants in the US generally had higher per capita and household incomes than the comparable groups in Tables 4.1, 4.2, 4.3 and 4.4 in the years 2000, 2010, and 2017 because their higher educational attainment generally translates to high occupational incomes in the US. Moreover, many of them were in high income occupations e.g., medicine and engineering (Casimir 2018).
4.3.4 Educational Attainment
Nigerians in the US are highly educated (Casimir 2018) with 60.5 percent of them having at least 4-year college degree in 2017 compared to 32 percent for the general US population
(Table 4.1). Thus, the percentage of Nigerians with a 4-year and graduate degrees was higher than that of the comparable groups in Tables 4.1, 4.2, 4.3 and 4.4 in the years 2000, 2010, and
2017. Specifically, the Nigerian 4-year college educational attainment was about 1.5-times higher than that of general US population (Table 4.1), the US foreign-born population (Table
4.2), and the US native-born population (Table 4.4), and about 1.3-times higher than that of all
African immigrants in the US (Table 4.3). This is because other African immigrant groups (e.g.,
Kenyans, Ghanaians, and South Africans) also have a comparably high 4-year college educational attainment. In 2010, 96% of Nigerians in the US were also high school graduates. 60
Nigerian immigrants’ excellent educational attainment is even more evident in the percent of people with a graduate degree where the Nigerian attainment was slightly over 2-times higher than that of the comparable groups in Tables 4.1 (the general US population), 4.2 (the US foreign-born population), and 4.4 (the US native-born population) in the years 2000, 2010, and
2017. The only notable exception to this was the “all African immigrants” group whose graduate degree attainment rate was, for instance, 1.6-times lower than that of Nigerians in 2017 (Table
4.3). As noted above, this is because the African immigrant population in the US contains other groups (e.g., Kenyans, Ghanaians, and South Africans) who have equally high percentages of people with graduate degrees for many of the same reasons that drive high Nigerian immigrant educational attainment. These reasons include the high premium that African immigrant families place on education (Aziz, 2012), these individuals’ “desire to overcome being a double minority: black and African” (Casimir 2018: no pp), US immigration laws’ (e.g., The Immigration and
Nationality Act of 1965) preference for highly skills/educated individuals, and many African immigrants’ use of schooling to maintain their US immigration status (Casimir 2018).
According to Amadu Jacky Kaba (quoted in Casimir 2018: no pp), “So many Africans pursue higher levels of education as an unintended consequence of navigating the tricky minefield of immigration. In a way, it's a Catch-22 — because of immigration laws you are forced to remain in school, but then the funny thing is you end up getting your doctorate at the age of 29. If you stay in school, immigration will leave you alone." Moreover, Nigerian and African immigrants in the US have a high educational attainment because they have few other resources that can advance them socioeconomically in the US: "The typical saying in a Nigerian [or any other
African immigrant] household is that the best inheritance that a parent can give you [children] is not jewelry or cash or material things, it is a good education" (Casimir 2018: no pp). 61
The educational attainment of Nigerian immigrants in the US has a distinct gender dimension. In 2000, for instance, 69.5% of Nigerian males in the US were bachelor’s degree holders while 51.7% were females. This disparity is because Nigerian families have traditionally invested more in the education of male children.
4.3.5 Industry and Profession
Nigerians in the US are highly skilled (Casimir, 2018) and are professionals in both the public (20.8%) and private (73.2%) sectors, with the remaining 6% being self-employed. In
2000, 86.8% of Nigerian immigrants were skilled workers employed as managers, administrators, professors, engineers and doctors. About 38% of them were highly skilled individuals in the education and health industries. Less than 14% them were unskilled workers in the fishing, agricultural, and manufacturing sectors. In the same year (2000), about 80% of the
134,940 Nigerians in the US were in labor force while 20.2% were not (US Census, 2000). In addition, 73% the female Nigerian immigrants in the US in 2000 were in the labor force while
26.1% were engaged in home making and other related activities.
In 2010, about 54% of Nigerians in the US were professionals in management, business, science and art, 23.4% were in service occupations, 13.2% were in sales and office work, while the remaining 10% were in construction, maintenance, production, transportation and material moving occupations. As in 2000, most Nigerians (49.2%) in the US in 2010 were professionals in the fields of medicine and education. In 2017, because Nigerians in the US still maintained their high educational attainment, most of them were medical doctors, educators, managers, and administrators in the public and private sectors. More than many other African immigrants, most
Nigerian immigrants in the US in that year owned a personal car which contributed to their good economic status in the US (Shen, 2014). 62
4.3.6 Housing
In 2000, most Nigerians in the US were renters (60.9%) while only 39.1% were homeowners (Table 4.1). This is surprising because they were, on average, well placed in terms of jobs and income to own homes. This situation can be attributed to the large percentage of
Nigerians in college in that year as well as their “sojourner” mentality – the sense that they are in the US temporarily which often delays home ownership (Arthur, 2000). Although, the 39.1% of
Nigerians who owned a home in 2000 (Table 4.1) was higher than the 36.2% of African immigrants who did so (Table 4.3), this was much lower than the 66.2% of native-born
Americans and the 66.6% of the entire US population that owned a home (Tables 4.1 and 4.4) in that year. The median home value of Nigerians in 2000 was $135,900, which was higher than that of the entire US population which stood at $119,600 in that year (Table 4.1). Nevertheless, this value was lower than that of the larger African immigrant population in the US in that year
($164,100) as well as in 2010 and 2017 (Table 4.3). Moreover, in 2000 the median home value of Nigerian immigrants was also lower than that of immigrants from some African countries like
Kenya, Egypt and South Africa who had median home values of $180, 000, $210,000, and
$249,000 respectively (Otiso, 2007). In terms of median gross rent, Nigerians in the US lived in more costly rental housing than the entire US population in 2000 ($655 vs. $602), 2010 ($626 vs.
$855) and 2017 ($1,140 vs. $1,012) (Table 4.1). These Nigerian immigrant rental-housing costs were however quite close to those of African immigrants in the US in 2000, 2010, and 2017
(Table 4.3); lower than those of the US foreign-born population in 2000 and 2017 (Table 4.2), and higher than those of the native US population in 2010 and 2017 (Table 4.4).
In 2010, the proportion of Nigerians in the US who owned a home was higher than that recorded in 2000. This was probably so because many of them were by then working. Thus, 63
52.6% of them were homeowners while the remaining 47.4% were renters. This percentage was higher than that of the US foreign-born and African immigrant population in the US in the same year (Tables 4.2 and 4.3), but lower than those of the entire US population (65.4% owners vs
34.6% renters) and native-born Americans (67.4% owners vs 32.6% renters) (Tables 4.1 and
4.4). Amazingly, the median house value ($239,900) of Nigerians in the US in 2010 was higher than of the entire US population of $179,900 and that of native-born Americans ($174,400)
(Tables 4.1 and 4.4), about the same as that of the US foreign-born ($239,800 vs. $239,800)
(Table 4.2) but lower than of African immigrants in the US ($250,600) in that year (Table 4.3).
This means that in 2010, some Nigerians and other Africans in the US were generally doing well.
Similarly, those who were renters in that year paid rent ($926) that was higher than that of the entire US population ($855) (Table 4.1), the African immigrant population ($888) (Table 2.4), and native-born Americans ($883) (Table 4.4) though slightly lower than that of the entire US foreign-born ($956) (Table 4.2).
By 2017, almost half of Nigerians in the US (i.e., 45.1%) were homeowners while 54.9% were renters (Table 4.1). Although this is impressive when compared to the proportion of
African immigrants who owned a home in that year (i.e. 37.7% were home owners while 62.3% were renters) (Figure 4.3), it is also clear that the 2007 – 2010 US subprime mortgage crisis negatively impacted the 2017 Nigerian and African immigrant home ownership (Garcia, 2008).
Thus, by 2017 the percentage of Nigerians that owned their homes was less than the 65.9% of native-born Americans owning their houses (with 34.1% being renters) (Table 4.4). The median home value of Nigerian immigrant homes in the US in 2017 was $264,900; much higher than the
$135,900 in 2010, possibly due to the loss of homes by many poorer Nigerians in the 2007 –
2010 subprime mortgage crisis (Garcia, 2008 & Baptiste, 2014). As in 2010, the 2017 gross rent 64
($1,140) of Nigerian immigrants in the US was higher than that of the entire US population
($1,012) (Table 4.1), the US African immigrant population ($1,095) (Table 4.3), and native-born
Americans ($975) (Table 4.4) though slightly lower than the rent of the entire US foreign-born population ($1,169) in that year (Table 4.2).
4.3.7 Marital Status
Nigerians in the US exhibit the marriage traits of their country of origin in Africa including high marriage and low divorce rates. Thus, most (57.2%) of the Nigerian adults in the
US in 2000 were married while, 28.7% were single, 3.9% were separated, 3.1% widowed, and
7.1% were divorced. The percentage of married Nigerian immigrants was high (57.2%) because that is the norm in Nigeria. Moreover, since many Nigerian immigrant women are not as financially independent as American women, they tend to stay in their marriages even when they are bad. At any rate, Nigerian couples go to great lengths to resolve their marriage issues and to stay married.
Of the marriageable Nigerians (15 years and older) in the US in 2010, 58.2% were married, 25.9% were single, 7.5% were divorced, 4.6% were separated and 3.8% were widowed.
Conversely, 47% of native-born Americans were married in that year while 33.2% were single,
11.5% were divorced, 2.1% were separated, and 6.2% were widowed (ACS, 2010). Of the
109,027 Nigerian males that were in the marriageable ages in 2010, 60.7% were married, 26.6% were unmarried, 1.3% were widowed, 3.9% were separated and 7.5% were divorced (ACS,
2010). Among the 96,512 marriageable Nigerian females in the US in that year, 55.4% were married, 25.1% were unmarried, 6.6% were widowed, 5.4% were separated and 7.4% were divorced (ACS, 2010). The slightly higher Nigerian immigrant male marriage rate in 2010 is partly because some of these individuals had wives in Nigeria. As in Nigeria, Nigerian 65 immigrants in the US had a high fertility rate in 2010. Therefore, in 2010, the average family size for Nigerian immigrants in the US was 4.19 which was higher than that of entire US population
(3.23) in that year (ACS, 2010).
In Africa, Nigerians do not generally allow early marriage for their children especially in the more educated and Christian Southern part of Nigeria. However, there are cases of child marriage in the Muslim Northern part of the country where 17% of girls are married by or before the age of 15 years while 43% of them are married by the age of 18 years old (UNICEF, 2017).
In the US, although the general age of marriage is 18, some states like Alaska and Hawaii respectively allow people as young as 14 and 15 years old to marry under certain circumstances
(State of Hawaii, 2019; Thomson Reuters, 2019). Therefore, in 2017, 59.4% of Nigerians in the
US in the marriageable ages were married, while 25.4% were single, and the rest (15.2%) were widowed, separated or divorced (US Census, 2017). This percentage is also similar to that of the general US foreign born where 59.7% of people in the marriageable ages were married, while
24% were single and the remaining 16.4% were either widowed, divorced or separated. At the same time, 54.9% of the US African immigrant population was married, while 29.4% were single and the remaining 15.7% were either widowed, divorced or separated (ACS, 2017).
It is interesting to note that these percentages were much higher compared to those of the
US native born population in the same year since 45.5% of this population was married, while
35.5% were single, and the remaining 19% were either widowed, divorced or separated (ACS,
2017).
4.3.8 Race and Language
Nigerians are predominantly black racially. Therefore, it is not surprising that the 2000 census recorded that 95% of the Nigerian immigrants in the US were black. This Census also 66 revealed that 1.1% of them were white; and had most likely originated in the major cities (e.g.,
Port Harcourt and Owerri) of the Middle Eastern part of Nigeria. Although, Nigeria has over 200 languages, there are basically three major indigenous languages in the country (Yoruba, Hausa, and Igbo) while English is the official language that unites all Nigerian citizens. Yet the 2000 census recorded that 22% of Nigerian immigrants in the US speak only English, while the remaining 78% speak English and other languages including Yoruba, Hausa, and Igbo.
As in 2000, Nigerian immigrants’ race and language characteristics had not changed by
2010 and 2017 (US Census). Thus, most Nigerians were black, and mostly spoke English, and the three major local languages of Hausa, Yoruba, and Igbo coupled with over 250 other dialects.
4.3.9 Vehicle Ownership
In 2000, 70.8% of Nigerian immigrants in the US used private cars to commute to work.
Only 24.4% carpooled or used public transportation while the remaining 4.8% walked, worked at home, or used other means of transport such as bicycles (US Census, 2000). This Census also showed that 86.5% of this population had between 1 and 3 cars with just 13.5% being without a car and depended on public transportation or other means of transportation. Comparable car ownership rates for the entire US foreign-born in that year were 78.8% with 1-3 cars while
21.1% had no car and depended on public transportation or other means of transportation (US
Census). Nigerians were therefore doing relatively well on this score.
4.3.10 Geographical Distribution in the US
Most Nigerians live in areas with warm climates that are like the climate of their native country of Nigeria. Such places include Houston, (Texas), Atlanta (Georgia), and Los Angeles
(California). Nigerians are also concentrated in areas with thriving economies and traditional immigrant gateway cities, such as New York City and Chicago (Singer, 2015). This distribution 67 generally held true in 2000 – 2017 period. As shown in Table 4.5, among the 31 US states with more than 1,000 Nigerian immigrants, Texas had the largest number/percent of them in the US
Table 4.5: Distribution of Nigerian Immigrants in the US by State, 2012-2016 US/State Nigerian Percent of Immigrants Nigerian Total United States 277,027 100.0 Texas 60,173 21.7 Maryland 31,263 11.3 New York 29,619 10.7 California 23,302 8.4 Georgia 19,182 6.9 Illinois 15,389 5.6 New Jersey 14,780 5.3 Florida 8,274 3.0 Massachusetts 6,661 2.4 Pennsylvania 6,371 2.3 Minnesota 5,323 1.9 North Carolina 4,815 1.7 Virginia 4,754 1.7 Michigan 4,396 1.6 Indiana 4,317 1.6 Ohio 3,975 1.4 Tennessee 3,262 1.2 Connecticut 2,685 1.0 Missouri 2,336 0.8 Arizona 2,305 0.8 Colorado 2,246 0.8 Washington 1,919 0.7 Rhode Island 1,828 0.7 District of Columbia 1,629 0.6 South Carolina 1,570 0.6 Oklahoma 1,407 0.5 Wisconsin 1,332 0.5 Delaware 1,313 0.5 Alabama 1,201 0.4 Louisiana 1,113 0.4 Kansas 1,070 0.4 Total 269,810 97 (Source: US Census, 2012-2016: Table B05006: Place of Birth for the Foreign- Born Population in the United States) 68 followed by Maryland (11.3%), New York (10.7%), California (8.4%), Georgia (6.9%), Illinois
(5.6%) and New Jersey (5.3%). All of these states have a coastal or lakefront location and have large cities that attract Nigerian immigrants. According to the Migration Policy Institute (2015), in 2015, New York City metropolitan area had about 35,000 Nigerian immigrants, followed by
Houston, Washington DC, and Atlanta with about 20,000 Nigerian immigrants each.
4.3.11 Year of Entry to the US
Although the voluntary immigration of Nigerians to the United States has been going on for decades, it especially increased in and after 2000. Specifically, census data shows that 45.8% of Nigerian immigrants came to the US in 2000 or later, 29.7% came between 1990 and 1999, while 24.5% entered the US before 1990. This increase in the inflow of Nigerians into the US can be attributed to the greater integration of African countries into the global economy aided by growth in capital investment, technological innovation, communication and transport, human capital transformation, and educational advancement (Arthur 2012).
4.4 US Census Profile of Nigerian Immigrants in the Toledo MSA
The socioeconomic characteristics of Nigerian immigrants in Toledo Metropolitan Area can be obtained by imputation from the general characteristics of the Census tracts that they live in. Although it would have been better to get data on these characteristics directly from the US
Census, the small number of Nigerian immigrants in the region prevented the US Census Bureau from publicly making available detailed data on them.
4.4.1 Income
Figure 4.4, whose data is from the 2016 ESRI Business Analyst extension for ArcMap, shows the 2016 per capita income of Nigerians in the Toledo MSA. Out of the 35 Toledo MSA tracts with Nigerians, only two (IDs 30 and 28 on Figure 4.4 and Table 4.5) had a per capita 69 income of about $40,000 to $68,000 (Table 4.5). We can therefore infer that Nigerians in these tracts have high socioeconomic status. Three tracts (IDs 18, 26, and 34 on Figure 4.4 and Table
4.6) had Nigerians with per capita incomes of about $30,000 to $40,000, 10 tracts (IDs 5, 7, 16,
21, 22, 23, 24, 29, 31 and 32 on Figure 4.4 and Table 4.6) had Nigerians with per capita incomes of about
Figure 4.4: Inferred Per Capita Income Characteristics of Nigerians in Toledo MSA
$22,000 to $30,000, while the remaining 20 tracts contained Nigerians who had per capita incomes of about $7,500 to $22,000. Most of those in the low-income categories were students and low paid workers.
Compared to the per capita income of Nigerians at national level of $38,984 (Table 4.1 and ACS, 2017), most Nigerians in the Toledo MSA had lower per capita incomes; given the per capita incomes of most of the tracts they lived in. In fact, of the 12 tracts (IDs 4, 5, 6, 8, 10, 17, 70
18, 21, 22, 24, 25, and 28 on Figure 4.4 and Table 4.6) that individually had more than an aggregate number of 100 Nigerians in the 2009 to 2017 period, only one (ID 19) had a per capita income of $30,000. The rest had a per capita income of between $11,000 and $26,000. Tract 17 alone that had an aggregate number of 563 Nigerians in this study period and had a per capita income of $16,305 that is within the second lowest category in Figure 4.4. Most of these low per capita income Nigerians were most likely students in nearby academic/training institutions.
In terms of median household income (Figure 4.5 and Table 4.6), only one Nigerian tract
(ID 30) in the Toledo MSA had a household income of between $76,000 and $115,000. In fact, very few Nigerian households in Toledo MSA (i.e., those in the 5 tracts IDs 16, 26, 27, 31 and
34 with over $52,000 in Figure 4.5) had a median household income of close to or more than
$65,979 (Table 4.1) that was recorded for Nigerians at the national level in 2017. Fourteen tracts
(IDs 1, 2, 5, 15, 18, 19, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 28, 29, and 32) were in the median $32,000 - $51,625 income range, while 8 tracts (IDs 6, 7, 10, 11, 14, 17, 20, and 33) were between $21,000 and
$32,500, and the remaining 7 tracts (IDs 3, 4, 8, 9, 12, 13, and 35) were between $9,000 and slightly over $21,000. As shown in Table 4.6, the number of Nigerian tracts above the average household income of $38,122 is 17 while those that are below are 18.
4.4.2 Education
Nigerians are among the most highly educated groups in the US (Fosco, 2018).
Therefore, it is expected that Nigerians in Toledo MSA have a high level of educational attainment. Using 2016 Business Analyst data, Nigerians in the Toledo MSA showed up in 2 tracts (IDs 30 and 27) that recorded an educational attainment of between 14.3% and 24.8% for graduate/professional degrees, while 5 tracts (IDs 5, 7, 22, 26 and 34) recorded 9.7% to 14.2% 71
Table 4.6: Demographic Characteristics of Tracts with Nigerians in Toledo MSA Aggr. Per Median Educ.: Map No. of Total Media Educ.: Home Home Tract No. City Capita Househol Grad / ID Nigeri Popn n Age Bach. Owners Renters Income d Income Prof ans 39095000200 1 Toledo 68 4,312 34.3 20,618 50,202 585 190 1,134 537 39095000300 2 Toledo 56 4,641 34.2 20,838 44,198 298 265 1,035 829 39095001202 3 Toledo 20 3,332 29.5 12,648 16,628 37 37 200 634 39095001302 4 Toledo 128 2,308 25.4 20,902 20,440 273 125 125 1,066 39095001303 5 Toledo 126 3,132 35.4 23,080 46,180 416 334 765 630 39095001600 6 Toledo 114 3,074 39 18,361 32,469 257 212 648 551 39095002100 7 Toledo 18 2,745 43 25,562 27,332 432 319 445 926 39095002200 8 Toledo 116 1,476 28.9 10,733 17,467 63 27 144 398 39095002300 9 Toledo 33 1,555 45.4 10,434 13,401 18 46 63 775 39095002401 10 Toledo 139 3,940 24 16,916 27,386 253 274 511 1,077 39095002500 11 Toledo 26 2,181 32.1 11,761 23,352 37 78 385 445 39095002800 12 Toledo 66 1,482 31.6 17,243 16,249 110 34 3 575 39095003000 13 Toledo 27 2,220 34.2 11,679 15,992 48 13 212 722 39095004000 14 Toledo 24 2,013 30.5 11,967 23,853 46 36 288 447 39095004400 15 Toledo 42 3,961 32.9 18,320 42,692 305 158 895 557 39095004501 16 Toledo 70 2,671 37.4 27,272 54,806 452 190 660 442 39095006800 17 Toledo 563 4,936 31 16,305 23,946 265 230 524 1,827 39095007202 18 Toledo 174 3,505 45.7 31,135 44,611 405 283 819 942 39095007205 19 Toledo 17 5,052 32.9 24,854 36,073 674 405 523 2,055 39095007303 20 Toledo 59 5,028 30.4 19,764 28,617 238 228 470 2,081 39095007400 21 Toledo 231 5,111 36.5 24,648 35,316 418 326 1,149 1,127 39095007500 22 Toledo 101 4,026 33.3 25,617 39,304 474 551 946 1,125 39095007901 23 Toledo 9 2,089 42.4 23,082 48,826 152 137 673 185 72
39095007902 23 Toledo 214 5,284 42.5 23,400 40,604 352 336 1,562 805 39095008100 25 Sylvania 167 3,836 38.3 21,999 46,327 277 200 990 530 39095008203 26 Sylvania 63 7,152 42.2 39,210 72,855 1,372 910 1,800 1,185 39095008301 27 Toledo 76 5,926 47 42,329 62,491 1,073 1,004 1,512 1,303 39095008600 28 Toledo 199 5,297 41.5 22,197 37,186 653 277 1,379 934 39095008700 29 Toledo 27 7,715 34.1 26,513 43,308 1,147 591 1,681 1,649 39095009101 30 Holland 82 4,357 47.7 54,682 104,247 941 763 1,550 113 39095009400 31 Swanton 5 2,515 42.5 24,798 54,441 252 95 749 198 39095010200 32 Toledo 38 2,438 42.7 24,731 42,220 112 107 656 484 39095010400 33 Toledo 17 3,779 18.7 12,357 30,097 29 79 45 123 39173020500 34 Perrysburg 5 2,242 41.4 35,019 56,463 470 260 657 335 Bowling 2 39173021800 35 5,955 19.1 9,251 14,712 - 16 - 105 Green AVERAGE 89.2 3,751.03 35.65 22,292.14 38,122.6 380.41 261.03 741.12 791.91 73
Figure 4.5: Inferred Median Household Income Characteristics of Nigerians in Toledo MSA on this measure, nine tracts (IDs 2, 6, 10, 18, 19, 21, 23, 24, and 29) recorded 5.5% to 9.6%, and the remaining tracts recorded less than 5.4%. Most of the tracts in the zero - 2.5% range were near universities like Bowling Green State University and the University of Toledo and had students who were still pursuing their higher graduate/professional degrees. Tracts 30 and 27
(Figure 4.6 and Table 4.6) had the highest graduate/professional degree attainment among the
Nigerian tracts most likely because they are affluent areas that attract highly educated residents.
Nevertheless, these two (2) tracts graduate/professional degree attainment was lower than that of all Nigerians in the US in the 2000 – 2017 period which was above 25% (Table 4.1).
Aside from many Nigerians in this region either possessing or pursuing higher education courses of study, many came here with at least a first degree that enabled them to get into graduate school easily. Therefore, some of these Nigerians are masters or Ph.D. degree holders. Most of 74
Figure 4.6: Inferred Graduate/Professional Degree Attainment of Nigerians in Toledo MSA by Tract those with PhDs reside in places like Bowling Green, Perrysburg, Sylvania and Maumee because of the presence of higher education institutions like BGSU and their higher socioeconomic status
(Figure 4.5). At the undergraduate/bachelor’s degree educational attainment level, Nigerians in
Toledo MSA resided in 4 tracts (IDs 26, 27, 30 and 34) with the highest attainment (16.4% -
27.5%) in 2016 while 8 tracts (IDs 1, 5, 7, 18, 19, 22, 28 and 29) had 11.1% to 16.3%, and the rest of the tracts (23) had less than 11% (Figure 4.7 and Table 4.5). While Nigerians in the
Toledo MSA had some of the highest undergraduate degree educational attainment levels, they were not as high as the over 30.3% of Nigerians with this qualification at the national level in the
2000 – 2017 period (Table 4.1).
On the percentage of holders of high school diplomas (Figure 4.8), Nigerians showed up in tracts with some of the highest percentages of high school diploma holders. Three tracts (IDs
24, 25 and 31) with Nigerians recorded between 24.2% and 32.4% high school diploma holders while 8 tracts (IDs 2, 15, 16, 18, 20, 22, 28 and 32) had between 19.4% and 24.1%, and the 75 remaining tracts had less than 19.3% of their residents with high school diplomas. The Nigerians in the tracts with low levels of high school diplomas could be poor or students in low rent areas of the city.
Figure 4.7: Inferred Bachelor’s Degree Attainment of Nigerians in Toledo MSA by Tract
Figure 4.8: Inferred High School Diploma Attainment of Nigerians in Toledo MSA by Tract 76
In terms of educational base, most Nigerians in Toledo MSA live in tracts that have a high educational base. Specifically, 8 tracts (IDs 7, 18, 23, 24, 27, 28, 30 and 32) with Nigerians had an educational base of 70.7% - 82.4% while 12 tracts (IDs 1, 2, 5, 6, 16, 19, 21,25, 26, 29,
31 and 34) had 64.2% - 70.6%, 13 tracts (IDs 3, 4, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 17, 20 and 22 ) had 51.5% - 64.1%, and only 2 tracts (33 and 35) had 1.6% - 51.4% (Figure 4.9).
Figure 4.9: Inferred Educational Base Characteristics of Nigerians in Toledo MSA by Tract
4.4.3 Housing
Available data shows that many Nigerians in Toledo MSA live in tracts where a higher percentage of the residents are renters (Figure 4.10). Of the 35 tracts that Nigerians live in, 7 tracts (IDs 4, 7, 12, 13, 17, 19 and 20) have 31% - 52.5% of the residents being home renters, 12 tracts have 19.2% - 30.9%, 13 tracts have 13% - 19.1% renters while remaining tracts have 1.8%
- 12.9%. The tracts (IDs 20, 28, 21, 22, 23, 17, 30, 33, 7) with a high percentage of renters are close to higher education institutions like the University of Toledo and because most Nigerians in those tracts are students, they are predictably renters. This high Nigerian renter situation is like 77 that of Nigerians at the national level where 61%, 47%, and 55% of Nigerian households lived in rented
Figure 4.10: Inferred Renter Occupied Housing Characteristics of Nigerians in Toledo MSA by Tract housing in 2000, 2010, and 2017 respectively. The 2000 figure was high because most Nigerians in the US in that year were probably students (US Census, 2000 and Table 4.1). Conversely, most of the Nigerians in Perrysburg, Sylvania and Maumee are professionals with a high socioeconomic status and are therefore more likely to be homeowners (Figure 4.11). Because most Nigerians in the Toledo MSA are students, they only showed up in 3 tracts (17, 19 and 20) with a high percentage (31.9% - 38.8%) homeownership. The homeownership rate of the remaining tracts with Nigerians is as follows: 4 tracts 26.6% - 31.8%, 11 tracts 10.7% - 19.5%, and 17 tracts 0% - 10.6%) (Figure 4.11).
Similarly, the study data and Figure 4.12 show that the home values of the tracts where most Nigerians live were between $94, 000 and $140,000. Only 2 tracts (IDs 27 and 30) with median home values of between $210,216 and $302,381 contained Nigerians. Another five tracts 78
Figure 4.11: Inferred Owner-Occupied Housing Characteristics of Nigerians in Toledo MSA by Tract had median home values of $139,648 to $210,216, while 12 tracts had median home values of
$94,338 to $139, 648 and the remaining 16 tracts had median home values of $94,388 or less.
Those with high socioeconomic status live in places like Bowling Green, Maumee, Sylvania and
Perrysburg where top median home values for tracts with Nigerians are between $140,000 and
$302,000. However, since Bowling Green (like Toledo) is a university town, its median home values vary widely (Figure 4.12) depending on factors like the location and age of the home.
Many of the older homes just south of Bowling Green State University have lower values and are the abode of BGSU students during the school year.
In terms of home value base, Nigerians with high socioeconomic profiles live in suburbs outside Toledo city such as Maumee, Perrysburg, Sylvania and Bowling Green (Figure 4.13).
Tracts with Nigerians with the highest home value bases of $1,512 to $2,564 are 21, 24, 25, 26,
27, 28, 29 and 30 (Figure 4.13). 79
Figure 4.12: Inferred Median Home Value Characteristics of Nigerians in Toledo MSA by Tract
Figure 4.13: Inferred Home Value Base Characteristics of Nigerians in Toledo MSA by Tract 80
4.4.4 Industry/Occupation
Many Nigerians in this region are in professional fields. In particular, many Nigerians are found in industries like health care, education services, management, public administration, professional/technical services, and information (Figure 4.14a) where they work as information professionals, professors, managers, health care practitioners (e.g. doctors and nurses), and health care support staff (Figure 4.14b). Some of them are entrepreneurs who create jobs for others including Americans in cities like Maumee, Sylvania, and Perrysburg.
Specifically, the dominant industry concentrations for Nigerian immigrants in the Toledo
MSA are educational services, health care, and professional and technical services (Figure
4.14a). Similarly, the dominant occupations (Figure 4.14b) of Nigerian immigrants in the Toledo
MSA are in office administration, sales, management, education, and health practices.
4.4.5 Age
Available data shows that majority of Nigerians in Toledo MSA are relatively young and in the economically active ages, with a median age that ranges between 19 and 57 years. (Figure
4.15, Table 4.6). This is because most international migrants, including Nigerians, tend to be younger because they mostly migrate to the US for education and work and other economic reasons. Therefore, those near University of Toledo and Bowling Green State University tracts, for instance, are either students in the 19-29 age range or professors in older age groups. Figure
4.15 shows that Nigerians in Toledo MSA live in 12 tracts that have median age of between 40 and 57 years old (professional workers) while the remaining 24 tracts are in the 19- 39 median age ranges that include undergraduate and graduate students (Figure 4.15). 81
(a) 82
(b)
Figure 4.14: Inferred Industry/Occupation Characteristics of Nigerians in Toledo MSA by Tract. (a) Industry. (b) Occupation 83
Generally, people in the economically active ages dominate the Toledo MSA tracts with high concentrations of Nigerians.
Figure 4.15: Inferred Median Age of Nigerians in Toledo MSA
4.4.6 Race
Figures 4.16a shows that Nigerians mostly live in tracts that are dominated by Blacks more so in tracts around the University of Toledo; with a few of them being in the White- dominated areas of Maumee, Perrysburg, and Bowling Green. Many Nigerians live in Black areas because they are black (Figure 4.16) and because these areas have many affordable renters occupied housing units (Figure 4.10). Moreover, because they are black, they are probably being racialized into America’s mostly black African American community. Those that live in mostly white areas like Perrysburg, Bowling Green, Sylvania and Maumee (Figure 4.16b) tend to have higher socioeconomic status. 84
(a) Blacks (b) Whites
Figure 4.16: Inferred Race Characteristics of Nigerians in Toledo MSA. (a) Blacks. (b) Whites
4.4.7 Marital Status
Based on marital status base data from 2016 ESRI Business Analyst, about half of the tracts that contain most Nigerians in the Toledo MSA have a high a number of married people
(Figure 3.17). Specifically, 10 tracts with a high concentration of Nigerians have between 36% and 57.6% of their population being married (Figure 4.18a). This is expected since many
Nigerians in these tracts are in their marriageable ages. Some are married to Americans, others are married to Nigerian/African partners they studied with, while others brought their wives with them from Nigeria. This aligns with the literature that African immigrants in the US have higher marriage expectations than US native-borns (Ngazimbi, et. al, 2014).
However, many Nigerians e.g., students also live in tracts with many unmarried people
(Figure 4.18b). Therefore, tracts in or around Bowling Green State University (BGSU) and
University of Toledo (UT) have high percentages of unmarried people including Nigerian students (Figure 4.18b). 85
Figure 4.17: Inferred Marital Status Base Characteristics of Nigerians in Toledo MSA
(a) Married (b) Unmarried
Figure 4.18: Inferred Marital Status Characteristics of Nigerians in Toledo MSA. (a) Married. (b) Unmarried 86
4.5 Implications of this Census Portrait of Nigerians to the USA and Nigeria
The implications of this Nigerian immigrant profile to the United States and Nigeria is substantial. In 2017, the 344,979 Nigerians in the US made over $13 billion (about N5.2 trillion in Nigeria currency) given their per capita income of $38,984 (Table 4.1). This was a substantial increase from the over $3 billion (about N1.2 trillion in Nigeria currency) that they made in
2000. These individuals contributed to US society in many ways by, for instance, paying taxes which were used to support retirees and fund infrastructure projects such as roads. Some of them e.g. doctors, also owned businesses that employed many Americans.
These immigrants also had an impact on the Nigeria economy through their remittances which in 2000 amounted to about $1.4 billion US dollars, equivalent to over 500 billion Nigerian
Naira at the current exchange rate and to about $6.2 billion (about 2.2 trillion Nigerian Naira) in
2017 (Pew Research Center, 2017). These funds mainly went to helping family members and friends to meet their immediate needs of paying debts, buying food, paying school fees, seeing doctors, and setting up small scale businesses. This money also indirectly flowed into Nigerian government coffers through taxes besides supporting the country’s balance of payments. With better leadership, Nigeria can also use these remittances to increase access to good food and health care services, free education, good electric power supply, and effective public transportation. 87
CHAPTER FIVE: DATA PRESENTATION, ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION
5.1 Introduction
In this chapter, I present, analyze and interpret the results of both the primary and secondary data collected from various sources and an online survey on Qualtrics on the “Spatial
Distribution and Socioeconomic Impact of Nigerian Immigrants in the Toledo Metropolitan
Area”. This survey was done through a well-structured questionnaire with a series of questions on various aspects of the subject matter (See Appendix A).
Overall, forty (40) people responded to the survey with thirty-two of the responses being valid and eight (8) being incomplete and invalid for analysis (Table 5.1). As the following biographical portrait shows, these respondents are in some ways similar and different from their national counterparts because of the different sampling techniques used in this survey and in the
US national censuses used in Chapter 4 of this study.
Table 5.1: Survey Response Rate Surveys Number Percentage Complete/Valid 32 80.00% Incomplete/Invalid 8 20.00% Total 40 100.00%
5.2 Biographical Data of Survey Respondents
5.2.1 Sex Distribution
As Table 5.2 shows, 62.50% (20 out of 32) of my Nigerian survey respondents were male while, 37.50% (12 out of 32) were female. This male dominance is also true at the US national level where the Nigerian sex ratio is 113, that is, 113 males to 100 females, which translates into
53% male and 47% female (Ogunwole, Battle and Cohen, 2017: 7). Although, at the national level, the Nigerian sex ratio is not as wide as it is in this survey, the main point here is that there are more Nigerian males than females in the US at all geographic levels. This skewed response 88 rate is also because, as a male, I encountered more males than females when I was recruiting survey respondents at social settings (e.g. churches) in the Toledo MSA.
Table 5.2: Sex Ratio of the Respondents Sex Frequency Percentage Male 20 62.50% Female 12 37.50% Total 32 100.00%
5.2.2 Age Distribution
Most of the Nigerians surveyed in this study (65.62% or 29 out of 32) were in the economically active ages of 18 – 65 years old with only 9.38% (3 out of 32) being 66 years old and above (Table 5.3). This age distribution is reflective of the fact that US immigration policy favors the economically productive age groups. Therefore, this age distribution of Nigerians in the Toledo MSA is good for the region because it can help to keep it demographically young and productive and capable of supporting its aging population.
Table 5.3: Age Distribution of the Respondents Age Frequency Percentage Under 18 years 0 0.00% 18 – 25 years 4 12.50% 26 – 35 years 12 37.50% 36 – 50 years 5 15.63% 51 – 65 years 8 25.00% 66 years and above 3 9.38% Total 32 100.00%
5.2.3 Country and Place of Birth
Survey results indicate that all of the study participants were born in Nigeria; with most of them coming from the Southwestern (Yoruba) and Southeastern (Igbo) regions of the country.
5.2.4 Ethnicity
Most (53.13% or 17 out of 32) of my study respondents were from the Yoruba ethnic group, while 31.25% (10) were Igbos, while the remaining 13.33% (5) were from various 89 minority groups in Nigeria such as Tiv, Ijaw, Nupe, and Ibibio (Table 5.4). This survey had no record of Hausa people from Northern Nigeria. Even though the Hausas are the most numerous in the country, they are not as educated as Yorubas and Igbos (Ajibola, 2017). Therefore, they are underrepresented in the Nigerian diaspora in the US. Moreover, because the Hausas have controlled Nigerian government resources for a long time, they seldom migrate out of Nigeria in search of economic opportunity (Campbell, 2011). Hausas are in control of the political affairs of the country because of their large numbers and the political structure left behind by the British colonial rulers. For these reasons (low literacy level and access to power and money), they are not attracted to America’s educational and job opportunities. This is not to say that there are no
Hausas in the US but that they are very few since even those that come to study in the US return home to Nigeria because of the opportunities available to them there.
Table 5.4: Ethnic Distribution of Respondents Ethnicity Frequency Percentage Yoruba 17 53.13% Igbo 10 31.25% Hausa 0 0.00% Other 5 15.63% Total 32 100.00%
The ethnic distribution of Nigerians in the study survey buttresses the fact that most
Nigerians in this region mainly come to the US to pursue educational and economic opportunities that they would otherwise not have access to in Nigeria given the country’s current political economy.
5.2.5 Marital Status
My survey results show that most (56.25% or 18 out of 32) of Nigerians in Toledo
Metropolitan Region are single, 34.33% (11 out of 32) are married, 6.25% (2 out of 32) are 90 divorced, and the remaining 3.13% (1 out of 32) are separated (Table 5.5). This distribution confirms the fact that majority of Nigerians in this region are young and are either in school or trying to settle before getting married. Besides helping to keep the region demographically young, they will help to grow its population in the future when they start having families.
Table 5.5: Marital Status of the Respondents Marital Status Frequency Percentage Single 18 56.25% Married 11 34.38% Divorced 2 6.25% Separated 1 3.13% Other 0 0.00% Total 32 100.00%
5.2.6 Employment Status
Table 5.6 shows that 43.75% (14 out of 32) of the Nigerians in my survey were employed while 46.88% (15 out of 32) were pursuing advanced degrees in various fields of study, 6.25% (2 out of 32) were engaged in other business activities, and 3.12% did not provide their employment status. Those that were employed worked in medicine, education and various engineering fields as physicians (doctors), professors, engineers, accountants, nurses, administrators, and scientists. It is interesting to note that none of them were jobless since they could not afford to since, as first-generation immigrants, they have no other economic supports or fall back resources in this country. Moreover, Nigerians in the US are highly selected hardworking, smart, and ambitious immigrants that have to work to achieve their socioeconomic objectives.
In addition, none of our study respondents were pursuing first degrees because those that do so tend to settle in bigger metropolitan areas where they can more easily work and study.
Moreover, since Nigeria is an Anglophone country, many Nigerians have direct access to US graduate schools after finishing their more affordable undergraduate studies at home. Thus, the 91 average Nigerian in the US comes in with at least a first degree. Consequently, even though there are some young Nigerians who are pursuing their first degree in the US in the Toledo
Metropolitan Region, they are few compared to those in various graduate programs.
Table 5.6: Employment Status of the Respondents Employment Status Frequency Percentage Employed 14 43.75% Unemployed 0 0.00% Undergraduate Student 0 0.00% Graduate Student 15 46.88% Other 2 6.25% No Response 1 3.12 Total 32 100.00%
5.2.7 Occupation/Industry of Nigerian Immigrants in Toledo MSA
The data in Table 5.7 show that most (over 65% or 21 out 32) of the Nigerian respondents in the study are well-integrated into the US labor force. Specifically, 37.50% (12 out 32) of them work in government, 15.63% (5 out 32) in private organizations, 6.25% (2 out
32) in nonprofit organizations, 6.25% (2 out of 32) are self-employed, 62.5% (2 out 32) are engaged in unspecified occupations/sectors, while 15.63% (5 out of 32) did not respond.
Nigerians in the study sample are mostly professionals in public and private organizations. They work as medical doctors, administrators, researchers, nurses, engineers, chemists, accountants, professors, clergy, social workers and so on. This profile is similar to that from the US census (see Chapter 4 of this study).
Table 5.7: Employer/Occupation/Industry of the Respondents Employer/Occupation Frequency Percentage Public/Government 12 37.50% Private Company 5 15.63% Nonprofit Organization 2 6.25% Self- employed 2 6.25% Other 6 18.75% No Response 5 15.63% Total 32 100.00% 92
5.2.8 Educational Attainment
All Nigerians in my survey possessed a high school certificate before coming to the US; hence helping to make them one of the most highly educated groups in the USA (Casimir, 2018).
As shown in Table 5.8, the lowest educational attainment of my survey respondents is an associate degree which is true of only one of them (3.13%). The educational attainment of the rest is as follows: 28.13% (9 out of 32) have a bachelor’s degree, 62.51% (20 out of 32) have an advanced degree (Masters and PhD), while 6.26% (2 out of 32) have professional degrees (e.g.
MBA) and other qualifications. This means that 93.77% of survey respondents have a bachelor’s degree or higher.
Table 5.8: Education Attainment of the Respondents Educational Level Frequency Percentage High School - 0.00% Associate degree 1 3.13% Bachelor’s degree 9 28.13% Master’s degree 17 53.13% PhD 3 9.38% Professional 1 3.13% Other 1 3.13% Total 32 100.00%
While this distribution is similar to the educational attainment of Nigerians at the national level in 2017 with only 62.51% of them having a bachelor’s degree or higher (Table 4.1 in the
Chapter 4), the study survey suggests that Nigerians in the Toledo MSA might be more educated than the broader Nigerian population in the USA. If they were less educated, they would be living in bigger and more dynamic US cities/regions where their job prospects would be better.
5.2.9 Monthly Individual Income in Dollars
Table 5.9 shows that 54.54% (12 out of 22) of Nigerians in the Toledo MSA earn below
$2,500 a month. Many of these survey participants were graduate students who earn stipends for 93
positions like Graduate Research Assistants or low salaries from various on-campus jobs. Of the
remaining survey respondents, 13.64 % (3 of 22) earned between $2,500 and $5,000, 18.18% (3
out of 22) between $5,001 and $10,000, and the remaining 13.64% over $20,000 monthly.
Among those who earned $5,001 - $10,000 are professionals like professors and nurses
while those who make $20,000 and over are medical doctors. Compared to the US national
Nigerian per capita income of $39,323 (Table 4.1), the estimated annual income of most
Nigerians in this study (that is $30,000) is lower (Table 5.9) because most of these individuals
are students.
Table 5.9: Monthly Individual Income of the Respondents in US Dollars Income/Earning Frequency Percentage Estimated Annual Income Below $2,500 12 54.54% $30,000 $2,500 - $5,000 3 13.64% $30,001 - $60,000 $5,001 - $10,000 4 18.18% $60,001 - $120,000 $10,001 - $15,000 0 0.00% $120,001 - $180,000 $15,001 - $20,000 0 0.00% $180,001 - $240000 Above $20,001 3 13.64% $240,001 Total 22 100.00% Note: 10 survey participants did not respond this question
5.2.10 Monthly Household Income in Dollars
Table 5.10 shows that 61.54% (8 out of 13) of Nigerian households in the survey earn
above $20,000 in a month, while 15.39% (2 out of 13) earn between $10,001 and $15,000. The
remaining three households fall into 3 income categories. One earns $15,001 and $20,000,
another between $2,500 and $5,000, and the last one earns below $2,500 and is most likely a
student household while the 8 who earn over $20,000 consist of highly educated professional
households e.g., those of doctors. According 2017 Census data, the extrapolated median
household income of Nigerians in Toledo MSA was $50,389; a figure that is substantially lower
than the 2017 national Nigerian median per capita household income of $65,979 (Table 4.1). 94
Nevertheless, variations in the cost of living across the country do substantially influence the purchasing power these incomes.
Table 5.10: Monthly Household Income of the Respondents in US Dollars Income/Earning Frequency Percentage Calculated Annual Household Income Below $2,500 1 7.69% $30,000 $2,500 - $5,000 1 7.69% $30,001 - $60,000 $5,001 - $10,000 0 0.00% $60,001 - $120,000 $10,001 - $15,000 2 15.39% $120,001 - $180,000 $15,001 - $20,000 1 7.69% $180,001 - $240000 Above $20,001 8 61.54% $240,001 Total 13 100.00% Note: 19 survey participants did not respond this question
Table 5.11 shows that survey Nigerian households in Toledo MSA are financially strong.
Since households tend to have more workers (e.g. husband, wife and children); it is expected that households make more money (Table 5.11). The study survey shows that an equal proportion of my respondents’ households earned below and above $2,500 per month. Most of those who earn above $2,500 are most likely married since marriage contributes to higher incomes (Landes,
2018). High Nigerian marriage rates are therefore good for them socially and financially.
According to Pamela Smock, “evidence shows that getting married increases wealth and income” (Landes, 2018: no pp).
Table 5.11: Monthly Individual and Household Income of the Respondents in US Dollars Category Individual Household Income/Earning Frequency Percentage Frequency Percentage Below $2,500 12 54.54% 1 7.69% $2,500 - $5,000 3 13.64% 1 7.69% $5,001 - $10,000 4 18.18% 0 0.00% $10,001 - $15,000 0 0.00% 2 15.39% $15,001 -$20,000 0 0.00% 1 7.69% Above $20,001 3 13.64% 8 61.54% Total 22 100.00% 13 100.00% 95
5.2.11 Distribution of Nigerians in Toledo MSA
In this section, I explore the geography of study survey Nigerians by city and zip code.
While 2016 US Census and ESRI Business Analyst data show that most Nigerians in the Toledo metropolitan region live in Toledo city and nearby suburbs like Maumee, Holland, and Sylvania; this survey got most of its respondents from Bowling Green (Table 5.12). This contrasting distribution is part of the limitations of this study because the researcher had more access to fellow graduate students in Bowling Green in addition to two professionals who live/work there.
The next highest number of respondents were from Toledo and its suburbs that had one each
(Table 5.12). Most of the respondents in Bowling Green are low income graduate students while those in Toledo and nearby suburbs are working professionals (Table 5.12). Although this researcher tried to recruit survey respondents from all over the Toledo MSA, many factors worked against this effort (see study limitations – section 6.3). Nevertheless, the available data is reasonably representative of Nigerians in the Toledo MSA. As shown in Table 5.12, 62.97% (17 out of 27) of the Nigerians in my survey live in Bowling Green, 22.23% (6 out of 27) in Toledo, while the remaining 14.08% (4 out of 27) live in places like Perrysburg, Sylvania, Maumee and
Holland with each place having a 3.70% concentration of them.
Table 5.12: Place/City of Residence of the Respondents Place of residence/City Frequency Percentage Toledo 6 22.23% Bowling Green 17 62.97% Perrysburg 1 3.70% Maumee 1 3.70% Sylvania 1 3.70% Holland 1 3.70% Total 27 100.00% Note: 5 survey participants did not respond this question. Hence, N = 27 instead of 32
As shown in Table 5.13, our respondents are scattered across eight Toledo MSA zip codes. Nearly sixty-three percent (17 out of 27) of the survey respondents live in Zip Code 96
43402 (Bowling Green) while the remaining 37% of respondents live in Zip Codes 43560
(Sylvania), 43551 (Perrysburg), 43614 (Toledo), 43615 (Toledo), 43537 (Maumee), 43607
(Toledo) and 43528 (Holland). Table 5.14 shows the demography of the Zip Codes with survey
Nigerian immigrants in Toledo MSA.
Table 5.13: Zip Code of Place of Residence of the Respondents Zip Codes City Frequency Percentage 43560 Sylvania 1 3.70% 43402 Bowling Green 17 62.97% 43551 Perrysburg 1 3.70% 43614 Toledo 2 7.41% 43615 Toledo 2 7.41% 43537 Maumee 2 7.41% 43607 Toledo 1 3.70% 43528 Holland 1 3.70% Total 27 100.00% Note: 5 survey participants did not respond this question. Hence, N = 27 instead of 32.
Table 5.14: Summary Table of Zip Code Areas of Nigerian Survey Respondents Zip City Population Median Per Household Race Race Race Code Age Capita Income (White) (Black) (Other) Income ($) % % % ($) 43402 Bowling 32,240 27.7 26,673 42,585 87.8 3.6 5.4 Green 43614 Toledo 31,334 39.9 28,128 47,622 74.5 15.4 5.5 43615 Toledo 40,501 38.1 29,634 43,355 65.7 24.6 3.7 43607 Toledo 21,560 33.3 16,567 27,390 65.89 3.8 6.28 43560 Sylvania 32,226 41.3 41,769 85,743 87.7 4.56 7.74 43551 Perrysburg 40,193 38.4 39,014 74,214 89.37 1.73 8.84 43528 Holland 16,551 41.3 38,537 73,948 79.24 9.47 11.29 43537 Maumee 28,163 42.9 38,465 70,541 86.13 5.73 8.14 (Source: US Census, 2017, Cubit, 2019 and Zipdatamap, 2019)
5.2.12 Push/Pull Factors of Survey Respondents to the United States
Table 5.15 shows that the main reason why most survey respondents came to the US was to take advantage of the high-quality education here relative to that obtainable in Nigeria. Indeed, our survey results show that 74.19% (23 out of 31) of Nigerians in our sample mainly came to the US to advance their studies, 12.90% came to reunite with family and the remaining 12.90% 97 came for other reasons. These two reasons (education/skill development and family reunification) have been at the core of US immigration policy since the passage of the immigration Act of 1965.
Table 5.15: Push/Pull Factors of Nigerians to the US Reasons for coming to the US Push/Pull Frequency Percentage Job/Employment Both 0 0.00% Education Pull 23 74.19% Insecurity (political, religious) Push 0 0.00% Family reunification Pull 4 12.90% Other Both 4 12.90% Total 31 100.00% Note: 1 survey participant did not respond this question. Hence, N = 31 instead of 32.
5.2.13 Information/Links to Toledo Metropolitan Area
It is amazing to realize that 70.97% (22 out 31) of our respondents had no information on or links with Toledo MSA before coming to the US (Table 5.16). Only 29.03% (9 out of 31) of them had information on or links to Toledo MSA before coming to the US; links/information that came through relatives (55.56%), friends (33.33%), or the local Nigerian community network (11.11%) (Table 5.17). In other words, family and friends have done a lot to grow the
Nigerian population of Toledo MSA by bringing or influencing more Nigerians to come to the region. The role of these kith and kin relationships in migration is well documented in the literature. For instance, family and kin networks and their strategies greatly influence the motivation and decision of individuals to migrate (Fleischer, 2007: 414).
Table 5.16: Percentage of Nigerians Who Had Information/Links to Toledo Metropolitan Area Information/Link to Toledo MSA Frequency Percentage Has Information/Link 9 29.03% No Information/Link 22 70.97% Total 31 100.00% 98
Table 5.17: Information/Links to Toledo Metropolitan Area Information/Link to Toledo MSA Frequency Percentage Family/Relative 5 55.56% Friend 3 33.33% Social and economic opportunities 0 0.00% Nigerian community/Network 1 11.11% Other 0 0.00% Total 9 100.00%
5.2.14 Support from Other Nigerians or Community of Nigerians in Northwest Ohio
Table 5.18 shows that 41.94% (13 out 31) of my survey respondents in the Toledo MSA had at one time or another received help or support from the community of Nigerians in this region while 58.06% did not. Those that did, received help in the form of accommodation
(30.11% or 4 out of 13), money (15.38% or 2 out of 13), and other support including information
(58.33% or 7 out of 13) (Table 5.19). Interestingly, no one, in our survey received help in the form of a job; meaning that most survey respondents are either not employers or they do not prefer to employ fellow Nigerians.
Table 5.18: Percentage of Support from Nigerian Community Support Frequency Percentage Received Support 13 41.94% Did not receive support 18 58.06% Total 31 100.00% Note: 1of the survey participant did not respond this question. Hence, N = 31 instead of 32.
Table 5.19: Kinds of Support Received Type of Support Frequency Percentage Accommodation 4 30.77% Other 7 53.85% Monetary 2 15.38% Employment 0 00.00% Total 13 100.00%
5.2.15 Socioeconomic Status of Survey Respondents
Table 5.20 shows that 16.67% (5 out of 30) of survey respondents feel that their socioeconomic status is fair when compared to what it was back in Nigeria, 36.67% feel that it is 99 good, 43.3% (13 out 30) feel that it is better, while the remaining 3.33% (1 out of 30) feel that their socioeconomic status is excellent now. In other words, most survey respondents are doing better in the USA than they were in Nigeria because of America’s better pay, job opportunities, and higher standard of living (Table 5.21).
Table 5.20: Socioeconomic Status of Survey Respondents in the Toledo MSA Option Frequency Percentage Fair 5 16.67% Good 11 36.67% Better 13 43.33% Excellent 1 3.33% Total 30 100.00% Note: 2 of survey participants did not respond this question. Hence, N = 30 instead of 32
Although most (54.84% or 17 out of 31) of survey respondents feel that they have a better standard of living now (Table 5.21), a few of them (12.90% or 4 out of 31) feel that their life has not gotten better while 32.23% (10 out of 31) are indifferent as to whether there has been an improvement in their lives or not. The latter two categories most likely include recent
Nigerian arrivals, students with low incomes, or those that had unrealistic income expectations coming in (Bartram, 2011).
Table 5.21: Survey Respondents’ Standard of Living in USA Compared to Nigeria Better Standard of living Frequency Percentage Fulfilled 17 54.84% Not Fulfilled 4 12.90% Indifferent 10 32.26% Total 31 100.00% Note: 1 survey participant did not respond this question. Hence, N = 31 instead of 32.
5.2.16 Contributions of Survey Respondents to the Socioeconomic Welfare of Toledo MSA
As shown in Table 5.22, 90.32% (28 out of 31) of survey respondents have contributed positively to the socioeconomic welfare of the region with only 9.68% (3 out of 31) not doing so.
These contributions include job creation (5.48% or 4 out of 31), voluntary donations (20.55% or
15 out of 31) to help the needy and the homeless, voluntary community services (20.55% or 15 100 out of 31), work/professional contributions (21.92% or 16 out of 31), and payment of taxes
(31.51% or 23 out of 31) which are used by government to provide basic services and infrastructure (Table 5.23).
Table 5.22: Impact of Survey Respondents in Toledo MSA Response Frequency Percentage Contributed 28 90.32% Not Contributed 3 9.68% Total 31 100.00%
Table 5.23: Specific Contributions of Survey Respondents to Toledo MSA Specific Contribution Toledo Frequency Percentage MSA Created job opportunities 4 5.48% Voluntary donations 15 20.55% Voluntary community services 15 20.55% Contribution through work 16 21.92% Payment of taxes 23 31.51% Grand Total 73 100.00% Note: Some survey participants chose more than one (1) area of contribution. Hence, N = 73 instead of 32.
5.2.17 Socioeconomic Contribution of Survey Respondents to Nigeria
Just as they are building their host society, Nigerians in our survey are contributing positively to their country of origin (Table 5.24). Specifically, 87.10% (27 out of 31) of them have contributed to the socioeconomic welfare of Nigeria while the remaining 12.90% (4 out of
31) have not. Those who contributed have done so by offering family support (33.33% or 23 out
31) in the form of money and information, community support (13.04% or 9 out of 31), creation of jobs (4.35% or 3 out of 31), intellectual support (17.39%, 12 out of 31), sponsorship of people to come to the US (14.49%, 10 out of 31), community outreach (7.25%, 5 out 31), social media outreach (8.70%, 6 out 31), and 1.45%, (1 out of 31) of them have also provided other assistance
(Table 5.25). 101
Table 5.24: Percentage of Respondents Who Have Contributed to Nigeria Socially and Economically Option Frequency Percentage Contributed 27 87.10% Not Contributed 4 12.90% Total 31 100.00% Note: 1of the survey participant did not respond this question. Hence, N = 32. Table 5.25: Specific Area of Contributions to Nigeria Contributions to Nigeria Frequency Percentage Family support 23 33.33% Community support 9 13.04% Creation of jobs 3 4.35% Intellectual support 12 17.39% Sponsored relative/friends to the US 10 14.49% Community outreach when I travel there 5 7.25% Community outreach through social media 6 8.70% Other 1 1.45% Total 69 100.00% Note: Some survey participants chose more than one (1) area of contribution. Hence, N =73 instead of 32.
5.2.18 Role of Survey Respondents in Bringing Other Nigerians to the United States
Table 5.26 shows that 56.67% (17 out of 30) of survey respondents have helped one or more people to come to the US while 43.33% (13 out of 30) have not done so because they are, for instance, students who are still trying to find their feet in the US.
However, some of the 56.67% who have been able to help other Nigerians to come to the
US claimed to have helped 1 to 12 people to do so by sending them letters of invitation, information on US education opportunities, money, or by filing immigration papers for them.
Table 5.26: Percentage of Respondents that Helped Others from Nigeria to US Option Frequency Percentage Helped 17 56.67% Did not help 13 43.33% Total 30 100.00% Note:2 of the survey participants did not respond to this question. Hence, N = 30 instead of 32.
Our survey results show that those who have not been able to help have not done so because they are new in the US, have insufficient funds to do so or because of the lack of 102 genuine interest from those back home (Nigeria). Nevertheless, some of those that have not helped are still exploring ways to help, while some of them believe that they do not have the status to do so or have never considered doing so.
5.2.19 Future Plans of Contributing to the Socioeconomic Development of Toledo MSA
Among other things, our survey respondents plan to contribute to the region in the future by creating more jobs, building better community relationships, and expanding the reach of
Christianity in the area. They also plan to contribute to the Nigerian community in the region, help the needy, and use their expertise to develop the region.
5.2.20 Future Plans of Contributing to the Socioeconomic Development of Nigeria
Similarly, survey respondents plan to help Nigeria through provision of free medical treatment, using their expertise to build the country, helping their family members, developing their rural communities, helping to improve the quality of education, providing employment, mentoring the young people, providing intellectual support and other relevant information, helping to alleviate poverty by sponsoring small scale enterprises, and , using their exposure in the US to help strengthen the political affairs of Nigeria. Some Nigerians in other parts of US have already started engaging themselves in the politics of Nigeria. For instance, in the 2019 presidential elections, Omoyele Sowore, a Nigerian based in the US founded a party and ran for office (Obi, 2018: no pp). Although he was not elected, he managed to excite some as the “voice of the new Nigeria” (Ibid 2019: no pp).
5.2.21 Intent to Return to Nigeria
Interestingly, study results show that 56.67% (17 out of 30) of survey respondents plan to return to Nigeria in the future while 43.33% intend to permanently stay in the US (Table 5.27).
Those that intend to return home (Nigeria) plan to impact the country through entrepreneurship 103 and leadership, job creation, provision of quality education, payment of taxes, and by using scholarships to encourage and motivate local students.
Table 5.27: Percentage of Those Who Intend to Return to Nigeria or Stay in the US Permanently Intent Frequency Percentage Return to Nigeria 17 56.67% Stay in the US 13 43.33% Total 30 100.00% Note: 2 of the survey participants did not respond to this question. Hence, N = 30 instead of 32.
On the other hand, the survey respondents who plan to stay permanently in the US believe that it might be difficult for them to adjust to Nigeria’s way of life if they returned because they have lived all or a large part of their life in the US. Others do not want to return because they: (i) believe that life (e.g. medical care) is better here in the US, (ii) have no reason to return to Nigeria because none of their immediate family members is in Nigeria, and (iii) their immediate family in the US in unlikely to go with them.
5.2.22 Effectiveness of Nigerian Immigrant’s Contributions to Toledo MSA
According to Table 5.28, less than half (44.83%, 13 out 29) of my survey participants believe that the contributions of Nigerians in Toledo MSA are visible, effective, and recognized by the host society. On the other hand, most survey respondents (55.17% or 16 out of 29) believe that any of such Nigerian contributions are not effective or visible to the host society. If so, this suggests that Nigerian immigrants need to do more to publicize their social and economic contributions to the region. Where necessary, they should also involve local government leaders, such as the mayor, in any of their programs that benefit the region socially or economically.
Table 5.28: Effectiveness of Nigerian Contributions in Toledo MSA Option Frequency Percentage Effective 13 44.83% Not Effective 16 55.17% Total 29 100.00% Note: 3 of the survey participants did not respond to this question. Hence, N = 29 instead of 32. 104
5.2.23 Spatial Spread of Nigerian Immigrants in Toledo MSA
Table 5.29 shows that 63.33% (19 out of 30) of survey respondents in Toledo MSA live close to one another or have a cluster spatial distribution. The remaining 36.67% (11 out of 30), mostly those with high socioeconomic status, are scattered in area suburbs. While some
Nigerians in Toledo MSA live within walking distance of each other, some live many miles away by road.
Table 5.29: Spatial Spread of Nigerians in Toledo MSA Option Frequency Percentage Clustered 19 63.33% Dispersed 11 36.67% Total 30 100.00% Note: 2 of the survey participants did not respond to this question. Hence, N =30 instead of 32.
It is important to note however that while most survey respondents cluster physically in certain Zip Codes (Table 5.13), some, though scattered in area suburbs, are socially connected with their Nigerian counterparts. Thus, Nigerians in Toledo MSA cluster both physically, socially and emotionally because most of them belong to Nigerian associations such as the
Nigerian Association of Greater Toledo (NAGT) and churches like The Redeemed Christian
Church of God. They also do their shopping at many of the same Toledo MSA
Nigerian/African/Asian grocery stores. This clustering is akin to that of many other immigrant groups in the US who live in real or virtual ethnic enclaves or even ethnoburbs (Wei, 1998).
When a group of people that keeps its home country’s culture and identity lives together in the same area, they form an ethnic enclave (Frazier et. al, 2011 and Muscato, n.d) while ethnoburbs describe a suburban residential and business area dominated by a group of the same ethnic culture (Li, 2009). 105
5.2.24 The Reception of Survey Respondents by the Host Society
According to Table 5.30, most (80.65% or 25 out of 31) of our survey respondents are enjoying a good relationship with the host society while 19.35% (6 out of 31) report having a neutral relationship with Americans. None of them reported having a hostile relationship with
Americans probably because most survey respondents are either students in open social settings like universities or high-status individuals that are well integrated into the host society.
Also, most Nigerians in Toledo MSA enjoy good relations with the host society because most of them live in Toledo city which is known to be racially diverse and welcoming. Majority of the survey respondents believe that their reception is good because they have not experienced any form of negativity, the host society is nice, they help you when necessary, and Toledo city is less racially divided (Citydata.com, 2015).
Table 5.30: Relationship of Survey Respondents with the Host Society Option Frequency Percentage Good 25 80.65% Neutral 6 19.35% Hostile 0 0.00% Total 31 100.00% Note: 1of the survey participants did not respond to this question. Hence, N = 31 instead of 32.
5.2.25 Concerns on Raising Children in Toledo MSA
The study survey shows that a large percentage of respondents do not have concerns about raising their children in Toledo MSA. Table 5.31 shows that 79.31% (23 out of 29) of respondents have no concern about raising their children in this region while 20.69% (6 out 29) have concerns about it. Majority of the Nigerians surveyed believe that the region is good to raise children in because their children will not be exposed to crimes that are prevalent in bigger cities. Toledo is also not too big to hinder parents’ ability to monitor their children. 106
For those who have concerns about raising their children in Toledo MSA, their concerns included an unsafe and creepy environment, racial issues, unhealthy influences, and cultural differences. Other studies on Nigerian/African immigrants have raised many of these same concerns (Obeng, 2006).
Table 5.31: Concerns on Raising Children in Toledo MSA Option Frequency Percentage Concerned 6 20.69% Not Concerned 23 79.31% Total 29 100.00% Note: 3 of the survey participants did not respond to this question. Hence, N = 29 instead of 32.
5.2.26 Influence of Toledo MSA on Children’s Life Outcomes
Table 5.32 shows that survey respondents believe that Toledo MSA has what it takes to prepare and position their children for success in the future. Most Nigerians surveyed (83.33%,
25 out of 30) believe that growing up in Toledo MSA can impact their children positively for the future while 16.67% (5 out 30) have a contrary opinion.
Those (83.33%) that believe that Toledo MSA has what it takes to prepare and position their children for success in life are of this opinion because the region has good and safe academic institutions (e.g., universities and public schools) and neighborhoods, good provision of social services, and few negative distractions. The remaining 16.67% believe that there are racial issues and social safety concerns.
Table 5.32: Can Toledo MSA Prepare and Position Children for Success in Life? Option Frequency Percentage Yes 25 83.33% No 5 16.67% Total 30 100.00% Note: 2 of the survey participants did not respond to this question. Hence, N = 30 instead of 32. 107
5.2.27 Influence of Growing Up in Toledo MSA on Children’s Chances of Success in USA
If growing up in Toledo MSA can prepare children and position them for success locally, it can also prepare them for future success at the national level. Therefore, 87.10% (27 out of 31) of the respondents agreed that growing up in Toledo MSA can prepare and position their children for success in the USA while 12.90% (4 out of 31) disagreed (Table 5.33).
Those who agreed (87.10%) with this statement believed that the schools and neighborhoods of Toledo MSA are good enough to give them a solid upbringing. Moreover, the region’s high social awareness, few distractions compared to the situation in bigger cities, good structures and safe public schools are added advantages. Nevertheless, the remaining 12.90% believe that for the most part, the region is racially charged and unsafe to raise children in.
Table 5.33: Can Toledo MSA Prepare and Position Children for Success in the US? Option Frequency Percentage Yes 27 87.10% No 4 12.90% Total 31 100.00% Note: 1of the survey participant did not respond to this question. Hence, N = 31 instead of 32.
5.2.28 Influence of Growing Up in Toledo MSA on Children’s Chances of Success in
Nigeria
Table 5.34 shows that 66.67% (20 out of 30) of my respondents believed that growing up in the region can prepare and position their children better for success in Nigeria while 31.03% disagreed. Our study data show that majority of my respondents believed that their children in
Northwest Ohio have higher chances of being successful in Nigeria because they constantly keep them in touch with their Nigerian motherland and its values. Toledo MSA’s good academic institutions, neighborhoods, high social awareness, and safe public schools are better than what is obtainable in Nigeria and have thus prepared their children for success there. Conversely, 108
33.33% of the respondents believed that children raised in the US are ill-equipped for success in
Nigeria because of its poor facilities and different life style.
Table 5.34: Can Toledo MSA Prepare and Position Children for Success in Nigeria? Option Frequency Percentage Yes 20 66.67% No 10 33.33% Total 30 100.00% Note: 2 of the survey participants did not respond to this question. Hence, N = 32.
5.2.29 The Concerns of Nigerians in Toledo MSA
The study survey also revealed the concerns of Nigerians in Toledo MSA including employment challenges, excessive work hours in order to make ends meet, immigration issues, and poor networking and social connections. Survey participants indicated that immigration law is not flexible enough for Nigerians, racism persists, and good jobs are difficult to get unless one has a green card or is a citizen. These concerns are also similar to those of Nigerians in the US at large e.g. immigration issues, criminal elements that tarnish the image of all Nigerians in the US, poor living conditions for some, and limited job opportunities for immigrants (Ette, 2012).
5.2.30 Nigerian Associations, Churches (worship places) and Businesses in Toledo MSA
Table 5.35 shows that 55.56% (15 out of 27) of survey respondents confirmed the existence of Nigerian associations, churches and businesses in Toledo MSA while 44.44% (12 out of 27) were not aware of any such entities. The 55.56% of survey respondents who were aware of such entities identified these: Nigerian Association of Greater Toledo (NAGT), Club
Feminique, Anglican Church of Pentecost, and The Redeemed Christian Church of God
(RCCG), Toledo, Sahara Delta kitchen, Definition Dental, Omnicare Home Health, Dynamic
Health Systems, Edu Center, Reflection Banquet hall, and V Couture. The location and nature of these entities is shown in Table 5.36. 109
Table 5.35: Do You Know Nigeria Associations, Churches and Businesses in Toledo MSA? Option Frequency Percentage Yes 15 55.56% No 12 44.44% Total 27 100.00% Note: 5 of the survey participants did not respond to this question. Hence, N = 27 instead of 32.
Table 5.36: Nigerian Establishments in Toledo MSA Name of Establishment Type Location Nigerian Associations of Greater Toledo (NAGT) Association Toledo Club Feminique Association Toledo The Redeemed Christian Church of God (RCCG) Church Toledo Anglican Church of Pentecostal Church Toledo Sahara Delta Kitchen Restaurant Toledo Definition Dental Medical Toledo Omnicare Home Health Medical Maumee Dynamic Health Systems Medical Toledo Edu Center Education Toledo Reflection Banquet Hall Event Center Toledo V Couture Fashion Boutique Perrysburg
The contributions of Nigerian associations, churches and businesses to society according to the study survey, include helping local Nigerian immigrants to secure jobs, and offering them accommodation, spiritual counselling, and monetary help.
5.3 Bio-Sketches of Three Self- Volunteered Nigerian Individuals
In the course of gathering data for this study, three Nigerians self-volunteered to give me more detailed information on themselves than would have been obtained from the survey. This information helped to strengthen my understanding of the socioeconomic situation of Nigerians in this area.
These three Nigerians shared information on why they relocated to the US, two of them gave the same reason, which is to advance their studies, while the third person relocated because of a job and good pay. For the purpose of protecting their identities, I refer to them below and in this study as Dr. J, Mr. K and Mr. L. 110
5.3.1 Background and Entry into the USA
Dr. J is a medical doctor who is married with two kids. He started his education in Nigeria where he was awarded B.Sc. in Medicine. He then went to Europe to further his studies before ending up in the US where he got his Ph.D. in Medicine.
Mr. K is an engineer by profession and his major educational qualifications were gained in
Nigeria. He is married and has two kids. He relocated mainly because of a job offer that was far better than what he had in Nigeria. Currently, he works has engineer for one the biggest oil companies in the US.
Mr. L is an entrepreneur. He came to the US when he finished high school in Nigeria to start his first degree. While he did not provide his marital status, he mentioned that he is a successful businessman.
5.3.2 Why Did You Relocate to the US?
Dr. J: Dr. J relocated to the US as a graduate student to advance studies in medicine. He has been in the US for over 20 years. While discussing his pathway to the US, he said that after finishing his master’s degree in medicine in Europe, he returned to Nigeria where he did his residency or practical medical training before later deciding to come to the United States to study more and practice medicine.
Mr. K: “I relocated to the US because of a job opportunity that pays more than what I was earning in Nigeria and [the] better medical facilities that [are] available in the US.”
Mr. L: “I came to the US to further my studies after my high school. While I was growing up my parents told me that the quality of education in the US and UK is higher than what is obtainable in Nigeria. Since then, I have [had] eyes on studying abroad. It was a dream come true for me when I got admission into [a] US University.” 111
5.3.3 Then and Now Status Comparison
Dr. J: In talking about his situation in Nigeria compared to what it is right now in the US, Dr. J said that he is much better here in the United States in terms of income, job opportunities, social facilities and security.
Mr. K: Comparing his situation in Nigeria and in the US, Mr. K mentioned that his condition is better than what it was in Nigeria. Specifically, he said, “I am nobody back then in Nigeria but coming to the US it was a great change of status”. He added, “I have enjoyed access to good health care, which was part of my decision to relocate to the US”.
Mr. L: For Mr. L, it is difficult to compare his situation back in Nigeria and now in the US. He said, “I came to the US when I finished my high school to continue my studies. So, my parents were responsible for my needs, but I can still mention that it is better here in the US. I had the best education here in the US which is far better than what is obtainable in Nigeria”
5.3.4 Ethnic Matters
Dr. J: When matters that bordered on tribal or ethnic issues among Nigerians in Toledo MSA came up, Dr. J said that inter-ethnic relationships among Nigerians in Toledo MSA are smooth.
According to him “we Nigerians in this region see ourselves as one and we are getting along well. As a matter of fact, even though I am an Igbo man, one of my best friends is a Yoruba man.
So, I have not experienced any such ethnic or tribal segregation.”
Mr. K: On tribal and ethnic related issues among Nigerians in Toledo MSA, Mr. K was indifferent saying, “I do not really pay attention to this because the US is structured in a [such] way that you will always get busy and have little time to socialize. I am fond of my family and do spend quality time with them, but I do have some friends which are not from my tribe and I believe we are getting along well.” 112
Mr. L: On matters relating to tribe and ethnicity, Mr. L said that there are more Yorubas in
Toledo MSA, followed by the Igbos. We all relate well but there are some situations whereby ethnic segregation in evident among us. But we are more of a family compared to what it used to be in Nigeria.
5.3.5 Socioeconomic Contributions
Dr. J confirmed that the socioeconomic impact of Nigerians in this region is significant arguing that a look at the educational qualifications of Nigerians in this region gives one an idea of their contributions to fields like medicine, higher education, and engineering. He added, some
Nigerians in this region are entrepreneurs that create jobs and employ Americans. They are tax payers, community leaders, and neighborhood developers.
Mr. K also mentioned that the contributions of Nigerians in Toledo MSA are resounding. He said that majority of Nigerians in this region are intellectuals whose skills are felt in major economic sectors. We have professors among us, medical practitioners, engineers like me, and administrators in government offices. We also have those who are into business and have created jobs for this region. All of us pay taxes that [are] being used to fund government projects, pay retirees, and provide basic infrastructure.”
Mr. L “I am a good example [of] the impact of Nigerians in this region”. I am an entrepreneur who employs people, including Americans. Also, many Nigerians are using their skills in fields such as medicine, education and public office to improve the community.
5.3.6 Future Plans for Nigeria and Toledo MSA
Dr. J: His plans for Nigeria include assisting more in the area of his profession stating that
“before now, I have embarked on several medical mission trips to Nigeria with Oral Roberts
Ministries (of Oklahoma) which were also extended to other countries in the continent of 113
Africa.” Regarding his plans for Toledo, he said, “For Toledo, I plan to continue my volunteer clinic work at Summit Street and extend it to other parts of the city.”
Mr. K: “I plan to continue empowering people in Nigeria by setting them up [in] small scale businesses to be financially independent and offer my professional advice when needed.” For
Toledo, I will continue my charity donations and collaborate with others who share the same vision as I do.
Mr. L: “I plan to invest in Nigeria as an entrepreneur to create jobs for people and help to fund small scale business in Nigeria. For Toledo MSA, I am working toward expanding my business to create more job opportunities and engage more in voluntary community service and charity donations”.
5.3.7 Relationship with the Host society
Dr. J: When asked about his relationship with the host society, he said, Nigerians in this region are getting along well with the host society. “Personally, my relationship with the host society is fantastic and I am also a US citizen now with dual citizenship status that also includes Nigeria”.
Mr. K: Regarding relationship with the host society, Mr. K said Nigerians in Toledo MSA are enjoying good relationship with the society. For instance, they are my neighbors, co-workers and church members. So, I think they are welcoming and good people.
Mr. L: On the issue of relationships with host society, he said, I am having a good relationship the host society. I have been here for over 20 years. Although, you meet a few ones that are not welcoming, but overall, it has been a pleasant experience with the host society.
5.3.8 Ties with Nigeria
Dr. J: “I shuttle between Nigeria and US. Since 2016, I have been travelling to Nigeria every three (3) months. I just became a chief in my home town, so I have strong ties with Nigeria. I am optimistic about what the future holds for Nigeria.” 114
Mr. K: “I am still well connected to Nigeria, I have family, friends and projects in Nigeria. I visit Nigeria 2 to 3 times in a year”.
Mr. L: “I still have family and friends in Nigeria, and we do connect on phone and social media platforms, but I rarely travel home. But I am beginning to have reasons to travel to Nigeria to visit my ageing parents, and future investment plans will strengthen my ties with Nigeria”.
5.3.9 Socioeconomic Status (SES) of Nigerians in Toledo MSA
Dr. J: “Nigerians in Toledo MSA are doing well. They are at the top of their careers because the opportunities here surpass what is obtainable in Nigeria. Over 95% of the Nigerians in this region can be said to be responsible.”
Mr. K: In terms of SES, Nigerians in Toledo MSA are doing really well. Their educational qualifications have positioned them well to explore opportunities in this region.
Mr. L: “Nigerians are at the top of their game. They are integrating well into the US system with majority of them being highly educated and at the top in various professional fields. We have doctors, engineers, administrators, professors and entrepreneurs like me.”
As these bio-sketch show, these three Nigerian immigrants are successful in the US and have mostly met their reasons for immigrating to this country. They are well established in the
Toledo MSA and are contributing members to society here and in Nigeria.
5.4 Hotspot Analysis of the Distribution of Nigerians in Toledo MSA
Below is a hotspot analysis of the geography of Nigerian immigrants in Toledo MSA using US Census data. From this analysis, it is evident that the distribution of Nigerians in
Toledo MSA shows a clustered pattern. This suggests that Nigerians in Toledo MSA are concentrated in specific tracts within the Lucas County while their presence in other Counties
(Wood, Fulton and Ottawa) is not significant. Figure 5.1(a – i) shows the hot spot analyses of the geography of Nigerians in Toledo MSA from 2009 to 2017. Although, their distribution does 115 vary from year to year, they generally cluster in the same area between 2009 to 2014 before spreading out slightly between 2015 and 2017.
The aggregate distribution pattern of Nigerians in the Toledo MSA from 2009 to 2017 shows that they are clustered in the same area of Lucas County (Figure 5.2). Based on this hotspot analysis, it is evident that Nigerians in Toledo MSA are clustered in tracts to the west of downtown Toledo city near the University of Toledo. While it is expected that the hotspots of
Nigerian immigrants in the Toledo MSA will overlap with those of the entire region’s population, the reverse is actually the case (Figure 5.3a). The two populations appear to be mutually exclusive because Nigerian immigrants in the Toledo MSA are black and their socioeconomic status mostly allows them to live in black areas that have few of the whites who dominate the population of Toledo MSA (Figure 5.3b). Since most Nigerian immigrants in the area live in Black areas, it is clear that they are either race conscious or that they are being racialized into the US African-American community (Figure 5.4a and b) but not into the white community (5.4c).
A hotspot analysis of the Nigerian housing geography shows that most Nigerians in
Toledo MSA are renters (Figure 5.5a and b). This implies that most Nigerians in the region live in low-income tracts because majority of them are new immigrants or full-time students who earn little income as Teaching Assistants, or Research Assistants. Those that are not in school appear to have low socioeconomic status because they are probably recent immigrants that are yet to purchase homes. 116
(a) 2009 (b) 2010 (c) 2011
Toledo MSA Toledo MSA Toledo MSA 2009 Nigerian Popn Hot Spots 2010 Nigerian Popn Distr. 2011 Nigerian Popn Hot Spots Cold Spot - 99% Confidence Cold Spot - 99% Confidence Cold Spot - 99% Confidence Cold Spot - 95% Confidence Cold Spot - 95% Confidence Cold Spot - 95% Confidence Cold Spot - 90% Confidence Cold Spot - 90% Confidence Cold Spot - 90% Confidence Not Significant ± Not Significant Not Significant Hot Spot - 90% Confidence ± Hot Spot - 90% Confidence ± Hot Spot - 90% Confidence Hot Spot - 95% Confidence Hot Spot - 95% Confidence Hot Spot - 95% Confidence Hot Spot - 99% Confidence Hot Spot - 99% Confidence Hot Spot - 99% Confidence
(d) 2012 (e) 2013 (f) 2014
Toledo MSA Toledo MSA Toledo MSA 2012 Nigerian Popn Hot Spots 2013 Nigerian Popn Hot Spots 2014 Nigerian Popn Hot Spots Cold Spot - 99% Confidence Cold Spot - 99% Confidence Cold Spot - 99% Confidence Cold Spot - 95% Confidence Cold Spot - 95% Confidence Cold Spot - 95% Confidence Cold Spot - 90% Confidence Cold Spot - 90% Confidence Cold Spot - 90% Confidence Not Significant Not Significant ± ± Not Significant Hot Spot - 90% Confidence Hot Spot - 90% Confidence ± Hot Spot - 90% Confidence Hot Spot - 95% Confidence Hot Spot - 95% Confidence Hot Spot - 95% Confidence Hot Spot - 99% Confidence Hot Spot - 99% Confidence Hot Spot - 99% Confidence
(g) 2015 (h) 2016 (i) 2017 117
Toledo MSA Toledo MSA Toledo MSA 2015 Nigerian Popn Hot Spots 2016 Nigerian Popn Hot spots 2017 Nigerian Popn Hot Spots Cold Spot - 99% Confidence Cold Spot - 99% Confidence Cold Spot - 99% Confidence Cold Spot - 95% Confidence Cold Spot - 95% Confidence Cold Spot - 95% Confidence Cold Spot - 90% Confidence Cold Spot - 90% Confidence Cold Spot - 90% Confidence Not Significant Not Significant ± Not Significant ± ± Hot Spot - 90% Confidence Hot Spot - 90% Confidence Hot Spot - 90% Confidence Hot Spot - 95% Confidence Hot Spot - 95% Confidence Hot Spot - 95% Confidence Hot Spot - 99% Confidence Hot Spot - 99% Confidence Hot Spot - 99% Confidence
Figure 5.1: 2009 – 2017 Hotspots Analysis of Nigerian Spatial Distribution in Toledo MSA 118
Toledo MSA Aggr. Nigerian Hot Spots Cold Spot - 99% Confidence Cold Spot - 95% Confidence Cold Spot - 90% Confidence Not Significant ± Hot Spot - 90% Confidence Hot Spot - 95% Confidence Hot Spot - 99% Confidence
Figure 5.2: Hotspots Analysis of Aggregate Nigerian Distribution in Toledo MSA
(a) Nigerian Population (b) Toledo MSA Population
Toledo MSA Population Hot/Cold Spots Cold Spot - 99% Confidence Cold Spot - 95% Confidence Cold Spot - 90% Confidence Not Significant ± Hot Spot - 90% Confidence Hot Spot - 95% Confidence Hot Spot - 99% Confidence
Figure 5.3: Spatial Distribution of Nigerian Immigrants in Toledo MSA Compared to the Region Total Population. 119
(a) Blacks (b) Nigerians (c) Whites
Toledo MSA Toledo MSA Toledo MSA Aggr. Nigerian Hot Spots Cold Spot - 99% Confidence White Popn Hot/Cold Spots Black Popn Hot/Cold Spots Cold Spot - 95% Confidence Cold Spot - 99% Confidence Cold Spot - 99% Confidence Cold Spot - 90% Confidence Cold Spot - 95% Confidence Cold Spot - 95% Confidence Not Significant Cold Spot - 90% Confidence Cold Spot - 90% Confidence ± Not Significant ± Hot Spot - 90% Confidence Not Significant ± Hot Spot - 95% Confidence Hot Spot - 90% Confidence Hot Spot - 90% Confidence Hot Spot - 99% Confidence Hot Spot - 95% Confidence Hot Spot - 95% Confidence Hot Spot - 99% Confidence Hot Spot - 99% Confidence
Figure 5.4: Spatial Distribution of Nigerian Immigrants in Relation to Race in Toledo MSA (a) Home Renters (b) Nigerian Distribution (c) Home Owners
Toledo MSA Toledo MSA Home Owners Hot/Cold Spots Home Renters Hot/Cold Spots Cold Spot - 99% Confidence Cold Spot - 99% Confidence Cold Spot - 95% Confidence Cold Spot - 95% Confidence Cold Spot - 90% Confidence Cold Spot - 90% Confidence Not Significant ± Not Significant ± Hot Spot - 90% Confidence Hot Spot - 90% Confidence Hot Spot - 95% Confidence Hot Spot - 95% Confidence Hot Spot - 99% Confidence Hot Spot - 99% Confidence
Figure 5.5: Spatial Distribution of Nigerian Immigrants in Relation to Housing in Toledo MSA 120
5.5 Measure of Centers: Nigerian Immigrants Distribution in Toledo MSA
The measurement of geographic centers provides information on whether the observed distribution pattern of Nigerian immigrants in Toledo MSA is due to chance or the product of factors that attract them to specific locations.
5.5.1 Geographic Center of Nigerian Immigrants in Toledo MSA
Even though the geographic analysis of the distribution of Nigerians in the Toledo MSA shows that they are clustered, Figure 5.6 shows that our geographic center analysis failed to find a tract that is most centrally located relative to others in the distribution. Instead, it found a center feature at the edge of the Nigerian cluster (Figure 5.6).
Geographic Centers Hotspot Nigerians Cold Spot - 99% Confidence Cold Spot - 95% Confidence Cold Spot - 90% Confidence Not Significant Hot Spot - 90% Confidence Hot Spot - 95% Confidence Hot Spot - 99% Confidence Central Feature ±
0 5 10 20 Miles
Figure 5.6: Geographic Center of Nigerian Immigrants in Toledo MSA
5.5.2 Mean Center
However, the mean center analysis of the distribution of Nigerian immigrants in Toledo
MSA confirms their clustered spatial pattern. The green ellipse in Figure 5.7 shows the location of the tract with the shortest distance to others at the core of distribution.
121
Geographic Centers Hotspot (! Nigerians Cold Spot - 99% Confidence Cold Spot - 95% Confidence Cold Spot - 90% Confidence Not Significant Hot Spot - 90% Confidence Hot Spot - 95% Confidence Hot Spot - 99% Confidence (! Mean Center ±
0 5 10 20 Miles
Figure 5.7: Mean Center of the Distribution of Nigerian Immigrants in Toledo MSA
5.5.3 Median Center
It is expected that the median center of the distribution of Nigerian immigrants in Toledo
MSA should be at the core of the distribution. However, the median center touches on two tracts at the edge of the cluster where most Nigerians live (Figure 5.8).
Geographic Centers (! Hotspot Nigerians Cold Spot - 99% Confidence Cold Spot - 95% Confidence Cold Spot - 90% Confidence Not Significant Hot Spot - 90% Confidence Hot Spot - 95% Confidence Hot Spot - 99% Confidence (! Median Center ±
0 5 10 20 Miles
Figure 5.8: Median Center of the Distribution of Nigerian Immigrants in Toledo MSA 122
5.5.4 Standard Deviation Ellipse
While the distribution of Nigerian immigrants is generally compact, the direction and orientation of their distribution is toward the northeast and southwest of the Toledo MSA (Figure
5.9). This is mostly constrained by the flow of Maumee River as well as the location of the area’s black population.
Figure 5.9: Standard Deviation Ellipse of the Distribution of Nigerian Immigrants in Toledo MSA
5.5.5 All Centers
In summary, all the centers collectively confirm the spatial clustering of Nigerians in the
Toledo MSA with both the mean and median centers being in the area of the Toledo MSA where
Nigerian immigrants cluster (Figure 5.10).
123
Figure 5.10: All Centers of the Distribution of Nigerian Immigrants in the Toledo MSA
5.6 Testing of Hypotheses
5.6.1 Hypothesis One
Ho: There is no cluster spatial distribution of Nigerian immigrants in Toledo MSA.
As shown in Table 5.29, 63% of Nigerian immigrants live in Toledo (Lucas County) which means they are spatially clustered in the region. This is confirmed by a hotspot analysis of their distribution pattern (Figure 5.1). As shown by Figure 5.11, the spatial clustering of Nigerian immigrants in the Toledo MSA is statistically significant.
Since the z-score (2.896) greater than the p-value (0.004), we reject the null hypothesis
(Ho) and accept the alternate hypothesis (Hi) that Nigerian immigrants in the Toledo MSA are spatially clustered in the region for reasons like race, income and the location of the higher educational institutions that they attend.
124
Figure 5.11: Spatial Autocorrelation Analysis of Nigerian Immigrants In Toledo MSA 5.6.2 Hypothesis Two
Ho: Nigerian immigrants in Toledo have no socioeconomic contribution to Toledo MSA and
Nigeria.
Using data from questions 20, 21, 22 and 23 (see Appendix A) as reported in Tables 5.22 and 5.23, over 90% of the survey respondents confirmed that Nigerians contribute to the social and economic development of the Toledo MSA (Table 5.22) by creating jobs, making voluntary contributions, paying taxes, and working in the area (Table 5.23). Therefore, we reject the null hypothesis and accept the alternative hypothesis that Nigerian immigrants in Toledo have made many socioeconomic contributions to Toledo and Nigeria as outlined in Tables 5.22, 5.23, 5.24 and 5.25. This is clear from Figures 5.12 and 5.13. 125
35.00% 31.51% 30.00% 25.00% 20.55% 20.55% 21.92% 20.00% 15.00% 10.00% 5.48% 5.00% 0.00% Created job Made Offered Contribution Payment of opportunities voluntary voluntary through my taxes donations to community work help the needy services Figure 5.12: Areas of Nigerian Immigrants Contributions to Toledo MSA
35.00% 33.33% 30.00% 25.00% 20.00% 17.39% 14.49% 15.00% 13.04% 8.70% 10.00% 7.25% 4.35% 5.00% 1.45% 0.00%
Figure 5.13: Areas of Nigerian Immigrants Contributions to Nigeria
5.6.3 Hypothesis Three
Ho: Nigerian immigrants have not experienced a positive change in their Socioeconomic Status
(SES) since they immigrated to the United States.
Based on responses to survey questions 18 and 19 from the study survey (see Appendix
A) that are shown in Table 5.20, most (54.84%) of the survey respondents have experienced a positive change in their socioeconomic status in Toledo MSA. Specifically, they are more educated, and have higher incomes. They therefore rate their current socioeconomic status as mostly good, better or excellent (Table 5.20 and Figure 5.14). Therefore, we reject the null 126 hypothesis and accept the alternative hypothesis that Nigerian immigrants have experienced positive change in their socioeconomic status since they immigrated to the US.
Excellent 3.33%
Better 43.33%
Good 36.67%
Fair 16.67%
0.00% 5.00% 10.00% 15.00% 20.00% 25.00% 30.00% 35.00% 40.00% 45.00% 50.00% Figure 5.14: Ratings of Nigerian Immigrants Socioeconomic Status (SES) in Toledo MSA
In summary, the results of our hypothesis testing show that Nigerians in Toledo MSA are spatially clustered and have impressive socioeconomic status, just as they are at the national level. Their high socioeconomic status has enabled them to contribute positively to the welfare of the Toledo MSA, the US, and to Nigeria. 127
CHAPTER SIX: DISCUSSIONS AND CONCLUSIONS
6.1 Introduction
In this Chapter, I summarize the findings of this study, discuss the limitations of the study, provide the policy recommendations emanating from the study, offer suggestions for further studies, and provide study conclusions.
6.2 Summary of Findings
In this study, we sought to understand the socioeconomic characteristics of Nigerian immigrants in the Toledo Metropolitan Region and to ascertain whether their distribution pattern is clustered or dispersed in space and whether they have made any socioeconomic contributions to the Toledo MSA, US and Nigeria. The study presented and tested three hypotheses on these issues.
An analysis of the primary data collected for this study revealed that Toledo city is home to most of the Nigerians in this region and that most of them are ethnic Yorubas and Igbos from southern Nigeria. These two communities are partially here because of their limited socioeconomic opportunities in Nigeria and their limited influence on the country’s Hausa- dominated government. Apart from the push-pull theory of migration that provides many reasons
(e.g., the search for better economic opportunities) as to why Nigerians (especially Yorubas and
Igbos) migrate to the US; the New Economics of Labor Migration (NELM) theory, neoclassical economic theory, and world systems theory better explain why most Nigerians migrate to the
US. US laws, especially the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965 and Immigration Act 1990 provide the legal framework for many Nigerian immigrants’ entry into the US in recent decades.
128
The spatial distribution pattern of Nigerians in Toledo MSA is clustered though the spatial location of their clustering has constantly changed around the area west of the university of Toledo in the last decade.
Just as Nigerians are known to be highly educated at the national level, this study also revealed that Nigerians in Toledo MSA are highly educated and are continuing to do so by taking advantage of the region’s good academic institutions, neighborhoods, and other socioeconomic opportunities. As a result, most Nigerians in the area have done well socioeconomically and are contributing substantially to the Toledo MSA (and by extension to the US) and to Nigeria.
6.3 Limitations of the Study
The following were some of the limitations encountered during this study:
1. Prior to the deployment of the study survey, there was a need to get approval from
BGSU’s research compliance office and the process was tasking and time consuming,
thereby limiting the time available for primary data collection.
2. It was difficult to access data on Nigerians in the Toledo MSA on US Census platforms
because of their small numbers. Because the census suppressed this information, we had
to infer their characteristics from those of the tracts and Zip Codes they live in. As would
be expected, such inferences can be misleading
3. Survey respondents were reluctant to participate in the study because of the fear of
revealing their identities to the Federal government in the then somewhat “hostile”
immigration climate in the United States.
4. I had more access to survey respondents in Bowling Green than in other parts of the
region. This influenced the representativeness of my sample population. There is
therefore a possibility of some bias in study data and its research results.
129
5. In most research studies, time and financial constraints are present. This study is no
exception to these constraints that made it difficult to reach out to more Nigerians in the
Toledo MSA.
Despite these challenges, concerted efforts were made to ensure the validity of the data collected and the analysis done on the same. Therefore, the results of the research will, hopefully, help to enlighten the scholarly community on the spatial distribution and socioeconomic characteristics and contributions of Nigerians in the Toledo MSA.
6.4 Policy Recommendations
Based on this research, it is evident that immigrants are a blessing to host countries and not a curse. About 62% of Americans agree that immigrants strengthen the US (Jones, 2019).
The benefits of immigration to the receiving region/country usually outweighs its costs (Borjas,
1995, pp 42). This is true of Nigerian immigrants in the Toledo MSA. The region can benefit even more from these immigrants. Therefore, it is recommended that:
1. The region’s governments and policy makers should continue to embrace immigration
including that of less well-known groups like Nigerians in order to support the region’s
growth and development. In this regard, it is noteworthy that the region is working to
attract more immigrants (including Nigerians) and to create an enabling environment for
them to operate and thrive through initiatives like Welcome Toledo-Lucas County –
Welcome TLC (Welcome Toledo-Lucas County, 2015 & Otiso, 2016). Such initiatives
can also help to mitigate the region’s declining population due to its below replacement
fertility levels besides helping to grow its economy (Kerr et. al, 2014, NAIC, 2018).
2. Nigerian immigrants should do more to make their socioeconomic contribution to the
region more visible by working more closely with local leaders and media outlets.
130
3. Government should endeavor to create job opportunities that will keep skilled immigrants
like Nigerians in the region, most especially, those graduating from the region’s higher
education institutions like Bowling Green State University (BGSU) and the University of
Toledo (UT). Doing so would strengthen the region’s economy.
4. Although Nigerian immigrants in Toledo MSA are already contributing to Nigeria that
country’s government should put in place structure that can support such endeavors.
6.5 Suggestions for Further Studies
This study described the spatial distribution and examined the socioeconomic characteristics and contributions of Nigerians in the Toledo MSA to the region and Nigeria.
However, further studies should be done on Nigerians in the Toledo MSA because this study gathered most of its survey data in Bowling Green. There might be more learn about this population from a more geographically representative sample of Nigerians in the area. Also, it will be interesting to do a comparative study of Nigerians in Toledo MSA and other
Metropolitan regions in the United States to see if they share the same socioeconomic characteristics.
6.6 Conclusions
This study has outlined the geographic distribution and socioeconomic characteristics of
Nigerian immigrants in the Toledo MSA and found that they are clustered in space and have contributed positively to the socioeconomic development of the region and Nigeria. They are community builders, job creators, tax payers, and population boosters that have contributed to the diversity of the Toledo MSA by adding Nigerian traits to it. In doing so, they have vindicated
Oscar Handlin’s 1952 claim that “Once I thought to write a history of the immigrants in
America. Then I discovered that the immigrants were American history.”
131
REFERENCES
Ajibola, A. (2017, July 24). Nigeria: Despite decades of funding, literacy level in the northern
states remains low. The Guardian. Retrieved from https://guardian.ng/news/despite-
decades-of-funding-literacy-level-in-the-northern-states-remains-low/
Akresh, I.R. & Frank, R. (2008). Health selection among immigrants. American Journal of
Public Health, 98(11), 2058- 2064. Retrieved from
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2636435/
American Immigration Council. (2016). How the United States immigration system works. Fact
Sheet. Retrieved from https://www.americanimmigrationcouncil.org/research/how-
united-states-immigration-system-works
American Immigration Council. (2017). Immigrants in Ohio. Fact Sheet. Retrieved from
https://www.americanimmigrationcouncil.org/research/immigrants-ohio
American Immigration Lawyers Association (2001, September). Current immigration laws.
Retrieved from https://www.aila.org/infonet/current-immigration-laws
Anderson, M. (2017). African immigrant population in U.S. steadily climbs. Pew research
center. Retrieved from https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/02/14/african-
immigrant-population-in-u-s-steadily-climbs/
Arthur, A.R. (2018). Looking for push factors in Central America. Center for Immigration
Studies. Retrieved from https://cis.org/Arthur/Looking-Push-Factors-Central-America
Arthur, J. A. (2000). Invisible sojourners: African immigrant diaspora in the United States.
Westport, Connecticut, London: Praeger Publishers.
Arthur, J.A., Takougang, J., & Owusu, T. (2012). Africans in global migration: Searching for
promise land. Lanham, MD: Lexington Books.
132
Asika, N. (2002). Research methodology in the behavioral sciences. Ikeja, Lagos: Longman
Publishers.
Association of Nigerian Physicians in the America (ANPA). Retrieved from
https://anpa.org/about/history/
Banco, E. (2019). Secretly meets with house foreign affairs committee to talk to Trump. Baily
Beast. Retrieved from https://www.thedailybeast.com/supreme-court-kisor-v-wilkie-case-
john-roberts-isnt-the-conservative-you-thought-he-was?ref=scroll
Baptiste, N. (2014). Them that’s got shall get. The American Prospect Longform. Retrieved from
https://prospect.org/article/staggering-loss-black-wealth-due-subprime-scandal-
continues-unabated.
Berry, J. W., Uichol Kim, Thomas Minde and Doris Mok (1987). Comparative Studies of
Acculturative Stress. The International Migration Review, Vol. 21, No. 3, Special Issue:
Migration and Health (Autumn, 1987), pp. 491-511. DOI: 10.2307/2546607,
https://www.jstor.org/stable/2546607.
Binkovitz, L. (2016). How African immigrants are creating a new identity for themselves in
Houston. Rice Kinder Institute for Urban Research. Retrieved from
https://kinder.rice.edu/2016/11/22/african-immigrants-help-reinvent-houston
Borch, C. & Corra, M. K. (2010). Differences in earnings among black and white African
immigrants in the United States, 1980 – 2000: Across-sectional and Temporal Analysis.
Sociological Perspective, 53(4), 573-592. Retrieved from
https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1525/sop.2010.53.4.573
133
Borjas, G.J. (1995). The economic benefit from immigration. Journal of Economic Perspectives,
9 (3), 3-22. Retrieved from
https://sites.hks.harvard.edu/fs/gborjas/publications/journal/JEP1995.pdf
Butler, R. (2004 - 2014). Number of people of Nigeria origin in the US. Mongabay.com.
Retrieved from https://names.mongabay.com/ancestry/Nigerian.html
Camarota, S. A. & Zeigler, K. (2017). 1.8 million immigrants likely arrived in 2016, matching
highest level in U.S. history. Center for Immigration Studies. Retrieved from
https://cis.org/Report/18-Million-Immigrants-Likely-Arrived-2016-Matching-Highest-
Level-US-History
Campbell, J. & Bunche, R. (2011). Why Nigeria’s North South distinction is important.
HuffPost. Retrieved from https://www.huffpost.com/entry/why-nigerias-north-
south_b_817734
Campbell, J. (2018). Lord Lugard created Nigeria 104 years ago. Foreign Affair. Retrieved from
https://www.cfr.org/blog/lord-lugard-created-nigeria-104-years-ago
Casimir, L. (2008). In America, Nigerians education pursuit is above rest. Houston Chronicle.
Retrieved from https://www.chron.com/news/article/Data-show-Nigerians-the-most-
educated-in-the-U-S-1600808.php
Clark, D. (2019, June 24). States across the country take unprecedented action to save child
brides. News. Retrieved from https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/politics-news/states-
across-country-take-unprecedented-action-save-child-brides-n1019886
Coleman, D. (2006). Immigration and ethnic change in low fertility countries: A third
demographic transition. Population and Development Review 32 (3): 401 -446. Retrieved
from https://www.jstor.org/stable/20058898?seq=1#metadata_info_tab_contents
134
Constable, P. (2014). African immigrant population doubling each decade; D.C. area among
group’s top destination. The Washington Post. Retrieved from
https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/african-immigrant-population-doubling-each-
decade-washington-area-among-highest/2014/10/01/efbada70-498f-11e4-891d-
713f052086a0_story.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.b9aa5c898031
Cooper, B., Cox, Daniel, Lienesch & Jones, R. P (2016). How Americans view immigrants and
what they want from immigration reform: Findings from the 2015 American values atlas.
PRRI Retrieved from http://www.prri.org/research/poll-immigration-reform-views-on-
immigrants/
Cordero-Guzm�n, H. R., Smith, R. C., & Grosfoguel, R. (2001). Migration, transnationalization,
and race in a changing New York. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.
Costello, B. & Treanor, C. (2015). Economic: The Toledo metropolitan statistical area. Federal
Reserve Bank of Cleveland. Retrieved from https://www.clevelandfed.org/newsroom-
and-events/publications/economic-trends/2015-economic-trends/et-20150903-the-toledo-
metropolitan-statistical-area.aspx
Cwadmin. (2013). Why Nigerians are barred from US visa lottery. Nigeria communications
Week. Retrieved from https://nigeriacommunicationsweek.com.ng/why-nigerians-are-
barred-from-us-visa-lottery/
Data USA (n.d). Toledo, Oh metro area. Retrieved from https://datausa.io/profile/geo/toledo-oh-
metro-area
Djajic, S. (2001). International migration: Trends, policies and economic impact. New York,
NY: Routledge.
135
Ecer, S. & Tompkins, A. (2010). An econometric analysis of the remittance determinants among
Ghanaians and Nigerians in the United States, United Kingdom and Germany.
International Migration, 51 (S1) 0020-7985. Retrieved from
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/j.1468-2435.2010.00604.x
Edegbo, J. (2019, June 24). Nigerian doctors in U.S. pledge to scale up health indices back
home. Africa Prime News. Retrieved from
https://www.africaprimenews.com/2018/09/28/news/nigerian-doctors-in-u-s-pledge-to-
scale-up-health-indices-back-home/
Elvery, J. & Vecchio, C. (2015). Toledo – economy growing but slowly. Federal Reserve Bank
of Cleveland. Retrieved from https://www.clevelandfed.org/en/newsroom-and-
events/publications/metro-mix/toledo/mm-201508-toledo.aspx
Ette, E. U. (2012). Nigerian immigrants in the United States: Race, identity and acculturation.
Lanham, MD: Lexington Books.
Ezeobele, I., Malecha, A., Landrum, P., &Symes, L. (2010). Depression and Nigeria-born
women in the United States: a phenomenology study. Journal of psychiatric and Mental
health Nursing. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20465767
FindLaw’s Team (2019). Alaska Marriage Age Requirements laws. FindLaw. Retrieved by
https://statelaws.findlaw.com/alaska-law/alaska-marriage-age-requirements-laws.html
Findlay, J. (2108). Largest ethnic groups in Nigeria. Worldatlas. Retrieved from
https://www.worldatlas.com/articles/largest-ethnic-groups-in-nigeria.html.
Fleischer, A. (2007). Family, obligation, and migration: The role of kinship in Cameroon.
Demographic Research 16(13), 413-440. Retrieved from http://www.demograhic –
research.org/Volumes/vol16/13/
136
Frazier, J.W., Tettey-Flo, E.L., & Henry, N.F. (2011). Race, ethnicity and place in a changing
America (2nd Ed.). Albany, New York: State University of New York.
Frey, W. H. (2018). US population growth hits 80-year low, capping off a year of demographic
stagnation. The Brookings Institution, Friday, December 21, 2018. Retrieved from
https://www.brookings.edu/blog/the-avenue/2018/12/21/us-population-growth-hits-80-
year-low-capping-off-a-year-of-demographic-stagnation/.
Furon, G.E. & Schiller, N.G. (2002). The generation of identity: Redefining the second
generation within a transnational social field. In Cordero-Guzman, H.R., Smith, R.C. &
Grosfoguel, R., Migration, transnationalization, and race in a changing New York (60).
Philadelphia, PA: Temple university press.
Fussell, E. (2014). Warmth of the welcome: Attitudes toward immigrants and immigration
policy. Annual Review of Sociology, 40, 479-498. Retrieved from
https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-soc-071913-043325
Gambino, C. P., Trevelyan, E. N. & Fitzwater, J. T. (2014). The foreign -born population from
Africa: 2008 – 2012. United States Census Bureau. Retrieved from
https://www.census.gov/library/publications/2014/acs/acsbr12-16.html
Garcia, A. (n.d). Immigrants hit hard by slowdown, subprime crisis. Reuters. Retrieved from
https://mobile-reuters-
com.cdn.ampproject.org/v/s/mobile.reuters.com/article/amp/idUSN3019759720080130?u
sqp=mq331AQA&_js_v=0.1
Gheasi, M. & Nijkamp, P. (2015). A brief overview of international migration motives and
impacts, with specific reference to FDI. Economies, MDPI, 5(3), 1-11. Retrieved from
https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jecomi/v5y2017i3p31-d109008.html
137
Greene, R. P. & Pick, J. B. (2012). Exploring the urban community: A gis approach (2nd ed.).
Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Grieco, E. M. (2003). Census 2010 and the foreign born: Averting the data crisis. Migration
Policy Institute. Retrieved from https://www.migrationpolicy.org/research/census-2010-
and-foreign-born-averting-data-crisis
Griswold, D. (2002). Immigrants have enriched American culture and enhanced our influence in
the world. Insight. Retrieved from
https://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/immigrants-have-enriched-american-
culture-enhanced-our-influence-world
Hamilton, T.G., Easley, J.A & Dixon A.R. (2018). Black immigration. Occupational niches, and
earnings disparities between U.S -born and foreign-born blacks in the United States. RSF:
The Russell Sage Foundation Journal of the Social Sciences, 4(1), 60-77. Retrieved from
https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.7758/rsf.2018.4.1.04
Herb, B. (2011). Nigerians in America. The Network Journal, 18(7) 44-45. Retrieved from
https://tnj.com/nigerians-america/
Hipsman, F. & Meissner, D. (2013). Immigration in the United States: New economic, social,
political landscapes with legislative reform on the horizon. Migration Policy Institute.
Retrieved from https://www.migrationpolicy.org/article/immigration-united-states-new-
economic-social-political-landscapes-legislative-reform
Hirschman, C. (2005). Immigration and the American century. Population Association of
America, 42(4), 595-620. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/4147331
138
Horman, B. (2015). Study: immigrants contribute enormously to Toledo economy. New
American Economy. Retrieved from https://www.newamericaneconomy.org/news/study-
immigrants-contribute-enormously-to-toledo-economy/
Hyer, V. (2014). African-Born population in U.S. roughly doubled every decade since 1970,
Census Bureau Report. Newsroom. Retrieved from
https://www.census.gov/newsroom/press-releases/2014/cb14-184.html
Jasso, G., Massey, D. S., Rosenzweig, M.R. & Smith, J.P (2003). The new immigrant survey in
the U.S: The experience over time. Migration Policy Institute. Retrieved from
https://www.migrationpolicy.org/article/new-immigrant-survey-us-experience-over-time
Jones, B. (2019). Majority of Americans continue to say immigrants strengthen the US. Pew
Research Center. Retrieved from https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-
tank/2019/01/31/majority-of-americans-continue-to-say-immigrants-strengthen-the-u-s/
Jones, B. (2019). Majority of the Americans continue to say immigrants strengthen the U.S. Pew
Research Center. Retrieved from https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-
tank/2019/01/31/majority-of-americans-continue-to-say-immigrants-strengthen-the-u-s/
Kainth, G. S. (2010). Push and pull factors of migration: A case study of Brick Kilm migrant
workers in Punjab. Munich Personal RePEc Archive. Retrieved from https://mpra.ub.uni-
muenchen.de/30036/
Kalitanyi, V. & Visser, K. (2010). African immigrants in South Africa: job takers or job creators.
South African Journal of Economic and Management Sciences, 1015-8812. Retrieved
from http://www.scielo.org.za/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S2222-
34362010000400001
139
Kerr, S. P. & Kerr, W. R. (2008, 2011). Economic impacts of immigration: A survey. Harvard
business school. Retrieved from https://www.hbs.edu/faculty/Publication%20Files/09-
013_15702a45-fbc3-44d7-be52-477123ee58d0.pdf
Konadu-Agyemang, K. (2003). African immigrants to Canada and the United States: Some
socio-economic and spatial dimensions. Geography Research Forum 23, 96-113.
University of Akron, OH.
Konadu-Agyemang, K. Baffour K. Takyi, B.K. & John Arthur, J.A. (2006). The new African
diaspora in North America: Trends, community building and adaptation. Lanham, MD:
Lexington Books.
Krogstad, J.M. & Gonzalez-Barrera, A. (2019). Key facts about U.S. immigration policies and
proposed changes. Pew Research Center. Retrieved from
https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/05/17/key-facts-about-u-s-immigration-
policies-and-proposed-changes/
Landes, L. (2018). Does getting married increase wealth and income? Consumerism
Commentary. Retrieved from https://www.consumerismcommentary.com/marriage-
increase-wealth/
Li, W. (2009). Ethnoburb: The new ethnic community in urban America. Honolulu, HI:
University of Hawaii Press
Lumumba, P. L. O. (2018, October). How corruption is destroying Africa: Nigeria case in focus.
The role diasporans could play in fighting the scourge. Speech at Cleveland State
University, Cleveland, OH.
140
Massey, D.S. et. al. (1993). Theories of international migration: A review and appraisal.
Population and Development Review 19 (3): 431- 466. Retrieved from
https://www.jstor.org/stable/2938462
Massey, D.S. & Pren K. A. (2012). Unintended consequences of US immigration policy:
Explaining the post -1965 surge from Latin America. Population and Development
Review 38 (1): 1-29. Retrieved from
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3407978/
Mberu, B. U. & Pongou, R. (2010). Nigeria: Multiple forms of mobility in Africa’s demographic
giant. Migration policy institute. Retrieved from
https://www.migrationpolicy.org/article/nigeria-multiple-forms-mobility-africas-
demographic-giant
Meyers, E. (2019). Theories of international immigration policy – A comparative analysis.
International Migration Review 34(4), 1245-1285. Retrieved from
https://www.jstor.org/stable/2675981
Migration Policy Institute (2015). The Nigerian diaspora in the United States. RAD Diaspora
Profile. Retrieved from
https://www.migrationpolicy.org/sites/default/files/publications/RAD-Nigeria.pdf
Mohan, G. & Zack-Williams, A.B. (2007). Editorial: Africa, the African diaspora and
development. Review of African Political Economy, 92, 205-210. Retrieved from
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/03056240208704609
Morgan, G. D. (1963). Exploratory study of problems of academic adjustment of Nigerian
student in America. The Journal of Negro Education, 32(3), 208 -217. Retrieved from
https://www.jstor.org/stable/2294364
141
Muscato, C. (n.d). What is an ethnic enclave< - Definition, example and types. Study.com.
Retrieved from https://study.com/academy/lesson/what-is-an-ethnic-enclave-definition-
examples-types.html
Ndika, N. (2013). Acculturation: A pilot study on Nigerians in America and their coping
strategies. SAGE Journal. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244013515687
New African immigrants commission – NAIC (2018). Inaugural report. Retrieved from
https://www.naic.ohio.gov/Portals/0/NAIC-inaugural-report-2018.pdf
Newbold, K. B. (2010). Population geography: Tools and issues. Lanham, MD: Rowman &
Littlefield Publishers Inc.
Ngazimbi, E.E, Daire, P. A., Soto, D., Carlson, R.G and Munyon, M.D. (2014). Marital
expectation and marital satisfaction between African immigrant and United States born
married couples. Journal of Psychology in Africa, 23(2). Retrieved from
https://doi.org/10.1080/14330237.2013.10820629
Nigerian Immigrants to the United States: Hakeem Olajuwon, Jean Harbor, Ade Coker, Victor
Ukpolo, Victor Adeyanju, Michael Mbabuike, F. Abiola Irele, Bill Dodge. (2010).
Memphis, TN: Books LLC.
Nwabuzor, A. M. (2017). Johnny just come (JJC): An interpretative of phenomenological
analysis study on the intra-extended family conflict experience of undergraduate
Nigerian immigrant college students in the United States (Doctoral dissertation).
Retrieved from NSUWorks. (57)
Obaji, P. (2018). Here’s how some Africans joined the migrant caravan heading for the U.S.
Daily Beast. Retrieved from https://www.thedailybeast.com/heres-how-some-africans-
really-did-join-the-migrant-caravan-heading-for-the-us
142
Obi, O. (2018). Omoyele Sowore running to be president of Nigeria in 2019. New York
Amsterdam News. Retrieved from
http://amsterdamnews.com/news/2018/dec/27/omoyele-sowore-running-be-president-
nigeria-2019/
Onwujuba, C. & Marks, L. (2015). Why we do what we do: Reflection on educated Nigerian
immigrants on their changing parenting attitudes and practices. Family Science Review,
20(2) 2331-6780. Retrieved from
http://www.familyscienceassociation.org/sites/default/files/2%20-
%20Onwujuba,%20Nigerian%20immigrant%20parenting.pdf
Onwujuba, C. (2015). A tale of two cultures: A qualitative narrative of Nigerian immigrant
parenting in the United States (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from LSU digital
commons (2091)
Otiso, K. M. & Smith, B.W. (2005). Immigration and economic restructuring in Ohio’s cities,
1940-2000. The Ohio Journal of Science, 105(5), 133-137. Retrieved from
https://www.academia.edu/552030/
Otiso, K.M. (2007). Profile of Kenyans in the US and what it means for Kenya. Jaluo dot com.
Retrieved from http://www.jaluo.com/wangwach/200705/Kefa_M_Otiso050107.html
Otiso, K.M. (2016). Welcome Toledo-Lucas County (TLC) and NW Ohio's Quest for the
Immigrant Pie. Race, Ethnicity, and Place Conference VIII, Kent State University, Kent,
Ohio, September 21-23, 2016.
Otumu, G.E. (2016). The other face of immigration from Mexico is Africa. The Hill. Retrieved
from https://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/immigration/309835-the-other-face-of-
immigration-from-mexico-is-african
143
Painter II, M. A. & Qian, Z. (2015). Wealth inequality among new immigrants. Sociological
Perspectives, 59(2), 368-394. Retrieved from
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0731121415589138
Palk, S. (2010). Kase Lawal: Not your average oil baron. CNN. African voices. Retrieved from
http://www.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/africa/05/18/kase.lukman.lawal/index.html
Peters, G. L., Larkin, R. P., Johnson-Webb, K. & Otiso, K.M. (2013). Population geography:
Problems, concepts and prospects (10th Ed.). Dubuque, IA: Kendall Hunt Publishing
Company
Pew Research Center. (2019). Remittance flows worldwide in 2017. Retrieved from
https://www.pewresearch.org/global/interactives/remittance-flows-by-country/
Popoola, T. (2017). Dr. Oluyinka Olutoye, the brilliant Nigerian surgeon in Texas. Naij.com.
Retrieved from https://www.legit.ng/1029897-meet-nigerian-surgeon-removed-baby-
mothers-womb-operation-returned-photos.html
Population Action International (2012). Why population matters to migration and urbanization.
Retrieved from https://pai.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/PAI-1293-
MIGRATION_compressed.pdf
Robert, F. (2015). The glass city: Toledo and the industry that built it. The Michigan Historical
Review, 41(2), 106-107. Retrieved from Ohio University Interlibrary Loan.
Roberts, S. (2014). Influx of African immigrants shifting national and New York demographics.
The New York Times. Retrieved from
https://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/02/nyregion/influx-of-african-immigrants-shifting-
national-and-new-york-demographics.html
144
Rodriguez,L. (2009). Economic adaptation and self-employment experience of Nigerian
immigrants in New York City (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest LLC.
(UMI Number: 3477141)
Rosenberg, M. (2019). Push-pull factors in immigration: How people are pushed and pulled
towards a new country. ThoughtCo. Retrieved from https://www.thoughtco.com/push-
pull-factors-1434837
Sarkodie-Mensah, K. (n.d). Nigerian Americans. Countries and their Cultures. Retrieved from
https://www.everyculture.com/multi/Le-Pa/Nigerian-Americans.html
Shen, F. (2014). Study finds connection between car ownership and success for the poor.
BaltimoreBrew. Retrieved from https://www.baltimorebrew.com/2014/04/02/study-finds-
connection-between-car-ownership-and-success-for-the-poor/
Singer, A. (2015). Metropolitan immigrant gateways. Brookings. Retrieved from
https://www.brookings.edu/research/metropolitan-immigrant-gateways-revisited-2014/
State of Hawaii (2019). Marriage licenses. Hawaii.gov. Retrieved by
https://health.hawaii.gov/vitalrecords/marriage-licenses
Stutz, F. P. & Warf, B. (2012). The world economy: Geography, business, development (6th Ed.).
Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Taylor, M. E. (2019). Nigeria’s Yoruba language is second most spoken foreign language in
Baltimore schools. Face 2 Face Africa. Retrieved from
https://face2faceafrica.com/article/nigerias-yoruba-language-is-second-most-spoken-
foreign-language-in-baltimore-schools
Teixeira, C. & Li, W. (2015). The housing and economic experiences of immigrants in US and
Canadian Cities. Toronto, Canada: University of Toronto Press.
145
The White House. (2014). Remarks by the president on immigration. Retrieved from
https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/the-press-office/2014/11/21/remarks-president-
immigration
Thompson, M. (2016). Migration decision- making: A geographical Imagination approach.
Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1111/area.12292
Treanor, C. & Costello, B. (2015). The Toledo metropolitan statistical area. Federal Reserve
Bank of Cleveland. Retrieved from https://www.clevelandfed.org/newsroom-and-
events/publications/economic-trends/2015-economic-trends/et-20150903-the-toledo-
metropolitan-statistical-area.aspx
Truong, H. (2016). Acculturation: 4 ways to adjust to a new culture. Asian American counseling.
Retrieved from https://www.drhttruong.com/ acculturation-4-ways-to-adjust-to-a-new-
culture/
US Census Bureau (2012-2016). Table B05006: Place of Birth for the Foreign-Born Population
in the United States, Universe: Foreign-born population excluding population born at sea,
2012-2016 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates. Retrieved from
https://factfinder.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?src=bkmk.
US Census Bureau (2017). Toledo, Oh Metro Area. Census Reporter. Retrieved from
https://censusreporter.org/profiles/31000US45780-toledo-oh-metro-area/
Ukochovwera, L. (2014). Exploring the experiences of the Nigerian immigrants to North
Carolina adjustment and settlement issues (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from
ProQuest LLC (UMI Number: 363167). 146
Waters, M.C. & Pineau, M. G. (2015). Spatial Dimensions of immigrant integration. The
integration of immigrants into American society. (1-51). Washington, DC: The national
academies press.
Webmaster, L. (2017). Delta marks 10 years of service to Nigeria. Inside Watch Africa.
Retrieved from http://insidewatchafrica.org/2017/12/delta-marks-10-years-of-service-to-
nigeria/
Welcome Toledo-Lucas County (2015). New Americans in Toledo: A snapshot of the
demographic and economic contributions of immigrants. Retrieved from
http://research.newamericaneconomy.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/TOLEDO-
Factsheet6-1.pdf
Wickramasinghe A.A.I.N. & Wimalaratana, W. (2016). International migration and migration
theories. Social Affairs: A Journal for the Social Sciences, 1(5), 13-32. Retrieved from
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/312211237
World Population Review (2019). Nigeria population 2019. Retrieved from
http://worldpopulationreview.com/countries/nigeria-population/
Yeboah, I.E.A. (2008). Black African neo-diaspora: Ghanaian immigrant experiences in the
greater Cincinnati Ohio area. Lanham, MD: Lexington Books.
Yusuf, R. (2016). Ethnic inequality in Nigeria. Retrieved from https://mcdaniel.hu/ethnic-
inequality-nigeria/
Zong, J. & Batalova, J. (2017). Sub-Saharan African immigrants in the United States. Migration
policy institute. Retrieved from https://www.migrationpolicy.org/article/sub-saharan-
african-immigrants-united-states 147
APPENDIX A: SURVEY INTRUMENT
Bowling Green State University School of Earth, Environment and Society
Bowling Green State University School of Earth, Environment and Society Applied Geospatial Science Dear Sir/Madam, My name is Olasunkanmi A. Busari. I am graduate student at Bowling Green State University in Applied Geospatial Science in the School of Earth, Environment and Society (SEES). As part of my degree requirements, I am conducting a research on The Spatial Distribution and Socioeconomic Impacts of African Immigrants in the US but with a special focus on Nigerians in the Toledo Metropolitan Region. To get this research study done, I need your help in completing a ten (10) minute survey. Your participation in this study is completely voluntary participation, though your participation is highly appreciated. Kindly complete this survey as honestly as you can. All information supplied will be used for this study and will be treated with utmost confidentiality. The results of the study will be reported in aggregated form and will not be used to identify you without your consent. If you have any questions about this study, please contact me at [email protected] (or 4193785840) or my advisor, Prof. Kefa M. Otiso at [email protected] or (4193729352). Thank you. Olasunkanmi A. Busari Principal Researcher
Respondent Nickname (please don’t put your real names) ______Section A: Biographical Data 1. Sex: Male ( ) Female ( ) 2. Age {Please indicate your age category}: Under 18 years ( ) 18 – 25 years ( ) 148
26 – 35 years ( ) 36– 50 years ( ) 51 – 65 years ( ) 66 years and above ( ) 3. Place and Country of birth: ______and ______
4. If your country of birth is Nigeria, what ethnic community do you belong to? Yoruba Hausa Igbo Other ______5. Marital Status: Single ( ) Married ( ) Divorced ( ) Separated ( ) Other ______6. Employment Status: Employed ( ) Unemployed ( ) Undergraduate Student Graduate Student 7. Occupation: (e.g. nurse, professor______
8. Employer: Public/Government( ) Private ( ) Self-employed ( ) Other ______
Educational Attainment: (Highest level reached) High School ( ) Associate degree ( ) 149
Bachelor’s degree ( ) Master’s degree ( ) PhD ( ) Professional ( ) Other ______
9. Monthly income in Dollars ($) Income ($) Individual Household Below $2,500 $2,500 - $5,000 $5,001 – $10,000 $10,001 - $15,000 $15,001 - $20,000 $20,001 and above
10. Place of residence (Address)______City______(Optional) 11. Zip Code ______
Instructions: Below is a list of statements that are intended to obtain data for this research. Carefully read each statement and mark the one that best applies to you. Section B: Socioeconomic Characteristics and Spatial Distribution of Nigerians 12. Why did you mainly come to the US? a. Job/Employment b. Education c. Political reason/Insecurity d. Family reunification e. Other, please specify______150
13. Prior to your immigration to the US, did you have any information or link to Toledo metropolitan area? a. Yes b. No 14. If yes, what information or link did you have? a. Family/Relative b. Friend c. Information on the region’s social and economic opportunities. d. Information on the region’s Nigerian community/network e. Other______15. In the past, have you received any kind of support from other Nigerians or community in Northwest Ohio? a. Yes b. No. 16. If yes, which kind? a. Accommodation b. Employment c. Monetary d. Other______
17. Compared to your economic status (income, employment) back in Nigeria, how is your life in the US (precisely Toledo)?
Condition Why do you think so? Fair Good Better Excellent
18. Do you feel fulfilled living in the Toledo area in terms of standard of living and achievement? 151
a. Yes b. No c. Not sure
19. Have you done anything to contribute to the socioeconomic welfare of Toledo? a. Yes b. No 20. If yes, what have you done? (Check all that apply) a. Created job opportunities b. Made voluntary donations to help the needy c. Offered voluntary community services d. Contribution through my work e. Payment of taxes 21. Have you contributed to the socioeconomic welfare of Nigeria? a. Yes b. No
22. If yes, in what ways? (Check all that apply) a. Family support b. Community support. c. Creation of jobs d. Intellectual support e. Sponsored relatives/friends to the US f. Community Outreach when I travel there g. Community Outreach through media and online forum like Facebook and WhatsApp 23. Have you helped anyone from Nigeria to come to the United States? a. Yes b. No
24. If yes, how? ______152
25. What future plans do you have to contribute to the socioeconomic development of Toledo and Nigeria? Place Future Plans Toledo Nigeria
26. Do you plan to return to Nigeria permanently? a. Yes b. No. 27. If yes, how do you want to impact society there when you return? ______
28. If no, why not? ______
29. Is the contribution of Nigerians in this area recognized by the government and citizens of the Toledo metropolitan region? a. Yes b. No. 30. Do you live in the same neighborhood with other Nigerians in Toledo area? a. Yes b. No. 31. How close do you live to other Nigerians in Toledo metropolitan area? a. ______mile(s) away b. ______minute(s) away 32. What is your opinion of the kind of reception that you have received from the Toledo community? Rating Why do you think so? Good Hostile Neutral Other 153
33. Do you have concerns about raising your children in Toledo? Yes/No. If yes, which ones? ______34. Do you think that growing up in the Toledo area can prepare and position them better for success? ______Why do you think so? In life? In the USA? In Nigeria
35. What are your personal concerns about Nigerians in the Toledo Metropolitan region and the US at large? ______Why do you think so? Nigerians in Toledo Metro Nigerians in the US at large
Section C: Nigerian Association, Churches, and Businesses in Toledo
36. Do you know of any Nigerian associations, churches (worship places), and businesses in the Toledo area? If so, how do they contribute to the welfare of Nigerians in the area?
Please list them below the Name How do they contribute categories shown below to the welfare of Nigerians in the area? Association Churches/Mosque/Worship places Businesses APPENDIX B: CONSENT LETTER 154
Bowling Green State University School of Earth, Environment and Society
TITLE OF STUDY
The Spatial Distribution and Socioeconomic Impact of African Immigrants in the United State: The Case of Nigerians in Toledo, Northwest Ohio
PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR Olasunkanmi Abiola Busari Applied Geospatial Science Bowling Green State University School of Earth, Environment and Society (SEES) 4193785840 [email protected]
PURPOSE OF STUDY
Your participation in this research work is very important and appreciated. However, it is important that you know the purpose of this research project so that you can decide whether or not you would like to participate in it. Please go through this consent form carefully and seek clarification on whatever is not clear before taking the survey.
The purpose of this study is to understand the distribution of Nigerian immigrants, their socio- economic characteristics and developmental impact on the Toledo metropolitan area.
STUDY PROCEDURES.
To participate in this study, you will be required to complete a survey (online or on paper) which will take about ten (10) minutes. To preserve your confidentiality, study results will be reported in aggregate form and will not be used to identify you individually.
RISKS.
Your participation in this study will not expose you to risk beyond what you experience in everyday life.
The data collected will be strictly used for this study and will not be diverted for any outside use. Any identifying information will be removed and destroyed at the end of the study. Access to this data will be restricted to Myself, Advisor, and my thesis Committee members and will be password protected.
You have the right to not answer questions you do not want to and you can withdraw from the study at any time for any reason and without penalty. BGSU IRB - APPROVED FOR USE IRBNet ID # _1223430_ EFFECTIVE _11/08/2018_ EXPIRES _05/21/2019_
_ 155 BENEFITS.
This study will add to the existing literature on African immigrants in the United States. It will serve as a reference for immigration scholars and policy makers, e.g, the Mayor of Toledo. Similarly, this study is out to understand the socio-economic and developmental contributions of Nigerian immigrants in the Toledo Metropolitan Area. As Daniel Griswold, 2002 said in his article “immigrants have kept the United States population demographically young, enriched our culture and added to the capacity of production in the country which is in turn enhancing the nation’s influence in the world”. Also, according to Handlin, 1973:3, “Once I thought to write a history of the immigrants in America. Then, I discovered immigrants were the American history”.
Accordingly, while African immigrants have contributed both culturally and economically to the US in the area of medicine, education and engineering (Arthur J.A, 1958); the specific contribution of Nigerian immigrants in Toledo is unknown. This is a gap that this study hopes to fill.
CONFIDENTIALITY
All information provided in this survey will be used for this study only and will be treated with utmost confidentiality and will be presented anonymously. For this reason, please do not supply any information that can reveal your true identity.
CONTACT INFORMATION If you have any questions about this study, please contact me at [email protected] (or 4193785840) or my advisor, Prof. Kefa M. Otiso at [email protected] or (4193729352). Also, if you wish to know more about your rights as a participant in this study feel free to contact the BGSU of Office Research Compliance at 419-372 -7716 or orc@bgsu,edu.
VOLUNTARY PARTICIPATION. This is to let you know that your participation in this study is voluntary. Your participation in this study indicates that you agree with the contents of this consent form. At any stage of this study, you are free to withdraw from the study for any reason. Please note that, withdrawing from this study will not affect your relationship (if any), with me or Bowling Green State University. If you withdraw from the study before data collection is completed, your data will be returned to you or destroyed.
BGSU IRB - APPROVED FOR USE IRBNet ID # _1223430_ EFFECTIVE _11/08/2018_ EXPIRES _05/21/2019_ 156
CONSENT
I have read and had the opportunity to ask questions regarding this research study. I have been informed that my participation is voluntary and that I am free to withdraw at any time if the risk involved is beyond daily minimal risk. I voluntarily agree to take part in this study.
BGSU IRB - APPROVED FOR USE IRBNet ID # _1223430_ EFFECTIVE _11/08/2018_ EXPIRES _05/21/2019_
_