Demography, Volume 45-Number 1, February 2008: 79–94 79
IMMIGRANT RESIDENTIAL SEGREGATION IN U.S.
METROPOLITAN AREAS, 1990–2000*
JOHN ICELAND AND MELISSA SCOPILLITI
This paper examines the extent of spatial assimilation among immigrants of different racial and
ethnic origins. We use restricted data from the 1990 and 2000 censuses to calculate the levels of dis-
similarity by race and Hispanic origin, nativity, and year of entry, and then run multivariate models
to examine these relationships. The fi ndings provide broad support for spatial assimilation theory.
Foreign-born Hispanics, Asians, and blacks are more segregated from native-born non-Hispanic
whites than are the U.S.-born of these groups. The patterns for Hispanics and Asians can be explained
by the average characteristics of the foreign-born that are generally associated with higher levels of
segregation, such as lower levels of income, English language ability, and homeownership. We also
fi nd that immigrants who have been in the United States for longer periods are generally less segregat-
ed than new arrivals, and once again, much of this difference can be attributed to the characteristics
of immigrants. However, patterns also vary across groups. Levels of segregation are much higher for
black immigrants than for Asian, Hispanic, and white immigrants. In addition, because black immi-
grants are, on average, of higher socioeconomic status than native-born blacks, such characteristics
do not help explain their very high levels of segregation.
mmigration has dramatically altered the racial and ethnic composition of the United
States. Between 1980 and 2000, the minority population grew by 88%, much of it fueled
by immigration from Latin America and Asia (Hobbs and Stoops 2002). The immigration
of blacks from Africa and the Caribbean has also increased signifi cantly in recent years.
As of 2000, nearly 2.4 million black immigrants lived in U.S. metropolitan areas, 42% of
which entered in the last decade (U.S. Census Bureau 2000). This rapid increase in the
minority and immigrant populations in the United States has substantially transformed the
metropolitan landscape. Some areas that previously had little diversity now have large and
growing immigrant populations (Frey 2003; Singer 2004).
Many studies have shown that Hispanic-white and Asian-white segregation is lower
than black-white segregation. However, black segregation from whites has declined over
the past few decades, while Hispanic and Asian segregation has changed little or even in-
creased (Iceland, Weinberg, and Steinmetz 2002; Lewis Mumford Center 2001). Relatively
little is known about the role that immigration may have played in these broader trends, the
levels of residential segregation of immigrants themselves, and the extent to which the ac-
culturation process and socioeconomic characteristics of immigrants shape these patterns.
Moreover, because of data constraints, comparatively little is known about whether the
effect of immigrant characteristics varies by race and ethnicity. This study seeks to shed
light on precisely these issues.
Our research is guided by the following specifi c questions: (1) Are foreign-born
Hispanics, Asians, and blacks more segregated from non-Hispanic whites than are the
native-born of those respective groups? (2) Are immigrants who have been in the United
States longer less segregated from non-Hispanic whites than are recent arrivals? (3) Are
residential patterns in large part explained by the characteristics of immigrants, such as
*John Iceland, 2112 Art/Sociology Building, Sociology Department, University of Maryland, College Park,
MD 20742-1315; E-mail: email@example.com. Melissa Scopilliti, Sociology Department, University of Maryland,
College Park. This work was developed under a subcontract with Sabre Systems, Inc., and utilizes funds provided
by the Census Bureau. Funding also comes from NIH Grant R01 HD 0489047-01.
80 Demography, Volume 45-Number 1, February 2008
socioeconomic status and other acculturation indicators? If the analyses yield affi rmative
answers to all of these questions, then the notion that immigrants are spatially assimilat-
ing receives strong empirical support. If we fi nd affi rmative answers for some immigrant
groups but not for others, then the “segmented assimilation” perspective may provide a
better framework for understanding immigrant patterns of incorporation. Finally, if there
is little relation between segregation and group characteristics among any racial or ethnic
group, then the ethnic disadvantage (or “place stratifi cation”) approach receives the stron-
gest empirical validation.
To investigate these issues, we use restricted data from the 1990 and 2000 censuses.
We calculate levels of dissimilarity by race and Hispanic origin, nativity, and year of entry,
and then run multivariate models to examine these relationships.
CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK: IMMIGRANT INCORPORATION AND
Three common theoretical perspectives used to explain immigrant incorporation are assimi-
lation, ethnic disadvantage, and segmented assimilation (Bean and Stevens 2003). Below,
we discuss how these models have been applied to understanding the residential patterns
Assimilation refers to the general convergence of social, economic, and cultural pat-
terns among distinct groups (Alba and Nee 2003). According to the spatial assimilation
model, which is invoked to explain residential arrangements in particular, differences in
acculturation and socioeconomic status across racial and ethnic groups help shape patterns
of segregation (Massey 1985). The model posits that new immigrants often fi rst settle in
fairly homogeneous ethnic enclaves within a given metropolitan area. This may be due to
migrants’ feeling more comfortable with (and welcomed by) fellow coethnics and to the
inability of many immigrants to afford living in the same neighborhoods as the dominant
majority group, which in the United States is the native-born non-Hispanic white popula-
tion (Charles 2001).
As immigrants make gains in socioeconomic status, such as through increases in in-
come and English language ability and knowledge of local areas, they translate these gains
into improvement in their spatial location. These spatial improvements are thought to typi-
cally involve moves to neighborhoods with more native-born non-Hispanic whites (Massey
1985). In essence, residential mobility follows from the acculturation and social mobility of
individuals. This results in the dispersion of immigrant and minority-group members and
desegregation over time (Alba and Nee 2003; Massey and Denton 1988b).
In contrast to assimilation theory, the ethnic disadvantage model (often termed “place
stratifi cation” in the residential segregation literature) holds that increasing knowledge of
the language of the new country and familiarity with its culture and customs often do not
lead to increasing assimilation. Lingering prejudice and discrimination by the dominant
group (non-Hispanic whites in the U.S. context) hamper the assimilation process (Charles
2003). The effects of structural barriers are thought to be greatest for blacks in the United
States because blacks have historically been perceived in the most unfavorable terms (Bobo
and Zubrinksky 1996; Farley et al. 1994).
Discriminatory practices in the housing market against African Americans in particular,
as well as Hispanics and Asians, have been widely documented (Turner and Ross 2003;
Turner et al. 2002). Over the years, discriminatory practices have included real estate
agents steering racial groups to certain neighborhoods, unequal access to mortgage credit,
exclusionary zoning (in which groups are restricted to particular neighborhoods), and
neighbors’ hostility (Goering and Wienk 1996; Meyer 2000; Yinger 1995). Research has
indicated a decline in discrimination in the housing market in recent years, perhaps due
to changing attitudes in society, the rising economic status of minority customers, and the
continuing effect of the Fair Housing Act and its enforcement on the real estate industry
Immigrant Residential Segregation in U.S. Metropolitan Areas 81
(Ross and Turner 2005). Overall, it is reasonable to believe that discrimination plays a role
in shaping the residential patterns of nonwhite immigrants.
A third common theory of immigrant incorporation is segmented assimilation. This
perspective focuses on divergent patterns of incorporation among contemporary immi-
grants (Portes and Zhou 1993; Zhou 1999). Individual- and structural-level factors affect
the incorporation process, and there is an important interaction between the two levels.
Individual-level factors include education, career aspiration, English language ability, place
of birth, age at the time of arrival, and length of residence in the United States. Structural
factors include racial status, family socioeconomic background, and place of residence.
Class, for example, is an important determinant of opportunities, and the skin color of the
majority of new immigrants sets them apart from European Americans (Zhou 1999). The
host society offers uneven possibilities to different immigrant groups, and segmented as-
similation theory posits that recent immigrants are being absorbed by different segments of
American society, ranging from affl uent middle-class suburbs to impoverished inner-city
ghettos, and that “becoming American” may not always be an advantage for the immigrants
themselves or for their children. Thus, according to the segmented assimilation model, we
should expect to see considerable differences in residential patterns for various immigrant
groups, with some groups experiencing no decline in their residential segregation from
non-Hispanic whites over time.
EMPIRICAL FINDINGS OF PAST RESEARCH AND CONTRIBUTIONS OF THE
Studies have generally provided some support for the spatial assimilation model. Mem-
bers of ancestry groups that have been in the United States longer are less segregated than
groups with more recent histories in the United States (Jones 2003; White and Glick 1999).
Segregation is also lower for the native-born of ethnic groups than for the foreign-born,
and studies have generally found that members of an ethnic group who have a high socio-
economic status (SES) are less segregated from whites than are low-SES members, though
the pattern is weaker for African Americans (Clark 2007; Iceland, Sharpe, and Steinmetz
2005; Iceland and Wilkes 2006; St. John and Clymer 2000).
In a pair of studies that focused on the spatial assimilation of Latinos and Latino immi-
grants, South, Crowder, and Chavez (2005a, 2005b) likewise found support for the spatial
assimilation model. Their results showed that higher-SES Hispanics and those with greater
English language profi ciency were also more likely to move into neighborhoods with more
non-Hispanic whites than were low-SES Hispanics with less English profi ciency. In con-
trast, using 1990 data on two metropolitan areas (Miami and New York), Freeman (2002)
found that foreign-born blacks who immigrated in the 1980s had about the same level of
segregation as immigrants who arrived in the 1960s and earlier in one metropolitan area,
and only slightly lower segregation in the other, providing little support for the spatial as-
similation model. Along these lines, Denton and Massey (1989) and Crowder (1999) also
concluded that race plays the most important role in explaining residential patterns of black
immigrants from the Caribbean.
Overall, the literature provides fragmentary evidence that spatial assimilation has
predictive power in explaining residential patterns of immigrants. The wide range of ex-
periences for a variety of groups, however, suggests that segmented assimilation may best
explain levels and trends in segregation, with racial and ethnic stratifi cation continuing to
play prominent roles for blacks in particular.
The present study builds on the existing literature in two ways. First, we directly
compare the segregation patterns of immigrants of different racial and ethnic groups, us-
ing data from the two most recent censuses. Previous studies have tended to either com-
pare broader racial and ethnic groups and not immigrants in particular (e.g., Iceland et
al. 2002; Massey and Denton 1989) or focus on the experiences of particular immigrant
Immigrant Residential Segregation in U.S. Metropolitan Areas 93
Frey, W.H. 2003. “Metropolitan Magnets for International and Domestic Migrants.” The Brookings
Institution Center on Urban and Metropolitan Policy, The Living Cities Census Series (October).
Frey, W.H. and R. Farley. 1996. “Latino, Asian, and Black Segregation in U.S. Metropolitan Areas:
Are Multiethnic Metros Different?” Demography 33:35–50.
Frey, W.H. and D. Myers. 2002. “Neighborhood Segregation in Single-Race and Multirace America:
A Census 2000 Study in Cities and Metropolitan Areas.” Working paper. Fannie Mae Foundation,
Glaeser, E.L. and J. Vigdor. 2001. “Racial Segregation in the 2000 Census: Promising News.” Center
on Urban and Metropolitan Policy, The Brookings Institution, Washington, DC. Available online
Goering, J.M. and R. Wienk, eds. 1996. Mortgage Lending, Racial Discrimination and Federal
Policy. Washington, DC: Urban Institute Press.
Hobbs, F. and N. Stoops. 2002. “Demographic Trends in the 20th Century.” U.S. Census Bureau,
Census Special Report, CENSR-4. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Offi ce.
Iceland, J., C. Sharpe, and E. Steinmetz. 2005. “Class Differences in African American Residential
Patterns in U.S. Metropolitan Areas: 1990–2000.” Social Science Research 34:252–66.
Iceland, J. and E. Steinmetz. 2003. “The Effects of Using Census Block Groups Instead of Census
Tracts When Examining Residential Housing Patterns.” Working paper. U.S. Census Bureau,
Washington, DC. Available online at http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/housing/resseg/pdf/
Iceland, J., D.H. Weinberg, and E. Steinmetz. 2002. Racial and Ethnic Residential Segregation in the
United States: 1980–2000. U.S. Census Bureau, Census Special Report, CENSR-3. Washington,
DC: U.S. Government Printing Offi ce.
Iceland, J. and R. Wilkes. 2006. “Does Socioeconomic Status Matter? Race, Class, and Residential
Segregation.” Social Problems 52:248–73.
Jones, R.C. 2003. “The Segregation of Ancestry Groups in San Antonio.” The Social Science Journal
Jones, N.A. and A. Symens Smith. 2001. The Two or More Races Population: 2000. U.S. Census
Bureau, Census 2000 Brief, C2KBR/01-6. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Offi ce.
Lewis Mumford Center. 2001. “Ethnic Diversity Grows, Neighborhood Integration Lags Behind.”
Report by the Lewis Mumford Center, University at Albany, April 3, 2001 (revised December 18,
Logan, J., B. Stults, and R. Farley. 2004. “Segregation of Minorities in the Metropolis: Two Decades
of Change.” Demography 41:1–22.
Massey, D.S. 1985. “Ethnic Residential Segregation: A Theoretical Synthesis and Empirical Review.”
Sociology and Social Research 69:315–50.
Massey, D.S. and N.A. Denton. 1988a. “The Dimensions of Residential Segregation.” Social Forces
———. 1988b. “Suburbanization and Segregation in U.S. Metropolitan Areas.” American Journal
of Sociology 94:592–626.
———. 1989. “Hypersegregation in U.S. Metropolitan Areas: Black and Hispanic Segregation Along
Five Dimensions.” Demography 26:373–93.
———. 1993. American Apartheid: Segregation and the Making of the Underclass. Cambridge, MA:
Harvard University Press.
Meyer, S.G. 2000. As Long As They Don’t Move Next Door: Segregation and Racial Confl ict in
American Neighborhoods. Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefi eld.
Portes, A. and M. Zhou. 1993. “The New Second Generation: Segmented Assimilation and Its Vari-
ants Among Post-1965 Immigrant Youth.” Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social
Ross, S.L. and M. Austin Turner. 2005. “Housing Discrimination in Metropolitan America: Explain-
ing Changes Between 1989 and 2000.” Social Problems 52:152–80.
94 Demography, Volume 45-Number 1, February 2008
Singer, A. 2004. The Rise of New Immigrant Gateways. The Brookings Institution Center on Urban
and Metropolitan Policy. The Living Cities Census Series, February.
South, S.J., K. Crowder, and E. Chavez. 2005a. “Migration and Spatial Assimilation Among U.S.
Latinos: Classic Versus Segmented Trajectories.” Demography 42:497–521.
———. 2005b. “Geographic Mobility and Spatial Assimilation Among U.S. Latino Immigrants.”
International Migration Review 39:577–607.
St. John, C. and R. Clymer. 2000. “Racial Residential Segregation by Level of Socioeconomic Sta-
tus.” Social Science Quarterly 81:701–15.
Turner, M.A. and S.L. Ross. 2003. Discrimination in Metropolitan Housing Markets: Phase 2—
Asians and Pacifi c Islanders of the HDS 2000. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Housing and
Turner, M.A., S.L. Ross, G. Galster, and J. Yinger. 2002. Discrimination in Metropolitan Housing
Markets: National Results From Phase 1 of the Housing Discrimination Study (HDS). Washington,
DC: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development.
U.S. Census Bureau. 2000. Census of Population and Housing. Restricted-Use Microdata Files.
Waters, M.C. 1990. Ethnic Options: Choosing Identities in America. Berkeley, CA: California Uni-
White, M.J. and J.E. Glick. 1999. “The Impact of Immigration on Residential Segregation.”
Pp. 345–72 in Immigration and Opportunity, edited by F.D. Bean and S. Bell-Rose. New York:
Russell Sage Foundation.
Wilkes, R. and J. Iceland. 2004. “Hypersegregation in the Twenty-First Century: An Update and
Analysis.” Demography 41:23–36.
Yinger, J. 1995. Closed Doors, Opportunities Lost: The Continuing Costs of Housing Discrimination.
New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
Zhou, M. 1999. “Segmented Assimilation: Issues, Controversies, and Recent Research on the New
Second Generation.” Pp. 196–211 in The Handbook of International Migration: The American
Experience, edited by C. Hirschman, P. Kasinitz, and J. DeWind. New York: Russell Sage