The Acculturation of Canadian Immigrants: Determinants of Ethnic Identification with the Host Society

The Acculturation of Canadian Immigrants: Determinants of Ethnic Identification with the Host Society*

DAVID WALTERS University of Guelph KELLI PHYTHIAN University of Western Ontario PAUL ANISEF York University

En utilisant le Canada comme exemple, nous tentons de determiner jusqu’a quel point les immigrants adoptent l’identite ethnique de leur pays d’accueil, empruntant ou non une identite ethnique d’assimiles ou d’integres. Nous portons une attention particuliere a l’impact de I’integration Qconomique, du nombre d’ann6es 6coulBes depuis l’bmigration, de l’origine ethnique et de l’appartenance a une minorite visible sur l’identite ethnique. Etonnamment, nos resultats demontrent que les indicateurs du succes economique tels que le statut professionnel, l’em- ploi et les revenus anterieurs n’ont aucune influence sur l’eventualite que les immigrants endossent ou non l’identit6 de leur societe d’accueil. L’analyse statistique de cet article s’appuie sur la documentation actuelle sur l’acculturation.

Using Canada as an example, we examine the extent to which immigrants take on the ethnic identity of their host country, thus displaying either an assimilated, integrated, or neither assimilated nor integrated ethnic identity. We pay particular attention to the impact of economic integration, years since migration, ethnic origin and visible minority status on ethnic identity. Surprisingly, our findings reveal that indicators of economic success such as employment status, occupation and prior earnings do not have an impact on whether immigrants will assume the identity of their host society. The statistical analysis for this paper is situated within the existing acculturation literature.

IN THE EARLY PART OF THE TWENTIETH CENTURY, social researchers focussing on immigrant acculturation generally presumed that assimi-

* We thank the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council #of Canada for generously providing funding for this study. This paper represents the views of the authors and does not necessarily reflect the opinions of Statistics Canada. This manuscript was submitted in November 2006, resubmitted in revlsed form in February 2007, and accepted in Fehruary 2007. Contact: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected].

38 CRSAIRCSA, 44.1 2007

lation was an unavoidable consequence of continuous interaction with the dominant cultural group. Robert Park’s (1950) race relations cycle, for instance, posits that when two or more ethnic groups share a common geo- graphical location, their interactions and relationships pass through a series of stages that ultimately end in assimilation. According to Park, interactions between ethnic groups sharing a common geopolitical boundary become increasingly frequent, such that distinct ethnicities disappear and the groups become culturally indistinguishable from one another. Building on this concept, Milton Gordon (1964) proposed a multidimensional approach to assimilation. Gordon conceptualized several components of assimilation, each of which represents a different incorporation strategy of either the minority or the majority group. Gordon’s definition of assimilation therefore implies participation on the part of both immigrants and the host society. In particular, a willing immigrant cannot assimilate into a host society whose members are not receptive to immigrants or to particular ethnic groups. The dimensions of assimilation proposed by Gordon together form a continuum that denotes degree of assimilation-the more stages of assimilation through which one passes, the more assimilated one is said to be.

Glazer and Moynihan (1963) proposed additional acculturation strategies, noting that while some immigrant groups indeed assimilate, others retain specific features of their native culture. In countries of immigration, then, cultural pluralism is an alternative to assimilation. Rather than pre- suming that assimilation is the inevitable outcome of immigrant adaptation, as did earlier researchers, recent and emerging literature has instead focussed on the multiple ways in which newcomers are incorporated into their host society. Berry (1997), for instance, identified four mutually exclu- sive acculturation strategies. These four strategies are: assimilation, integration, separation and marginalization. Assimilation, as defined by Berv, can be understand as a process of adaptation whereby the migrant, or migrant group, takes on the customs, values and social attributes of the host society to the extent that the immigrant becomes indistinguishable from the majority. Integration may be defined as a similar process by which the immigrant, or immigrant group, becomes an active member of the host society, yet simultaneously maintains a distinct ethnic identity. Separation occurs when ethnic minorities seek to maintain distinct identities, refusing (or being refused) active participation in the larger society, and marginalization takes place when one neither identifies with his or her original cultural background, nor with that of the host society ( B e q , 1997).

In this study we focus on the concepts of assimilation and integration as defined by Berry (1997), but which are consistent with those proposed by Park (1950), Gordon (1964) and Glazer and Moynihan (1963), and which have received general consensus in the research literature (see, for example, Gans, 1997; Rumbaut, 1997; Price, 1969; Bernard, 1967; Baglioni, 1964). The analysis for this study is situated within the acculturation literature; however, we place specific emphasis on the issue of identity. While immi-

The Acculturation of Canadian Immigrants 39

grant incorporation has received much attention in the research literature, particularly in the areas of labour force participation, socio-economic status, and residential segregation, little attention has been paid to the factors responsible for immigrant ethno-cultural identities.

Review of the Literature

A great deal of political attention has been devoted to distinguishing between the processes of assimilation and integration. Perhaps the most widely discussed topic in the field of immigrant adaptation is socio-economic assimilation, or the achievement of occupational, educational and income success on par with the native majority (see, for example, Chiswick, Lee and Miller, 2005; van Tubergen, Maas and Flap, 2004; Aydemir and Skuterud, 2004; Reitz, 1998; 1998; 2001; 2003; Li, 2001; 2003; Boyd, 1975; 1984; 2002; Boyd and Thomas, 2002; Kalbach, Hardwick, Vintila and Kalbach, 2002; Kazemipur and Halli, 2000; 2001; Boyd and Grieco, 1998; Chiswick and Cohen, 1997; Perlmann and Waldinger, 1997; Reitz and Sklar, 1997; Rumbaut, 1997; Bloom, Grenier and Gunderson, 1995; Baker and Benjamin, 1994; Borjas and Tienda, 1993; Abbot and Beach, 1993; Borjas and Freeman, 1992; Borjas, 1982; 1989; 1996; Beaujot, Basavarajappa and Verma, 1988; Chiswick, 1977; 1980; 1984).

In fact, integration or assimilation is often linked to socio-cultural assimilation, as both a predictor and an outcome. As the story goes, immigrants arrive in their host country with little more than the clothing on their backs. Upon entering the labour force, they earn substantially less than their native-born counterparts. Over time, these newcomers become increasingly like the native population, and their wages rapidly increase, eventually catching up with or even surpassing those of the native-born (see Chiswick, 1978: 918). As Djaji? (2003: 834) points out, cultural dispar- ities in customs, values and attitudes impose limits on labour market opportunities for immigrants that prevent the realization of their full economic potential. Hence, as socio-cultural assimilation occurs and the values and attitudes of newcomers converge with those of the native population, barriers to full economic participation will break down.

Alternatively, it has also been said that economic success and integration takes place more rapidly than, or may in fact be required for, socio-cultural assimilation. Baglioni (1964), for instance, suggests that successfid economic integration is a necessary (though not sufficient) step for socio-cultural integration. For example, immigrants who arrive to their destination country with more economic resources, particularly in the form of human capital, are thought to experience more rapid assimilation than those with fewer resources (Djaji?, 2003). This link between economic success and assimilation is so pervasive that researchers, it would seem, have taken for granted that cultural and economic assimilation are inextricably linked, if not one and the same (Porter, 1965; Park, 1950). But despite much theoretical justification

40 CRSAIRCSA, 44.1 2007

for a cause-and-effect relationship between the two processes, the links between these dimensions of assimilation remain empirically underexamined, particularly when applied to the issue of ethnic identity. Research literature that concentrates on immigrants’ economic success often holds the rather strong yet often unspoken assumption that it is inherently connected to broader forms of cultural assimilation, though this has yet to be empirically founded.

The noticeable gap in the literature focussing on the social or cultural adaptation of immigrants likely has to do with the difficulties associated with operationalizing such concepts. Where measures of assimilation and/or integration are used, they are typically employed as independent variables to predict immigrant earnings (see, for example, Kalbach, Hardwick, Vintila and Kalbach, 2002; Kalbach and Kalbach, 1995; 1999; Isajiw, Sev’er and Dreidger, 1993; Breton, Isajiw, KaIbach and Reitz, 1990; Boyd, Goyder, Jones, McRoberts, Pineo and Porter, 1985). In fact, in many studies of assimilation and integration, the response variable is “income” or “socio-economic status”; hence, implicit is the assumption that economic parity with the native-born is necessary for immigrant assimilation or integration. To our knowledge, however, this assumption has not been tested; it is therefore not known if economic success in fact predicts, or is even associated with, acculturation.

Alba and Nee (1997: 836) consider this point in their discussion of con- temporary thinking on the topic of assimilation theory in the new era of immigration. They note that economic opportunities are indeed critical to the assimilation experiences of newcomers, yet socio-economic and other forms of assimilation need not be fundamentally connected. Rather, the association is historically contingent. The authors describe a strong association between social mobility and economic assimilation for descendants of European immigrants in the United States that was a result of the abun- dant opportunities available for unskilled workers in the manufacturing industry. Such opportunities brought about parity in life chances across groups, which stimulated the assimilation of Americans of European ancestry. However, Alba and Nee further point out that, due to changes in the economy, similar opportunities for secure employment and for upward social mobility are likely not available to new immigrant groups.

Nonetheless, there exists evidence of assimilation among more recent immigrants (see also DeWind and Kasinitz, 1997). Fong and Ooka (2002: 127) also counter the assumption that economic success is a prerequisite for complete assimilation, noting that successful economic integration is only a single component of the assimilation process, and that economic success can be achieved while simultaneously maintaining low levels of social integration. Presumably, the reverse could also be true. Even so, the authors point to the writings of Mam and Simmel, who discussed the ways in which economic activities impact social interactions. Hence, economic success is likely to affect the social assimilation of immigrants in some way, though it is unclear how the two processes are related.


The purpose of this study, then, is to identify predictors of immigrant incorporation, focussing particularly on the concepts of assimilation and integration as defined and operationalized by Berry (1997). Rather than using measures of socio-economic status as our focal point, we instead con- centrate on ethnic identity as an indicator of one’s acculturation strategy. Furthermore, in order to determine if the assumption that economic assimilation is necessary for, or conducive to, cultural assimilation is in fact warranted, we examine the way in which income and other economic characteristics affect self-reported ethnic identity. The analysis for this study is situated within the acculturation literature, yet we place specific emphasis on the issue of identity. While acculturation is generally thought of as a process, consisting of multidimensional constructs through which there are a number of ways in which immigrants become incorporated into their host society (see Gordon, 1964; Alba and Nee, 1997; DeWind and Kasinitz, 1997; Berry, 1997; Fong and Ooka, 20021, the goal of the present study is not to analyse the process itself, but rather the outcome of the process. More specTically, we plan to examine the extent to which the ethnic identity of respondents from various immigrant groups is assimilated or integrated into that of their host country, Canada.

The empirical and theoretical evidence in the literature documenting the interrelationship between economic success and assimilation implies that indicators of economic success will have a strong impact on immigrants’ attachment to their host society.’ However, others have questioned the link between economic success and assimilation, providing reason to believe that economic success may not have an impact on the ethnic identity of immigrants. Thus, a key part of the statistical analysis will explore the extent to which indicators of economic integration affect the ethnic identity of immigrants. At the same time, as the existing literature suggests that visible minority status, ethnic relations, perceptions of discrimination, and political participation are also related to both assimilation and integration (see, for example, Kalbach, Hardwick, Vintila and Kalbach, 2002; Ono, 2002; Kazemipur and Halli, 2001; Reitz and Sklar, 19971, we will also explore the impact of these variables on immigrants’ national identity.

Data and the Dependent Variable

The data that we use for our analysis are drawn from the 2002 Ethnic Diversity Survey (EDS). The target population for the EDS is persons aged 15 years or over living in private households in the 10 provinces. The original sample includes 42,476 respondents who had completed the 2001 census form in May 2001. Selection was based on respondents’ answers to questions related to their ethnic origin, their place of birth and their parents’ place of

1. By economic success, we refer to both employment and earnings.

42 CRSAIRCSA, 44.1 2007

birth. This was done to make certain that the survey reached people of many different ethnic and d tura l backgrounds, some of whom would otherwise have been difficult to locate. One of the primary purposes of this paper is to identify the relationship between economic success and the ethnic identity of immigrants; as such, our analysis focusses on working immigrants who report positive earnings.’ Due to complexities having to do with the “Canadienne” response in the EDS, respondents whose interviews were conducted in French were excluded from the analysis.

Our dependent variable is derived from the ethnic (cultural) identity question available in the EDS, which is adopted from the 2001 Canadian Census, in which respondents were asked to report their ethnic identity. As the use of this variable is central to our analysis, we will briefly discuss the complex history surrounding the ethnicity question, along with our justification for using it as our response variable.

In 1996 the response format to the ethnicity3 question on the Canadian Census was modified from previous versions of the Census, whereby rather than providing respondents with a list of ethnic categories, they were instead provided with four write-in spaces and were told to speufj as many ethnic groups as possible. This format was again used for the 2001 census, and “Canadian” was listed, along with 24 additional ethnicities as examples. The impetus for modifying the ethnicity question on the census occurred when Statistics Canada became aware that there was a strong tendency for respondents to report “Canadian” as their ethnic ancestry (see White, 1992: 166): Between 1986 and 2001, for instance, single and multiple responses that included “Canadian” increased from 0.5% to 39%. In fact, on both the 1996 and 2001 censuses “Canadian” comprised the largest ethnic/cultural group in Canada.5

In their examination of ethnic origin responses in the Canadian census, Boyd and Norris (2001) argue that reporting “Canadian” as one’s ethnic origin is indicative of the dynamic nature of ethnic affiliation. Ethnicity is not a static label; rather, as one develops stronger ties to the host society, the propensity to self-identify with the ethnic origins of that society increases. Thus, identification with the host ethnic group likely varies according to the socio-demographic characteristics of individual immigrants, such as time of arrival and racial minority status, as well as positive and negative interactions with the majority group (Price, 1969).

While the inclusion of “Canadian” as a response option on the ethnic identity question on the 1996 Canadian census (as well as on other social

2.

3.

The focus of this paper is immigrants rather than children of immigrants, thus, the analysis concentrates on the 1 and the 1.5 generations. Ethnicity is considered to be a self-defined, socially constructed and negotiated concept that refleets “a shared ‘we-feeling’ within a collectivity (groupnew) whose symbolic components can vary from time and place” (Fleras and Elliot, 1996). Victor Satzewich asserts that the decision to include “Canadian“ as an option in the ethnic origin question on the Canadian census was also the result of political pressure (see Satzewich, 2001: 231). This applies t o both single and multiple responses.

4.

5.

The Act-ulturation of Canadian Immigrants 43

surveys) has been problematic for social researchers interested in making ethnic group comparisons over time, it clearly signifies that there is an emerging (or at least newly identified) “Canadian” ethnic identity, which provides an intriguing avenue for new research (see Pendakur and Mata, 1998; Boyd and Norris, 2001). Moreover, the fact that such a large proportion of the population classifies its ethnic origin as Canadian shows that there exists in Canada a “crystallized feeling of commonality that is the basis for a common ethnic identification” (Satzewich, 2001: 231).6 Furthermore, Kalbach and Kalbach (1999) and Boyd (1999) suggest that, when questioned about ethnic origin, survey respondents conflate ethnic ancestry with ethnic identity. Thus “Canadian” ethnic responses on the census and other questionnaires are instead a measure of the ethnic group with which one identifies. From these arguments, then, we can deduce that immigrants who consider themselves Canadian are assimilated in their identities, while those who identify with multiple ethnic groups, of which one is Canadian, can be said to have integrated identities. Respondents who report their ethnicity to be Canadian have surpassed an identifiable threshold, whereby they clearly feel a sense of belonging and attachment to their host countq.

This hypothesis is consistent with Gordon’s (1964: 71) third dimen- sion of assimilation, labelled identificational assimilation, which he defines as the emergence of “a sense of peoplehood based exclusively on the host society.” While a few others have used similar approaches to measure assimilation and integration (Goldmann, 1998; Ono, 2002; Kalbach, Hardwick, Vintila and Kalbach, 2002), such measures are still largely underutilized as a means of understanding the processes through which immigrants adopt the identity of their host society. Related research has shown that those with higher levels of linguistic assimilation are more likely to identify themselves as Canadian (Pigott and Kalbach, 2005). As well, others have reported that some ethnic groups are more likely than others to consider themselves “Canadian.” (Boyd and Norris, 2001).7 However, our review of the literature failed to reveal research that investigates the relationship between ethnic attachment and the economic success of Canadian immigrants.

In the actual EDS survey, the respondents were asked to report their ethnic/cultural identity, and the interviewers were instructed to tell respondents that their “ethnic or cultural identity is the ethnic or cultural group or groups to which you feel you belong.” We recoded this variable into three categories to determine whether the ethnic identity of each respondent is assimilated, integrated, or neither assimilated nor integrated into that of their host county, Canada. The respondents are classified as having an ethnic

6. There are many reasons why people classify their ethnic roots or their ethnic identity as Canadian (see white, 1992: 16&69), and one of the more common responses is because people feel that this is the group to which they most closely identify and belong (Angus Reid Group, 1991). Yet their study only examined Canadian-born respondents. 7.

44 CRSAJRCSA, 44.1 2007

identity that is assimilated if “Canadian” is their only response to the ethnicity question. They are classified as having an integrated identity if they report belonging to at least one other ethnic group, in addition to reporting a Canadian ethnic identity.’ Finally, we classify respondents as having an ethnic identity that is neither assimilated nor integrated if they do not report their ethnic identity to be Canadian, thus remaining attached to one or more other ethnic group^.^ This variable captures the respondents’ per- ceived ethnic identity at the time of interview-between April and August 2002.

In addition to typical socio-demographic characteristics such as sex, age, marital status, language used at home, number of dependent children, religion, mother’s and father’s education,’o and visible minority status,” we also employ independent variables measuring time since migration, education, region of schooling, political participation and eligibility, a variable which identifies the number of friends sharing the same ethnic identity, occupation, employment status (full-time versus part-time), work status (paid versus self-employed) and earnings. To address the causal ordering between reported earnings and ethnic identity, we use the respondents’ reported yearly earnings in the previous year, 2001. With the exception of age, time since migration and earnings, the other independent variables are treated as categorical in the regression analysis because they are defined by discrete categories.“ The category labels for the categorical variables are provided in Table 1.

Procedure

Since the outcome has three discrete categories, we use a multinomial logit model (see Greene, 2003: Chap. 21; McCullagh and Nelder, 1989: Chap. 5). The multinomial logit model is the most commonly used model for nominal outcomes (see Long, 1997: 149). When expressed as a probability model, the multinomial logistic regression model is commonly written as

8. The logic of classifymg these respondents as having an integrated ethnic identity is parallel to the assertion that immigrants are integrated members of a host society if they are identifiable members of that society, while also simultaneansly striving to maintain a distinct ethnic identity (see Berry, 1997). Thus, in conceptualizing our dependent variable, there is a parallel to the acculturation framework put forth by Berry (1997). However, Berry’s acculturation model reflects a number of dimensions of attachment to a host country, whereas we only focus on the issue of identity. Thus, we do not consider respondents with ethnic identities that are neither assimilated nor integrated to be either separated or marginalized (to use the terms from Berry, 1997), hecause they may still identify with Canadian society (or culture) in other ways.

10. To avoid losing respondents as a result of missing data, we included a separate category for those who did not know or did not report the education level of their mother or father.

11. The visible minority status variable is used to indicate whether a respondent is a member of a visible minority group and, if so, which one. Visible minorities are defined by the Employment Equity Act as persons, other than Aboriginal peoples, who are non-white in race or non-white in colour. The categories of this variable are described in Table 1.

12. While the number of dependent children variable is numerical and conceptuaUy continuous, it is limited only to four categories. Thus, we chose to treat it as a categorical variable in our analysis.

9.


form = 1

form > 1

where y represents the respondent’s score on the dependent variable with J outcomes, and the categories 1 through J are not assumed to be in any order. The vector P represents the vector of coefficients including the constant, and x is a vector of values of the independent variables for the ith individual. Pr(y, = 1 I x) is interpreted as the probability of observing a category 1 response, the comparison group, given x. The second specification, Pr(y, = m I x) is the probability of observing a category rn response given x, for all response categories greater than 1.

Results

Descriptive Results

The descriptive information about the variables used in this analysis is provided in Table 1. The data collected from our sample reveal that employed immigrants are evenly divided according to gender, and slightly more than half are White (53%). While the majority of working immigrants are married (7191), most are childless (68%). The average age at immigration among employed and working-aged immigrants is 21, and the average length of time since migration is 23 years. In terms of education, approximately 46% of employed immigrants have some type of post-secondary education, and approximately 65% obtained their highest level of schooling abroad. The majority of immigrants (60%) speak English at home, and slightly more (63%) report belonging to a Christian religion.

Consistent with existing reports (Citizenship and Immigration Canada, 2001; 2005), our data reveal that the majority of immigrants reside in urban areas, particularly Toronto (41%). Nearly 63% report having voted in a recent federal, provincial, or municipal election, whereas roughly 24% are not eligible to vote. Not unexpectedly, immigrants tend to associate with people who share their same ethnicity. Approximately 31% report that most of their friends share their ethnic identity, whereas only 10% report that none of their friends share their identity.

In terms of the occupation variables, there is a relatively even split between full-time and part-time workers, and the majority of immigrants

46 CRSAIRCSA, 44.1 2007

are paid workers (81%). The largest response category for the occupational classification variable is sales and service (22%). Immigrants are least likely to be employed in primary industry jobs or occupations related to art and culture; roughly 2% of the respondents are employed in each of those occupational sectors. Average annual reported earnings of employed immigrants are $35,311. Finally, most immigrants report an ethnic identity that is neither assimilated nor integrated (61%). Nearly 16% of immigrants report an assimilated ethnic identity, while just under 24% report an integrated identity.

Multinomial Logistic Regression Results

The parameter estimates for the multinomial logistic regression of identity type on the independent variables are provided in Table 2. The Coefficients in the first column of Table 2 are interpreted as the effects of the independent variables on the log of the odds (logit) of reporting an assimilated identity versus an identity that is neither assimilated nor integrated (the comparison group). The coefficients in the second column are interpreted as the effects of the independent variables on the logit of reporting an integrated identity versus reporting an identity that is neither assimilated nor integrated. Each coefficient is accompanied by its standard error and corresponding test of statistical significance. The last column in Table 2 displays the level of statistical significance for each variable in the rn0de1.l~

Somewhat surprisingly, most of the variables in the model are not statistically significant. We find it particularly noteworthy that none of the variables relating to economic success (e.g., employment status, occupation, or earnings) are statistically significant. In other words, when controlling for the other variables in the model, economic success does not have an impact on the ethnic/cultural identity of immigrant^.'^ In contrast, the effects of both religion and discrimination are s ta t i s t idy significant, controlling for the other variables in the m0de1.l~ The coefficients for the religion variable indicate that those with a religious affiliation, either Catholic or non-Catholic, are less likely than those who do not have a religious affiiiation to have an assimilated identity (p < .05). Likewise, and not unexpectedly, those who feel that they have experienced discrimination since arriving to their host country are less likely to have an assimilated ethnic/cultural identity than those who do not feel that they have experienced discrimination since arrival (p < .05).

The effects of visible minority status, language use and number of ethnic friends are statistically sigmfkant at p < .01, while the coefficients for voting

13. The likelihood ratio test is used to test for multiple parameters simultaneously. 14. Even more surprisingly, the economic indicators are not statistically significant when entered into the

15. When not otherwise stated, the effects of all of the variables discussed below are to he interpreted as model one at a time.

controlling for the other variables in the model.


Table 1

Descriptive Statistics for Variables in the Study

Categorical Variables Percentage %

Sex Female Male

Marital Status Not married MarriediCommon-law

Visible Minority Status South Asian Black Other visible minority White Chinese

Census Metropolitan Area

Montreal Vancouver OttawaEIamilton EdmontoniWinnipeglCdgary Other CMAs Non-CMAs (rural areas) Toronto

Number of Children One child Two children Three or more children No children

Mother’s Education College or university Some college or university High school diploma Less than high school Don’t know

Father’s Education College or university Some college or university High school diploma Less than high school Don’t know

48.2 51.8

28.8 71.2

12.5 5.1 15.2 53.2 14

5.8 14.4 6.1 9.3 10.9 13

40.6

13.8 13.7

5 67.5

13 3.1 19.1 54

10.8

22 5.2 18.1 43.6 11.1

48 CRSAJRCSA, 44.1 2007

Table 1 (cont.)



Highest Level of Schooling Undergraduate degree College diploma Some university Some college High school diploma Less than high school Earned doctorate, masters, prof.

Region of Highest Level of Schooling United States Europe Other Canada

Language-Family Non-official language Official language (English)

Vote in Past Election

No Not eligible Yes

Religion Christian religion Non-Christian affiliation No religious affiliation

Number of Ethnic Friends Most of them About half of them A few of them None of them All

Experienced Discrimination No Yes

Employment Status Part-time Full-time

18.4 17.1 4.5 5.9

21.5 24 8.5

3.3 27.9 33.3 35.4

39.7 60.3

12.9 24.4 62.8

63.2 19.4 17.4

30.5 18.1 27.5 10.2 13.7

78.1 21.9

48.7 51.3

The Acculturation of Canadian Immigrants

Table 1 (cont.)


49

~~~~ ~~ ~


Paid versus Self-Employed

Self-employed Paid worker

SOC 1991 Occupation Business, finance Natural and applied sciences Health occupations Social sciences, education, g o d Occupations in art and culture Sales and services Trades and transportation Primary industry occupations Manufacturing and processing Management

Ethnic Identity

Assimilated ethnic identity Integrated ethnic identity Identity not assimilated or integrated

18.8 81.2

17.3 10.1 6.5 5.7 2

21.7 13.3 1.8

10.9 10.7

15.6 23.5 60.9

Quantitative Variables Mean

Time since migration 21 Age at immigration 23 Earnings (2001) in thousands of dollars (CDN)

n = 4,284

$35,311

50 CRSAIRCSA, 44.1 2007

Table 2

Parameter Estimates from the Multimonial Logistic Model Predicting Identity Type from the Independent Variables

Assimilated Integrated Identity Identity Variable

b SE(b) p b SEW P p

Constant

Sex Female Male

Marital Status Not married MarriedlCommon-law

Visible minority status South Asian Black Other visible minority White Chinese

Census Metropolitan Area Montreal Vancouver OttawaiHamilton Edmon t o f l i n n i p e g J C a l ~ Other CMAs Non-CMAs (rural areas) Toronto

Number of Children One child Two children Three or more children No children

Mother’s Education College or university Some college or university High school diploma Less than high school Don’t know

-1.534

0.078 0.1120 (ref) -

-0.143 0.1344 (ref) -

0.301 0.2733 -0.754 0.3607 * -0.034 0.2459 0.223 0.2282 (ref) -

-0.306 0.2854 0.130 0.1720 0.040 0.2069

-0.098 0,1752 0.180 0.1752 0.219 0.1295 (ref) -

0.031 0.1714 -0.191 0.1586 0.229 0.2221 (ref) -

-0.202 0.2692

-0.051 0.2365 -0.218 0.2366

-0.490 0.3333

(ref) -

-1.005

-0.133 0.1333 (ref) -

-0.079 0.1457 (ref) -

** -0.838 0.2772

-0.489 0.2223 -0.220 0.1934

-0.523 0.3105

(ref) -

-0.070 0.2515 -0.044 0.1810 0.153 0.2186

-0.333 0.1871 -0.053 0.1983 -0.119 0.1471 (ref) -

0.014 0.1469 -0.068 0.1508 -0.190 0.2658 (ref) -

0.013 0.3044 -0.429 0.3963 -0.143 0.2943 -0.064 0.2567 (ref) -


Table 2 (cont.)


kssimilated Integrated Identity Variable Identity

b SE(b) p b SE(b) P P

Father’s Education College or university Some college or university High school diploma Less than high school Don’t know

Time Since Migration

Age at Migration

Highest Level of Schooling Undergraduate degree College diploma Some university Some college High school diploma Less than high school Earned doctorate, masters, prof

Region of Highest Level of Schooling

United States Europe Other Canada

Language--Family Non-official language Official language (English)

Vote in Past Election No Not eligible Yes

Religion Christian religion Non-Christian affiliation No religious affiliation

0.298 0.2556 0.686 0.2979 * 0.439 0.2493 0.223 0.2460 (ref) -

0.034 0.0061 ***

-0.012 0.0079

0.068 0.2072 0.257 0.1971 0.723 0.3043 * 0.134 0.2500 0.065 0.2180

-0.384 0.2662 (ref) -

-0.303 0,2900 -0.018 0.1718 -0.222 0.1990 (ref) -

-0.518 0.1506 *** (ref) -

-0.209 0.1670 -0.945 0.1529 ***

(ref) -

-0.358 0.1446 * -0.507 0.2233 * (ref) -

0.783 0.937 0.854 0.737 (ref)

-0.002

-0.016

0.014 0.026

-0.004 0.240 0.056 0.110 (ref)

-0.184 0.178 0.089 (ref)

0.006 (ref)

-0.523 -1 .I36

I ref)

-0.052 0.164 (ref)

0.2904 ** 0.3221 * * 0.2920 ** 0.2663 ** -

*** 0.0066

0.0080

0.2114 0.2508 0.3200 0.2882 0.2466 0.3045

0.3482 0.1918 0.1918

-

** 0.1405 -

* * *

0.1769 ** 0.1721 ***

* 0.1673 0.2273

-

52 CRSAfUCSA, 44.1 2007

Table 2 (cant.)


Assimilated Integrated Identity Identity Variable

b SE(b) p b SEW P P

Number of Ethnic Friends Most of them About half of them A few of them None of them All

0.206 0.426 0.628 0.957 (ref)

Experienced Discrimination NO 0.369 Yes (ref)

Employment Status Part-time Full-time

-0.040 (ref)

Paid versus Self-Employed Self-employed 0.110 Paid worker

SOC 1991 Occupation Business, finance Natural and applied sciences Health occupations Social sciences, education, govt. Occupations in art and culture Sales and services Trades and transportation Primary industry occupations Manufacturing and processing Management

Earnings (2001) in thousands of dollars

n = 4,284 Log pseudo-likelihood = -3439.8778 Chi-square = 679.25 p < .oooo

-0.304 -0.438 -0.499 -0.436 -0.149 -0.245 -0.050 -0.384 -0.237

0.000

0.2385 0.208 0.2473 0.108 0.2434 ** 0.283 0.2798 *** -0.028

- (ref)

0.1330 ** 0.054 - (ref)

0.2047 0.095 - (ref)

0.1377 -0.024 (ref)

0.1902 -0.071 0.2053 * -0.358 0.2409 * -0.013 0.2503 0.108 0.3738 0.336 0.1976 -0.038 0.1939 0.057 0.3878 -1.174 0.2423 -0.091

(ref)

0.000 0.000

* * 0.1989 0.2177 0.2194 0.2519 -

0.1239 -

0.2335 -

0.1541 -

0.2192 0.2283 0.2575 0.2634 0.3900 0.2245 0.2383 0.4538 ** 0.2416 -

0.000

*

* P-value < .05; * * P-value < .01; *** P-value < ,001

Comparison group: Identity not assimilated or integrated


behaviour and time since migration are statistically significant at p < .001. As these variables have a somewhat stronger impact on identity type, we display magnitude of their effects in the graphs in the figures below. Since the coefficients in Table 2 are not directly meaningful (e.g., they are interpreted as the log of the odds), we transformed them to a probability scale holding the other variables constant at typical values," and plotted the respective fitted probabilities in the effect displays provided in figures 1 through 5 (see Fox and Andersen, 2006).

The graph in Figure 1 displays the predicted probabilities of reporting one of the three identity types separately for the variable number of ethnic friends. The graph shows that those who report that all of their friends share the same ethnic identity are least likely to report an assimilated or integrated ethnic identity. The probably of these respondents having either an assimilated or integrated identity is .12 and .16, respectively. Likewise, the probability that these respondents do not adopt the identity of their host country, either in whole or in part, is .72.17 In contrast, those who report that none of their friends share their ethnicity are most likely to assimilate their ethnic identity to that of their host country (i.e., adopt a Canadian identity).

Figure 2 shows that those who had previously voted in a municipal, provincial or federal election are most likely to report either an assimilated or integrated ethnic identity; their fitted probabilities are .20 and .21, respectively. Conversely, and not surprisingly, those who are not eligible to vote (e.g., not Canadian citizens) are least likely to have an assimilated or integrated ethnic identity. Other things being equal, immigrants who had previously voted in either a municipal, provincial, or federal election are approximately twice as likely to adopt the identity of their host country than immigrants without citizenship status.

The plot in Figure 3 reveals the subtle, yet statistically significant, impact of language use on ethnic identity type. Those who speak English at home are slightly more likely to report an assimilated ethnic identity than are respondents who do not speak an English at home; the respective probabilities are .19 and .13. Conversely, immigrants who do not speak English at home are more likely not to assimilate or integrate their ethnic identity to that of their host country.

The graph in Figure 4 displays the relationship between ethnic identity and visible minority status. It shows that Blacks are least likely to have an assimilated ethnic identity. The predicted probability of a Black immigrant reporting an assimilated, integrated, or neither assimilated nor integrated identity is .08, .16 and .76, respectively. In contrast, Chinese and White

16. Quantitative independent variables are held constant at their means, whereas proportions are used for categ(xica1 variables.

17 The probabilities of observing the three categories of the dependent variable for each category of the independent variable sum to 1.

54 CRSAIRCSA, 44.1 2007

Figure 1

Fitted Probabilities of Identity Type by Number of Ethnic Friends (Probabilities and Corresponding 96% Confidence Bars

Are Estimated Holding the Othervariables Constant at Their Means/Proportions)

1.0 -

0.9 -

0.8 -

0.7- b 3 0.6-

0.5 -

.-

J2

a 5 0.4- ' 0 .3 -

0.2 -

0.1 -

0.0 -

+2

-c Integrated Identity

I f T t

7

I f j :

I 4 I I I

The Acculturation of Canadian immigrants 55

Figure 2

Fitted Probabilities of Identity Type by Political Participation (Probabilities and Corresponding 96% Confidence Bars

Are Estimated Holding the Other Variables Constant at Their MeansProportions)

Identity by Voting Behaviour

Assimilated Identity Integrated Identity Not Assimilated or Integrated

0.8 *

* ?

0.1 ' b

0.0 , , , Yes No Not Eligible

Voted in a Recent Election

56

0.7 - F 2 0.6 -

0.5 -

3 0.4-

0.3 -

.- - I)

6

t=, *

CRSAIRCSA, 44.1 2007

Figure 3

Fitted Probabilities of Identity Type by Language Use (Probabilities and Corresponding 96% Confidence Bars


Identity by Language Use at Home

4. Not Assimilated or Integrated

0.8

0.1

*

t i

0.0 1 , , Official Non-Official

Language

The Acc ulturation of Canadian Immigrants 57

1.0 -

0.9 -

0.8 -

0.7 -

2 0.6 -

e 0.5 - 1,

2 0.4 -

0.3 - h

0.2 -

0.1 -

0.0 -

.d s - Q

42 .-

Figure 4

Fitted Probabilities of Identity Type by Visible Minority Status (Probabilities and Corresponding 95% Confidence Bars


Identity by Visible Minority Status

Assimilated Identity Integrated Identity Not Assimilated or Integrated

8

A 8

Black Chinese Other SAsian White

Visible Minority Status

58 CRSAIRCSA, 44.1 2007

1.0 -

0.9 -

0.8 -

0 .7 -

0.6 -

0.5 -

0.4 -

0.3 -

0.2 -

0.1 -

0.0 -

Figure 5

Fitted Probabilities of Identity Type by Years since Migration (Probabilities and Corresponding 95% Confidence Bars

Are Estimated Holding the Other Variables Constant at Their Means/Proportions)

- Integrated Identlty

- %"

.Iw -- .-

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1


immigrants are most likely to adopt the ethnic identity of their host country, either in whole, or in part. South Asian immigrants, while most likely to have an assimilated ethnic identity, are the least likely to have an integrated ethnic identity.

The relationship between time since migration and identity type is plotted in Figure 5. At ten years of arrival, the predicted probability that an immigrant will report either an assimilated or integrated ethnic identity is .11 and .18, respectively. The probability that a recent immigrant will not report an assimilated or integrated identity is approximately .71. While the probability of reporting an integrated identity slowly declines over time, the probability that an immigrant will assimilate his or her ethnic identity to that of his or her host country increases quite rapidly. By about 55 years since migration, the probability of having either an assimilated or integrated identity is about 50. The probability of reporting an assimilated identity increases steadily over time, whereas the probability that immigrants report an integrated ethnic identity or an ethnic identity that is neither assimilated nor integrated declines with time since migration.

Discussion and Conclusion

The characteristics responsible for the successful assimilation and integration of immigrants into their host society are of central concern to both social and policy researchers. In our analysis, we examined the acculturation of immigrants, focussing specifically on the issue of ethnic identity formation. We use the ethnic identity question available in the 2002 Ethnic Diversity Survey to examine and compare the extent to which immigrants belonging to various ethnic groups, with varying levels and types of incorporating characteristics, identify themselves as members of their host country. Our results indicate that religion and perceptions of discrimination have a modest relationship with ethnic/cultural identity. Visible minority status, political participation, language use, and the proportion of friends who share the same ethnic identity have slightly stronger relationships with the response variable, while the graphical displays used in our statistical analysis reveal that time since migration appears to have the strongest impact on identity formation.

As our review of the theoretical literature hypothesizes strong inter- relationships between social, cultural and economic integration, our discovery that indicators of economic success are not related to the ethnic identity of immigrants is intriguing. These results appear to contradict a large body of literature, yet they support the assertions made by Gordon (1964), as well as others who argue that different forms of assimilation are not necessarily linked. As described above, Alba and Nee (1997) and Fong and Ooka (2002) both suggest that economic mobility may indeed bring about more rapid acculturation, yet it is not an essential ingredient. Economic mobility

60 CRSAIRCSA, 44.1 2007

among the foreign-born is historically specific; these circumstances are fun- damental to the incorporation experience of immigrants, as well as the association between the various forms of assimilation. As Milton Gordon (1964) first articulated, acculturation may be inevitable, but it need not be accompanied by other forms of assimilation.

While our results indicate that time since migration is an important predictor of whether an immigrant will adopt a Canadian identity, it is possible that this finding is attributable to a selectivity issue. For example, immigrants who feel most alienated from the host society may leave, whereas immigrants with longer durations of residence may be those who feel less alienated and thus are more likely to consider themselves Canadian. Unfortunately, we were not able to disentangle this issue with the EDS. Hopefully, future research employing longitudinal data can provide insight into possible selection mechanisms that may be responsible for this particular finding. Moreover, since our statistical analysis is based on cross-sectional data, we are limited in providing formal tests of the causal processes relating economic success to ethnic identity. While longitudinal data would be more suitable for identifylng the causal relationship between economic success and ethnic identity, we are able to partially address the temporal relationship by regressing the respondents’ reported identity in 2002 on their reported earnings for the year 2001. In doing so, we have identified relationships, or a lack thereof, that researchers might pursue further should longitudinal data suitable for such analyses become available.

In sum, understanding the factors that play a role in the integration of immigrants is crucial. Our results indicate that measures of time since migration, citizenship status and political participation, visible minority status, language use, religion, and the proportion of friends who share the same ethnic identity play a significant role in determining whether immigrants adopt the identity of their host society. Indicators of economic success, on the other hand, do not contribute to the ethnic identity of immigrants. This is reassuring, given the current trend of economic decline among newcomers in Canada, as well as in the United States and other countries of immigration (see, for example, Galarneau and Morissette, 2004; Borjas, 1995; Bevelander, 1999; Buchel and Frick, 2005; Chiswick, 1980; Le Grand and Szulkin, 2002).

Identification with the host society is important for national unity, which appears to be independent of one’s level of economic integration. Though based on cross-sectional data, our results provide preliminary evidence that economic integration does not play an integral role in the acculturation of immigrant identities. Our findings therefore suggest that social researchers and policy makers involved in similar research should look beyond a purely economic model of the acculturation of immigrants. Likewise, our findings are valuable to those interested in understanding


the multidimensional aspects of acculturation that can be used to develop strategies aimed at improving the incorporation of immigrants into their host society.

References

Abbot, M.G. and C.M. Beach. 1993. “Immigrant earning differentials and birth-year effects for men in Canada: Post-war-1972.” Canadian Journal of Economics I Reuue canadienne d’&onomique, Vol. 26, No. 3, pp. 505-24.

Alba, R. and V Nee. 1997. “Rethinking assimilation theory for a new era of immigration.” International Migration Review, Vol. 31, No. 4, pp. 826-74.

Angus Reid Group. 1991. Multiculturalism and Canadians, Attitude Study. 1991 National Survey Report submitted to Multiculturalism and Citizenship Canada.

Aydemir, A. and M. Skuterud. 2004. Explaining the Deteriorating Entry Earnings of Canada’s Immigrant Cohorts: 196&2000. Ottawa, Ont.: Statistics Canada.

Baglioni, G. 1964. “Trends in the studies on the socio-cultural integration of immigrants.” International Migration Digest, Vol. 1, No. 2, pp. 125-28.

Baker, M. and D. Benjamin. 1994. “The performance of immigrants in the Canadian labor mar-

Beaujot. R., K.G. Basavarajappa and R.B.P Verma. 1988. Income of Immigrants in Canada:

ket.” Journal of Labor Economics, Vol. 12, No. 3, pp. 369405.

A Census Data Analysis. Ottawa, Ont.: Statistics Canada.

Migration Reuiew, Vol. 1, No. 2, pp. 23-33.

International Reuiew, Vol. 46, No. 1, pp. 5-34.

Bernard, WS. 1967. “The integration of immigrants in the United States.” International

Berry, J. 1997. “Immigration, acculturation, and adaptation.” AppZied Psychology: An

Bevelander, l? 1999. “The employment integration of immigrants in Sweden.” Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, Vol. 25, No. 3, pp. 445-69.

Bloom, D.E.. G. Grenier and M. Gunderson. 1995. “The changing labour market positions of Canadian immigrants.” Canadian Journal of Economics I Reuue canadienne d’Economique. Vol. 28, No. 4b, pp. 987-1005.

Borjas, G.J. 1982. “The earnings of male Hispanic immigrants in the United States.” Industrial and Labor Relations Review, Vol. 35, No. 3, pp. 343-53.

Bojas, G.J. 1989. “Immigrant and emigrant earnings: A longitudinal study.” Economic Inquiry, Vol. 27, No. 1, pp. 21-27.

Borjas, G.J 1995. “Assimilation and changes in cohort quality revisited: What happened to immigrant earnings in the 1980s?” Journal ofLabor Economics, Vol. 13, No. 2, pp. 20145 .

Development Economics, Vol. 51, No. 1, pp. 69-98.

Bojas, G.J. and R.B. Freeman. 1992. Immigration and the Work Force: Economic Consequences for the United States and Source Areas. Chicago, Ill.: University of Chicago Press.

Bojas, G.J. and M. Tienda. 1993. “The employment and wages of legalized immigrants.” International Migration Reuiew, Vol. 27, No. 4, pp. 71247 .

Boyd, M. 1975. “The status of immigrant women in Canada.” The Canadian Reuiew of Sociology and Anthropology, Vol. 12, No. 4, pp. 40G16.

Boyd, M. 1984. “At a disadvantage: The occupational attainments of foreign-born women in

Bojas, G.J. 1996. “The earnings of Mexican immigrants in the United States.” Journal of

Canada.” International Migration Reuiew, Vol. 18, No. 4, pp. 1091-119.

62 CRSAIRCSA, 44.1 2007

Boyd, M. 1999. “Canadian, eh? Ethnic origin shifts in the Canadian census.” Canadian Ethnic Studies, Vol. 31, No. 3, pp. 1-19.

Boyd, M. 2002. “Educational attainment of immigrant offspring: Success or segmented assimilation?” International Migration Reuiew, Vol. 36, No. 4, pp. 1037-60.

Boyd, M., 3. Goyder, EE. Jones, H.A. McRoberts, EC. Pineo and J. Porter. 1985. “Introduction: The Canadian mobility study; Approaches and procedures.” In Ascrzption and Achieuement: Studies of Mobility and Status Attainment in Canada. M. Boyd, J. Goyder, EE. Jones, H.A. McRoberts, EC. Pineo and J. Porter (eds.). Don Mills, Ont.: Oxford University Press, pp. 1-22.

Boyd, M and E.M. Grieco. 1998. “Triumphant transitions: Socioeconomic achievements of the second generation in Canada.” Intemtional Migration Review, Vol. 32, No. 4, pp. 853-76.

Boyd, M. and D. Norris. 2001. “Who are the Canadians? Changingcensus responses, 1986-1996.” Canadian Ethnic Studies, Vol. 33, No. 1, pp. 1-34.

Boyd, M. and D. Thomas. 2002. “Skilled immigrant labour: Country of origin and the occupational locations of male engineers.” Canadian Studies in Population, Vol. 29, No. I, pp. 71-99.

Breton, R., W.W. Isajiw, W.E. Kalbach and J. Reitz. 1990. Ethnic Identity and Equality: Varieties and Experiences in a Canadian City. Toronto, Ont.: University of Toronto Press.

Buchel, E and J. Frick. 2005. “Immigrants’ economic performance acrow Europe: Does immigration policy matter?” Population Research and Policy Reuiew, Vol. 24, No. 2, pp. 174-213.

Chiswick, B.R. 1977. “Sons of immigrants: Are they at an earnings disadvantage?” American Economic Review, Vol. 67, No. 1, pp. 376-80.

Chiswick, B.R. 1978. “The effect of Americanization on the earnings of foreign-born men.” The Journal of Political Economy, Vol. 86, No. 5, pp. 897-921.

Chiswick, B.R. 1980. “Immigrant earnings patterns by sex, race, and ethnic groupings.” Monthly Labor Review, Vol. 103, No. 10, pp. 22-25.

Chiswick, B.R. 1984. ‘‘Illegal immigrants in the United States labour market: Analysis of occupational attainment and earnings.” International Migration Review, Vol. 18, No. 3, pp. 714-32.

Chiswick, B.R. and Y. Cohen. 1997. “The labour market status of immigrants: Effects of the unemployment rate a t arrival and duration of residence.” Industrial and Labor Relations Reuiew, Vol. 50, No. 2, pp. 289-303.

Chiswick, B.R., Y.L. Lee and EW Miller. 2005. ”A longitudinal analysis of immigrant occupational mobility: A test of the immigrant assimilation hypothesis.” International Migration Reuiew, Vol. 39, No. 2, pp. 332-53.

Citizenship and Immigration Canada. 2001. Canada’s Recent Immigrants: A Comparatiue Report Based on the 1996 Census. Ottawa, Ont.: Minister of Public Works and Government Services Canada.

Citizenship and Immigration Canada. 2005. Facts and Figures 2004: Immigration Ouerview. Ottawa, Ont.: Minister of Public Works and Government Services Canada.

DeWind, J. and E Kasinitz. 1997. “Everything old is new again? Processes and theories of immigrant incorporation.” International Migration Reuiew, Vol. 31, No. 4, pp. 1096-111.

Djajic, S. 2003. ‘‘Assimilation of immigrants: Implications for human capital accumulation of the second generation.” Journal of Population Economics, Vol. 16, pp. 83145.

Fong, E. and E. Ooka. 2002. “The social consequences of participating in the ethnic economy.” International Migration Reuiew, Vol. 36, No. 1, pp. 12546.


Fox, J. and R. Andersen. 2006. ”Effect displays for multinomial and proportional-odds logit models.”

Galarneau. D. and R. Morissette. 2004. “Immigrants: Settling for less?” Perspectives on Labour

G a s , H.J. 1997. “Toward a reconciliation of ‘assimilation’ and ‘pluralism’: The interplay of acculturation and ethnic retention.” International Migration Reuiew, Vol. 31, No. 4, pp. 875-92.

Italians, and Irish ofNew York City. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.

Vol. 25, No. 2, pp. 11544.

Sociological Methodology, Vol. 36, pp. 22556.

and Income, Vol. 5, No. 6, pp. 5-16.

Glazer, N. and D.P Moynihan. 1963. Beyond the Melting Pot: The Negroes, Puerto Ricans, Jews,

Goldmann, G. 1998. “The measurement of acculturation.” Canadian Studies in Population,

Gordon, M. 1964. Assimilation in American Life. New York, N.Y.: Oxford University Press.

Greene, WH. 2003. Econometric Analysis: Fiflh Edition. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice Hall.

Isajiw, W.W. A. Sev’er and L. Dreidger. 1993. “Ethnic identity and social mobility: A test of the drawback model.” Canadian Journal ofSociology, Vol. 18, No. 2, pp. 177-96.

Kalbach, M.A., K.H. Hardwick, R.D. Vintila and W.E. Kalbach. 2002. “Ethnic-connectedness and economic inequality: A persisting relationship.” Canadian Studies in Population, Vol. 29, No. 2. pp. 24544.

Kalbach, M.A. and WE. Kalbach. 1995. “The importance of ethnic-connectedness for Canada’s post-war immigrants.” Canadian Ethnic Studies, Vol. 27, No. 2, pp. 16-25.

Kalhach, M.A. and W.E. Kalbach. 1999. “Becoming Canadian: Problems of an emerging identity.” Canadian Ethnic Studies, Vol. 31, No. 2, pp. 1-16.

Kazemipur, A. and S.S. Halli. 2000. “The colour of poverty: A study of the poverty of ethnic and immigrant groups in Canada.” International Migration, Vol. 38, No. 1, pp. 69-87.

Kazemipur, A. and S.S. Halli. 2001. “Immigrants and ‘new poverty’: The case of Canada.” International Migration Reuiew, Vol. 35, No. 4, pp. 1129-56.

Le Grand, C. and R. Szulkin. 2002. “Permanent disadvantage or gradual integration: Explaining the immigrant-native earnings gap in Sweden.” Labour, Vol. 16, No. 1, pp. 37-64.

Li, PS. 2001. “The market worth of immigrants’ educational credentials.” Canadian Public

Li, PS. 2003. “Initial earnings and catch-up capacity of immigrants.” Canadian Public Policy,

Long, S.J. 1997. Regression Models for Categorical and Limited Dependent Variables. London:

McCullagh, E and J.A. Nelder. 1989. Generalized Linear Models. 2nd ed. New York: Chapman

Ono, H. 2002. “Assimilation, ethnic competition, and ethnic identities of U.S.-born persons of

Park, R.E 1950. Race and Culture. New York: Free Press.

Pendakur, B and I? Mata. 1998. “Patterns of ethnic identification and the ‘Canadian’ response.” Canadian Ethnic Studies, Vol. 30, No. 2, pp. 125-37.

Perlmann, J. and R. Waldinger. 1997. “Second generation decline? Children of immigrants, past and present-A reconsideration.” International Migration Review, Vol. 31, No. 4, pp. 893-922.

Po1ic.y. Vol. 27, No. 1, pp. 23-38.

Val. 29, No. 3, pp. 319-27.

Sage Publications.

and Hall.

Mexican origin.” International Migration Review, Vol. 36, No. 3, pp. 726-45.

64 CRSAIRCSA, 44.1 2007

Pigott, B. and M.A. Kalbach. 2005. “Language effects on ethnic identity in Canada.” Canadian

Porter, J. 1965. The Vertical Mosaic. Toronto: University of Toronto Press. Price, D.O. 1969. The Changing Characteristics of the Negro Population: A 1960 Census

Monograph. Washington, D.C.: United States Department of Commerce. Reitz, J.G. 1998. Warmth of the Welcome: The Social Causes of Economic Success for Immigrants

in Different Nations and Cities. Boulder, Cola.: Westview Press. Reitz, J.G. 2001. “Immigrant skill utilization in the Canadian labour market: Implications of

human capital research.” Journal of International Migration and Integration, Vol. 2,

Reitz, J.G. 2003. “Educational expansion and the employment success of immigrants in the United States and Canada.” In Host Societies and the Reception of Immigrants. J.G. Reitz (ed.). San Diego, Calif: Center for Comparative Immigration Research, University of California, pp. 151-80.

Reitz, J.G. and S. Sklar. 1997. “Culture, race, and the economic assimilation of immigrants.” Sociological Forum, Vol. 12, No. 2, pp. 233-77.

Rumbaut, R.G. 1997. “Assimilation and its discontents: Between rhetoric and reality.” International Migration Review, Vol. 31, No. 4, pp. 923-60.

Satzewich, \I 2001. “Race and ethnic relations.” In New Society. R.J. Brym (ed.). Toronto:

van Tubergen, E, I. Maas and H. Flap. 2004. “The economic incorporation of immigrants in 18 Western societies: Origin, destination, and community effects.” American Sociological Reuiew, Vol. 69, No. 5, pp. 704-27.

White, I! 1992. “Challenges in measuring Canada’s ethnic diversity.” In 20 Years of Multiculturalism: Success and Failure. S. Hryniuk (ed.). Winnipeg: St. John’s College Press, pp 16342.

Ethnic Studies, Vol. 37, No. 2, pp. 3-18.

NO. 3, pp. 341-18.

~ a r c o u r t can&, pp. 2oa34.

The Acculturation of Canadian Immigrants: Determinants of Ethnic Identification with the Host Society

Documents