Ethnic enclave

Observations of the Cuban ethnic enclave economy in Miami led Alejandro Portes and Kenneth Wilson to conclude that participation in an enclave economy provided immigrants with an alternative, speedy option to achieve economic mobility in a host society. The discourse pioneered by Portes and Wilson produced the construct for a body of literature that came to be known by the ethnic enclave hypothesis. While never empirically defined, the term "ethnic enclave" began to be widely used to represent two distinct definitions: that of an enclave economy and that of a residential area of high co-ethnic concentration.[9] The most fundamental concept within the enclave hypothesis is that of social capital, which lays the foundation for the establishment of migrant networks and the advantages associated with them.[11]

With the rise in globalization and ease of international transportation, patterns of immigration show the role of ethnic enclaves for contributing to increased migration over time. New immigrants unintentionally lower costs for future immigration of co-ethnics by pooling together resources for themselves. Thus, by achieving mobility in the receiving country themselves, immigrants create a social structure that makes it easier for future immigrants to become upwardly mobile. According to Douglas Massey, "Networks build into the migration process a self-perpetuating momentum that leads to its growth over time, in spite of fluctuating wage differentials, recessions, and increasingly restrictive immigration policies." [10] Ethnic enclaves thus contribute to continued immigration by providing co-ethnics with a space to make connections that ultimately lower migration costs and promote economic mobility. Many worn path taken by former immigrants are made accessible to enclave members, making immigration easier to future generations. By generating further immigration, migration leads to its own cumulative causation over time.

Upon arrival to a foreign country, immigrants face challenges in assimilation and integration processes and thus experience different modes and levels of incorporation within the host society. Many factors influence the level of ease or challenge experienced by immigrants as they make the transition and undergo physical, social, and psychological challenges. The segmented assimilation model notes that there can exist a "consciously pluralistic society in which a variety of subcultures and racial and ethnic identities coexist" [19][20]

One influential factor in an immigrant's journey is the presence of relatives or friends in the receiving country. Friends and family, making up a kinship network, who are willing to help the newcomers can be classified as a type of capital commonly referred to as social capital. Upon arrival, many immigrants have limited or no access to human capital and thus rely heavily on any available source of social capital.[16] The cost to immigration is large, however this burden can be shared and thus eased through an immigrant's access to social capital in the receiving country. Kinship networks in the receiving country can provide aid not only for the physical and economic needs of immigrants, but also for their emotional and socio-psychological needs.[21]

Access to social capital does not guarantee ease or success for the migrant. Because social capital is rooted in relationships it easily lends itself to conflict and disagreement between parties.[21] The level of economic stability on the side of the receiving party can dictate the level of aid they are willing or able to offer. In addition, the economic condition of the country and the availability of jobs open to the immigrants can largely affect the quality of the support network available to the migrant. If the receiving country provides favorable conditions such as access to social programs, the local economy, and employment opportunities, the network is likely to be of much higher quality. Adversely, kinship networks may break down if much stress is placed on the relationships involved due to economic hardships. The duration and intensity of aid needed can dictate the quality of the kinship network available to the immigrant. Immigrant ideas regarding level of support to be received are often high and left unmet if true economic conditions do not allow for favorable network conditions.[21] Shared norms and relational ties can also lead to obligatory ties which some scholars, such as Tsang and Inkpen, argue restricts an individual's willingness to explore opportunities outside the network.[22]

Methods of assimilation and access to social capital vary between and even within ethnic groups. A variety of factors can influence individuals' ethnic identities including their social class background and the social networks available to them. As theorized by sociologist Mary C. Waters, the involvement level of parents in ethnic organizations or activities heavily influences the development of their children's ethnic identities. This is important to note as second-generation immigrants must actively work to identify themselves with their ethnic group.[19]

Enclave networks offer access to a unique type of social capital and act as large kinship networks. Within enclave networks, social capital commonly exists both as a private and public good.[22] Though there is some debate in relation to the long-term benefits offered by these networks, the short-term benefits are universally acknowledged. The socio-psychological challenges faced by the immigrant can be largely reduced through the individual's entrance into an ethnic enclave. Ethnic enclaves can resemble the immigrant's place of origin through physical look, layout, and language employed both written and orally.[16] In addition to increasing the cultural comfort of the migrant, healthy ethnic enclaves offer solidarity and trust among members, and informal training systems within the workplace. The geographic proximity of the enclave network allows for easy flow of knowledge and varying types of assistance between firms as well. Where there is an atmosphere of trust in ethnic enclaves, this transfer of knowledge and sharing of social capital exists as an asset to the firms.[22] Connections with members in an enclave may also afford the newcomer work opportunities. Immigrants may also receive informal training regarding the customs and practices of the larger culture outside the enclave and help navigating challenges in many areas of everyday life.[16] Social hostility may be a challenge faced by immigrants in their host society, therefore to avoid this factor, ethnic enclaves provide a haven where economic success may still be achieved.[13]

The processes of enclave economies can only be fully understood through a sociological perspective that considers economic sociology and the sociology of immigration. Ethnic Enclaves generate a pool of social capital through which members can access resources that lower the costs of migration. Economic assistance through enclave membership takes the form of job opportunities, loans for small businesses, and other forms of economic assistance.[16] Small ethnic firms within the enclave provide new immigrants with immediate access to economic opportunities by subverting the secondary sector of the economy and creating numerous low-wage jobs that are easily accessed by members. The barriers of entry into the enclave economy are significantly lowered due to the ethno-centric nature of businesses and firms. Goods and services tend to be offered in the language of that enclave. Additionally, social and cultural norms specific to the host country are not required of employees in the enclave economy. Thus, the ethno-specific nature of enclave economies makes them attractive to new immigrants who lack the social and cultural skills necessary to integrate into the mainstream economy.[9]

Entrance into the enclave economy is dependent upon the conditions of incorporation experienced by the individual. Unfavorable modes of incorporation into the host society provide incentives for immigrants to enter the informal economy. Discrimination, hostility and lack of resources may encourage immigrants to enter into informal forms of employment for survival.[16] Ethnic enclaves are rich in informal activities, as the entrepreneurial services making the core of the enclave's founding were historically informal ventures. Informality proves favorable for immigrant entrepreneurships, allowing them to bypass costly regulations. Additionally, the scope of employment for immigrants is greatly widened by the availability of informal jobs in the enclave economic sector. The informality of the enclave economy is also a reason for risk and fraud. Informal activities are constantly under risk of detection by the formal sector, which has a negative effect on job security. Furthermore, due to the absence of legal framework, immigrant laborers often remain silent about various forms of exploitation. The most common form of labor exploitation in immigrant economies is unpaid labor. Undocumented immigrants are especially afraid to report violations of labor laws and exploitation.[23]

Bilingual street sign in Houston's Chinatown

Government policy toward immigrants is the first mode of reception to the receiving country.[9] Governments generally enforce measures to reduce the amount of "unwanted" immigrants which may potentially pose a burden on the receiving society and economy.[24]

The granting of different statuses and visas (i.e. refugee, temporary visas for students and workers) to immigrant groups affects the type of reception immigrants will receive. Aside from immigration control policies, some governments also impose measures to accelerate social and political incorporation of new immigrants, and to stimulate economic mobility.

Wayne Cornelius studies two central theses regarding institutional response to increased movement of people across transnational borders. The first of these is the gap hypothesis which describes the dissonance between official immigration policies and real policy outcomes. Policy gaps are the result of unintended consequences and inadequate enforcement by the receiving society. Many reasons can explain unintended consequences of immigration policy. Governments with undefined or ambiguous stances toward immigration may propagate unintended consequences, and the reliance on flawed policies can further reduce the efficacy of institutional measures. Furthermore, political incoherency policy poses a greater challenge for the incorporation and enforcement of effective measures.

A negative public opinion toward immigrants is a good measure of significant policy gaps in the receiving government; however, special interest groups may also constrain political responses to immigration. This is especially true in liberal democracies, where "lobbying by powerful employer groups, religious groups, ethnic and immigrant advocacy groups, and even labor unions leads governments to adopt more expansionary immigration policies, even when the economy goes bad and general public opinion turns hostile to immigrants." [25] Furthermore, governments and special groups in the immigrant-sending country may align themselves with pro-immigration lobbyists in the receiving country. Thus, the policymaking process is complicated by involvement of multiple factions.

The second thesis studied by Wayne Cornelius is the convergence hypothesis which describes the growing similarity of political responses to immigration among immigrant-receiving countries. These similarities fall into: "(1) the policies that their governments have adopted to control immigration; (2) policies designed to integrate immigrants into host societies by providing them with social services as well as political, economic, and social rights; and (3) attitudes toward immigrants and immigration policy preferences among general publics." [26]

Ethnic groups receive various levels of reception by the host society for various reasons. In general, European immigrants tend to encounter little resistance by host countries, while tenets of racism are evinced by widespread resistance to immigrants of color.[16]

Political incorporation into the host country is coupled with adoption of citizenship of the host country. By studying the diverging trajectories of immigrant citizenship in Canada and the U.S., Irene Bloemraad explains that current models of citizenship acquisition fail to recognize the social nature of political incorporation. Bloemraad describes political incorporation as a "social process of mobilization by friends, family, community organizations and local leaders that is embedded in an institutional context shaped by government policies of diversity and newcomer settlement." [27] This alternative model emphasizes the role of migrant networks in critically shaping how immigrants consider citizenship. Bloemraad shows that friends, family, co-ethnic organizations and local community affect political incorporation by providing a structured mobilization framework. This social structure is most essential for immigrants who face language barriers and may lack familiarity with host institutions.

The extent to which migrant networks promote citizenship depends on the efficacy of government policies on immigrant integration. Governments adopting policies that facilitate the emergence, integration and growth of ethnic economies are presumed to gain support by co-ethnics. Thus, the movement toward political incorporation and citizenship is nested in a larger institutional structure involving economic and social integration policy as these relate to immigrants.[27] Ethnic enclaves have the ability to simultaneously assist in political and civic incorporation of immigrants. By providing a space that facilitates upward mobility and economic integration into the receiving society, enclaves and their members fundamentally influence the perceptions of receiving institutions by co-ethnics. Finally, enclaves may gauge community interest in naturalization and direct immigrants through the process to gaining citizenship

Assimilation has experienced much change, the way in which people assimilated in the twentieth century is very different than the assimilation that is being experienced now, in the twenty-first century. From the types of immigrants that are coming to the United States, to the place they are choosing to live. Ethnic diversity has drastically changed, which has changed the assimilation process.[36] To be able to understand the assimilation process that is going on in today's society, one must understand that immigration is an ongoing process. Although some immigrants move up in class, most immigrants stay in safe-zones, residing in neighborhood's where they share the same language and cultural background.[36] This affects society because some ethnic groups are deemed as more socially acceptable than others, this has to do with the social capital they bring with them, their educational backgrounds and documentation status.[36] The United States has immigrants from around the world, labeling some as assets and others as burdens. For example, Asians are seen as assets, referred to as the "new whites".[37] Asians and Indians are two ethnic groups that have experienced positive labeling that helps their assimilation process, however this is not the case for all ethnic groups and it is important to notice the effects on society when ethnic groups and ethnic enclaves are labels as burdens and seen as dangerous. To illustrate this point, Latinos are stereotypically labeled as undocumented, because of this their ethnic enclaves can be described as low-income, or unsafe.[38] This can have many effects on society, why people are choosing to live in certain neighborhoods, why certain people have a hard time moving up economically and out of these ethnic enclaves. Further stratifying the United States when it comes to races and ethnicity.