IMMIGRATION IN RURAL AMERICA
An Interview with Leif Jensen, Ph.D
Leif Jensen is currently Professor of Rural Sociology and Demography at the Pennsylvania State University and author of the Carsey Institute’s report on New Immigrant Settlements in Rural America. Until recently, he was also Director of the Population Research Institute at Penn State. His recent and ongoing research projects include studies of underemployment in the United States and the movement of immigrant groups to new destination communities in the U.S.
Interviewed by Amy Seif on 11/6/06.
Amy Seif: Where have immigrants in America traditionally settled and are we seeing a different settlement pattern in recent times?
Leif Jensen: It depends a bit on what era we’re talking about. The first great wave of immigration to the United States consisted of many arrivals from northern and western Europe. While they populated growing cities, a great number settled in rural areas of the Midwest and elsewhere to farm. Since the late 1800’s up to today, urban areas have been the preferred initial place of residence for immigrants. Research suggests that over half the foreign-born population reside in just 13 so-called gateway cities (for example, New York). So immigrants really have been and remain predominantly urban in orientation. There is recent demographic evidence, however, suggesting that the foreign-born are deconcentrating away from traditional urban locales. While many are going to the immediate peripheries of these cities, many places in rural and small town America are receiving sizable inflows of new immigrants.
AS: In what regions of the country do you find increasing numbers of immigrants settling in rural areas?
LJ: Well, by “rural” most people are really talking about non-metropolitan. And you can find non-metropolitan counties that have experienced new inflows of recent immigrants in virtually every region of the country. I would say that in the northeast, there are fewer counties that have experienced extremely rapid increases. But you can find pockets of rural America in virtually every other region that have seen large numbers of new arrivals relative to their population sizes in 1990.
AS: Who are these recent immigrants to rural America?
LJ: First, I would stress that national level averages can gloss over unique population flows to particular places. Just to take one example, the town of Marshalltown, Iowa has experienced significant inflows of new immigrants drawn to employment in meatpacking. Some excellent work by Mark Grey and colleagues indicates that not only are the new arrivals largely Mexican, many come from a particular town in Mexico. But in general, data suggest that compared to recent immigrants living in metropolitan America, those in rural areas are more likely to be Hispanic (and Mexican in particular), more likely to be married, they are less well educated, they are more likely to be employed, but more likely to be underemployed (for example, working poor), they are more likely to be poor, but when they are poor, less likely to receive food stamps, and they’re more likely to own their own homes. I would add that we’re just scratching the surface in understanding recent immigrants to rural America.
AS: How are immigrants being received by rural communities?
LJ: There is nothing particularly unique about how new arrivals are received. The reactions have been typical of the way that American natives have greeted new arrivals throughout our history. Some locals react to new immigrants with angst, trepidation, maybe even outright hostility. People worry about impacts of those speaking different languages on the local community and culture, and they worry about fiscal impacts. Others are more receptive to the idea, perhaps recognizing that we’re a nation of immigrants, and that new arrivals can revitalize a place. Most folks, though, are somewhere in between: ambivalent. It’s interesting to speculate, though, that reactions may be somehow magnified in rural areas. I see rural communities experiencing significant immigrant inflows as crucibles; places where the dynamics of immigration and integration are more obvious and intense.
AS: Are these fears about immigrants becoming a drain on public coffers and social services founded?
LJ: The best people to ask this question of are economists, who are very careful, thorough and meticulous. But even here there is disagreement. Immigrants are more likely than natives to be poor, suggesting they may pay less in taxes and use more means-tested programs and services than native families. However, research I’ve done in the past and other work suggests that once you control for need, immigrants are less likely to use such services than natives are. This is not to deny that in particular places unaccustomed to immigration, they can stress educational systems (for example, through the need for ESL classes) and health systems. And to be sure, some of the most acute fiscal impacts are seen within localities. But, at the risk of repeating myself, I would point out that new rural immigrants are more likely than those in urban areas to be employed, married, and home owners; all suggestive of a group that is trying to live up to traditional American values. When it comes to the bottom line in the long term, it’ll be critical to understand how the children of these latest arrivals do.
AS: Do you think that new rural residents will contribute to rural poverty or will they help to revitalize rural places?
LJ: Could be both actually. Recent immigrants, like recent arrivals throughout U.S. immigration history, are more likely to be poor than natives. So, significant inflows to particular locales will necessarily increase the poverty rates of these places. This does not mean, of course, that poverty rates of natives go up. But while many may be officially poor, they often are employed, work hard, strive to achieve and encourage achievement in their children. They buy houses, they start businesses, they buy locally, and so on. So, yes, they can revitalize a place. And let’s not forget that in many cases they’re attracted to industries (for example, meatpacking) that also are employing native-born workers. And finally it should be kept in mind that many rural counties would be losing population (because of mortality among those aging in place and the outmigration of native youth), if it weren’t for new immigrants replenishing the population base.
Immigration is a hot button and divisive issue on which people often take very strong opinions. That’s fine, but the two sides of the immigration debate need to be talking to one another. And everyone needs to understand that the issues are extremely complex and murky once you dig into them.
Read the report New Immigrant Settlements in Rural America: Problems, Prospects and Policies.