Growing Up American: The Challenge Confronting Immigrant Children and Children of Immigrants

P1: NBL/MBL/sny P2: MBL/vks QC: MBL
June 4, 1997 18:19 Annual Reviews AR035-04
Annu. Rev. Sociol. 1997. 23:63–95

Copyright °c 1997 by Annual Reviews Inc. All rights reserved
GROWING UP AMERICAN: The

Challenge Confronting Immigrant
Children and Children of Immigrants
Min Zhou
Department of Sociology, University of California, Los Angeles, 264 Haines Hall,
Box 951551, Los Angeles, California 90095-1551
KEY WORDS: the second generation, immigrant children, race/ethnicity, adaptation/assimilation,

intergenerational relations
ABSTRACT
Since the 1980s, immigrant children and children of immigrant parentage have
become the fastest growing and the most extraordinarily diverse segment of
America’s child population. Until the recent past, however, scholarly attention
has focused on adult immigrants to the neglect of their offspring, creating a pro-
found gap between the strategic importance of the new second generation and the
knowledge about its socioeconomic circumstances. The purpose of this article
is to pull together existing studies that bear directly or indirectly on children’s
immigrant experiences and adaptational outcomes and to place these studies into
a general framework that can facilitate a better understanding of the new second
generation. The article first describes the changing trends in the contexts of the re-
ception the new second generation has encountered. The article then discusses the
ways in which conventional theoretical perspectives about immigrant adaptation
are being challenged and alternative frameworks are being developed. Thirdly, it
examines empirical findings from recent research and evaluates their contribution
to the sociology of immigration. Finally, it highlights the main conclusions from
prior research and their theoretical and practical implications for future studies.
INTRODUCTION
The phenomenal increase in contemporary immigration to the United States has
given rise to a record number of children who, regardless of place of birth, are
raised in immigrant families. Since the 1980s, a new generation of immigrant
children and children of immigrants has become the fastest growing and the most
63
0360-0572/97/0815-0063$08.00
64 ZHOU
ethnically diverse segment of America’s child population. The 1990 US Census

has revealed that about 15% of all children in the United States are immigrant
children or children of immigrant parentage, and that 59% of Latino-American
children and 90% of Asian American children are members of the first or second
generation, compared to 6% of non-Latino African-American children and 5%
of non-Latino European-American children (Landale & Oropesa 1995).
Differing from their immigrant parents, immigrant children and children of
immigrants lack meaningful connections to their “old” world. They are thus
unlikely to consider a foreign country as a place to return to or as a point of
reference. They instead are prone to evaluate themselves or to be evaluated by
others by the standards of their new country (Gans 1992, Portes 1995). Given
the fact that children of contemporary immigrants will represent a crucial com-
ponent of future American society, how are we to understand these children’s
adaptation to their role as citizens and full participants in American society?
How do migration processes, contexts of reception, and biculturalism impact
the process of becoming American? Has assimilation continued to lead to up-
ward social mobility? Has the younger generation of today’s immigrants been
able to assimilate into American society, following the path taken by the “old”
second generation arriving at the turn of the century and advancing beyond their
parents’ generation?
Until the recent past, scholarly attention has focused on adult immigrants to
the neglect of child immigrants and immigrant offspring, creating a profound
gap between the strategic importance of these children and the knowledge about
their conditions. The purpose of this article is to pull together existing stud-
ies that bear directly or indirectly on immigrant experiences and adaptational
outcomes of the children of contemporary immigrants and to place these stud-
ies into a general framework that can facilitate a better understanding of these
children’s socioeconomic circumstances and life chances. In so doing, I first
describe the changing trends in the contexts of the reception that the new sec-
ond generation has encountered; I then discuss the ways in which conventional
theoretical perspectives about immigrant adaptation are being challenged and
alternative frameworks are being developed. Thirdly, I examine empirical find-
ings from recent research and evaluate their contribution to the sociology of
immigration. Finally, I highlight the main conclusions from prior research and
their theoretical and practical implications for future studies.
THE RISE OF THE NEW SECOND GENERATION

Who Makes Up the New Second Generation?
The new second generation technically refers to the children of contemporary
immigrants. The emerging literature on the new second generation, however,
IMMIGRANT CHILDREN 65
has discussed not only US-born children—the true second generation—but also
contemporary immigrant children who have arrived in the United States before
they reach adulthood (Gans 1992, Portes 1996). The latter group is also known
as the “one-and-a-half generation,” a term coined by Rubén Rumbaut to char-
acterize the children who straddle the old and the new worlds but are fully part
of neither (Pérez Firmat 1994, Rumbaut 1991). Usage of these generational
terms has not been consistent (Oropesa & Landale, forthcoming). Depend-
ing on social and historical processes of immigration and particular nationality
groups under study, the second generation is sometimes broadened to include
foreign-born children arriving at pre-school age (0-4 years) because they share
many linguistic, cultural, and developmental experiences similar to those of
immigrant offspring (Zhou & Bankston, forthcoming). The one-and-a-half
generation, on the other hand, is sometimes broken down into two distinct co-
horts: children between 6 and 13 years of age as 1.5-generation children and
those arriving as adolescents (aged 13 to 17) who are similar to first-generation
children. Although scholars may vary in their ways of defining the new sec-
ond generation, they have generally agreed that there are important differences
between children of different cohorts of the one-and-a-half and second gener-
ation, particularly in their physical and psychological developmental stages, in
their socialization processes in the family, the school, and the society at large,
as well as in their orientation toward their homeland.
The main characteristics of the new second generation mirror those of con-
temporary immigrants, which are extraordinarily diverse in national origins,
socioeconomic circumstances, and settlement patterns. Always the defining
character of America, however, the composition and meaning of diversity today
have changed significantly since the turn of the century. Most notably, con-
temporary immigrants have been predominantly non-Europeans. According
to the Immigration and Nationalization Service, of the 7.3 million immigrants
admitted to the United States during the 1980s (not counting undocumented
immigrants), 87% came from Asia and the Americas, compared to the 8.8 mil-
lion admitted during the 1910s who were predominantly from Europe. In the
past decade, Mexico, the Philippines, China/Taiwan, South Korea, and Vietnam
were the top five sending countries, followed by the Dominican Republic, India,
El Salvador, and Jamaica. Immigrants from Mexico alone accounted for more
than one fifth of total legal admissions as well as half of illegal immigrants.
The diversity in national origin has, accordingly, become a salient feature
of the new second generation. The 1990 Census has shown that the foreign-
born child population under 18 years of age is made up of 52% Latinos
(53% of whom are Mexicans) and 27% Asians, and that the US-born co-
hort with at least one immigrant parent is made up of 48% Latinos and 24%
Asians (Oropesa & Landale, forthcoming). More strikingly, about one out of
66 ZHOU
three foreign-born children has at least one Mexican-born parent (Perlmann &
Waldinger 1996).
Also different from the turn-of-the-century inflows, contemporary immi-
grants have come from diverse socioeconomic backgrounds. The 1990 Census
has attested to the vast differences in levels of education, occupation, and income
by national origins. For example, over 60% of immigrants (aged 25 years or
older) from India and Taiwan report having attained college degrees, three times
the proportion of average Americans, but less than 5% of those from Cambodia,
Laos, El Salvador, and Mexico so report. Among the employed workers (aged
16 years or older), over 45% of immigrants from India and Taiwan have man-
agerial or professional occupations, more than twice the proportion of average
American workers, but less than 7% of those from El Salvador, Guatemala, and
Mexico so report. Further, immigrants from India report a median household
income of $53,000, compared to $30,000 for average American households;
those from Cambodia, the Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Honduras, Laos,
and Mexico report a median household income below $22,000.
The socioeconomic diversity suggests that the pathways to social mobility
will not be a straight line nor unidirectional. While many immigrants continue
to follow the traditional bottom-up route, significant numbers of new arrivals
have bypassed the bottom starting line and moved directly into mainstream
labor markets while dispersing into suburban middle-class communities. The
implications for the new second generation are profound, since the current state
and future prospects of immigrant children are related to the advantages or
disadvantages that accrue to the socioeconomic status of their parents.
A third salient feature of contemporary immigrants is their geographic con-
centration. Unlike earlier European immigrants whose destinations were in
the Northeast, contemporary immigrants have been disproportionately concen-
trated in the West. California accounted for over a third of the total arrivals of
legal immigrants in the 1980s, while New York, the traditional largest receiving
state, accounted for only 14% (Portes & Zhou 1995). The impact of geographic
concentration is also felt in public schools in high immigration states. Again,
California alone accounted for some 45% of the nation’s immigrant student
population, more than one out of ten school-aged children in the state were for-
eign born, and over a third of the state’s school-aged children spoke a language
other than English at home (Cornelius 1995).
The Changing Contexts of Reception

Differences in national origins, socioeconomic backgrounds, and geographic
patterns of settlement are important factors for immigrant adaptation. However,
adaptational outcomes are also determined by structural conditions in the host
society (Portes & Rumbaut 1996). The context of the reception that has greeted
contemporary immigrants and their children has changed dramatically over the
past three decades to create additional obstacles to “melt” the diverse body of
immigrants and their offspring into a single mainstream.
Unlike earlier European immigrants, contemporary immigrants have been
received in a peculiar circumstance: an emerging “hourglass” economy in which
opportunities for social mobility shrink even among native-born Americans and
a welfare state that is highly contested by the general public. Several major
trends are especially unfavorable for the adaptation of the nation’s newcomers
and their children.
First, the gap between rich and poor, which progressively narrowed for most
of the twentieth century, has been widening in recent years as it has been affected
by globalization and economic restructuring. Only a portion of the American
work force has seen its economic advantages steadily increase as information
technology and management become more critical to the economy; most have
experienced worsening conditions. During the 1980s, 80% of American work-
ers saw their real hourly wages go down by an average of about 5% (Mishel
& Bernstein 1992). Blue collar jobs, the kinds of jobs generally available to
newly arrived immigrants, not only pay less than in previous years, but they are
also disappearing at a particularly rapid rate, resulting in expanding classes of
poor and rich and a shrinking middle class. In such an economic structure, even
US-born Americans find their chances for economic mobility lessening. The
situation for many immigrants is bleaker, except for the unusually fortunate,
the highly educated, and the highly skilled (Waldinger 1996).
Contemporary economic hardships are different from the hardships of the
Great Depression and hardships in many Third World countries. Although
there is a growing class of poor Americans, there are relatively few deaths from
starvation in the United States. Until the early 1990s, the welfare state had made
access to public assistance relatively easy (Rumbaut 1994a, Tienda & Liang
1994). While opportunities for stable jobs with good incomes were rare for low-
income individuals, food stamps and Aid to Families with Dependent Children
were readily available. Public assistance did not provide a comfortable way of
life, for welfare payments averaged less than half the amount defined as poverty
level income (Sancton 1992:45); it did, nonetheless, provide a means of exis-
tence for the chronically poor, unemployed or underemployed. Yet, members of
this expanding class of poor were not being offered chances for socioeconomic
improvement; they were, for the most part, being fed and housed and main-
tained in their social and economic limbo. Such unfortunate circumstances
were exacerbated just prior to the 1996 presidential election when President
Bill Clinton signed a Republican welfare reform bill. The bill, which limits
public assistance to two continuous years and mandates a five-year lifetime
maximum, with neither public jobs nor childcare for recipients who exceed the
68 ZHOU
limit and nothing for their children. This has changed the nature of the welfare
state in new and significant ways: It cuts off the lifeline of the poor, especially
children, driving them into deeper poverty; it also excludes legal immigrants
from much access to basic forms of assistance, forcing poor immigrant families
to swim or sink. Long-term effects of the welfare bill remain to be seen, but
certainly millions of children will be thrown into poverty, and chances for the
truly disadvantaged to get out of poverty will be even bleaker.
Second, poverty has been highly concentrated. The poor are not, of course,
being housed evenly across the American landscape. Even before new infor-
mation technologies and the globalization of production, the contraction of
American manufacturing and the suburbanization first of the middle class pop-
ulation and later of middle class jobs have displaced the American working
class. The disappearance of industrial jobs in urban areas where racial minori-
ties concentrate has detached the middle class from the working poor, causing
a high concentration of poverty in the most disadvantaged segments of the
minority population in inner-city ghettos (Wilson 1987).
The problem of poverty concentration has worsened under large-scale eco-
nomic restructuring, which has reduced the demand for low-skilled and semi-
skilled immigrants and trapped them in unemployment and social isolation sim-
ilar to that commonly facing native-born minorities in the most impoverished
stratum of the society. The implication for members of younger generations
is profound. Immigrant children from middle-class backgrounds benefit from
financially secure families, good schools, safe neighborhoods, and other sup-
portive formal and informal organizations, which ensure better life chances
for them. Children with poorly educated and unskilled parents, in contrast,
often find themselves growing up in underprivileged neighborhoods subject to
poverty, poor schools, violence and drugs, and a generally disruptive social
environment. Many immigrant children attend public schools in their neigh-
borhood with a clear numerical majority of minority students. In Los Angeles
County, for example, 57 unified school districts out of a total of 83 contain over
half of nonwhite students, and 34 have more than three quarters of US-born
minority and other immigrant students. In major immigrant-receiving cities
such as Los Angeles, San Francisco, New York, and Miami, at least a third of
the students in the entire school system speak a language other than English at
home.
Third, there has been a drastic increase in the proportion of American children
in one-parent families. Hernandez (1993) observed that between 1939 and 1988
the proportion of the officially poor children who lived in mother-only families
increased from 10% to 57%, and that such an increase was counterbalanced
by a virtually identical decline in the proportion living in two-parent families.
The rise of single-parent families has aggravated the overall poverty trends for
children. Relative to children living in intact families, the children living in

one-parent or even blended families tend to be disadvantaged with regard to
socioeconomic circumstances, psychological function, behavioral problems,
education, and health and these conditions severely limit their life chances
(Hernandez 1993).
Unfortunately, such disadvantages in family situations have worsened for
poor immigrant families who have lived a longer time in the United States.
Landale & Oropesa (1995) found significant increases of children living in
single-parent families across generations of US residence and across many
Asian and Latin American nationality groups. By the third generation, in par-
ticular, the prevalence of female headship among all nationality groups of Latin
American children (ranging from 40% of Mexicans, 50% of Cubans, to 70% of
Dominicans) and Filipino children (40%) constituted a serious disadvantage.
This situation implies that even if the parental generation is able to work hard
to achieve higher positions and higher incomes, their children’s access to these
gains may be seriously circumvented by family disruption (Landale & Oropesa
1995).
Fourth, there has been a growing “oppositional culture” among young
Americans, especially among those who have felt oppressed and excluded from
the American mainstream and who have been frustrated by the widening gap
between a culture that highly values freedom and materialism and the reality of a
dwindling economic future. Many of these American children have responded
to their social isolation and their constrained opportunities with resentment
toward middle-class America, rebellion against all forms of authority, and re-
jection of the goals of achievement and upward mobility. Because students in
schools shape one another’s attitudes and expectations, such an oppositional
culture negatively affects educational outcomes. School achievement is seen
as unlikely to lead to upward mobility, and high achievers are seen as sell-outs
to oppressive authority. Matute-Bianchi (1986, 1991) found that the relation-
ship between scholastic achievement and ethnicity did not hold for native-born
Chicanos and Cholos, who had been uprooted from their Mexican heritage and
were trapped in a caste-like minority status. They reacted to their exclusion and
subordination with resentment, regarded efforts toward academic achievement
as “acting white,” and constructed an identity in resistance to the dominant ma-
jority white society. Suárez-Orozco (1991) reached similar conclusions about
native-born Mexican Americans, who perceived the effect of the educational
system as continued exploitation.
While there is a strong antiintellectual streak in American youth culture at
all socioeconomic levels, the rejection of academic pursuits is especially in-
tense among members of minority groups, who are more likely than members
of the majority to identify school administrations with oppressive authority, to
70 ZHOU
perceive their entry into the middle class as almost impossible, and to be in
schools where learning is strongly discouraged by peers. It would be wise to
avoid passing judgment on the children in these schools and to avoid blaming
them for their responses to the world around them. Merton long ago (1938)
described rebellion as an adaptive response to a gap between socially approved
goals and available means of achieving those goals. Lowered chances for mo-
bility create frustration and pessimism for all American young people, but
these emotions are most strongly felt by those at the bottom. When those at
the bottom are also members of historically oppressed minority groups, the
frustration is mixed with the need to maintain self-esteem, so that rejection of
middle class mores and opposition to authority become important strategies for
psychological survival.
In underprivileged neighborhoods, in particular, immigrant children meet in
their schools native-born peers with little hope for the future and are thus likely
to be pressured by their peers to resist assimilation into the middle class as
expected by their parents. These trends pose a challenge to all parents, but the
challenge is especially daunting for immigrant parents with limited educational
backgrounds, frequently limited English skills, and few resources.
THEORETICAL DEVELOPMENTS IN RESEARCH

ON IMMIGRANT ADAPTATION
The Assimilation Perspective Revisited
In the literature on immigrant adaptation, the assimilation perspective has dom-
inated much of the sociological thinking on the subject for the most part of this
century. Central to this perspective is the assumption that there is a natural
process by which diverse ethnic groups come to share a common culture and to
gain equal access to the opportunity structure of society; that this process con-
sists of gradually deserting old cultural and behavioral patterns in favor of new
ones; and that, once set in motion, this process moves inevitably and irreversibly
toward assimilation (Park 1928, Warner & Srole 1945, Wirth [1925] 1956).
While earlier assimilation theorists emphasized forces such as time, indus-
trialization, and acculturation, Gordon (1964) conceptualized several types
of assimilation: cultural or behavioral, structural, identificational, attitude-
receptional, behavior-receptional, and civic assimilation. In Gordon’s view,
immigrants began their adaptation to the new country through cultural assimi-
lation, or acculturation. Since cultural assimilation was for Gordon a necessary
first step, it was considered the top priority on the agenda of immigrant ad-
justment. Gordon implied that acculturation would take place and continue
indefinitely even when no other type of assimilation occurred (1964, p. 77).
But he argued that acculturation did not necessarily lead to other forms of inte-
gration into the host society (i.e. large-scale entrance into the institutions of the
host society or intermarriage). Ethnic groups would remain distinguished from
one another depending largely on the degree to which groups gained the accep-
tance of the dominant population (p. 159). Gordon anticipated, nevertheless,
that ethnic minorities would eventually lose all their distinctive characteristics
and cease to exist as ethnic groups as they pass through the stages of assimi-
lation, eventually intermarrying with the majority population and entering its
institutions on a primary-group level (pp. 70–71).
From the point of view of assimilation theorists, distinctive ethnic traits
such as old cultural ways, native languages, or ethnic enclaves are sources of
disadvantages that negatively affect assimilation (Child 1943, Warner & Srole
1945). Although complete acculturation to the dominant American culture may
not ensure all immigrants full social participation in the host society, immigrants
must free themselves from their old cultures in order to begin rising up from
marginal positions. Between the 1920s and the 1950s, America seemed to have
absorbed the great waves of immigrants, who arrived primarily from Europe.
Sociological studies have indicated progressive trends of social mobility across
generations of immigrants and increasing rates of intermarriages, as determined
by educational attainment, job skills, length of stay since immigration, English
proficiency, and levels of exposure to American cultures (Alba 1985, Chiswick
1977, Greeley 1976, Sandberg 1974, Wytrwal 1961).
Observed Anomalies
Beginning in the 1960s, the conventional assimilation perspective with its ap-
plication to the more recently arrived non-European immigrant groups has
been met with challenges. Instead of eventual convergence in the outcomes
of immigrant adaptation, several anomalies have been observed in recent re-
search. The first anomaly concerns the persistent ethnic differences across gen-
erations. Studies on intergenerational mobility have found divergent rather
than convergent outcomes, revealing that early and insignificant differentials in
advantage result in substantial differences in educational and occupational mo-
bility in later years (Becker 1963, Goffman 1963). In their study of educational
attainment of 25 religio-ethnic groups in the United States, Hirschman & Falcon
(1985) have found that neither generation nor length of US residence signifi-
cantly influences educational outcomes. Specifically, children of highly edu-
cated immigrants consistently fare much better in school than do fourth- or fifth-
generation descendants of poorly educated ancestors regardless of religio-ethnic
backgrounds. In a study of the Irish, Italian, Jewish, and African Americans
in Providence, Rhode Island, Perlmann (1988) found that, even with family
background factors held constant, ethnic differences in levels of schooling and
72 ZHOU
economic attainment persisted in the second and later generations and that
schooling did not equally commensurate with occupational advancement for
African Americans as for other European-Americans across generations.
Another anomaly is what Gans (1992) describes as the “the second gen-
eration decline.” Gans notes three possible scenarios for today’s new second
generation: education-driven mobility, succession-driven mobility, and niche
improvement. He observes that immigrant children from less fortunate so-
cioeconomic backgrounds have a much harder time than other middle-class
children to succeed in school, and that a significant number of the children of
poor, especially dark-skinned, immigrants can be trapped in permanent poverty
in the era of stagnant economic growth and in the process of Americanization
because these immigrant children “will either not be asked, or will be reluctant,
to work at immigrant wages and hours as their parents did but will lack job
opportunities, skills and connections to do better” (pp. 173–74). Gans predicts
that the prospects facing children of the less fortunate may be high rates of
unemployment, crime, alcoholism, drug use, and other pathologies associated
with poverty and the frustration of rising expectation (p. 183). Perlmann &
Waldinger (1996) call this phenomenon “the second generation revolt.” They
argue that such revolt is not merely caused by exogenous factors, such as racial
discrimination, declining economic opportunities, and the exposure to the ad-
versarial outlooks of native-born youths, but also by endogenous factors inher-
ent in the immigration process, including pre-immigration class standing and
the size and the nature of immigrant inflows.
Still another anomaly is the peculiar outcomes of immigrant adaptation. To-
day, neither valedictorians nor delinquents are atypical among immigrant chil-
dren regardless of timing and racial or socioeconomic backgrounds. For exam-
ple, in the past 15 years, the list of top-ten award winners of the Westinghouse
Science Talent Search, one of the country’s most prestigious high school aca-
demic contests, has been dominated by the 1.5- or second-generation immi-
grants. Many of these immigrant children are “FOBs” (fresh off the boat) and
from families of moderate socioeconomic backgrounds (Zhou 1997). While
immigrant children are overrepresented on lists of award-winners or on aca-
demic fast tracks, many others are extremely vulnerable to multiple high-risk
behaviors, school failure, street gangs, and youth crime. Even Asian Americans,
the so-called “model minority,” have seen a steady rise of youth gang mem-
berships. Some of the Asian gang members are from suburban middle-class
families, attend magnet schools, and are exceptionally good students. These
anomalies immediately question the applicability of straight-line assimilation.
Alternative Theoretical Frameworks

A major alternative framework is the pluralist perspective, which perceives
American society as composed of a collection of ethnic and racial minority
groups, as well as the dominant majority group of European Americans. It is

concerned with a fundamental question of how the world would look differ-
ent were the experiences of the excluded placed at the center of our thinking
and with the ways in which immigrants actively shape their own lives rather
than exist passively as beneficiaries or victims of “ineluctable modernizing and
Americanizing forces” (Conzen 1991, p. 10). A central idea is that ethnicity
can serve as an asset rather than a liability. This idea provides a means of
understanding how ethnicity may be utilized as a distinct form of social capital
(including such cultural endowments as obligations and expectations, infor-
mation channels, and social norms) that contributes to adaptation (Glazer &
Moynihan 1970, Handlin 1973).
From a pluralist point of view, preimmigration cultural attributes inherent to
ethnicity are not necessarily absorbed by the core culture of the host society,
but they constantly interact with it. Greeley contended that “ethnicity is not a
way of looking back to the old world . . . [but] rather a way of being Ameri-
can, a way of defining yourself into the pluralist culture which existed before
you arrived” (1976, p. 32). Conzen and her associates conceptualized ethnic-
ity as “a process of construction or invention which incorporates, adapts, and
amplifies preexisting communal solidarities, cultural attributes, and historical
memories,” grounded in real-life context and social experience (Conzen et al
1992, pp. 4–5). According to these scholars, preimmigration cultural attributes
cannot be equated with homeland cultures, because immigrants tend to select
carefully not only what to pack in their trunks to bring to America, but also
what to unpack once settled. Also, homeland cultural norms and values may
not be entirely inconsistent with those of the host country. Just as some aspects
of immigrant cultural patterns may continue in a state of uneasy coexistence
with the requirements of the host country, other aspects of immigrant cultural
patterns may “fit” the requirements of life there or may even be prerequisites for
“making it in America” (Fukuyama 1993). Still others are modified, changed,
adapted, transformed, reformed, and negotiated in the course of immigrant
adjustments (Garcia 1996).
The pluralist perspective offers an alternative way of viewing the host society,
treating members of ethnic minority groups as a part of the American popula-
tion rather than as foreigners or outsiders and presenting ethnic or immigrant
cultures as integral segments of American society. However, the questions of
“second-generation decline” and “second-generation revolt” have been unan-
swered within this theoretical framework. While how people construct or invent
their own ethnicity has been emphasized, how they also construct their own ac-
culturation and assimilation has been understudied. Gans (1992) points out that
pressures of both formal acculturation (through schooling) and informal accul-
turation (through American peers and the media) will impinge on the second
generation. He reasons that immigrant children may be so overwhelmed by a
74 ZHOU
youth culture and the freedoms (particularly personal choices in dress, dating,
sexual practices) unavailable in their old country that, because of the sheer at-
tractiveness of American culture, they may not be willing to accept immigrant
parental work norms or to work in “un-American” conditions as many of their
parents do, and that they may be unwilling to endure their parents’ painstaking
efforts toward upward social mobility. Perlmann & Waldinger (1996), how-
ever, caution that the deteriorating prospect in the new second generation is not
simply a matter of exposure or Americanization but also a result of structural,
group, or individual disadvantages associated with pre- and post-immigration
experiences.
Moreover, the elusiveness of ethnic characteristics creates problems in the
use of the pluralist framework as an explanatory tool. Each generation passes
cultural patterns, often subtle patterns, to the next, but the mechanisms of this
process are unclear, and many assumptions and attitudes of ethnic group mem-
bers are hard to identify and measure (Archdeacon 1983). Also, the constituents
of American diversity are not equal; maintaining a distinctive ethnicity can
both help and hinder the social mobility of ethnic group members. For exam-
ple, first-generation members of some immigrant minority groups, such as the
Mexicans, have seldom been able to motivate their children to excel in school
and move upward in the host society, while other groups, such as the Asians,
have far more often succeeded in pushing younger people toward upward social
mobility (Perlmann & Waldinger 1996).
Another major theoretical stance is the structural perspective, which offers a
framework for understanding the differences in social adaptation of ethnic mi-
nority groups in terms of advantages and disadvantages inherent to social struc-
tures rather than in the process of acculturation or selective Americanization.
This perspective presents American society as a stratified system of social in-
equality, in which different social categories—whether birth-ascribed or not—
have unequal access to wealth, power, and privilege (Barth & Noel 1972). The
ethnic hierarchy systematically limits access to social resources, such as oppor-
tunities for jobs, housing, and education, resulting in persistent racial/ethnic dis-
parities in levels of income, educational attainment, and occupational achieve-
ment (Wilson 1987). Consequently, the benefits of “becoming American” de-
pend largely on what stratum of American society absorbs the new immigrants.
Overall, the structural perspective raises skepticism about eventual assimila-
tion and interethnic accommodation suggested by the assimilation perspective
and implied by the pluralist perspective, because of inherent conflicts between
the dominant and subordinate groups in the hierarchy. On the issue of immigrant
adaptation, this perspective maintains that the process of becoming American
may not lead uniformly to middle-class status, but rather to the occupation of
different rungs on the ethnic hierarchy.
The segmented assimilation thesis provides another framework for examin-

ing the divergent outcomes of today’s new second generation. Portes & Zhou
(1993) observe that assimilation has continued to serve as a norm of immigrant
adaptation, but that its outcomes have become segmented: Either confinement
to permanent underclass memberships or rapid economic advancement with
deliberate preservation of the immigrant community’s values and solidarity
is equally possible for the new second generation. This segmented assimila-
tion thesis recognizes the fact that today’s immigrants are received in various
segments of American society ranging from affluent middle-class suburbs to
impoverished inner-city ghettos. Such contextual differences mean that paths
to social mobility may lead to upward as well as downward outcomes. In the
case of those who start from the very bottom, of course, the outcome is not so
much assimilating downward as staying where they are.
The question is what makes some immigrant groups susceptible to the down-
ward path, or to the permanent trap, and what allows others to avoid it? Major
determinants can include factors external to a particular immigrant group, such
as racial stratification, economic opportunities, and spatial segregation, and
factors intrinsic to the group, such as financial and human capital upon arrival,
family structure, community organization, and cultural patterns of social rela-
tions. These two sets of factors affect the life chances of immigrant children
not only additively but also interactively. Particular patterns of social relations
in the family or the ethnic community may sometimes counter the trend of
negative adaptation even in unfavorable situations. When immigrant children
are under pressure to assimilate but are unsure which direction of assimilation
is more desirable, the family or the ethnic community can make a difference if
it is able to mobilize resources to prevent downward assimilation. The focus
on the interaction between structural factors and sociocultural factors in recent
research has shed new light on the understanding of the complex process of
assimilation in the second generation.
EMPIRICAL FINDINGS FROM CURRENT RESEARCH

Unlike adult immigrants whose levels of adaptation are often indicated by occu-
pational attainment and income, levels of adaptation among young immigrants
are generally measured by educational attainment—academic orientation, as-
piration, and performance. Attending school—attaining knowledge and skills
that may be capitalized upon in future labor markets—is a crucial first step
toward successful adaptation to American society for immigrant children and
children of immigrants. In the United States where public education is readily
available to all children and where education is traditionally accepted as the
main means of socioeconomic mobility, schooling often comes to occupy a
76 ZHOU
central place in immigrant aspirations (Ogbu 1974). Studies on the new second
generation have generally concerned a central question: How do various as-
pects of class, race/ethnicity, social capital derived from particular patterns of
social relations within the immigrant family and the ethnic community, inter-
generational relations, language skills, and ethnic identity affect the process of
educational attainment of the children of contemporary immigrants? In this
section, I review how these issues are addressed in recent research and show
how new concepts are derived from empirical findings.
Class and Race/Ethnicity

The socioeconomic circumstances of today’s predominantly non-European-
American second generation vary by race and ethnicity. Although many of
them may have never experienced prejudice associated with a particular skin
color or racial type in their homelands, immigrant children have confronted
a reality in their host society where their ascribed physical features may be-
come a handicap (Waters 1994, Portes 1995). Using the 1990 Census data,
Oropesa & Landale (forthcoming) showed that poverty rates for immigrant
children ranged from 21% among non-Latino European Americans, 24% for
non-Latino African Americans, 27% for Asian Americans, and 41% for Latino-
Americans. Among the second generation (US-born with at least one foreign-
born parent), there was a substantial drop in poverty rates for all racial groups,
but the magnitude of the decline varied by race: while poverty rates between the
first- (or the 1.5-) and second generation dropped more than half among non-
Latino European-American and Asian-American children, they dropped less
than a third among non-Latino African-American and Latino-American chil-
dren. The conditions for third-generation children (US-born children with US-
born parents) were most disturbing: Except for Asian Americans, there was no
appreciable socioeconomic improvement between second- and third-generation
non-Latino European Americans and Latino Americans, but there was a sig-
nificant deterioration among third-generation non-Latino African Americans
whose poverty rate jumped up to 40%, a 26 percentage-point increase from that
of their first-generation counterparts. These statistics reveal an obvious effect
of race, implying a severe handicap associated with skin colors.
Why has the class status changed for the better among children of certain
racial minority groups and for the worse among others with generation? Some
researchers contend that the inequalities of class and race that plague American
society are carried into the American educational system. Schools have thus
become “arenas of injustice” (Keniston et al 1977) that provide unequal oppor-
tunities on the basis of class and race. Coleman and his associates (1966) found
that social capital in the form of parental educational attainment and class status
significantly affect academic performance of children in school and that children
did better if they attended schools where classmates were predominantly from
higher socioeconomic backgrounds. Davis (1993) found that poor African-
American and Latino-American families who moved from inner-city neighbor-
hoods did better in school and in labor markets than those left behind. The pat-
tern generally held true for immigrant children who attended suburban schools.
Moreover, differences in outcomes of schooling have historically been linked
to residential segregation on the basis of class and race. Minority children
have suffered from unequal distribution of economic and educational resources
that seriously curtail their chances in life and trap them in isolated ghettos.
Ghettoization, in turn, produces a political atmosphere and a mentality that
preserve class divisions along racial lines, leading to the greater alienation
of minority children from American institutions and further diminishing their
chances for upward mobility (Fainstein 1995).
But how would one account for the fact that immigrant children tend to
do better than their US-born peers of similar socioeconomic background and
attending public schools in the same neighborhood? Ogbu (1974) attributed
different outcomes to a group’s social status in the receiving society. He dis-
tinguished between immigrant/voluntary minorities and castelike/involuntary
minorities. In his line of reasoning, either group members of racial minorities
could accept an inferior caste status and a sense of basic inferiority as part
of their collective self-definition, or they could create a positive view of their
heritage on the basis of cultural and racial distinction, thereby establishing a
sense of collective dignity (also see De Vos 1975).
While this was true for both immigrant minorities and caste-like minorities,
the difference lay in the advantageous or disadvantageous aspects of racial or
group identity. Ogbu (1989) showed from his research on Chinese-American
students in Oakland, California, that in spite of cultural and language differences
and relatively low economic status, these students had grade point averages that
ranged from 3.0 to 4.0. He attributed their academic success to the integration
of these students into the family and the community, which placed high values
on education and held positive attitudes toward public schools.
The benefits of deliberate cultivation of ethnicity also appeared in the work of
Gibson (1989), who found that the outstanding performance of Punjabi children
in a relatively poor rural area of Northern California was a result of parental
pressure put on children to adhere to their own immigrant families and to avoid
excessive Americanization. Similarly, Caplan and his associates (1989) found
that Indochinese refugee children (not including Cambodians and Hmongs) ex-
celled in the American school system, despite the disadvantaged location of their
schools and their parents’ lack of education and facility with English. Caplan
and his associates attributed academic achievement to cultural values and prac-
tices unique to Indochinese families. Even among Indochinese refugees, the
78 ZHOU
ethnic effect was significant. Rumbaut & Ima (1988) found that Vietnamese
high school students did much better in both GPAs and test scores than their
Cambodian and Laotian peers, and that, overall, the strongest predictor of GPA
was the measure of ethnic resilience.
More recently, Portes & Rumbaut reported findings from a large random
sample of second-generation high school students in Florida and southern
California, showing that parents’ socioeconomic status, length of US resi-
dence, and homework hours significantly affected academic performance, but
that controlling for these factors did not eliminate the effect of ethnicity (Portes
& Rumbaut 1996, Rumbaut 1995, 1996). Kao & Tienda (1995) found, based on
data from the National Education Longitudinal Studies (known as NELS), that
parental nativity and children’s birthplace had different effects on children’s aca-
demic outcomes depending on race and ethnicity. Portes & MacLeod (1996),
also using NELS, reported that the negative effect of disadvantaged group mem-
berships among immigrant children was reinforced rather than reduced in sub-
urban schools, but that the positive effect of advantaged group memberships
remained significant even in inner-city schools.
In the most recent research on adolescent development, though originally not
intending to focus on ethnic differences, Steinberg (1996) revealed a surpris-
ingly prominent and strong role that ethnicity played in structuring adolescents’
lives, both in and outside of school. He found that Asian-American students out-
performed European-American students who, in turn, outperformed African-
American and Latino-American students by significantly large margins, and
that the ethnic differences remained marked and consistent across nine dif-
ferent high schools under study and after controlling for social class, family
structure, and place of birth of parents. He also found that the ethnic effect
persists in important explanatory variables of school success, such as the belief
in the payoff of schooling, attributional styles, and peer groups. Steinberg con-
cluded that ethnicity emerged as just as important a factor as social class and
gender in defining and shaping the everyday lives of American children.
However, the advantage of ethnicity may be limited for caste-like minorities.
If a socially defined racial minority group wishes to assimilate but finds that
normal paths of integration are blocked on the basis of race, the group may be
forced to take alternative survival strategies that enable them to cope psycho-
logically with racial barriers but that do not necessarily encourage school suc-
cess. Further, caste-like involuntary minorities may react to racial oppression
by constructing resistance both as conformity—“unqualified acceptance of the
ideological realm of the larger society”—and, more frequently, as avoidance—
“willful rejection of whatever will validate the negative claims of the larger
society” (Fordham 1996:39). As a consequence, it is the willful refusal to
learn, not the failure to learn, that affects academic outcomes of the children of
caste-like involuntary minorities (Kohl 1994, p. 2). The forced-choice dilemma

confronting Chicano and Puerto Rican youth is a case in point. Gibson (1989)
and Bourgois (1991) found that Chicano students and Puerto Rican students
who did well in school were forcefully excluded by their coethnic peers as
“turnovers” acting “white.”
Nonetheless, not all immigrant groups can fit into the category of immi-
grant/voluntary minority. In the case of Dominican immigrants, Pessar (1987)
noted that many first-generation members of the group were able to improve
their living standards by pooling resources in their households and that they
were mostly satisfied with what they had achieved, comparing their lives in
America to their lives in the Dominican Republic. However, she cast doubt
on whether the struggle of first-generation immigrants would steer the second
generation to upholding their parent’s aspirations and fulfilling their own ex-
pectations of socioeconomic mobility. She speculated that Dominican children
were likely to be frustrated and disappointed if they found themselves trapped
at the lower rungs of the occupational ladder, because of “blatant discrimina-
tion” and “lack of access to prestigious social networks” linking them to higher
professions (1987, pp. 124–125). Portes & Stepick (1993) and Waters (1996)
also noted such a trend among Haitian youth in Miami and West Indian youth in
New York City toward rapid assimilation into ghetto youth subcultures, at the
cost of giving up their immigrant parents’ pride of culture and hopes for mo-
bility on the basis of ethnic solidarity. This prospect of downward assimilation
was also expected to disproportionately affect children of Mexican immigrants
(Perlmann & Waldinger 1996).
Consequently, subordinate groups may react to their disadvantaged status
with different strategies: Some may rely on social capital available in their
own ethnic community to actively fight for acceptance by the larger society;
others may consciously reject the ideology and norms of the larger society by
reconstructing an ethnicity in resistance to the oppressing structure; still others
may give up their struggle and remain trapped in the bottom of the society.
The Family, the Community, and Networks
of Social Relations
In the United States, the family is the most important institutional environment
outside of school for socialization, adaptation, and the future social mobility of
children. Success in school, one of the most important indications of adapting
to society, depends not only on the cognitive ability and motivation of individ-
ual children, but also on the economic and social resources available to them
through their families.
Socioeconomic status is certainly one of the most important characteristics
of the family context because it influences where children live and where they
80 ZHOU
go to school. While wealthier immigrant families are able to settle directly in

suburban middle-class communities, most others are forced to settle in declining
urban areas, starting their American life either in poverty or on welfare as in the
case of refugees. The low socioeconomic status of those immigrant families
just arriving subjects children directly to underprivileged segments of the host
society and the associated disadvantages and pathologies.
However, socioeconomic status is not all that counts; just as important are
family structures and their embedded family ties. Recent research has shown
that immigrant children from intact (especially two-natural-parent) families or
from families associated with tightly knit social networks consistently show
better psychological conditions, higher levels of academic achievement, and
stronger educational aspirations than those in single-parent or socially isolated
families. Results from the survey of immigrant children in San Diego and Mi-
ami revealed that, regardless of race/ethnicity, immigrant students who retained
strong cultural and family identity tended to outpace others in school, including
their native-born European-American peers, because their immigrant families
reinforced the values of hard work and educational achievement (Rumbaut
1994b, 1996, Portes 1995, Portes & Schauffler 1994). The case study on im-
migrant youth from troubled Central American countries showed that high-
achievement motivation was significantly related to a strong sense of group
affiliation, family loyalty, and obligation in helping their less fortunate relatives
and folks still trapped in war and misery in their homeland (Suárez-Orozco
1989). The case study of Vietnamese youth in a poor neighborhood in New
Orleans found that Vietnamese high school students who reported strong ori-
entations toward traditional family values of obedience, industriousness, and
helping others were more likely to do well in school than those who did not.
However, the effects of independent thinking and concern with individual social
prestige, which were most commonly associated with contemporary American
society, were insignificant (Zhou & Bankston 1994). These consistent findings
have highlighted the central role the family plays in the lives of immigrants and
their children.
If the presence of both parents at home and well-connected family ties are
considered sources of social capital, the loss, or truncation, of the family system
can reduce the access to social resources available to children (Fernández-Kelly
1995, Rumbaut 1996). Most immigrant households in the United States are nu-
clear rather than extended families. While migration extends social and famil-
ial ties across national borders that facilitate further migratory flows (Landale
1996), it simultaneously disrupts the traditional family system upon arrival both
in the immigrant family itself and in the social network to which the family is
a part. In some cases, family disruption can cause serious problems for chil-
dren’s upbringing in the American context, when the family is separated by
national borders and isolated from the ongoing networks of kinship relations
in the homeland. The so-called “relayed migration” (Sung 1987) or “serial

migration” (Waters 1996), a process under which members of an immigrant
family arrive (both intentionally and involuntarily) at different times, can strain
parent-child and sibling relationships. The truncation of family networks, a sit-
uation where routine interactions among kins and former neighbors or friends
are broken, can weaken traditional mechanisms of control and support.
In other cases, however, immigrant families are able to mobilize ethnic re-
sources to reconstruct systems of family ties in the United States by shifting
and expanding the criteria for inclusion in the family circle. Many Vietnamese
refugee families, for example, are broken down in fragments of nuclear or ex-
tended families as a common strategy of flight. These smaller units are some-
times further fragmented by leaving grandparents and younger children, or
wives and younger children, behind in the hope of bringing them out after the
fleeing family is resettled. As a result, some of the families may be extended to
contain distantly related or even unrelated members, while other families may
have closely related members left behind in Vietnam (Zhou & Bankston, forth-
coming). Once resettled, however, families, friends, and distant relatives who
were marginal members of the family circle in Vietnam may become part of
the active circle of kin relations in the United States (Caplan et al 1989, Kibria
1993). This reconstructed family pattern has often given rise to a sense of col-
lective strength in coping and to new mechanisms in reestablishing social ties
and cooperative kin-based economic practices for immigrants to support one
another in an alien environment (Kibria 1993, Perez 1994, Zhou & Bankston
1994). Studies on immigrant families of different ethnic groups have revealed
similar patterns of family reconstruction (Booth et al 1996).
Even when immigrant families are maintained by two parents or extended
kin and by a high level of conformity to traditional values, these families cannot
function effectively in isolation, especially under unfavorable socioeconomic
situations when the means of attaining family goals of “making it in America” is
disrupted by the day-to-day struggle for survival and by the adversarial subcul-
tures of the underprivileged segment of American society surrounding many
immigrant families. How is it possible to ensure that immigrants and their
offspring maintain their values and work habits and learn the skills for socioe-
conomic advancement? An answer to this question requires something more
than a check-list of socioeconomic characteristics of individual families. The
key is to examine the networks of social relations, namely how individual fam-
ilies are related to one another in the ethnic community and how immigrant
children are involved in these networks.
The networks of social relations involve shared obligations, social supports,
and social controls. When, for example, Korean Americans obtain from other
Korean Americans low-interest loans requiring little collateral, or Chinese-
American students receive encouragement and approval in after-school Chinese
82 ZHOU
language classes for their general academic orientations, these are forms of so-
cial support inherent in particular patterns of social relations within the ethnic
community. When, on the other hand, a group member experiences disapproval,
or even ostracism, from co-ethnics for failing to attain a respected occupation,
this is a form of social control. Zhou & Bankston (1994, forthcoming) proposed
a model of ethnic social relations based on their study of Vietnamese adoles-
cents in New Orleans. In the Vietnamese community in New Orleans, they
observed that Vietnamese adolescents were constantly reminded of their duty
to show respect for their elders, to take care of younger siblings, to work hard,
and to make decisions upon approval of parents not simply within a particu-
lar family but in the community where other families practiced similar values.
In this “watchful and ever-vigilant” community, young Vietnamese found little
competition from other desiderata because the social world of their families was
restricted to the closed and highly integrated circles of the ethnic group. Since
what was considered good or bad was clearly specified and closely monitored
by these networks, young people found it hard to “to get away with much.”
The researchers concluded that the conformity to traditional family values and
behavioral standards required a high level of family integration into a commu-
nity that reinforced these values and standards. The outcomes of adaptation,
therefore, depend on how immigrant children fit in their own ethnic commu-
nity, or in their local environment if such an ethnic community is absent, and
how their ethnic community or the local environment fit in the larger American
society. In the case of the Vietnamese, being part of a Vietnamese network
appears to offer a better route to upward mobility than being Americanized into
the underprivileged local environment, or for that matter, into the native-born
mainstream youth subcultures.
While family ties function as an important source of support and control,
recent research has found evidence to indicate that the cohesion of family ties
tends to deteriorate with longer duration of US residence, as in the case of
refugees from Central America (Gil & Vega 1996). Researchers have also
cautioned that even strong cultural identities and social ties, which may be con-
sidered as sources of social capital, may sometimes be insufficient because of
racial or class disadvantages. In a study of a ghetto African-American commu-
nity, Stack (1974) showed that African-American families depended on patterns
of co-residence, kinship-based exchange networks for survival. This means of
survival, however, demanded the sacrifice of upward mobility and geographic
movement, and it discouraged marriage, because of structural constraints such
as the inexorable unemployment of African-American women and men. Wel-
fare policies disrupted the support networks and conspired against the ability
of the poor to build up equity. Similarly, Fernández-Kelly (1995) found, in
a study of teenage pregnancies in a Baltimore ghetto, that kinship networks
in ghettos were often graced with strong family and friendship bonds but that
these networks lacked connections to other social networks that controlled ac-
cess to larger sets of opportunities. Moreover, symbols of ethnic pride and
cultural identity that developed in reaction to social isolation and racial domi-
nation (e.g. the sparkling mounds of braided hair of young African-American
women) became signals that barred access to resources and employment in the
larger society. Such truncated networks and reactive ethnicity could severely
limit the ability of children to envision alternative paths out of the ghetto and
to turn cultural capital into resourceful social capital (Fernández-Kelly 1995,
Fordham 1996, Kohl 1994).
Intergenerational Relations
The clash between two social worlds is the most commonly cited problem of
intergenerational relations. In fact, intergenerational conflicts are not simply
a unique immigrant phenomenon (Berrol 1995, Child 1943); they are also an
American phenomenon rooted in the American tradition of a “moral rejection
of authority” (Gorer 1963:53). In a recent study of Latino adolescents, Suárez-
Orozco & Suárez-Orozco (1995) found that intergenerational conflicts are more
common among European-American adolescents who are more ambivalent
toward authority and schooling and are more peer-oriented than among Latino-
American adolescents who are more respectful of authority and more family-
oriented. They attribute this gap to the impact of changing American youth
culture that glorifies contempt for authorities and a peer orientation, implying
that assimilating into the American youth culture may cause more harm than
good for immigrant adolescents.
In the United States, immigrant children often become Americanized so
quickly that their parents cannot keep up with them. There is a fear in the
older generation that their children will leave them, become like other Ameri-
can youth, and forget about their roots. This fear, however, has originated not
from the process of acculturation but from the migration process itself. Mi-
gration disrupts normal parent-child relationships in a number of observable
ways, shown in a number of case studies and surveys on immigrant children
(Berrol 1995, Kibria 1993, Rumbaut 1994b, Sung 1987, Waters 1996, Zhou
1997). First, many immigrant families suffer lengthy separation from the fa-
ther or mother or older siblings because of delayed reunification. When all the
members are reunited, they have to make an effort to adapt to each other in a
new situation. Second, working outside the home has become the norm and an
economic necessity for women. This work role gives women some measures
of independence but creates difficulty in child-rearing and weakens the status
and authority of men. Also, face-to-face interaction between parents and chil-
dren decreases as both parents are usually out working for long hours. Third,
because parents lack proficiency in English, children often act as interpreters
and translators for their parents. Such role reversal usually leads to greater
84 ZHOU
dependence of parents on children and a loss of parental authority. Meanwhile

members of the younger generation are anxious that they might never become
“American” because of these intrinsic family ties.
Immigrant children and their parents tend to perceive their host society and
their relationships with it from different angles. The younger generation tends
to focus on current adjustment, paying attention to the external traits of what
they have come to define as being “American.” They struggle to fit in based
on a frame of reference that they have acquired from their American peers and
from television and other forms of mass media. They often find themselves
confused by such questions as: How do I fit into American culture and my own
ethnic culture at the same time? Which side should I stay loyal to, American or
my own ethnic culture? Can I ever become American without leaving home?
At times, they feel embarrassed by their parents’ “old” ways.
Parents, on the other hand, are primarily concerned both with making the best
of a new environment and with retaining traditional family life. These parental
concerns tend to lead them to focus on the future and to emphasize discipline
and scholastic achievement. When children respond to these emphases in an
unexpected way, parents puzzle: Why are my children so disrespectful? How
can I make my children understand that everything I am doing is for their own
good? Can’t they understand that I wouldn’t have chosen a life here if it hadn’t
been for them? What should I do to keep my children from losing their cultural
roots and from assimilating too much?
The frequent difficulties facing the new second generation arise from the
struggles of individuals to balance the demands of American culture with those
of tradition-minded parents (Dublin 1996). Portes & Rumbaut (1996, Chap-
ter 7) conceptualize the acculturation gaps between immigrant parents and
their children in a typology of “generational consonance versus dissonance.”
Generational consonance occurs when parents and children both remain unac-
culturated, or both acculturate at the same rate, or both agree on selective ac-
culturation. Generational dissonance occurs when children neither correspond
to levels of parental acculturation nor conform to parental guidance, leading
to role reversal and intensified parent-child conflicts. According to Portes &
Rumbaut, these acculturation patterns interact with contextual factors—racial
discrimination, urban subcultures, and labor market prospects—to affect adap-
tational outcomes of children. When contextual factors are unfavorable, as is
the case confronting the majority of today’s second generation, consonant ac-
culturation enables immigrant children to lean on material or moral resources
available in the family and the immigrant community; it thus increases the
probability of upward assimilation. On the contrary, dissonant acculturation
severs ties between children and their adult social world, deprives children of
family or community resources, and leads them farther and farther away from
parental expectations. In this situation, immigrant children are likely to rebel

against parental educational expectations and to assimilate into an adversarial
academic orientation in response to discrimination, subcultural pressures, and
blocked mobility, as exemplified by Haitian children in Miami and West Indian
children in New York City (Portes & Stepick 1993, Waters 1994, 1996).
What determines intergenerational conflicts? Using a large random sample
of over 5000 immigrant children in San Diego and Miami, Rumbaut (1994b)
examined the possible effects of a number of objective and subjective pre-
dictors that measure children’s demographic characteristics, family situations,
language use, academic performance, and discrimination. He found that parent-
child conflicts were significantly less likely to occur in families with both natural
parents at home and with parents or siblings readily available to offer help with
homework. But among females, conflicts were significantly more likely to occur
in families where the mother was less educated and where economic well-being
was perceived as having worsened, where children felt embarrassed by parents
and had nobody to help with homework at home. Tensions were also likely to
be exacerbated among children who preferred to speak English at home, who
had low GPAs and educational aspirations, who spent much time watching tele-
vision and too little time on homework, and who experienced discrimination or
perceived themselves as being discriminated against.
Intergenerational conflicts, in turn, lead to dwindling parental authority and
insufficient family communications and have significantly negative effects on
children’s self-esteem, psychosocial well-being, and academic aspirations (Gil
& Vega 1996, Rumbaut 1996, Szapocznik & Hernandez 1988). However,
whether the effects on children’s adaptation are deleterious also depends on
the specific context of exit from countries of origin and the context of reception
upon arrival (Portes & Rumbaut 1996). Several studies on immigrant children
have reported that intergenerational conflicts within families do not necessarily
frustrate successful adaptation to a host society (Schulz 1983). The ethnic social
structure can sometimes play an important role in mediating between individual
families and the larger social setting. Immigrant children and parents often in-
teract with one another in immigrant communities. If patterns of interaction are
contained within a tightly knit ethnic community, these children and parents are
likely to share their similar experiences with other children and parents. In this
way, the community creates a buffer zone to ease the tension between individual
self-fulfillment and family commitment. The community also serves to moder-
ate original cultural patterns, to legitimize reestablished values and norms, and
to enforce consistent standards. This situation resembles Sung’s description of
immigrant children in New York’s Chinatown in the mid-1980s. Sung observed:
For Chinese immigrant children who live in New York’s Chinatown or in satellite China-
towns, these [bi-cultural] conflicts are moderated to a large degree because there are other
86 ZHOU
Chinese children around to mitigate the dilemmas that they encounter. When they are
among their own, the Chinese ways are better known and better accepted. The Chinese
customs and traditions are not denigrated to the degree that they would be if the immigrant
child were the only one to face the conflict on his or her own (1987, p. 126).
Sung’s finding suggests that frequent interactions with co-ethnics within an

ethnic community could help young ethnic group members to develop a sense
of identity that would ease bicultural conflicts. Similarly, in their case study
of the Vietnamese in New Orleans, Zhou & Bankston (forthcoming) found
that the bicultural tension did not produce rebellion; on the contrary, being both
Vietnamese and American frequently caused children to achieve superior levels
of performance. They reasoned that, first, parents did not just bring with them
a desire to maintain traditional cultural patterns. The parents also, as a result
of the process of migration and their own struggles for survival in a new land,
developed a strong orientation toward upward mobility. Beliefs about parent-
child relations were combined with this mobility orientation and modified by
it. Second, parents were not alone in their efforts to control and guide their
children. They maintained relations in closely knit ethnic networks that served
to reinforce parental expectations and acted as bridges between Vietnamese
family life and the surrounding American society.
Zhou & Bankston also analyzed in depth the pattern of gender role change to
show how the immigrant orientation toward upward mobility could perpetuate
and modify traditional cultural patterns. They found that in the case of the
Vietnamese the older generation was willing to modify the original culture to
adjust to life in the host society. Vietnamese Americans still believe that women
should be subject to higher levels of social control and parental authority than
men are. But the mobility orientation of Vietnamese Americans means that so-
cial control is no longer a matter of preventing women from acquiring education
but rather it acts to push them toward educational excellence. Paradoxically,
the young women who are more controlled by the family and the ethnic com-
munity show higher levels of adaptation to the American school environment
(Forthcoming, Chapter 8).
These case studies of the Chinese in New York and the Vietnamese in New
Orleans highlight the important role the ethnic community can play in channel-
ing frustrations with cultural conflicts away from rebellion and instead turning
cultural tensions into pressures for achievement. Whether results from these
cases are generalizable across immigrant groups is inconclusive, however.
Patterns of Language Acquisition and Language Use
Linguistic adaptation is another challenge for the new second generation. Pro-
ficiency in English has been regarded as the single most important prerequisite
for assimilation into American society and as a strong social force binding the
American people together. Lack of English proficiency, aggravated by the prob-

lem of linguistic isolation and disadvantages associated with minority status,
has been a severe handicap for new immigrants and their children. Geograph-
ically, some immigrant children are concentrated in linguistically distinctive
neighborhoods where their native tongue is used more commonly than English
by the people around them. This leaves immigrants in direct daily contact
only with other immigrants or with members of native minorities rather than
with members of the dominant majority, who have moved away from areas of
immigrant concentration. At the school level, immigrant children often find
themselves in classrooms with other immigrant children speaking a language
other than English or with other native minority children with distinct inner-
city accents. The Los Angeles Unified School District has recently identified
87% of the district’s students as “minority” and 40% as having limited English
proficiency (LEP) (Lopez 1996). Meanwhile, immigrant children constantly
face the pressure to become proficient in English, from the pervasive pull of
American popular culture and the media, from their school teachers, and from
their often non-English speaking parents, who at the same time pressure them
to preserve their ancestral tongues.
The issue of language, then, is one that must be addressed in any examina-
tion of the adaptation of immigrant children. Does the language problem con-
fronting immigrant children hinder their assimilation into American society?
Does the maintenance of parents’ native tongues necessarily lead to unfavor-
able outcomes as these children adapt to school and grow into adulthood? The
doctrine of “forcible assimilation” insists that English language skills compete
with non-English language skills; that bilingualism causes academic failure,
anxiety, and mental confusion of immigrant exposed to two languages; and
that non-English skills should be wholeheartedly abandoned. Associated with
this ideology has been a “sink or swim” linguistic policy in American public
schools. Such a policy holds that children from non-English speaking homes
should be placed in school environments where only English is tolerated.
In recent years, adherents of “forcible assimilation” have tended to advance
a sociological, rather than a psychological, argument for monolingualism in
schools. Advocates of the “English Only” movement maintain that bilingual-
ism can inhibit social adaptation in a predominantly English-speaking society,
creating a “new apartheid.” This position, however, has been supported more
often by rhetorical skills than by empirical evidence. One exception was a
literature review of research on bilingualism from the US Department of Edu-
cation (Baker & de Kanter 1981). This report reviewed past studies on bilingual
education and evaluated the evidence on the advantages of bilingualism. It con-
cluded that bilingually educated students score below average in both English
skills and general academic achievement.
88 ZHOU
Unlike forcible assimilation, “reluctant bilingualism” is tolerant of bilingual-

ism and supports its use in schools. However, the reluctant bilingualists endorse
the use of non-English language only as a strategy for achieving the ultimate
goal of linguistic assimilation. Reluctant bilingualists advocate programs of
“transitional bilingual education.” Transitional bilingualism is established as a
stated policy of the US Government by the Bilingual Education Act of 1968.
The goal is to help students keep up with reading, math, and other subjects in
their native tongues while they are taught enough English to transfer to regular
classrooms. The native language, from this view, is also treated as the source
of a hindrance rather than as an asset.
The debate over the language issue has largely ignored the fact that language
acquisition and language use are constrained by contextual factors as well as
individual preferences. Lopez (1996) found that English monolingualism at
home increased from one generation to the next, and that the shift was more
rapid in the third generation than in the second generation. However, such a
shift was more rapid among Asian-Americans than among Latino Americans
across generations. Likewise, the shift from bilingualism (proficiency in both
English and native language) to English monolingualism in the third generation
was more substantial among Asian-Americans than among Latino Americans.
He pointed out that the better maintenance of Spanish among Latino Americans,
especially in the Southwest, is attributed to the proximity to Mexico, residential
isolation from the dominant group, and ethnic concentration in the sense of sheer
numbers.
How do language patterns shift and how does language use affect adapta-
tional outcomes of immigrant children? The negative view of parental native
languages has been challenged by studies on immigrant children since the 1960s
(Portes & Rumbaut 1996, Chapter 6). A growing body of empirical evidence
indicates that both cognitive abilities and scholastic achievement are actually
positively associated with bilingualism. Tienda (1984) showed that the reten-
tion of Spanish proficiency did not hinder the socioeconomic achievement of
Hispanic-American men, and that, at the minimum, bilingual education would
not retard lifelong achievement. Fernández & Nielsen (1986) provided evidence
from national logitudinal data that, among Hispanic- and European-American
high school students, proficiency in both English and parental native languages
was positively related to academic achievement. Matute-Bianchi (1986) found
in an ethnographic study of Mexican-American children that advanced bilin-
gual skills were related to a strong Mexican identity and that fully bilingual
young Mexican-Americans tended to perform better in school than those who
lacked proficient bilingual skills. She concluded that proficiency in the native
language allows young people to gain greater access to the emotional and nor-
mative supports of the ethnic group. In a study of Chinese immigrant children
in New York City’s Chinatown, Sung (1987) found that bilingual students had
higher student retention rates, more graduates, and higher self-esteem. She
suggested that these positive outcomes were associated with the acceptance of
distinctive ethnicity. Other researchers have found that language maintenance
bilingual programs, as opposed to transitional bilingual programs, helped stu-
dents learn the language of the dominant society effectively (Cazden & Snow
1990, Cummins 1980, 1981, Bhatnager 1980).
A recent two-period (1986–1987 and 1989–1990) study of the entire high
school student cohorts in San Diego Unified School District (the nation’s eighth
largest) reported that, with the main exception of some Hispanic students who
were generally of much lower socioeconomic status, all of the non-English
immigrant minorities were outperforming their English-only co-ethnics as well
as majority European-American students. This finding applied to both bilin-
guals (designated by the District as having fluent English proficiency—FEP)
and semi-bilinguals (designated as having limited English proficiency—LEP),
though FEP students did better than their LEP coethnics. In standardized tests,
while English monolinguals tended to have the highest scores in reading com-
prehension, FEP students showed significantly higher scores in math than
English monolinguals, for every nationality. The same study also reported that
Vietnamese students, who are mostly members of the one-and-a-half genera-
tion, were among the ethnic groups with the highest GPAs, trailing only after
Chinese, Koreans, and Japanese. In terms of dropout rates, however, the re-
sults were mixed. While FEP, or truly bilingual, students consistently showed
much lower dropout rates than English monolingual students across all ethnic
groups, LEP students were observed to be at the greatest risk of dropping out
(Rumbaut 1995, Rumbaut & Ima 1988). Bankston & Zhou (1995) reported
similar findings concerning the effect of literacy in the parental native language
from their study of Vietnamese high school students in New Orleans.
Moreover, the ethnic language is intrinsic to ethnicity. Under certain condi-
tions, it allows immigrant children to gain access to some kind of social capital
generated from a distinctive ethnic identity, such as support and control from
bilingual or non-English-speaking parents and ethnic communities. Bankston
& Zhou (1995) found that literacy in the ethnic language was strongly associated
with ethnic self-identification, which in turn, contributed to academic excel-
lence. They concluded that advanced ethnic language abilities, such as literacy,
were related to achievement because ethnic language skills tied immigrant chil-
dren more closely to their traditions, their families, and their communities that
enforce the values of academic achievement.
However, not all immigrant children can benefit from bilingualism because
patterns of language use are affected by class, race/ethnicity, length of US resi-
dence, and other contextual factors. In an earlier study, Lopez (1976) found that
90 ZHOU
the use of Spanish depressed occupational attainment indirectly by lowering ed-

ucational achievement among Chicanos because Chicanos concentrated in areas
and occupations that allow few returns to the knowledge of Spanish. Fernández
and Nielsen (1986) also reported that the positive effect of bilingualism tended
to diminish with longer duration of US residence, and that the frequent use of
Spanish was negatively related to academic achievement after controlling for
English and Spanish proficiency. They attributed the contradictory outcomes
to a specific handicap associated with Hispanic membership.
The language issue, therefore, is not just an linguistic issue but has deep-
rooted sociological implications. Of course, we cannot entirely discount the
possibility that the effect of ethnic language on overall academic achievement
may be due, in part, to a transference of cognitive development: Skills developed
in learning to read the parental language may be transferred to other areas of
intellectual endeavor, such as history, geography, or mathematics. Nevertheless,
the acquisition of English and the maintenance of parental native languages do
not function in isolation from social contexts (also see Bialystok & Hakuta
1994).
CONCLUSION
For immigrant children and children of immigrants, growing up American can
be a matter of smooth acceptance or of traumatic confrontation. Immigrant
children are generally eager to embrace American culture and to acquire an
American identity by becoming indistinguishable from their American peers.
In some cases, however, they may be perceived as “unassimilated” even when
they try hard to abandon their own ethnic identities. In other cases, they may be
accepted as well-adjusted precisely because they retain strong ethnic identities.
In the long journey to becoming American, the progress of today’s one-and-
a-half and second generation is largely contingent upon human and financial
capital that their immigrant parents bring along, the social conditions from
which their families exit as well as the context that receives them, and their cul-
tural patterns, including values, family relations, and social ties, reconstructed
in the process of adaptation. The host society offers uneven possibilities to
different immigrant groups. These unequal possibilities may limit the oppor-
tunities of immigrant groups, but they do not necessarily constitute a complete
denial of opportunity.
Immigrants are today being absorbed by different segments of American so-
ciety, but becoming American may not always be an advantage for immigrant
children and children of immigrants. When immigrants enter middle-class com-
munities directly, or after a short transition, it may be advantageous for them to
acculturate and assimilate. When they enter the bottom of the ethnic hierarchy
of drastic social inequality, the forces of assimilation come mainly from the
underprivileged segments of this structure, and this is likely to result in distinct
disadvantages, viewed as maladjustment by both mainstream society and the
ethnic community. In this case, young immigrants or children of immigrants
may benefit by cultivating their ethnic ties in their ethnic communities to de-
velop forms of behavior likely to break the cycle of disadvantage and to lead
to upward mobility.
The interest in immigrant children and children of immigrants has recently
been growing. However, there is still a big gap between the strategic impor-
tance of the new second generation and current knowledge about its conditions
(Portes 1996). Data on which the existing body of research is based come
mostly from regional survey research and ethnographic studies on selected
immigrant groups. Census data sources have been, or are being, scrutinized
by some researchers to describe the current state of immigrant children, their
geographic distribution and demographic and socioeconomic characteristics,
school attendance, fertility patterns, labor market opportunities facing entrants
to the labor force, and the establishment of independent households (Hirschman
1994, Jensen & Chitose 1994, Mollenkopf et al 1995, Landale & Oropesa
1995, Zhou & Bankston, forthcoming). A major drawback of the census data
(1980 and 1990) is that a critical variable—the birthplace of parents—has been
dropped from the decennial census since 1980, making it impossible to identify
directly the children of immigrants (Hirschman 1994). Researchers have to use
the ancestry question as a proxy. This treatment of ethnic origin variable is
problematic. Perlmann & Waldinger (1996) note that, because of high rates of
intermarriages in the third generation, the respondent’s choice of ethnic identity
is selective, making it difficult to accurately predict the independent effect of
ethnic origin on intergenerational mobility.
Moreover, the census data do not have any direct measures for contextual
effects of the family, the school, the neighborhood, and the ethnic community,
nor do they have detailed information on school performance. There are a
few other national surveys that offer important data that the census lack, such
as NELS and the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health (known
as “Add HEALTH”). These data sets have over-sampled some minority and
immigrant groups and have detailed information about contextual influences
of the family, the school, and the community on adolescent health, behavior,
family life, peer relationships, goals, aspirations, academic performance, and
related variables. However, they do not contain viable subsamples of the most
recently arrived national-origin groups within broader regional categories to
conduct comparative analyses.
For further theoretical inquiry, the following questions may offer some stim-
ulus: Will members of a generation born or reared in the United States gradually
92 ZHOU
be pulled away from a heritage vastly different from those of the Europeans
who arrived over the course of this century? Will those who rebel against this
heritage be the best-adjusted, socially and economically? Will racial barriers
limit the participation of immigrant children in American life? How would
being hyphenated Americans influence the ways in which immigrant children
become assimilated, and why may some of these ways be more advantageous
than others? Will immigrant families and ethnic communities persist in affect-
ing the lives of children of the second generation? Will cultural distinctiveness
of hyphenated Americans eventually melt down into a pot of Anglo-American
homogeneity? If not, what will ethnic diversity mean for the offspring of today’s
new second generation? Each of these questions has theoretical as well as prac-
tical implications. Given the unique characteristics of and the scanty knowledge
about the complex ways in which the second generation of new immigrants are
“becoming American,” future studies are both urgent and necessary.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The research was supported by the Russell Sage Foundation and a UCLA Fac-
ulty Career Development Award. The author wishes to thank Rubén Rumbaut
and an anonymous reviewer for their helpful suggestions, but she is exclusively
responsible for the contents.
Visit the Annual Reviews home page at

http://www.annurev.org.
Literature Cited
Alba RD. 1985. Italian Americans: Into the Bhatnager JP. 1980. Linguistic behavior and ad-
Twilight of Ethnicity. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: justment of immigrant children in French and
Prentice-Hall English schools in Montreal. Int. J. Appl. Psy-
Archdeacon TJ. 1983. Becoming American: An chol. 28:141–58
Ethnic History. New York: Free Press Bialystok E, Hakuta K. 1994. In Other Worlds:
Baker K, de Kanter A. 1981. Effectiveness of The Science and Psychology of Second-
Bilingual Education: A Review of Literature. Language Acquisition. New York: Basic
Washington, DC: US Dep. Educ., Off. Plan. Booth A, Crouter AC, Landale N, eds. 1996.
Budget & Eval. Immigration and the Family: Research and
Bankston CL III, Zhou M. 1995. Effects of Policy on U.S. Immigrants. New Jersey: Erl-
minority-language literacy on the academic baum Assoc.
achievement of Vietnamese youth in New Or- Bourgois P. 1991. In search of respect: the new
leans. Sociol. Educ. 68(Jan):1–17 service economy and the crack alternative in
Barth EA, Noel DL. 1972. Conceptual frame- Spanish Harlem. Paper presented Conf. on
work for the analysis of race relations: an Poverty, Immigration, and Urban Marginal-
evaluation. Soc. Forc. 50:333–48 ity in Advanced Soc. Maison Suger, Paris,
Becker HS. 1963. Outsiders: Studies in the So- May 10–11
ciology of Deviance. New York: Free Press Caplan N, Choy MH, Whitmore JK. 1989. The
Berrol SC. 1995. Growing up American: Im- Boat People and Achievement in America: A
migrant Children in America, Then and Now. Study of Family Life, Hard Work, and Cul-
New York: Twayne tural Values. Ann Arbor: Univ. Mich. Press
Cazden C, Snow CE. 1990. English plus: is- baseline results. Soc. Sci. Res. 15:43–70
sues in bilingual education. Preface. Ann. Am. Fordham S. 1996. Blacked Out: Dilemmas of
Acad. Polit. Soc. Sci. 508:9–11 Race, Identity, and Success at Capital High.
Child IL. 1943. Italian or American? The Sec- Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press
ond Generation in Conflict. New Haven: Yale Fukuyama F. 1993. Immigrants and family val-
Univ. Press ues. Commentary 95(5):26–32
Chiswick BR. 1977. Sons of immigrants: Are Gans HJ. 1992. Second-generation decline:
they at an earnings disadvantage? Am. Econ. scenarios for the economic and ethnic futures
Rev. 67(February):376–80 of the post-1965 American immigrants. Eth-
Coleman JS, Cambell EQ, Hobson CJ, McPart- nic Racial Stud. 15(2):173–92
land J, Mood AM, Weinfeld FD, York RL. Garcia MC. 1996. Havana USA: Cuban Ex-
1966. Equality of Educational Opportunity. iles and Cuban Americans in South Florida,
Washington DC: US Gov. Print Off. 1959–1994. Berkeley: Univ. Calif. Press
Conzen KN. 1991. Mainstreams and side chan- Gibson MA. 1989. Accommodation without As-
nels: the localization of immigrant cultures. similation: Sikh Immigrants in an American
J. Am. Ethnic Hist. 10(Fall):5–20 High School. Ithaca, NY: Cornell Univ. Press
Conzen KN, Gerber DA, Morawska E, Pozzetta Gil AG, Vega WA. 1996. Two different worlds:
GE, Vecoli RJ. 1992. The invention of eth- acculturation stress and adaptation among
nicity: a perspective from the U.S.A. J. Am. Cuban and Nicaraguan families. J. Soc. Per-
Ethnic His. 11(Fall):3–41 sonal Relat. 13(3):435–56
Cornelius WA. 1995. Educating Califor- Glazer N, Moynihan DP. 1970. Beyond the
nia’s immigrant children: introduction and Melting Pot: The Negroes, Puerto Ricans,
overview. In California’s Immigrant Chil- Jews, Italians, and Irish of New York City.
dren: Theory, Research, and Implications Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. 2nd ed.
for Educational Policy, ed. R. Rumbaut, WA Goffman E. 1963. Stigma: Notes on the
Cornelius, pp. 1–16. La Jolla, CA: Cent. US- Management of Spoiled Identity. Englewood
Mexican Stud., Univ. Calif., San Diego Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall
Cummins J. 1980. The cross-lingual dimen- Gordon MM. 1964. Assimilation in Ameri-
sion of language proficiency: implications can Life: The Role of Race, Religion, and
for bilingual education and the optimal age National Origins. New York: Oxford Univ.
question. Teach. Eng. Speakers Other Lang. Press
Q. 14:175–87 Gorer G. 1963. The American People: A Study
Cummins J. 1981. Four misconceptions about in National Character. New York: Norton
language proficiency in bilingual education. Greeley AM. 1976. The ethnic miracle. Public
Natl. Assoc. Bilingual Educ. J. 5:31–45 Interest 45:20–36
Davis M. 1993. The Gautreaux assisted housing Handlin O. 1973. The Uprooted. Boston, MA:
program. In Housing Markets and Residen- Little, Brown. 2nd ed.
tial Mobility, ed. GT Kingsley, MA Turner, Hernandez DJ. 1993. America’s Children: Re-
pp. 243–54. Washington DC: Urban Inst. sources from Family, Government, and the
Press Economy. New York: Russell Sage Found.
De Vos GA. 1975. Ethnic pluralism: conflict Hirschman C. 1994. Problems and prospects of
and accommodation. In Ethnic Identity: Cul- studying immigrant adaptation from the 1990
tural Continuities and Change, ed. G De Vos, Population Census: from generation compar-
L Romanucci-Ross, pp. 5–41. Palo Alto, CA: ison to the process of ‘becoming American’.
Mayfield Int. Migrat. Rev. 28(4):690–713
Dublin T. 1996. Becoming American, Becom- Hirschman C, Falcon L. 1985. The educational
ing Ethnic: College Students Explore Their attainment of religio-ethnic groups in the
Roots. Philadelphia, PA: Temple Univ. Press United States. Res. Sociol. Educ. Socializa-
Fainstein N. 1995. Race, segregation, and the tion 5:83–120
state. In The Bubbling Cauldron: Race, Eth- Jensen L, Chitose Y. 1994. Today’s second gen-
nicity, and the Urban Crisis, MP Smith, J eration: evidence from the 1990 U.S. Census.
Feagin. Minneapolis, MN: Univ. Minn. Press Int. Migrat. Rev. 28(4):714–35
Fernández-Kelly MP. 1995. Social and cultural Kao G, Tienda M. 1995. Optimism and achieve-
capital in the urban ghetto: implications ment: the educational performance of immi-
for the economic sociology and immigra- grant youth. Soc. Sci. Q. 76(1):1–19
tion. In The Economic Sociology of Immi- Keniston K, Carnegie Council on Children.
gration: Essays on Networks, Ethnicity, and 1977. All Our Children. New York: Har-
Entrepreneurship, ed. A. Portes, pp. 213–47. court, Brace, Jovanavich
New York: Russell Sage Found. Kibria N. 1993. Family Tightrope: The Chang-
Fernández RM, Nielsen F. 1986. Bilingualism ing Lives of Vietnamese Americans. Prince-
and Hispanic scholastic achievement: some ton, NJ: Princeton Univ. Press
94 ZHOU
Kohl H. 1994. “I Won’t Learn from You” and Perlmann J. 1988. Ethnic Differences: School-
Other Thoughts on Creative Maladjustment. ing and Social Structure among the Irish,
New York: New Press Jews, and Blacks in an American City, 1988–
Landale NS. 1996. Immigration and the family: 1935. New York: Cambridge Univ. Press
an overview. In Immigration and the Family: Perlmann J, Waldinger R. 1996. Second gener-
Research and Policy on U.S. Immigrants, ed. ation decline? Immigrant children past and
A Booth, AC Crouter, N Landale, pp. 281– present—a reconsideration. Revised version
91. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum of a paper presented in conference on Becom-
Landale RS, NS Oropesa. 1995. Immigrant chil- ing American/America Becoming: Interna-
dren and the children of immigrants: inter- tional Migration to the United States. Com.
and intra-group differences in the United on Int. Migrat. of the Soc. Sci. Res. Council,
States. Research pap. 95–02. Popul. Res. Sanibel Island, Fl., January 18–21
Group, Mich. State Univ. Pessar PR. 1987. The Dominicans: women in
Lopez DE. 1976. The social consequences the household and the garment industry. In
of Chicano home/school bilingualism. Soc. New Immigrant in New York, ed. N Foner, pp.
Prob. 24 (2):234–46 103–29. New York: Columbia Univ. Press
Lopez DE. 1996. Language: diversity and as- Portes A. 1995. Economic sociology and the
similation. In Ethnic Los Angeles, ed. R sociology of immigration: a conceptual
Waldinger, M Bozorgmehr, pp. 139–63. New overview. In The Economic Sociology of Im-
York: Russell Sage Found. migration: Essays on Networks, Ethnicity,
Matute-Bianchi ME. 1986. Ethnic identities and Entrepreneurship, ed. A Portes, pp. 1–
and patterns of school success and fail- 41. New York: Russell Sage Found.
ure among Mexican-descent and Japanese- Portes A. 1996. Introduction: Immigration and
American students in a California high its aftermath. In The New Second Genera-
school: an ethnographic analysis. Am. J. tion ed. A Portes, pp. 1–7. New York: Russell
Educ. 95:233–55 Sage Found.
Matute-Bianchi ME. 1991. Situational ethnicity Portes A, MacLeod D. 1996. The educational
and patterns of school performance among progress of children of immigrants: the roles
immigrant and non-immigrant Mexican- of class, ethnicity, and school context. Sociol.
descent students. In Minority Status and Educ. 69(4):255–75
Schooling: A Comparative Study of Immi- Portes A, Rumbaut RG. 1996. Immigrant Amer-
grant and Voluntary Minorities, ed. MA Gib- ica: A Portrait. Berkeley: Univ. Calif. Press.
son, JU Ogbu, pp. New York: Garland 2nd ed.
Merton RK. 1938. Social structure and anomie. Portes A, Schauffler R. 1994. Language and the
Am. Sociol. Rev. 3:672–82 second generation: bilingualism yesterday
Mishel L, Bernstein J. 1992. The State of Work- and today. Int. Migrat. Rev. 28 (4):640–61
ing America: 1992–1993. Washington, DC: Portes A, Stepick A. 1993. City on the Edge:
Econ. Policy Inst. The Transformation of Miami. Berkeley, Ca.:
Mollenkopf J, Kasinitz P, Waters M. 1995. The Univ. Calif. Press
immigrant second generation in metropolitan Portes A, Zhou M. 1993. The new second gen-
New York. Res. proposal to the Russell Sage eration: segmented assimilation and its vari-
Found. ants among post-1965 immigrant youth. Ann.
Ogbu JU. 1974. The Next Generation: An Am. Acad. Polit. Soc. Sci. 530:74–98
Ethnography of Education in an Urban Portes A, Zhou M. 1995. Divergent destinies:
Neighborhood. New York: Academic immigration, poverty, and entrepreneurship
Ogbu JU. 1989. Cultural models and educa- in the United States. In Poverty, Inequal-
tional strategies of non-dominant peoples. ity, and the Future of Social Policy: Western
The 1989 Catherine Molony Memorial Lec- States in the New World Order, ed. K Mc-
ture. New York: City Coll. Workshop Cent. Fate, R Rawson, WJ Wilson, pp. 489–520.
Oropesa RS, Landale NS. Forthcoming. Immi- New York: Russell Sage Found.
grant legacies: ethnicity, generation and chil- Rumbaut RG. 1991. The agony of exile: a study
dren’s family and economic lives. Soc. Sci. Q. of the migration and adaptation of Indochi-
Park RE. 1928. Human migration and the nese refugee adults and children. In Refugee
marginal man. Am. J. Sociol. 33:881–93 Children: Theory, Research, and Services,
Perez L. 1994. The household structure of ed. FL Ahearn, Jr, JL Athey, pp. 53–91. Bal-
second-generation children: an exploratory timore: Johns Hopkins Univ. Press
study of extended family arrangement. Int. Rumbaut RG. 1994a. Origins and destinies: im-
Migrat. Rev. 28(4):736–47 migration to the United States since World
Pérez Firmat GP. 1994. Life on the Hyphen: War II. Sociol. For. 9(4):583–621
The Cuban-American Way. Austin, TX: Univ. Rumbaut RG. 1994b. The crucible within:
Texas Press ethnic identity, self-esteem, and segmented
assimilation among children of immigrants. City. Staten Island, NY: Cent. Migrat. Stud.
Int. Migrat. Rev. 28(4):748–94 Szapocznik J, Hernandez R. 1988. The Cuban
Rumbaut RG. 1995. The new Californians: American family. In Ethnic Families in
comparative research findings on the edu- America, ed. CH Mindle, RW Habenstein,
cational progress of immigrant children. In R Wright SPAN. New York: Elsevier
California’s Immigrant Children: Theory, Tienda M. 1984. Language, education, and the
Research, and Implications for Educational socioeconomic achievement of Hispanic ori-
Policy, ed. RG Rumbaut, WA Cornelius, pp. gin men. Soc. Sci. Q. 65:519–36
17–69. La Jolla, Ca: Cent. US-Mexican Tienda M, Liang Z. 1994. Poverty and immigra-
Stud., Univ. Calif., San Diego tion. In Confronting Poverty: Prescriptions
Rumbaut RG. 1996. Ties that bind: immigration for Change, ed. SH Darzinger, GD Sandefur,
and immigrant families in the United States. DH Weinbers, pp. 330–64. Cambridge, MA:
In Immigration and the Family: Research Harvard Univ. Press
and Policy on U.S. Immigrants, ed. A Booth, Waldinger R. 1996. Ethnicity and opportunity in
AC Crouter, N Landale, pp. 3–45. New Jer- the plural city. In Ethnic Los Angeles, ed. R
sey: Lawrence Erlbaum Waldinger, M Bozorgmehr, pp. 445–70. New
Rumbaut RG, Ima K. 1988. The Adaptation of York: Russell Sage Found.
Southeast Asian Refugee Youth: A Compara- Warner WL, Srole L. 1945. The Social Systems
tive Study. Washington, DC: US Off. Refugee of American Ethnic Groups. New Haven:
Resettlement Yale Univ. Press
Sancton T. 1992. How to get America off the Waters M. 1994. Ethnic and racial identities of
dole? Time (May 25):44–47 second-generation Black immigrants in New
Sandberg NC. 1974. Ethnic Identity and As- York City. Int. Migrat. Rev. 28(4):795–820
similation: The Polish-American Commu- Waters M. 1996. Immigrant families at risk: fac-
nity. New York: Praeger tors that undermine chances of success. In
Schulz N. 1983. Voyagers in the Land: A Report Immigration and the Family: Research and
on Unaccompanied Southeast Asian Refugee Policy on U.S. Immigrants, ed. A Booth, AC
Children, New York City 1983. Washington, Crouter, N Landale, pp. 79–87. New Jersey:
DC: US Catholic Conf., Migrat. Refugee Lawrence Erlbaum
Serv. Wilson WJ. 1987. The Truly Disadvantaged:
Stack CB. 1974. All Our Kin: Strategies for The Inner City, the Underclass, and Public
Survival in a Black Community. New York: Policy. Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press
Harper Colophon Wirth L. 1925/1956. The Ghetto. Chicago:
Steinberg L. 1996. Beyond the Classroom. New Univ. Chicago Press
York: Simon & Schuster Wytrwal JA. 1961. America’s Polish Heritage:
Suárez-Orozco MM. 1989. Central American A Social History of Poles in America. Detroit:
Refugees and U.S. High Schools: A Psycho- Endurance
logical Study of Motivation and Achievement. Zhou M. 1997. Social capital in Chinatown: the
Stanford, CA: Stanford Univ. Press role of community-based organizations and
Suárez-Orozco MM. 1991. Immigrant adapta- families in the adaptation of the younger gen-
tion to schooling: a Hispanic case. In Mi- eration. In Beyond Black and White: New
nority Status and Schooling: A Comparative Voices, New Faces in the United States
Study of Immigrant and Involuntary Minori- Schools, ed. L Weis, MS Seller, pp. 181–206.
ties, ed. MA Gibson, JU Ogbu, pp. 37–61. Albany, NY: State Univ. NY Press
New York: Garland Zhou M, Bankston CL III. 1994. Social capital
Suárez-Orozco C, Suárez-Orozco MM. 1995. and the adaptation of the second generation:
Transformations: Migration, Family Life, the case of Vietnamese youth in New Orleans.
and Achievement Motivation among Latino Int. Migrat. Rev. 28(4):775–99
Adolescents. Stanford, Ca.: Stanford Univ. Zhou M, Bankston CL III. Forthcoming. Grow-
Press ing Up American: The Adaptation of Viet-
Sung BL. 1987. The Adjustment Experience namese Adolescents in the United States.
of Chinese Immigrant Children in New York New York: Russell Sage Found.

Growing Up American: The Challenge Confronting Immigrant Children and Children of Immigrants

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Growing Up American: The Challenge Confronting Immigrant Children and Children of Immigrants

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Growing Up American: The Challenge Confronting Immigrant Children and Children of Immigrants

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

P1: NBL/MBL/sny P2: MBL/vks QC: MBL

June 4, 1997 18:19 Annual Reviews AR035-04

Annu. Rev. Sociol. 1997. 23:63–95

GROWING UP AMERICAN: The

KEY WORDS: the second generation, immigrant children, race/ethnicity, adaptation/assimilation,

ethnically diverse segment of America’s child population. The 1990 US Census

THE RISE OF THE NEW SECOND GENERATION

The Changing Contexts of Reception

children. Relative to children living in intact families, the children living in

THEORETICAL DEVELOPMENTS IN RESEARCH

Alternative Theoretical Frameworks

groups, as well as the dominant majority group of European Americans. It is

The segmented assimilation thesis provides another framework for examin-

EMPIRICAL FINDINGS FROM CURRENT RESEARCH

Class and Race/Ethnicity

caste-like involuntary minorities (Kohl 1994, p. 2). The forced-choice dilemma

go to school. While wealthier immigrant families are able to settle directly in

in the homeland. The so-called “relayed migration” (Sung 1987) or “serial

dependence of parents on children and a loss of parental authority. Meanwhile

parental expectations. In this situation, immigrant children are likely to rebel

Sung’s finding suggests that frequent interactions with co-ethnics within an

American people together. Lack of English proficiency, aggravated by the prob-

Unlike forcible assimilation, “reluctant bilingualism” is tolerant of bilingual-

the use of Spanish depressed occupational attainment indirectly by lowering ed-

Visit the Annual Reviews home page at

You might also like

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.