Open Collections

UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

A comparison of post-immigration fertility of Chinese immigrants in the U.S. and Canada Zhao, Jing 2009

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Item Metadata

Download

Media
24-ubc_2009_spring_zhao_jing.pdf [ 1.25MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 24-1.0067232.json
JSON-LD: 24-1.0067232-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 24-1.0067232-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 24-1.0067232-rdf.json
Turtle: 24-1.0067232-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 24-1.0067232-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 24-1.0067232-source.json
Full Text
24-1.0067232-fulltext.txt
Citation
24-1.0067232.ris

Full Text

A COMPARISON OF POST-IMMIGRATION FERTILITY OF CHINESE IMMIGRANTS IN THE U.S. AND CANADA  by Jing Zhao  A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ARTS in  THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES (Family Studies)  THE UISEIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA (Vancouver)  February 2009  ©Jing Zhao, 2009  ABSTRACT  Inspired by the issue that Chinese immigrants have higher Total Fertility Rates in the U.S. than their counterparts in Canada, my master’s thesis is trying to draw a general picture of the macro-contextual influences of the sending country and receiving country on immigrant fertility divergences in these two nations. Using data derived from the 5-percent Public Use Micro Data Sample (PUMS) from the 2000 US Census and the Ethnic Diversity Survey (EDS) from 2001 Canada Census, I compared the post-immigration fertility of immigrant women from China mainland and Hong Kong in the U.S. and Canada. Results indicate that these two groups of Chinese perform different fertility patterns in these two countries. Immigrant women from China mainland tend to have higher post-immigration fertility than those from Hong Kong. Drawing largely on the literature review of the interaction between immigration and fertility, some of these fertility differences could be accounted for by demographic, socioeconomic, and assimilation variables controlled at the individual level. However, looking at this deeply, I also argue that the reproductive behaviors of immigrants are structured by cultural norms and population policies in the sending country and influenced by immigration and integration policies in the receiving country.  TABLE OF CONTENTS Abstract Table of Contents List of Tables List of Figures Acknowledgements 1 Introduction 2 Literature Review 2.1 Assimilation hypothesis 2.2 Minority status hypothesis 2.3 Disruption hypothesis 2.4 Selection hypothesis 3 Theoretical Model and Hypotheses 3.1 Conceptual framework 3.2 Challenges during the immigration process 3.2.1 Pre-Immigration 3.2.2 Migration 3.2.3 Post-Immigration 3.2.4 Post-Settlement 3.3 Effects of the sending country 3.3.1 Chinese cultures and fertility 3.3.2 The family planning policy in China 3.4 Effects of the receiving country 3.4.1 Immigration policy 3.4.2 Integration and settlement policy 3.5 Chinese immigrants in the U.S. and Canada 3.5.1 Chinese immigration history 3.5.2 Characteristics of Chinese immigrants 3.5.3 Chinese immigrants’ fertility divergences 3.6 Hypotheses 4 Data and Methodology 4.1 Data 4.2 Methods 4.3 Results 4.3.1 Descriptive statistics 4.3.2 Logistic regression analysis 5 Discussions and Conclusion Bibliography  ii iii iv v vi  I 3 4 8 10 12 16 16 19 20 21 22 24 27 27 29 31 31 34 39 40 42 43 46 48 48 50 56 56 61 76 81  III  LIST OF TABLES Table 4.1 Descriptive statistics of Chinese immigrants in the U.S Table 4.2 Descriptive statistics of Chinese immigrants in Canada Table 4.3 The logistic regression model of post-immigration fertility of Chinese immigrants in the U.S Table 4.4 Coefficients from logistic regression model of post-immigration fertility of Chinese immigrants in the U.S Table 4.5 The logistic regression model of post-immigration fertility of Chinese immigrants in Canada Table 4.6 Coefficients from logistic regression model of post-immigration fertility of Chinese immigrants in Canada Table 4.7 The logistic regression model of post-immigration fertility of Chinese immigrants in the U.S. and Canada Table 4.8 Coefficients from logistic regression model of post-immigration fertility of Chinese immigrants in the U.S. and Canada  68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75  iv  LIST OF FIGURES Figure 3.1 The effects of macro-context on immigrant fertility  26  V  ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS  My deepest gratitude goes first and foremost to Professor Nathanael Lauster, my supervisor, for his constant encouragement and insightful guidance. He has walked me through all the stages of the writing this thesis. His profound knowledge of demography has broadened my vision on the issues about immigrant fertility discussed in this thesis. Without his illuminating instruction, this thesis could not have reached its present form. Second, I would like to express my great gratitude to Professor Yan Miu Chung, who kindly provides me with many valuable suggestions concerning this thesis. I had a great time talking with him on the life chances of Chinese immigrants in North America. His comments expanded my thoughts and made this thesis a better product. I also offer my gratitude to all other faculty, staff and my classmates in Family Studies Program. I owe particular thanks to Professor White James, Yodanis Carrie, and Marshall Sheila, who have instructed me in the past two years. I also thank for my fellow classmates who brightened my days in school. Last but not least, I cannot express enough gratitude to my beloved family for their great confidence in me all through these years. I am indebted to my parents, my husband, and even my little one who is expected to come to this world in the following May. Without their loves and supports, my pursuit of master degree would never have been possible.  vi  1 INTRODUCTION Although numerous studies have been conducted on immigrant fertility, little attention has been paid to the comparison of fertility differentials of immigrants sharing the same ethnic origin in different destinations. According to Steven’s (2005) analysis on birth rates among immigrants in America, Chinese immigrants had a TFR of 2.3 in the United States in 2002, which was higher compared to 2.02 for the total U.S. In contrast, Statistics Canada (2006) showed that Chinese immigrants had a TFR of 1.23 in Canada in 2001, which was lower compared to 1.57 for the total Canada. Inspired by the issue that Chinese immigrants have higher fertility in the U.S. than their counterparts in Canada, my master thesis is trying to draw a general picture of the macro-contextual influences of the sending country and receiving country on immigrant fertility divergences in these two nations. The purpose of my paper is to explore how immigrants’ reproductive behaviors are structured by cultural norms and population policies in the sending country and influenced by immigration and integration policies in the receiving country. To set the scene for this paper, I begin with a literature review of most influential theoretical frameworks and prior studies on immigrant fertility. The focus of this literature review is particularly on Chinese immigrant fertility. Next, I propose my model which relates the macro-contextual influence with the interaction between immigrant fertility and immigration process. The model section is divided into two parts. Firstly, a brief introduction  of Chinese reproductive norms and family planning policy is provided to catch the effects of the sending country on reproductive behaviors of immigrants. Then the second part explores the influences of immigration policies as well as integration and settlement policies of the receiving country on individual characteristics which are assumed to be associated with immigrant fertility. Drawing largely on the literature review of the interaction between immigration and fertility, I hypothesize that immigrant women either from China mainland or Hong Kong tend to perform different fertility patterns in the U.S. and Canada. Also, Chinese immigrants born in China mainland is expected to have higher post-immigration fertility than those born in Hong Kong either in the U.S. or Canada. The following data analysis section uses the 5-percent Public Use Micro Data Sample (PUMS) from the 2000 US Census and the Ethnic Diversity Survey (EDS) from 2001 Canada Census to test these hypotheses. Finally, I conclude my paper with a discussion about potential impacts and limitations of this study.  2  2 LITERATURE REVIEW Over the past few decades, reproductive behavior has changed considerably around the world. While most theoretical debate and empirical research have focused on fertility declines, disagreements remain over explanations of this demographic phenomenon. The Demographic Transition Theory describes the fertility decline as a result of industrialization and socioeconomic development (Caldwell, 2004). Socioeconomic theories of fertility focus on the rationale that economic costs of childrearing constrain individual’s fertility desires (Coleman, 1994; Becker, 1991). Different from the economic perspective of these two frameworks, cultural theories of fertility view reproductive behavior through the lens of cultural schemas. Cultural theories claim that the fertility decline can be explained by the new dominant culture of post-industrial individualism, which contributes to the diffusion of norms about delaying marriage or childbearing, and limitation of family sizes (Goldscheider, 2006; Lesthaeghe & Surkyn, 1988). Applying these theories to understanding the interaction between fertility and immigration, we would expect changes of reproductive behavior for immigrants moving from one social context to another. Only recently attention has been given to understanding the determinants of immigrant fertility. In general, four major theoretical hypotheses can be distinguished in previous literatures.  3  2.1 Assimilation hypothesis In explaining immigrant fertility, the assimilation hypothesis identifies two principal factors that impact reproductive behaviors: cultural norms and socioeconomic resources. From the sociological perspective, an immigrant woman’s attitudes towards childbearing are shaped by the norms and values experienced in her childhood in the home country. The fertility preferences reflect the impacts of socio-cultural environments on family values and reproductive behaviors. Applying this hypothesis to the study of determinants of immigrant fertility, it is argued that immigrants’ fertility largely depends on the degree to which they have been acculturated into the majority society in the receiving county (Addai & Trovato, 1999; Stephen & Bean, 1992). Moving from one social context to another, immigrants will be exposed to new cultural environments which may be different from their previous perceptions. This cultural incompatibility is expected to have an effect on immigrants’ everyday lives including reproductive behaviors (Stephen & Bean, 1992; Kahn, 1988). Through interaction with peers, coworkers, and others in the new country, immigrant women are assumed to gradually resemble native women’s attitudes and behaviors towards labor force participation, family formation, and so forth. Accordingly, their beliefs and desires pertaining to family and childbearing will also resemble natives. Since the acculturation process takes time to happen, although the fertility of first generation immigrants may be similar to the fertility level of the sending county, overtime the fertility of later generations will converge to the fertility level  4  of the receiving county (Kahn, 1988). Instead, from the socioeconomic perspective, the reproductive behaviors of immigrants converge to that of the majority society, not necessarily due to merely cultural impacts but also socioeconomic adaptations to new environments in the receiving country (Brockeroff& Yang, 1994; Farber & Lee, 1984; Goldstein, 1973). When immigrants come to a new country, social systems such as health care institutions, labor markets, and community centers, may influence immigrants’ everyday lives in the similar way as they affect natives. Dealing with employment, housing, and other things related to economic costs are assumed to have immediate effects on family issues. In this regard, the changes of socioeconomic conditions rather than cultural norms have direct effects on fertility patterns of immigrants. This hypothesis has also been termed either as structural assimilation or adaptation theory. However, while the fertility converge between immigrants and natives has been evident among early European-ethnic immigrants, assimilation hypothesis is criticized on the ground that recent immigrants from Asia are less likely to be assimilated into the United States (Massey, 1995). Studies show that immigrant women from Mexico bear more children than those from Asia or Europe in the U.S. (Kahn, 1994). Also, fertility rates for immigrant women of black or Hispanic origin are higher than those for their white counterparts in the U.S. (Swicegood et al, 1988; Johnson, 1979). Viewing this from an ecological perspective, it is argued by some researchers that high rates of immigration result in densely populated ethnic communities that create powerful  5  ecological niches holding on to the original cultures (Raymond & Tern, 2007). Accordingly, rather than replacing their original cultures, some immigrants may just add some new cultural perspectives to the existing ones. This is to say that immigrants may create subcultures which differentiate them from the dominant culture. As suggested by cultural theories of fertility, the reproductive behavior is strongly influenced by norms and values which shape attitudes towards family and childbearing. Growing up in different cultural contexts, immigrants from different original countries may have different fertility perceptions, consequently their reproductive behaviors are expected to be varying after they immigrate to the same destination. Therefore, the extent to which immigrants are attached to traditional pronatalist values will lead to fertility differences between ethnic groups within the same receiving country. Indeed, research on the impacts of subculture variations on immigrant fertility in the U.S. show that immigrants from high fertility countries have higher fertility in the receiving country (BIau, 1992; Kahn, 1988). In particular, studies on the effects of subculture on ethnic fertility suggest that Chinese immigrants are more likely to persist to pronatalist values and norms (Tang, 1995; Espenshade & Ye, 1994). Using the 1990 U.S. Census of Population 5% Public Use Microdata Samples (PUMS), Yang (2001) examined the effects of assimilation on Chinese immigrants’ fertility patterns. The results suggested that Chinese immigrants were more integrated into the subculture of Chinese U.S. born than the mainstream culture of majority whites (Yang, 2001). With the same data, Hwang and Saenz’s (1997) findings indicated that  6  immigrant women from China mainland had lower total fertility than Chinese women from Hong Kong, Taiwan, and Vietnam. However, things were different when they examined the average number of the U.S. births. In fact, immigrant women from China mainland had more births in the U.S. and their post-immigration fertility increased faster than that of their counterparts (Hwang & Saenz, 1997). This result supported their hypothesis that the fertility of Chinese women would bounce back to a higher level once they immigrated to a country without fertility limitation policy. In empirical studies, the effects of assimilation on immigrant fertility have been supported through the examination of a number of individual characteristics such as duration of residence, language proficiency, citizenship and so forth. According to the assimilation hypothesis, the frequently being exposed to the dominant socio-cultural environment, the deeply immigrants will be influenced by the majority society (Ford, 1990; Kahn, 1988). Thus the duration of residence in the destination generally has been seen as an indicator of assimilation. Research shows that the duration of residence has a larger effect on assimilation for immigrants who arrived in the U.S. as adults than those as children (Frank & Heuveline, 2005; Kahn, 1988). Moreover, in a study of the relationship between residence years and the fertility trends of U.S immigrants, Ford (1990) found the trend that immigrant fertility might catch up after immediate immigration and then fall with longer duration in the U.S. In addition, English proficiency has also been seen as an important indicator of  7  assimilation. Bilingual capacity is believed to account for fertility differentials between ethnic groups and the majority. And speaking English at home is assumed to decrease fertility (Slesinger & Okada, 1984). This contributes to explaining lower fertility of immigrants who speak English well or speak English frequently at home in comparison to the fertility of those who don’t (Swicegood et al, 1986; Tienda, 1980). Although supports for the negative effect of English usage on immigrant fertility can been found in many literatures, a significant linkage between English proficiency and low fertility does not always show up (Krishnan & Krotki, 1992). Viewing this differently, I argue that English proficiency could also improve immigrant women’s opportunities to get information and access to healthcare services. In this regard, immigrant women with higher level of English proficiency may experience fewer difficulties in childbearing; as a consequence, their fertility may be higher than that of those with little English skills. Furthermore, seen as an indicator of assimilation, holding a citizenship of the receiving country has been shown to exert a negative effect on immigrant fertility (Stephen & Bean, 1992; Kahn, 1988; Swicegood et al, 1988). Also, intermarriage between whites and ethnic immigrants has long been viewed as a strong indicator decreasing fertility (He, 1999; 1-Iwang, 1997; Espenshade &Ye, 1994; Kahn, 1988; Swicegood et al, 1988; BIau et al, 1984).  2.2 Minority status hypothesis The minority group status hypothesis formulated by Goldscheider and Uhlenberg (1969)  8  posits that belonging to a minority group has an independent effect on fertility when the effects of other socioeconomic factors are controlled. It is proposed that discriminations against minority in new environments motivate minority groups to try harder to improve their economic status, eliminate cultural prejudice, and achieve labor market equality with the majority (Halli & Shivalingappa, 1987; Hervitz, 1985). In this sense, sacrificing time and energy in childbearing is used as a strategy to deal with immigrants’ minority status (Goldscheider & Uhlenberg, 1969). Several empirical studies have found evidences to support this hypothesis by showing that immigrants have very low fertility during their first few years in the destination for the reason of trying to overcome economic disadvantages and cultural prejudices (Tang & Frank, 1998; Espenshade & Ye, 1994). For instance, Espenshade and Ye (1994) found that while the Chinese population in the United States was increasing over time, the pace of increase was slow, compared to other Asian ethnic groups. They argued that Chinese-American women who were more successful in overcoming minority status effect had fewer children than those who made little effort to do so (Espenshade & Ye, 1994). Using the 1970 U.S. census 1% public-use sample data, Johnson and Nishida (1980) supported the minority status hypothesis by showing that Japanese and Chinese had low fertility in California (where white were majority) than their counterparts in Hawaii (the only U.S. state where no racial group comprised more than 50% of the population in 1970). The minority status hypothesis is concerned with the depressing effect of minority status  9  of immigrants on their fertility. However, this perspective has been criticized by some researchers giving fact that many ethnic groups exceed the majority fertility (Swicegood et al, 1988; Johnson, 1979). This especially holds true for immigrant women of Mexican origin since they remain higher fertility levels than their white counterparts (Kahn, 1994). Instead, Bean and Swicegood (1985) entertained an alternative opportunity costs hypothesis to the minority status hypothesis in their studies of female education and fertility among Mexican Americans and blacks in the U.S. Their tests of statistical interactions showed support for the steeply declining fertility with rising education predicted by the minority status hypothesis among blacks, but argued that the opportunity costs perspective better explained the education-fertility relationship among Mexican Americans. Also, Johnson’s (1979) study found higher African American fertility than white fertility among the less educated but no racial differences among the highly educated.  2.3 Disruption hypothesis The disruption hypothesis argues that the immigration process interrupts childbearing so that the fertility of immigrants is supposed to be temporarily low during the initial period of immigration but may catch up after they get settled down in the receiving country (Kahn, 1994; Ford, 1990; Goldstein& Goldstein, 1981). Since immigration disrupts the resource from their home countries, immigrants have to look for the most effective way to utilize resources for settlement in a new social environment. However, being unfamiliar with public  I0  services limits their life chances in terms of employment, housing, and other daily activities. Indeed, research shows that “immigrant families are less likely to use welfare programs then natives with similar characteristics” (Neeraj & Robert, 2005). This resource disruption also holds true when it comes to reproductive behaviors of immigrants. Lack of information on access to health care services in the receiving country constrains immigrants’ desires of having babies after immigration. Moreover, factors regarding immigration process itself such as spouse separation, economic insecurity, and stressful situation, may also result in the delay of childbearing and lower fertility (Brockerhoff, 1995; Hervitz, 1985). In particular, research suggests that the socioeconomic status of Chinese immigrants is lower on average than that of whites or U.S. born Chinese (Tang & Frank, 1998). Highly educated immigrants have been struggling to find proper employment especially in their initial stage of settlement in a new environment. In order to improve their socioeconomic status, Chinese immigrants may either delay time of having children or make decision for having fewer children (Espenshade & Ye, 1994). Besides, although the absence of the husband due to immigration has long been seen as an indicator related to an immigrant women’s fertility decrease (Massey & Mullan, 1984), this hypothesis has been challenged in recent literatures. For instance, Lindstrom and Saucedo (2002) revealed that spousal separation reduced fertility in the short term but did not reduce marital fertility in the long term. When examining the fertility of immigrants in Sweden, Anderson (2004) found that immigration had seemed to be a family building  II  process for some foreign-born women showing an elevated fertility pattern after immigration (Anderson, 2004). Accordingly, if a woman immigrates for the reason of reunification with a husband, her fertility level may be expected to rise after immigration.  2.4 Selection hypothesis The selection hypothesis suggests that immigrants are a specific group of people who are more likely to be career oriented and highly educated. With these distinguishing individual characteristics, this group of people is expected to focus more on their career achievements than on family issues. Therefore their fertility rates are assumed to be relatively lower than the average fertility rate of the sending country (White et al, 1995; Goldstein & Goldstein, 1981). Although many studies on the interaction of immigration and fertility acknowledge the importance of selectivity, few have explicitly measured its impacts. There are a wide variety of factors are associated with the selection of immigrants. What is not clear in the current literature is whether selection works through education and employment or other unobserved characteristics such as ability, aspirations and open-mindedness, and how these lead to lower fertility among immigrants than non-migrants staying at the original country (Blau, 1992). Moreover, there are difficulties in collecting data on immigrants’ characteristics and their pre-immigration fertility as well as the average characteristics and fertility levels of non-migrants in the sending country.  12  According to the selection theory, immigrants have different fertility rates because they are situated differently with regard to related variables such as education and employment. For instance, maternal educational attainment and labor force participation has long been considered to depress fertility (Swicegood et al, 1988; Mathew et al, 1994). As suggested by the opportunity costs theory, education may raise a woman’s income; as a consequence, she would sacrifice childbearing and childrearing to pursue education (Becker, 1991). Many empirical literatures have revealed that more educated women tended to have fewer children (Swicegood et al, 1988; Mathew et al, 1994). In addition, the socio-demographic characteristics of family members are also found to be related to a woman’s fertility. For instance, Fogli (2006) showed that the education of a woman’s father was positively related to her fertility, whereas her mother’s had a negative effect. The results also indicated that the husband’s income positively affected a woman’s fertility but his education had a negative effect. The study also showed that women who had more siblings tended to have more children (Fernandez & Fogli, 2006) Furthermore, residence situation has been examined to be related to fertility differentials. It is shown that women in urban areas especially in metropolitan cities tend to have relatively lower fertility than those in rural areas (Goldberg, 1960). More recently, Statistics Canada (2003) revealed that the fertility rate for metropolitan area was 1 .48 children for every woman, compared with 1.67 for their counterparts in non-metropolitan areas in 2002. Moreover, housing conditions are also expected to account for fertility decisions. In a study  13  of fertility variations across settlements in Denmark, Finland, Norway, and Sweden, Kulu et al (2007) found that the larger the settlement, the lower the fertility, and the later the timing of childbearing. In sum, a ground question identified via the literature review is that there is no consensus on how fertility convergences between immigrants and natives happen. Indeed, a single theory is unproductive in explaining the interaction between immigration and fertility. Theoretical explanations described hereinbefore have accounted for some but not all of the determinants of immigrant fertility. These hypotheses place different emphasis on the stages of immigration process as well as the influences of the sending and receiving countries. The assimilation theory and the minority status theory give more weight to the impacts of the receiving country at the stage of post-immigration or post-settlement, whereas the selection theory focuses much more on individuals’ characteristics in the sending county at the stage of pre-immigration. The disruption theory can be placed in both contexts within which the effects of the move itself decrease immigrants’ fertility by delaying childbearing during immigration or immediately after immigration. Another issue raised by the foregoing literature review is that conventional theories have little to say about fertility variations among immigrants with different ethnic origins. Although some hypotheses predict the fertility convergences between immigrants and natives, evidence to support this prediction has been mixed in empirical studies (Schmid & Kohls, 2008; Kulu, 2005). Furthermore, prior research has not yet documented the comparisons of fertility levels of immigrants with the  ‰ 14  same ethnic origin in different receiving countries. Despite these concerns, it is worth noting that some researchers have called for a systematical approach in studying the interaction between immigration and fertility. For example, Forste and Tienda (1996) has presented a hierarchical structure as beginning with family and community context within which people’s perceptions and attitudes towards parenting and marriage have been shaped, these perceptions and attitudes later have influences on their educational and work behaviors, then these social experiences together with normative changes after immigration finally affect immigrants’ reproductive behaviors in the new country (Forste & Tienda, 1996). More recently, in a study on the immigrants’ fertility in Germany, Schimind and Kohls (2008) developed a similar overarching model which included all possible determinants of immigrant fertility from aspects of the sending country, the receiving country, the selection process, and individual characteristics. This systematical approach is worth pursuing further research. In order to better understand the immigrant fertility, I try to extend previous research by developing a model articulating the mechanisms underlying the effects of macro-contexts on fertility outcomes. The model proposed in this paper explores how immigrants’ reproductive behaviors are structured by cultural norms and population policies in the sending country and impacted by immigration and integration policies in the receiving country, and what factors constrain immigrants’ fertility desires during the immigration process in terms of pre-immigration, immigration, post-immigration, and post-settlement.  15  3 THEORETICAL MODEL AND HYPOTHESES This model relates macro-context dynamics with the immigration process. The goals of this analysis are to achieve a better understanding of the effects of the sending country and the receiving country on individual characteristics which are assumed to be associated with immigrant fertility. In particular, this model examines how Chinese immigrants’ reproductive behaviors are influenced by Chinese cultures and population policies in China, and how differences in immigration policies and settlement policies affect Chinese immigrants’ characteristics and their post-immigration fertility in the U.S. and Canada.  3.1 Conceptual framework Researchers of micro-level demography have primarily been interested in the explanatory roles of personal and familial attributes on fertility preferences and outcomes. For example, the social exchange theory states that people make the calculation that the benefits of the child outweigh the costs in deciding to have a child. The symbolic interaction theory posits that the ability of women to balance family and work role is a strong determinant of how many children they will have. These theories provide reasonable explanations of fertility decision-making at the micro-level. Advances have been made in development of micro-level theories and there is a growing body of empirical evidence to support these theories. However, the reproduction behavior involves the mating of a male and a female in a  16  social context that includes families, institutions, and social-political systems. This is to say the decision of having babies is a process socially affected by macro-contextual influences. There are many factors at the macro-level are important in explaining fertility trends in specific countries, such as cultural norms about family value, institutional services providing child care, and government policies pertaining to family friendly labor practices and child benefits. However, approaches at this macro-level to deal with the potential impacts of institutional strategies on family formation of individuals residing in a social context have yet well developed. I argue that the fertility policy, which is deeply modified by the cultural and economic settings, is critical for studying the causal pathways by which a national level decision may or may not influence the fertility decision of individuals. To frame this problem, Urie Bronfenbrenner’s (1979) human ecology theory may be put to especially good use. Bronfenbrenner (1979) views the human environment in terms of four systems: the microsystem (family and other close interpersonal relationships); the mesosystem (two or more settings directly pertinent to the individual); the the exosystem, (external settings indirectly influence the individual, and the macrosystem (cultural values and beliefs). His framework acknowledges that individuals are affected by these ecosystems surrounding them (Bronfenbrenner, 1979). Indeed, individual behaviors could be explained through knowledge of interaction between individual’s properties and the environments. This theoretical model provides macro level analysis of systems within which to understand the impacts of situational and environmental pressures rather than individual characteristics.  17  Apply this theoretical framework to understanding immigrant fertility, I contend that the immigrant could be perceived as a unit that is situated in several surrounding systems: the microsystem (family), mesosystem (education or employment settings), exosystem (political environment), macrosystem (sending country and receiving country). An individual do not make childbearing decisions in isolation. Reproductive behaviors of immigrant are determined by social influences operating at family, national and global levels. These macro-level influences on immigrant fertility are mediated through individuals’ characteristics. Family could be seen as a microsystem within which immigrant’s perceptions and attitudes towards family and parenting have been initially shaped. Later, their social experiences in the mesosystem including education or employment settings may have impacts on their fertility preferences. The political environment within one social context could be seen as an exosystem that serves to promote national population policies and family policies which may constrain or encourage individuals’ reproductive actions. A mix of institutions operates at this level, including ministries, nonprofit nongovernmental organizations, health care providers, and so forth. Moreover, by moving from one social context to another, immigrants may have the chance of changing their fertility preferences and behaviors. The sending country and the receiving country could be seen as macrosystems that hold different fertility norms and values as well as family policies.  18  3.2 Challenges during the immigration process Considering the effects of the immigration process on immigrant fertility, the start point of the analysis is that the choice of having babies in the adopted country is affected by the experiences during immigration. Immigration is a complicated process which brings challenges to individuals and families. The effects of immigration on fertility may act in several ways, depending on time horizons. In general speaking, the process could be roughly divided into four stages: pre-immigration, migration, post-immigration, and post-settlement. At each stage, there are a bunch of factors that may influence the life chances of immigrants in the receiving country. This stage analysis has been used in studying the impacts of immigration on immigrant health in existing literatures. For example, Goldlust and Richmond (1974) developed a multivariate model that considered the role of pre-immigration conditions and post-immigration factors on immigrant adaptations in the destination. More recently, Nicholson’s (1997) study of Southeast Asian refugees confirmed that both pre-immigration and post-immigration factors directly affected their mental health outcomes. In fact, experienced trauma, degree of current stress, and perceived health were found to be the most significant factors. Indeed, pre-immigration experiences such as reasons for departure and demographic characters (age, gender, marital status, etc); migration factors such as immigration policy, family separation, and resource disputation; post-immigration factors such as knowledge of language, educational level, economic situation, family network, and settlement policy;  19  post-settlement factors such as cultural integration, social network, family relationship, all these things have impacts on immigrants’ lives in the new country, depending on how successfully they are adapted to the majority society and what supports are available to them in the adopted country.  3.2.1 Pre-Immigration At the micro level, the challenges of immigration may begin when the individual decides to emigrate. One may have a good understanding of the possibilities and difficulties for the move, or be motivated by an unconscious hope that the immigration will lead to wealth and higher status. On the one hand, better opportunities and a more comfortable life may be primary reasons for immigration. On the other hand, unaware of the daily routines and the availability of suitable jobs may cause frustrations and failures after immigration. To some extent, whether it is a good start of immigration depends on if their decisions are based on an assessment of realistic situation and knowledge of the new country. Meanwhile, the pre-immigration socio-demographic factors and cultural experiences will have deeply influence on immigrants’ lives in the new country. For example, prior work implies that immigration may be most appealing to persons who are well-educated professionals (White eta!, 1995; Blau, 1992; Goldstein & Goldstein, 1981). At the macro level, the immigration selection criteria that screen individuals in terms of the admission category account for the differences in personal circumstance of immigrants.  20  Thus immigrants’ human capital and social capital may differ by admission category. And these resource differences may affect their life chances after immigration. More importantly, growing up in a social context, immigrants’ beliefs and attitudes towards life are deeply shaped by cultural values and norms in their home countries. The cultural influence continually works on immigrants’ preferences in family formation after they move to a new country.  3.2.2 Migration Migration is a process starting from an applicant submitting immigration petition till being granted the immigrant visa. Although having met eligibility requirements, immigrant may wait a couple of years to gain entry to the adopted country either enters through family reunification or economic category. The migration process can be lengthy and frustrating due to the huge amount of applications and the complicated administrative process. To illustrate, family preference applicants from Mexico, the Philippines, China, and India have to wait for a minimum of 5 years for Legal Permanent Resident visas to be granted after their applications have been approved (DHS, 2007). Given the uncertainty of the situation, many things could happen during this long waiting period. In terms of family building, immigrant women may change fertility plans depending on their personal circumstances. For instance, while a 25 years old woman who is considering about childbearing may postpone this desire until she get the immigrant visa and  21  reach the destination, however a 30 years old women with the same consideration may choose to have baby during waiting years for health concerns. Taking employments into account, couples who had made immigration decision based on unsatisfied employment situation may establish a promising career in the original country after two of years since they submitted immigration application. Then hard choices facing them would be immigrate or stay, go together or separately, and their baby plan may also have to make change. Unfortunately, the impact of migration on immigrants’ life changes has not often been examined.  3.2.3 Post-Immigration Post-Immigration stage covers the time span from arrival to approximately one year later. At this stage, immigrants and their families are normally focused on survival tasks. Challenges associated with this initial settlement stage are related to establishing financial independence, upgrading education, overcoming language and cultural barriers, and extending social networks. Aspects of the migration that affect immigrant experience have all been studied in the areas such as cultural conflict, drop in socioeconomic status, lack of employment opportunities, family separation, intergenerational conflict, communication barriers, and lack of access to public services, and so forth. When immigration is combined with these resettlement challenges, immigrants are more likely to experience anger, anxiety, stress and  22  traumatic depression. For example, Beiser et al. (2006) found that resettlement stress has a negative impact on immigrant health status. Moving from a familiar environment to another different one, immigrants may experience a crisis phase of culture shock, depending on whether they are willing to adapt to the new way of life as well as their ability of communication with natives. At this stage, social support has particular meaning for immigrants because their previous social and family support networks might have been disrupted. Separation from family is a particularly important stressor on immigrants. Moreover, since language and cultural differences limit their communication skills, immigrants may experience struggling against cultural barriers and making friendships with native born. Despite being better educated, filled with hope and ambition, immigrants often experience considerable difficulties in looking for an employment after immigration. According to the Longitudinal Survey of Immigrants to Canada, recent immigrants reported higher unemployment rates than non-immigrants (Statistics Canada, 2007). In this survey, all participants reported employment insecurity because of actual and perceived discrimination and lack of Canadian credentials (Statistics Canada, 2007). As a result, some immigrants work in jobs well beneath their prior educational qualifications and professional experiences. For example, many immigrants who had worked as teachers, managers, and engineers in their home countries wash dishes at ethnic restaurants after immigration. To gain financial independence, some immigrants have to work multiple jobs. Many of them accept extended  23  hours and shift work. Also, immigrants were found to be over-represented in the manufacturing and construction industries where safety risks are high (Krahn, Fernandes and Adebayo, 1990). Moreover, preliminary research indicates that immigrant incomes are low during the first three years following arrival, and it might take recent immigrants much longer to catch up or surpassed the native employment earnings (Statistics Canada, 2007). Therefore, it is easy to image that immigrants are more likely to experience higher job stress, lower job satisfaction, and have less leisure time with family.  3.2.4 Post-Settlement There have been considerable studies of settlement and integration issues; however, not much research has been done on policies and programs affecting the immigration experience. In general, the settlement policy is relating to programs aiding immigrant adjustment including: familiarity with majority culture, language and job trainings, interpretation services, housing provisions, and involvements in community activities. More broadly, government policies regarding ‘multiculturalism’ immigration may also have effects on immigrant integration. This is particularly true when those policies may have specific provisions affecting immigrants or minority groups. For instance, the rather laissez-faire U.S. policy may be contrasted with a more interventionist and managerial Canadian policy. In her comparison of becoming a citizen in Canada and the United States,  24  Irene Bloemraad (2006) found that political participation among immigrants in Canada was substantially higher than comparative rates in the United States. She suggested that settlement policies which were composed of government agencies, non-profit organizations and private businesses in Canada exerted important effects on drawing more immigrants into community leadership, mobilizing structures and political incorporation than in the U.S. where the settlement policies were far less developed (Bloemraad, 2006). In the following pages, I first use my theoretical model to examine the potential macro-contextual impacts that are in keeping with theoretical explanations of immigrant fertility. Then I will present my hypotheses about Chinese immigrants’ fertility divergences in the U.S. and Canada.  25  ______,ga”  Figure 3.1  The effects of macro-context on immigrant fertility  Pre-immigration IIE>Immigration  IIZ> Post-immigration IEE>  Post-settlement  4-  Employment, education, social network, marital relationship, family relationship and so forth  The Sending country  The Receiving country  Family norms and values Population policy  Family norms and values Immigration policy Integration and settlement policy  Immigrant Fertility  26  3.3 Effects of the sending country As have been mentioned, cultural norms have effects on the perceptions of family and childbearing, which will in turn influence the individual’s fertility (Goldscheider, 2006; Therborn, 2004; Lesthaeghe, 2002). In this sense, immigrants’ fertility preferences are firstly affected by reproductive norms of the sending country during the stage of pre-immigration. And the effects of the sending country won’t stop after immigrants move from the original country to the receiving country. On the one hand, immigrants will be exposed to new different cultural norms which might replace their existing norms. On the other hand, immigrants may create the ecological niches that hold on to their original cultural norms rather than being replaced by the majority cultures (Raymond & Tern, 2007). Since higher fertility often coincides with more traditional family values, the more immigrants are attached to traditional pronatalist norms, the higher their fertility will be.  3.3.1 Chinese cultures and fertility Chinese family structure is grounded in ancient Confucian principles that have dominated Chinese society for more than two thousand years. This Confucianism emphasizes that family members are supposed to place collective needs before their own (Tang, 1995). Traditionally, families are viewed as patriarchal; and a woman is subordinated to her father, husband and sons. Sons are preferred more than daughters because once they get married daughters are normally expected to depart to live with their husbands’ families, whereas sons  27  remain at their own homes to care for elderly parents. The old saying “the more children, the more fortunes” reflects that larger families are highly valued for providing security for aging. Indeed, reproductive norms and family values derived from this pronatalist principle strongly encourage higher fertility and male children (Tang, 1995). The influences of the pronatalist culture on fertility are evidenced by China’s enormous population and its high fertility rates throughout much of its history before 1979. As statistics showed, the total fertility rate (TFR) in China was above 5 in the early I 960s. The pronatalist cultures also hold true for people of Chinese ethnic origin living in other places. For instance, during 1970 and1974, the TFR was 3.5 in Taiwan, and 3.3 in Hong Kong, compared to 4.9 in China mainland (Espenshade & Ye, 1994). In recent years, demographers have noticed that not only fertility rates in all areas of China are declining; the number of desired children is also declining. The fertility desire of 2 to 3 children in rural areas and 2 in urban areas in the 1 980s was changed to 2 in rural areas and 1.1 to 1.7 in urban areas in thel99Os (Dudley et al, 2006). Although the gender preference for sons still holds strongly in rural areas, this gender preference becomes less pronounced for urban people in these days (Dudley et al, 2006). There are two critical reasons accounting for the fertility declines and changes of fertility desire in China. First, with the process of urbanization and economic development, the living standards are improving rapidly, and the costs of childrearing are much higher than before. Also, the development of health care institutions makes it possible for elderly not just  28  rely on their children for care. Second, it is essential to take into account that Chinese fertility declines are also considerably influenced by the family planning policy which has achieved remarkable success in population control during the last three decades.  3.3.2 The family planning policy in China According to Peng’s (1997) overview of China’s population policy, the family planning programs regarding over population problems in China have been started since the I 950s. However, regulations of reproduction control were not effective then because of the less developed technology and health system. In the l950s and the 1960s, Chinese women on average had 5 to 6 children. Then Chinese fertility sharply declined in the I 970s and thel98Os, with aTFR of 4.86 in 1975, and 2.55 in 1985 (Liang & Lee, 2007). In the 1970s, Chinese governments promoted the family planning programs by emphasizing three principles: later marriage, longer birth intervals, and fewer children. With the establishment of an administrative system to assign numerical objectives for the population increase in each province, birth controls such as IUD, sterilization, and abortion became widespread at that point. Then the overwhelming one-child policy which required a birth limit of one child per couple was established in 1979. Nevertheless, the policy was sort of relaxed in the 1980s due to the difficulties of its implements. Consequently, rural couples were permitted to have a second child if the firstborn was a girl. The government renewed its commitment to the one-child policy and strengthened its implementation in the I 990s. Over the past three  29  decades, population control policies have achieved considerable progress in China. Statistics showed that the TFR was 1.9 in 1995, 1.8 in 2000, and 1.7 in 2005 (Liang & Lee, 2007). In recent years, the one-child policy has been debated in regarding with sex ratio unbalance, faster aging process, and higher pressure on one-child generation couples to care for four aging parents. Despite these concerns, Chinese government has proclaimed in 2008 that the one child policy will continue through the 2006-20 10 five year planning period. In short, the comparisons of fertility desires with the TFR in China after one-child policy implement indicate that actual fertility of Chinese women is lower than their desires. Since the one-child policy will be kept for at least another decade, it is instructive to explore how fertility level of Chinese will changes if they immigrate to countries without such fertility limitation policy. When Hong Kong returned to China as a special administrative region in 1997, women living in Hong Kong continued to decide for themselves how many children they want to have. Hong Kong has experienced a steadily fertility fall over two decades. Since the 1980s, the TFR has continued to fall below the replacement level, with a TFR of 0.83 in 1999, which was the lowest fertility in the world. The dramatic fertility decline in Hong Kong results from the economic development and the early “Two is enough” campaign promoted by Hong Kong Family Planning Association in 1975. To deal with the considerable fertility drop, since the last decade Hong Kong Family Planning Association has launched a series of programs and activities such as workshops and lectures on reproductive health to advise  30  young people to actively prepare for parenthood. The Association has also taken efforts to engage in the government’s formulation of family friendly policies.  3.4 Effects of the receiving country Immigrant can be viewed as a unit undergoing a process of moving from one environment to another. During this process, the immigration application, settlement difficulties, and contextual differences will largely influence immigrants’ life chances in the receiving country. Thus their fertility desires will be conditioned by the resettlement difficulties facing them. With this in mind, to explain the fertility differences of Chinese immigrants in the U.S. and Canada, researchers are required to explore variations in immigration policies as well as integration policies in the area such as selection criteria, admission categories, settlement services and so forth in these two destinations.  3.4.1 Immigration policy The United States and Canada have shared similar categories of admission in their immigration policies. However the criteria and quota used in selecting immigrants reflect the substantially different preferences in these two countries. In terms of admission categories, although both countries admit family members of citizens or permanent residents, skilled labors, temporary foreign workers, students, refugees and asylees, each country has its own category priority, numerical targets and selection  31  criteria. Family reunification has been the main immigration category for three decades in the U.S. (Fix & Zimmermann, 1997). Under this policy only immediate family members of the U.S. citizens and lawful permanent residents are admitted entry. According to Rekai’s (2002) studies on the U.S. and Canada immigration policies, roughly 63 percent of annual arrivals are family reunification immigrants in the U.S. In comparison, about 25 percent of immigrants come under “family class” in Canada (Rekai, 2002). Unlike the focus of family reunification in the U.S., Canada has been more likely to encourage skilled or business immigrants in its immigration policies. This economic category accounts for about 60 percent of arrivals each year (Rekai, 2002). Skilled worker immigrants are selected under a point system which prefers young people with highly skills in certain occupations, facility in official language, and postsecondary education. Also the Provincial Nominee Program allows provincial governments to establish their own standards and processes to choose immigrants according to the economic needs of the provinces. In comparison, 17 percent of immigrants fall into economic category under which newcomers immigrate through employment or investment in the U.S. Moreover, about 4 percent immigrants in the U.S. are selected under a “diversity lottery program” which admits people coming from countries with low rates of immigration to the U.S. And the remaining 16 percent of immigrants in the U.S. are refugees and asylees (Rekai, 2002). Similarly, the category of refugees and asylees accounts for 15 percent of total arrivals  32  in Canada. Indeed, while immigrants with advanced education and work experiences that specially contribute to the economy are more welcomed in Canada, the U.S. regards family reunification as the foundation of its immigration policies. In regard to selection priority, the United States and Canada also set different eligibility standards for each immigration category. Taking family category as an example, immigration policies in the U.S. admit spouses and minor children of U.S. citizens, as well as parents of U.S. citizens without numerical limits. In addition, family members of U.S. citizens or lawful permanent residents may immigrate through family-sponsored preference program. This program uses a four-level preference ranking of immigrants, starting from unmarried adult children of U.S. citizens, to spouses and unmarried children of lawful permanent residents, married sons and daughters of U.S. citizens, and siblings of U.S citizens. In comparison, Canadian citizens or permanent residents of Canada can sponsor their spouses, common-law, conjugal partner, and dependent children. They can also sponsor certain relatives including parents and grandparents, orphaned unmarried under 18 years old brothers or sisters, nephews or nieces, and granddaughters or grandsons. In short, different immigration policies in these two countries view which family members are eligible for entry within different scopes. The definitions of family could be normally divided into three levels of scope: first, nuclear family members, including spouses  33  and children; second, extended family, including parents and siblings; third, close relatives, such as nephew or nieces. The eligibility standards and preference ranks setting for family immigrants reflect different family values and cultures in the U.S. and Canada. When it comes to economic category, Canada selects independent skilled worker based on their education background, age, official language proficiency, employment experience, and adaptability. In comparison, immigration through employment in the U.S. requires skilled or professional workers to find an U.S. employer who is willing to sponsor them for permanent residency. Evidently, the U.S. and Canada’s immigration policies reveal their different selection priorities for immigrants. These preferences further contribute to varying characteristics of immigrants in these two nations. The U.S. immigration policies have been blamed for admitting overworked and undereducated immigrants, while the Canadian polices have been criticized for producing overeducated and underemployed immigrants (Rekai, 2002). The concern remain is that people admit through different categories may experience different kinds of difficulties in resettlements after arrival.  3.4.2 Integration and settlement policy To help newcomers adapt to the new life in different environments, both the United States and Canada have developed integration policies to provide a variety of aids to their immigrants. These policies aim to find ways to assist newcomers settle and integrate into the  34  new society. Efforts have been made by federal, state and local governments in order to help immigrants improve language proficiency and employment opportunity, get access to social service, and inspire naturalization. Since the U.S. government has viewed immigrants coming for family or employment reason should be responsible for their own lives in terms of settlement, its policies target to vulnerable population such as refugees rather than immigrant population as a whole (Fix & Zimmermann, 1997). Generally speaking, federal government provides reimbursements to state and local governments to offset service costs associated with immigrant settlement, as well as founding for integration programs designed to assistant immigrant families in terms of education, employment, language training and so forth. In addition, several federal programs targeted to low-income and disadvantaged population, such as TANF, Medicaid, SCRIP, Food Stamps, are also relevant to immigrant families depends on their situations in terms of age, income, location, duration of residence, immigration status, family composition, and so forth. However, the eligibility for access to these programs is very limited, and the using of these programs might lower immigrants’ credits to sponsor their family members to immigrate to the U.S. At the state level, while some integration programs run by state governments have expanded the services to immigrant population beyond refugees, others have restricted immigrants’ access to services (Broder, 2007). For example, Massachusetts passed a health reform measure that covers some immigrants who are not eligible for federal programs.  35  California expanded access to health coverage for immigrant children. Hawaii, New York, and California took steps to improve access to services for persons with limited English proficiency. Unlike the U.S. government’s handoff integration policy, Canada encourages a two-way integration process that expects newcomers to understand Canadian values as well as Canadian society to respect diverse cultures of newcomers (CIC, 2001). In this regard, Canada’s integration strategy emphasizes on the mutual understanding between immigrants and the mainstream society. Thus its integration policy involves not only helping immigrants settle, but also helping them understand their rights and obligations, adapt to the values and customs of the new society, and get to know how social institutions work (TBCS, 2007). Canada’s settlement and integration programs have covered the whole immigration process beginning from the pre-arrival orientation abroad, continuing through the reception and initial settlement on first arrival, until the naturalization in destination. According to reports released by Citizenship and Immigration Canada (CIC), current settlement and integration programs are including Immigrant Settlement and Adaptation Program, Host Program, Language Instruction for Newcomers to Canada Program, Orientation Materials, Integration and citizenship Promotion, and so forth. In Canada, settlement and integration programs are managed based on the cooperation between federal governments, provincial and local governments (Kareem, 2004). All levels of governments generally contract out their settlement and integration programs and establish collaboration  36  with various immigrant settlement agencies who deliver a wide range of services. These agencies are including voluntary sectors, community organizations, educational institutions, and the private sectors. In short, although both nations’ immigrant settlement and integration policies aim to help immigrant be self-supporting, there are much substantial differences in terms of the perceptions and values of integration, types of settlement and integration services, the access eligibility, the structures of service delivery system, and the promotion of citizenship (Bloemraad, 2006; Bloemraad, 2002). It can be noted from the comparison that the Canada government takes more responsibility of immigrant integration regardless of immigration categories. Instead, the U.S. government’s emphasis has been put on refugees rather than immigrant population as a whole. Canadian integration programs also have a more broad scope of services to meet various type and degree of needs of immigrants at both pre and post arrival stages. Thus it is reasonable to expect that the Canadian immigrant integration policy might be more effective than that of the U.S. The comparisons of immigration policies as well as integration and settlement policies in the U.S. and Canada provide us an insight into the effects of macro-context on differences of immigrants’ life chances in these two countries. In practice, these differences show up in terms of immigrants’ individual characteristics and their experiences in the receiving country. For example, the report “Immigrants’ perspectives on their first four years in Canada” released by Statistics Canada (2007) examined immigrants’ settlement experience with an  37  emphasis on admission categories. According to the report, after two years of living in Canada, about one-third economic immigrants said their material well-being was better than it had been before immigration. In comparison, over half of family immigrants thought they lived a better life than before. In terms of difficulties immigrants encountered, 45% of economic immigrants mentioned finding an adequate job was the most difficult thing for them, while this was the case for 22% family immigrants and 26% for refugees. For refugees (30%) and family immigrants (22%), learning a new language was the most important difficulty, while this was the case for 14% economic immigrants. Beside these two most often mentioned difficulties, social supports, financial constraints and lack of recognition of foreign credentials and experiences were also challenging for new immigrants. When trying to find housing, economic immigrants (39%) and refugees (33%) were more likely to experience difficulties than family immigrants (6%). Economic immigrants (20%) were more likely to have problems when accessing health care, compared to refugees (16%) and family immigrants (12%). In sum, it is reasonable to assume that immigrants entering under independent skilled category may suffer more settlement difficulties relative to family class immigrants who may have more social networks helping them get through those difficulties. More importantly, the effective integration and settlement programs are expected to improve immigrants’ willingness of staying in the receiving country rather than going back to the sending country. Both material resource and symbolic atmosphere variations will have considerable influences  38  on immigrants’ decisions on childbearing in different destinations.  3.5 Chinese immigrants in the U.S. and Canada In 2006, there were over three million Chinese immigrants living in the United States and one million in Canada. According to estimations released by the U.S. Census Bureau (2006), the Chinese American population numbered approximately 1.6 million composing 4.1% of all foreign born and of 0.4% total population in the United States in 2006 (Terrazas & Devani, 2008). This number makes them the largest Asian group and the third-largest immigrant group after Mexican and Filipino foreign born in the U.S. While in Canada, the share was even bigger. The Census of Canada (2006) revealed that Chinese immigrants formed the second largest visible minority group, with the size of 1,216,600 making up 24% of the minority population and 3.9% of Canada’s total population in 2006 (Statistics Canada, 2008). Chinese immigrant populations have been exhibiting a steady pattern of growth both in the U.S. and Canada since the turn of the last century. The number of Chinese immigrants was approximately 1.2 million and the share was 3.8% of foreign born population and 1.3% of total population in the U.S. in 2000  (  U.S. Census Bureau, 2001), compared to 1,029,395  Chinese immigrants making up 25.8% of minority population and 3.5% of total population in Canada in 2001 (Census of Canada, 2003). It is worth to note that while the Chinese immigrants continue to grow as a result of immigration flow as well as natural increase, their fertility patterns have not been well studied in existing literatures.  39  3.5.1 Chinese immigration history Chinese immigrants have settled in North America over 150 years. This long history went through periods of labored sojourner, racism exclusion, and openly acceptance. It was seeking fortune in the 1800s that lured Chinese immigrants to settle in North America. Chinese arrived by the hundreds in 1848 for the “gold rush” at California. A decade later, they headed north to British Columbia in search of a Canadian “gold mountain”. The first group of settlers was mostly men coming from southern provinces in China. These immigrants were poor, from rural areas, speaking Cantonese. When the gold began to run out, they labored to build the Central Pacific Railroad. A major wave of Chinese immigration to Canada occurred when Chinese labors were employed to build Canadian Pacific Railway. Most of them came from Hong Kong and Guangdong province through the labor contract. When the construction of railroads was completed, Chinese labors moved on to other occupations in domestic service and agriculture. This participation in the labor market exerted competition and strongly against Chinese immigrant by white workers because Chinese labors were willing to accept lower wages. As a consequence, the Chinese exclusion acts were enacted to keep Chinese immigrants from entering the U.s. (1882) and Canada (1923). In the exclusion period, Chinese immigrants were denied naturalization rights and the privilege of inviting their wives in China to come over. Due to the overwhelming male composition of Chinese immigrants, the natural increase of Chinese population was very  40  slow during that period. The anti-Chinese policies were not repealed until 1943 in the U.S. and 1947 in Canada. It took about two decades for the U.S. (1965) and Canada (1967) to eliminate race selection from their immigration policies. Chinese immigrants have been admitted under the same criteria as other ethnic immigrants since the late 1960s. Different from the early arrivals who were single men of rural origins, many of the Chinese immigrants who arrived after 1967 were urban and well-educated. On the one hand, because of the politics in China mainland since 1949, Chinese immigrants in the U.S. and Canada were predominantly from Hong Kong, Taiwan, and south Asian in the 1960s and 1970s. The immigration from China mainland became to increase since the establishment of formal diplomatic relations with Canada in 1973 and the U.S. in 1978. On the other hand, the economic reforms characterized by the “open door” policy, shifted the nation’s focus from political struggle to economic reconstruction in China. Indeed, these national policies created the push factor for the emigration of Chinese people to the U.S. and Canada. Since the 1980s, the waves of immigrants from China mainland were highly educated professionals. Despite that the concern about the return of Hong Kong to China in 1997 led to a considerable immigration flow of Hong Kong immigrants in Canada, the number of Chinese immigrants from China mainland began to outnumber those from Hong Kong and Taiwan in the I 990s. Over the past two decades, China has become the top source region for immigrants to Canada (CIC, 2001).  41  3.5.2 Characteristics of Chinese immigrants Given the sequences of immigration policy differentials between the U.S. and Canada, most of Chinese immigrants were admitted under the “family reunification” category of immigration in the U.S. while in Canada the majority was “economic” immigrants. These immigration category differences show up in the socio-demographic characteristics of Chinese immigrants in these two nations. Although linked by a common ethnicity, Chinese immigrants are heterogeneous groups, coming from a variety of birth origins with different home languages and historical backgrounds. Chinese immigrants in the United States and Canada are mainly from China, Hong Kong, Taiwan, and other Asian areas. Since they originated differently, these people speak different dialects such as English, French, Cantonese, Mandarin, and other dialects. Although Chinese immigrants in the North America overall share some similar socio-demographic characteristics, they are a diverse group. According to “Chinese Immigrants in the United States” written by Aaron Matteo Terrazas and Bhavna Devani (2008), and “Chinese Canadians: Enriching the cultural mosaic” written by Tina Chui, Kelly Tran, and John Flanders (2005), there are considerable differences existing among Chinese immigrants in the U.S. and Canada in terms of age, marital status, residence, education attainment, occupations, naturalization, and so forth. First, Chinese immigrants are more like to be highly concentrated in certain places. In the United States, half of Chinese immigrants have settled in California and New York.  42  While in Canada over three-quarter of Chinese immigrants live in either Ontario or British Columbia. Second, Chinese immigrants tend to be young adults in their prime working ages (25-44), the percentages for the U.S. and Canada was 28% and 33% respectively. Third, a majority of Chinese immigrants are married, with the percentages of 50.2% in the U.S. and 56.3% in Canada. Fourth, recent Chinese immigrants are better educated. 27% of them have a bachelor degree in the U.S. and 31% achieve a university education in Canada. In terms of occupation, Chinese immigrants are more likely to work in educational services, health care and social assistance, retail trade, and manufacturing in the U.S. In comparison, Canadian Chinese work primarily in occupations such as sales and services, natural and applied sciences, management, and manufacturing and utilities. Fifth, the naturalization rates of Chinese immigrants are different in these two nations. There were about 53% foreign-born Chinese immigrants entering in 1995 have naturalized as US citizen by 2006 (DHS, 2006). While in Canada, nearly 90% Chinese immigrants of 6 to 10 year residents have taken up Canadian citizenship by 2001 (Statistic Canada, 2005).  3.5.3 Chinese immigrants’ fertility divergences As have been mentioned earlier, moving from one country to another entails a bunch of issues, learning new customs and traditions, adjusting to new types of foods and ways of dressing, adjusting to new ways of communicating, finding employment and so forth. Immigrants may experience an ongoing process involving maintaining home country culture  43  while adapting to new cultures of the receiving country. In regard to the impact of contextual changes on post-immigration fertility, Chinese immigrants can either hold on to traditional pronatalist culture or adjust to individualism culture. On the one hand, the cultural change pertaining to family values might decrease the fertility of Chinese immigrant. Also the challenges they suffer during the settlement process in new environments might constrain their fertility desires in terms of resources interruption, minority status and contextual differences (He, 2000). On the other hand, the cultural maintenance of the traditional preference for larger families plays an important role on fertility decision making regardless of socioeconomic situations of Chinese immigrants. In addition, immigration makes it possible for people to move from a social context with certain population policies to another context with different values and expectations. Thus it is reasonable to image that after immigration to a country without fertility limitation policy, Chinese women may perform contradictive reproductive behaviors in the receiving country. Indeed, despite similar cultures and developmental levels of two countries, researchers found that Chinese immigrants in United States had higher fertility than their counterparts in Canada. According to Steven’s (2005) analysis on birth rates among immigrants in America, Chinese immigrants had a TFR of 2.3 in the United States in 2002, which was higher compared to 2.02 for the total U.S. In contrast, Statistics Canada (2006) showed that Chinese immigrants had a TFR of 1.23 in Canada in 2001, which was lower compared to 1.57 for the  44  total Canada. In addition, based a study on oversea Chinese, Dudley et al (1990) indicated that from the 1940s to the 1980s “In the developing countries of Fiji, Brunei, Jamaica and Guyana, the total fertility rates for overseas Chinese were 4.26, 3.78, 3.42 and 3.03, respectively, compared these with the total fertility rates of the overseas Chinese of 1.62, 1.63, 1 .92 and 2.17 in the developed countries of United States, Japan, South Korea and New Zealand, respectively” (Dudley, Poston and Yu, 1990). They posited that the variations in the fertility rates of the overseas Chinese were associated with the levels of social and economic development of the host countries (Dudley, Poston and Yu, 1990). Unfortunately, the issue of fertility divergences has been overlooked in the existing literatures. And the explanations of fertility variance among Chinese immigrants in different receiving countries have not yet been explored in prior studies. To examine the reason why immigrants differ in their fertility patterns, it is necessary to think about the effects of the sending country and receiving county at the macro level. The fertility norms and population polices in the sending country as well as the immigration and settlement policies in the receiving country can play important roles in affecting a immigrant women’s fertility decision. In this regard, deeper research is needed to help us catch the mechanisms through which the macro-contextual influences are associated with variable characteristics of immigrants, and how the realization of the immigrants’ fertility desires is conditioned by constraints facing them.  45  3.6 Hypotheses In an attempt to understand the significance of the effects of the sending country and the receiving country on Chinese immigrant fertility divergences in the U.S. and Canada, in this paper I try to explore the following questions: Do Chinese immigrants from different origins have different post-immigration fertility patterns in a same receiving country? Do Chinese immigrants from the same origin have similar fertility patterns in different receiving countries? Drawing largely on the literature review of the interaction between immigration and fertility, I hypothesize that: 1. Chinese immigrants from China mainland have higher post-immigration fertility than those from Hong Kong either in the U.S. or Canada. Based on the examination of Chinese cultures and population policies in China mainland and Hong Kong, it is evident that immigrant women from China mainland are constrained by one-child policy whereas those from Hong Kong are free to decide their fertility. Therefore, the foregoer are expected to catch up with their fertility desires once getting rid of the limitation policy, while the later are not expected to change much after immigration. 2. Chinese immigrants either from China mainland or Hong Kong have different fertility patterns in the U.S. compared to their counterparts in Canada. Due to the immigration and settlement policies variations in the U.S. and Canada, there are more family reunification immigrants in the U.S. and more economic immigrants in  46  Canada, regardless where they come from. Since immigrants under different categories may experience different life chances after immigration, it is reasonable to expect their reproductive behaviors are also varying in the U.S. and Canada.  47  4 DATA AND METHODOLOGY The data used in this study is derived from the Five-Percent Public Use Micro Data Sample (PUMS) from the 2000 US Census and the Ethnic Diversity Survey (EDS) from 2001 Canada Census. The total sample comprised 19553 Chinese immigrant women who were 15 to 54 years old in the United States (19121) and Canada (432).  4.1 Data The Five-Percent PUMS US Census 2000 was conducted by United States Bureau of the Census. The Public Use Microdata Sample (PUMS) files are based strictly on individual data records from the Census 2000 long form questionnaire. The five-percent PUMS have approximately one record for every 20 persons/households in an area of 100,000 or more people. It provided information on detailed socioeconomic and demographic characteristics of the respondents. Topics covered marital status, place of birth, citizenship, year of entry, school enrollment and educational attainment, ancestry, language spoken at home and ability to speak English, veteran status, disability, labor force status, place of work and journey to work, occupation, industry, and class of worker, work status, and income, housing and so forth. One advantage of the five-percent PUMS is that it provided sufficient cases of small immigrant populations.  48  The EDS The Ethnic Diversity Survey (EDS) followed the 2001 Canada Census with the census providing the frame for the sample. Using the microdata of the 2001 Census, the target population for the EDS consists of persons aged 15 years or older living in private households in the ten Canadian provinces. Canadian citizens, landed immigrants, holders of student, work or ministerial permits, and refugee status claimants all form part of the target population. The data for the EDS were collected between April 2002 and August 2002, by the regional offices of Statistics Canada, using the computer-assisted telephone interview method. The average length of an interview was 35 to 40 minutes. In addition to the two official languages, interviews were conducted in seven non-official languages: Mandarin, Cantonese, Italian, Punjabi, Portuguese, Vietnamese and Spanish. Responding to this survey is voluntary. There are two primary objectives of the survey. First, the survey helped us to better understand how people’s backgrounds affect their participation in the social, economic and cultural life of Canada. Secondly, the survey provided information to better understand how Canadians of different ethnic backgrounds interpret and report their ethnicity. Topics covered in the survey include ethnic ancestry, ethnic identity, place of birth, visible minority status, religion, religious participation, knowledge of languages, family background, family interaction, social networks, civic participation, interaction with society, attitudes, satisfaction with life, trust and socio-economic activities.  49  4.2 Methods The target of this study is to compare the post-immigration fertility of Chinese immigrant women in the U.S. and Canada. The hypothetical datasets have a binary dependent variable called “Presence of own child age 2 and younger”.  Meanwhile, there  are two predictor variables: the sending country and the receiving country. Drawing largely on the literature review of the interaction between immigration and fertility, several other measures are also employed to test whether fertility differences could be accounted for some demographic variables, socioeconomic variables and assimilation variables. I expect to see that the variations of macro contexts of the sending country and receiving country, in which cultures and policies create different impacts on the demographic and socioeconomic characteristics of immigrants. And these individual characteristics are supposed to be associated with fertility divergences of immigrants. More importantly, I expect to see the effects of the sending country and receiving country are independent of an assortment of these demographic and socioeconomic variables. To present to results of this research, firstly the descriptive statistics summarize the individual characteristics of the immigrants from China mainland and Hong Kong in the U.S. and Canada. Then the results from the logistic regression models estimating the likelihood of having children aged 2 and younger by these two groups of Chinese immigrants in the U.S. and Canada are presented.  50  Measures Dependent variable: Presence of own child age 2 and younger The variable “Presence of own child age 2 and younger” is used to measure the post-immigration fertility of immigrant women. This is a binary response variable in which “I” indicates that the respondent has a child age 2 and younger and “0” indicates that she has not. As for the US dataset, the dependent variable was derived from the original variable called “age of youngest own child in the household”. And for the Canada dataset, “indicator of presence of child age 2 and younger” was employed as the dependent variable without changing. “Presence of own child age 2 and younger” is expected to approximate current childbearing of immigrants after immigration.  Independent variables: The sending country This variable is developed from the original variable “birthplace” in each dataset. The “birthplace” was recoded into the new variable “the sending country” including two categories: China and Hong Kong. I use this variable to measure the effects of the sending country on immigrant fertility. Two groups of Chinese immigrant women are selected to make comparison, one is from China mainland and the other is from Hong Kong. Although they share same ethnic origin and similar culture, the population policy in these two places  51  are different. Thus the comparison of these two groups of Chinese women may test my proposition that the population policy in the sending country play a critical role on post-immigration fertility of immigrants in the receiving county. The receiving county Using SPSS, individual samples in the US dataset and Canada dataset are combined into a bigger single sample. I construct the nominal variable “the receiving country” including two categories: U.S. and Canada. While the category “U.S.” indicates that the respondent is an immigrant in the U.S., “Canada” indicates that the respondent is an immigrant in Canada. This variable is used to test the effects of the receiving country on post-immigration fertility. Since the immigration policy and integration policy in the U.S. and Canada are considerably different, I expect that to some extent this can explain the divergences of reproductive behaviors of Chinese immigrants in these two nations.  Controlled variables: Age Age is a variable to control the individual differences in the timing of childbearing. Holding other things constant, older women are expected to have more children because they have more fertility years. I control for age group (15 to 54) in my analysis. Both the age variables of US dataset (numerical variable starting from 0 to 126 and above) and Canada dataset (interval variablel5-17, 18-24, 25-29,30-34, 35-44, 45-54, 55-64, 65+) were recoded  52  into a new variable using five categories, 15-24, 25-29, 30-34, 35-44, and 45-54. Marital status Marital status is also controlled. The original variable “marital status” for US dataset (with 6 categories: married, spouse present; married, spouse absent; separated; divorced; widowed; never married/single), and original “marital status” for Canada dataset (with 6 categories: married, common-low, widowed, separated, divorced, single/ never married) were recoded into a new variable, dividing individuals into three categories: married, formerly partnered, single. In addition, the causal relationship between socioeconomic situation of a female and her fertility is important to bear in mind when selecting variables for control in the analysis. By controlling the impact of education and income in the logistic regression models, I try to effectively reduce the influences of socioeconomic factors have on the fertility outcomes. Moreover, as suggested by economic theories of fertility, the higher a female’s socioeconomic indicators the lower her fertility will be. Thus controlling for education and income can also test the opportunity cost theory. Education Educational attainment is constructed as nominal variable including four categories: less than high school, high school, some college, university and above, developed from the “educational attainment” for US dataset (N/A or no schooling; none or preschool; grade 1,2,2,or4; grade 5,6,7,or8; grade9; gradelO; gradell; gradel2; I to 3 years of college; 4+  53  years of college), and the “highest level of schooling for Canada dataset  ( Dentistry,  veterinary medicine or optometry; bachelor’s or undergraduate university degree; trade, technical or vocational school or business college; high school diploma; less than a high school). As suggested by economic theories of fertility, the higher the woman’s education the lower her fertility. Moreover, current schooling is constructed as binary variable to separate students from non-students. Income Income has been grouped in four ranges to differentiate low, intermediate, high and top income. The cutoffs were derived from the annual average individual income in each country, with Canada income (less than 20000, 20000 to less than 40000, 40000 to less than 80000, 80000 and above), and US income (less than 30000, 30000 to less than 60000, 60000 to less than 100000, 100000 and above). Similar to education, female’s income is assumed to decrease her fertility according to the opportunity cost theory. Furthermore, two variables are employed to measure the impacts of assimilation on post-immigration fertility. Residence Years According to the assimilation theory, with the longer residence years in the receiving country, immigrants are assumed to be deeply influenced by the majority culture. As a result, the fertility of immigrants may converge to that of the natives. The original variable “residence years” (0-5, 6-10, 11-15, 16-20, 21+) for the US dataset,  54  and the original variable “arriving year” (before 1991, 1991-2001) for Canada dataset, were recoded into a new variable “residence years” including two categories: “more than 10 years” and “10 years and less”. Citizenship Holding a citizenship of the adopted country is viewed as a consequence of assimilation. Immigrant women who have a citizenship are expected to perform a similar fertility pattern as natives than those who haven’t. Thus the variable “citizenship” is controlled in logistic regression models to separate non-citizen from US citizen or Canadian citizen.  Weights Since the samples are obtained from the Five-Percent Public Use Micro Data and the Ethnic Diversity Survey, I weight the two Chinese immigrant groups to make good use of each data set. Weights are used in both the descriptive statistics and the regression models.  Alpha level Analyses are conducted with significance levels as 0.1, 0.05, and 0.001.  55  4.3 Results 4.3.1 Descriptive statistics The descriptive statistics summarize the individual characteristics of the Chinese immigrants from China mainland and Hong Kong in the U.S. and Canada. It could be concluded from the results that immigrant women from China mainland are more likely to have children aged 2 and younger than those from Hong Kong both in the U.S. and Canada. Table 4.1 shows that 15.9 percent of immigrant women from China mainland indicate the presence of children aged 2 and younger compared to 11.1 percent of immigrant women from Hong Kong in the U.S. Whereas in Canada, the percentages of presence of children aged 2 and younger for these two groups of Chinese immigrants are 11% and 3.9% respectively. In terms of demographic variables, Table 4.1 shows that in the U.S. most of Chinese immigrant women are in their later childbearing years. For immigrant women from China mainland, 32.1 percent are between the ages of 35 and 44, and 25.5 percent are between the ages of 45 and 54. While for immigrant women from Hong Kong, 36.7 percent fall in the category 35 to 44, and 21.2 percent fall in the category 45 to 54. Also, there are more people at their ages of 15 to 24 for Hong Kong immigrant women than those from China mainland in the U.S., with 17.3% and 11.7% respectively. And 16.6% immigrant women from China mainland are at ages of 30 to 34, this is the case for 13.5% Hong Kong immigrants.  56  However, things are different in Canada. Looking at the age structure distinctions across context, it could be concluded that immigrant women from China mainland in Canada tend to be younger than their counterparts in the U.S. As shown by Table 4.2, immigrant women from China mainland are predominantly between the ages of 30 and 44, with 21 .5 percent are from 30 to 34, 39.5 percent are from 35 to 44. In comparison, immigrant women from Hong Kong are more likely to be at the two ends of the spectrum, with 20.6 percent between age 15 and 24 and 39.9 percent between age 45 and 54. These comparisons reflect the different immigration history of immigrants from China mainland and Hong Kong and the selection variations of immigration policy in the U.S. and Canada In addition, a majority of Chinese immigrant women, regardless whether they are from China mainland or Hong Kong, are likely to be married either in the U.S. or Canada. However, these two groups of Chinese immigrant women differ in the proportions of each category of the marital status. Table 4.1 shows that in the U.S., while 74.5 percent of immigrants from China mainland are married, the proportion for immigrants from Hong Kong is only 58.5 percent. This marital status pattern also holds true in Canada. Table 4.2 shows that the percentages for married immigrant women from China mainland and married immigrant women from Hong Kong are 78.8% and 59.2% respectively in Canada. In comparison, these two groups of Chinese immigrant are similar in the proportion of people who are formerly partnered. While the percentages are as same as 6.6% for immigrants from China mainland and Hong Kong in the U.S., the cases are 8.1% and 8.2% respectively for  57  these two groups in Canada. Moreover, 18.9% immigrant women from China mainland and 34.9% immigrant women from Hong Kong are single in the U.S. And, the percentages for single immigrant women of these two groups in Canada are 13.1% and 32.6% respectively. The group comparisons suggest that both in the U.S. and Canada, there are more married immigrant women born in China mainland and more single immigrant women born in Hong Kong. With regards to assimilation variables, Table 4.1 and Table 4.2 show that immigrants from Hong Kong have longer residence in the U.S. and Canada than those from China mainland. For example, 66.9 percent of Hong Kong immigrant women have resided in the U.S. for more than 10 years. And this is the case for 51.5 percent Hong Kong immigrant women in Canada. On the contrary, immigrant women from China mainland normally have 10 years or less residence in each country, with 57 percent in the U.S. and 67.5 percent in Canada. Furthermore, Hong Kong immigrant women also have larger proportion of holding a citizenship of the receiving country either in the U.S. or in Canada than their counterparts from China mainland. Table 4.1 and Table 4.2 show that while 68.5 percent of I-long Kong immigrant women hold US citizenship and 91.3 % hold Canadian citizenship, only 42.1 percent of immigrant women from China mainland hold U.S citizenship and 67.3 percent hold Canadian citizenship. More importantly, this result also indicates that the overall proportion of people who hold citizenship of the receiving country for these two immigrant  58  groups is much higher in Canada than in the U.S. As has been argued earlier, this higher naturalization rate in Canada may due to its effective integration programs and actively naturalization promotion policies (Bloemraad, 2006). When it comes to socioeconomic variables, again the differences exit not only between the two immigrant groups in each receiving country but also across contexts. First, immigrants from Hong Kong are more likely to have higher educational attainments than those from China mainland in the U.S. Table 4.1 shows that approximately 70 percent of Hong Kong immigrants have some college and above education, compared to 60 percent of immigrants from China mainland. On the contrary, Table 4.2 shows that in Canada 64 percent immigrants from China mainland have some college and above education, compared to 48 percent of Hong Kong immigrants. The comparisons of education levels show substantially more highly educated Chinese immigrant women in Canada than in the U.S. This reflects the immigration selection policy differences between the U.S. and Canada. Evidently, higher proportions of highly educated Chinese immigrant women in Canada own much to its immigration policy which makes effort to choose independent immigrants with highly education and professional skills. Second, about three quarters of Chinese immigrants either from China mainland or Hong Kong not currently attend school both in the U.S. and Canada. Furthermore, these two groups of Chinese immigrant women differ in the personal income. Generally speaking, Hong Kong immigrants generally tend to do better in terms of  59  personal income than immigrants from China mainland either in the U.S. or Canada. As shown in Table 4.1, 74.8 percent of immigrants from China mainland fall in the category of low income defined as less than 30,000 in the U.S. And this is the case for 62.7 percent of Hong Kong immigrants. In comparison, about 12 percent of Hong Kong immigrants earn 60,000 and more compared to 7 percent of immigrants from China mainland in the U.S. Similar to this pattern, Table 4.2 shows that 47.7 % immigrants from China mainland fall in the category of low income defined as less than 20,000 in Canada. And this is the case for 43.3% Hong Kong immigrants in Canada. In terms of the top income group, 5.2 percent of Hong Kong immigrants earn 80,000 and more compared to 3.5 percent of immigrants from China mainland in Canada. Another difference could be found in the category of high income defined as 40,000 to less than 80,000 in Canada. There is slightly higher proportion of immigrants from China mainland fall in this category than immigrants from Hong Kong, with 7.5% and 6.9% respectively. Besides, it is worth to note that the similarity exists across contexts in terms of the intermediate income category, which is defined as 30000 to 60000 in the U.S. and 20000 to 40000 in Canada. About 17.7 percent of Hong Kong immigrants fall in the intermediate income category compared to 25.1 percent of immigrants from China mainland in the U.S. And these are the cases for 16.6% of immigrants from China mainland and 20.2% of Hong Kong immigrants in Canada. In sum, the comparisons of individual characteristics of Chinese immigrants suggest that Hong Kong immigrant women have longer residence years than those from China  60  mainland in the U.S. and Canada. This makes them have more time to obtain the citizenship of the receiving country and bring more family members and kin. In comparison, the majority of immigrant women from China mainland are more at their productive ages. While struggling with economic improvement, they are more likely to being mothers of younger children than immigrant women from Hong Kong.  4.3.2 Logistic regression analysis The Logistic Regression Models test the effects of the sending country and the receiving country on post-immigration fertility differentials among Chinese immigrants in the U.S. and Canada controlling for demographic (age, marital status) and socioeconomic (education, income) factors. The odds-ratios obtained from these logistic regression models indicate the likelihood of having own children aged 2 and younger by different measures. Firstly, in all models demographic variables age and marital status show significant relationships with post-immigration fertility for Chinese immigrants born either in China mainland or Hong Kong in the U.S. and Canada. As expected, the likelihood of having children aged 2 and younger rise at the age of 25 and fall after age 34. Also, being married or formerly partnered increases the likelihood of having children aged 2 and younger. Secondly, two assimilation variables are included to test if citizenship and residence years have significant effects on fertility deviation of Chinese immigrants. Table 4.3 shows that Chinese immigrant women who hold U.S. citizenship have higher likelihood of having  61  children aged 2 and younger than those who are not US citizens. Table 4.5 shows Canadian citizenship is also positively related to the likelihood of having child aged 2 and younger despite that the coefficient is not significant. These results go against with the assimilation theory for the reason that the naturalization seems not necessarily decrease immigrant women’s chance of being mothers of young children. On the contrary, it could be the case that the naturalization is used as a strategy for accessing to health care services and child welfare by immigrant women concerning about more convenient and comfortable childbearing and childrearing in the receiving country. In addition, Table 4.3 and Table 4.5 show that Chinese immigrant women who have resided more than 10 years either in U.S. or Canada tend to have lower likelihood of having child age 2 and younger than those who have resided 10 years and less. This indicates that duration  in  the  receiving  country has  a significant  negative  relationship with  post-immigration fertility. Since a longer duration is associated with an increase of reproductive years spent in the receiving country, immigrant women probably have already achieved their reproductive desires within those longer residence years, thus they do not have younger children at the point of reporting these surveys. It could be the case that immigrant women have had children aged older than 2 who were also born after immigration. Third, factors concerning opportunity cost are incorporated into these models to explore the influence of socioeconomic situation on immigrant fertility. As expected, socioeconomic compositions explain a substantial amount of fertility variations among Chinese immigrants.  62  According to results obtained from logistic regression models, there is a significant negative relationship between school attendance and the likelihood of being mothers of young children. Moreover, in order to obtain the effects of educational attainment on fertility variations, these models use “high school” as the comparison group. Interestingly, the findings shown in the Table 4.3 and Table 4.5 demonstrate that immigrant women who have some college education background have a significantly higher likelihood of having children aged 2 and younger than those with education as low as less than high school or as high as university either in the U.S. or Canada. This is to say that the likelihood of being a mother of younger children rises for immigrant women who finish high school and college but drops for those achieve university education. The findings also reflect the fertility gaps among different income groups. Using intermediate income “30,000 to less than 60,000” as the comparison group in the US dataset, Table 4.3 shows that immigrant women with an annual income of “60,000 to less than 100,000” or “100,000 and above” tend to have a significantly higher likelihood of having children aged 2 and younger than those earn less. This result indicates that women who do better in economic situation seems to have higher post-immigration fertility. To some extent, this trend also holds true in the Canada. Table 4.5 shows that immigrant women who earn an annual income of “80,000 and above” tend to have a significantly higher likelihood of having children aged 2 and younger than those who earn “20,000 to less than 40,000” in Canada.  63  These findings suggest that the analyses do not provide supports to the opportunity cost theory that higher economic indictors reduce fertility. On the contrary, this trend might be interpreted as that personal income affects immigrant women’s access to affordable nutrition, the quality and affordability of their health care, and the availability of quality child care. In this sense, higher income increases a woman’s affordability of children; therefore it could have a positive impact on fertility. However, different from the U.S. situation, the result from Table 4.5 indicates that low income immigrants who earn “less than 20,000” in Canada show significantly higher likelihood of having children aged 2 and younger than other income groups. This seems to be consistent with the opportunity cost theory. But it could also be the case that this group of immigrant benefits from welfare payments and social support programs in Canada than their counterparts in the U.S. This may reflect the settlement and integration policy or public policy differentials between the U.S. and Canada. Moreover, it should be noted that in Canada regression model the coefficient for the relationship between immigrant women whose personal income belongs to “40,000 to less than 80,000” and the likelihood of having children aged 2 and younger is not significant, using “20,000 to less than 40,000”as the comparison group. Most importantly, to separate the influences of the sending country and the receiving country on post-immigration fertility from the impact of other correlated variables, I run the logistic regression models step by step. It could be recognized from the results that with the  64  demographic variables, socioeconomic variables, and assimilation variables being added each at a time, the coefficients of the independent variables “the sending country” and “the receiving country” change from time to time. As expected, the significant post-immigration fertility differences between immigrants born in China mainland and Hong Kong suggest that the sending country is a significant predictor of immigrant fertility. Table 4.3 and 4.4 show the post-immigration fertility differences of immigrants from China mainland and Hong Kong in the U.S., while the results in Canada are shown in Table 4.5 and 4.6. The results of Table 4.3 indicate that immigrants from China mainland have a significantly higher likelihood of having child aged 2 and younger than immigrants from Hong Kong in the U.S. This supports the hypothesis that immigrant women from China mainland have a higher post-immigration fertility than those from Hong Kong in the U.S. However, this pattern seems not clear in Canada. In contrast, Table 4.5 shows that immigrants from China mainland have none-significant lower likelihood of having child aged 2 and younger than immigrants from Hong Kong in Canada. Perhaps this strange finding results from the tiny samples of Chinese immigrants in Canada. In fact, looking at coefficients changes in Table 4.6, I find that without taking into account the effects of other correlated variables, immigrants from China mainland have a significantly higher likelihood of having child aged 2 and younger than immigrants from Hong Kong in Canada. But when demographic variables, socioeconomic variables, and assimilation variables are added to be controlled in the model, the relationship between the  65  sending country and post-immigration fertility become not significant. When it comes to the model which combined US dataset and Canada dataset, the results in Table 4.7 show that there is an overwhelming positive relationship exists between being an immigrant from China mainland and being a mother of children aged 2 and younger. Furthermore, the logistic regression model which combined US dataset and Canada dataset is also introduced to determine if the relationship between post-immigration fertility and the receiving country remains after holding constant demographic and socioeconomic variables. As shown in Table 4.7, Chinese immigrants regardless whether they are from China mainland or Hong Kong tent to have significantly higher likelihood of having children age 2 and younger in the U.S. than their counterparts in Canada. This supports the hypothesis that Chinese immigrants perform varying post-immigration reproductive behaviors in the U.S. compared to their counterparts in Canada. This suggests that the contextual influence of the receiving country is a significant predictor of post-immigration fertility. Notably, looking at coefficients changes in Table 4.8, it could be recognized that the differences between being an immigrant in the U.S. and being an immigrant in Canada increase with the adding of controlled demographic variables, variables, and assimilation variables. In comparison, the differences between being an immigrant from China mainland and being an immigrant from Hong Kong decrease when these controlled variables are included in the models. These findings suggest that the effect of sending country on post-immigration fertility seems to be not as strong as that of receiving the country. This is to  66  say that holding individual characteristics constant (age, marital status, citizenship, residence years, education, income), the variation of the likelihood for immigrant women to have children age 2 and younger own much to the reason that they are adopted by different countries than they are from different original places. This outcome can be interpreted in two ways. On the one hand, this reflects that each receiving country provides distinct macro environments that potentially affect immigrants in terms of fertility decision. As has been discussed, different social context hold different family values, fertility norm as well as family policies, therefore immigrants may perform varying reproductive behaviors in different receiving countries. On the other hand, the selection influences of immigration policies on individual characteristics may plausibly impact immigrant fertility. The variations of individual characteristics are related to different life chances for immigrants in a new environment. And their rationalization of personal circumstance may then show up in their post-immigration fertility.  67  Table 4.1 Descriptive statistics of Chinese immigrants in the U.S. Birthplace China N=14982 Presence of children aged 2 and younger No Yes  Hong Kong N=4139  Total N=19121  12595 (84.1%) 2387(15.9%)  3680(88.9%) 459(1 1.1%)  16275(85.1%) 2846(14.9%)  1753(11.7%) 2107(14.1%) 2493(16.6%) 4815(32.1%) 3815(25.5%)  714(17.3%) 467(11.3%) 560(13.5%) 1521(36.7%) 877(21.2%)  2467(12.9%) 2574(13.5%) 3053(16.0%) 6336(33.1%) 4692(24.5%)  11155(74.5%) 996(6.6%) 2832(18.9%)  2422(58.5%) 272(6.6%) 1444(34.9%)  13577(71.0%) 1268(6.6%) 4276(22.4%)  US citizen Not US citizen  6313(42.1%) 8669(57.9%)  2835(68.5%) 1303(31.5%)  9148(47.8%) 9972(52.2%)  10 years and less More than 10 years  8547(57.0%) 6435(43.0%)  1371(33.1%) 2767(66.9%)  9918(51.9%) 9202(48.1%)  11681(78.0%) 3301(22.0%)  3128(75.6%) 1011(24.4%)  14809(77.4%) 4312(22.6%)  3051(20.4%) 3037(20.3%) 2553(17.0%) 6340(42.3%)  519(12.5%) 749(18.1%) 1070(25.8%) 1802(43.5%)  3570(18.7%) 3786(19.8%) 3623(18.9%) 8 142(42.6%)  11208(74.8%) 2646(17.7%) 885(5.9%) 243(1.6%)  2597(62.7%) 1037(25.1%) 386(9.3%) 119(2.9%)  13805(72.2%) 3683(19.3%) 1271(6.6%) 362(1.9%)  Age 15-24 25-29 30-34 35-44 45-54 Marital Status Married Formerly partnered Single Citizenship  Residence Years  School Attendance Not in school In school Educational Attainment Less than high school High school Some college University and above Income Less than 30000 30000 to less than 60000 60000 to less than 100000 100000 or more  68  Table 4.2 Descriptive statistics of Chinese immigrants in Canada Birth place China N=199 Hong Kong N=233 Presence of children aged 2 and younger no yes Age 15-24 25-29 30-34 35-44 45-54 Marital Status Married Formerly partnered Single Citizenship Canadian citizen Not Canadian citizen Residence Years 10 years and less More than 10 years School Attendance Not in school In school Unknown Educational Attainment Less than high school High school Some college University and above Income Less than 20,000 20,000 to less than 40,000 40,000 to less than 80,000 80,000 or more unknown  Total N=432  178(89.0%) 22(11.0%)  223(96. 1%) 9(3.9%)  401(92.8%) 31(7.2%)  12(6.0%) 17(8.5%) 43(21.5%) 79(39.5%) 49(24.5%)  48(20.6%) 9(3.9%) 9(3.9%) 74(31.8%) 93 (3 9. 9%)  60(13.9%) 26(6.0%) 52(12.0%) 153(35.3%) 142(32.8%)  1 56(78.8%) 16(8.1%) 26(13.1%)  138(59.2%) 19(8.2%) 76(32.6%)  294(68.2%) 3 5(8. 1%) 102(23.7%)  134(67.3%) 65(32.7%)  211(91.3%) 20(8.7%)  345(80.2%) 85(19.8%)  135(67.5%) 65(32.5%)  111(48.5%) 118(51.5%)  246(57.3%) 183(42.7%)  159(79.1%) 33(16.4%) 9(4.5%)  183(78.9%) 43(18.5%) 6(2.6%)  342(79.0%) 76(17.6%) (3.5%)  17(8.7%) 53(27.2%) 51(26.2%) 74(37.9%)  41(18.1%) 76(33.6%) 54(23.9%) 55(24.3%)  (13.8%) 129(30.6%) (24.9%) 129(30.6%)  95(47.7%) 33(16.6%) 15(7.5%) 7(3.5%) 49(24.6%)  10 1(43.3%) 47(20.2%) 16(6.9%) 12(5.2%) 57(24.4%)  196(45.4%) (18.5%) 3 1(7.2%) 19(4.4%) 106(24.6%)  69  Table 4.3 The logistic regression model of post-immigration fertility of Chinese immigrants in the U.S.  Independent Variables Age 15to24 25to29 35to44 45to54 Marital Status Formerly partnered Single Citizenship Not US citizen Residence Years More than 10 years School Attendance In school Educational Attainment Less than high school Some college University Income Less than 30,000 60,000 to less than 100,000 100,000 and above Sending Country Hong Kong R Square  B  S.E.  Exp(B)  -1.454 -.470 -.828 -4.300  .170 .070 .054 .170  .234 .625 .437 .014  -1.830 -3.567  .162 .190  .160 .028  -.2 13  .060  .808  ***  -.2 11  .062  .810  **  -.650  .070  .522  ***  -.228 .198 .109  .082 .077 .067  .796 1.219 1.116  **  -.004 .202 .294  .061 .093 .162  .996 1.224 1.341  **  -.215 .328  .064  .807  **  ***  ***  *** ***  **  *  Note: 1. All cases are weighted. 2.N= 19121 3. *p<0•1, ** p<O.O5, *** p<O.OOI  70  Table 4.4 Coefficients from logistic regression model of post-immigration fertility of Chinese immigrants in the U.S. Model I  Model 2 Model 3 Model 4 Model 5 Sending Country .417*** _.136** .190** _.160** HongKong .418*** Age _3.304*** _1.691*** _1.677*** _1.684*** 15to24 .850*** .548*** .536*** .542*** 25to29 _.666*** _.814*** _.837*** _.813*** 35to44 4343*** 4.137*** 4.298*** 4.302*** 45to54 Marital Status Formerly 1.837*** 1.847*** 1.848*** partnered _3.620*** _3.637*** _3.628*** Single Citizenship Not US _j55** _.248*** citizen Residence Years More than 10 _.170** years School Attendance Inschool Educational Attainment Less than high school Some college University Income Low High Top RSquare .006 .222 .317 .318 .319  Model 6 .163**  Model 7 .206**  Model 8 .215**  _I.518*** _l.460*** _1.454*** .480*** 478*** .470*** _.851*** _.829*** _.828*** 4.360*** 4.299*** 4.300***  1.8I9*** l.823*** 1.830*** _3•557***  _3.564*** _3.567***  _.214***  _.223***  _.213***  _.197**  _.201**  _.211**  .600***  .668***  .650***  229**  228**  .204** .149**  .198** .109 -.004 .202** .294**  .325  .328  Note: 1. All cases are weighted. 2.N= 19121 *** 3• *<01, **  71  Table 4.5 The logistic regression model of post-immigration fertility of Chinese immigrants in Canada  Independent Variables Age 15to24 25to29 35to44 45to54 Citizenship Not Canadian citizen Residence Years More thanlO years School Attendance In school Educational Attainment Less than high school Some college University Income Less than 20,000 40,000 to less than 80,000 80,000 and above Sending Country Hong Kong RSquare  B  S.E.  Exp(B)  -4.528 -.917 -2.072 -4.520  2.474 1.036 .621 1.259  .01 1 .4J0 .126 .011  -.126  .745  .882  -1.141  .682  .319  *  -2.197  .933  .111  **  1.61 1 2.779 2.731  1.403 .999 1.008  5.007 16.100 15.350  **  3.066 1.647 3.047  1.116 1.265 1.269  21.457 5.194 21.044  .298 .451  .618  1.347  *  **  **  **  **  Note: 1. All cases are weighted. 2. N = 432 3. *p<0j, ** P<0.05, p<O.OOI  72  Table 4.6 Coefficients from logistic regression model of post-immigration fertility of Chinese immigrants in Canada  Model I Sending Country HongKong Age 15to24 25to29 35to44 45to54 Citizenship Not Canadian citizen Residence Years More thanlO years School Attendance In school Educational attainment Lessthanhighschool Some college University Income Low High Top R Square  .841**  Model 2  Model 3  Model 4  .237  .328  .299  .365  .298  5.205**  4.386* 1.597*  4.312* 1.741*  4.528*  .018 5.109** -1.378  -1.341  4.139***  .293  -1.234 1633** 3.946**  .393  Model 5  Model 7  -.917  4.520*** .437  837  -.473  Model 6  -.126  -.416  -.749  1.141*  1.408*  1.619*  2.197**  1.125 I .952’” 2.046**  1.611 2.779** 2.731 ** 3.066**  1.647 3.047** .03  .281  .288  .293  .312  .365  .451  Note: 1. All cases are weighted. 2. N = 432  3. *p<0j,  **  p<O.O5,  ***  p<O.OOI  73  Table 4.7 The logistic regression model of post-immigration fertility of Chinese immigrants in the U.S. and Canada  B  S.E.  Exp(B)  Age 15to24 25to29 35to44 45to54 Marital Status Formerly partnered Single Citizenship Not citizen Residence Years More than 10 years School Attendance In school Educational Attainment Less than high school Some college University Income Low High Top Sending Country Hong Kong Receiving Country Canada R Square  -1.459 -.476 -.838 -4.294  .170 .069 .053 .169  .232 .621 .433 .014  -1.837 -3.575  .162 .190  .159 .028  ***  -.208  .060  .812  ***  -.208  .061  .812  **  -.656  .070  .519  ***  -.2 16 .223 .132  .082 .077 .067  .805 1.249 1.141  **  .013 .201 .333  .061 .092 .159  1.013 1.222 1.394  -.2 15  .064  .807  **  -.656 .329  .221  .519  **  ***  ***  ***  ** **  ** **  Note: 1. All cases are weighted. 2.N= 19553 3. *p<0j, ** p<O.O5, *** p<O.OOl  74  Table 4.8 Coefficients from logistic regression model of post-immigration fertility of Chinese immigrants in the U.S. and Canada  Model 1 Sending Country Hong Kong _.425*** Receiving Country .523*** Canada Age 15to24 25to29 35to44 45to54 Marital Status Formerly partnered Single Citizenship Notcitizen Residence Years More thanlO years School Attendance Inschool Educational Attainment Less than high school Some college University Income Low High Top RSquare .007  Model 2  Model 3  Model 4  Model 5  Model 6  Model 7  Model 8  _.415***  _.137**  _.189**  _.159**  _.164**  _.207**  _.215**  539**  .564**  .6l2**  .6l5**  .629**  .656**  _l.464*** _.483*** _.838*** _4.292***  _l.459*** .476*** .838*** 4.294***  .456** _3.318*** _.856*** _.677*** _4.133***  _1.697*** .552*** .824*** 4.292***  _1.683*** _1.690*** _1.525*** _.540*** _547*** _.486*** _.846*** _.823*** _.862*** _4337*** 4296*** _4355***  _1.845*** _1.855*** _l.855*** _3.630*** _3.646*** _3.637*** _.151**  _l.828*** _l.832*** _l.837*** _3.565*** ..3573*** _3•575***  _.243***  _.207***  _.219***  _.208***  .169**  .l94**  .2O0**  .2O8**  _.601***  .672***  .656***  .2l6**  .2l6**  .226**  .223**  .167***  .l32** .013 .201** 333**  .223  .318  .319  .319  .326  .328  .329  Note: 1. All cases are weighted. 2.N= 19553 3. *p<0j, ** p<O.O5, *** p<O.OO1  75  5 DISCUSSIONS AND CONCLUSION This paper makes the first attempt to explore the macro-contextual influences of the sending country and receiving country on post-immigration fertility. The research yields several interesting findings. First and foremost, the sending country appears to be a significant predictor of post-immigration fertility. The results show that immigrant women from China mainland have a higher post-immigration fertility than those from Hong Kong in the U.S. However, conclusion is hard to reach with insignificant coefficient from the model of post-immigration fertility in Canada. A major problem in examining the Canada data is that the sample size is too small to rely on. With a larger sample size, it might be likely to come up with more reliable results about the distinct fertility patterns of immigrants from China mainland and Hong Kong in Canada. As has been argued, the fertility divergence between these two groups of Chinese immigrants could at least partly explained by the variations of population policy in China mainland and Hong Kong. Without population limitation policy, immigrants from Hong Kong may have had ideal number of children when they stay in Hong Kong, therefore they do not have to give birth after immigration. In comparison, immigrant women from China mainland appears to be more likely to give birth and being mothers of younger children once they are free from the strict one-child policy in China. However, the distinct fertility patterns could result from many other factors. For  76  example, it is worth to note that I-long Kong women have a longer immigration history in North America then those from China mainland. Therefore, it might be true that they had children earlier, and their children born after immigration have been aged older than two at the point of reporting for surveys. If this was the case, the measure “the likelihood of having children aged 2 and younger” is not perfect because it does not catch the total post-immigration fertility. Moreover, it could also be the case that children aged older than 2 born after immigration have been sent back to original places for the reason of lacking of childcare assistances in the receiving country. This sort of data is also missed for using the measure “the likelihood of having children aged 2 and younger”. In addition, the comparisons between immigrants born in China mainland and Hong Kong assume that these two groups of Chinese immigrant are culturally homogeneous. In fact, China mainland and Hong Kong could have different subcultures due to variations in terms of historical background, linguistic system and regional developments. Thus it is worth to take into consideration that the cultural diversity within the same ethnic group may have influences on reproductive norms and fertility behaviors. Since Hong Kong has an extremely low TFR of about 0.9 since late decade, immigrant women from that place may easily be socialized into low fertility norms, which continue to influence their behaviors after immigration. Secondly, the influence of the receiving country is crucial in understanding the post-immigration fertility differences. According to the results from the models, Chinese  77  immigrants regardless whether they are from China mainland or Hong Kong tend to have significantly higher likelihood of having children age 2 and younger in the U.S. than their counterparts in Canada. This reflects the contextual influences of these two adopted countries on immigrant fertility. A number of factors have contributed to this differential. As has been discussed earlier, fertility divergences between immigrants can be partially explained by immigration selectivity differences in these two nations. Since the US immigration policy encourage more family reunification, immigrants are more likely to have relatives in the United States to sponsor their immigration and settlement. Thus it is reasonable to assume that immigrants to the U.S. are supposed to have more social networks to help them settle down and establish their new lives in the destination. These supports make considerable senses for immigrants in terms of making decision on the childbearing. On the contrary, Canadian immigration policies make efforts to admit those who have been highly educated and independently skilled. This group of immigrants has to deal with challenges during the process of immigration and settlement by themselves.. Therefore they may experience more difficulties in terms of cultural conflicts, communications with natives, labor force participations, family separations, discriminations against minority and so forth. Although Canada governments take more responsibility of aiding immigrants to get settle down, the harsh situations after immigration especially at the initial stage of settlement often make immigrant women sacrifice or delay childbearing. In addition, multiculturalism in Canada respects the value of diversity and promotes  78  equitable participation of individuals of all origins to take part in social, cultural, economic and political affairs of Canadian society. In this sense, immigrants are placed in a multicultural mosaic within which they feel free to maintain their home cultures regarding to family values and fertility norms. As a consequence, their fertility levels could be closer to the TFR of the sending country. By contrast, without this kind of multiculturalism policy, U.S. is a melting pot where newcomers are gradually assimilated into the American culture. Therefore immigrants there may change their original fertility desires and reproductive behaviors and resemble natives. Consequently, their fertility trends could converge to the TFR of the U.S. In particular, Chinese immigrants had a TFR of 2.3 in the U.S and TFR of 1.23 in Canada in 2001, while China had a TFR of 1.7, which is more closer to Canada’s TFR of 1.5 than U.S. ‘s TFR of 2.1. This Chinese immigrant fertility divergence in the U.S. and Canada to some extent can be accounted for culture differential between these two nations. Last but not least, public policies, such as family friendly labor practices, child care provisions and child benefits, are important in explaining fertility trends in specific countries. Canadian government provides more child services, parental leave benefits and cash benefits than the U.S. government (Eberstadt & Torrey, 2005). Although, it is the case that Canada has a lower TFR compared to the U.S, generous Canadian public policies should make having children easier and encourage higher fertility. In light of these policy differentials, immigrants may have more chances taking advantages of these family policies to realize  79  their fertility plans in Canada than in the U.S. However, the Chinese immigrant fertility divergence that Chinese immigrants had a TFR of 2.3 in the U.S and TFR of 1.23 in Canada in 2001 seems not to be consistent with the direction of government policies. The policy differentials between US and Canada are worth our further study. To conclude, this thesis is only a preliminary study of fertility divergences of Chinese immigrants in the U.S. and Canada. The introduction of macro-contextual influences of the sending country and the receiving county into the analytical framework is helpful to explain post-immigration fertility disparity. However, statistics data in no way capture the diverse realities of immigrant women’s lives in the receiving country. Only individual characteristics alone say little about the potential impacts of immigration policy on the life trajectories of immigrant women. It is worth our effort to identify how other contextual factors impact immigrant fertility. Further research should be devoted to explore how different life chances for immigrant women in the U.S. and Canada result in the changes in their ideology and expectations on fertility.  80  BIBLIOGRAPHY Andersson, G. 2004. “Childbearing after Migration: Fertility Patterns of Foreign-Born Women in Sweden”, International Migration Review, 38(1), 364-392. Addai, Isaac and Frank Trovato.1999. “Structural Assimilation and Ethnic Fertility in Ghana”,  Journal of Comparative Family Studies, 30(3) :409-427 Abbasi-Shavazi, M. J., and McDonald, P. 2000. “Fertility and Multiculturalism: Immigrant Fertility in Australia, 1977-1991.” International Migration Review, 34: 215-242. Barrett, Deborah and Amy Ong Tsui. 1999. “Policy as Symbolic Statement: International Response to National Population Policies”, Social Forces, 78(1): 213-234. Becker, G. S. 1991. “Fertility and Economy.” University of Chicago. Economics Research Center. Bernard P. Wong. 2007. “Immigration, Globalization, and the Chinese American Family,”  Immigrantfamilies in contemporary society, edited by J. Lansford, K. Deater-Deckard, and M. Bornstein. New York: Guilford Press.  Beyene, W. Y. 2000. “Settlement Service Needs for Ethiopian Newcomers in Toronto  “,  Ethiopian Association in Toronto. Beiser, M. 2006. “Longitudinal Research to Promote Effective Refugee Resettlement”,  Transcultural Psychiatry, 43(1): 56-71 Blau, P. M., Carolyn B., Kevin M. F. 1984. “Intersecting Social Affiliation and  81  Intermarriage”, Social Force, 62:585-606. Bongaarts, John and Susan Cotts Watkins. 1996. “Social interactions and contemporary fertility transitions.” Population and Development Review 22(4) :639-682. Brockeroff, M.,Yang, X. 5. 1994. “Impact of Migration on Fertility in Sub-Saharan Africa”, Social Biology, 41: 19-43. Broder. 2007. “State and Local Polices On Immigrant Access to Services: Promoting Integration Or Isolation? National Immigration Law Center “  Bronfenbrenner, U. 1979. The Ecology of Human Development. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Caldwell, J.C. “Demographic Theory: A Long View”, Population and Development Review, 30(2), 2004, pp. . 3 297 16 Chui, T., Tran, K., and Flanders, J., 2005. “Chinese Canadians: Enriching the cultural mosaic”, Canadian Social Trends, Spring 2005 Coleman, James 5. 1994. “A Rational Choice Perspective on Economic Sociology”, P:166-182 in The Handbook of Economic Sociology., edited by N. J. Smelser and R. Swedberg. York: Russel Sage Foundation. Cohn, Lindsay. 2001. “The Chinese Community in Canada”, Statistics Canada Citizenship and Immigration Canada. 2001. “Immigrant Integration in Canada: Policy Objectives, Program Delivery and Challenges.” Dudley L., Poston.J.R., Yu, MeiYu. 1990. “The Distribution of the Overseas Chinese in the  82  Contemporary World”, International migration review, Vol, 24: 480-508 Dudley.L. Poston J.R., Che-Fu Lee., Chiung-Fang Chang., Sherry L. McKibben., and  Carol.S. 2006. Walther (editors), Fertility, Family Planning, and Population Policy in China. London: Routledge. David P. L., Silvia G S., 2002. “The Short- and Long-Term Effects of U.S. Migration Experience on Mexican Women’s Fertility”, Social Forces, Volume 80, 4:1341-1368. Eberstadt, N., and Torrey, B.B., 2005. “The Northern America Fertility Divide”, Policy Review, Aug/Sep2005, Issue 132, 5 3 p 9 5 Edward Jow-Ching TU. “Patterns of Lowest-Low Fertility in Hong Kong”, Journal of  Population and Social Security (Population), Supplement to Volume 1, The Hong Kong University of Science & Technology Espenshade, Thomas J., and Wenzhen,Ye., 1994. “Differential Fertility Within an Ethnic Minority: The Effect of ‘Trying Harder’ Among Chinese-American Women.” Social Problems 41:97-113. Faber, S. C., Lee, B. 5. 1984. “Fertility Adaption of Rural-to-urban Migrant Women: A Method of Estimation Applied to Korean Women”, Demography, 21: 3 39-345. Fernandez, Raquel and Fogli, Alessandra. 2006. “Fertility: The Role of Culture and Family  Experience.” Journal ofthe European Economic Association, Vol. 4: 552-561 Frank, Reanne and Patrick Heuveline. 2005. “A Crossover in Mexican and Mexican-American Fertility Rates: Evidence and Explanations for an Emerging  83  Paradox”, Demographic Research, 12-4. Forste, R., and Tienda, M. 1996. “What’s Behind Racial and Ethnic Fertility Differentials?”, Population and Development Review, a Supplement to Vol. 22: 109-133. Ford, K. 1990. “Duration of Residence in the United States and the Fertility of US Immigrants”, International Migration Review, 24: 34-68. F. Yusuf and I. Rockett. 1981. “Immigrant Fertility Patterns and Differentials in Australia, 1971-1976”, Population Studies, Vol. 35, 3: 413-424 Fix, M., and Zimmermann, W. 1997. “Immigrant Families and Public Policy: A Deepening Divide”, Immigration and the family research andpolicy on US. Immigrants. Goldscheider, Calvin., and Peter Uhlenberg. 1969. “Minority Status and Fertility”, American Journal ofSociology, 74:361-372. Goldiust, J. and Richmond, A. H. 1974. “A Multivariate Model of Immigrant Adaptation”, International Migration Review, 8(2): 193—225. Halli, Shivalingappa S. 1987. “How Minority Status Affects Fertility: Asian Groups in Canada. “New York: Greenwood Press. Hervitz, H. M. 1985. “Selectivity, Adaptation, or Disruption? A Comparison of Alternative Hypotheses on the Effects of Migration on Fertility: The Case of Brazil”, International Migration Review, 19, 293-317. Hwang, Sean-Shong  .,  Saenz Rogelio. 1997. “Fertility of Chinese Immigrants in the U.S.:  Testing a Fertility emancipation”, Journal ofMarriage and the Family, 59(1): 50-61.  84  Irene, Bloemraad. 2006. “Becoming a Citizen in the United States and Canada: Structured Mobilization and Immigrant Political Incorporation”, Social Forces, 85(2): 667-695. Irene, Bloemraad. 2006. “Citizenship Lessons from the Past: The Contours of Immigrant Naturalization in the Early Twentieth Century”, Social Science Quarterly, 87(5): 927-953. Irene, Bloemraad. 2002. “The North American Naturalization Gap: An Institutional Approach to Citizenship Acquisition in the United States and Canada”, International Migration Review, 36(1): 194-229. Johnson, N. E. 1979. “Minority-Group Status and the Fertility of Black Americans, 1970: A New Look”, American Journal ofSociology, 84(6): 13 86-1400 Johnson N.E., Nishida R. 1980. “Minority-Group Status and Fertility: A Study of Japanese and Chinese in Hawaii and California”, The American Journal of Sociology, Vol. 86(3): 496-5 11 Kahn, J. R. 1988. “Immigrant Selectivity and Fertility Adaption in the U.S.”, Social Forces, 67, 108-128. Kahn, J. R. 1994. “Immigrant and Native Fertility during the I 980s: Adaption and Expectations for the Future”, International Migration Review, 28: 501-519. Kareem, D.S., 2004. “The Two-Tier Settlement System: A Review of Current Newcomer Settlement Services in Canada”, CERES working paper series No.34. Krahn, H., Fernandes, A., Adebayo, A.1990. “English Language Ability and Industrial Safety  85  among Immigrants”, Sociology and Social Research, 74(3, Apr): 182-188. Krishnan, V., and Krotki, K, J. 1992. “Immigrant Fertility: An Examination of Social Characteristics and Assimilation”, Sociological Focus, 25(1, Feb), 27-3 8. Kulu, H., Vikat, A., and Andersson, G. 2007. “Settlement Size and Fertility in the Nordic countries”, Population Studies, 61:3, 265 -285 Liang, Qiusheng and Lee, CheFu. 2007. “Fertility and Population Policy: An Overview”, Immigration and the Family, New Jersey: Lawrence Eribaum Associates, Inc., Publishers. Lindstrom, David P. and Silvia Giorguli-Saucedo. 2002. “The Short and Long-term Effects of U.S. Migration Experience on Mexican Women’s Fertility”, Social Forces, 80(4):1343-l370. Massey, Douglas. 1995. “The New Immigration and Ethnicity in the United States”, Population and Development Review, 21 (September): 631-652. Mc Donald, P. (2000). “Gender Equity in Theories of Fertility Transition”, Population and Development Review, 26, 427-439. Mulder, C., and Wagner, M. 1993. “Migration and Marriage in the Life Course: A Method for Studying Synchronized Events”, European Journal ofPopulation, 9: 55-76. Mathews, T.J. and Stephanie, J.V. 1994. “Fertility Rates by Educational Attainment: United States”, NCHS Monthly Vital Statistics Report, Vol. 45 No. 10 supplement. 20: 97-1120 Neeraj Kaushal, and Robert Kaestner. 2005. “Welfare Reform and Health Insurance of  86  Immigrants”, Health Services Research, 40 (3): 697—722 Nicholson, B.L. 1997. “The Influence of Pre-Emigration and Post-Emigration Stressors on Mental Health: A Study of Southeast Asian Refugees”, Social Work Research, 2 1(1): 19-3 1. Peng, Peiyun. 1997. “China’s Population Policy”, Population and Development Review, 23(4):926. Population Reference Bureau. 2007. Worldpopulation data sheet. Washington, D. C Raymond Burie.l, and Tern De Ment. 2007. “Immigration and Sociocultural Change in Mexican, Chinese, and Vietnamese American Families”, Immigration and the Family, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc., Publishers. Rekai Peter. 2002.  US and Canadian Immigration Policies.” The Border Papers Series of  C.D. Howe Institute Commentary No.17 1, November 2002. Ren Ping, 2005, “Do Sub-Cultural Norms Survive Immigrant Transition? Fertility of Cantonese and Mandarin Chinese Immigrants  “,  Master Thesis.  Robles, A., Watkins, S.1993. “Immigration and family separation in the U.S. at the turn of the twentieth century”, Journal ofFamily History, 18: 191-211. Sean-Shong, H., and Saenz, R.1997. “Fertility of Chinese immigrants in the U.S.: testing a fertility emancipation hypothesis”, Journal ofMarriage and the Family, 59: 50-61. Schimind, S., Kohls, M. 2008. “Fertility of Immigrants in Germany”, Paper presented at European Population Conference 2008, Barcelona  87  Schellenberg, G., Maheux, 1-1. 2007. “Immigrants’ Perspectives on Their First Four Years in Canada: Highlights from Three Waves of the Longitudinal Survey of Immigrants to Canada”, Canadian Social Trends, Ottawa: Statistics Canada. Slesinger, Doris P., Okada Y. 1984. “Fertility Patterns of Hispanic Migrant Farm Women: Testing the Effect of Assimilation”, Rural Sociology, 49(3):430-440. Statistics Canada, 2001 Census of Canada Statistics Canada, 2006 Census of Canada Statistic Canada, 2006. “Study: Fertility among visible minority women 1996 to 2001.” Steven A. Camarota. 2005, “Birth Rates among Immigrants in America: Comparing Fertility in the U.S. and Home Countries”, Center for Immigration Studies Stephen, G.., Bean, F. 1992. “Assimilation, Disruption, and the Fertility of Mexican-Origin Women in the United States”, International migration review 26(1): 67-68. Swicegood, G.., Bean Frank D., Stephen Elizabeth Hervey., Wolfgang Opitz. 1988. “Language Usage and Fertility in the Mexican-Origin Population of the United States.” Demography, Vol. 25, No. 1: 17-33 Tang, Zongli,1995. “Confucianism, Chinese culture, and reproductive behavior”, Population & Environment, Vol 16: 269-284. Tang, Zongli and Frank, Trovato. 1998. “Discrimination and Chinese Fertility.” Social Biology, 45(3-4): 173-193.  88  Terrazas, A. M. and Devani, B., 2008. “Chinese Immigrants in the United States  “,  Migration  Policy Institute Tienda, Marta. 1980. “Familism and Structural Assimilation of Mexico Immigrants in the United States”, Demography, 25(1): 17-33. Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat. 2007. Annual Report to Parliament on Immigration 2007. Washington, D. C.: U. S. Government Printing Office. U.S. Bureau of Census. 2000. Profile of the Foreign-Born Population in the United States: 2000. Washington, D. C.: U. S. Government Printing Office. US Department of Homeland Security, Office of Immigration Statistics. 2007. Persons Obtaining Legal Permanent Resident Status by Region and Country of Birth: Fiscal Years 1998 to 2007. U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Office of Immigration Statistics. 2006. Yearbook of Immigration Statistics. Wan, He. 2000. “Choices and Constraints: Explaining Chinese Immigrants’ Low Fertility”. ASA Award Winning Doctoral Dissertation White, M. L., Moreno, L., Guo, S. 1995. “The Interrelation of Fertility and Geographic Mobility in Peru: A Hazards Model Analysis”, International Migration Review, 29: 492-5 14. Wong, Morrison G. 2005. “Chinese Americans”, Asian Americans: Contemporary Trends and Issues, 110-145. Pine Forge Press: Thousand Oaks.  89  

Cite

Citation Scheme:

        

Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics

Share

Embed

Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                        
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            src="{[{embed.src}]}"
                            data-item="{[{embed.item}]}"
                            data-collection="{[{embed.collection}]}"
                            data-metadata="{[{embed.showMetadata}]}"
                            data-width="{[{embed.width}]}"
                            async >
                            </script>
                            </div>
                        
                    
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:
http://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.24.1-0067232/manifest

Comment

Related Items