Skip to main content
Log in

Family Sponsorship and Late-Age Immigration in Aging America: Revised and Expanded Estimates of Chained Migration

  • Published:
Population Research and Policy Review Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

We use the Immigrants Admitted to the United States (microdata) supplemented with special tabulations from the Department of Homeland Security to examine how family reunification impacts the age composition of new immigrant cohorts since 1980. We develop a family migration multiplier measure for the period 1981–2009 that improves on prior studies by including immigrants granted legal status under the 1986 Immigration Reform and Control Act and relaxing unrealistic assumptions required by synthetic cohort measures. Results show that every 100 initiating immigrants admitted between 1981 and 1985 sponsored an average of 260 family members; the comparable figure for initiating immigrants for the 1996–2000 cohort is 345 family members. Furthermore, the number of family migrants ages 50 and over rose from 44 to 74 per 100 initiating migrants. The discussion considers the health and welfare implications of late-age immigration in a climate of growing fiscal restraint and an aging native population.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Australia and Canada consider age by assigning fewer points for seniors.

  2. The Department of Homeland Security Yearbook of Immigration Statistics does publish the age distribution of legal permanent residents by sex, but not by visa categories or regions of origin.

  3. For instance, in 2009 visas for siblings of U.S. citizens were issued to Mexican nationals whose petitions dated back to 1997 and to Filipino nationals dating back to 1986, representing waits of 12 and 23 years, respectively (U.S. Department of State (USDOS) 2011a, b).

  4. The criteria for the tabulations is specified in written communications with M. Hoefer, director, Office of Immigration Statistics, USDHS, September 21, 2010, and J. Simansky, chief, Communications Division, Office of Immigration Statistics, USDHS, November 17, 2010.

  5. Other studies use the term “principal immigrants” to refer to initiating immigrants (Yu 2008; Jasso and Rosenzweig 1986), but to avoid confusion with the USDHS use of the term Principal Alien, we use the term “initiating immigrant.” For example, a sibling of a U.S. citizen sponsored under the family 4th preference would be classified as a principal alien by USDHS (because she can sponsor accompanying family dependents), but would not be considered an initiating immigrant because an earlier migrant sponsored her.

  6. Mexican nationals accounted for 75 percent of all IRCA amnesty recipients (Rytina 2002, p. 3).

  7. Unlike the USDHS use of the term “family immigrants,” which reflects LPRs admitted as U.S. citizens’ immediate relatives or under family-sponsored preferences, we also include as “family immigrants” the accompanying family dependents of initiating immigrants (Monger 2010, p. 2). For example, we characterize the accompanying family members of an employer-sponsored initiating immigrant as family immigrants, whereas USDHS classifies them under employment-based preferences admissions.

  8. Although there exist visa backlogs for second preference family members, over the period we study these range from 2 to 8 years for most countries and up to 10 years for Mexico, with more recent petitions reaching the upper end of the spectrum (Wasem 2010a).

  9. Spouses of U.S. citizens may naturalize after three rather than five years as LPRs. The other naturalization requirements consist of age (18 years or older), English language proficiency, knowledge of U.S. government and history, and good moral character (Lee 2010, p. 1).

  10. Eight years is the median of the total median years in LPR status during this study’s period of observation (Lee 2010, p. 4).

  11. Yu’s multiplier is inconsistent in its treatment of unmarried, adult children of U.S. citizens, variously identifying them in Phases 3 (2008, p. 53) and 4 (2008, p. 175). We adopt the latter approach and restrict admissions of all numerically capped preference relatives of citizens to Phase 4.

  12. For an earlier period, Jasso and Rosenzweig (1990, p. 230) estimated that less than five percent of parent sponsors were U.S.-born children who used their citizenship entitlement to sponsor parents when they reached age of majority. We contacted the Department of Homeland Security for estimates of the number of U.S.-born children who sponsor their parents and were told that direct estimates are unavailable. Furthermore, the New Immigrant Survey, which is based on the 2003 LPR admission cohort, lacks information about the age of sponsors (Jasso et al. 2006).

  13. In the interest of parsimony, we do not elaborate the welfare reforms in detail, but some cross-state differences are noteworthy. A minority of states used their own funds to extend Medicaid benefits to new immigrants during the five-year ban, and five states created substitute income-support programs for some groups of immigrants rendered ineligible for SSI by PRWORA; however, most of these benefits were less generous than the federal program or subject to more stringent conditions relative to SSI in the pre-1996 period (Zimmerman and Tumlin 1999).

  14. Deeming practices vary across states, however, and few benefit agencies seek reimbursement from sponsors both because states do not face penalties for failure to pursue reimbursement and because the costs of seeking reimbursement from sponsors exceed the benefits (NILC 2009; Ambegaokar and Blazer 2011).

References

  • Ambegaokar, S., & Blazer, J. (2011). Overcoming barriers immigrants face in accessing health care and benefits. National Immigration Law Center, Retrieved http://nilcorg/search.html.

  • Angel, J. L. (2003). Devolution and the social welfare of elderly immigrants: Who will bear the burden? Public Administration Review, 63(1), 79–89.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Angel, R. J., Angel, J. L., Lee, G.-Y., & Markides, K. S. (1999). Age at migration and family dependency among older Mexican immigrants: Recent evidence from the Mexican American EPESE. The Gerontologist, 39(1), 59–65.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Angel, J. L., Angel, R. J., & Markides, K. S. (2000). Late-life immigration, changes in living arrangements, and headship status among older Mexican-origin individuals. Social Science Quarterly, 81(1), 389–403.

    Google Scholar 

  • Arnold, F., Cariño, B. V., Fawcett, James T., & Park, I. H. (1989). Estimating the immigration multiplier: An analysis of recent Korean and Filipino immigration to the United States. International Migration Review, 23(4), 813–838.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baker, B. C. (2007, December). Trends in naturalization rates. Fact Sheet. Office of Immigration Statistics, Policy Directorate, U.S. Department of Homeland Security. Retrieved January 16, 2013, from http://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/statistics/publications/natz-rates508.pdf.

  • Baker, B. C. (2010, October). Naturalization rates among IRCA immigrants: A 2009 update. Fact Sheet. Office of Immigration Statistics, Policy Directorate, U.S. Department of Homeland Security. Retrieved September 25, 2012, from http://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/statistics/publications/irca-natz-fs-2009.pdf.

  • Batalova, J. (2012). Senior immigrants in the United States. Migration Information Source. Retrieved June 25, 2012 from http://www.migrationinformation.org/USFocus/display.cfm?ID=894.

  • Binstock, R. H., & Jean-Baptiste, R. (1999). Elderly immigrants and the saga of welfare reform. Journal of Immigrant Health, 1(1), 31–40.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Borjas, G. J. (2011). Social security eligibility and the labor supply of older immigrants. Industrial and Labor Relations Review, 64(3), 485–501.

    Google Scholar 

  • Borjas, G. J., & Tienda, M. (1993). The employment and wages of legalized immigrants. International Migration Review, 27(4), 712–747.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Choi, S. (2010). Longitudinal changes in access to health care by immigrant status among older adults: The importance of health insurance as a mediator. The Gerontologist, 51(2), 156–169.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Congressional Budget Office. (2010, December). Immigration Policy in the United States: An update. (CBO Publication No. 4160). Retrieved December 10, 2010, from http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/119xx/doc11959/12-03-Immigration_chartbook.pdf.

  • Espenshade, T. J., & Fu, H. (1997). An analysis of English-language proficiency among U.S. immigrants. American Sociological Review, 62(2), 288–305.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fix, M., & Passel, J. S. (1999). Trends in noncitizens’ and citizens’ use of public benefits following welfare reform: 1994–1997. Washington, DC: The Urban Institute.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fix, M., Passel, J. S., & Zimmerman, W. (1996). The use of SSI and other welfare programs by immigrants: Testimony before the house committee on ways and means. Washington, DC: The Urban Institute.

    Google Scholar 

  • Friedland, R. B., & Pankaj, V. (1997). Welfare reform and elderly legal immigrants. Retrieved on September 20, 2010 from http://hpi.georgetown.edu/agingsociety/pdfs/welfare.pdf.

  • Heinberg, J. D., Harris, J. K., & York, R. L. (1989). The process of exempt immediate relative immigration to the United States. International Migration Review, 23(4), 839–855.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Huang, P. (2008). Anchor babies, over-breeders, and the population bomb: The reemergence of nativism and population control in anti-immigration policies. Harvard Law and Policy Review, 2, 385–406.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jasso, G., Massey, D. S., Rosenzweig, M. R., & Smith, J. P. (2006, March). The New Immigrant Survey 2003 Round 1 (NIS-2003-1) Public Release Data. Funded by NIH HD33843, NSF, USCIS, ASPE & Pew.

  • Jasso, G., & Rosenzweig, M. R. (1986). Family reunification and the immigration multiplier: U.S. immigration law, origin-country conditions, and the reproduction of immigrants. Demography, 23(3), 291–311.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jasso, G., & Rosenzweig, M. R. (1989). Sponsors, sponsorship rates and the immigration multiplier. International Migration Review, 23(4), 856–888.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jasso, G., & Rosenzweig, M. R. (1990). The new chosen people: Immigrants in the United States. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kaiser Commission on Medicaid and the Uninsured. (2007, December). Citizenship documentation in medicaid. Key Facts. Retrieved on July 7, 2013 from http://kaiserfamilyfoundation.files.wordpress.com/2013/01/7533_03.pdf.

  • Kennedy, E. M. (1966). The Immigration Act of 1965. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 367, 137–149.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lee, J. (2010, April). Naturalizations in the United States: 2009. Annual Flow Report. Office of Immigration Statistics, Policy Directorate, U.S. DHS. Retrieved on August 15, 2011, from http://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/statistics/publications/natz_fr_2009.pdf.

  • Monger, R. (2010, April). U.S. Legal Permanent Residents: 2009. Annual Flow Report. Office of Immigration Statistics, Policy Directorate, U.S. Department of Homeland Security. Retrieved August 15, 2010, from http://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/statistics/publications/lpr_fr_2009.pdf.

  • National Immigration Law Center (NILC). (2002). Guide to immigrant eligibility for federal programs (4th ed.). Los Angeles: National Immigration Law Center.

    Google Scholar 

  • National Immigration Law Center (NILC). (2009). Sponsored immigrants and benefits. Retrieved July 10, 2013, from http://nilc.org/search.html.

  • Park, J., & Myers, D. (2010). Intergenerational mobility in the post-1965 immigration era: Estimates by an immigrant generation cohort method. Demography, 47(2), 369–392.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ruggles, S. J., et al. (2010). Integrated Public Use Microdata Series: Version 5.0 [Machine-readable database]. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota.

  • Rytina, N. (2002). IRCA legalization effects: Lawful permanent residence and naturalization through 2001. Office of Policy and Planning, Statistics Division, U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service. Retrieved August 29, 2010, from http://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/statistics/publications/irca0114int.pdf.

  • Smith, J. P. (2003). Assimilation across the Latino generations. American Economic Review, 93(2), 315–319.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smolka, G., Multack, M., & Figueiredo, C. (2012). Health costs and coverage for 50-to-64-year-olds. Fact Sheet, AARP Public Policy Institute.

  • Terrazas, A. (2009, May). Older Immigrants in the United States. Migration Policy Institute. Retrieved May 19, 2010, from http://www.migrationinformation.org/USFocus/display.cfm?ID=727.

  • Treas, J. (1997). Old immigrants and U.S. Welfare Reform. International Journal of Sociology & Social Policy, 17(9), 8–33.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • United Nations Population Division. (2001). Replacement Migration: Is it a solution to declining and aging populations? New York: United Nations. Retrieved August 8, 2011 from http://www.un.org/esa/population/publications/ReplMigED/migration.htm.

  • USDHS. (Various, 2003–2009). Yearbook of Immigration Statistics 20022008. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Office of Immigration Statistics. For years prior to 2002, see Immigration and Naturalization Service (USINS) and its Statistical Yearbook of the Immigration and Naturalization Service.

  • United States Department of Homeland Security (USDHS). (2010). Yearbook of Immigration Statistics: 2009. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Office of Immigration Statistics.

    Google Scholar 

  • United States Department of Justice, Immigration and Naturalization Service (USDOJ). (2007). Immigrants admitted to the United States, 2000 [Computer file]. ICPSR03486-v2. Washington, DC: U.S. Dept. of Justice, Immigration and Naturalization Service [producer], 2002. Ann Arbor, MI: Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research [distributor], 2007-11-27. Also, Immigrants admitted to the United States, [Computer files] 1980 through 1999.

  • United States Department of State (USDOS), Bureau of Consular Affairs. (2011a). Comprehensive lists of cut-off dates: Mexico family preference cut-off dates from FY1992-2011. Retrieved July 30, 2011, from http://travel.state.gov/visa/bulletin/bulletin_1360.html.

  • United States Department of State (USDOS), Bureau of Consular Affairs. (2011b). Comprehensive lists of cut-off dates: Philippines family preference cut-off dates from FY1992-2011. Retrieved July 30, 2011, from http://travel.state.gov/visa/bulletin/bulletin_1360.html.

  • United States Department of State (USDOS), Bureau of Consular Affairs. (2011c). Comprehensive lists of cut-off dates: Worldwide (non-oversubscribed countries only) family preference cut-off dates from FY1992-2011. Retrieved July 30, 2011, from http://travel.state.gov/visa/bulletin/bulletin_1360.html.

  • Van Hook, J. (2003). Welfare reform’s chilling effects on noncitizens: Changes in noncitizen welfare recipiency or shifts in citizenship status? Social Science Quarterly, 84(3), 613–631.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wasem, R. E. (2010a). U.S. Immigration Policy on Permanent Admissions. Washington, DC. Congressional Research Service Report RL32235. Retrieved April 2, 2012.

  • Wasem, R. E. (2010b). Noncitizen Eligibility for Federal Public Assistance: Policy Overview and Trends [Electronic version]. Washington, DC. Congressional Research Service Report RL33809. Retrieved July 2, 2012, from http://digitalcommons.ilr.cornell.edu/key_workplace/818.

  • Wasem, R. E. (2012, March 13). U.S. Immigration Policy on Permanent Admissions. Washington, DC. Congressional Research Service Report RL32235. Retrieved July 2, 2012, from UNT Digital Library, http://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc84039/.

  • Westat, Inc. (1992). LPS Public Use File: The 1989 Legalized Population Survey (LPS1) and the 1992 Legalized Population Follow-Up Survey (LPS2). Retrieved August 29, 2010, from http://mmp.opr.princeton.ed/LPS/LPSpage.htm.

  • Yu, B. (2008). Chain migration explained: The power of the immigration multiplier. New York: LFP Scholarly Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zimmerman, W., & Tumlin, K. C. (1999). Patchwork policies: State assistance for immigrants under welfare reform. Occasional Paper # 24. Washington DC: The Urban Institute.

Download references

Acknowledgments

This research was supported by the Princeton Center for the Demography of Aging (NIH Grant P30 AG024361); institutional support was provided by a grant (#R24HD047879) from the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development to the Office of Population Research.  An earlier version of this research was presented at the 2012 Annual Meetings of the Population Association of America, San Francisco.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Marta Tienda.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Carr, S., Tienda, M. Family Sponsorship and Late-Age Immigration in Aging America: Revised and Expanded Estimates of Chained Migration. Popul Res Policy Rev 32, 825–849 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11113-013-9300-y

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11113-013-9300-y

Keywords

Navigation