The Integration Paradox: Asian Immigrants in Australia and the United States

• Author: Tiffany J. Huang,Fei Guo,Van C. Tran
• Date: 01 July 2020
• DOI: 10.1177/0002716220926974
• Published date: 01 July 2020

36 ANNALS, AAPSS, 690, July 2020

DOI: 10.1177/0002716220926974

The Integration

Paradox: Asian

Immigrants in

Australia and

the United

States

By

VAN C. TRAN,

FEI GUO,

and

TIFFANY J. HUANG

926974ANN The Annals of the American AcademyThe Integration Paradox

research-article2020

Whereas Australia has pursued a skills-based migration

policy, the United States has privileged family-based

migration. The key contrast between these migration

regimes provides a rare test of how national immigra-

tion policy shapes immigrant selection and integration.

Does a skills-based immigration regime result in a

more select group of Asian immigrants in Australia

compared to their counterparts in the United States?

Are Asian immigrants more integrated into their host

society in Australia compared to the United States?

Focusing on four groups of Asian immigrants in both

countries (Chinese, Indians, Filipinos, and Vietnamese),

this article addresses these questions using a transpa-

cific comparison. Despite Australia’s skills-based immi-

gration policy, we find that Asian immigrants in

Australia are less hyper-selected than their counter-

parts in the United States. Asian immigrants in Australia

also report worse labor market outcomes than those in

the United States, with the exception of Vietnamese—a

refugee group. Altogether, these findings challenge the

conventional wisdom that skills-based immigration

policy not only results in more selected immigrants, but

also positively influences their integration into the host

society.

Keywords: skills-based migration; family-based migra-

tion; Asian immigrants; transpacific compari-

son; hyper-selectivity; labor market integration

Over the last half century, both Australia

and the United States have experienced a

significant influx of Asian immigrants. In 1960,

the U.S. Asian1 population was approximately 1

million, accounting for only 1.2 percent of the

total U.S. population. In 2015, U.S. Asians

numbered 20.4 million, accounting for 6.4 per-

cent of the total U.S. population (Lopez, Ruiz,

Van C. Tran is an associate professor of sociology and

deputy director of the Center for Urban Research at

The Graduate Center, City University of New York. His

research examines the integration of the immigrant

second generation, racial attitudes on affirmative action

and immigration policy, and neighborhood gentrifica-

tion in New York City.

Correspondence: vtran@gc.cuny.edu

THE INTEGRATION PARADOX 37

and Patten 2017). In 2009, Asians outnumbered Hispanics among new immi-

grant arrivals and became the fastest growing U.S. racial group (Radford 2019).

In 2013, China and India bypassed Mexico to become the top sending countries

of immigrants to the United States (Jensen 2015).

Australia has witnessed similar growth in Asian immigration, even though

Australia’s total population is under 8 percent of that of the United States.

Between 1996 and 2016, Australia’s Asian population doubled from 5.9 percent to

11.7 percent of the total Australian population. Similarly, China and India are the

two largest Asian sending countries, accounting for 2.2 percent and 1.9 percent,

respectively, of Australia’s total population (Australian Bureau of Statistics 2018).

This article makes the case that a transpacific comparison of immigration can

be useful. Such a comparison not only contributes to the burgeoning agenda on

comparative immigration research, but also provides an opportunity to examine

how skills-based immigration policy shapes immigrant selection and integration.

Australia and the United States offer a strategic comparison. Whereas Australia

emphasizes skills-based immigration policy, the United States mostly adopts a

family-based approach. Among immigrants admitted to Australia in 2015, the visa

distribution was two-thirds skills based versus one-third family based. By contrast,

the proportions were the exact opposite in the United States, where the visa dis-

tribution was one-third skills based versus two-thirds family based. This contrast

in admissions categories provides the core motivation for our article and our cen-

tral research questions. Does a skills-based migration policy result in a more select

group of Asian migrants in Australia compared to the United States? Are Asian

migrants better integrated into Australian society compared to American society?

We approach this comparison by focusing on the largest Asian ethnic groups—

Chinese, Indians, Filipinos, and Vietnamese—in both countries. Such a compari-

son further removes other group-specific confounding factors that can contribute

to observed differences in integration outcomes in the two countries.

Our article builds on a robust literature on comparative immigration research

(Alba and Foner 2015; Belot and Hatton 2012; Chiswick, Le, and Miller 2008;

Crul and Mollenkopf 2012). This comparative research agenda has focused on

Fei Guo is a professor of demography at Macquarie University. She has decades of experiences

conducting research in Australia, China, and the United States. Her work focuses on migration

and labor market, ethnic and cultural diversity, diaspora and transnationalism, and globaliza-

tion of the workforce and its consequences on demographic changes.

Tiffany J. Huang is a PhD candidate in sociology at Columbia University. She studies race and

migration, with a particular interest in second-generation migrants. Her dissertation examines

the growing field of independent educational consulting and how students and counselors

understand identity and diversity in the college application process.

NOTE: We are grateful to Richard Alba, Ernesto Castañeda, Yinon Cohen, Katharine Donato,

Elizbeth Ferris, Phil Kasinitz, Jennifer Lee, and Dina Okamoto for feedback on an earlier

draft. We thank Merran Butler for her excellent research assistance. Other participants at the

“Global Refugee and Migration in the 21st Century” conference at Georgetown University and

the 2019 International Sociological Association’s Research Committee 28 Summer Meeting at

Princeton University provided constructive comments that significantly strengthened our

research.