|
Article Excerpt
Introduction
The distribution of Canada's immigrant population largely reflects previous immigration history and channelized migration flows, particularly to the three immigrant magnets of Toronto, Vancouver and Montreal. Despite hopes or preferences for immigrant dispersion after entry to Canada, the immigrant population has become increasingly concentrated in Canada's metropolitan areas, with new immigrants more likely to choose Toronto or Vancouver as their initial destination as compared to two decades ago (Hou 2004, 2005; Schellenberg 2004), while a decreasing number of immigrants settle outside the largest metropolitan areas (Hyndman and Schuurman 2004). Together, the evolving immigrant settlement pattern has raised public concerns regarding their spatial distribution and their socio-economic and socio-demographic impact on receiving communities (Hou 2004).
In response to growing concerns over the spatial concentration of immigrants, the federal and provincial governments have moved to encourage the dispersal of immigrants out of Toronto, Montreal and Vancouver. Aided by a series of policy tools, the intent is to direct immigrants to smaller centres (Hou 2004). Yet, these policies, and most related analytical studies, have focused on the initial destination of new arrivals, or where immigrants first settle in Canada. In fact, the initial destination may be very different from their intended (stated) destination, with relatively little work evaluating the secondary migration of new arrivals at a national scale and in the period immediately after arrival. Once in Canada, however, there are no policies or restrictions on post-arrival moves, and individuals are free to relocate. Moreover, policies of dispersion could be counterproductive, as the relative isolation of new arrivals can be disruptive to their integration, particularly among refugees (Simich et al. 2002). Clearly, policies aimed at immigrant dispersion will only work if non-gateway centres can retain immigrants.
Evidence from the United States and Canada, however, suggests that new immigrants are highly mobile, particularly in the period immediately after arrival, implying the potential for considerable adjustments to the spatial patterns of new arrivals as location choices are solidified in response to housing needs, personal preferences and broader social, cultural and economic needs (Moore and Rosenberg 1991; Newbold 1996, 1999b; Ram and Shin 1999; Smith 2004). This argument implies, therefore, that any settlement pattern established at the time of arrival could be relatively short-lived. As such, ignoring the immediate post-arrival secondary migrations of new arrivals in Canada is problematic and short-sighted. Even with this mobility, however, the geographical concentration of immigrants does not appear to change over time, although it may increase immigrant concentration in large metropolitan areas (CIC 2000; Moore and Rosenberg 1995).
Still, it is likely that immigrant settlement patterns are inherently more dynamic and diverse than those observed at the time of the census. Settlement patterns, e.g., are likely to be differentiated by the intended settlement choice (the destination identified to immigration officials at entry), the initial settlement choice (where immigrants initially settle, including short-term distributional changes), and the established settlement pattern (the long-run distribution and settlement pattern of the immigrant population) (Newbold 1999a, 1999b; Hou 2005). However, such distinctions have not been fully or adequately explored within the Canadian literature. Moreover, settlement patterns and secondary migration propensities are also likely to vary with respect to immigrant type (i.e., refugees, economic immigrants, family reunification arrivals), a question that has remained relatively unexplored within the literature due to data limitations.
Utilizing wave 1 of the Longitudinal Survey of Immigrants to Canada (LSIC), the purpose of this article is twofold. First, the article evaluates the extent and reasons for secondary migration among new immigrants to Canada within their first 6 months of arrival, a period over which immigrants are likely to solidify their settlement choice and reflecting settlement preferences. For example, is there a large difference in the observed population distribution relative to their intended or initial location? Which locations are gainers and losers of new arrivals? What prompts secondary migrations and settlement choice? Second, the article evaluates the reasons for relocation and destination choice of these new arrivals. Throughout, the article focuses on differences by immigrant arrival type, distinguishing between refugees, family reunion and economic arrivals.
Background: The Secondary Migration of Immigrants
It is well established that most new immigrants are highly mobile following arrival (Newbold 1996; Ram and Shin 1999; Simich et al. 2002). Similarly, evidence from the United States clearly shows that settlement and spatial adjustment continues after arrival (Baker and North 1984; Boswell and Curtis 1984; Desbarats 1985; Bean and Tienda 1987; Lieberson and Waters 1987; Walker and Hannan 1989; McHugh et al. 1997). Although immigrants and non-immigrants respond similarly to the determinants of migration (Moore and Rosenberg 1995; Newbold 1996; Gurak and Kritz 2000; Edmonston 2002) social and cultural needs within the immigrant community frequently underscore migration decisions, with many secondary migrations reflecting preferences to be proximate to family and friends. While aiding adjustment by allowing participation in an immigrant community (Trovato and Halli 1990; Uhlenburg 1973), secondary migrations often reinforce immigrant concentration and segregation at various spatial scales (i.e., Balakrishnan and Hou 1999; Owusu 1999; Ray 1999; Murdie and Teixeira 2003), with immigrants less likely to move away from Toronto, Montreal and Vancouver than native-born Canadians (Edmonston 2002).
If secondary migration does, in fact, reinforce the concentration of immigrants in large urban centres, policies aimed at dispersion are unlikely to meet with success. The problem, however, with looking for evidence of the role, reasons for, and impact of secondary post-arrival migrations has been the lack of appropriate data. While many studies have noted differences in the propensity for new arrivals to relocate by origin group (Ram and Shin 1999), existing studies often fail to measure the very short-term relocation of new immigrant arrivals in the period immediately after arrival. At a national scale, public data sources, such as the Canadian Census, typically do not capture the intended destination of immigrants, and rarely capture the initial residential location(s) given their limited temporal depth.
Instead, the observed place of residence captured in the census typically reflects the outcome of a series of secondary migrations following arrival that can only be discerned based on the comparison of current (observed) location with the residential location 5 years prior. At best, a rough approximation of the evolution of a settlement system has been achieved by linking consecutive census periods and constructing 'pseudo-cohorts' that can then be effectively followed through time as they age, allowing a modest temporal effect to be introduced (Borjas 1985; Myers and Lee 1996).
In addition, potential differences in mobility with respect to immigrant admission class have not been adequately explored vis-a-vis each other and ar a national scale, again given the lack of data. Broadly speaking, Canada recognizes three classes of immigrants: immigrants entering under family reunification clauses, economic immigrants (skilled, business and investor) and refugees, with the federal government increasingly emphasizing economic immigrants. In contrast to immigrants who enter under family reunification guidelines or as economic immigrants, refugees often lack networks and ties in the host country to help locate employment, housing or other social, economic or cultural resources. Refugees may end up in a destination region simply by accident of government policy or the intervention of sponsor agencies and groups, isolating them...
|
