Jamaican Immigrants in the United States and Canada: Race, Transnationalism, and Social Capital (The New Americans: Recent Immigration and American Society)

The New Americans Recent Immigration and American Society

Edited by Steven J. Gold and Rubén G. Rumbaut

A Series from LFB Scholarly

This page intentionally left blank

Jamaican Immigrants in the United States and Canada Race, Transnationalism, and Social Capital

Terry-Ann Jones

LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC New York 2008

Copyright © 2008 by LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC All rights reserved. Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Jones, Terry-Ann, 1977> Jamaican immigrants in the United States and Canada : race, transnationalism, and social capital / Terry-Ann Jones. > p. cm. -- (The new Americans : recent immigration and American society) > Includes bibliographical references and index. > ISBN 978-1-59332-237-3 (alk. paper) > 1. Jamaicans--Florida--Miami-Dade County--Social conditions. 2. Jamaicans--Florida--Broward County--Social conditions. 3. Jamaicans-Ontario--Toronto Region--Social conditions. 4. Miami-Dade County (Fla.)--Ethnic relations. 5. Broward County (Fla.)--Ethnic relations. 6. Toronto Region (Ont.)--Ethnic relations. 7. United States--Emigration and immigration--Government policy. 8. Canada--Emigration and immigration--Government policy. 9. Jamaica--Emigration and immigration. I. Title. > F320.J27J66 2008 > 305.896'97292073--dc22 > 2007043129

ISBN 978-1-59332-237-3 Printed on acid-free 250-year-life paper. Manufactured in the United States of America.

Contents

Acknowledgements

vii

1.

Comparative Diasporas

1

2.

Theoretical Framework

17

3.

Research Design

43

4.

Jamaicans in South Florida and Toronto Compared

51

5.

Jamaican Immigrant Incorporation

81

6.

The Racial and Ethnic Context

111

7.

Jamaican Transnationalism

135

8.

Summary and Conclusions

157

Appendix: Research Questionnaire

167

Bibliography

171

Index

189

v

This page intentionally left blank

Acknowledgements This book would not be possible without the many family members, friends, and colleagues who offered their support in a variety of ways. I am grateful to Thomas D. Boswell, for all his support, advice, and assistance in making this project possible. I am also grateful to Richard Grant and Jennifer Mandel for their valuable advice and critique. I owe a special thanks to Nancy Foner, for her time, support, and expertise. I would like to express my gratitude to University of Miami’s Center for Latin American Studies, which funded my research travel to Jamaica and Toronto. The Jamaican Consulates in Toronto and Miami were invaluable to my research. I would especially like to thank information officers Cheryl Wynter of the Jamaican Consulate in Miami and Carolyn Goulbourne-Warren of the Jamaican Consulate in Toronto for their help in gathering essential information. I owe much gratitude to Ricardo Allicock, Consul-General of Jamaica for the information, contacts, encouragement, advice, and prayers that helped make this project a reality. My colleagues and friends at Fairfield University have been exceptionally supportive. Family members and friends have contributed to this project in countless ways. While there are too many to list, I would especially like to thank Meleesa McKenzie and the Dyer family for all the time and energy that they invested in this project. I also thank Coleen Powell, Karen Flynn, Dennis Williams, Heather Wolff, Wendy Grenade, Kelliebeth Hand-Hernandez, Charmine Johnson-Garwood, Jeffrey Ogbar, Neil DeLeon, Jackie Maldonado, Hillary Haldane, and Michael Troknya. My mother, Beverly Jones, was my pillar of support and encouragement. Thanks to Amoy Williams, Brandon and Bernard Williams, Sharon Banton, and Dajoun Banton. I owe much gratitude to Carmen Banton for the emotional and financial support. Avis Glaze provided me with a wealth of advice and encouragement. I am thankful to the early migrants in my family, whose experiences helped me to conceive this project: my grandparents, the late Icelyn and Hixford Banton. Other family members have shown immeasurable support. I am grateful to all of them. Finally, I would like to thank the 100 participants whose openness with their migration experiences made this research possible. vii

This page intentionally left blank

CHAPTER 1

Comparative Diasporas

JAMAICAN EMIGRATION Migration is embedded in Jamaica’s history to such an extent that international movement has become a part of the consciousness of the people. This trend has developed into an integral part of Jamaica’s culture, and has resulted in an attitude that has been referred to as “migration-mobility syndrome” (Bryce-Laporte 1976:7). Emigration from Jamaica and the transnational flows that have developed between the island and its primary destination countries have become not only an economic strategy for Jamaicans, but also a culturally and socially desirable practice, evolving into a decision-making process that Thomas-Hope (2002:17) describes in some cases as “obsessional rather than rational.” Evidence of this is reflected not only in the large numbers of Jamaicans who emigrate annually, but also in the large percentage of Jamaicans who express the desire to emigrate. A study led by Thomas-Hope reveals that 68.3 percent of Jamaicans surveyed expressed the intention to emigrate (Thomas-Hope 2002:91). The prevalent aspirations to emigrate from Jamaica suggest that the current flows out of the island will continue in the future. Jamaica’s political and economic instability compared to the potential for upward mobility in the United States and Canada also suggest that Jamaicans will continue to seek opportunities in the more developed countries. Thomas-Hope (1998) maintains that migration is a fundamental aspect of Caribbean identity. To support this claim she outlines the transition of Caribbean people from enslavement to voluntary migration, providing a cursory overview of the evolution of Caribbean social hierarchy from one based on racial divisions to the current classbased structure. Migration has become a channel through which 1

2 Jamaican Immigrants in the United States and Canada Caribbean people have been able to achieve socioeconomic mobility. With the development of a capitalist economy headed by the elite, migration, according to Thomas-Hope (1998:190), “was one of the few means open to the masses to improve their material circumstances and thereby also enhance their social status.” Migration was for many Jamaicans a means by which they could escape Jamaica’s hierarchical structure and realize higher socioeconomic status through improved opportunities for education and employment. Patterns of emigration have changed over the course of Jamaica’s history, and have usually been related to such factors as the colonial past as well as contemporary economic opportunities. As Byron and Condon (1996:91-92) argue, “While labour migration has become institutionalized as a survival strategy in Caribbean societies, the destinations have varied significantly depending on the demand for labour in specific locations and the political relationship between the Caribbean society and the particular destination.” Although there are records of earlier Jamaican emigration, the process became numerically significant in the 1880s with migrants seeking employment during the initial attempt by the French at the construction of the Panama Canal (Eisner 1961:147; Roberts 1957:133). During the early twentieth century Jamaicans migrated to other Caribbean countries such as Cuba, mainly as labor migrants. During World War II several male-dominated American industries experienced labor shortages when American men were serving in the military in larger numbers. To offset this problem, foreign workers were recruited to work on a contractual basis. Between 1942 and 1945 more than 400,000 foreign workers entered the United States. Most of them – about 73 percent – were Mexicans working through the Bracero Program, but 17 percent were from the British West Indies, and 10 percent were Canadians (Marshall 1987:25). Of the British West Indians, the majority were Jamaican. Jamaicans were also migrating to Canada in small numbers during the mid-20th century. Beginning in 1955, the Canadian government admitted 100 Jamaican and Barbadian domestic workers annually. These workers were all single women aged 21 to 35 years. Under this policy, West Indian domestic workers were required to work for one year as domestics, and they were eligible to apply for citizenship after living in Canada for five years (Winks 1997:439). They were also able to sponsor close relatives to join them in Canada. This system proved

Comparative Diasporas 3 to be a means by which many young women, some of them educated, were able to enter Canada and provide their families with access to Canada and its wealth of opportunities. After their mandatory year of domestic work, many of these West Indian women sought training and employment in professions such as nursing (Winks 1997:440). By 1960 the number of West Indian women permitted to enter Canada as domestic workers was raised to an annual total of almost three hundred (Winks 1997:439). Emigration from Jamaica began to grow in magnitude in the early 1950s, at which time most of the emigrants were Britain-bound (Foner 2005). During the late 1950s and early 1960s large numbers of Jamaicans migrated to the United Kingdom, where they held citizenship until 1962, when Jamaica gained independence from Great Britain1 (Thomas-Hope 1998:195). Between 1958 and 1960 there was a sharp increase in the number of Jamaicans entering the United Kingdom. There were 10,137 U.K.-bound Jamaican migrants in 1958, 12,573 in 1959, and 31,447 in 1960 (Davison 1962:7). Davison found a direct correlation between the stark increase in emigration from Jamaica and declining economic conditions coupled with high levels of unemployment in Jamaica. This pattern has remained constant, resulting in the continued flow of Jamaicans out of their country of birth. When Jamaican independence and restrictive changes in British immigration legislation in 1962 coincided with more accommodating changes in Canadian and U.S. immigration policies, migratory patterns shifted. Migration to North America increased steadily, while migration to the United Kingdom declined, and these trends persist today (Thomas-Hope 1998:195; Foner 2005). Although Jamaicans were able to migrate to Britain freely when Jamaica was a British colony, after independence they were treated as foreigners (Martin 1994:166). Britain’s Commonwealth Immigration Act of 1962 prevented the open migration of Jamaicans to Britain, and subsequent restrictions on immigration further limited the flow of immigrants (Foner 1979:289; Martin 1994:166). Although Jamaicans continue to migrate to the United Kingdom, other Caribbean states, and other countries throughout the world, the United States is the primary destination for 1

Until 1962 when Jamaica gained independence from the British, Jamaicans held British passports and were able to migrate there without restrictions.

4

Jamaican Immigrants in the United States and Canada Jamaicans, followed by Canada (Bauer and Thompson 2004:354). This tendency is the product of a combination of factors, including the relative geographic proximity of the United States and Canada to Jamaica. Other factors that make the United States and Canada more attractive to Jamaicans include their much more dynamic economies in comparison to Jamaica’s weaker economy, and the perception that these are countries of opportunity, particularly for educational and socioeconomic advancement. Table 1.1 below shows the number of Jamaicans entering the United States and Canada between 1994 and 2003. Table 1.1 Jamaican Migration to the United States and Canada 1994-2003 Year 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003

United States 14,349 16,398 19,089 17,840 15,146 14,733 16,000 15,393 14,898 13,384

Canada 3,910 3,607 3,278 2,835 2,234 2,339 2,453 2,769 2,448 1,981

Source for the U.S.: United States Department of Homeland Security Yearbook of Immigration Statistics, Table 3. Immigrants Admitted by Region and Country of Birth, Fiscal Years 1989-2003, excerpted from http://uscis.gov/graphics/shared/statistics/yearbook/2003/table03D.xls. Source for Canada: Citizenship and Immigration Canada Facts and Figures 2003, Immigration Overview: Permanent Residents, excerpted from http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/pub/facts2003/permanent/15.html.

The reasons for Jamaican emigration have been mainly economic, as is evident from the parallels between the fluctuations in emigration and the island’s political and economic conditions. Emigration from Jamaica increased from 12,100 in 1975 to 22,200 in 1976, the year in which Michael Manley was, with the social democratic People’s National Party, elected for a second term (Cooper 1985:731). Manley

Comparative Diasporas 5 implemented austerity programs imposed by the International Monetary Fund, which were deleterious to the poor. Meanwhile, he also implemented policies aimed to reduce inequality through a social democratic approach. Literacy campaigns, food subsidies, and rent controls were among the programs that Manley initiated (Bernal 1984:59). When the policies proved unpopular with the middle and upper classes, Manley defiantly announced to them that there are five flights per day to Miami (Palmer 1990:9). Many people heeded his announcement: the United States witnessed an increase in the number of immigrants classified as professionals, as this figure changed from 715 in 1976 to 2,418 in 1978, an increase of 338 percent (Lewis 1990:xv). Conversely, a sharp decrease in emigration from 24,300 in 1980 to 5,900 in 1981 is quite possibly related to the electoral victory of the more conservative Jamaica Labour Party that same year. During the years of the Manley regime, emigration involved the middle and upper classes, who fled out of fear that Manley’s social democratic ideology, combined with his notorious friendship with Fidel Castro, would propel Jamaica into communism. Many of the thousands of émigrés took their assets with them when they fled, exacerbating the political and economic turmoil that the country was experiencing. Net migration from Jamaica has remained constant during the past few years, at approximately 8.3 emigrants per thousand residents from 1999-20012 and the impact is profound, as professionals and individuals in essential services, such as health care and education, continue to leave the country. In particular, teachers and nurses are recruited by agencies in the United States, Canada, and the United Kingdom. In contrast to the low wages and poor working conditions in Jamaica, the prospect of emigrating and the guarantee of employment and upward socioeconomic mobility are highly appealing. JAMAICANS IN SOUTH FLORIDA AND TORONTO Jamaica’s population, according to the 2001 census, is 2,607,632.3 The Canadian census estimates that 122,340 Jamaicans reside in Canada, the majority of whom – 76.3 percent or 93,315 - are concentrated in the

2

Statistical Institute of Jamaica, retrieved from http://www.statinja.com/stats. Statistical Institute of Jamaica, 2001 retrieved from http://www.statinja. com/stats.html.

3

6

Jamaican Immigrants in the United States and Canada Greater Toronto Area.4 There are approximately 554,000 Jamaicans living in the United States,5 similarly concentrated in large metropolitan areas such as the Miami-Fort Lauderdale urban area, which has 17.1 percent of the Jamaican population in the United States. Because of the presumably large numbers of undocumented Jamaicans residing in the United States and Canada, the official figures, while significant, are likely to be under-representations of the Jamaican populations in the two countries. Toronto, Metropolitan Toronto, the Greater Toronto Area, and the Toronto Census Metropolitan Area are used synonymously throughout this research in reference to the Greater Toronto Area, which has a population of about 4.7 million.6 The Greater Toronto Area includes the City of Toronto, which has a population of about 2.5 million,7 as well as the regional municipalities of Halton, Peel, York, and Durham. South Florida, Metropolitan Miami, and the Miami-Fort Lauderdale urban area are used interchangeably here to refer to Miami-Dade and Broward Counties combined. Miami-Dade and Broward Counties have a combined population of 3,876,380.8 Why South Florida and Toronto? The metropolitan areas of South Florida and Toronto were selected primarily because of their large Jamaican populations. That the United States and Canada are the most dominant destinations for Jamaican immigrants makes these two countries comparable for this study of Jamaican immigrants. Furthermore, South Florida and Toronto are both home to a large number of other immigrants. With 59 percent of its residents born outside of the United States, the City of Miami has the 4

Statistics Canada Target Group Profile – Population Born in Jamaica. These figures are only for the Jamaican born. Those who identify their ethnicity as Jamaican number 211,720 in Canada and 150,840 in Toronto, according to Statistics Canada, “Ethnic Origin, Sex and Single and Multiple Responses for Population, for Canada, Provinces, Territories, Census Metropolitan Areas and Census Agglomerations, 2001 Census - 20% Sample Data.” 5 U.S. Census Bureau Summary File 3, Table PCT-19, Place of Birth for the Foreign Born Population 2000. 6 Statistics Canada 2001 Community Profiles, Toronto (CMA), Ontario. 7 Statistics Canada 2001 Community Profiles, Toronto (City), Ontario. 8 U.S. Census Bureau Census 2000 Summary File 2 (SF2) 100 Percent Data, QT-P1. Age Groups and Sex, 2000.

Comparative Diasporas 7 largest proportion of foreign-born residents of all cities in the world. Toronto ranks second with 44 percent of its population born outside of Canada.9 Of the 13,347 Jamaicans who migrated to the United States in 2003, Florida received 28.8 percent (3,842) and was second only to New York, which received 36.3 percent (4,840).10 Within Florida, 875 of the Jamaican immigrants that year chose to live in the Miami-Dade County, while 1,907 opted for Broward County.11 Thus, 72.4 percent of the Jamaicans immigrating to Florida in 2003 chose to reside in these two counties, both of which comprise the study area for this research. While sizeable immigrant communities can also be found in New York City, this city has already been the focus of several studies about immigrants, including those from Jamaica and other Caribbean states (Foner 1983, 1985, 2001; Kasinitz et al. 2004; Lewis 1966; SassenKoob 1981; Waldinger 1996; Waters 1994). Furthermore, Foner (2005) notes that conclusions drawn from studies of West Indian immigrants on New York do not necessarily apply to West Indians in other parts of the United States. Different urban areas present different contexts to their immigrant populations, even within the same country. This observation highlights the importance of studying Jamaicans in places other than New York. In spite of this observation, according to Foner, the only extensive account of West Indians that is not focused on New 9

BBC 2004/07/15 (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3898795.stm) and Toronto Globe and Mail, Erin Conway-Smith, “Toronto Second in Proportion of Foreign-Born” 2004/07/16, p. A6 (http://www.amren.com/mtnews/archives/2004/07/toronto_second.php). and Statistics Canada, Canadian Statistics, “Proportion of Foreign-born Population by Census Metropolitan Areas, retrieved from http://www40. statcan.ca/l01/cst01/demo47a.htm. 10 United States Citizenship and Immigration Services Profiles on Legal Permanent Residents: 2003, “Persons Becoming Legal Permanent Residents During Fiscal Year 2003 by Region/Country of Birth and Selected Characteristics” retrieved from http://uscis.gov/graphics/shared/statistics/data/ immprofiles/2003/BOOKxls. 11 United States Citizenship and Immigration Services, Yearbook of Immigration Statistics: 2003, “Immigrants by Country of Birth and Top 50 Metropolitan Statistical Areas (MSA's), Fiscal Year 2003” retrieved from http://uscis.gov/graphics/shared/statistics/yearbook/2003/ImmTable02FY03.xls

8

Jamaican Immigrants in the United States and Canada York is Hintzen’s (2001) account of West Indians in the San Francisco Bay Area. This comparative study of Jamaicans in South Florida and Toronto fills the void in the literature by exploring the Jamaican presence in and incorporation into these two urban areas, which have considerable Jamaican populations. Although there is extensive research on immigrants in South Florida, the Jamaican experience in this region has not received significant attention. However, Jamaican immigration to South Florida is worthy of study for several reasons. First, Jamaican immigration to the region is relatively recent, and there has been a pattern of middle class migration from Jamaica to Dade and Broward Counties, especially during periods of political turmoil on the island. Second, Jamaicans have a different experience in South Florida than they do in other metropolitan areas in the United States because of South Florida’s distinctive ethnic composition. The formidable presence of Latin Americans in South Florida has fostered the development of ethnic enclaves that have burgeoned into important elements of the South Floridian economy. Consequently, Latin Americans have gained political voice, and Latino political representatives are pervasive in the region. Although some immigrant groups, Haitians in particular, have been somewhat marginalized, they are gradually developing economic niches. Jamaicans in South Florida have also gained a favorable position in the region’s economy, as is reflected by their socioeconomic prosperity (Kalmijn 1996; Model 1991, 1999) and widespread business ownership. In comparison to other immigrant groups, political and economic power is heavily concentrated in the hands of dominant Latin American groups such as Cuban Americans. However, other immigrants have also been able to reap the benefits of the high levels of authoritative positions that Latino immigrants hold in the politics and economy of South Florida. Although much of their success is related to the social capital with which they arrived in the United States, Cuban Americans have, in a sense, set the precedence for other immigrants to gain political and economic clout. Toronto, too, is an appropriate case not only because of its considerable Jamaican and West Indian populations, but also because these populations have been neglected in the migration literature. There has been a great deal of research on migration to the United States and Europe, significant research on European and Asian migration to Canada, but very limited scholarly studies on West Indian immigrants

Comparative Diasporas 9 in Toronto, even though this population is both sizable and visible. Among West Indian Canadians, Jamaicans are the most numerically dominant, a factor that prompted the inclusion of Jamaican Torontonians in this research project. Of the urban areas in Canada, Jamaicans tend to gravitate toward Toronto. Figure 1.1 below shows the overwhelming dominance of the Jamaican presence in Toronto in comparison to other urban areas in Canada. Figure 1.1 Jamaican Immigrants in Canadian Urban Centers Winnipeg Windsor Vancouver Toronto St. Catharines - Niagara Saint John Regina Ottawa - Hull Montréal London Kitchener Hamilton Halifax Edmonton Calgary

0

20

40

60

80

100

(1,000s)

Source: Statistics Canada, E-Stat Database, 2001 Census of Population, Citizenship, Immigration, Birthplace, Generation Status, Ethnic Origin, Visible Minorities and Aboriginal Peoples, 2001 – Large Urban Centers in Canada.

10

Jamaican Immigrants in the United States and Canada THE COMPARATIVE PERSPECTIVE A central factor that influenced the decision to do this comparative study is the importance of context. Few researchers on international migration have addressed the relevance of comparative studies. Nancy Foner (1979, 1983, 1985) is a pioneer in this respect for her comparative study on Jamaican immigrants in New York and London. She emphasizes the importance of geographic location in the lives of immigrants (Foner 1979, 1983, 1985, 2005). Byron and Condon (1996) share the concern for the paucity of comparative studies on international migration. In advocating the relevance of comparative studies, they assert that it is, “important to examine how specificities in social, economic and political contexts are reflected in, and can explain various outcomes of, the migration process. Systematic comparative studies enable us to achieve this and thus contribute to our understanding of certain processes,” (Byron and Condon 1996: 92). Waldinger and Fitzgerald (2003) also advocate comparisons, particularly comparisons that examine members of the same national group in different receiving contexts. They emphasize the importance of this type of research, as they state that, “the best vehicle for analysis entails within group comparisons across different national incorporation systems” (Waldinger and Fitzgerald 2003:32). The United States and Canada share political, economic, and cultural similarities, as well as a British colonial history. Despite these fundamental similarities, there are divergences between the two countries that may be responsible for differences in the demographic characteristics of Jamaicans in each of them. These differences are related to a combination of factors, among which the social, demographic, and structural contexts are dominant. Newbold and Spindler (2001) identify three factors that they believe determine immigrant incorporation. The first is the nature of the migration, that is, whether or not the process was voluntary. The second factor refers to the resources that immigrants bring with them, such as skills, education, and money. The third factor involves attributes of the receiving country, including their immigration and labor policies (Newbold and Spindler 2001:1905). In this case, because the overwhelming majority of Jamaicans in the United States and Canada migrated voluntarily, the second and third factors will be prioritized. This study compares Jamaicans in South Florida and Toronto and examines the characteristics of the two metropolitan areas that produce

Comparative Diasporas 11 the differences. Two main characteristics of South Florida and Toronto are compared: the ethnic and racial context and the structural context. Ethnic and Racial Comparison Within the more general framework of social differences between the United States and Canada are the interaction and power relations among different ethnic groups. While both countries share a history of European domination and the subordination of people of color, their paths are divergent, as the influence and numeric significance of African Americans in the United States have resulted in different dynamics between blacks and whites in that country. Black Canadians, on the other hand, have a more recent history, and are fewer in number. Slavery is also less central to Canadian history. The result is that blacks are less dominant in Canadian society than in U.S. society. Canadian and American societies are products of their histories, and their contemporary ethnic relations are shaped by their histories of race relations. The divergences in social and ethnic relations in the United States and Canada, and particularly in South Florida and Toronto, have implications on the social, economic, and political lives of Jamaican immigrants in both countries and more specifically in both urban areas. Demographic differences between the two countries are closely linked to their social differences. There are 36 million black Americans, representing 13 percent of the population.12 Canada, in contrast, has a black population of 662,215, or 2.2 percent of the population.13 This dissimilarity in the racial composition of the two countries is related to differences between the Jamaican populations. Ethnic enclaves gain economic and political influence when their populations are larger, as is evident in the case of Cubans in Miami (Grenier and Stepick 1992). Although other factors such as their higher socioeconomic status14 contribute to the dominant position that Cuban Americans have gained in Miami, their large population certainly plays a significant role. There are similar numbers of Jamaicans in South 12

U.S. Census, Current Population Survey, Current Population Reports, “The Black Population in the United States: March 2002.” 13 Statistics Canada, Ethnocultural Portrait of Canada, “Visible Minority Groups, Percentage Distribution, for Canada, Provinces and Territories – 20% Sample Data.” 14 Cuban immigrants during the early post-revolution period of the late 1950s and early 1960s were primarily members of the middle and upper classes.

12

Jamaican Immigrants in the United States and Canada Florida and Toronto, yet they are likely to have different experiences in cities with different proportions of other blacks. Structural Comparison The structural context refers to factors that are particular to the South Floridian or Torontonian societies. Within each city’s structure, the main factors that are explored are the economy, the labor market, immigration policies, and organizations. The city’s economy determines to some extent the likelihood that its inhabitants have access to higher income. The economy also determines the employment rate. A related factor, the labor market, is also explored in order to ascertain whether Jamaican immigrants have equal access to jobs in each metropolitan area. Immigration policies influence the types of immigrants that enter the country by implementing restrictions that may limit the flow of immigrants to family members or individuals with high levels of income or education. The immigration policies of the United States and Canada, and their impact on the flows of Jamaican immigrants into the two countries are important aspects of the discussion regarding the structural settings of South Florida and Toronto. Organizations also influence immigrants by facilitating the immigration process, by means such as assistance in finding housing and employment, or by accelerating the migration process. RESEARCH QUESTIONS There are several factors that affect the dynamics surrounding the migrant’s choice of destinations, and these choices have implications for the migrant’s relative economic success, social mobility, and transnational linkages. Using a comparative approach that emphasizes the importance of location will help to elucidate the differences between Jamaican migration to the United States and Canada. This research assesses the variations in Jamaican migration to the United States and Canada, focusing specifically on South Florida and the Greater Toronto Area. This project also questions the impact that these differences have on transnational migration. The United States and Canada are the two most popular destinations for Jamaican immigrants. This fact is supported by theories that claim that immigrants tend to be attracted to locations to which their predecessors have migrated (Portes and Stepick 1993, Portes and Rumbaut 1996). In Jamaica, potential migrants have expressed that they would prefer to live in the United States rather than in Canada (Thomas-Hope 2002:91). Studies conducted in other Caribbean

Comparative Diasporas 13 countries produced similar results, as West Indians show preference for migrating to the United States, although Canada has increasingly gained popularity (Marshall 1987:29). Among Jamaicans, the perception of the United States as more prosperous and consequently a better choice for the immigrant in search of socioeconomic mobility (Thomas-Hope 2002), is perhaps rooted in some truth, and provokes a contemplation of the possibility that Jamaican immigrants develop higher socioeconomic status in the United States than they do in Canada. In a more concentrated context, this research analyzes Jamaican immigrants living in South Florida and Toronto, identifying the socioeconomic differences between these two populations, and explaining possible reasons for these differences. This study asks the question why citizens of a relatively small country of slightly more than two and a half million inhabitants, emigrating from the island within a thirty-year period, would have different experiences in advanced industrial countries as similar as the United States and Canada. In short, why are there differences between the experiences of Jamaican immigrants in South Florida and Toronto? To answer this question, I consider two main possibilities: differences in the structural context, and differences in the ethnic context. Within the structures, I am concerned with differences between American and Canadian formal and informal organizations that support or inhibit immigration, as well as the labor markets and immigration policies of both countries. Several scholars (Vickerman (1999); Foner (1979 and 1983); Pedraza and Rumbaut (1996)) allude to the relationship between the ethnic composition of the destination city and the socioeconomic mobility of immigrants. Their research has provoked this exploration of the possibility of such a relationship within the contexts of Jamaicans in South Florida and Toronto. The comparative approach will also explain the extent to which geographic location may or may not play a significant role in the proliferation of transnationalism among Jamaican migrants. Importance of the Research There is no in-depth study that compares West Indians in American and Canadian urban areas. This research contributes to the body of literature on migration and transnationalism15 in several ways. First, it highlights the significance of the type of comparative studies that Foner 15

Transnationalism is defined and discussed in Chapter 7.

14

Jamaican Immigrants in the United States and Canada (1983, 1985, 1987, and 1998) has already established. Second, it analyzes the contexts of reception of two urban areas that have proven to be major ports of entry for Jamaican immigrants. In this sense, South Florida and Toronto are compared mainly in terms of the factors that affect their immigrant communities. Third, this research compares two Jamaican populations and promotes an improved understanding of the conditions that facilitate or impede the socioeconomic mobility and incorporation of Jamaican immigrants in U.S. and Canadian societies. Comparisons of immigrant communities are not novel, nor are comparative studies of urban areas. However, this study of Jamaican immigrants within the contexts of South Florida and Toronto has not yet been accomplished by another scholar, and it is important for advancing the understanding of Jamaican immigrant experiences. The core concerns of this research can also be applied to Jamaican immigrant communities in other destination countries. By fostering a better understanding of the relationship between the experiences of immigrants and their contexts of reception, this research has broader implications for the development of policies and institutions that facilitate socioeconomic mobility among immigrants and promote their incorporation into the host societies. Organizational Overview The following chapter of this book outlines the contextual and theoretical framework and reviews the literature that pertains to this subject. This chapter illustrates the void that this research fills in the existing body of literature. In addition to reviewing scholarship on migration, the second chapter also situates this study within the broader paradigm of scholarship on international migration. This chapter also emphasizes the significance of comparative studies on immigration. The third chapter details the methodology of the study, and presents tabulations of the data that were collected throughout the course of this research. A combination of qualitative and quantitative methods was employed, with the former being attained primarily through interviews with Jamaican immigrants in South Florida and Toronto, and the latter through the use of census data from both the United States and Canada. Results from both research methods are presented and compared in Chapter 4. Using these two types of data, Chapter 4 elucidates some of the main differences and similarities between Jamaicans in South Florida and Toronto. This chapter also

Comparative Diasporas 15 presents maps that show the residential concentration of Jamaicans in the two metropolitan areas. Chapters 5 and 6 describe the reasons for these differences. Chapter 5 examines the structural differences between South Florida and Toronto as they pertain to Jamaican immigrants. In this chapter the immigration policies of the United States and Canada and their impacts on Jamaican immigrants are described. The economy and labor markets of the two areas are also addressed vis-à-vis Jamaican immigrants’ perspectives on their employment situation as discussed during the interviews. This chapter also explores theories of assimilation and acculturation as they pertain to Jamaican immigrants in South Florida and Toronto. Finally, Chapter 5 questions the impact that Jamaican organizations have on Jamaican immigration processes in the two urban areas. Chapter 6 explores the ethnic composition of each metropolitan area and the significance of these differences on the Jamaican populations. An overview of the history of blacks in each urban area provides the setting for this discussion of the impact of the ethnic and racial composition of South Florida and Toronto on Jamaicans. This chapter also explores ethnic identity and consciousness among Jamaicans, as well as their relationships with African Americans. The seventh chapter examines the connection between the differences between the Jamaican populations in the two areas and discrepancies in their transnational activities. This chapter determines that there is a correlation between transnationalism and geographic distance. Socioeconomic differences between Jamaicans in South Florida and Toronto are also revisited in this chapter as a possible explanatory factor for differences in transnationalism between the two groups of Jamaicans. The concluding chapter summarizes the findings of this research and situates this case study within the broader framework of geographic context in the study of migration. Although there are countless studies concerning international migration, relatively few (Foner, 1983, 1985; Byron and Condon 1996) emphasize the importance of context. This book presents the study of immigrants with the premise that researchers can develop a better understanding of immigrant experiences when they are viewed within the context of the environment of their destination, particularly as it pertains to their physical location.

This page intentionally left blank

CHAPTER 2

Theoretical Framework

INTRODUCTION Understanding migrant motivation provides indications regarding their socioeconomic status prior to migrating. This in turn suggests their employment potential and their propensity for socioeconomic advancement. The social, political, and economic networks that develop within and across ethnic, racial, and national groups may translate to social capital, which has the potential to promote socioeconomic progress. The sociospatial patterns of Jamaican immigrants are also important to this research project, and are mapped and discussed in Chapter 4. Immigrant sociospatial patterns describe where they live, work, and conduct their social activities. The models of immigrant sociospatial patterns discussed later in this chapter provide an analysis of the actual residential patterns of Jamaican immigrants in South Florida and Toronto. Literature that highlights the relevance of the receiving context provides a skeleton for the comparison of the ways in which the structures of South Florida and Toronto facilitate or impede the incorporation of Jamaican immigrants. The concept of transnationalism is introduced in the subsequent section. Finally, literature that contemplates the merits of comparative studies of immigrants is used to support the use of the comparative method in this study. CONTEXTUAL FRAMEWORK The United States and Canada share some similarities in their relative political and economic stability, culture, and racial and ethnic structure. Both countries have histories of British colonization and African slavery, although the latter was far more widespread in the United States. Even in light of the smaller number of blacks in Canada, the 17

18

Jamaican Immigrants in the United States and Canada racial hierarchy was similar to that of the United States, with European domination of the African and indigenous populations. Both countries are democratic, and both are among the world’s most industrialized states. The United States and Canada are also two of the leading host countries in terms of the number of international migrants and refugees that they receive. The United States, for example, received an annual average of 822,386 legal permanent residents between 1994 and 2003,16 while Canada received an annual average of 217,200 legal permanent residents during the same period.17 Toronto and Miami are both modern, industrialized cities with well-developed economies. Both cities are home to hundreds of thousands of immigrants, and this is reflected in their ethnic geographies. The ethnic diversity of both cities is evident in the cultural markers such as the food, music, and cultural events. The ethnic diversity is also manifested in residential patterns as well as in the increased presence of visible minorities18 in governmental and leadership positions. With 59 percent of its residents born outside of the United States, the City of Miami has the largest proportion of foreign born residents of all cities in the world.19 The Miami-Fort Lauderdale Consolidated Metropolitan Statistical Area (CMSA), which is one of the two target areas for this research, has a population of 3,876,380, of which 1,558,152, or 40 percent, are foreign born. Toronto ranks second in the world with a foreign born population that accounts for 47 percent of its inhabitants. The Greater Toronto Area, with a population of 4,628,700, has an immigrant population of 1,837,035 or 40 percent, while the City of Toronto has a population of 2,385,400, of which 1,124,410 or 47 percent are immigrants (Kalra and Yu Yu 2003). 16

United States Citizenship and Immigration Services, Yearbook of Immigration Statistics 2003, “Immigration to the United States: fiscal years 1820-2003” excerpted from http://uscis.gov/graphics/shared/statistics/yearbook /2003/table01.xls. 17 Citizenship and Immigration Canada Facts and Figures 2003, Immigration Overview: Permanent and Temporary Residents, excerpted from http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/pub/facts2003.overview/1.html. 18 This term has been designated by Canada’s Employment Equity Act to refer to persons who are “non-Caucasian in race or non-white in color” (Statistics Canada). 19 For Miami-Dade County (Metropolitan Miami), this figure is 51 percent.

Theoretical Framework 19 Ethnic enclaves have emerged throughout both cities, and economies have developed around these communities. Miami is the third largest international banking center in the United States (James et al. 1998), illustrating the influential role that immigrants play in the economy of this city. Portes and Zhou (1993:90) have referred to Miami as “the American city that has been most thoroughly transformed by post-1960 immigration.” The significant proportion and visibility of immigrants in Miami and Toronto, including those from Jamaica, make these two cities appropriate cases for a comparative study of Jamaican immigrants. Not only are there sizable Jamaican communities in these two metropolitan areas, but the overall immigrant populations of both, as well as their similar population sizes, make them comparable cases for this study. THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK This study of Jamaican migration to South Florida and Toronto is multi-dimensional, meaning that a variety of theoretical approaches are needed to examine the questions raised in the previous chapter. Theories that explain migrants’ motivations for leaving their home country are pivotal as a foundation for the discussion of migrant experiences. Several widely cited approaches to this aspect of migration are discussed below, and help to identify the demographic differences between Jamaican immigrants in South Florida and Toronto. Also important is the literature that considers other ethnic and racial groups that interact with the Jamaican immigrant communities. Literature that emphasizes the role of networks – both intra- and interimmigrant – are discussed, as are the social capital that develops through these networks. Intra-group networks refer to the networks that develop within immigrant groups, while inter-group networks link different immigrant groups. The concept of social capital is central to this study, as it connects the models of networks and institutions. Social capital is considered as a possible explanation for the difference between the Jamaican-Canadian and Jamaican-American experiences. The role of political institutions and community organizations in the processes of migration and acculturation, and the creation and maintenance of transnational ties are also central to this study. Heterolocalism is also discussed as an alternative to the network model of immigrant patterns. Literature on transnationalism completes the framework for this comparison.

20

Jamaican Immigrants in the United States and Canada There is an abundance of literature on international migration, yet there appears to be consensus that a comprehensive migration theory is lacking (Levitt 2001; Portes et al. 1999; Massey at al. 1998). Early writers on the subject such as Lee (1966) and Petersen (1978) emphasized the factors that influence an individual or a family’s decision to migrate. More recently, there has been a surge in the volume of literature on transnational migration, particularly as globalization processes lead to increased international interconnectedness. This project takes an eclectic approach, borrowing from a variety of models, since there is no single typology that embodies the range of processes that encompass the migration and transmigration experiences. Motivation to Migrate Understanding the migrants’ reasons for leaving their home country is essential to this research, since their motivations sometimes suggest their socioeconomic backgrounds. For example, under Michael Manley’s leadership in Jamaica during the 1970s there was a significant wave of elite and middle class emigration to North America, especially to South Florida, as many members of these groups feared that the results of Manley’s experiment with democratic socialism would mimic those of Cuba under Fidel Castro (Vickerman 1999:33). An awareness of the resources that Jamaican immigrants brought with them to South Florida and Toronto is also important to this study, as this helps to explain whether Jamaicans are better off in one metropolitan area than in the other because of wealth that they brought from Jamaica, or because of factors that are particular to the contexts of either South Florida or Toronto. Wealthier Jamaicans, or those predisposed to wealth because of their education or socioeconomic backgrounds, may tend to concentrate in a particular area. This possibility is explored. The motivation for Caribbean emigration can be explained through a variety of approaches, many of which overlap. One of the most fundamental and widely used models involves “push and pull” factors (Massey et al. 1998:14). Central among them is Lee’s (1966) model that explains migration as the result of an imbalance between negative and positive issues in the sending and receiving countries. Push factors include concerns such as unemployment, crime, and political instability in the country of origin, while pull factors include the attractive qualities of the destination country, such as the possibility of

Theoretical Framework 21 socioeconomic advancement. In addition, there are intervening obstacles, such as the availability of visas and the cost of travel, as well as personal factors such as emotional ties to the home country. According to this model, the potential migrant makes the decision to migrate based on the combination of these factors (Lee 1966). This model contributes to this study by illustrating that the migrant’s personal situation in the origin country affects his or her desire to move, and may also affect his or her relative success in the destination country. However, this model has major limitations, as it offers a simplistic portrayal of the migration process, which is far more complex than the ideas of push and pull factors suggest. Too, this model assumes that individuals are rational actors, and furthermore implies that external factors are more influential than the individual’s role as the primary agent in his or her decisions. Within this general context of push and pull factors are several paradigms through which migration can be understood. Weeks (2002) and Massey et al. (1998) identify seven principal theories of international migration. Four of these perspectives, neoclassical economics; the new household economics of migration; dual labor market theory and world systems theory explain the initial stages of the migration process. The other three, network theory, institutional theory, and cumulative causation explain the continuation of the process (Weeks 2002:261). Although this list is not comprehensive, it includes the dominant models that are cited in much of the literature on migration. These models help to explain the reasons why Jamaicans migrate to the United States and Canada. Models Explaining the Initial Stages of Migration The neoclassical economic approach to migration is based on the assumption that migration is a response to global differentials in labor supply and demand. Limited job availability, lower wages, and an abundant work force in developing countries, in contrast to more advanced countries’ higher wages and greater opportunities for employment, encourage movement from the former to the latter (Massey et al. 1998:19; Weeks 2002:261). This approach is applicable to the case of migration from developing countries such as Jamaica to more developed countries such as the United States and Canada, as employment opportunity is often cited by Jamaican immigrants as a reason for leaving the island. Fluctuations in the number of emigrants leaving Jamaica often reflect the social, economic, and political climate

22

Jamaican Immigrants in the United States and Canada in Jamaica rather than economic circumstances in the destination country, although critics of this perspective argue that the economic “pull factors” have been more influential on Jamaican migrants than economic conditions on the island (Cooper 1985). This suggests a sense of confidence and optimism in the economic stability of the more developed destination countries. Such beliefs are perhaps rooted in the contrast between the dismal economic situation in Jamaica and the robust North American economies, such that even during periods of economic recession, migration to the latter appears to be the more reasonable option for upward socioeconomic mobility. The new household economics of migration is based on a similar premise of economic inequality between the sending and receiving countries. However, this perspective asserts that the decision to migrate is not made by individual actors, but by households, families, or in some cases communities (Massey et al. 1998:21; Weeks 2002:262). This model is particularly palpable in the common practice in which Jamaican women migrate in search of employment, leaving spouses and children in the care of other family members at home (Foner 1985:710). Remittances are sent home to support the children and their caregivers, usually aunts, uncles, or grandparents. Although this is often initially a temporary move, many of these immigrant women remain permanently, later sponsoring their children and spouses to migrate once they have settled in the destination country. Women, particularly those from the Caribbean, have tended to lead the family migration process because of the relative ease with which they find employment. The demand for female-dominated professions such as elementary school teachers, nurses, health care aides, and domestic workers also facilitates this gender bias. During an earlier wave of Jamaican migration to the United States and Canada in the mid-1950s, many women were employed as domestic workers under a program, described in the previous chapter, through which they were obligated to work for a one year period, after which they could apply for permanent residency and sponsor close relatives (Winks 1997:439-440). The employment opportunities were attractive to both single and married women who took advantage of the demand for women in domestic, child care, and nursing positions. Although in some cases the women were joined by their families, this livelihood strategy in some cases led to the fragmentation of the family. The result is gender imbalance among Jamaican immigrants. Of

Theoretical Framework 23 Jamaicans living in the United States, 56.3 percent are female and 43.7 percent are male.20 In contrast, among the total Jamaican population, 50.7 percent are female and 49.3 percent are male,21 while the U.S. population is 50.9 percent female and 49.1 percent male.22 The segmented or dual labor market theory claims that migration is not caused by problems or push factors in the sending country, but by pull factors or the demand for migrant labor in the receiving country (Massey et al. 1998:28; Weeks 2002:262). According to this perspective, migration is caused by the international division of labor (Pastor 1985:401) and the incessant demand for low-cost foreign workers that is characteristic of developed economies. The dual labor market refers to the division in the labor market that causes some occupations to be characterized and stereotyped as jobs for immigrants. In Miami, for example, hotel and agricultural workers are typically immigrants (McCoy and Wood 1982). While this approach ignores the relevance of the conditions in the home country, it underscores the importance of the demand for labor, and also sheds some light on the gender bias in Jamaican migration to the United States and Canada, as there has traditionally been a significant demand for women in positions that have been dominated by immigrants. The world systems approach assumes that international migration is the result of unequal relations between core and peripheral countries, and a response to the human displacement that accompanies capitalist development and its exploitative nature through its intrinsic demand for resources, cheap labor, and lower production costs (Weeks 2002:262; Thomas-Hope 2002:9). This approach differs from the dual labor market model because the former involves the global labor market while the latter deals with the domestic labor market of the receiving country. While there is some truth in this perspective, it is a simplistic portrayal of the migrant decision-making process, particularly because of the increasing mobility of production facilities. Migration remains a decision that is based on individual, familial, and sometimes community needs. While the disparity between the sending and 20

U.S. Bureau of the Census, Public Use Microdata Sample, Florida, Five Percent, 2000 Census of Population, Washington, D.C. 2003. 21 Statistical Institute of Jamaica, 2007, retrieved from www.statinja.org. 22 U.S. Bureau of the Census, Public Use Microdata Sample, Florida, Five Percent, 2000 Census of Population, Washington, D.C. 2003.

24

Jamaican Immigrants in the United States and Canada receiving countries certainly plays a role in the decision-making process, a range of other factors are involved in this complex process. Incorporating the above models into this research facilitates the comparison between the characteristics of Jamaicans in Canada and those in the United States. In order to compare the incorporation and success of immigrants it is important to first understand what they were seeking when they migrated. Addressing the question of migrants’ motivations helps to determine whether there are pre-migratory differences between the Jamaican-born populations in South Florida and Toronto. While some migrants arrived as skilled workers, some even being recruited, others were educated in the United States or Canada. These conditions produce different outcomes, which are explored in the following chapter. Every effort has been made to locate comparable samples for this research, as is discussed in the next chapter. However, if there is a tendency for particular social or economic groups to migrate to either of these two destinations, it is crucial to identify these tendencies rather than making assumptions that the two groups share a level playing field. It is therefore important to establish the types of differences between the two Jamaican immigrant populations, and to determine whether these differences are preexisting, or if they developed after migration. The following models explain how the migration processes are sustained. Models Explaining the Continuation of Migration According to the network approach to migration, migrant networks promote continued international movement. The relationships that develop among migrants in the destination countries through shared origins and experiences, as well as the connections that exist among migrants, prospective migrants, and return migrants define these networks. The role of networks is particularly critical in creating the desire or propensity to migrate, as migrants send information to prospective migrants at home (Thomas-Hope 2002). These networks reduce the risks involved with migration, and as network theorists argue, are more persuasive than economic factors alone (Weeks 2002:263). Levitt (2001) considers the importance of migrant networks and ethnic enclaves in her study of Dominican immigrants in Boston. Focusing on the town of Miraflores in the Dominican Republic, she illustrates the relevance of networks in the decision to migrate to a particular city, as the overwhelming majority of Mirafloreño migrants

Theoretical Framework 25 choose Boston as their destination city. The focal point of Levitt’s study is transnational migration, which involves frequent and complex social, political, and economic interactions between the origin and destination countries. Levitt found the information that transnational and returned migrants23 brought home with them influenced nonmigrants to reach a decision to migrate. This information also determines the city and neighborhood in which they live in the destination country. This pattern is common among Jamaican immigrants in both the United States and Canada, and migrants who return for visits bring with them valuable information that often convinces potential migrants to make the move. The money, gifts, and possessions that returned migrants and transnational migrants bring home also contribute to the appeal of the destination countries, as material goods are deemed as evidence of the wealth and prosperity that could await them in North America. Networks are pivotal to migrants as they affect the decisions regarding their destination country, city, and neighborhood. Although Jamaicans can be found in many regions of the world, Jamaican communities are particularly dominant in cities such as London, New York, Miami, and Toronto. Foner (1983, 1998) conducted comparative studies of Jamaicans in London and New York, focusing on the social context of migration, and asserting that these two groups of migrants face differences that are based primarily on the ethnic composition of the two cities. She notes the similarities and differences between the Jamaican experience in London and New York, and reveals through her research that Jamaicans are able to adapt more quickly and easily to American society than to the British. The reason is that the racial setting in New York allows Jamaicans to develop essential ties with African Americans, whereas a similar native Black community is absent in London (Foner 1983:24-26). Consequently, Jamaicans in London are more isolated and have greater difficulties developing networks and ethnic enclaves. Race and ethnicity affect the development of networks, as people of similar racial or ethnic background show a tendency to form social and economic networks. This study explores the role that the ethnic and 23

Transnational migration involves frequent, continued movement and interaction between the origin and destination countries, while return migration is a complete return to the country of origin.

26

Jamaican Immigrants in the United States and Canada racial settings of South Florida and Toronto play in the relative socioeconomic success of Jamaicans in these two urban areas. Although Toronto and Miami have the world’s largest foreign born populations, their ethnic compositions differ, particularly because of the greater concentration of Latinos in Miami and the larger number of native- born blacks in the U.S. Institutional and Organizational Context The institutionalist model of migration asserts that after the migration process has begun, institutions are developed to support its continuation (Weeks 2002:263). These differ from networks because they include both governmental institutions such as those that affect the labor market and determine national immigration policies, and organizations created by the immigrant communities. Examples of such institutions are Citizenship and Immigration Canada and its U.S. counterpart, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services. By facilitating immigrants’ transition, such institutions may positively influence the potential migrant’s decision to move to a particular place. Institutions at different levels play pivotal roles in the migration and transnational migration processes, and may help to explain some of the differences between Jamaican immigrants in South Florida and Toronto. In addition to the broader institutions, smaller organizations also affect the migration experience. Examples of organizations that support Jamaican immigrants include the Jamaican Canadian Association, which is a Jamaican-established and operated organization that is partly funded by the Canadian government. The Jamaican American Association, a privately funded non-profit organization based in Central Florida, serves a similar function in the United States. These organizations provide a variety of services and resources for Jamaican immigrants, including scholarships, assistance with employment and housing, and networking opportunities. In addition to the governmental bodies and policies that affect Jamaican immigrants, this study also explores the structural setting of the two regions that are being compared. Included in the umbrella expression of structure are the immigration policies and governmental bodies that accommodate or restrict migration. These are compared at the state level for the United States and Canada. The labor markets and local economies of the Greater Miami area and Greater Toronto Area are also compared, as are the national policies that are likely to affect Jamaicans in the labor market, such as affirmative action in the United

Theoretical Framework 27 States and employment equity in Canada. At the micro-level, local organizations that are products and expressions of social capital among Jamaicans in the United States and Canada are also explored. Cumulative causation is an approach to migration that is linked to both the network and institutional models. This perspective suggests that migration affects the societies of both the origin and destination countries in such a way that future decisions to migrate are dependent on past and current patterns of migration. In the receiving country, jobs that are often filled by immigrants eventually become stereotyped as such, increasing the demand for more immigrants to fill them. In the sending country remittances affect the distribution of wealth, increasing the income of those with migrant relatives, and motivating others to migrate (Weeks 2002:263). Earlier patterns of migration may also create a consciousness in which the desire and propensity to migrate are embedded, as suggested by the network model. This is particularly salient in the Caribbean context, where there is a long history of economic migration (Thomas-Hope 2002:9). According to Massey (1988:398), “migration is cumulatively caused by the progressive formation of social networks that steadily lower the costs of emigration from sending communities.” Migrant networks facilitate cumulative causation by reducing the costs and risks of migration, thereby perpetuating the process. Similarly, institutions and governments have much influence over the continued flow of migration into and out of their countries. The role of states will be discussed in Chapter 5. These various approaches to migration offer useful perspectives on the determinants of migration. The approaches are not mutually exclusive, and many of them overlap, creating a potentially useful set of models for understanding the motives and challenges of international migration. However, none of them offers a comprehensive theoretical framework. Instead, international migration may be understood as a combination of the forces that these various paradigms address. Some scholars criticize the singular use of these approaches for their myopic interpretations of the decision to migrate (Thomas-Hope 1998, 1999, 2002; Gale 1973). Such scholars advocate construing the process as a series of decisions, combined with changes in social or economic circumstances (Gale 1973:25). Original motivations for migration may vary, but they are maintained, “…when the predisposition or propensity to emigrate is accompanied by the impetus and opportunity to do so” (Thomas-Hope 1999:185). However, reasons for migrating are

28

Jamaican Immigrants in the United States and Canada important to this research, as they indicate some of the hopes and expectations that immigrants bring with them. Interview respondents were asked why they migrated and whether they felt that they are better off in the destination country. This question was asked in order to elicit their perception of socioeconomic success, which was compared to more objective measures such as income and occupation. Factors such as educational level and occupation prior to migration allude to the potential for upward socioeconomic mobility upon arrival in the destination country. Social Capital The study of immigrants and their adaptation in the new society warrants a discussion of the development of social capital within their communities, as well as among surrounding groups. Social capital is a multifaceted concept, and the complexity of its definition lies in the different ways in which it can be understood, interpreted, and applied. However, a common theme among scholars of social capital such as Bourdieu (1986), Coleman (1988), Putnam (1995, 2000), and Lin (2000) is their belief in the potential benefits of engaging in social networks. A proponent of the salience of social capital, Putnam (1995:67, 2000:18) describes the concept by making analogous comparisons with physical and human capital, the former being found in tangible material objects of value, and the latter in the valuable attributes of an individual, such as education or skills. He defines social capital as “features of social organization such as networks, norms, and social trust that facilitate coordination and cooperation for mutual benefit” (Putnam 1995:67). Remaining consistent with the common link of value, he emphasizes the value that is potentially found in social capital (Putnam 2000:18-19). This value lies in the benefits that are available to individuals and groups that participate in social networks. Such benefits, within the context of Jamaican immigrants, include access to such community assets as information, employment, and housing. Putnam (1995:66) has emphasized the importance of social networks in the socioeconomic progress of ethnic groups in the United States. Social capital plays a significant role in the lives of Jamaican immigrants in the United States and Canada, and particularly in their socioeconomic progress. Among the challenges of scholarship on social capital is the difficulty of measuring the presence and degree of such an intangible concept. Membership in formal and informal organizations,

Theoretical Framework 29 clubs, professional and personal networks are all aspects of social capital. These types of relationships among Jamaicans in South Florida and Toronto are used to indicate the formidability of social capital among Jamaican immigrants in the two areas. Putnam cautions that like other forms of capital, social capital can be used with destructive intentions. Examples of the negative potential in social capital include criminal organizations, drug cartels, and gangs. Jamaican gangs and criminal networks reflect negatively on other Jamaican immigrants and reinforce destructive stereotypes. Portes (1998:15) also notes the ways in which social capital can produce negative consequences. To illustrate his point he describes four negative outcomes that social capital may generate: the costs of supporting the community, restrictions on individual autonomy, the exclusion of other cultures, and downward assimilation toward the rest of the group (Portes 1998:15). The first involves the dependence that some members of the group may have on other members. Less industrious or less fortunate group members may have excessive demands on more successful members, thereby putting increased pressure on the latter. In explaining the restrictions on individual freedom that may develop as a negative by-product of social capital, Portes (1993a:1340) uses Cubans in Miami as an example. Portes and Rumbaut (1996:254) note that the closeness of the Cuban community in Miami has facilitated the development of an enclave economy and insulated the members of the group from discrimination. However, that insulation has also placed limitations on their interaction with other cultures. This challenge is evident in the dominance of Spanish in Miami. While linguistic diversity is not problematic, the limitations that individuals face outside of the group because of inability to communicate in English can be challenging. Although the close-knit community has gained great success in the form of economic and political power, a consequence has been a form of censorship, as individual opinions – particularly political perspectives – are subsumed within the collective voice, which may not represent the individuals who are bound by loyalty to the group. In his explanation of the fourth potentially negative by-product of social capital, which is the pressure to maintain similar standards of living as the rest of the group, Portes refers to, “the fear that a solidarity born out of common adversity would be undermined by the departure of the more successful members.” (Portes 1993a:1342). The example

30

Jamaican Immigrants in the United States and Canada that he uses to explain this problem is that of Haitian American teenagers who experience conflict as they try to negotiate their space between the high educational and professional expectations of their parents and the culture that has developed among their peers, in which, in Portes’ (1993a:1342) words, “solidarity cemented on common adversity discourages individuals from seeking or pursuing outside opportunities.” While there is compelling evidence which suggests that the potential for these negative outcomes is quite real (Portes 1998:1517), the social capital that has evolved in Jamaican immigrant communities in the United States and Canada does not only provide access to resources and information, but also promotes civic engagement as well as educational and socioeconomic progress, thereby offsetting the risks. While social capital is a somewhat nebulous term, consistent in its various definitions is the understanding that it involves, according to Woolcock (1998:155), “collective action for mutual benefit.” Similarly, Hardwick (2003:167) defines social capital as “the webs of trust, mutual obligation, and cultural knowledge that flow through local, regional, national, and international information systems.” Hardwick (2003:168) also emphasizes the importance of social capital to ethnic groups and “resource-poor groups,” alluding to the relevance of social capital in the lives of immigrants and their communities at home. Social networks and social capital are not bound by space, but transcend borders as the ties that connect migrants to their home communities also create networks of social capital. Social capital is thus “embedded not only in place but also in social structure,” as Hardwick states in her discussion of ethnic groups in North America (Hardwick 2003:168). This fluid definition of social capital facilitates its applicability to cases of migration and transnational migration. Portes (1998:2) challenges the broad application of the term, expressing his concern that the concept may lose meaning as a result of the wide variety of contexts to which it is applied. Despite this concern, Portes describes various interpretations of social capital. Among the contexts that he uses to explain the applicability of social capital, Portes describes its role in the development of ethnic enclaves. According to Portes’ definition of ethnic niches or enclaves, they develop “when a group is able to colonize a particular sector of employment in such a way that members have privileged access to new job openings, while restricting that of outsiders” (Portes 1998:13). This appears to be the

Theoretical Framework 31 case among immigrants in cities such as Miami and Toronto, who tend to dominate certain fields of employment, as noted in the above discussion of the dual labor market approach to migration. Ethnic niches and enclaves facilitate the development of social capital, while social capital sustains the enclaves. Social capital among Jamaican immigrants in South Florida and Toronto is dependent on the establishment of social networks and economic niches that are created based on shared experiences and common culture. Using examples of different forms that social capital takes, Coleman illustrates that social capital may be articulated through social organization. Sociospatial Patterns Two models have traditionally been widely used to explain the sociospatial behavior of immigrants: the assimilationist model and the pluralist model. The assimilationist model is described by Newbold and Spindler (2001:1904) as “a linear and uniform transition from ‘immigrant’ to ‘American.’” This transition refers to the upward socioeconomic mobility of immigrants, as well as their outward geographic movement from the inner city to more desirable areas of the city, which Zelinsky and Lee (1998:282) refer to as an “upward and outward” shift through “social and physical space.” Zelinsky and Lee note the applicability of the assimilationist model to earlier streams of migration, specifically 19th and early 20th century migration from Europe. However, they criticize the application of the same model to post-1965 migration involving immigrants of different racial, ethnic, and religious backgrounds. There are two main reasons why this model may no longer be useful as an analytical tool for immigrants in metropolitan areas. The first has to do with the ways in which the spatial arrangement and residential patterns of urban areas have changed, as inner cities no longer signify poverty. This change has forced scholars to rethink the assumption that movement out of the inner city correlates with socioeconomic progress. The second reason relates to the differences in the ethnic composition of contemporary immigrants, such that the “upward and outward” movement that the assimilationist model predicts is inhibited by racial, ethnic, or linguistic barriers (Zelinsky and Lee 1998:282). In the early 20th century, scholars began to challenge the perception that all immigrants follow the same sociospatial trajectory. The second prevailing model, the pluralist model, emerged in response to the inadequacy of the assimilationist model in light of the increased

32

Jamaican Immigrants in the United States and Canada diversity of immigrants. The assimilationist model assumes that all immigrants to the United States aspire to an American cultural ideal. However, the 1960s mark changes in the ethnic, racial and national composition of immigrants. Equally important, the 1960s signify a period of accomplishment and pride among marginalized groups in the United States, sparked by the Black Power movement among African Americans. The pluralist model suggests a cultural mosaic in which immigrant groups maintain their ethnic and cultural identities parallel to each other, but within separate social and presumably geographic settings (Zelinsky and Lee 1998:284). Although the pluralist approach is lauded for rejecting the notion that all immigrants strive to assimilate toward an American ideal, Zelinsky and Lee (1998:284) criticize it for being an idealistic and implausible framework, partly because it lacks any explicit vision of the spatial patterns that would structure the mosaic. However, they admit that Peach’s (1997) study of Caribbean, Bangladeshi, and Indian immigrants in London illustrates the possibility of the assimilationist and pluralist models functioning concurrently (Zelinsky and Lee 1998:284). To compensate for the limitations of the assimilationist and pluralist models, Zelinsky and Lee suggest an alternative model – heterolocalism – that has broader applicability to contemporary immigrants. Heterolocalism “refers to recent populations of shared ethnic identity which enter an area from distant sources, then quickly adopt a dispersed pattern of residential location, all the while managing to remain cohesive through a variety of means” (Zelinsky and Lee 1998:281). Zelinsky and Lee (1998:285) identify four characteristics of heterolocalism that distinguish it from assimilation and pluralism, and a fifth that it has in common with them: 1. There is immediate or prompt spatial dispersion of heterolocal immigrants within the host country. 2. Residence and workplace are usually widely separated, and there is also a frequent lack of spatial overlap between residence on the one hand and shopping districts and sites of social activity on the other. 3. Despite the absence of spatial propinquity, strong ethnic community ties are maintained via telecommunications, visits, and other methods at the metropolitan, regional, national, and even international scale.

Theoretical Framework 33 4. Heterolocalism is a time-dependent phenomenon. Although we can detect some partial manifestations in earlier periods, its full development is conceivable only under the socioeconomic and technological conditions of the late 20th century. 5. As in the case with the other models, heterolocalism can be observed in both metropolitan and non-metropolitan settings. While heterolocalism provides a useful framework to study the sociospatial patterns of immigrants, the main limitation is that it implies some uniformity in the immigrants’ residential patterns. The cases of Jamaicans in South Florida and Toronto illustrate that there can be significant variation in the practices of the same ethnic group, and as Peach’s (1997) study on immigrant residential patterns in London shows, multiple patterns can exist in the same city at the same time. The case of Jamaican immigrants also shows that these paradigms are not absolute, but may instead overlap to some degree. Sociospatial patterns may be conceptualized as a continuum with assimilation at one extreme, pluralism at the other, and heterolocalism occupying an extensive space between the two extremes. Variations can be found within heterolocalism, as seen in the case of Jamaicans in the United States and Canada. Jamaicans in Toronto follow Zelinsky and Lee’s heterolocal model, as they are residentially dispersed (Murdie et al. 1995:4), yet they maintain an ethnic identity and community. Jamaicans in South Florida tend to be more residentially concentrated, yet they have not developed enclaves as extensive as those of other immigrant groups, such as Cubans in Miami. These models do not present either/or options for examining the sociospatial patterns of immigrants. Instead, heterolocalism provides an alternative to the narrow, homogenizing perspectives of traditional immigrant socioeconomic and geographic mobility. Segmented assimilation, which is discussed in Chapter 5, also represents the shift away from the monolithic ideals of the assimilationist model. Transnationalism Migration is not a finite process. It is sustained as migrants find ways in which to transcend national boundaries, often maintaining lives in both their home and host countries. This trend has grown in intensity, and has developed into a field of investigation known as transnationalism.

34

Jamaican Immigrants in the United States and Canada Scholars have proposed a variety of definitions for this complex migratory pattern, the common thread among them being that transnationalism involves long-term and multidimensional relationships that connect the origin and destination countries (Levitt 2001:6). Literature on transnational migration conceptualizes the process as a phenomenon that involves activities that “take place on a recurrent basis across national borders and that require a regular and significant commitment of time by participants” (Portes 1999:464). Transnational migration is explored in this research as a product of immigrants’ experiences. As such, Jamaican-American and Jamaican-Canadian transnationalism are compared to determine whether the differences between transnational relationships among Jamaicans in South Florida and Toronto correlate with socioeconomic differences. In other words, do differences in transnationalism among Jamaicans in South Florida and Toronto reflect the differences in their socioeconomic status? Transnational migration may be understood in terms of a combination of economic, political, and social factors that stimulate individuals to develop and maintain cross-border relationships (Levitt 2001:7; Portes et al. 1999:222). As an extension of this typology, transnational activity may also be conceptualized in terms of the level of institutionalization of the activity – high, low, and an intermediate level that Levitt has proposed (Levitt 2001:7; Portes et al. 1999:222). Economic, political, and social activities that involve a low level of institutionalization include those that are initiated by individuals or small groups of individuals, for example, small businesses, political committees, and music or athletic groups that travel to areas with a heavy concentration of migrants (Portes et al. 1999:222). Transnational endeavors that are driven by a high level of institutionalization include multinational corporations, diplomatic relations between the origin and destination countries, and major cultural events (Portes et al. 1999:222). Levitt (2001) recognizes the importance of identifying an intermediate level of institutionalization in transnational migration, which she terms the community level. She refers to the social space that develops through transnationalism as a “transnational village,” identifying several factors that are characteristic of such communities. First, individuals who have not migrated may participate in transnational activities through their relationships with migrants. Second is the centrality of social remittances, which Levitt (2001:11)

Theoretical Framework 35 defines as the “ideas, behaviors, and social capital that flow from receiving to sending communities.” Third are the cross-border organizations and institutions that develop through transnational villages, and that help to maintain them. An example of this type of organization is the Jamaican Diaspora Foundation, which was established to strengthen the links between Jamaicans at home and abroad. Fourth, transnational villages expose social and economic disparities between the sending and receiving countries (Levitt 2001:11). This is a useful delineation of the community level of transnational migration, although including financial remittances in this framework would render it more complete, as monetary remittances are central to the maintenance of ties between individuals in the home and host countries. This study incorporates these different levels of analysis, assessing migrant and transmigrant behaviors from the individual, community, and institutional perspectives. Portes (1999) emphasizes that all migrant interactions across borders do not necessarily constitute transnationalism. The phenomenon is characterized by, “the high intensity of exchanges, the new modes of transacting, and the multiplication of activities that require cross-border travel and contacts on a sustained basis” (Portes et al. 1999:219). Some scholars argue that transnationalism is distinguishable by the “intensity and simultaneity” of the activities (Vertovec 1999:448). Others claim that the “key defining feature is that transnational activities are a central part of a person’s life” (Castles and Miller 2003:30). However, the distinction between a migrant and a transmigrant is vague. Despite the progress that scholars have made in delineating this concept, the study of transnational migration remains a nascent field in which a coherent and consistent theoretical framework is lacking (Portes et al. 1999:217). Many scholars have expressed the need for further research on transnationalism (Foner 1997, Levitt 2001, Vertovec 1999, Portes et al. 1999), while others suggest that there is a need for research that explores variations in transnational activities in different regions. A comparative approach to the study of transnational migration offers a more lucid explanation of the tendency for transnational activities to be more prevalent in some regions and among some groups than others (Foner 1997:23; Vertovec 1999:456). Although Nancy Foner’s (1983, 1998) research on Jamaican immigrants in New York and London is comparative, it focuses mainly on the significance of the racial and

36

Jamaican Immigrants in the United States and Canada ethnic contexts of the receiving society. This study differs fundamentally, primarily through its focus on the role of institutional and structural context in these processes. This investigation of transnational activities among Jamaicans considers the context in which the process manifests. Transnational migration between South Florida and Jamaica differs from that between Toronto and Jamaica. Portes (1999) notes the importance of socioeconomic status in the frequency and intensity of transnational behavior. He expects that, “Immigrant communities with greater average economic resources and human capital (education and professional skills) should register higher levels of transnationalism because of their superior access to the infrastructure that makes these activities possible,” (Portes 1999:224). Portes also recognizes the relevance of physical distance in facilitating the continuation of the networks that support transnational ties. According to Portes’ hypothesis, Jamaicans in South Florida are more likely to maintain transnational ties to their home country than Jamaicans in Toronto because of the shorter distance and presumably lower costs of travel. Foner (1998b) similarly observes from her comparative research on Jamaicans in New York and London that London’s greater physical distance from Jamaica inhibits travel back home, whereas Jamaicans in New York travel back home with much greater frequency (Foner 1998b:52). Although increased access to a variety of rapid and inexpensive methods of communication and competitive transportation costs have reduced the relevance of physical distance, the difference in the airfare between Jamaica and South Florida and Jamaica and Toronto is still several hundred dollars. For example, a sample airfare to Kingston, Jamaica on the same airline during the same week cost US$615 from Toronto and US$265 from Miami.24 Although this may be insignificant to some Jamaicans, to the middle and working class majority, financial situations determine the frequency with which they return home. The time that it takes to travel home is also a factor for transnational migrants who consider themselves “commuters.” It is more arduous to travel for three hours than it is to travel for one hour, making the “commuter” lifestyle more practical for Jamaicans in South Florida.

24

Quoted from www.expedia.com, June 21, 2007.

Theoretical Framework 37 It is also important to consider the wide range of other geographic concerns such as climate, history, and the social context of each host society. While physical distance may no longer pose a significant barrier to transnational migration, other factors may affect the likelihood of Jamaican migrants to maintain strong ties with the island. Such factors include differences in the climates of South Florida and Toronto. Jamaicans in South Florida may feel a stronger connection to Jamaica because they are able to maintain lifestyles very similar to those that they led in Jamaica. They are able to grow the same plants that they had in Jamaica, consume the same food, and maintain similar patterns of socializing. In Jamaica, as in other Caribbean countries, social networks tend to be very informal. Friends and neighbors often visit without invitation or notice, and a brief Saturday afternoon visit can quickly evolve into a more extensive social gathering, perhaps involving food, drinks, music, and the occasional game of dominoes. Of course, this is a generalization of Jamaican social life, but even so, Jamaican social life differs from U.S. and Canadian standards. Jamaicans in Toronto have to contend with an unfamiliar and unfriendly climate, which may discourage them from spending much time outdoors beyond the necessary ventures to work or the grocery store. Toronto’s infrastructure, in which high-rise apartment buildings are prevalent, also inhibits the type of open-door socializing that is common in Jamaica, and necessitates some adjustment in the patterns of socializing among Jamaican Canadians. Levitt observed a similar concern among Dominicans living in Boston, where they commonly inhabit three-story houses in which one family occupies each floor. Apartment doors are commonly left open and the interior décor is similar to that of the houses in their Dominican hometowns, as they attempt to replicate their home environment (Levitt 2001:3). In Toronto, residential dispersion, which is evident in the census data and maps that are described in the following chapter, also hinders Jamaicans from meeting and socializing with their compatriots. In South Florida, on the other hand, Jamaicans tend to be concentrated in particular neighborhoods25 and the majority of the Jamaicans interviewed (90 percent) live in their own houses, creating a setting that is relatively similar to that of their communities in Jamaica. South Florida’s more agreeable climate also fosters the 25

Jamaican residential patterns are described and mapped in Chapter 4.

38

Jamaican Immigrants in the United States and Canada outdoor social activities that are common in Jamaica. This comparison between Jamaicans in South Florida and Toronto illustrates the importance of the geographic context of the immigration experience in the form of the physical geography as well as the cultural landscape of the two regions. The Comparative Approach Advocates of the use of comparative approaches to studying immigrant communities refer to the broader perspectives that such approaches produce. Foner (1998a:174) argues that “the comparative method is a powerful tool for deepening our understanding of the way in which West Indian migrant racial and ethnic identities are formed and change.” She encourages more intensive studies of immigrants that extend beyond the cultural analyses, considering also the contexts of the environments in which they live. Foner (1998b:48) emphasizes the value of comparative studies by outlining some of the conclusions of two earlier comparative studies of immigrants: Campbell’s (1995) comparison of Irish immigrants in the United States and Australia, and Brettell’s (1981) study on Portuguese immigrants in Toronto and Paris. Both studies illustrate the limits of studying immigrants in only one society, and the benefits of exploring the differences in behavior, adaptation, and achievements within different contexts. While studies of immigrant groups in single societies provide much insight into the practices and culture of the group, such studies overemphasize the characteristics of the group and underemphasize the role of the receiving society. In addition to cross-national comparisons, Foner also encourages comparisons between immigrants in different cities within the same country. Noting Haitians in Miami and New York as examples of the difference that geographic context makes, Foner (1998b:57) argues that the experiences and outcomes of immigrants are based on a combination of factors, including attributes of the immigrants such as their culture, resources, and social capital, as well as features that characterize the host society, such as its size, ethnic composition and history. Similarly, the experiences of Cuban Americans in New York, New Jersey, or Toronto are very different from those of Cuban Americans in Miami, where they have greater numerical dominance, which has translated into greater political and economic power. Whereas some scholars agree that cross-national comparisons strengthen migration literature (Foner 1998; Byron and Condon 1996),

Theoretical Framework 39 others argue that globalization undermines the comparative method (Jackson and Nexon 2002). According to the latter perspective, globalization fosters greater interconnectedness and influence among states and cultures, thereby limiting the “symmetry” that facilitates comparability (Jackson and Nexon 2002:89). Although globalization connects countries and merges cultures, it certainly does not reduce the validity of comparative studies. Despite the international interconnectedness that globalization facilitates, countries maintain distinct identities, as do cities within the same country. Foner (1979) found that West Indians in New York have higher socioeconomic status than West Indians in London. She refers to three main factors that explain this observation: differences in the history of West Indian migration to the United States and Great Britain; differences in the occupations of the migrants; and race relations in New York and London. These variables may also be applied to the comparison of Jamaicans in South Florida and Toronto. However, other factors that complement the comparison include immigration policies and the labor market structure. The common thread between Foner’s and my comparison is the significance of the racial context. Table 2.1 outlines some of the general differences in the racial contexts among the receiving societies of New York, London, South Florida, and Toronto. Table 2.1 Receiving Societies: New York, London, South Florida, and Toronto Compared Host Society Racial Context New York Large African American, West Indian, and Jamaican populations. London Large West Indian and Jamaican populations, but no significant native-born black population. South Large African American, West Indian, and Jamaican Florida populations, although these populations are not as large as they are in New York. Toronto Significant West Indian and Jamaican populations (similar to South Florida), but very small nativeblack population. Sources: Foner (1985) and interviews with author

40

Jamaican Immigrants in the United States and Canada CONCLUSIONS There is ample literature on international migration, particularly from the developing to the developed world, and there is rapid progress in the study of transnationalism. However, there is an absence of comparative research that emphasizes the roles of ethnic, racial, and institutional contexts in the migration experience. By exploring the relationship among migration, institutions, and geographic location, this study contributes to the existing body of literature by compensating for the absence of studies that embrace the different dynamics that specific groups confront. As Thomas-Hope (1998:197) states, to refer to migration as though it were a single type of phenomenon, and to regard the migrant as a stereotype of the worker in search of a job, is to so oversimplify the situation as to conceptualize the process as constituting merely the displacement of people and ignore the institutional framework and the culture surrounding it. This research fills another significant gap in the literature. Although there are studies on Caribbean migration to the United States and the United Kingdom, Caribbean Canadian immigrants have been overlooked. The large, and in many ways influential, Caribbean population in Toronto provides evidence that the Caribbean community in Canada is highly relevant to studies of Caribbean migration. Although it is a surprise to many that Toronto’s annual Caribana parade is the largest Caribbean parade in North America,26 this observation reflects the presence of the Caribbean Diaspora in Toronto. Toronto’s role in the study of Caribbean migration will continue to gain importance as growing numbers of West Indians opt to migrate to Canada (Marshall 1987:29). Although there are many parallels between this study and Foner’s earlier work, the main divergence is that South Florida and Toronto do not have the cultural, political, and historical differences that New York and London share. As such, this research emphasizes the reasons why similar populations migrating to similar countries have different experiences. Foner has also expressed that while New York is very 26

City of Toronto, retrieved from http://www.toronto.com/profile/859451/

Theoretical Framework

41

important to Caribbean migration, there is an abundance of research on Caribbean movement to New York. Although she supports research that examines “the city as context,” she also advocates expanding the literature on Caribbean migration to other cities besides New York.

This page intentionally left blank

CHAPTER 3

Research Design

INTRODUCTION In this study of the demographic characteristics of Jamaicans who migrated to the United States and Canada during the island’s postindependence period, the income, educational levels, and socioeconomic status that they attain after living in these areas for a period of at least ten years are compared. My investigation assesses some of the conditions that facilitate higher social and economic attainments, and seeks to determine whether these conditions are more accessible in the United States or Canada. Comparisons are made between Jamaicans in South Florida and Toronto, based on census data and the samples of Jamaicans who were interviewed for this research. RESEARCH QUESTIONS This study is framed around three main questions: 1. What are the differences or similarities in socioeconomic status between Jamaican immigrants living in South Florida and Toronto? This question compares levels of education, occupation, income, and business and home ownership among the two Jamaican populations. Also within this question, trends such as residential patterns are explored to complement the data pertaining to socioeconomic status and property ownership, and also contribute to the discussion on the relationships between Jamaican immigrants and other racial and ethnic groups. 2. Why are there differences between members of the same population going to relatively similar countries? The objective of this second question is to examine the 43

44

3.

Jamaican Immigrants in the United States and Canada reasons for the differences between the two Jamaican populations. In particular, the context of reception is explored. There is a wide range of possible responses to this question, so this study focuses on two particularly salient issues. The first are the structural causes, such as immigration policies, the labor market, institutions, and organizations that facilitate or impede migration, assimilation, and socioeconomic mobility. Inherent in this discussion is a broader examination of fundamental differences between the United States and Canada, including differences in their immigration policies, and the implications of these differences on the selection of immigrants to each country. In addition to immigration policies, other structural factors particular to each metropolitan area that may foster or impede immigrants’ progress are addressed. These include the economy and labor market of the destination cities, and the presence or absence of racial discrimination. Immigrant organizations, both governmental and those formed by immigrants, also represent characteristics of the host societies that factor in the socioeconomic prosperity of immigrants. Institutions have been established that may facilitate or impede the progress of Jamaican immigrants in South Florida and Toronto. These institutions and their roles in the lives of Jamaican immigrants are also considered. Second, the ethnic composition and history of blacks in both areas affect the incorporation and socioeconomic progress of Jamaican immigrants. Third, what are the implications of these differences on transnational migration? In other words, do the social and institutional contexts of the host societies affect transnationalism? This section explores whether transnationalism is more widespread among Jamaican immigrants in South Florida or Toronto. This section also explains whether distance is a dominant factor in transnationalism. Is it more likely that Jamaicans in South Florida will have stronger links and more transnational activity than those in Toronto, or in light of modern, reasonably priced, and rapid methods

Research Design 45 of transportation and telecommunication, do socioeconomic conditions play a more significant role? METHODOLOGY This study utilizes a combination of qualitative and quantitative methods applied at the macro, meso, and micro levels. The macro level of research relies on national statistics and census data from both the American and Canadian censuses, as well as immigration statistics from the United States Department of Homeland Security’s Citizenship and Immigration Services and Citizenship and Immigration Canada. The meso level explores community organizations and associations, and the data are gathered from these establishments, as well as from the Jamaican Consulates in each city. The micro level involves data that are obtained through in-depth interviews with individual Jamaican immigrants. Macro Level Data Census data from the United States and Canada are central to this study, particularly in providing a demographic overview of the two Jamaican populations. In the United States, much of the census data were gathered from the five percent Public Use Microdata Sample (PUMS) files for 2000. Although these data were gathered from a sample, they proved to be reliable. According to the 2000 Census, the combined population of Miami-Dade and Broward Counties was 3,876,380.27 The estimated population of the two counties, based on the PUMS five percent sample is 3,845,904, or 99.2 percent of the Census calculation, an error of only 0.8 percent. Data were also obtained through publications from the United States Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration Services (formerly Immigration and Naturalization Services) and from the United States Census Bureau. Statistics Canada provides similar data, in the form of a semi-custom profile of the Jamaican population in Toronto based on the 2001 census. Both the American and Canadian data were available electronically. First, census data were employed to the comparison between the demographic characteristics of the Jamaicans in this sample and the general Jamaican populations in the United States and 27

U.S. Bureau of the Census, 2000 Population Census, Summary File 1, Table QT-P9, Hispanic or Latino by Type, for Miami-Dade and Broward Counties, www.census.gov, American Factfinder, July 22, 2004.

46

Jamaican Immigrants in the United States and Canada Canada. Second, they facilitated the comparison between the basic demographic characteristics of Jamaicans in South Florida and Toronto. Meso- Level Data Specific information on U.S. and Canadian immigration policies was readily available from the governments of both countries through publications and to a limited extent on their websites. Interview questions determined how these policies affect the sample population. Information about American and Canadian immigrant organizations as well as other similar organizations in Jamaica came from the Jamaica Information Service, which operates in the United States through the offices of the Jamaican Consulate. In some cases information was retrieved directly from the organizations. The research involved organizations with predominantly Jamaican membership, and the members were forthcoming with information. Examples of these organizations are the Jamaican Canadian Association, which is partially funded by the Ontario government and is based in Toronto. In South Florida the dominant organizations are associated with specific schools or professions. Examples are the Jamaica Nursing Association of Florida, Inc., the Jamaica Teachers’ Association, and the Jamaica Business Association of Florida, Inc. The Jamaica-U.S.A. Chamber of Commerce was particularly helpful with information on Jamaican business ownership in South Florida. The Jamaican Consulates in both Miami and Toronto were also valuable sources of data and contacts for this research. Micro Level Data In addition to the extensive data that these sources provided, similar questions were asked in the interviews, which will be discussed at length below. This supplementary information enabled me to compare my sample with the general population, as enumerated in the U.S. and Canadian censuses, in addition to getting the same information specifically about the sample populations in the two cities. The samples are not representative of the Jamaican populations in South Florida or Toronto. However, an effort was made to identify interviewees of varying socioeconomic backgrounds. Similarities between the data that I retrieved from the interviews and the data obtained from the U.S. and Canadian censuses show that many characteristics of the samples and the actual populations are comparable.

Research Design

47

Interviews Interviews with Jamaican immigrants in South Florida and Toronto comprise the bulk of the research for this comparison. The majority of the questions in the interview are open-ended in order to evoke unique responses that represent each participant. The interview questionnaire contains eighty questions, although follow-up questions were asked when needed. The questionnaire is divided into four sections. The first section asks questions pertaining to basic demographic characteristics such as education, citizenship, and socioeconomic status. This section establishes whether there are socioeconomic or occupational differences between Jamaicans in South Florida and Toronto. This section also questions the respondents’ reasons for migrating, and compares the interviewees’ pre- and post-migratory education and occupation. Questions regarding business ownership and income are also included in this section. The second section examines the structural and institutional differences between Jamaican migration to South Florida and Toronto by asking questions relating to the labor market, immigration policy, and immigrant organizations, and their impacts on the respondents. The third section discusses the racial and ethnic differences between the host societies, and their impact on Jamaicans in both urban areas. In this section, respondents had the opportunity to discuss their relationships with members of other ethnic groups including African Americans, as well as their position on issues such as affirmative action. The fourth section asks questions relating to transnational activities and remittances in an attempt to determine whether Jamaicans in South Florida maintain stronger links with Jamaica than do those in Toronto. This section also asks questions that probe the respondents’ levels of adaptation in the United States or Canada. Finally, the respondents are asked questions concerning their overall perception of their migration experience in the chosen country and city. They are asked why they chose to migrate to that particular country and city, and whether they had any regrets about migrating. Although all of the participants remain anonymous, relevant information about them, such as the type of neighborhood and home in which they live, were recorded. This information is a useful indicator of both the household’s socioeconomic status and the ethnic and racial environment in which the participants live. The participants’ accent was also a useful gauge that suggested their connection either to

48

Jamaican Immigrants in the United States and Canada Jamaica or to the Jamaican immigrant community. The interview questionnaire is included in the appendix. Sample The sample used for this research is not representative of the Jamaican population in either South Florida or Toronto. To provide a larger and representative sample would involve a greater time commitment and more funding than this project afforded. Instead, the sample included 100 respondents, 52 in Toronto and 48 in South Florida. This sample size is similar to that used by Vickerman (1999) in his study of Jamaican identity and race relations in the United States. Vickerman, a sociologist, strikes a balance between the extensive research of other sociologists and anthropologists such as Levitt (2001) and Grasmuck and Pessar (1991), on the one hand, and the more intensive ethnographic research of Western (1992), a geographer, and Lewis (1966), an anthropologist, on the other. Levitt’s sample consists of 806 individuals in 184 households, while Grasmuck and Pessar had a similarly large sample of 535 participants in the Dominican Republic and 301 participants in New York. Lewis’ 1966 volume studies the lives of members of one extended family in Puerto Rico. While this family spans five households, Lewis (1966:xxiv) focuses on five “major characters.” Western also has a relatively small sample, consisting of 12 families. The sample size used for this research most closely parallels that of Vickerman, who used sample of 106 participants. Participants for this research are Jamaican adults over the age of eighteen who live in Miami-Dade or Broward County, or the Greater Toronto Area. All participants emigrated from Jamaica between 1965 and 1994, although they did not all migrate directly to their current city or country of residence. It was important to maintain a similar period of migration in order to ensure that enough time had passed that the Jamaican participants would have adjusted to or been affected by the destination country. The interviews took place between March and December of 2004, ensuring that all participants had migrated at least ten years prior. Beginning the time frame at 1965 ensures that all of the immigrants arrived under similar immigration policies. Although there have been several changes in the details of both U.S. and Canadian immigration policies over the years, the basic principles have remained constant since 1965. Selecting a thirty-year time frame also permits greater comparability among Jamaicans in both locations. The length of

Research Design 49 time spent in the destination country has been found to affect the socioeconomic status of immigrants. While the 1960s marked the nascent period of Jamaican migration to the United States and Canada, the 1970s and 1980s were both important periods of political and economic upheaval in Jamaica, during which many individuals and families left for the United States and Canada. Migration flows continued in the 1990s and the present, and the expectation is that more recent immigrants, in time, will reach the socioeconomic level of their predecessors. Participants were identified by using a snowball sample through networks in the Jamaican communities in both urban areas. These networks facilitated this research in several ways, most importantly by helping me to locate the sample population. In order to encourage a more diverse sample, I first identified informants among personal contacts, both in South Florida and Toronto, from whom I obtained referrals. Although informants were selected using a snowball sample, every effort was made to select participants from varying occupations and socio-economic backgrounds. I attempted to locate individuals residing in a wide range of neighborhoods, mainly with the help of Jamaican organizations and churches in both metropolitan areas. The Jamaican Consulate in Miami also aided in identifying Jamaicans of varying socioeconomic backgrounds. Participants were not deliberately selected according to their age or gender. However, the gender balance of the sample corresponds with that of the wider Jamaican population, with a majority of women over men. The age structure was diverse, though not representative. This will be discussed in the following chapter.

This page intentionally left blank

CHAPTER 4

Jamaicans in South Florida and Toronto Compared

INTRODUCTION This comparison between Jamaicans in South Florida and Toronto focuses primarily on their socioeconomic similarities and differences, although supplementary details are relevant. The following variables compare general characteristics of the two populations that relate to their migration processes: reasons for migrating; period of migration; class of admission to the United States or Canada; gender; and age. Education, occupation, and income are compared to explore the socioeconomic similarities and differences between the two populations. A comparison of home and business ownership among Jamaicans in the two metropolitan areas complements the comparison of their socioeconomic status. Finally, the residential patterns of Jamaicans in South Florida and Toronto are mapped to show the areas in which they live, especially in relation to other racial and ethnic groups. IMMIGRATION TO SOUTH FLORIDA AND TORONTO South Florida and Toronto both attract significant numbers of Jamaican immigrants annually, as the following tables illustrate. Jamaicans rank among the top ten immigrants in Miami and Fort Lauderdale, and in Toronto in terms of the number of permanent residents that arrive in each city annually. Despite Jamaica’s relatively small population, Jamaican immigrants are very visible in urban areas such as Metropolitan Miami and Metropolitan Toronto because of their heavy concentration in these areas. Jamaicans are included among the top ten source countries for immigrants to the metropolitan areas of Miami and Fort Lauderdale, as well as metropolitan Toronto. The Miami-Fort 51

52

Jamaican Immigrants in the United States and Canada Lauderdale metropolitan area and the Toronto metropolitan area receive a similar number of Jamaican immigrants annually. For example, in 2003 2,782 Jamaicans migrated to South Florida, and in 2002 Toronto received 2,054 Jamaicans. Tables 4.1, 4.2, and 4.3 below reflect recent Jamaican immigration to Miami, Fort Lauderdale, and Toronto respectively. Table 4.1 Persons Becoming Permanent Residents in Toronto by Top Source Countries (Principal Applicants and Dependants) COUNTRY

2002 Number

%

Rank

India

18,290

16.39

1

China

17,584

15.76

2

Pakistan

10,357

9.28

3

Philippines

5,260

4.71

4

Iran

4,711

4.22

5

Sri Lanka

3,711

3.33

6

United Arab Emirates

3,178

2.85

7

Korea

2,976

2.67

8

Ukraine

2,254

2.02

9

Jamaica

2,054

1.84

10

Russia

2,014

1.80

11

Saudi Arabia

1,793

1.61

12

Romania

1,670

1.50

15

111,580

100

Total

Source: Citizenship and Immigration Canada, Facts and Figures 2002: Immigration Overview, retrieved from http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/pub/ facts2002/toronto/toronto_2.html

Table 4.2 Persons Becoming Permanent Residents in Metropolitan Miami by Top Ten Source Countries, 2003 Cuba 5,283 Colombia 2,647 Haiti 1,866 Peru 1,165 Venezuela 1,114 Nicaragua 1,101 Jamaica 875 Dominican Republic 850 Argentina 733 Honduras 572 Source: United States Department of Homeland Security, Profiles on Legal Permanent Residents, “Persons Becoming Legal Permanent Residents During Fiscal Year 2003 by Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA) of Residence and Selected Characteristics” retrieved from http://uscis.gov/ graphics/shared/statistics/data-/ImmProfiles/2003/MSABook198.xls

Table 4.3 Persons Becoming Permanent Residents in Fort Lauderdale by Top Ten Source Countries, 2003 Jamaica 1,907 Haiti 1,305 Colombia 1,198 Peru 584 Venezuela 536 Brazil 472 Dominican Republic 268 Ecuador 228 Cuba 215 Canada 210 Source: United States Department of Homeland Security, Profiles on Legal Permanent Residents, “Persons Becoming Legal Permanent Residents During Fiscal Year 2003 by Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA) of Residence and Selected Characteristics” retrieved from http://uscis.gov/ graphics/shared/statistics/data/ImmProfiles-/2003/MSA.xls

53

54

Jamaican Immigrants in the United States and Canada Reasons for Migrating The majority of the interview respondents expressed that they migrated because of either economic or family reasons. Among Jamaicans who migrated for economic reasons, several respondents mentioned that they were seeking “a better life” or “better opportunities.” There was, however, significant overlap between economic and family motivations, as 79 percent of all the migrants interviewed said that they had family living in South Florida or Toronto at the time of migration. This was the case even for those who indicated that their reasons for migrating were primarily economic. Although the primary reasons that the respondents gave for migrating are categorized under the four groups listed in Table 4.4 below, namely, family, economic, political, and education, several secondary responses were given. The most common among them include remarks such as, “it was the thing to do” and “everyone was migrating at the time.” These comments support Thomas-Hope’s assertion that Jamaican migration is an example of cumulative causation, as previous patterns of migration influence the decisions of potential migrants. Table 4.4 categorizes the responses that the Jamaicans interviewed in South Florida and Toronto offered when asked why they migrated. Table 4.4 Jamaican Respondents by Reasons for Migrating to South Florida and Toronto Jamaicans in South Jamaicans in Toronto Florida Reason Number Percentage Number Percentage Family 15 31% 21 40% Economic 19 40% 23 44% Political 4 8% 0 0% Education 10 21% 8 16% Total 48 100% 52 100% Source: Interviews with author

The reasons for migrating are similar for the Jamaican samples in the two metropolitan areas. Most of the respondents in both areas said that they migrated for economic reasons. The second most common response was family, followed by education. None of the Jamaicans

Jamaicans in South Florida and Toronto Compared 55 interviewed in Toronto said that they migrated for political reasons. Four respondents among the South Floridian sample cited political concerns as their main reason for migration, while an additional three noted that although their primary reasons were economic, the economic pressures were linked to political instability. Although the small sample size suggests that conclusions drawn from the interview responses are anecdotal, the parallels between the responses in the two areas imply that Jamaicans in the two areas are not distinguishable by their reasons for migrating. Period of Migration The period during which migrants arrive in their destination country is important for two main reasons. First, the longer immigrants are in the destination country, the more time they have had to settle, find employment, and be upwardly mobile. Second, the historical period, as Foner (2005) notes, influences the incorporation of immigrants into the new society. Early Jamaican immigrants had different experiences from contemporary immigrants. Early Jamaican immigrants may have lacked the network of Jamaicans that have now developed in South Florida and Toronto, and that cushion the transition for newcomers. Immigrants who arrive in the United States or Canada during periods of recession are also at a disadvantage because of the scarcity of jobs and economic resources during these periods. Emigration from Jamaica also reflects conditions in Jamaica such as political or economic turmoil, or increased levels of crime (Foner 2005). One respondent who migrated from Jamaica during a period of political and economic instability under Michael Manley’s regime explained that her reasons for migrating in 1986 stem from increasing political violence: I owned a bakery. It was a very thriving business. There was a huge riot against Michael Manley that lasted 3-4 days. The violence and the deteriorating society made me leave, especially because of my daughter. I was fearful and I didn’t like Manley’s policies either. They were targeted against people like my family – business people. When Manley said there were five flights a day to Miami, we took one of them. As Table 4.5 below shows, most of the Jamaicans interviewed in South Florida migrated between 1975 and 1995. Most of the Jamaicans

56

Jamaican Immigrants in the United States and Canada interviewed in Toronto, on the other hand, migrated between 1965 and 1979. These data suggest that Jamaican migration to Toronto represents an earlier wave, while extensive Jamaican migration to South Florida took place later. Table 4.5 Jamaican Interview Respondents by Year of Departure South Florida Toronto Year Number Percentage Number Percentage 1965-1969 7 14% 13 25% 1970-1974 2 4% 11 21% 1975-1979 11 23% 12 23% 1980-1984 8 17% 3 6% 1985-1989 11 23% 6 12% 1990-1995 9 19% 7 13% Total 48 100% 52 100% Source: Interviews with author

Data from the American and Canadian censuses support this claim, as they also illustrate that Jamaican migration to Toronto peaked earlier than to South Florida. Tables 4.6 and 4.7 above show the number of Jamaicans who migrated to South Florida and Toronto by their year of entry, according to the United States census of 2000 and the Canadian census of 2001. Figure 4.1 illustrates that Jamaican migration to Toronto peaked several years before Jamaican migration to South Florida. The differences between the periods during which Jamaicans migrated to South Florida and Toronto may be explained as an example of chain migration. The chain migration model claims that immigration is sustained through networks. That is, when an individual migrates, family and friends often follow. After migration from Jamaica to the Toronto area gained momentum in the early 1960s with the implementation of the domestic workers program,28 other Jamaicans later joined their relatives there. Jamaican migration to South Florida, on the other hand, began later and consequently peaked later.

28

The domestic workers program will be discussed in Chapter 6.

Table 4.6 Jamaican Population in South Florida by Year of Entry to the United States 2000 U.S. Census Data Period of Migration Number Percentage Before 1960 1,593 2% 1960-1969 6,144 6% 1970-1979 18,940 20% 1980-1989 33,968 36% 1990-2000 34,519 36% Total 95,164 100% Source for South Florida: U.S. Bureau of the Census, Public Use Microdata Sample, Florida Five Percent, 2000 Census of Population, Washington, D.C., 2003.

Table 4.7 Jamaican Population in Toronto by Year of Entry to Canada 2001 Canadian Census Data Period of Migration Number Percentage Before 1961 1,405 2% 1961-1970 11,780 13% 1971-1980 31,655 34% 1981-1990 21,995 24% 1991-1995 25,355 27% Total 92,195 100% Source: Statistics Canada, Census of Population, CO-0851, Target Group Profile – Population born in Jamaica, Montreal, 2001.

57

58

Jamaican Immigrants in the United States and Canada Figure 4.1 Jamaican Immigrants in South Florida and Toronto by Year of Entry 2000 U.S. Census and 2001 Canadian Census

40,000 35,000 30,000 25,000 20,000 15,000 10,000 5,000 0

Jamaicans in South Florida Jamaicans in Toronto

Before 1960s

1960s

1970s

1980s

1990s

Source for South Florida: U.S. Bureau of the Census, Public Use Microdata Sample, Florida Five Percent, 2000 Census of Population, Washington, D.C., 2003. Source for Toronto: Statistics Canada, Census of Population, CO-0851, Target Group Profile – Population born in Jamaica, Montreal, 2001.

Class of Admission The most important difference between American and Canadian immigration policies is that in the United States the emphasis is on family reunification, whereas in Canada the objective is to attract skilled workers. Consequently, most Jamaicans arrive in the United States by means of family sponsorship (see Table 4.10), while most Jamaicans in Canada arrived as skilled workers.29 The responses of the Jamaicans interviewed for this research support this fact, as most of the Jamaicans interviewed in South Florida (75%) migrated through sponsorship by a relative, while most of the Jamaicans interviewed in 29

Data on the class of admission specifically for Jamaicans in Toronto was unavailable from the Canadian census.

Jamaicans in South Florida and Toronto Compared 59 Toronto migrated because of their professional skills (58 percent), either through the points system as skilled workers or through sponsorship by an employer. Tables 4.8 and 4.9 show the classes of admission for interview respondents in South Florida and Toronto. Table 4.8 Jamaican Respondents in South Florida by Class of Admission Sponsorship by a relative 36 (75%) Parent 8 Grandparent 2 Sibling 11 Aunt/uncle 6 Spouse 9 Sponsorship by employer 6 (12.5%) Domestic worker 2 H-1 visa 3 Self-employed investor 1 Student visa 6 (12.5%) Source: Interviews with author

Table 4.9 Jamaican Respondents in Toronto by Class of Admission Sponsorship by a relative 15 (29%) Parent or child 9 Spouse 6 Employment 30 (58%) Skilled worker 25 Sponsorship by employer 5 Arrived with student visa 2 (4%) Applied independently after arriving as visitor 5 (9%) Source: Interviews with author

60

Jamaican Immigrants in the United States and Canada

Table 4.10 Jamaicans Admitted to the United States by Class of Admission (2003) Class of Admission Number Percentage Family sponsored preferences 5,696 42.6% Employment 375 2.8% Immediate relatives of U.S. citizens 7,270 54.3% Refugees and asylee adjustments 7 0.05% Diversity programs 6 0.05% Cancellation of removal 12 0.1% Other 18 0.1% Total 13,384 100% Source: United States Department of Homeland Security, Yearbook of Immigration Statistics: 2003, Table 9: Immigrants admitted by selected class of admission and region and country of birth: fiscal year 2003, excerpted from http://uscis.gov/graphics/shared/statistics/yearbook/2003/table08D.xls

Gender The gender distributions of Jamaicans living in South Florida and Toronto are closely parallel. This is also represented in the sample of Jamaicans interviewed in the two metropolitan areas. Of Jamaicans living in the United States, 56.3 percent are female and 43.7 percent are male.30 In South Florida, females comprise 57.5 percent of the Jamaican population and 42.5 percent are male.31 Of the sample interviewed for this research in South Florida, 54 percent are female and 46 percent male. Of Jamaicans living in Canada, 58 percent are female and 42 percent are male. Fifty-nine percent of Jamaicans in Toronto are female and 41 percent are male.32 In Toronto, 65 percent of the research sample interviewed are female and 35 percent are male. There is a consistent majority of females among the Jamaican 30

Source for South Florida: U.S. Bureau of the Census, Public Use Microdata Sample, One Percent, 2000 Census of Population, Washington, D.C., 2003. 31 Source for South Florida: U.S. Bureau of the Census, Public Use Microdata Sample, Florida Five Percent, 2000 Census of Population, Washington, D.C., 2003. 32 Statistics Canada, Census of Population, CO-0851, Target Group Profile – Population born in Jamaica, Montreal, 2001.

Jamaicans in South Florida and Toronto Compared 61 population in both countries and metropolitan areas. This bias is reflected in the census data as well as the interview samples, although there is a slight exaggeration of the female majority in the Toronto sample. Possible reasons for this female majority include the better labor market opportunities for Jamaican women in the United States and Canada that is explained by the new household economics of migration, as discussed in Chapter 2. Table 4.11 below summarizes the gender distribution of Jamaicans in the United States and Toronto. Table 4.11 Gender Composition of Jamaican Immigrants Sample Percent female Percent male United States 56.3 43.7 Canada 58 42 South Florida 57.5 42.5 Toronto 59 41 South Florida 54 46 sample Toronto sample 65 35 Source for U.S.: U.S. Bureau of the Census, One Percent Public Use Sample, 2000 Census of Population. Source for South Florida: U.S. Bureau of the Census, Five Percent Public Use Sample, 2000 Census of Population. Source for Toronto and Canada: Statistics Canada, Census of Population, CO-0851, Target Group Profile – Population born in Jamaica, Montreal, 2001. Source for samples: Interviews with author.

Age The age composition of Jamaican immigrants is important to their incorporation into U.S. and Canadian societies, and to their socioeconomic mobility. The age at which they migrate affects their job prospects, as a working-age population suggests greater potential for socioeconomic mobility. Immigrants who arrive before adolescence are also less likely to have problems acculturating in their destination city and country, as they will have spent their formative adolescent years in

62

Jamaican Immigrants in the United States and Canada the host country. The age composition of Jamaicans in South Florida33 and Toronto34 are similar, based on the data presented in Figures 4.2 and 4.3 below. Table 4.13 shows the age group at which Jamaicans in Toronto migrated.

Age group 18-25 26-35 36-45 46-55 56-65 65+ Total

Table 4.12 Jamaican Respondents by Age Group Respondents in South Respondents in Toronto Florida Number Percentage Number Percentage 1 12 8 8 19 0 48

2% 25% 17% 17% 39% 0% 100%

0 8 5 15 15 9 52

0% 15% 10% 29% 29% 17% 100%

Source: Interviews by author

Table 4.13 Jamaicans in Toronto by Age at Migration Age group Number Percentage 0-4 years 5,630 6% 5-19 years 32,695 36% 20 years and over 53,870 58% Total 92,195 100% Statistics Canada, Census of Population, CO-0851, Target Group Profile – Population born in Jamaica, Montreal, 2001.

33

Source for South Florida: U.S. Bureau of the Census, Public Use Microdata Sample, Florida Five Percent, 2000 Census of Population, Washington, D.C., 2003 34 Statistics Canada 2001 CO-0851Target Group Profile – Population born in Jamaica.

Figure 4.2 Jamaicans in South Florida by Age 25000 20000 15000 10000 5000 0 0-9

10-19

20-29

30-39

40-49

50-59

60-69

70 and older

Figure 4.3 Jamaicans in Toronto by Age 25000 20000 15000 10000 5000 0 0-9

10-19

20-29

30-39

40-49

50-59

60-74

75 and older

63

64

Jamaican Immigrants in the United States and Canada

Education Education, occupation, and income are among the most important indicators of socioeconomic status, and are central to this comparison. “The first and foremost indicator of human capital is education,” according to Kalmijn (1996:918). Education is a critical factor in determining an individual’s actual and potential socioeconomic mobility. Contemporary immigrants rely on education for socioeconomic advancement even more than immigrants of the early to mid-twentieth century (Waters 1999:254). Earlier immigrants were able to make socioeconomic progress by means of manufacturing jobs that did not require college degrees, and in some cases even a high school diploma was not needed. However, changes in the North American economic structure (particularly in the United States) since the 1970s have resulted in the reduction of employment opportunities in the manufacturing sector. Both low-paying service jobs that require little education and high-paying, professional jobs that require more advanced education are on the rise, while the manufacturing jobs that offered good wages to workers with less education are on the decline. This trend created what some scholars have referred to as an “hourglass economy” (Waters 1999:254; Portes and Rumbaut 1996:249-250). Because today’s high-paying jobs require higher levels of education, education is critical for the socioeconomic mobility of Jamaican immigrants. The percentages of Jamaicans in the United States and Canada who did not complete high school are very similar, 29.2 percent and 27 percent respectively. However, this percentage is much smaller for the sample of Jamaicans interviewed in Toronto, and even smaller for the sample of Jamaicans interviewed in South Florida, which are 7.7 and 4.2 respectively. The percentages of Jamaicans in all of the populations (United States, Canada, South Florida, Toronto, and interviewees in South Florida and Toronto) are very similar for Jamaicans who are high school graduates but do not have a Bachelor’s degree, ranging between 52 and 64. This category includes Jamaicans who have obtained trades certificates, completed community college, or have attended university but did not obtain a degree. This category also includes registered nurses who obtained their nursing degrees without getting a Bachelor’s degree. Table 4.14 compares the educational attainments of Jamaicans in the United States and Canada.

Jamaicans in South Florida and Toronto Compared

65

Table 4.14 Jamaicans Age 15* and Older by Level of Education (Percentages) Level of

US

Canada

Education

South

Toronto

Florida

South

Toronto

Florida

sample

sample Did not

29.2

27

29.5

28

4.2

7.7

53.7

64

57.3

63.7

52

61.5

17.1

9

13.2

8.3

43.8

30.8

Graduate from High School High School Graduate without Bachelors Degree Bachelors Degree or Higher

Source for South Florida and Toronto samples: Interviews by author Source for Toronto and Canada: Statistics Canada, Census of Population, CO-0851, Target Group Profile – Population born in Jamaica, Montreal, 2001. Source for South Florida: U.S. Bureau of the Census, Public Use Sample, Florida Five Percent, 2000 Census of Population, Washington, D.C., 2003. Source for the United States: U.S. Bureau of the Census, Public Use Sample, One Percent Sample 2000 Census of Population, Washington, D.C., 2003. *Although 25 and older would have been preferable, the data available for Canada was limited to Jamaicans 15 and older.

Some scholars note that Jamaican and other West Indian immigrants have higher levels of education and higher socioeconomic status than African Americans (Sowell 1978; Kalmijn 1996; Waters 1999; Vickerman 1999). While they have shown that these differences exist, they are largely based on differences between the experiences of African Americans and West Indians, such as their different experiences with racial discrimination. Sowell (1978) argues that West Indians, by virtue of their historical experiences, have stronger work ethic and higher educational attainments than African Americans. American blacks, Sowell argues, had the disadvantage of competition

66

Jamaican Immigrants in the United States and Canada from working class whites, whereas Caribbean blacks did not face this type of competition, and were consequently better able to achieve upward socioeconomic mobility (Kalmijn 1996:913). Kalmijn refutes Sowell’s position, and presents two alternate possibilities for the higher socioeconomic achievements of Caribbean blacks in comparison to African Americans. First, he attributes the differences between the two populations to differences between American and Caribbean societies, particularly with regard to the racial composition and racial hierarchy. Kalmijn argues that because black West Indians were socialized in a majority black environment they did not have to contend with the type of racial hierarchy that was present in the United States. As a result of their exposure to blacks in positions of power, black West Indians are motivated toward higher socioeconomic achievement. Urban African American youth, in contrast, are often socialized in a context wherein blacks are subjugated and racial discrimination continues to impede their socioeconomic progress. Sowell attempts to attribute the differences between African American and West Indian socioeconomic status to factors inherent to individuals, whereas Kalmijn explores the structural and contextual factors that affect the two groups. Kalmijn’s argument reinforces the claims of this study, which asserts that the context of the host society affects the behavior and attainments of its population. Kalmijn’s second reason for the higher socioeconomic attainments of Caribbean blacks is related to migration selectivity, which suggests that immigrants have a greater propensity for higher achievement (Kalmijn 1996:914). Occupation Occupation is closely linked to income and education, as an individual’s income is largely dependent on his or her occupation, which in turn depends on the level of education. Jamaicans in South Florida and Toronto have very similar occupational characteristics, as Table 4.15 below illustrates. The main difference is that far more Jamaicans in Toronto than in South Florida are involved in occupations related to production, transportation, and material moving. This is likely to be a reflection of Toronto’s economy, which is more heavily based on manufacturing and industry than is South Florida’s.

Jamaicans in South Florida and Toronto Compared

67

Table 4.15 Jamaicans 16 Years and Older by Occupation (Percentages) Occupation Jamaicans in Jamaicans in Jamaicans Jamaicans South Florida the U.S. in Toronto in Canada Management, 26.3 24.8 31.6 32 Professional, & Related Occupations Services 25.2 28.7 22 22 Sales & Office 26.7 25.2 17.8 18 Farming, 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.6 Fishing, and Forestry Construction, 10.4 9.1 4 4 Extraction, & Maintenance Production, 10.1 10.7 24.5 23.4 Transportation, and Material Moving Military 0 0.2 0 0 Unemployed 1.0 1.0 8 8 Source for South Florida: U.S. Bureau of the Census, Public Use Microdata Sample, Florida Five Percent, 2000 Census of Population, Washington, D.C., 2003. Source for the United States: U.S. Bureau of the Census, One Percent Public Use Sample (PUMS), 2000 Census of Population. Source for Toronto and Canada: Statistics Canada, Census of Population, CO0851, Target Group Profile – Population born in Jamaica, Montreal, 2001.

Although both urban areas have experienced changes in their economy that propelled them in the direction of the “hourglass” economic structure (Portes and Rumbaut 1996), employment in manufacturing and industry in Toronto has risen slightly after a sharp

68

Jamaican Immigrants in the United States and Canada decline in the early 1990s.35 More Jamaicans in South Florida are in sales and office occupations, which may also be related to the differences in the economies of the two areas, as noted above. Although slightly more Jamaicans in Toronto are in management, professional, and related occupations than in South Florida, there may be some overlap between this category and the service category, because the occupational classifications differ in the U.S. and Canadian census data. When the two categories (management, professional and related occupations and services) are combined, the percentages of Jamaicans in the two countries and urban areas are virtually equal. Income In 2000 South Florida residents had a mean annual personal income of US$25,764, while U.S. residents throughout the country had a mean annual personal income of US$27,484. Jamaicans in South Florida have a mean annual personal income of US$21,651, while Jamaicans in the United States as a whole have a mean personal income of US$24,742.36 According to Canada’s 2001 census, Canadians had an average annual personal income of C$29,769 (US$19,23137), while Toronto residents38 had an average annual personal income of C$35,61839 (US$23,009). Jamaicans in Toronto have an average annual income of C$29,675 (US$19,170), and Jamaicans in Canada earn C$29,72240 (US$19,200). Table 4.16 summarizes these income data.

35

City of Toronto Employment Survey, “Total Industrial/Manufacturing Employment, City of Toronto, 198-1998, retrieved from http://www.city. toronto.ca/torontoplan/citystatus_3.htm. 36 U.S. Bureau of the Census, Public Use Microdata Sample, Florida Five Percent, 2000 Census of Population, Washington, D.C., 2003. 37 Currency conversion is based on the average exchange rate in 2001 (0.646) retrieved from Statistics Canada, http://www40.statcan.ca/l01/cst01/econ07.htm 38 Figures for both the United States and Canada include individuals 15 years of age and older only. 39 Statistics Canada 1996 Census, “Selected Income Statistics for Individuals, Families, and Households, by Census Metropolitan Areas, retrieved from http://iiiprxy.library.miami.edu:5342/english/Pgdb/famil61f.htm. 40 Statistics Canada, Census of Population, CO-0851, Target Group Profile – Population born in Jamaica, Montreal, 2001.

Jamaicans in South Florida and Toronto Compared

69

Table 4.16 Average Personal Income of Jamaicans Age 15 and Older Population Average Income (U.S. Dollars) United States 27,484 Canada 19,231 South Florida 25,675 Toronto 23,009 Jamaicans in South Florida 21,651 Jamaicans in Toronto 19,170 Jamaicans in the United States 24,742 Jamaicans in Canada 19,200 Source for U.S.: U.S. Bureau of the Census, Public Use Microdata Sample, Florida One Percent, 2000 Census of Population, Washington, D.C., 2003. Source for Canada: Statistics Canada 1996 Census, “Selected Income Statistics for Individuals, Families, and Households, by Census Metropolitan Areas, retrieved from http://iiiprxy.library.miami.edu:5342 /english/Pgdb/famil61f.htm. Source for Jamaicans in Canada: Statistics Canada Target Group Profile – Population born in Jamaica.

The above figures imply that income is generally higher in the United States than in Canada. Although income is also higher in South Florida than in Toronto, the difference is minor. Jamaicans in South Florida also earn more than Jamaicans in Toronto, but again, the difference in much less significant than the difference between the average income in the United States and Canada. The reason is that income in Toronto is higher than the Canadian average and income in South Florida is lower than the American average, as Table 4.16 also illustrates. The difference between Jamaican income in South Florida and Toronto is consistent with the differences between educational and occupational characteristics for the two populations. Jamaicans in South Florida have higher levels of education than Jamaicans in Toronto and there are more Jamaicans in South Florida in management and professional occupations than there are in Toronto. Furthermore, Jamaicans in South Florida earn more than Jamaicans in Toronto. Home and Business Ownership Home ownership also suggests the socioeconomic status of Jamaican immigrants. Although home ownership is not as definitive a variable as

70

Jamaican Immigrants in the United States and Canada income, occupation, or education, it does provide some indication of the socioeconomic status of the Jamaican populations, as it is more difficult for less affluent individuals and families to own homes. Business ownership among Jamaican immigrants also suggests their socioeconomic position. The role of business ownership in socioeconomic mobility will be discussed extensively in Chapter 5. Both home and business ownership are more prevalent among Jamaican respondents in South Florida than in Toronto. Ninety percent of Jamaican respondents in South Florida own their homes. Of the remaining 10 percent, four of them were under the age of 30 and two were students. Seventy-one percent of Jamaicans interviewed in Toronto own their homes. Thirty-one percent of Jamaicans interviewed in South Florida own businesses. Although many are small business such as beauty salons, there were also several larger businesses such as a courier company, law firm, restaurant chain, and plant nursery. Fourteen percent of Jamaicans interviewed in Toronto own businesses, and among them were two medical practices, two dental practices, and two accounting firms. Although home and business ownership intimate affluence, these two variables may also be suggestive of the economic conditions in the host society, as ownership of these types of property often necessitate loans. Jamaican access to business ownership is explored in the following chapter. Residential Patterns Some scholars have noted the tension that is sometimes present between African Americans and Jamaicans, and the consequent social distance between the two groups (Kasinitz 1992; Vickerman 1999; Waters 1999; Foner 2005). Foner (1983) has shown that this social distance does not translate to physical distance in New York City, as Jamaicans in that city tend to live in predominantly African American neighborhoods. In fact, Foner (1983:24) argues that the large African American communities in New York mitigate the effects of racial prejudice that Jamaicans would face in New York. By living in predominantly black neighborhoods, Jamaicans reduce their social contact with whites and other racial and ethnic groups, thereby limiting the possibility of encounters with racial prejudice. The residential patterns of Jamaicans in South Florida and Toronto reflect Foner’s observations of Jamaican residential patterns in New York. In all of these cases, Jamaicans tend to live in majority black

Jamaicans in South Florida and Toronto Compared 71 neighborhoods. The maps shown in Figures 4.4-4.11 illustrate the residential patterns of Jamaicans and other groups in South Florida and Toronto. Figures 4.4, 4.5, 4.6, and 4.7 depict the residential concentration of Jamaicans, blacks, Hispanics, and whites in South Florida respectively. The residential patterns of Jamaicans overlap with those of other blacks, including African Americans. Jamaicans in South Florida do not tend to concentrate in predominantly white or Hispanic neighborhoods. Figures 4.6 and 4.7, in comparison to 4.4 and 4.5, show that Jamaicans and other blacks live in overlapping areas, which are distinctly separate from the predominantly Hispanic and white areas. Jamaicans in South Florida are mainly concentrated in the communities of North Lauderdale, Lauderdale Lakes, and Miramar in Broward County, and Opa-Locka, North Miami, Perrine, and Cutler Ridge in Miami-Dade County. Jamaicans in Toronto are, for the most part, dispersed throughout the city, with the exception of four areas of concentration – Brampton and Rexdale in the northwest, and Scarborough and Pickering in the east of the city. Figure 4.8 highlights the areas where Jamaicans live in Toronto. As in South Florida, Jamaicans live in areas where other blacks are concentrated. The difference, however, is that there are fewer blacks in Toronto than there are in South Florida, as is discussed in Chapter 6. Figure 4.9 shows the areas of black concentration in Toronto. Blacks are also dispersed throughout the city, but there are areas of concentration in the same areas where Jamaican residential clusters are found. In both South Florida and Toronto Hispanics are concentrated in distinct areas that are separate from both black and Jamaican neighborhoods. Non-Hispanic whites reside in many areas of Toronto, as Figure 4.11 shows.

Figure 4.4 Jamaican Born Living in Miami-Dade and Broward Counties 2000 Census Tracts

Number of Jamaican Born 0 - 100 100 - 200 200 - 300 300 - 2,286

North Lauderdale Lauderdale Lakes

94,691 in Miami-Dade and Broward Counties 34,450 (36.4%) in Miami-Dade County

Miramar Opa-Locka

60,241 (63.6%) in Broward County

Perrine Cutler Ridge

72

North Miami

Figure 4.5 . (Alone) Living in Non-Hispanic Blacks Metropolitan Miami, 2000 Census Tracts

Number of Non-Hispanic Blacks (Alone) 0 - 500 500 - 800 800 - 2,000 2,000 - 8,937

North Lauderdale

Lauderdale Lakes

752,445 in Miami-Dade and Broward Counties 427,140 (56.8%) in Miami-Dade County 325,305 (43.2%) in Broward County

Miramar Opa Locka North Miami Liberty City

Cutler Ridge

Homestead

73

Perrine

Figure 4.6 Hispanics Living in Metropolitan Miami 2000 Census Tracts

Number of Hispanics 0 - 1,000 1,000 - 3,000 3,000 - 4,000 4,000 - 13,678 1,563,389 in Miami-Dade and Broward Counties 1,291,737 (82.6%) in Miami-Dade County 271,652 (17.4%) in Broward County

Hialeah

Little Havana

Kendall

74

Figure 4.7 Non-Hispanic Whites (Alone) Living in Metropolitan Miami, 2000 Census Tracts

Number of Non-Hispanic Whites (Alone) 0 - 500 500 - 800 800 - 2,000 2,000 - 8,937 752,445 in Miami-Dade and Broward Counties 427,140 (56.8%) in Miami-Dade County 325,305 (43.2%) in Broward County

75

Figure 4.8 Number of Jamaican Immigrants Living in Metropolitan Toronto by Census Tracts, 2001

Pickering/Ajax Scarborough Brampton Number of Jamaican Born Rexdale

CBD

0 - 100 100 - 200 200 - 300 300 - 785 CBD = Central Business District

76

Figure 4.9 Number of Blacks Living in Metropolitan Toronto by Census Tracts, 2001

Pickering/Ajax Scarborough Brampton

Rexdale

CBD

Number of Blacks 0 - 100 100 - 200 200 - 300 300 - 2,505 CBD = Central Business District

77

Figure 4.10 Number of Latin Americans (Hispanics) Living in Metropolitan Toronto by Census Tracts, 2001

Pickering/Ajax Scarborough Brampton

Rexdale

CBD

Numbers of Latin Americans (Hispanics) 0 - 20 20 - 50 50 - 100 100 - 1,080 CBD = Central Business District

78

Figure 4.11 Number of Non-Visible Minorities (Non-Hispanic Whites) Living in Metropolitan Toronto by Census Tracts, 2001

Pickering/Ajax Brampton

Rexdale

Scarborough

CBD

Numbers of Non-Visible Minorities (Non-Hispanic Whites) 40 - 2,000 2,000 - 3,000 3,000 - 4,000 4,000 - 16,325 CBD = Central Business District

79

80

Jamaican Immigrants in the United States and Canada CONCLUSIONS This chapter has established some of the differences between the Jamaican populations in South Florida and Toronto. The most significant differences between the two populations concern education, occupation, and income. There are more Jamaicans in South Florida than in Toronto with a Bachelors degree or higher. There are also more Jamaicans in South Florida in management and professional occupations than there are in Toronto. In addition, Jamaicans in South Florida earn more than Jamaicans in Toronto. Jamaicans in South Florida also have higher rates of home and business ownership than those living in Toronto, according to the sample of Jamaicans who were interviewed for this research. Differences between the socioeconomic characteristics of the two populations show that Jamaicans in South Florida have higher levels of education and are financially better off than Jamaicans in Toronto. These differences in education, occupation, and income are narrow, while the differences in home and business ownership are more significant. This observation suggests that education, occupation, and income alone do not inadequately explain the differences in other characteristics such as home and business ownership. The following two chapters explain these differences by exploring the ways in which the contexts of South Florida and Toronto produce differences between their respective Jamaican populations.

CHAPTER 5

Jamaican Immigrant Incorporation

INTRODUCTION Despite the similarities between the United States and Canada, there are subtle as well as more palpable differences between the two countries. While this study compares Jamaican immigrants in South Florida and Toronto, it also explains some of the differences between the contexts of reception of the two urban areas. On a larger scale, these differences include the federal and state/provincial immigration policies that enable certain types of immigrants to enter the countries, while restricting others. Other structural differences that distinguish South Florida from Toronto include the labor market, particularly as it concerns the lives of minorities such as Jamaicans. On a smaller scale, organizations in the two metropolitan areas also affect the incorporation of the Jamaican populations. The previous chapter compared the socioeconomic attainments of Jamaicans in South Florida and Toronto. This chapter explores some of the structural differences between the two metropolitan areas, and the ways in which they shape the socioeconomic discrepancy between these two Jamaican populations. In this chapter I argue that the structural contexts of South Florida and Toronto vary widely and the variations produce different outcomes for Jamaicans. More specifically, this chapter investigates such characteristics of South Florida and Toronto as their immigration policies and practices, policies relating to immigrant incorporation into society, local organizations, and includes a cursory overview of the local economy vis-à-vis the labor markets, employment, and average income.

81

82

Jamaican Immigrants in the United States and Canada IMMIGRATION POLICIES Canadian and U.S. immigration policies have closely corresponded, as both countries amended their policies several times throughout the century, most notably in the 1920s, 1952, and the 1960s. These amendments have both temporal and qualitative similarities, suggesting that there are broad parallels between U.S. and Canadian immigration policies. However, there are differences between the immigration policies of the two countries, as well as between the immigrants that they each receive. This investigation of the differences and similarities between immigration policies to the two countries will be limited to the period prior to September 11, 2001, as this date marks a shift in the direction of American immigration policies from an emphasis on social and economic concerns to security concerns. The most conspicuous difference between U.S. and Canadian immigration policies is Canada’s use of the points system. The United States does not have a points system. Instead, U.S. immigration policy is dominated by its emphasis on family reunification, although there are special categories of immigration for those entering as skilled workers, professionals, or business people, as will be discussed below. A second major difference between U.S. and Canadian immigration policies is that undocumented immigrants are of greater concern in the United States than they are in Canada. This is mainly because of the proximity of the United States to Latin America and the Caribbean, and the border that the United States shares with Mexico (Halli and Driedger 1999:25). Canadian Immigration Policy Canadian immigration policy has progressed significantly during the 20th century, with its most radical change taking place during the 1960s when skills and education replaced racial preferences as the primary criterion for admitting immigrants. Prior to 1962 Canadian immigration policy was based primarily on ethnic and racial origins. Preference was given to European immigrants, while others were excluded. Although racial discrimination was theoretically removed from immigration policies in 1962, it was not until 1967 that the geographic preferences, which were also inherently racist, were also abolished (Hawkins 1988:11). The policies that were implemented in 1962 gave priority to immigrants with the skills or education that would assure socioeconomic success in Canada (Parai 1975:456). In addition, Canadian citizens and permanent residents were able to sponsor

Jamaican Immigrant Incorporation 83 relatives in their home countries. The policy of sponsorship was already in effect, but became uniform for all racial, ethnic, and national groups. Three major critiques have been identified against the policy changes of 1962. First, based on the previously Eurocentric policies, family sponsorship meant that immigration to Canada would continue to be dominated by Europeans. Second, the emphasis on years of education limited the immigration of individuals from less developed countries who did not have the same access to education as Western Europeans. Third, immigration officers were allowed too much freedom and authority in determining the outcome of individual immigration cases (Parai 1975:456-457). The racial climate during that period, and Canada’s previous ethnic and racial preferences, suggest the possibility that these immigration officers lacked a sense of impartiality. The most significant changes in Canadian immigration policy emerged in 1967 with the establishment of the points system, which allotted points to immigration candidates based on criteria such as their age, education, knowledge of English or French, and relatives in Canada (Parai 1975; Hawkins 1988; Green and Green 1995). The primary objective was not necessarily to diversify Canada, but to increase the number of skilled immigrants, as Canada was in need of skilled workers. Changes in Canadian immigration policies meant that West Indians had improved access to Canada as their destination country, as was reflected in the shift in source countries. As national or ethnic origin became a less significant factor in the immigration process to Canada and skills became more important, increasing numbers of black West Indians were able to migrate to Canada. Those from the Anglophone and Francophone Caribbean were at an advantage because of their language skills. In 1951 there were no West Indians among the top ten source countries of immigrants to Canada. By 1973 both Jamaica and Trinidad were among Canada’s top ten immigrant source countries, with Jamaica being among the top five as table 5.1 and 5.2 below illustrate.

Table 5.1 Immigrants from the Caribbean and Bermuda by Period of Immigration (2001 Census) Before 1961197119811991Total 1961 1970 1980 1990 2001 6,990 42,740 91,475 68,840 84,005 294,050 Source: Statistics Canada, Census of Population, “Immigrant Population by Place of Birth and Period of Immigration”, excerpted from http://iiiprxy. library.miami.edu:5342/english/Pgdb/demo24a.htm.

Table 5.2 Ten Leading Source Countries of Immigrants to Canada 1951

1960

1968

1973

Britain

Italy

Britain

Britain

Germany

Britain

United States

United States

Italy

United States

Italy

Hong Kong

Netherlands

Germany

Germany

Portugal

Poland

Netherlands

Hong Kong

Jamaica

France

Portugal

France

India

United States

Greece

Austria

Philippines

Belgium

France

Greece

Greece

Yugoslavia

Poland

Portugal

Italy

Denmark

Austria

Yugoslavia

Trinidad

Source: The Immigration Program. Ottawa: Manpower and Immigration, 1974. Retrieved from http://www.ucalgary.ca/applied_history/tutor/ canada1946/introframe.html.

84

Jamaican Immigrant Incorporation

85

Table 5.3 Toronto by Top Ten Source Countries (Principal Applicants and Dependants) 2002

COUNTRY Number

%

Rank

India

18,290

16.39

1

China

17,584

15.76

2

Pakistan

10,357

9.28

3

Philippines

5,260

4.71

4

Iran

4,711

4.22

5

Sri Lanka

3,711

3.33

6

United Arab Emirates

3,178

2.85

7

Korea

2,976

2.67

8

Ukraine

2,254

2.02

9

Jamaica

2,054

1.84

10

Russia

2,014

1.80

11

Saudi Arabia

1,793

1.61

12

Romania

1,670

1.50

15

Total for Top Ten Only

70,375

63.07

Total Other Countries

41,205

36.93

111,580

100

Total

Source: Citizenship and Immigration Canada Facts and Figures 2002, Immigration Overview, retrieved from http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/ pub/facts2002/toronto/toronto_2.html.

In 1966, 87 percent of Canadian immigrants came from Europe, whereas in 1970 this figure was reduced to 51 percent. In 1970 West Indians were among the top ten groups of immigrants to migrate to Canada, accounting for 8.3 percent of the immigrants for that year

86

Jamaican Immigrants in the United States and Canada (Hawkins 1988:12). In fact, since 1975 there have been more immigrants arriving from developing countries than from Europe, and the 1996 census revealed that more than half of Canada’s immigrant population is not of European descent (Mitchell 1997, cited in Halli and Driedger 1999:51). Although in recent years other countries have exceeded Jamaica in sending immigrants to Canada, Jamaica remains among the top ten sending countries for immigrants to Toronto, as illustrated in Table 5.3. Table 5.3 also provides evidence of the dominance of other developing countries in recent Canadian immigration. Another less significant, but nevertheless influential, change that encouraged West Indian immigration was the inclusion of Caribbean people in the Assisted Passage Loan Scheme (APLS), which was originally available only to immigrants from Europe (Parai 1975:463). The APLS is a loan system that assisted migrants in paying for their passage to Canada. It afforded West Indians access to the financial resources necessary to migrate to Canada. Canadian immigration law is characterized by its points system, which is the basis of the migration policies. Potential migrants have three primary avenues through which they can migrate to Canada. The first category includes skilled workers, who are required to have a minimum of one year experience in an occupation that is listed in the National Occupation Classification. If the prospective immigrants do not have jobs secured before applying to immigrate, they must show proof of having the financial means to support themselves and their families. Individual immigrants need to show evidence of funds in the amount of C$10,168. This figure increases in average increments of about C$3,000 for each additional family member. Proficiency in one of Canada’s official languages - English or French - is also required. There are six selection factors, each offering the migrant the possibility of earning points that amount to a possible score of one hundred. The total points required to be approved for immigration is sixty-seven out of one hundred possible points. The six categories are: education, language, work experience, age, arranged employment in Canada, and adaptability (Citizenship and Immigration Canada). The second channel for immigration to Canada is business migration, within which there are three categories: investors, entrepreneurs, and self-employed persons. Investors are required to have business management experience, a net worth of C$800,000, and

Jamaican Immigrant Incorporation 87 they must agree to invest C$400,000 in Canada. This investment is made to the receiver general of Canada and is used for economic development in participating provinces. The investment is returned without interest about five years after the migrant has obtained permanent resident status. Entrepreneurs migrate to Canada with the expectation that they will contribute to the economy by owning businesses and creating jobs. A minimum net worth of C$300,000 is required, and the prospective immigrant must sign an agreement stating his or her intention to manage and control a percentage of equity in a Canadian business. This business must employ at least one Canadian citizen or permanent resident on a full-time basis, and the agreement must be fulfilled within three years of obtaining permanent resident status. The third category of business migration involves self-employed persons, who have the fewest restrictions and obligations. Immigrants who enter Canada through this category are required to have a minimum of two years experience in an area relating to cultural activities, athletics, or farm management. They are also required to have the intention, ability, and financial means to be self-employed in one of these three areas. In addition to meeting the criteria of their category of choice, all immigrants within the business category are required to obtain a minimum of thirty-five points out of the possible one hundred in the following selection categories: education, experience, age, proficiency in English or French, and adaptability. The third category of migration allows Canadian citizens and permanent residents eighteen years of age or older who live in Canada to sponsor their close family members.41 The sponsors must agree to support their family members for a period of three to ten years, depending on their age and relationship to the sponsor. Sponsorship does not require any additional criteria based on the points system that is used for other categories. There are other channels through which individuals are able to migrate to Canada. Foreign born children may be adopted by Canadians, thereby obtaining Canadian citizenship. Prospective Canadian immigrants may also apply to be nominated to particular 41

Family members who may be sponsored through this program include spouses, parents, grandparents, dependent children. Siblings, nieces, nephew, and grandchildren who are unmarried orphans under the age of eighteen may also be sponsored.

88

Jamaican Immigrants in the United States and Canada provinces. This is an attempt to develop the provinces with the help of immigration. Most of Canada’s provinces participate in this program, with the exception of Ontario and Quebec, which receive the majority of Canadian immigrants, and the Northwest Territories and Nunavut, which occupy remote areas of northern Canada. Other immigrants enter Canada as refugees and asylum seekers, fleeing conditions of persecution in their home country, while others fit into one of several other categories, such as the humanitarian and compassionate cases that are evaluated on an individual basis. Figure 5.1 below illustrates the proportion of immigrants who migrated to Canada in 2002 within each of the categories described above. The majority of immigrants to Canada (53.9 percent) entered as skilled workers, while the second largest category is comprised of family members. Figure 5.1 2002 Landings in Canada by Immigration Category (Principal Applicant and Dependants)

Total: 229,058 Source: Data Warehouse Extract Field Operations Support System (FOSS), run in September 2003, excerpted from Citizenship and Immigration Canada “Business Immigration Program Statistics 2002” retrieved from http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/business/busstats2002.

Jamaican Immigrant Incorporation 89 It can prove difficult to categorize immigrants based on the way in which they immigrated because of their diverse and sometimes complex paths. Some of the Jamaican immigrants in Toronto who were interviewed for this research indicated that although they entered Canada as students or as visitors, they later married, and as a result were able to expedite the process of becoming permanent residents. Table 5.4 shows the categories under which the Jamaican interviewees in Canada became permanent residents. Table 5.4 Jamaican Respondents in Toronto Based on Category of Entry Category of Entry Number Percentage Sponsorship by a parent or child 9 17% Sponsorship by a spouse 6 11% Sponsorship by employer 5 10% Arrived with student visa 2 4% Applied independently after arriving as 5 10% visitor Skilled worker 25 48% Total 52 100% Source: Interviews conducted by author

Of the sample of Jamaican Canadians interviewed for this research, there is some overlap between Jamaicans who migrated through a family connection and those who migrated as skilled workers or independent migrants. Seventeen percent of the respondents were directly sponsored by parents or children. Although 50 percent of the interviewees migrated as skilled workers, half of this group initially said that they were sponsored by a sibling. Even though several of the respondents indicated that they were sponsored by a sibling or distant relative, Canadian immigration policy only allows sponsorship by a sibling or distant relative if the immigrant is under the age of eighteen, unmarried, and orphaned. This was not the case among the respondents, and further discussion during the course of the interview revealed in most cases that the migrant was actually admitted as a skilled worker, although the sibling may have initiated and assisted with the migration process. Nurses dominated the skilled worker category, followed by teachers. Of the 21 percent of respondents who arrived in Canada as

90

Jamaican Immigrants in the United States and Canada visitors, 45 percent later applied for and were granted permanent resident status, while 45 percent married Canadian citizens and were sponsored by them, and the remaining 10 percent were sponsored by employers. Of the two respondents who arrived on student visas, one earned a doctorate and was granted permanent resident status based on her skills, while the other married and was sponsored by her spouse. Of the classes through which Jamaicans are able to migrate to Canada, they are most prevalent in the family class. Citizenship and Immigration Canada compiled tables of the classes of immigration according to the top ten source countries. Of family, refugee, business, and skilled workers classes, Jamaicans were among the top ten only for family class migration. They are also among the top ten among “other” class, although it is unclear what “other” means. United States Immigration Policy There are three main channels for voluntary immigration to the United States, not including immigration involving refugees and asylum seekers. The category that is the most widely used and numerically the most significant is family preferences. Within this category of migration, United States citizens are able to sponsor their immediate relatives. There are four main categories within the family preferences class of immigration to the United States. First are the unmarried children of U.S. citizens and their children. In the second category are the spouses and unmarried children of legal permanent residents of the United States. The third category consists of the married children of U.S. citizens and their spouses and children. Finally, the siblings, including their spouses and children, of U.S. citizens age 21 and over.42 Family preferences account for the largest annual number of immigrants. For example, in fiscal year 2000, 69 percent of immigrants to the United States were admitted under this category (Martin 2004:53). Immigrants who come to the United States for reasons of employment account for the second largest category. Within this class of immigration, preference is given to the following types of individuals in order of priority: non-residents with extraordinary ability; non-residents with advanced degrees; skilled workers, professionals, and unskilled workers who can fill gaps in the labor 42

United States Department of Homeland Security 2002 Yearbook of Immigration Statistics, October 2003.

Jamaican Immigrant Incorporation 91 market; special workers, such as individuals in religious occupations; and immigrants who invest in and create employment opportunities for American citizens and residents.43 Immigrants and their families who immigrated through employment channels account for 13 percent of all immigrants to the United States in fiscal year 2000 (Martin 2004:53). The third major means by which individuals can become legal, permanent residents of the United States is through the diversity lottery. The United States government admits 50,000 immigrants annually from countries that have sent fewer than 50,000 immigrants over the previous five years. The program is administered by the State Department’s National Visa Center.44 Approximately 10 to 15 million foreign nationals enter the diversity lottery annually (Martin 2004:53). Those who are selected are then able to apply for permanent resident status. There are other avenues through which the United States accepts immigrants, depending on the country of origin and the immigrants’ circumstances. United States immigration laws are very complex and can also be somewhat discriminatory, as policies are implemented and new channels opened based on particular situations for individuals or nations. Much of this variability is related to United States foreign policy. Changes in United States immigration policies in response to the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 illustrate the centrality of national and international affairs in the determination of these policies. The procedures surrounding the issuance of student visas, for example, changed because at least three of the hijackers entered the United States under student visas (Martin 2004:56). Mitchell (1989) also argues that the influence of foreign policy on immigration is evident in the relationships between the United States and countries such as Cuba, Haiti, the Dominican Republic, and El Salvador. Immigration concessions that were arranged for citizens of these countries, Mitchell maintains, illustrate that immigration policies are not uniform, but sometimes vary based on the country and its relationship with the United States. The different policies toward Cubans and Haitians provide an example of the biases of United States immigration policies. Cubans are usually treated as political refugees and are granted asylum based on this qualification, while Haitians, 43 44

USCIS, retrieved from http://uscis.gov/graphics/howdoi/immstatemp.htm. USCIS, retrieved from http://uscis.gov/graphics/howdoi/divlott.htm.

92

Jamaican Immigrants in the United States and Canada despite extreme political turmoil in their country, are treated as economic migrants. The difference between the ways in which Jamaicans migrate to Toronto and South Florida reflect the differences between U.S. and Canadian immigration policies. The majority of respondents in South Florida, 36, respondents or 75 percent, immigrated by means of family reunification policies. Among this group 11 respondents were sponsored by a sibling, 8 were sponsored by a parent, and 9 were sponsored by a spouse. Of the remaining 8 respondents, 2 said that they were sponsored by grandparents and 6 said that they were sponsored by an aunt or uncle. Upon further inquiry, however, the respondents explained that they arrived as children migrating with their parents, who were sponsored by parents and siblings (the respective grandparents, aunts and uncles of the respondents). Among the 5 respondents who said that they migrated as employees, one of them was a self-employed investor with the financial means to migrate independently, 2 were initially domestic workers, and 2 were temporary workers who arrived with H-145 visas. Of the 6 Jamaican respondents who arrived in the United States under student visas, 4 of them later married and were sponsored by their spouses and the other 2 were sponsored by their employers. Table 5.5 delineates the categories through which Jamaican respondents interviewed in South Florida migrated to the United States: Table 5.5 Jamaican Respondents in South Florida Based on Category of Entry Category of Entry Number Percentage Sponsorship by a relative 27 56% Sponsorship by a spouse 9 19% Sponsorship by employer 6 12.5% Arrived with student visa 6 12.5% Total 48 100% Source: Interviews conducted by author

45

H-1 Refers to a category of United States visas issued to professionals who hold degrees beyond a baccalaureate.

Jamaican Immigrant Incorporation 93 The categories of migration for Jamaicans in South Florida differ from those of Jamaicans in Toronto primarily because of the emphasis on skills and employability in the Canadian policies and the emphasis on family reunification in the American policies. Waters reinforces this observation, as she has similarly remarked that the majority of post1965 immigrants to the United States entered by means of family reunification, not occupation (Waters 1999:101). While the skills and education among Jamaicans in the two metropolitan areas may be parallel, the ways in which they migrated differ. LABOR MARKET ACCESS Neuwirth (1999:63) emphasizes that occupational adjustment, which she defines as “the ability to obtain employment commensurate with one’s skills” is necessary for sociocultural adjustment. An immigrant’s ability to gain employment within his or her skill level is not only a reflection of that immigrant’s human capital, but also attests to some of the limitations of the host society in terms of its ability to be receptive to immigrants, particularly those of color. Citing Weber (1968), Neuwirth (1999:63) notes the relevance of race as she points out that “racial definitions… are used in everyday life as a pretext for excluding groups with different phenotypical or somatic characteristics from competing for economic and social opportunities.” Differences in immigrants’ incorporation into the labor markets of the receiving countries are related to factors that are unique to the immigrants and their backgrounds, as well as to the receiving society. Piché et al. (1999:185) assert that these variations are a function of national origin, and they offer three main types of explanations for the variation. The first is the range of different networks among different immigrant groups, the second is the difficulty that some immigrant groups face in transferring their human capital to their newly adopted country, and the third is discrimination that some groups, particularly visible minorities, face. In theory, Canadian immigration policy suggests that educated and skilled workers are welcome in Canadian society, and that there is a demand for the expertise and the cultural diversity that they bring with them. In practice, however, there are greater boundaries that prevent the incorporation of visible minorities in comparison to other immigrants (Halli and Driedger 1999; Henry 1994). In addition to racial discrimination that immigrants face in attempting to gain employment and upward mobility within their profession, Jamaicans, like many

94

Jamaican Immigrants in the United States and Canada other immigrants from developing countries, also have to contend with Canadian institutions that do not recognize their foreign degrees, credentials, or experience (Neuwirth 1999:57). This invalidation of the individual’s human capital impedes their ability to succeed in the receiving society. Neuwirth (1999:57) suggests that it is not the immigrants’ lack of education or skills that prevents them from finding jobs that are commensurate with their ability, but the structure of the labor market of the receiving country, in which there may not be a demand for the types of skills that they have. Structural biases within the receiving society also prevent certain types of immigrants from gaining access to higher level sectors and positions. Neuwirth (1999:59) asserts that census and survey data do not sufficiently explore the impediments to economic integration that members of non-European immigrant groups face in Canada. Using her previous research on Southeast Asians in Canada (Neuwirth 1993) and Opoku-Dapaah’s (1995) study of Somali refugees in Metropolitan Toronto to emphasize her point, Neuwirth (1999:59) maintains that discrimination against visible minority immigrants limits their employment prospects. She suggests that there is a need for more probing research that investigates the exclusion of non-European immigrants from occupations for which they are qualified. Among the factors that prevent immigrants from places like Jamaica from transferring their skills to Canada are the requisite Canadian experience and the rejection of professional credentials from most developing countries. Below are some examples of individual perceptions of their marginalization from Jamaicans interviewed for this research. Jamaican Canadians who were interviewed for this project expressed frustration with the impediments that they faced when trying to enter the work force. One of the most widely cited complaints was that their employers’ policies restricted their immediate incorporation into the Canadian labor force by requiring Canadian education and/or experience. When asked whether they experienced difficulties finding jobs in their field, many respondents provided comments similar to the examples below: Yes, [I had a hard time finding] a decent paying job. They all wanted Canadian experience (Administrative assistant).

Jamaican Immigrant Incorporation 95 At first I worked with [employment] agencies like most new immigrants, then I went back to college to upgrade, and then it was easier. I was a registered nurse, but they wanted Canadian education and experience (Retired nurse). I don’t remember the title [of my first job], but it was a lower position than nurse’s assistant. They wouldn’t allow me to work as a registered nurse at first because I had studied in another country (Nurse). There was a shortage of teachers, so I took the opportunity to go [to Canada]. It was paradoxical, because they [Canadian government] invited us to immigrate because of the teacher shortage, but the school boards claimed that we needed Canadian experience in order to work. I realized that the government does not hire teachers, the school boards do, and they were not interested in hiring us [Caribbean immigrant teachers]. At the same time, they were hiring white foreigners from places like England, Scotland, and South Africa (Retired educator). Other respondents discussed the racism that they confronted at work, and among them many noted that racism in Canada tends to be subtle, which is problematic because of the difficulties that arise when trying to address the problem. Examples of such comments are: I worked for an old institution where I was the first black in management. They often assumed I was part of the janitorial staff, which is where all the other blacks were. This was only 5 years ago! (Accountant) There is a lot of racism, especially at work, but it is subtle so there is not much you can do about it. You see it when it is time for a promotion and someone with less experience and less qualification gets it (Administrative assistant). They hired under-qualified Europeans, yet they were hesitant to give me my license, so I managed to get a job as an

96

Jamaican Immigrants in the United States and Canada unlicensed electrician until I could get my license. They initially gave me a hard time (Electrician). The problem with racism in Canada is that it is covert, so it is hard to deal with it (Nurse).

Although the Jamaicans who were interviewed cited the workplace as the main source of their encounters with racism, it was also a problem in other settings, such as the housing market. One such example is described below: I have been severely affected by racism. Imagine coming from an environment where all your leaders look like you, and then things change drastically and you have to adjust. I had problems getting a job and housing. I remember when I was trying to get an apartment, and the woman who was renting it told me when I called that it was still available. When I arrived, she said it had been rented, so I left and went to a friend’s house and called again, and she said it was available. I reported her to the authorities, and they imposed a moratorium on renting the place, but I no longer wanted to rent from that woman. I only wanted an apology, but the officer with the human rights agency was Greek, and so was the woman, and they developed a friendship. The moratorium was lifted, and nothing ever came out of it. That was the type of discrimination that I had to deal with (Retired educator). Jamaicans in South Florida face similar concerns of discrimination in the work force as their counterparts in Toronto, yet there are some differences that can be attributed to the nature of migration to South Florida and the characteristics of immigrants in the region. Again, South Florida’s large foreign born population plays a role in the incorporation of immigrants into the South Floridian society, as the following quotation from a Jamaican in South Florida suggests: Yes, when I came here in 1980 there was a lot of prejudice in the workplace in Miami. It is not as bad now, because of the ethnic pluralism here. There are many ethnic groups, so the dominant whites are now a minority. I was told that I was

Jamaican Immigrant Incorporation 97 overqualified. From 1980-81, I worked in different jobs. (CEO of large telecommunications firm) In response to questions regarding the difficulties that they encountered in the job market, Jamaican Americans interviewed for this research offered the following comments: I initially had difficulties because they did not want to accept the British degree, so I went back to school and got a Masters. (High school teacher) Yes, because I had no foreign experience. They had problems with Jamaican education. (Social worker) I came here expecting it to be easy to find a job because I had the qualifications, only to find out that I also need certification. I had to go to Broward Community College after having taught levels higher than that. Now I understand that because I am from another country, it is the unfortunate procedure. That [certification] took nearly a year, but they held the job for me. (Teacher of multicultural education – kindergarten through university) These responses illustrate that Jamaicans in South Florida face similar barriers as those in Toronto, particularly the rejection of their foreign credentials. Despite these barriers Jamaican immigrants have a relatively good record of educational and occupational attainment, as Portes and Rumbaut (1996:59) highlight in their discussion of immigrant attainments in the United States. Within the Jamaican immigrant population, for example, 67.9 percent are high school graduates, a factor that places them in the category of “near U.S. average,” according to the U.S. Bureau of the Census. Of the Jamaican respondents interviewed for this project in Toronto, 29 percent reported that they had problems finding employment after moving to Toronto. Eleven percent found jobs with which they were unsatisfied, but accepted out of necessity, while 2 percent chose not to seek employment. The remaining 58 percent of participants reported that they experienced no difficulties finding employment in Toronto. However, of this group 77 percent had

98

Jamaican Immigrants in the United States and Canada Canadian education, while only 23 percent were educated in Jamaica. In South Florida the results were similar. Only 21 percent of the respondents said that they had problems finding jobs after they migrated to the United States. Most of them, 79 percent, said that they did not have problems finding employment. Among the latter group, 63 percent had some American education and 37 percent had only Jamaican education. Jamaicans in both South Florida and Toronto who have U.S. or Canadian education are evidently at an advantage in the U.S. and Canadian labor markets. This suggests that labor market opportunities are parallel for Jamaicans in South Florida and Toronto. Self-Employment The propensity for self-employment is an important factor that determines immigrants’ socioeconomic mobility, as immigrants who own established businesses tend to earn more than those who work for wages (Portes and Rumbaut 1996:71; Lofstrom 2002:84). Although Jamaican immigrants in the United States have rates of selfemployment that are below the average in the United States, there is some variation between self-employment among Jamaicans in the United States and Canada that warrants discussion. Of the Jamaican respondents in Toronto, 13 percent own businesses, whereas 31 percent of the Jamaicans interviewed in South Florida are business owners. Portes and Rumbaut (1996:76) describe several theories that attempt to explain why some ethnic groups have a greater propensity than others for self-employment. One such theory claims that some migrants are more entrepreneurial than others because of their cultural traits. However, this theory does not explain why immigrants from a wide range of ethnic, cultural, and religious backgrounds have entrepreneurial tendencies while others with cultural similarities differ in their rates of self-employment (Portes and Rumbaut 1996:76). Another theory contends that immigrants who plan to return home are more likely to be self-employed in hopes of quickly earning their fortune so that they can return. Portes and Rumbaut (1996:76) also reject this theory because it does not explain entrepreneurship among many immigrant groups, such as Cubans who arrived in the United States as refugees with very little likelihood of returning home. Mexicans, in contrast, are more likely to return to Mexico, yet their rates of self-employment and business ownership are lower than those of Cubans (Portes and Rumbaut 1996:76).

Jamaican Immigrant Incorporation 99 A third explanation claims that members of minority groups who face discrimination in the labor market have greater incentives to be self-employed. Henry (1994:119) supports this theory, as she asserts that among Caribbean immigrants in Toronto, “One of the chief incentives for self-employment was racism on the job.” Her research identifies Caribbean immigrants who, in response to the racism they experienced at work, left their jobs and established their own businesses (Henry 1994:107-9). This theory, however, does not explain differences between higher levels of entrepreneurship among Chinese and Japanese immigrants on the one hand, and the lower levels of entrepreneurship among Filipino and Mexican immigrants on the other. Filipinos and Mexicans are also considered minorities, and are as susceptible to discrimination as Chinese or Japanese immigrants (Portes and Rumbaut 1996:77). Comparing the same national group as they occupy different geographic spaces helps to identify another plausible, though incomplete, explanation. Perhaps the receiving society has the capacity to create the conditions necessary for immigrants’ entrepreneurial endeavors to thrive. However, this explanation may wrongly suggest that all immigrants in a society that offers the ideal conditions for selfemployment would not only take advantage of the opportunities, but would also be successful. As this is not likely to be the case, a complementary explanation is that the education or skills that immigrants bring with them, when cultivated within a society that fosters immigrant incorporation, may produce larger numbers of selfemployed immigrants. On a very small scale, this may be the case for Jamaicans in South Florida. The combination of skills and education with their presence in a society in which social capital is highly developed among immigrants facilitates more widespread selfemployment. In contrast, Toronto’s Jamaican population remains suppressed by discriminatory stereotypes and a society that continues to have limited expectations of West Indian immigrants, and does not actively support entrepreneurship among them. The aversion of lending institutions to grant credit to Caribbean people has also been cited as a factor that limits the development of more Caribbean-owned businesses in Canada (Henry 1994:114). The dispersed Jamaican community also contributes to this problem, as the lack of residential cohesion makes it more difficult for actual and potential Jamaican business owners to locate a

100

Jamaican Immigrants in the United States and Canada network of patrons.46 Although there are thriving Jamaican owned businesses in Toronto, the large number of Jamaican immigrants in the city suggests there is even more potential for Jamaican entrepreneurs to explore. Income and Discrimination Scholars have also found that immigrants who are visible minorities,47 as are most Jamaican immigrants, tend to earn less than non-visible minority immigrants (Basavarajappa and Jones 1999; Frances 1994). Basavarajappa and Jones (1999) conducted regression analyses for visible minority and non-visible minority immigrants in Canada, as well as the Canadian-born visible minority and non-visible minority population to compare each group’s income. Their research revealed that, “nonvisible minority male immigrants have an income advantage of 30 per cent over their visible minority counterparts” (Basavarajappa and Jones 1999:255). Similarly, “nonvisible minority immigrant females have an income advantage of 8 per cent over their visible minority counterparts,” even though the occupations were similar (Basavarajappa and Jones 1999:257). Basavarajappa and Jones (1999:256) observed that when visible and non-visible minorities of the same gender and similar age, education, and social class work in the same sector for the same length of time, visible minorities earn less. They concluded that discrimination is a reality in the Canadian labor force, and that fact is evident in the income disparity. Similarly, Frances claims that even in instances when they have higher levels of education, members of visible minority groups have been paid lower salaries than other Canadians (Frances 1994:118). While some scholars assert that there is discrimination against immigrants who are visible minorities (Basavarajappa and Jones 1999), there is also evidence that Jamaican immigrants in some cases earn more than other ethnic groups. For example, Jamaicans in South Florida have a median total personal income of US$17,200, while African Americans and Hispanics each have a median total personal income of US$12,000. Non-Hispanic whites, on the other hand, have a median total personal income of US$22,800. This observation is 46

See maps in Chapter 4 for Jamaican residential patterns in South Florida and Toronto. 47 The term “visible minority” is used in Canada in reference to the visibly nonwhite or non-European population.

Jamaican Immigrant Incorporation 101 consistent with the remarks of the Jamaicans interviewed for this research. As quoted above, several of the respondents expressed that they encountered difficulties entering the work force, particularly because their Jamaican credentials were not accepted. However, in time, and in some cases after returning to school for additional education or certification, many of them were able to work in their preferred fields. Jamaican immigrants’ eventual satisfaction with their occupational advancement does not refute the findings of Basavarajappa and Jones, who maintain that immigrants who are visible minorities are underpaid because of discrimination. While a similar analysis is beyond the scope of this book, it is apparent from the interview responses that there is some degree of prejudice that discredits the education and experience of Jamaican immigrants. The impact of this will be discussed below in the conclusion of this chapter. Affirmative Action and Employment Equity The objective of affirmative action policies is to prevent discrimination not only by outlawing the practice, but also by actively seeking to increase the representation of women and minorities in the labor force (Holzer and Neumark 2000:483). Affirmative action is a difficult concept to describe because there is no single, coherent, national policy on affirmative action in the United States. Emphasizing the difficulty in providing a clear outline of affirmative action policies, Holzer and Neumark (2000:484) describe affirmative action as “an amalgam of components of other legislation and of court rulings.” They also note that it is difficult to delineate affirmative action because it functions on different levels, such as the public, private, federal, or state. While there is no explicit federal policy on affirmative action in university admissions, for example, some educational institutions make efforts to diversify their student bodies (Holzer and Neumark 2000:488). The understanding of affirmative action among Jamaicans interviewed for this research is that it serves to increase the number of minorities particularly in the work force, and also in educational institutions. The overwhelming majority of Jamaicans interviewed in South Florida (94 percent) support affirmative action, feel that it positively impacts Jamaicans (94 percent), and identify their race on application forms for employment or education (96 percent). Despite the overwhelming support for affirmative action among Jamaicans in South Florida, the comment below from a Jamaican student living in Miami typifies the statements that several of the respondents made in

102

Jamaican Immigrants in the United States and Canada response to questions regarding their perceptions of the impact of affirmative action on Jamaicans. It can certainly be positive, but I don’t know if they take advantage of it. I think that coming from Jamaica, pride may get in the way of utilizing a much-needed advantage. In 1986 the Canadian government implemented several employment equity programs. The purpose of these programs was to increase the presence of women, visible minorities, First Nations48 and people with disabilities in the labor force (Henry 1994:117; Abu-Laban and Gabriel 2002:131). Employment equity targets larger businesses that “conduct federally regulated activities” (Henry 1994:117). However, these policies are increasingly being replaced by voluntary commitments to diversity on the part of business owners, consistent with the neo-liberal ideals of the reduced role of the government in the private sector (Abu-Laban and Gabriel 2002:131). Although employment equity policies have been contested since their implementation, they have apparently not been very effective in increasing the representation of blacks in a wide range of employment sectors (Henry 1994:117). Despite these disappointing results, 79 percent of the Jamaicans interviewed in Toronto said that they support employment equity, and 79 percent also felt that employment equity is beneficial to Jamaicans. Very few respondents said that they identify their race or ethnicity on application forms because private companies generally do not ask for this type of information. Despite the overwhelming preference for the program, the respondents expressed different reasons for supporting the policies, as the quotes below indicate. Yes, with all the prejudice in this country we need it. There are so many qualified black people here who don’t get jobs. I am not talking about myself. I am not educated, so I don’t mind working in a factory, but my children grew up here and 48

First Nations is a term that is commonly used in Canada to refer to the native population. The term “First Nations” began replacing “Indian” in the 1970s. For more definitions, see http://www.aidp.bc.ca/terminology_of_native_ aboriginal_metis.pdf.

Jamaican Immigrant Incorporation 103 went to the same schools as others, and then others get jobs over them (Factory worker). It can be positive for people in the low-skill professions, but for people with more defined skills like nurses, once you are qualified it is harder for them to deny you a job because of race (Nurse). Others, such as the accountant quoted below, felt that the American model of affirmative action has benefited blacks in the United States, and should perhaps be replicated in Canada. Yes. That is why blacks get ahead in the States. There is racism everywhere, but at least they deal with it. Here it is covert, so you can’t really deal with it. There are so many blacks in positions of power in business, government, all fields. The talent is already there. Affirmative action gives them the opportunity they need. Why is it that you don’t see as many educated and successful young black people here? We need something like that in Canada. Overall, most of the Jamaicans interviewed support employment equity or affirmative action. However, Jamaicans in South Florida showed more enthusiastic support for the policies, and several of them even exclaimed, “absolutely,” when asked whether they support the policies. The greater support and enthusiasm for affirmative action among Jamaicans in South Florida relative to those in Toronto is perhaps a function of the history of the policies in the United States and Canada. Racism and discrimination have historically been more overt in the former than they have been in the latter, and this is reflected in the popularity of affirmative action among blacks, including immigrants, in the United States. On the other hand, Jamaicans still maintain some of their biases even after being immersed in North American society and being exposed to the discrimination that sometimes surfaces. Some Jamaican immigrants in both South Florida and Toronto, particularly those who migrated as adults, expressed a sense of pride and rejection of the merits of the policy, as the following example of a Jamaican Canadian retired dentist illustrates,

104

Jamaican Immigrants in the United States and Canada It may be needed in the U.S., but we Caribbean people especially can take care of ourselves.

ACCULTURATION AND ASSIMILATION Early in the process of migration, of greatest concern is the decision to migrate. After arrival in the new society the interest shifts to matters such as employment, housing, perhaps educational advancement, saving money, and sending money home. Sometimes the move is temporary and the migrant returns home after a period of time has passed and the purpose of migration has been fulfilled, or disappointment with the new environment may be the driving force that sends them home. Many migrants, however, remain in the destination country and become integrated into the new society through the processes of acculturation and assimilation. Portes and Rumbaut (1996:247) refer to acculturation as “the first step of the adaptation process,” and assimilation as the “final stage of the same process.” Past models of assimilation have been characterized by the assumption that the language and culture of immigrants and especially their children are eventually lost and replaced with the language and culture of the “social and political mainstream,” which they adopt (Portes and Rumbaut 1996:247-248). This uniform model of assimilation has been widely rejected (Portes and Zhou 1993; Portes and Rumbaut 1996; Zhou 1999; Rumbaut and Portes 2001), and a more multifarious approach of segmented assimilation has arisen to compensate for some of the inadequacies of the earlier assimilation model. Segmented assimilation signifies the diversity of the ways in which immigrant groups become integrated into their destination societies. Segmented assimilation focuses on the various outcomes of immigrant groups in order to “explain what determines the segment of American society into which a particular immigrant group may assimilate” (Zhou 1999:201). Zhou describes three possible assimilation patterns: upward assimilation toward the middle class; downward assimilation toward the underclass; and upward economic mobility combined with the maintenance of the group’s culture (Zhou 1999:201). Jamaican assimilation in the United States is characterized by the duality of racial discrimination against them on the one hand and their high levels of education and skills on the other (Portes and Rumbaut 1996:255; Rumbaut and Portes 2001:305; Portes and Zhou

Jamaican Immigrant Incorporation 105 1993:92). Rumbaut and Portes (2001:305) state that, “West Indian assimilation represents a contested terrain where downward pressures stemming from external discrimination are countermanded by the intellectual and material resources of families and their commitment to see their children through.” Jamaicans in South Florida may be torn between racial affinity for African Americans on the one hand and the desire to maintain the class position that they held in Jamaica on the other. However, one of the critiques of segmented assimilation is the implicit assumption that assimilation toward African Americans signifies downward assimilation. Foner (2005) points out that, on the contrary, identification with African Americans can present opportunities for upward socioeconomic mobility for Jamaicans. Portes and Rumbaut (1996:250) argue that in the case of immigrants’ children, assimilation patterns are segmented because of the social context in which they grow up and the divergent ways in which they acculturate. This premise also holds true for first generation immigrants, who are similarly affected by their contexts of reception, and whose acculturation also relates to their own background. Portes and Rumbaut (1996:250) describe three factors that affect the adaptation of immigrant children. The first is color, which Portes and Rumbaut contend is not merely a feature of the immigrant, but a characteristic of the host society, which holds the racial prejudice. Zhou (1999:201) also considers race to be a structural factor, as racial discrimination in the receiving society raises the significance of race. The second is the geographic location in which the immigrants settle, which is often at least initially in the inner city or other more affordable areas because of the economic limitations that they face. The third factor is the changes in the American labor market that, because of deindustrialization, have resulted in a greater demand for both low-skilled, low-paying jobs and higher level positions that require higher education. Added to this change is the decreased demand for mid-level industrial positions that offer more opportunities for upward economic mobility for those with less education. Portes and Rumbaut (1996:249-250) describe this labor market structure as an hourglass-shaped model, which contrasts with the earlier pyramidshaped model in which migrants were able to gradually move up the socioeconomic ladder. Zhou (1999:202) describes a similar phenomenon, framed slightly differently. She describes increasing inequality in American society, in which the middle class is shrinking

106

Jamaican Immigrants in the United States and Canada while the extremes of poverty and wealth are increasing. However, she diverges from Portes and Rumbaut, as she notes that the labor market structure has not yet taken the hourglass shape. All of these factors apply to Jamaican immigrants in South Florida and Toronto. First, most Jamaicans are black and are subject to racial discrimination in the host society. Second, Jamaican immigrants tend to settle in large metropolitan areas, and often in the inner city within these areas, at least initially. Third, Jamaican immigrants are vulnerable to changes in the labor markets of the society in which they live, although their relatively high levels of education49 enable them to attain upward socioeconomic mobility. The Melting Pot versus the Mosaic The Canadian policy of multiculturalism came about in 1971 in response to Canada’s growing ethnic diversity. The policy, according to Abu-Laban and Gabriel (2002:105), “served to reconfigure expressions of “Canadian identity” in a way that was inclusive of ethnocultural and racial minorities.” The United States, in contrast, embraced the “melting pot” ideal, which essentially refers to the same concept as traditional assimilation models, which held the expectation that immigrants would eventually become “Americanized.” In practice, however, neither of these patterns became the standard for immigrants in the United States or Canada. The metaphor of the salad bowl has gained popularity as an alternative to the extremes of the melting pot and the mosaic (McWhorter 2004; Hamill 2004). The salad bowl represents the diverse cultures of immigrants in the United States and Canada, who become incorporated into the wider society without losing their identities. This perspective is also more realistic than the melting pot or the mosaic, as the former assumes the loss of cultural identity while the latter suggests that the identities of immigrants remain static even when they live among other cultures. The segmented assimilation model illustrates that immigrant incorporation is far more complex than these two paradigms suggest. The segmented assimilation model also emphasizes the role of the migrants as agents of their own assimilation processes, whereas more overarching models suggest that immigrants fit into prototypes that are determined by the host society. The contrast between Haitians and 49

See Chapter 4 for a discussion of Jamaican educational levels in South Florida and Toronto.

Jamaican Immigrant Incorporation 107 Jamaicans in the United States illustrates this point, as the two groups of predominantly black West Indian immigrants demonstrate different patterns of incorporation. Haitians, particularly the second generation, tend to assimilate toward African Americans, while Jamaicans diverge from both Haitians and African Americans. IMMIGRANT ORGANIZATIONS Immigrant organizations emerged throughout the Jamaican Diaspora, and they are indicators of the networks and social capital that are present in these communities. However, social capital is a difficult concept to measure, as is the influence of immigrant organizations. While it is not possible to discern the degree to which organizations contribute to social capital, this section compares the types of Jamaican organizations in South Florida and Toronto, and the participation of the Jamaican respondents in these organizations. The Jamaica Information Service in conjunction with the Consulate of Jamaica has compiled lists of Jamaican organizations in South Florida and Toronto, among other regions. Although several of these organizations invite membership from the entire Caribbean community, they are all dominated by Jamaicans, and as a result they are considered Jamaican organizations. While these lists are not comprehensive, they include the most well-known organizations. In South Florida the list includes 72 organizations, of which 44 percent are alumnae associations for Jamaican secondary and tertiary educational institutions. The second largest category consists of social, cultural, and community organizations, including more broadly defined organizations such as the Florida Organization of Jamaicans. This category accounts for 22 percent of the total. Seventeen percent are business and professional organizations and 11 percent are charity organizations, including faith-based organizations. Finally, 6 percent are student organizations located on university campuses. A similar list retrieved from the Jamaica Information Service in Toronto includes 82 organizations, of which 58 percent are alumnae associations for Jamaican educational institutions. Social, cultural, and broadly defined organizations account for 21 percent, while foundations, charitable organizations, and outreach organizations account for 20 percent. Only one organization on this list was a professional association. Although the list did not include any student organizations, there are at least three in Toronto, affiliated with

108

Jamaican Immigrants in the United States and Canada Toronto’s three major universities, York, Ryerson, and University of Toronto. While 46 percent of the interviewees in Toronto said that they are members of Jamaican organizations, only 21 percent of the Jamaicans interviewed in South Florida expressed similar membership. Twelve percent of Jamaicans interviewed in Toronto and 19 percent in South Florida said that they are members of churches with a Jamaican majority. The contrast between the large size and visibility of the Jamaican population in South Florida and their sparse membership in ethnic organizations suggests that immigrant organizations neither promote nor impede migration. Although immigrant organizations can provide some indication of the cohesion of immigrant communities, and perhaps suggest the possibility of social capital, the relatively low rate of membership in these organizations, particularly in South Florida, implies that they are not crucial in encouraging the flow of migration. However, for those who are active in these organizations, access to community networks and the benefits of social capital appear to be the most significant benefit. The small sample size of the interviews for this research precludes any generalizations. However, South Florida’s larger number of Jamaican business and professional associations (12) in comparison to Toronto (1) corresponds with the larger number of business owners among the South Floridian sample than among the Toronto sample - 31 percent and 14 percent respectively. CONCLUSION: JAMAICAN INCORPORATION INTO CANADIAN AND AMERICAN SOCIETY This chapter describes several features of receiving societies and the ways in which these characteristics provide the context that affects Jamaican incorporation into South Floridian and Torontonian societies. The literature and data presented reveal that the context of reception is a vital element in immigrant adaptation. More specifically, immigration policies, labor market access, patterns of acculturation and assimilation, and immigrant organizations all affect not only the initial migration process, but also incorporation, as Jamaican immigrants become part of U.S. or Canadian societies. Although U.S. and Canadian immigration policies differ, the categories within which Jamaicans enter the United States and Canada are similar. Almost half of the Jamaicans interviewed in Toronto (48 percent) indicated that they migrated through the points system as

Jamaican Immigrant Incorporation 109 skilled workers, yet 73 percent of them stated that they had close family members already living in Canada when they migrated. This observation indicates that migration categories are not mutually exclusive, as migrants often receive help from family members, even if they migrate under categories other than family class. Despite the emphasis of Canadian immigration policies on employability, it should not be assumed that Toronto attracts more educated or skilled Jamaicans immigrants than South Florida. Data presented in Chapter 4 showed that the educational attainments of Jamaicans in South Florida surpass those in Toronto, while similar numbers of Jamaicans in South Florida and Toronto had relatives in the host country when they migrated - 85 percent and 73 percent respectively. This reveals that immigration policy in the case of Jamaicans in South Florida and Toronto serves more as a means of enabling the movement of legal migrants, and less as a determinant of the immigrants’ characteristics. Based on the interview responses and the similarities in their occupational categories, Jamaicans in South Florida and Toronto also appear to have similar access to the labor market. However, despite similarities in their intention to remain permanently in the host country, more Jamaicans interviewed in South Florida were self employed than in Toronto. Affirmative action also gives Jamaicans in South Florida an advantage over Jamaicans in Toronto. General patterns of incorporation are similar for the two groups of Jamaicans. However, Jamaicans in the United States have more options for acculturation toward a particular American group. Specifically, Jamaicans in South Florida are able to assimilate toward either the so-called American mainstream or the African American middle or working classes. Although membership in Jamaican organizations is more widespread among the Jamaican interviewees in Toronto, the number of business and professional associations was greater in South Florida. This is possibly related to the higher rate of business ownership among Jamaicans in South Florida. Portes and Rumbaut (1996:84) describe the three “most relevant contexts of reception” for immigrants. They are “the policies of the receiving government, the conditions of the host labor market and the characteristics of their own ethnic communities.” While each of these three contexts is important, Portes neglects a fourth, equally relevant factor that affects the experience of immigrants: the ethnic composition of the host society. The most immediate environment for immigrants is their own ethnic community. Still, other ethnic groups affect their

110

Jamaican Immigrants in the United States and Canada incorporation into the broader society, as Foner found in the case of Jamaicans in New York, who benefited from the historical presence of African Americans in that society (Foner 1983, 1985). The importance of ethnicity is discussed in the following chapter, which compares racial group identity in the United States and Canada and explores their impacts on socioeconomic advancement among Jamaicans. There is some overlap between this chapter and the next, as inherent in the latter is the role of institutions and organizations in the proliferation of racial subjugation, and the development of institutions and organizations that promote the liberation and advancement of blacks.

CHAPTER 6

The Racial and Ethnic Context

INTRODUCTION Jamaicans have a long history of migrating to the United States and Canada. Since 1965 when British immigration policies became more restrictive and U.S. and Canadian policies became more accommodating, Jamaican migration to these countries has escalated, and the pattern continues. Poor economic conditions and limited employment opportunities in Jamaica combined with escalating crime rates and intensifying violence have made residing in Jamaica an increasingly unattractive option for many Jamaicans. As Buju Banton (1995) declares in his popular dancehall song, “who can afford to run will run, but what about those who can’t, they will have to stay.” More developed countries such as the United States and Canada, with their vast opportunities for employment, education, and general prosperity, have become for those who have the means and opportunity to emigrate, a more appealing channel to achieve socioeconomic mobility. Jamaicans have shown a tendency to migrate to urban areas where a Jamaican community has already been established (Foner 1983, 1998; Thomas-Hope 2002). Although Jamaicans can be found in many regions of the world, Jamaican communities are clustered in cities such as London, New York, Miami, and Toronto (Foner 2005; Butterfield 2004; Waters 1999). The relationships that develop among migrants in the destination countries through shared origins and experiences, as well as the connections that exist among actual migrants, prospective migrants, and returned migrants, promote continued international movement. Obviously, it is more accommodating for a Jamaican newcomer to be in an environment in which there are other Jamaicans. 111

112

Jamaican Immigrants in the United States and Canada “The settlement decisions of contemporary immigrants are decisively affected by the ethnic concentrations established by their compatriots in the past,” (Portes and Rumbaut 1996:29). As Portes and Rumbaut state definitively, networks are central to migrants as they determine their destination country and city. Portes and Rumbaut (1996:40) found Indian immigrants to be the anomaly, as they are the most geographically dispersed immigrant group in the United States. They explain this phenomenon as a function of the employment patterns that are independent of ethnic networks. Indians have the highest proportion of highly educated professionals among immigrants in the United States. According to Portes and Rumbaut (1996:40), more highly skilled immigrants, particularly those who seek employment prior to migrating, are not as greatly influenced by networks in their residential patterns. This is because their locations of choice tend to be shaped more by employment opportunities than by familial and cultural patterns. Jamaicans, in contrast, are often aided by friends and family as they migrate, and their migration decisions are therefore more heavily influenced by their social networks. Networks play an essential role in the social, economic, and political activities of migrants. Social networks are important because they help migrants to feel at home in the new society and facilitate other practical needs, such as finding housing and employment. Economic networks are crucial not only for employment, but particularly for entrepreneurial endeavors. Political networks affect the collective interests of the group, and enable them to gain political visibility. Institutions and policies can also be established for marginalized groups through lobbying by these political networks. Such institutions and policies50 facilitate the upward socioeconomic mobility of the group. Foner (1983, 1998) conducted comparative studies of Jamaicans in London and New York, focusing on the social context of migration, and asserting that these two groups of migrants face differences that are based primarily on the ethnic composition of the two cities. She describes the similarities and differences between the Jamaican experience in London and New York, and suggests that Jamaicans are 50

Affirmative action (U.S.) and employment equity (Canada) are examples of such policies.

The Racial and Ethnic Context 113 able to adapt more readily to U.S. society than to the British. The primary reason that she gives for the differences between the two Jamaican populations is that the racial setting with larger numbers of blacks in New York allows Jamaicans to form alliances with African Americans, whereas an established native-born black community is absent in London because there are fewer blacks in that city (Foner 1983:24-26). Consequently, Jamaicans in London are more isolated and have more difficulties developing networks and enclave communities. Levitt (2001) also considers the importance of migrant networks and ethnic enclaves in her study of Dominicans in Boston. Focusing on the town of Miraflores in the Dominican Republic, she illustrates the relevance of networks in the decision to migrate to a particular city, as the overwhelming majority of Mirafloreño emigrants choose Boston as their destination city. She also explores the benefits that Dominicans in both Boston and Miraflores reap from having access to these networks, as they help the immigrants to settle in the unfamiliar environment of Boston. In Miraflores, residents gain access to joint resources such as funds and community programs organized by those who have emigrated. Jamaicans, too, seek networks to facilitate their transition as they make the decision to migrate. A major factor is the perceived potential for financial improvement, an idea that is cultivated by previous migrants. In this comparison of South Florida and Toronto, the racial and ethnic settings of the two urban areas are central, and give rise to the following questions: Do the racial compositions of South Florida and Toronto affect the Jamaican communities in these two areas? To what extent does the African American population in South Florida influence Jamaicans in that region? Is racial group consciousness more developed among blacks in the United States than in Canada? Race and ethnicity play roles in the development of networks and communities, as people of similar racial or ethnic background show a tendency to form social, political, and economic alliances. This chapter explores the racial composition of the two areas, and the ways in which the ethnic and racial settings of South Florida and Toronto affect the social, economic and political lives of Jamaicans. TORONTO’S BLACK HISTORY Jamaicans are predominantly black, and the history and presence of blacks in the cities in which Jamaican immigrants live significantly influence their incorporation. This section provides an overview of the

114

Jamaican Immigrants in the United States and Canada history of blacks in Toronto and the surrounding area to facilitate an understanding of the contemporary role and presence of blacks in that metropolitan area. Black presence in Canada dates back to the early seventeenth century, almost as long as their presence in the United States. Although the Canadian slave trade was not extensive it certainly existed, and some of the earliest African Canadians were enslaved. During the first wave of black migration to the Toronto area in the mid-1700s, African slaves were brought to Upper Canada, or presentday Ontario. By 1760 at least 1,000 Africans were enslaved in the areas of Ontario and Quebec, which were then known as Upper and Lower Canada (Torczyner 2003:9). Some of the enslaved Africans in Canada were used as agricultural workers, but extensive plantation agriculture was not widespread, so most of them were domestic servants. While slavery under any condition is an inhuman institution, practices were far more brutal on the plantations of the southern United States than they were in Canada. This was, in part, due to the smaller numbers of slaves in Canada, as they were managed with less brutal force because they were deemed less likely to rebel (Winks 1997: 50). The second wave of black migration to the Ontario area involved non-enslaved blacks, including Black Loyalists, who began to arrive from the United States in 1783. In the United States, some enslaved blacks were offered freedom in exchange for fighting for the British during the American Revolution. When the British lost the war these free blacks, who became known as the Black Loyalists, went to British colonies, including Canada. Although they were presumably free men and women, some were kidnapped and taken to the West Indies as slaves. Of those who were taken to Canada, the majority settled in Halifax, Nova Scotia, where they were given marginal, infertile land. Extensive black communities were developed in eastern Canada, the most legendary being Africville, which was later destroyed by white Canadian developers. From Nova Scotia, some blacks later migrated to England and Sierra Leone. Although most were taken to eastern Canada, some free blacks from the United States went to Toronto and other parts of Ontario in much smaller numbers. Others later arrived as refugees following the War of 1812 in the United States (Walker 1976:3). The early to mid-19th century marks the third wave of black migration to Toronto, as African Americans migrated to Canada in search of freedom. By the time of the Emancipation Act of 1833, which

The Racial and Ethnic Context 115 abolished slavery, black and white abolitionists in both the United States and Canada had developed a system of clandestine escape routes punctuated by places of refuge. Through this network, which became known as the Underground Railroad, an estimated 80,000 enslaved people escaped from the southern United States between 1815 and 1860. About 50,000 of them are believed to have escaped to Canada. The passage of the Fugitive Slave Law in 1850 prompted an increase in the number of African Americans who escaped to Canada (Alexander and Glaze 1996:57-60). Black migration to Toronto declined significantly between the late 19th century and the mid-20th century, when changes in Canadian policies toward foreigners restricted potential immigrants. During this period, Canada’s black population declined, reaching an estimated 18,291 in 1921 (Torczyner 2003:9). The African Canadian population remained consistently low for the next few decades, until Canadian immigration policies became less restrictive in the mid-1960s, thereby enabling new immigrants to enter the country (Torczyner 2003:9). The 1960s signify the fourth wave of black migration to Toronto, as major changes in Canadian immigration policy in 1962 enabled more black foreigners to enter the country. The new policies emphasized education and employment potential, and proclaimed that each immigrant would be judged “entirely on his own merit, without regard to race, colour, national origin, or the country from which he comes” (Winks 1997:443). Following these policy changes black immigrants, especially West Indians, began to arrive in large numbers. The first were Jamaican and Barbadian women, who began to arrive in Canada in late 1955 through a program that admitted one hundred female domestic workers each year from the two islands combined.51 By 1960 the annual limit was increased to three hundred, and women from other West Indian islands were also included. Many of these women entered as domestic workers and remained in the program for the required year, after which they pursued education or other careers, particularly in the field of nursing (Winks 1997:439). Other West Indians migrated to Canada as students. There were four hundred and fifty West Indian students in Canada in 1955, and by 1960 the number had grown to three thousand (Winks 1997:441). These pioneers paved 51

An earlier program involved women traveling from Martinique to Quebec. See Calliste 1994 for a discussion of this program.

116

Jamaican Immigrants in the United States and Canada the way for later West Indian arrivals, particularly after the points system, which was implemented in 1967, rendered the immigration policies less anti-black. The fifth wave of black immigration to Toronto involved the growth of the African-born population, as Africans entered Canada as immigrants, refugees, and students. Early African immigrants to Canada were mostly educated and members of the elite, contributing to the "brain drain" from the continent. Later, as political, economic, and environmental problems arose in Africa, immigrants and refugees arrived in increasing numbers from the countries most affected by such problems (Torczyner 2003:9). There is a long history of black migration to Canada in general and to the Toronto area in particular. Yet the native-born black population remains small in comparison to that of the United States. About 2 percent52 of Canada’s population is black, in comparison to 13 percent of the American population. SOUTH FLORIDA’S BLACK HISTORY Early records of blacks in South Florida date back to the seventeenth century, when Bahamian blacks began migrating to the Florida Keys. Dunn (1997) describes four major historical events that brought blacks to Miami. The first was a recession in the Bahamian economy in the early 1880s, an event that prompted many Bahamians to migrate to South Florida in search of a livelihood. Many settled in Key West, while others developed communities in areas such as Coconut Grove, where many of the descendants of these early migrants remain, as well as Lemon City,53 an area north of the Miami River (Dunn 1997:1). The second event that stimulated black migration to Miami was the Great Freeze that affected the southeastern portion of the United States during the winter of 1894-1895. The extensive damage to the agricultural 52

Statistics Canada, “Visible Minority Groups (15) and Sex (3) for Population, for Canada, Provinces, Territories, Census Metropolitan Areas 1 and Census Agglomerations, 2001 Census - 20% Sample Data,” retrieved from http://www12.statcan.ca/english/census01/products/standard/themes/RetrievePr oductTable.cfm?Temporal=2001&PID=62912&APATH=3&GID=431515&M ETH=1&PTYPE=55440&THEME=44&FOCUS=0&AID=0&PLACENAME= 0&PROVINCE=0&SEARCH=0&GC=99&GK=NA&VID=0&FL=0&RL=0& FREE=0. 53 The neighborhood known as Little Haiti is located in this area.

The Racial and Ethnic Context 117 sector prompted both white farmers and black agricultural workers from northern and central Florida, as well as Georgia and South Carolina, to head south to southern Florida. The third factor was the extension of the Florida East Coast Railroad to Biscayne Bay in 1896, the year the city of Miami was established. The construction of the railroad provided employment for thousands of blacks in Miami. The fourth event that increased the black population in Miami was economic and political instability in Haiti and Cuba beginning in the late 1950s. This instability stimulated the migration of countless blacks from these island nations (Dunn 1997). Furthermore, migration from other parts of the Caribbean was on the rise during this period. There has since been significant black migration to South Florida, bringing the region’s black population to 847,626, or 22 percent of the population of the Miami-Fort Lauderdale Consolidated Metropolitan Statistical Area (CMSA).54 Broward County has been referred to as “the nation’s new black mecca” (Lewis 2004) because of its rapidly growing black population. Between 2000 and 2003 almost 70,000 blacks relocated to Broward County from other parts of the United States, more than any other county in the country. Nearly 300,000 black persons have come to Florida between 2000 and 2003, bringing the number of black people in Florida close to 2.8 million. During the same period Florida became the state with the second largest black population, a shift from fourth place. Only New York has a larger black population (Lewis 2004). This synopsis of black migration to South Florida provides some explanation for the poor socioeconomic conditions that the native born black population faces. Black migrants to South Florida came mainly for low-skilled jobs in agriculture and manual labor on the railroads. Some members of South Florida’s contemporary black population, the descendants of these early migrants, remain marginalized as other ethnic groups surpass them in socioeconomic standards (Grenier and Stepick 1992). The foreign born population, however, has the

54

United States Census Bureau, Census 2000 Summary File 1 (SF 1) 100 Percent Data, QT-P5, Race Alone or in Combination: 2000, Geographic Area: Miami-Fort Lauderdale, FL CMSA.

118

Jamaican Immigrants in the United States and Canada advantage of migration selectivity,55 suggesting that they arrive with some education and financial resources. ETHNIC LANDSCAPE At a glance, Toronto’s ethnic landscape resembles that of South Florida. Both cities are located in countries with advanced industrialized economies. The metropolitan areas boast similar populations, of 2.48 million and 2.25 million inhabitants respectively. Both cities have significant immigrant populations, earning them reputations as racially and ethnically diverse places. The diverse cultural landscape is a reflection of this heterogeneity, as there is evidence of the immigrant populations in the food, music, and cultural events of the two metropolitan centers. However, closer scrutiny reveals that Toronto’s racial and ethnic climate differs greatly from that of South Florida. One of the most salient differences involves the significant presence of a native born black population in Miami; its equivalent is barely visible in Toronto. Toronto’s black population represents 7% of the total population, while Miami’s black population is 22% of the total population, as noted in Table 6.1 below. In Toronto the majority of the black population is foreign born, mainly West Indian, whereas in South Florida the figure includes a considerable number of African Americans. Jamaicans are more dominant as a proportion of Toronto’s black population than of South Florida’s black population. South Florida and Toronto have similar numbers of Jamaicans, but there are nearly three times as many blacks in South Florida as there are in Toronto. Table 6.1 outlines the proportions of blacks and Jamaicans in South Florida and Toronto. There is much debate in the literature on Jamaican immigrants’ identities, which seems to be representative of the contradictions in the behavior and self-identification of Jamaicans. On the one hand, Jamaican immigrants, the majority of whom consider themselves to be black, tend to identify with other blacks, particularly when faced with racial discrimination or stigmatization. In the United States the groups with which Jamaicans identify are often mostly comprised of African Americans. In the Canadian context, where there is a significantly smaller Native-born black population, Jamaicans form networks with 55

Migration selectivity suggests that international migrants tend to be more educated and financially better off than non-migrants. This tends to be the case for Jamaican migrants, who need to have the resources necessary to migrate.

Table 6.1 Proportions of Blacks in Canadian and American Host Societies

Total population Number of blacks Percentage of blacks Number of Jamaicans Percentage of Jamaicans Percentage of blacks who are Jamaican Percentage of Jamaicans who are black

United States

Canada

29,639,035

Miami-Fort Lauderdale CMSA* 3,876,380

281,421,906

Toronto CMA** 4,647,960

36,419,434

662,210

847,626

310,500

13%

2%

22%

7%

553,827

122,340

94,691

93,315

0.2%

0.4%

2.4%

2%

1.5%

19%

11%

30%

95.5%

86%

93.6%

88%

Sources for U.S.: United States Census Bureau, Census 2000 Summary File 1 (SF 1) 100 Percent Data, QT-P5, Race Alone or in Combination: 2000; Census 2000 Summary File 3 (SF 3) PCT 19, Place of Birth for the Foreign Born Population. Sources for Canada: Statistics Canada Ethnocultural Portrait of Canada, Visible Minority Groups and Sex for Population, for Canada, Provinces, Territories, Census Metropolitan Areas and Census Agglomerations, 2001 Census – 20% Sample Data; Statistics Canada 2001 Target Group Profile – Population Born in Jamaica. * Consolidated Metropolitan Statistical Area ** Census Metropolitan Area.

119

120

Jamaican Immigrants in the United States and Canada each other and with other West Indians (Henry 1994). On the other hand, depending on the circumstances, Jamaicans have demonstrated a tendency to distance themselves from other blacks in their society, in some instances, even from other West Indians. While some respondents in this study, as well as in studies conducted by other scholars, observed a sense of camaraderie among Jamaicans and their fellow West Indians, others found that some Jamaicans were adamant about defining themselves as a separate group (Vickerman 1999; Waters 1999; Foner 2005). RACE AND ETHNICITY People of African descent, particularly those in the western hemisphere, are united by their shared experiences of racism, their common African ancestry, and their struggle to achieve social, political and economic mobility in light of the historically entrenched social structures that impede such progress. Despite such commonalities, the idea of unity based on racial identity is questionable, particularly among people who are from different countries and connect along ethnic or national, but not racial lines. Scholars have long emphasized the distinction between race and ethnicity, the importance of which is particularly salient to this discussion of interaction and influence between Jamaicans and African Americans. While racial classifications are generally based on phenotype and ancestry, ethnic differences may also incorporate nationality. The difference between Jamaicans and African Americans typifies this distinction, as the two groups share a race, but are of different ethnicities. The concept of a shared identity is, in Anderson’s (1991) words, “imagined.” Anderson coined the concept “imagined communities,” which refer to constructed group identities that are based on common experiences. This is as true of Jamaicans, who forge communities in the destination countries with people with whom they may have had little contact on the island, as it is of African Americans, among whom there are political and economic rifts. Yet when placed in an environment in which they are perceived as the other, members of both groups seem to overcome these differences, or, to remain consistent with references to Anderson’s ideas, they forget their differences. In the face of oppression from outsiders, blacks, particularly in the U.S. and Canadian contexts, have been known to gravitate toward each other, discounting any divisions of ethnicity or class. This is also the case in South Florida, where blacks, regardless of their ethnic or national origin, tend

The Racial and Ethnic Context 121 to unite when they share a position of marginalization (Grenier and Stepick 1992). GROUP IDENTITY AND CONSCIOUSNESS Individuals of similar racial, cultural, religious, national, or ethnic origin tend to form communities based on their commonalities. Rogers defines group identity as “a multidimensional social construct consisting of two integral components: group identification and group consciousness” (Rogers 2001:169). Group identification refers to an individual’s social connection to an ethnic or racial group of which the individual is a member. Group consciousness involves the politicization of the group and an active approach to its collective interests. The concepts of group identification and racial group consciousness provide the foundation for this discussion of racial composition, consciousness, and politics among Jamaicans in South Florida and Toronto. Group identity among immigrants is often expressed through cultural, social, and economic channels. Immigrants tend to develop enclave communities, through which they are able to gather and connect based on their shared experiences. Enclaves are also known to serve as avenues for economic development within the group, as members may rely on their community for employment opportunities, while entrepreneurial members find their customer bases within these communities (Portes and Rumbaut 1996). However, there is a less entrenched sense of formal political activity among Jamaican immigrants, for reasons that will be discussed below. African American Group Consciousness Group consciousness as defined above is marked by the politicized nature of the activities that arise through the group. In the case of the United States, African Americans set a standard for understanding racial group consciousness, as they have developed institutions and social, economic, and political visibility and mobility, partly based on this consciousness. African Americans have a defined sense of group consciousness, taking them beyond the social, cultural and economic bonds of group identity, and stimulating them to mobilize along political lines. Some scholars claim that African Americans have this well-cultivated sense of group consciousness because of the extreme forms of racial discrimination that they have faced in the United States (Rogers 2001:168).

122

Jamaican Immigrants in the United States and Canada Rogers, however, rejects this perspective. If this were the case, he contends, other marginalized ethnic groups, including early twentieth century European immigrants as well as more recently arrived immigrants such as Asians, Latinos, and West Indians, would form similarly politicized communities. Rogers maintains that African American racial group consciousness is “an outcome of their political socialization in a network of all-black institutions… that first developed during the era of Jim Crow segregation and continues today” (Rogers 2001:172). Rogers’ perspective on the development of political group consciousness among African Americans offers a viable explanation for the lack of a similar group sensibility among other ethnic groups in the United States, including Jamaicans, for whom the social context of identity formation is different in the United States. The United States was, for generations, hostile to African Americans, and rejected the idea that they should be incorporated into that society, despite the fact that they are native to this country. Within this racialized context, African Americans created their own exclusive institutions that took the form of churches, colleges, universities, and social and political organizations. As Ogbar (2004:124) observes, “The ubiquitous practice of de jure and de facto racial segregation that dated to the early nineteenth century forced black people to cultivate and rely on black-controlled churches, professional societies, schools, and social groups.” Through these institutions they developed a sense of community and a highly politicized group consciousness that was expressed in its most poignant form through the Black Power Movement. Ogbar emphasizes the significance of the Black Power Movement, stating that “The ramifications of black power were felt from prisons to Ivy League schools, creating lasting impressions and altering the way race and racial etiquette were understood in America” (Ogbar 2004:125). Jamaican American Group Consciousness While this section compares African American and Jamaican group consciousness, it is important to emphasize that black people, whether African American or Jamaican, do not comprise homogeneous groups with common identities. As such, they conceptualize and experience race differently. Individual experiences with race stem from a variety of divergent characteristics, such as socioeconomic status, gender, sexuality, and national origin. Regional differences within the United States are also important, as southern attitudes to race may differ from

The Racial and Ethnic Context 123 those in the north. These dissimilarities were even more entrenched prior to the civil rights movement. However, there are some common institutions through which African Americans developed shared meanings that have not extended to most foreign born blacks. Differences in the ways in which African Americans and Jamaicans conceptualize race stem from the different social, historical, and institutional contexts in which they developed their perspectives, consciousness, and political ideologies (Water 1999:29). Some scholars claim that Caribbean immigrants in the United States choose to disassociate themselves from African Americans out of fear of facing the type of racial stigmatization that the latter has endured (Vickerman 1999; Rogers 2001:166), while others recognize that this perspective discounts the persisting racial discrimination that prevails in the United States (Foner 1987; Rogers 2001). Racism in the United States affects blacks regardless of national origin or ethnic identity. Rogers (2001) emphasizes that the affinity that Caribbean blacks have for their racial or ethnic group does not stem from a conscious choice between identifying with either. Race and ethnicity intersect in dynamic ways, and the identity of a black Caribbean person ought not to be seen as a dichotomous choice between racial or ethnic ties. Group identification among black Caribbean people is based on alliances and conflicts, and most importantly experiences. Rogers (2001) suggests that African American group consciousness is rooted in the institutions that they established in light of racial segregation in the United States. Caribbean immigrants in the U.S. and Canada have not had extensive exposure to these institutions. Although Jamaica is not a homogeneous society, it is numerically dominated by blacks. Because 91 percent of the inhabitants are classified as black, the island is not ideologically divided along racial lines. Instead, Jamaicans tend to align themselves according to socioeconomic class (Foner 1985:713) such that political ideology is based on factors such as kinship ties, occupation, and education (Stone 1980). Voting patterns in Jamaica are primarily based on socioeconomic status, kinship relations, and corrupt patron-client relations.56 Institutions similar to those that were established in the 56

Patron-client relations refer to corrupt relationships between political leaders and members of the marginalized population, in which the former provides resources for the latter in exchange for political support. Carl Stone defines

124

Jamaican Immigrants in the United States and Canada United States did not develop in Jamaica, in part because the ethnic diversity and racial discrimination that influenced African Americans in the United States is relatively absent in Jamaica. There are other differences between the experiences of African Americans and Afro-Caribbeans, rooted in the histories of their respective countries. African Americans share with Afro-Caribbeans the history of slavery and subordination to Europeans. However, the subsequent events and outcomes were divergent for several reasons. A major difference between the United States and Jamaica is the racial composition of the populations. Whereas Europeans chose to settle in the United States, using enslaved Africans for the development of the country, European colonizers utilized Jamaica’s natural resources and enslaved Africans for their own enrichment, while choosing not to inhabit the island. The absence of a significant white population in Jamaica made policies similar to the American Jim Crow policies of racial segregation unfeasible in Jamaica. Group identity among Jamaicans developed in the absence of a substantial white population, and without the atrocities that accompanied racial segregation in the United States. While the common history of slavery creates the desire among American and Jamaican blacks to unite against racial oppression, Jamaicans in the United States have not mobilized politically to as great an extent as African Americans. Consistent with models of social and economic enclaves among immigrants, Jamaicans have a heightened sense of group identity. However, as Rogers emphasizes, “they do not immediately attach the same political and ideological meanings to their racial identity as do African Americans” (Rogers 2001:177). Jamaican identity in the destination countries also differs from Jamaican identity on the island. Jamaican immigrants have the unique experience of moving from a majority black country, where they are accustomed to seeing black people in positions of authority (Foner 1985:713). Their new experience in the United States or Canada involves a necessary adjustment to a minority status with which they are unfamiliar. Jamaican immigrants leave the reality of seeing black patron-clientelism as “the exchange of economic and social favours to a poor and socially fragmented population in return for party support” (Stone 1980:9192). For more on Patron-client relationships in political behavior in Jamaica, see Stone (1974; 1980) and Edie (1984; 1991).

The Racial and Ethnic Context 125 people as authority figures (Foner 2005), and in social positions ranging from the destitute to the elite, and on arrival in the destination country they are introduced to the concept of being minorities and members of a marginalized group. Yet they leave the island with the realization that they are entering a country where white supremacy was for generations the norm, and where racism remains a reality. This knowledge and expectation of racial prejudice comes from their premigration exposure to North America, particularly the United States, through the media, friends, and family (Foner 1985, 2005). Jamaican immigrants in both the United States and Canada thus have very different expectations of American society than do African Americans. Jamaicans view Jamaica as their home. Their expectation of the destination country is that it will help them reach their financial goals. To African Americans, however, the United States is home, and they are consequently more committed to changing the status quo and uniting to secure their rights, as their struggles and accomplishments during the civil rights and Black Power Movements demonstrate. Jamaican immigrants have a sense of detachment from their destination country, as the overwhelming majority of them continue to view Jamaica as their home. This sense of detachment does not appear to be as palpable in Canada, as will be discussed below. Rogers (2001) identifies two central explanations for the absence of a common group consciousness among black Caribbean immigrants in the United States and African Americans. First, Afro-Caribbeans do not have the same recent memories of racial segregation and the persisting racial subordination that shape African Americans’ frame of reference. Slavery was abolished in the British colonies in 1838, decades before emancipation in the United States in 1865. More important, the Jim Crow laws that promoted legal and enforced racial segregation in the U.S. South, and the barbaric extremes of racism that followed, inspired American blacks to establish their own networks and institutions. While Jamaican society remained racist, the absence of a significant number of whites permitted the majority black population a greater level of autonomy. Although Jamaicans were subordinate to the natives of their “mother country” Great Britain, the former had limited contact with the British, and consequently did not experience the harsh conditions that were the reality for African Americans. The second explanation that Rogers (2001) offers for the differences between the group consciousness of African Americans and

126

Jamaican Immigrants in the United States and Canada that of Jamaicans is that the institutions that African Americans developed when they were excluded from similar white American institutions now act as a central channel through which they are socialized. Examples of such institutions are historically black colleges and universities and black social clubs such as Jack and Jill.57 Specifically, Rogers (2001) asserts that African Americans develop their political ideologies through these institutions. Caribbean blacks, on the other hand, have not been incorporated into similar exclusive institutions to a great extent. Interviews with Jamaican immigrants in the U.S. conducted for this study similarly indicated that although only a minority is actively involved in African American social and institutional networks, this minority tends to have a heightened sense of politicized group consciousness. For example, one respondent who attended university in the United States and became a member of an African American fraternity stated that he is also a member of several other African American organizations. He was also very strongly in favor of affirmative action, and stated that living in the United States has heightened his awareness of his blackness, whereas in Jamaica he was more conscious of his social class. Unlike most other interviewees, this respondent also said that his social network includes many African Americans. The well-established Jamaican communities that thrive throughout the United States enable Jamaican immigrants to maintain social, political, and economic networks within these enclave communities. Despite the collective identity that blacks from the Caribbean share with blacks in the United States, their social realms differ greatly, primarily because of differences in their experiences, as discussed above. The frame of reference for Caribbean immigrants is based on their migration experiences in the United States or Canada. It is not based exclusively on experiences in their country of origin, nor is it based exclusively on their lives as immigrants in the destination country. The identity of Caribbean immigrants is based on the dynamic range of experiences that they encounter. All aspects of their lives – saving and spending habits, travel, work, and social and political

57

Jack and Jill is an exclusive social and cultural club established in 1938 for African American children.

The Racial and Ethnic Context 127 activity – originate in the experiences and expectations that accompany transnational lives. It may also be the case that Caribbean immigrants resist having a stronger sense of group identity with blacks with whom they do not share a nationality because of their detachment from the United States. Jamaicans in particular tend to maintain a sense of patriotism, and often convince themselves, even years after emigrating, that they will return home once they have saved enough money. Of Jamaican respondents in South Florida, 42 percent of the interviewees said that at the time of migration they did not intend to remain permanently in the United States. Eight percent have definite plans to return to Jamaica, while 33 percent said that they may return. Responses were similar in Toronto, where 42 percent indicated that they initially planned to return to Jamaica at the time that they migrated. Thirteen percent said that they have definite plans to return to Jamaica, while an additional 25 percent said that they may return. Jamaicans, in general, maintain strong ties to their home country. Half of all interviewees reported that they send money home at least annually, even if they no longer have immediate relatives on the island. Although Jamaicans own property, raise families, and invest in U.S. society, some of them hold enduring ties to the island that prevent them from being incorporated into American political life, and from fully adopting the United States as their new home.58 As such, they consider themselves separate from African Americans by virtue of having a separate national and ethnic identity. Racial Group Identity in Canada The two previous sections have been dominated by the discussion of racial group identity among African Americans and Jamaican Americans respectively. This is the case because the African Canadian population is significantly smaller than the African American population. The history of race relations in the United States and Canada also differ widely, as do the prevailing attitudes toward race and racial identities. The black population in Toronto is dominated by West Indians, particularly Jamaicans, who account for 30 percent of Toronto’s black population as noted above in Table 6.1. Jamaican Canadians do not demonstrate the same levels of group identity as Jamaican Americans, and this is likely related to the different racial and 58

These connections to Jamaica will be discussed more extensively in the following chapter.

128

Jamaican Immigrants in the United States and Canada social structures of the two countries. While Jamaicans in South Florida display limited racial group consciousness, they are nonetheless connected to their Jamaican networks, particularly social and economic ones. Jamaican Canadians, on the other hand, have not developed similarly extensive networks, nor have they developed as many business or entrepreneurial organizations59 as their counterparts in South Florida. While racial discrimination and inter-group tensions are rampant in Canadian society, Jamaicans say that this type of discrimination is rarely explicit. In Toronto 77 percent of the respondents felt that Canada was a racist society, and some revealed their experiences with racial tension, yet only 13 percent said that they had been subjected to explicit forms of racism. Compared to racial conflicts in the United States, events sparked by racial tension in Canada are fewer in number, and are not as frequently expressed through public demonstrations or riots. Below are some of the comments that Jamaican interviewees in Toronto made when asked about their perspectives on racism in Toronto. I identify more as a black person now. In Jamaica I didn’t really have to, since most people were like me. (College student) I changed since moving here, as I became aware of racism. In Jamaica I was at the top of the food chain because there it is about class, not color. (Dentist) There was racism on the job. The problem with racism in Canada is that it is covert, so it is hard to deal with it. (University librarian) But the problem with racism in Canada is that it is very covert. You can’t prove anything. It is not like in the States where the racism is more direct, so at least you know who you’re dealing with. (Accountant)

59

An example is the Jamaica-USA Chamber of Commerce, which is based in Miami.

The Racial and Ethnic Context 129 I have been affected by racism, but it is the type of covert racism that you can’t prove. (Nurse) I see that there is racism here, but it hasn’t really affected me. (Dental assistant) I have become more open to different cultures, and also more aware of my own race, especially because of the way I am perceived as a black man, mainly by the police. (Dentist) I have seen some racism at work, but I have not really experienced anything bad myself. (Retired factory worker) I have had to deal with racism, although I have not felt belittled. I am more influenced by the Jamaican mentality of strength. (Industrial engineer) Although there are black Canadian organizations, this group is not as militant or politicized as African Americans, perhaps because of its smaller size and different concerns. Organizations such as the League for the Advancement of Colored People and the Nova Scotia Association for the Advancement of Colored People were launched, but did not gain much recognition or longevity (Winks 1997: 418). During the period following World War II, many black Canadians are said to have expressed their desire to live in the United States despite the overt racism there, mainly because the increasingly independent black community in the United States was more receptive and offered better employment and entrepreneurial opportunities (Winks 1997:427). There are stark differences between Jamaican Americans and Jamaican Canadians. African Americans play a significant role in influencing the political activity of Jamaicans in the United States. While group consciousness is undoubtedly more pronounced among African Americans than either Jamaican Americans or Jamaican Canadians, the explanation is more complex than that offered by Rogers. Institutions play an important role in the political socialization of African Americans, but other factors alter the dynamics, such as the numeric and proportional significance of African Americans, which overshadow the comparatively small proportion of blacks in Canada. Blacks account for 13 percent of the U.S. population and 2 percent of

130

Jamaican Immigrants in the United States and Canada the Canadian population (see Table 6.1). Rogers also underestimates the importance of discrimination. The creation of the many African American institutions and organizations was, in part, a response to the harsh discrimination that they contested. Rogers emphasizes that other ethnic groups in the United States face discrimination, yet their group consciousness is not as formidable. However, no ethnic group in the United States faced the severe and excessive forms of institutionalized racial hostility that African Americans confronted. JAMAICAN IDENTITY IN SOUTH FLORIDA AND TORONTO The differences between Jamaicans in South Florida and Toronto are explicit in their attitudes toward issues concerning race. These issues include attitudes toward African Americans and other immigrants, as well as concerns such as employment equity and affirmative action. This variation in attitudes and socialization is rooted in the historical divergences between the United States and Canada. There are significant differences between race relations in the United States and Canada, and Jamaican immigrants in both countries tend to adopt these differences. This divergence does not only affect immigrants, but is rooted in the racial politics of the areas in which they live. Emphasizing the importance of the “context of incorporation,” in her comparative research on Jamaicans in London and New York, Foner (1998b) notes the importance of visibility. Her research shows that Jamaicans in New York were not as visible as those in London because the former were, to whites and other non-blacks, members of the native black population, while the latter, having no native black community to absorb them, were simply Jamaican or West Indian (Foner 1998b:50; Foner 2005). Similarly, in the United States, Jamaican visibility may sometimes be underestimated because they are assumed to be African American, while in Toronto Jamaicans and sometimes even other West Indians are identified as Jamaican. Waters (1999: 65) notes that “African Americans played the role of ‘the Other’ in the construction of a West Indian identity in New York.” This appears to be the case in South Florida as well, where respondents emphasize differences between themselves and African Americans, particularly where the former are middle class and the latter working class. In South Florida, where some Haitians are stigmatized, Jamaicans also tend to separate themselves from this group, showing pride in being Jamaican, and emphasizing such values as education, work ethic, discipline, and conduct, suggesting that the others do not

The Racial and Ethnic Context 131 share these values. However, as Foner (1983:24) observed in her comparison of Jamaicans in New York and London, “Ironically, in the United States, where segregation and ghettoization of blacks is more stark, being part of the larger black community cushions Jamaicans from some of the sting of racial prejudice.” Though Jamaicans sometimes identify with African Americans, their ethnic identity is solidly Jamaican. The “contradictory pressures” through which Jamaicans distance themselves from African Americans, yet unite with them in other instances may not be such a contradiction, but may instead signify that they accept both their ethnic and racial identities, which Foner describes as situational, fluid, and contextual (Foner 2005). Jamaican ethnic and racial identities, as Foner notes, and as the interview responses described above underscore, shift depending on the context. Although Jamaicans in South Florida appear to disconnect themselves from African Americans, reinforcing their Jamaican-ness, they are able to benefit from the presence of this African American community, and they utilize some of the networks and institutions created by African Americans (Foner 2005). For example, Jamaican students who are U.S. citizens are able to receive funding from sources that target African Americans. Ninety-six percent of the Jamaicans in South Florida who participated in this research indicated that they utilize the benefits of affirmative action by revealing their racial background when applying for employment or education, while 94 percent said that they support affirmative action. Jamaicans in South Florida also have more opportunities to live in predominantly black neighborhoods, as the maps in Chapter 4 illustrate, than are Jamaicans in Toronto, where there are few such neighborhoods. As such, Jamaicans in South Florida can, if they choose, have less social contact with whites, reducing the possibility of racial tension. This was also found to be the case among Jamaicans in New York (Foner 1998b:51). The historic presence of African Americans has paved the way for greater socioeconomic mobility among black immigrants in South Florida, and for greater receptivity of a black middle class. In Toronto, this historically entrenched presence has not been established. It could be argued, then, that West Indians in Toronto are in a position where African Americans were decades ago, in terms of the formation of a politicized group identity. Of course, the circumstances that motivate the two groups are different, and will likely produce very different

132

Jamaican Immigrants in the United States and Canada outcomes. Although racism is a reality in Toronto, it is not nearly as extreme as it was during the more heightened periods of African American racial group consciousness, most notably during the civil rights and Black Power era of the 1950s and 1960s. Jamaicans in both Toronto and South Florida were deliberate about identifying themselves as Jamaicans, but when asked to define their racial identity, most of the respondents defined themselves as black 94 percent in Toronto and 92 percent in South Florida. In Toronto, those who are not black referred to themselves as Jamaicans. Interestingly, the Jamaican respondents who did not consider themselves black referred to their ethnicity although they were asked about their race. In Toronto, of the 6 percent included in this group, two were bi-racial (Chinese and black) and one was white. In South Florida 8 percent of the respondents did not identify their race as black. Of this group, one light-skinned Jamaican referred to his racial identity as “other,” and a biracial woman of South Asian descent identified herself as “black, Jamaican, Indian.” There were also two Chinese Jamaicans, one of whom stated, “Asian, but foremost Jamaican” in response to the question of her racial identity. The other identified himself as “Jamaican-Chinese.” This difference between the ways in which Jamaicans in South Florida and Toronto identify their race is quite possibly related to the different racial categorizations in the two countries. For example, in using census data for this research, it was more difficult to find references to race in the Canadian census than it was in the U.S. census. University application forms in Canada request optional information on ethnicity, but not on race, whereas U.S. application forms request optional information on race. The racial composition of the Jamaican sample in Toronto parallels that of the wider Jamaican population in Toronto. Eighty-eight percent of Toronto’s Jamaicans identify themselves as black, followed by Chinese Jamaicans, who account for 3 percent of Toronto’s Jamaican population. Ninety-seven percent of Jamaicans in Toronto consider themselves to be visible minorities. The differences between Jamaican-American and JamaicanCanadian notions of racial and ethnic identity are also evident in the way in which they conceptualize African American/African Canadian as opposed to Jamaican identities. The interview questionnaires asked two separate questions regarding membership in African American/African Canadian and Jamaican organizations. Among

The Racial and Ethnic Context 133 Jamaicans in Toronto the two types of organizations were thought to be synonymous, and the list of organizations that the overwhelming majority of the participants listed was identical for the two categories. In the U.S. case, the distinction between African American and Jamaican organizations was clear, as interviewees mentioned their membership in African American and Jamaican organizations separately. These differences in the ethnic identity among Jamaicans in South Florida and Toronto reflect the differences in the ethnic compositions and historically embedded racial divisions in the two countries. Although there is certainly an historic presence of blacks in Toronto, this population is not nearly as large as the African American population. The issues that the two groups have faced are also very different. African Americans have struggled to develop not only basic rights, but also acceptance of their position as upwardly mobile citizens. Jamaicans and other West Indians have been able to take advantage of and participate in this trend. Jamaicans in Toronto are also increasingly improving their economical standing, but the institutions that could promote their advancement are not as widespread in Canada as they are in the United States. Of course, this does not discount the noteworthy contributions that Jamaicans and other black immigrants have made to African American group consciousness and the social, political, and economic progress that has accompanied these movements. Marcus Garvey is one celebrated example. CONCLUSIONS: ECONOMIC ATTAINMENT AND RACIAL POLITICS Blacks have been subordinated, and continue to experience racial discrimination in both the United States and Canada. Within the contexts of these urban areas, race relations and institutional responses to the impacts of these relations are central factors that help to determine the potential for marginalized groups to overcome their subjugated positions, and to attain socioeconomic mobility. Although racial equality is still not a reality in the United States, African Americans have demanded rights that have improved their conditions. Although racism remains a reality in the United States, there has been much improvement in race relations over the years. African Americans have radically changed American society by altering the balance of power to the extent that it is commonplace to encounter African Americans of all occupations and socioeconomic status.

134

Jamaican Immigrants in the United States and Canada While African Canadians have also achieved high educational, professional, and socioeconomic status, their roles as political and economic leaders have not yet been widely accepted within Canadian society, and institutional changes do not reflect their accomplishments. The more pronounced group consciousness that is observed among African Americans has cultivated political activism that removed some of the structural impediments to equality for black people. African Canadians have come together to develop organizations, and have attained political influence as well as upward socioeconomic mobility. However, they have not yet radically altered Canada’s racial hierarchy. Instead, Canadian blacks have become subsumed by the cultural and social majority. Although this maintains the positive social atmosphere that characterizes Canada, it also conceals the fundamental problems of race and identity. In the absence of a consolidated group identity, blacks in Canada have been bifurcated along class, ethnic, and national lines. The lack of racial group consciousness has prevented African Canadians, including Jamaicans, from developing their potential for social capital. This is not to say that blacks in Canada have not attained high levels of socioeconomic advancement. However, institutional changes and a greater sense of unity among the black Canadian population have not yet been attained. Even so, blacks and other visible minorities in Canada are increasingly organizing, particularly in defense of their civil rights, suggesting a change in the status quo, and the development of a more consolidated group consciousness.

CHAPTER 7

Jamaican Transnationalism

INTRODUCTION Jamaican migration to South Florida and Toronto is not a unidirectional process. Transnational activities are expressed through social, cultural, political, and economic relationships between Jamaica and the United States as well as Jamaica and Canada. Glick Schiller et al. (1992:1) define transnationalism as “the processes by which immigrants build social fields that link together their country of origin and their country of settlement.” This broad definition illustrates the flexibility of the term, which encompasses a wide range of activities that transcend national borders. Over the past decade scholars have referred to the study of transnationalism as a “new,” “emerging,” or “bourgeoning” field (Castles 2003; Vertovec 1999; Basch et al. 1994). Although the trans-border relationships that migrants maintain are not particularly new, relatively easy access to less expensive modes of transportation and communication, fostered by globalization, facilitate the expansion of transnational relationships through the maintenance of solid ties in multiple societies. Earlier waves of Jamaican migrants who went to more distant host countries such as the United Kingdom had limited options for travel to and communication with their home country, while contemporary Jamaican migrants to closer destinations such as the United States and Canada have better access to Jamaica and to their relatives there. With more frequent flights between Jamaica and the major host cities as well as more competitive airfares, Jamaicans are able to travel home with greater ease now than in the past. The relative proximity of U.S. and Canadian cities to Jamaica also facilitates more frequent travel. Flights from Kingston to Miami, Toronto and London take approximately one 135

136

Jamaican Immigrants in the United States and Canada and a half hours, four hours, and nine and a half hours respectively. Telecommunications are also less costly and more accessible to contemporary Jamaican immigrants in the United States and Canada, enabling frequent and reliable communication between Jamaica and these North American countries. Jamaicans are also able to send money back home more easily because of the emergence of more rapid, secure, dependable, and affordable funds transfer services. Transnationalism is a vital aspect of Jamaican life in South Florida and Toronto, as most Jamaican immigrants maintain significant ties with their home country. A consideration of the differences between the transnational activities of Jamaicans in the two regions complements this comparison by establishing an additional way in which these apparently similar immigrant populations differ. This comparison of Jamaican transnational behavior in South Florida and Toronto also presents the possibility that the social, economic, and demographic differences between the two populations are articulated through their ties with Jamaica. This chapter defines and describes transnationalism and poses the following questions: - Do Jamaicans in South Florida and Toronto display different tendencies in their transnational activities? - Do social and economic differences between them relate to differences in their transnational activities? DEFINITIONS AND EXPRESSIONS OF TRANSNATIONALISM Despite the advances in scholarship on transnational migration, the definition of the concept remains vague. While Portes et al. (1999:219) refer to transnationalism as, “the high intensity of exchanges, the new modes of transacting, and the multiplication of activities that require cross-border travel and contacts on a sustained basis,” Thomas-Hope maintains that Caribbean emigrants remain connected to their households in the Caribbean even during periods of extended absence (Thomas-Hope 1998:196). Portes’ definition is somewhat more rigid, whereas Thomas-Hope’s conceptualization of transnationalism is more inclusive of the myriad ways in which migrants express their connection to their home countries. Jamaicans in Toronto do not have equal opportunities for travel to Jamaica as their compatriots in South Florida who, because of closer proximity and more affordable airfares, are able to travel home more frequently. This does not necessarily mean that Jamaicans in South Florida have greater transnational connections to Jamaica than do those in Toronto. However, it does

Jamaican Transnationalism 137 make clear that the transnational relationships are expressed differently in the two regions. Migrants articulate their transnational behavior in a variety of ways. Some expressions such as self-defined national identity and the intention to return to live in Jamaica suggest their relative attachment to or detachment from their home country. Other factors such as business practices and ownership of property in Jamaica also suggest connections to the island. Although frequency of travel to the home country is considered to be indicative of migrants’ relationship with that country (Portes 1999), it may, in fact, be a more reliable indicator of the migrant’s socioeconomic status in the host country, because of the cost of travel. Similarly, the frequency and amount of remittances that Jamaican immigrants send home does not only reveal their connection to Jamaica, but also suggests whether or not they are able to afford to send money home. Conversely, lack of remittances may suggest that the migrant’s family in Jamaica does not need the financial support. Although transnational migration can be broadly defined, for the purposes of this research the comparison will be limited to the following variables that were included in the interview questionnaires: frequency of travel to Jamaica; frequency and amount of remittances to Jamaica; ownership of property in Jamaica; business practices in Jamaica, including banking and investment; intention to return permanently to Jamaica; U.S. or Canadian citizenship; and self-defined nationality. These variables are important and definitive dimensions of transnationalism, which are used to operationalize the concept of transnationalism in this research. Each of these variables is assessed below. Frequency of Travel to Jamaica Travel between the host and home countries is a common, though incomplete, indicator of migrant transnationalism. Table 7.1 below shows the frequency of travel to Jamaica of the interview participants in South Florida and Toronto. Jamaicans among the sample interviewed in South Florida travel to Jamaica more frequently than do those interviewed in Toronto. The reason for this is quite likely related to the distance and cost of travel to Jamaica, both of which are greater from Toronto than from South Florida. Consequently, travel is more convenient and affordable for Jamaicans in South Florida.

138

Jamaican Immigrants in the United States and Canada

Table 7.1 Jamaican Respondents by Frequency of Travel to Jamaica Respondents in South Respondents in Toronto Florida Frequency Number Percentage Number Percentage More than 13 27% 3 6% once each year Yearly 13 27% 11 21% Every 2 9 19% 12 23% years Every 3-6 8 17% 16 31% years Rarely 5 10% 10 19% Never 0 0% 0 0% Total 48 100% 52 100% Source: Interviews with the author

Frequency and Amount of Remittances to Jamaica Of the 18 respondents in South Florida who said that they never send money to Jamaica, 3 of them said that they no longer have close relatives there, 8 said that their relatives are not in need of the money, 3 said that they bring gifts when they travel there in lieu of sending cash, and 4 did not provide an explanation. None of the respondents said explicitly that they were unable to send money home because of financial hardship. Even though a slight majority of the respondents in Toronto said that they send remittances to Jamaica at least yearly, a significant number said that they never send money or goods home. Of the 16 respondents who said that they never send money or goods to Jamaica, 6 said that they no longer have close relatives there, 4 said that their relatives do not need the financial support, and 6 of them did not provide a reason. Again, none of the respondents expressed that they were unable to afford to send remittances, although this is possibly a factor for at least 4 of the 6 who did not provide reasons for not sending remittances. Of the 6, 2 of them are retired, while 2 of them earn less than C$25,000 annually,60 suggesting that perhaps they are unable to afford to send money to Jamaica. However, the remaining 2 60

Approximately US$20,000

Jamaican Transnationalism 139 respondents were professionals with no apparent reasons for not sending money to Jamaica, although one of them had not returned to the island in more than a decade, despite having relatives there. Table 7.2 summarizes the frequency with which the respondents reported sending remittances to Jamaica. Table 7.2 Jamaican Respondents by Frequency of Remittances Jamaicans in Toronto Jamaicans in South Florida Percentage Number Percentage Frequency Number 17% 7 13% Monthly 8 19% 17 33% 2-6 times 9 per year 10% 4 8% Yearly 5 17% 8 15% Rarely 8 37% 16 31% Never 18 100% 52 100% Total 48 Source: Interviews with the author

Based on the responses, Jamaicans interviewed in South Florida appear to send more money to Jamaica than Jamaicans interviewed in Toronto. Although participants in the Jamaican sample in South Florida send money to Jamaica with slightly less frequency than the Jamaican sample in Toronto, those in South Florida perhaps make up for this in their more frequent travels to Jamaica. Half of the respondents in Toronto who send money to Jamaica stated that they send C$2,500 or less annually. Only one respondent reported that s/he sends between C$2,501 and C$5,000 annually. This was the highest category of amounts for the Toronto sample. In South Florida 10 percent of the respondents said that they send more than US$5,000 to Jamaica annually, and half of this group said that they send more than US$10,000. Table 7.3 below summarizes these data. It is not evident whether this means that Jamaicans in South Florida are more connected to Jamaica than are Jamaicans in Toronto, or that Jamaicans in South Florida are more affluent and are consequently better able to afford to send larger amounts of money. Because of the small sample size generalizations regarding their socioeconomic status based on this data alone are unfeasible. However, these results are consistent with both

140

Jamaican Immigrants in the United States and Canada the socioeconomic data for Jamaican populations in the two metropolitan areas discussed in Chapter 4 and the data on transnational behavior that is presented in this chapter. Based on these data, it appears that both factors are present: Jamaicans in South Florida are both wealthier and more connected to Jamaica. Table 7.3 Jamaican respondents by Annual Amount of Remittances Jamaicans in South Jamaicans in Toronto Florida Amount Number Percentage Number Percentage Less than 10 33% 6 17% $1,000 $1,001 to 2 7% 12 33% $2,500 $2,501 to 2 7% 1 3% $5,000 $5,001 to 3 10% 0 0% $10,000 More 3 10% 0 0% than $10,000 Only 0 0% 4 11% goods Don’t 10 33% 13 36% know/no response* Total 30 100% 36 100% Source: Interviews with the author * All of the respondents who did not specify the amount of remittances they send to Jamaica annually said that the amount was not a significant proportion of their income.

Ownership of property in Jamaica Property ownership in Jamaica suggests that Jamaican immigrants in South Florida and Toronto have at least a minimal investment in the island. In some cases, the respondents stated that they regularly use their property when they return home, or that they purchased property

Jamaican Transnationalism 141 in preparation to return to Jamaica. Two of these cases will be expounded on later in this chapter. Table 7.4 below shows the number of Jamaican respondents in South Florida and Toronto who own property in Jamaica. Table 7.4 Ownership of property in Jamaica Jamaicans in Jamaicans in South Florida Toronto Own property in 12 25% 13 25% Jamaica Have rights to family 7 15% 21 40% property in Jamaica No property in 29 60% 18 35% Jamaica Total 48 100% 52 100% Source: Interviews with the author

Business Practices in Jamaica Business practices61 in Jamaica provide a hint of the connection that Jamaican emigrants maintain even after they have settled in the receiving country. Of the Jamaicans interviewed in Toronto, 33 percent said that they do business in Jamaica, ranging from management of investment accounts to ownership of a medical clinic. The remaining 67 percent said that they do not conduct business in Jamaica. In South Florida 38 percent of the respondents said that they conduct business in Jamaica, while 62 percent said that they do not. The results for South Florida and Toronto are closely parallel for this variable. This observation suggests that the distance between Toronto and Jamaica does not deter Jamaicans in Toronto from conducting business in Jamaica. It also suggests that Jamaicans in the diaspora do not need to travel home to maintain their financial links to their home country.

61

The umbrella terms, “conducting business” or “business practices” refer to business ownership as well as the maintenance of investments, bank accounts, and life insurance policies.

142

Jamaican Immigrants in the United States and Canada Intention to Return Permanently to Jamaica A migrant’s plans or decision to remain in the host country or to return home after some time indicate to some extent his or her commitment to remaining connected to his or her home country. This means that migrants who plan to return home after working abroad for a few years are more likely to maintain their position in the family structure at home and are also more likely to send their earnings home. On the other hand, migrants who intend to remain permanently in the host country are more willing to become absorbed into that society. From the sample of Jamaican Canadians interviewed for this project, 58 percent planned on remaining in Canada permanently at the time of their arrival, while 36 percent planned on remaining in Canada only temporarily, and 6 percent were unsure. Among the Jamaican Americans, 58 percent arrived in the United States with the intention of remaining permanently, while 38 percent planned to remain temporarily, and 4 percent were unsure. In Toronto 62 percent of the respondents said that they currently intend to remain in Canada permanently, 13 percent had definite plans to return to Jamaica to live, and 25 percent said that they were not sure. In South Florida 58 percent of the respondents said that they now intend to remain in the United States permanently, while 8 percent of them had definite plans to return to Jamaica to live and 33 percent62 of them said that they were not sure. The transnational activities are similar for the respondents in the two metropolitan areas. However, they diverge slightly when the two samples are compared for the frequency of return home and the frequency and quantity of remittances. Jamaicans in South Florida show stronger ties to Jamaica in both of these variables. It appears that Jamaicans in South Florida are more closely linked to Jamaica. Perhaps transnationalism is more palpable in South Florida because of the proximity to Jamaica and the higher socioeconomic status of Jamaicans there. These possibilities will be explored in the concluding section of this chapter. Citizenship As immigrants negotiate the sometimes contradictory process of adapting to their host societies while maintaining membership in their communities at home, their decision to become citizens of their adopted home may become contentious. However, Caribbean governments, in 62

These percentages do not total 100 because of rounding.

Jamaican Transnationalism 143 recognition of the importance of the Diaspora and the resources that it has to offer to the home countries, accommodate the dual citizenship and identity that transnational migrants navigate (Basch et al. 1994; Glazer 2004:65). Of the documented Jamaican-born population in Toronto, 75 percent are Canadian citizens.63 All of the interview respondents in Toronto claimed Canadian citizenship. Among the South Floridian sample, 81 percent said that they are United States citizens, while 19 percent were not citizens at the time of the interview. Does this indicate that Jamaicans in Toronto are more integrated into Canadian society and Jamaicans in South Florida are more connected to their island home? According to Glazer (2004) this is not necessarily the case. Citizenship today has a different meaning than it did for immigrants of the early 20th century, who equated citizenship with loyalty and allegiance (Glazer 2004:64). Glazer also contends that dual citizenship has become advantageous, and I would even venture to say that it has become for some immigrants a matter of convenience, as citizenship in both home and host countries facilitates access to both. Glazer (2004:65) states that, “Today, dual citizenship is a more conscious and deliberate matter, if only because so many of today’s immigrants remain in touch with friends and relatives in their homelands and visit frequently.” For contemporary migrants, dual citizenship64 facilitates transnationalism. Anecdotal evidence from the interviews for this research indicates that Jamaicans sought U.S. and Canadian citizenship so that they could gain access to U.S. and Canadian passports, which facilitate international travel by reducing complications with immigration officers. U.S. or Canadian citizenship, in these cases, means convenience. However, there are many more benefits to having U.S. citizenship. There are some jobs (particularly with the government), grants, fellowships, and scholarships that require U.S. citizenship. There are also social services that are reserved for U.S. citizens. U.S. citizens are also able to vote, while permanent residents are not. U.S. citizenship also carries the benefit of enabling citizens to sponsor relatives to immigrate to the United States. Although 63

Statistics Canada Target Group Profile – Population Born in Jamaica. Because the Canadian government does not require that immigrants denounce their citizenship in order to become Canadian citizens, Jamaicans who also have Canadian citizenship are by default dual citizens. 64

144

Jamaican Immigrants in the United States and Canada permanent residents are able to sponsor relatives, there are annual limits on the number of immigrants who can enter the United States in this manner. U.S. citizens are not subject to these restrictions. Canadian citizens also have the advantage of access to jobs, grants, fellowships, and scholarships that require Canadian citizenship. Canadian citizens are also able to vote in Canadian elections. However, citizenship is not a requirement for sponsoring relatives who wish to migrate to Canada; permanent residents have the same rights as citizens in this regard. Permanent residents and citizens also have the same rights and access to social services in Canada. In both the United States and Canada a permanent resident can be deported if convicted of a crime. However, in the United States a recently implemented intelligence law enables the United States government in some circumstances to revoke the citizenship of naturalized citizens and deport them if they are convicted of a crime (Iqbal 2005). It is also worth noting that Canadian policies allow permanent residents to apply for citizenship after having lived in Canada for three years. U.S. policies, in contrast, require a minimum of five years as a permanent resident before citizenship can be granted. The average number of years that Jamaican interviewees in South Florida have had U.S. citizenship is 12 years, while Jamaicans interviewed in Toronto had citizenship for an average of 20 years. In the United States naturalized citizens are required to renounce their previous citizenship(s), whereas in Canada, this is not required. It is possible that this requirement deters some Jamaican immigrants from applying for U.S. citizenship. However, it may also be the case that although they renounce their Jamaican citizenship this renunciation is only a matter of rhetoric, as Jamaica recognizes dual citizenship.65 Yang (1994) also notes that in the United States the complexity of the citizenship process, including the necessary examination, deters some permanent residents from applying for U.S. citizenship. He also notes that citizenship implies a change of one’s identity to American (Yang 1994:453). This too may dissuade immigrants who have a strong sense 65

Basch et al. (1994) discuss some of the ways in which some Caribbean governments, in St. Vincent and Grenada in particular, accommodate their citizens who have become residents and citizens of the United States. Like the Jamaican government, the governments of both of these countries recognize dual citizenship, and facilitate the incorporation of their emigrant compatriots.

Jamaican Transnationalism 145 of patriotism toward their country of origin. All of the respondents in Toronto considered themselves to be dual citizens, while 75 percent of the respondents in South Florida considered themselves dual citizens. Sixty-six percent of the Jamaican Americans who did not consider themselves dual citizens are not U.S. citizens, while only 8 percent of Jamaicans respondents who are U.S. citizens do not consider themselves to be dual citizens. Citizenship has become flexible, to borrow Ong’s (1999) term. Ong (1999:6) defines flexible citizenship as “the cultural logics of capitalist accumulation, travel, and displacement that induce subjects to respond fluidly and opportunistically to changing political-economic conditions.” She further explains this concept by stating that the term flexible citizenship refers, “especially to the strategies and effects of mobile managers, technocrats, and professionals seeking to both circumvent and benefit from different nation-state regimes by selecting different sites for investments, work, and family relocation” (Ong 1999:112). According to Ong’s concept, migrants have the autonomy to use their positions as dual citizens in the ways that are most beneficial to them. Immigrants are able to lead transnational lives, accommodated by their access to multiple states. As they navigate their lives across borders, migrants “deterritorialize the nation-state,” as Basch et al. (1994:120) argue. Transnational migrants live their lives beyond the limits of the nation-state. National Identity The maintenance and expression of national and ethnic identity is significant to the transition from being a citizen of Jamaica to a citizen of the United States or Canada. Eighty-seven percent of Jamaican interviewees in Toronto identified their nationality66 as Jamaican, while the remaining 13 percent considered their nationality to be JamaicanCanadian. In South Florida 92 percent of the interviewees identified their nationality as Jamaican, 4 percent as American, and 4 percent as Jamaican-American, including one respondent who used the term “Jamerican.” These figures illustrate that in spite of acquiring U.S. or Canadian citizenship, the majority of Jamaican respondents in both

66

Note that nationality differs from citizenship. While the former refers to an individual’s sense of belonging to a nation, the latter refers to a legal right to residence in a state.

146

Jamaican Immigrants in the United States and Canada South Florida and Toronto maintain their national identity, at least in terms of their self-identified nationality. Although Jamaican immigrants continue to self-identify as Jamaicans, their identities change as they acculturate in the United States and Canada. Basch et al. refer to “transnational social fields,” or the spaces in the home and host country in which transnational activities transpire (Basch et al. 1994: 22, 134). These fields, they argue, represent “the context in which immigrants construct, contest, and reformulate their identities and strategies, interacting with the hegemonic processes generated in both locations” (Basch et al. 1994:134). These hegemonic processes enable political leaders of the origin country to capitalize on migrants’ resources and their sense of allegiance to their home country, while also enabling the migrants to maintain both their identity and their political voice in the home country. With the flexibility to define themselves as Jamaican, American, Canadian, or a combination, Jamaican immigrants forge unique identities that differ from those of their peers at home, as well as from other national groups in the host societies. Though Jamaicans negotiate identities that reflect the context in which they live, the context of reception neither defines nor dictates their identities. On the contrary, Jamaican immigrants reject the bifurcated racial identities that typify U.S. and Canadian societies. Basch et al. (1994:141) similarly contend that, “transmigrants are also beginning to challenge the predominant racial and ethnic categorizations within the United States and the terms of their own incorporation.” One of the most simple yet profound ways in which Jamaican immigrants express their identity is through their accents. Fifty-eight percent of the Jamaicans interviewed in Toronto either had Canadian accents or alternated between Jamaican and Canadian accents, while 42 percent consistently had Jamaican accents. In South Florida, however, 94 percent of the respondents used Jamaican accents throughout the interviews. While this does not necessarily mean that Jamaicans in South Florida have greater Jamaican cultural retention than do Jamaicans in Toronto, it does provoke questions about the reasons for this difference. It could be that Jamaicans in South Florida preserve their accents because of the close proximity to and close contact with Jamaica, or it could also be a reflection of the particular samples that were interviewed in the two areas. Perhaps it is because of the more recent peak of Jamaican migration to South Florida. Alternately,

Jamaican Transnationalism 147 Jamaicans in South Florida may deliberately retain their accents in order to distinguish themselves from African Americans.67 This social distancing between the two groups is related to differences in their socioeconomic status, and the newcomers’ fear that if they are categorized as African Americans, they will consequently share the racial discrimination and stigmatization that African Americans face (Vickerman 1999; Kasinitz 1992:36). This is especially true of South Florida, where African American socioeconomic status is lower than it is in the United States as a whole.68 DEFINING THE TRANSNATIONAL LIFE: TWO CASES Castles and Miller state that scholars should avoid excessive use of the term transmigrant, used here synonymously with transnational migrant, because the term does not apply to the majority of migrants (Castles and Miller 2003:30). This statement bears much truth. Despite the transnational activities of Jamaicans in South Florida and Toronto that are described above, most of the respondents do not fit the definitions of transnational migrants. Not only do they (with the exception of a few) not engage in a “high intensity of exchanges” or “cross-border travel and contacts on a sustained basis” (Portes et al. 1999:219), but they are also not necessarily “part of their Caribbean household” (Thomas-Hope 1998:196). Although many of them engage in some of the activities that are noted above as the defining characteristics of transnationalism, only two of the migrants interviewed are consistently involved in multiple transnational activities. While I continue to recognize the elasticity of the concept, the term does not apply to all Jamaican migrants, even in light of their frequent travel and financial contributions to the island nation. Most of the respondents maintain connections with Jamaica through visits and membership in Jamaican organizations in South Florida and Toronto. Most of them also send money back to Jamaica at least once a year. All of the interview respondents said that they attend 67

Vickerman (1999) and Kasinitz (1992) explore this division between African Americans and West Indians. 68 Blacks age 15 and older in the United States have a mean personal income of $19,266 and a median personal income of $12,500. Blacks age 15 and older in South Florida, on the other hand, have a mean personal income of $17,571 and a median personal income of $12,000. (Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census, Five Percent Public Use Sample (PUMS), 2000 Census of Population.

148

Jamaican Immigrants in the United States and Canada Jamaican events at least occasionally, and most of them identify themselves as Jamaicans. Despite all of these characteristics, only two participants maintain distinctively transnational lives. While other respondents may still be considered members of their households in Jamaica, and may even be consulted for important household decisions, these are functions of the migration process. Migrants do not generally sever ties with their families and communities when they move to another country. Yet the maintenance of these ties does not make them transnational migrants. It is their ability to call two different countries and communities home that makes them transnational. Transnationalism is not simply a connection to one’s home country. Jamaicans are, by virtue of their Jamaican birth, connected to the island. However, the active roles that they play in their households and communities in both countries delineate their transnationalism and distinguish them from other migrants. Migrants develop lives in the United States and Canada and many of them have American or Canadian children. While this incorporation does not preclude transnationalism, it certainly binds them to their adopted homes. The interview participants described below represent various articulations of transnationalism. Thelma69 is a 57 year old Jamaican woman who emigrated from Jamaica in 1973. She was working in Jamaica as a registered nurse when she was recruited and offered a job in the U.S. Virgin Islands. After being approved for an H-1 visa, she moved to St. Croix with her husband and two sons. Her plan was to work for 5 years and then return to Jamaica, where she hoped to purchase a home. After working for 3 years in St. Croix, Thelma was offered a position in Inglewood, California. She moved there with her family, which by this time included a third, U.S.-born son. She worked in California for 6 months. Not liking California, she opted to move to Galveston, Texas, where she continued to work as a nurse for the next 3 years. After 3 years in Texas, Thelma decided to return to Jamaica. However, a brief stop in Miami on the way back to Jamaica convinced her and her family to remain there. While living in Miami, Thelma continued to work as a nurse, but she also exercised her entrepreneurial skills through small business ventures such as a tow truck company and an automobile rental 69

Names have been changed to maintain privacy.

Jamaican Transnationalism 149 company. By this time she had accumulated enough money to satisfy her dream to own a home, but she chose to purchase this home in Miami instead of returning to Jamaica. However, she maintained her ties to Jamaica through frequent visits and remittances. She even sent her U.S.-born son to boarding school there to familiarize him with his parents’ culture. In 2001 Thelma and her husband retired and returned to Jamaica, where they built a luxury beach house close to their hometown. However, the move was not permanent, as Thelma now divides her time between Jamaica and Miami, spending a total of about 6 months of each year in each place, traveling back and forth every 6-8 weeks. Her husband and extended family are all in Jamaica, but her sons and grandchildren remain in Miami. In Jamaica, she enjoys the life of a retiree, gardening and spending time with her family. When in Miami, she continues to work part-time as a nurse to finance her early retirement in Jamaica. Thelma is a transnational migrant. Shelly is a 28 year old Jamaican woman who moved to Broward County in 1994. She moved alone with plans to attend university and then return to Jamaica to work in the tourism industry. With no family or friends in South Florida, Shelly returned to Jamaica every other month in order to fend off feelings of homesickness. Upon completion of her Bachelor’s degree, she decided to remain in South Florida to pursue a Master’s in International Business. When she finished her degree, she married a Jamaican-American man, and they purchased a house together. Although her plans to return to Jamaica have now changed, Shelly still returns every other month. She chose to live in South Florida for precisely those reasons: proximity to home and a climate that reminds her of home. Her entire family is still in Jamaica and she maintains a very close relationship with them. Although she owns a home in Broward County and plans to start a family there, she also maintains her connection to her family in Jamaica. She is involved with the family business, and is responsible for purchasing and shipping the goods that they import from the United States. Shelly owns property in Jamaica and invests money in businesses there. She also plans to eventually return to Jamaica permanently with her husband. Shelly, too, is a transnational migrant. Thelma and Shelly have very different experiences as transnational migrants. During Thelma’s first few years as a migrant, she was unable to return to Jamaica for visits because of financial constraints.

150

Jamaican Immigrants in the United States and Canada However, she maintained her connection through constant communication with her family and friends in Jamaica and her commitment to return to the island. Shelly, on the other hand, has been able to return to Jamaica regularly, although she does not have concrete plans to reside there. The differences in the transnational lives of these two women illustrate that transnationalism can include a range of experiences. However, there are boundaries within the definition. In delineating these boundaries I again refer to the definition offered by Portes et al. (1999:219), in which they emphasize the “high intensity of exchanges,” “multiplication of activities,” and “contacts on a sustained basis.” While other participants were certainly involved in cross-border activities, the two migrants described above conduct these activities with the intensity and repetition that, according to Portes et al., define transnationalism. Because no respondent in Toronto had similar transnational patterns, there is no comparison between the individual experiences of Jamaican transnational migrants in the two metropolitan areas. This may be because transnationalism is more feasible in Miami because of geographic proximity and lower transportation costs, or it may simply be that the sample was not large enough to include Jamaican transnational migrants in Toronto. THE ROLE OF THE STATE IN TRANSNATIONALISM Among the circumstances that prevent migrants from being considered transnational is their inability to travel freely between the origin and receiving countries. Often the states, not the migrants, control movement between sending and receiving countries. Waldinger and Fitzgerald (2004:1178) support this concept, as they assert that, “states and the politics conducted within their borders fundamentally shape the options for migrant and ethnic trans-state social action.” They outline four main ways in which states influence the transnational activities of the migrants who live within their borders. First, states control movement in both directions across their borders. Second, states have some control over the incorporation of immigrants into the society, a factor that in turn affects immigrants’ influence in their home countries. This is evident in immigrant acculturation, as well in their access to the labor market and to the resources such as social services that facilitate their adaptation. A migrant’s socioeconomic status in the receiving country affects his or her role in the home country. Third, Waldinger and Fitzgerald identify the potential conflict that is involved when individuals try to negotiate belonging to two different societies. This

Jamaican Transnationalism 151 issue can be seen in cases where immigrants opt for dual citizenship and their loyalties are divided between the two states. This can prove difficult if the relationship between the two states is acrimonious. The fourth way in which states influence the transnational activities of their immigrants is closely related to the third. It highlights how the relationship between states can exacerbate or alleviate potential conflict that accompanies dual loyalty. Dual loyalty is more feasible when the relationship between the states facilitates this trend (Waldinger and Fitzgerald 2004:1178). The example of Cuban Americans illustrates this fourth point that Waldinger and Fitzgerald present. Cuban Americans are restricted in their ability to be transnational migrants. Travel between the United States and Cuba is limited by both countries, and the United States even limits the remittances that Cuban Americans can send home. As Waldinger and Fitzgerald affirm, states play important roles in determining the degree of transnationalism in which their citizens and denizens can partake. The Jamaican government and residents have recognized the important role that the Jamaican diaspora plays in Jamaica’s local economy. In response, they have sought to cultivate the connection that Jamaicans abroad have with the island and continue to find ways to facilitate the re-incorporation of Jamaican émigrés and their resources into the island, even while they continue to reside abroad. As such, the Jamaican government promotes transnationalism among Jamaicans abroad. In their endeavor to include Jamaican emigrants in the local Jamaican society and economy, the Jamaican government in collaboration with other entities such as remittance companies, community organizations, and the private sector, launched the Jamaican Diaspora Foundation in 2004. This organization provides, through its website, news and information that is useful to both Jamaicans on the island and those living abroad. The home page of the website summarizes the mission of the Foundation: The Jamaican Diaspora website was created in recognition of the positive impact that Jamaicans in the Diaspora, as well as those who return to reside, can make on the national development of their homeland. The site fulfills a need to strengthen the links between Jamaicans at home and abroad, while fostering a systematic and coordinated approach to the

152

Jamaican Immigrants in the United States and Canada relationship with the Jamaican overseas community. (www.diaspora.org.jm)

TRANSNATIONALISM AND ASSIMILATION Assimilation is the process of immersion in and adaptation to the host society that many, though not all, immigrants experience. Transnationalism implies a sustained connection to the country of origin. Waldinger and Fitzgerald reject the assumption that assimilation and transnationalism are mutually exclusive concepts (Waldinger and Fitzgerald 2004:1179). Instead, they propose an understanding of transnationalism that “emphasizes the interactions of migrants with states and civil society actors in both sending and receiving countries.” This research adopts some of the perspectives of Waldinger and Fitzgerald, who underscore the significance of the state in transnationalism. Although voluntary migrants for the most part have autonomy over their lives and their connections with their home country and family, they are also subject to the conditions of the contexts within which they live. Both the home and the host countries have the authority to restrict the movement of people, goods, and capital across their borders. “Beyond the simplistic dichotomy of assimilation versus transnationalism lies a different view, one that sees them as inextricably intertwined” (Waldinger and Fitzgerald 2003:35). Assimilation implies the immigrant’s absorption into the host society, while transnationalism suggests a connection to the home country. Superficially, the two concepts appear to be mutually exclusive. However, scholars are increasingly recognizing that the maintenance of ties with their home country can occur simultaneously with incorporation into the receiving country (Waldinger and Fitzgerald 2003; Jacoby 2004; Glazer 2004). In fact, as migrants settle in their destinations their socioeconomic conditions are likely to improve, facilitating their ability to lead transnational lives. Improved financial resources enable them to maintain their connections to their home. In his discussion of contemporary forms of assimilation, Glazer (2004) notes that migrants now, more than in previous generations, have the flexibility to maintain loyalty to their home country even while they are incorporated into their adopted homes. As Jacoby (2004:15) states, “integration and identity need not be contradictory.”

Jamaican Transnationalism

153

RECONCEPTUALIZING TRANSNATIONALISM Transnationalism is a response to the losses and gains accompanying the process of migration. The migrant who suffers alienation from his or her country and family is able to maintain contact with them and remain an integral part of the home society even while becoming immersed in the host society. The country, community, and family that has lost an asset when an individual emigrates, benefits from the monetary remittances and social connections that are gained as a result of migration. Transnationalism thus enables societies such as Jamaica to cope with continued emigration (Thomas-Hope 1998:197). Although there has been much progress in the quantity and quality of literature on transnational migration, the challenge remains to define the term. Does transnationalism necessitate the movement of people, or does the transfer of material goods, money, technology, or ideas represent alternate expressions of transnationalism? What significance does identity have? Should migrants who maintain a strong connection to their home country, but are unable to travel there be considered transnational? If not, does transnationalism exclude undocumented migrants and those who are unable to afford the passage home? A more inclusive definition of transnationalism would enable migrants who, for financial, legal, or other reasons, are unable to return home, to be considered transnational. However, transnationalism would then lose some of its meaning by becoming all-encompassing. Thomas-Hope (1998:196) states that “Even during a protracted absence from the home country most Caribbean migrants remain, in various ways, part of their Caribbean household and thus part of a family, household, and personal transnational network.” Does this mean that most Caribbean migrants are transnational migrants? Perhaps Thomas-Hope’s statement means that, as this research has shown, most Jamaican migrants remain connected to the transnational network, though not necessarily transnational migrants. Although they may partake in transnational processes such as sending remittances and visiting Jamaica, it is not the individual activities, but the consolidation of various activities articulated on a regular and repeated basis, that defines the transnational migrant. However, there is still no clear delineation of what constitutes this regular and repeated basis. The

154

Jamaican Immigrants in the United States and Canada

ongoing debate over the definition of transnationalism shows that the demarcation between a migrant and a transnational migrant remains unclear. The difference between migration and transnational migration can be conceptualized as a continuum, where on one end there are migrants who reject their connection to the home country, while on the other end there are migrants who embrace their involvement in the host and origin countries and societies equally. While the former would have limited interaction with the home country, the latter extreme would be regularly involved in the range of transnational activities discussed in this chapter, such as travel to and financial involvement in the home community. The characteristic feature of transnationalism is that migrants are able to remain active members of their home community, even while acculturating to their adopted society. CONCLUSIONS Transnational migrants differ from other migrants who simply remain emotionally, socially, and economically connected to their home country. While the definitions of transnationalism are imprecise, it is clear that not all contacts between migrants and their home country constitute transnationalism. The line between migrants and transnational migrants remains blurred as there is no specific or quantifiable activity that defines transnationalism. Jamaicans in South Florida and Toronto fit somewhere on a continuum that ranges from limited transnational activities to incorporation in both host and home societies to the extent that Thelma and Shelly, described above, express. The two examples provided above depict some of the experiences and activities in which transnational migrants engage. Transnational activities differ between Jamaicans in South Florida and Toronto. Although the responses of Jamaicans in the two metropolitan areas were parallel for most of the variables, Jamaican interviewees in South Florida send more money to Jamaica and return there more often. Furthermore, fewer Jamaicans in South Florida have U.S. citizenship, while all Jamaicans interviewed in Toronto have Canadian citizenship. Jamaicans in South Florida are more connected to the island than are Jamaicans in Toronto, and are closer to the “transnational” end of the continuum. Two main factors explain these differences. The first is that is that distance affects the amount of

Jamaican Transnationalism

155

contact that Jamaicans abroad have with their home countries. Jamaicans in South Florida are geographically closer to Jamaica, and consequently visit the island more frequently. The second factor is that the average income is higher among Jamaicans in South Florida than in Toronto. Transnationalism involves travel and business or financial activities, which require financial resources that are, based on the comparisons of income and occupation between the two groups of Jamaicans, more accessible to Jamaicans in South Florida.

This page intentionally left blank

CHAPTER 8

Summary and Conclusions

INTRODUCTION Foner (2005) states that there is, “the need for research on West Indian migrants that goes beyond the boundaries of the New York area and indeed beyond the United States.” She also comments that crossnational comparisons of West Indian immigrants should include other cities, such as Toronto (Foner 2005:154). Although New York is the primary destination city for Jamaican emigrants, other host cities should not be neglected. The Miami-Fort Lauderdale metropolitan area and Metropolitan Toronto both have large and growing Jamaican populations. Research on the Jamaican communities in these two urban areas is needed, but comparisons, as Foner advocates, facilitate a better understanding of the experiences of international migrants and the contexts in which they are incorporated. While there are similarities between the Jamaican populations in South Florida and Toronto, there are also significant differences between the contexts of reception in the two metropolitan areas, and these divergences affect Jamaicans and other immigrant communities. Structural differences between the two urban areas prevail, as do dissimilarities between their ethnic and racial compositions. This concluding chapter summarizes the findings of the study, and delineates its contributions to the existing body of literature. SUMMARY This comparison between Jamaicans in South Florida and Toronto took two separate angles. First, Jamaicans in the two urban areas were compared using both census data and qualitative data gathered from interviews. Second, characteristics of the urban areas were compared. Specifically, comparisons were made between the structural settings of 157

158 Jamaican Immigrants in the United States and Canada South Florida and Toronto, particularly in terms of the immigration policies, labor market, income, self-employment, and employment equity. The racial and ethnic compositions of the two regions and the ways in which they affect the incorporation and socioeconomic mobility of Jamaicans were also compared. In the introductory chapter the following questions were posed: 1. If Jamaicans migrate to South Florida and Toronto during approximately the same period of time, in what ways do they differ socioeconomically? 2. In light of cultural, political, and economic similarities between the United States and Canada, what factors explain the differences between Jamaicans in South Florida and Toronto? 3. What are the implications of these differences on transnationalism? Slight differences were found between the socioeconomic status of Jamaicans in South Florida and Toronto, as measured by education, occupation, and income. Jamaicans in South Florida have higher levels of education, similar occupational distribution, and earn slightly more than Jamaicans in Toronto. The differences were more significant when home and business ownership were compared. Again, Jamaicans in South Florida dominate with higher levels of home and business ownership. The gender structures for the two Jamaican populations are similar, and are consistent with the gender structure of all Jamaicans living in the United States and Canada, with a larger female population than male. The Jamaican population in Toronto is slightly older than the Jamaican population in South Florida, which is a product of the differences between the periods of migration. Jamaican migration to Toronto peaked earlier than Jamaican migration to South Florida. Because most migrants tend to be of working age, this observation suggests that while both groups migrated at similarly youthful ages, Jamaicans in South Florida are younger because their migration is more recent. Jamaicans in South Florida and Toronto also differ in terms of their class of admission. Most Jamaicans migrated to South Florida through family preferences, whereas most Jamaicans migrated to Toronto through the points system as skilled workers. This difference is

Summary and Conclusions 159 related to differences in the immigration policies of the United States and Canada. However, it does not appear to have any impact on education, occupation, or other socioeconomic indicators. Differences between the immigration policies of the two countries suggest that Jamaicans in Canada would tend to be more educated and skilled. However, this did not prove to be the case when Jamaicans in South Florida and Toronto were compared. Residential patterns of Jamaicans in South Florida and Toronto were also compared, with the results being that Jamaicans in South Florida tend to concentrate in predominantly black neighborhoods, as the maps in Chapter 4 show. Jamaicans in Toronto, while more dispersed, also live in the same areas as other blacks. The second question asks why these differences are present between the two Jamaican populations. Structural and ethnic differences between the two urban areas were explored in response to this question. While the immigration policies influence the ways in which Jamaicans are able to migrate, they do not appear to affect the type of migrant who migrates to either country. Although Canadian immigration policy emphasizes skills, the categories are broad, enabling a wide range of migrants with relevant work experience and varying levels of education to migrate. Although some respondents in both regions cited racial prejudice as a problem that they encountered when entering the workforce, the main difference between the two groups is that, according to Jamaicans in Toronto, racial prejudice is covert, and consequently difficult to address. Another obstacle that Jamaicans in both metropolitan areas face is the rejection of their foreign credentials, a problem that proved to be an impediment to labor market access. This is an issue that concerns U.S. and Canadian immigrants from other developing countries. Affirmative action also holds significance as a means of promoting upward socioeconomic mobility among blacks in the United States. Such a policy is lacking in Toronto, as employment equity policies are not as widely practiced in private companies. Jamaicans in Toronto consequently have more limited access to the types of educational and employment opportunities that are available to minorities in the United States. The interviews that were conducted for this study and the data that was gathered from the American and Canadian censuses confirm that there are differences between the Jamaican populations in South Florida and Toronto. While the two populations share many

160 Jamaican Immigrants in the United States and Canada similarities, they differ in several aspects. South Florida and Toronto are similar in that they are both immigrant cities with much cultural and ethnic diversity, and that both contexts are receptive to immigrants. However, it was also established that South Florida, because of its racial composition vis-à-vis its African American population, offers a more favorable context of reception to Jamaican immigrants, who are predominantly black. The considerably larger black population in South Florida, in contrast with Toronto’s smaller black population is a major factor that explains the differences between the two Jamaican populations. Despite the disunity that some scholars have found between the African American and Jamaican populations, Jamaicans benefit from the presence of African Americans in South Florida. Jamaicans in South Florida also have the advantage of the precedence that African Americans have set for other blacks in the United States, especially in political and professional entities. The struggles and accomplishments of African Americans throughout the history of the United States now benefit not only African Americans, but also other blacks in the United States, including Jamaicans. Furthermore, this rift between the two groups is gradually closing, particularly as the children of immigrants are socialized among African Americans and begin to share their culture and identity. The third question asks how the differences between the two target populations are expressed through transnationalism. Participants in the Jamaican sample in South Florida visit Jamaica more frequently and send larger quantities of money home annually than the sample in Toronto. However, the two samples closely parallel each other on the other variables that define transnationalism. For example, identical proportions of Jamaican respondents in South Florida and Toronto said that they own property in Jamaica, while similar percentages of Jamaicans in the two urban areas conduct business in Jamaica. The intention to migrate permanently to the United States or Canada is also similar among Jamaicans in the two areas, and the majority of Jamaicans in both South Florida and Toronto identify their nationality as Jamaican. With the exception of the frequency of travel to Jamaica and the amount of money sent home as remittances, Jamaicans in South Florida and Toronto display very similar transnational practices. Physical distance and differences in socioeconomic status explain these slight differences in transnational activities. Less time and money are

Summary and Conclusions 161 required for travel between Jamaica and South Florida in comparison to Toronto. Consequently, Jamaicans in South Florida are more likely to visit Jamaica more frequently. Jamaicans in South Florida also have more financial resources, as indicated by their higher income, and as a result they are able to send home larger sums of monetary remittances. Upon completion of the research the most surprising observation involves the nuanced ways in which Jamaicans in South Florida and Toronto differ. For example, socioeconomic indicators show that Jamaicans in South Florida are, on a whole, more affluent than Jamaicans in Toronto. Because of this observation my expectation was that there would be a more protracted or at least equally lengthy presence of Jamaicans in South Florida because higher socioeconomic status generally accompanies a longer period of time in the host society. However, the opposite was true of Jamaicans in South Florida. Surprisingly, the data indicate that large scale Jamaican migration to Toronto occurred earlier than it did to South Florida. Another surprising observation is that immigration policies do not have a significant impact on the socioeconomic attributes of the two populations. The emphasis of U.S. immigration policies on family, in contrast with the emphasis of Canadian policies on employability, suggests that there would be more educated or skilled Jamaicans in Toronto than in South Florida. This proved not to be the case. THEORETICAL CONTRIBUTIONS The context of reception has been emphasized here for its relevance in immigrant incorporation and socioeconomic mobility. Despite this emphasis on the structural context of immigration, I maintain that human agency is central to international migration. However, the context within which immigrants live greatly affects their social behavior and concerns, and their capacity for socioeconomic mobility. This study used a comparative perspective to illustrate that very similar populations can have different outcomes because of differences in their contexts of reception. In-depth, qualitative studies of immigrant communities are always useful for explaining any patterns or anomalies that immigrants display. However, comparative studies promote an even greater understanding of the immigrant experience by situating their experiences within different contexts. Comparing immigrant populations of the same national origin, who migrated during the same period, underscores the significance of the receiving society. Studies of immigrants often

162 Jamaican Immigrants in the United States and Canada emphasize the characteristics of the immigrants. While these are important, the receiving society also significantly affects their socioeconomic mobility and their ability and willingness to acculturate into the host society, as this study has shown. Even in spite of the similarities between the United States and Canada, this comparison has illustrated that the receiving societies differ in ways that produce discrepancies in the socioeconomic status of the two Jamaican populations. This study contributes to the body of literature on migration in several ways. It advances comparative studies of immigrants, as encouraged by scholars such as Foner (2005), Byron and Condon (1996), and Waldinger and Fitzgerald (2003). By comparing an immigrant group within different societal contexts, this study also shifts the focus away from the immigrants as isolated subjects, and shows that other groups and entities that interact with immigrants affect them and are affected by them in dynamic ways. Jamaicans in the United States and Canada have not been extensively compared. This study compares not only this sizable and widely recognized immigrant population, but also the receiving contexts of metropolitan areas within countries as culturally, economically, historically, and politically similar as the United States and Canada. This study has posed and answered questions that explore the Jamaican immigrant population in a new light. Despite the wealth of research on Jamaican and other Caribbean immigrants, no other study has compared Jamaicans in U.S. and Canadian metropolitan areas. This research makes an important contribution to the understanding of the specific contexts of reception of South Florida and Toronto. It has also advanced the understanding of the importance of the context of the receiving society more generally for immigrants. As this study shows, the qualities of a receiving society, including its residents, significantly affect its immigrant population. Although scholars have long recognized the importance of networks and ethnic enclaves as a cushion for new immigrants, perhaps more thought should be given to other aspects of the receiving society. This research emphasizes the role of other residents of the host society who are not part of the ethnic group, but who still contribute to the group’s incorporation and socioeconomic mobility. The most relevant example in this case is African Americans. However, for other immigrant

Summary and Conclusions 163 groups, other ethnic groups and other characteristics of the host society may contribute in similar ways. Other qualities of the host society also affect immigrants. While differences in U.S. and Canadian immigration policies have not produced differences between the two Jamaican populations, the possibility remains that these differences may affect migrants from other countries to the United States and Canada. Labor market access also matters to immigrants, and policies and attitudes in the host society toward immigrants of different races and ethnicities are closely linked to the immigrants’ ability to successfully incorporate into the host society. There is a need for research that explores these types of variations in host societies. In the United States, it is evident that immigrants, many of whom are minorities, can benefit from affirmative action. While race relations are different in Canada, ethnic and racial discrimination are realities there too. Similar policies that increase the opportunities of underrepresented groups in schools and at different levels in the workforce are needed, as they would likely have a positive impact on many immigrant groups. Jamaicans in South Florida and Toronto display different sociospatial patterns. Jamaicans in South Florida are concentrated in predominantly black neighborhoods, while Jamaicans in Toronto are more dispersed. Jamaicans in South Florida follow the trajectory of many immigrants, who begin in working class neighborhoods and then move to middle class communities as they become more upwardly mobile. However, in contradiction to the assimilationist model, Jamaicans are remaining in predominantly black neighborhoods. The difference is that as they become more affluent, they concentrate more in middle class black communities. This observation supports the segmented assimilation model, described in Chapter 5, which claims that immigrants follow different paths as they assimilate into their host societies (Portes and Rumbaut 1996:255). It also supports the idea that while many Jamaicans enjoy upward socioeconomic mobility, they must still contend with racial discrimination (Portes and Rumbaut 1996:255; Rumbaut and Portes 2001:305; Portes and Zhou 1993:92). Perhaps, as Foner (1983) found in the case of Jamaicans in New York, living in black neighborhoods helps to mitigate some of the racial prejudice that they face. Despite the greater residential concentration among Jamaicans in South Florida, there is no evidence to suggest that they have stronger

164 Jamaican Immigrants in the United States and Canada networks than Jamaicans in Toronto. This shows that residential concentration is not necessary for the development of ethnic networks. Ethnic networks can be developed even when the group is residentially dispersed, as they are in Toronto. Heterolocalism, described in Chapter 2, aptly explains Jamaican residential patterns in Toronto, where despite their residential divergence there remains a sense of community (Zelinsky 1998). The prevalence of and more widespread membership in Jamaican organizations in Toronto attests to this difference. CONCLUSIONS Foner (1985:723) states that, “…the responses of Jamaican migrants to life abroad are neither inevitable nor ‘natural.’ Much depends on where they move.” This statement emphasizes the importance of crossnational research on immigrant communities. Although this research has shown that many of the characteristics of Jamaicans in South Florida and Toronto are similar, their experiences differ, particularly the experiences that are affected by the racial and ethnic compositions of the cities in which they live. Although structural differences between the two metropolitan areas affect their immigrant populations, the differences that relate to race and ethnicity proved to be more salient. Ethnic and racial networks that transcend national identity are important to the socioeconomic mobility of Jamaicans, whose relatively small numbers limit the potential of their networks. By expanding their networks to include African Americans, Jamaicans in South Florida increase their prospects for employment and business ownership. Some scholars would argue that Jamaican networks do not include African Americans. However, despite the attitudes that some Jamaicans have toward African Americans, the residential patterns mapped in Chapter 4 show that both groups tend to live in the same areas in South Florida. In addition, anecdotal evidence from conversations that transpired during the course of the interviews show that Jamaicans and African Americans tend to show solidarity when they face discrimination from non-blacks. Furthermore, as noted above, increasing socialization, particularly between African Americans and second generation Jamaicans, is resulting in the dissolution of earlier tensions. The racial and ethnic composition of a city affects its residents. Although other related factors such as affirmative action policies and labor market accessibility also impact immigrants’ potential for upward socioeconomic mobility, the presence of African Americans in the

Summary and Conclusions 165 United States, and more importantly, the strides that they have made to improve their rights and increase their (and other minorities’) access to resources, have a significant impact on black immigrant populations such as Jamaicans. From her research that began in the 1970s, Foner (1979, 1983, 1985) found that the racial and ethnic composition of a city has a significant impact on Jamaicans, the majority of whom are black. This study has shown that what Foner revealed in cases of London and New York holds true today for Jamaicans in South Florida and Toronto.

This page intentionally left blank

Appendix

Survey Questionnaire Interview number: Location: South Florida/Toronto Neighborhood: Accent: Notes: Section I – Demographic/Socioeconomic 1. Sex: Male Female 2. Age: 18-24 / 25-34 / 35-44 / 45-54 / 55-65 3. Marital status: Single/Married/Divorced/Separated/Widowed 4. Where were you born? (town & parish) 5. In which year did you leave Jamaica? 6. Did you migrate to any other country prior to living in the U.S./Canada? 7. How long have you lived in the U.S./Canada? 8. How long have you lived in South Florida/Toronto? 9. Are you a citizen of the U.S./Canada? Yes No 10. If you are a citizen, how long have you been a citizen of the U.S./Canada? 11. What was your primary reason(s) for migrating? 12. Did you have family in the United States/Canada when you arrived there? 13. Did you have friends in the United States/Canada when you arrived there? 14. What was your occupation in Jamaica? 15. What was your first job in the United States/Canada? 16. What is your current occupation in the U.S./Canada? 17. In which industry are you currently employed? 18. In which industry were you employed in Jamaica before you migrated? 19. What is the highest year of schooling you have completed? 20. What is the highest year of schooling you completed in Jamaica?

167

168

Appendix 21. 22. 23. 24. 25.

What is your annual household income? What is your annual personal income? Do you own a business? If yes, what type? Is your business in the U.S./Canada, or Jamaica? If in the U.S./Canada, does your business have a Jamaican affiliation?

Section II – Structural/Institutional Setting 1. Are you familiar with the American or Canadian immigration laws that allowed you to enter the U.S./Canada? 2. Which of these laws particularly affected you? 3. Did you enter the U.S./Canada as a permanent migrant? 4. Were you sponsored by a spouse or family member? 5. Were you sponsored by someone other than a spouse or family member? 6. Are you economically dependent on a spouse or family member? 7. Did you secure employment in the U.S./Canada prior to your arrival? 8. Were you sponsored by an employer? 9. Were there any organizations that helped you in your transition from Jamaica? 10. If yes, please name them. 11. In what way(s) did they facilitate your move to the U.S./Canada? 12. Did you experience difficulty obtaining an American/Canadian visa? Please explain. 13. How long did you have to wait to obtain this visa? 14. Did you have permanent resident status upon your arrival in the U.S./Canada? 15. How did you obtain that status? Please explain the process. 16. Did you have difficulty obtaining a green card/landed immigrant status? 17. Are you working in the occupation for which you were trained? 18. If yes, did you have difficulties finding a job in your field? 19. If not, was it your choice to change careers? Please explain. Section III – Racial/Ethnic Setting 1. Of which racial or ethnic group do you consider yourself a member? 2. How has your own ethnic identity been shaped or influenced by other ethnic groups around you? 3. Have you been affected in any other way by the ethnic, racial, or cultural composition of the place in which you live?

Appendix

169

4.

Do you consider your work environment to be (check all that apply): ___ A. mixed Canadian born ___ B. various immigrants ___ C. mostly African American/African Canadian ___ D. mostly Black West Indian ___ E. mostly Black non-Hispanic foreign born ___ F. mostly Hispanic ___ G. mostly European immigrants ___ H. diverse 5. Do you consider your neighborhood to be (check all that apply): ___ A. mixed Canadian born ___ B. various immigrants ___ C. mostly African American/African Canadian ___ D. mostly Black West Indian ___ E. mostly Black non-Hispanic foreign born ___ F. mostly Hispanic ___ G. mostly European immigrants ___ H. diverse 6. How would you describe your relationships with other Blacks, both immigrant and non-immigrant in South Florida and Toronto? 7. Are you a member of any African American/African Canadian organization? 8. If yes, which ones? 9. If yes, do you think it represents Caribbean people? 10. Do you or have you ever identified your race or ethnicity to secure a grant, fellowship, employment, or acceptance into a university? 11. Do you support affirmative action? 12. Do you think affirmative action has a positive or negative impact on Jamaicans? Section IV - Transnationalism 1. Are you a member of a church or other organized religious group? 2. If yes, does it have a Jamaican affiliation? 3. Are you a member of any Jamaican association or organization? 4. If yes, please name them. 5. When you migrated, did you intend to do so permanently? 6. Do you have any plans to return to Jamaica? If yes, please explain. 7. Do you still have family in Jamaica? 8. Do your Jamaican relatives visit you in the U.S./Canada?

170

Appendix 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24.

How often do you return to Jamaica? How often do you send money or goods to Jamaica? How much do you normally send per year? Do you conduct business in Jamaica? Do you own property in Jamaica? Do you own property in the U.S./Canada? Do you maintain any investments, including insurance, or bank accounts in Jamaica? Do you take part in American/Canadian events or activities such as July 4th, or Canada Day celebrations? Do you take part in Jamaican events or activities such as Miami Carnival or Caribana? Do you have a valid American/Canadian passport? Do you have a valid Jamaican passport? Do you consider yourself a dual citizen? How would you define your nationality? Do you have any regrets about migrating to the United States/Canada? Why did you choose Miami/Toronto as your destination? Given the opportunity, do you think you would prefer to live in another country (such as England or Canada) or another city (such as New York or Atlanta)?

Bibliography

Abowd, John M. and Richard B. Freeman, eds. Immigration, Trade, and the Labor Market. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1991. Abu-Laban, Yasmeen and Christina Gabriel. Selling Diversity: Immigration, Multiculturalism, Employment Equity, and Globalization. Peterborough, ON: Broadview Press, 2002. Alba, Richard and Nancy Denton. “Old and New Landscapes of Diversity: The Residential Patterns of Immigrant Minorities.” In Nancy Foner and George M. Fredrickson, eds. Not Just Black and White: Historical and Contemporary Perspectives on Immigration, Race, and Ethnicity in the United States. New York: Russell Sage Foundation, 2004. Alexander, Ken and Avis Glaze. Towards Freedom: The African-Canadian Experience. Toronto: Umbrella Press, 1996. Anderson, Benedict. Imagined Communities: Reflections on the Origins and Spread of Nationalism. London: Verso, 1991. Anderson, Wolseley W. Caribbean Immigrants: A Socio-Demographic Profile. Toronto: Canadian Scholars’ Press Inc., 1993. Arat-Koc, Sedef. “In the Privacy of Our Own Home: Foreign Domestic Workers as Solution to the Crisis of the Domestic Sphere in Canada.” Studies in Political Economy 28, Spring 1989. Asch, Beth J., ed. Emigration and Its Effect on the Sending Country. Santa Monica: Rand, 1994. Baker, Michael and Dwayne Benjamin. “The Performance of Immigrants in the Canadian Labor Market.” Journal of Labor Economics. Vol. 12, No. 3. 1994. Barker, David, Carol Newby, and Mike Morrissey, eds. A Reader in Caribbean Geography. Kingston, Jamaica: Ian Randle Publishers, 1998. Basavarajappa, K.G. and Frank Jones. “Visible Minority Income Differences.” In Halli, Shiva S. and Leo Driedger, eds. Immigrant Canada: Demographic, Economic, and Social Challenges. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1999. Basch, Linda, “Transnational Social Relations and the Politics of National Identity: An Eastern Caribbean Case Study.” In Nancy Foner, ed. Islands in the City: West Indian Migration to New York. Berkeley: University of California Press, 2001.

171

172

Bibliography

Basch, Linda, Nina Glick Schiller and Cristina Szanton Blanc. Nations Unbound: Transnational Projects, Postcolonial Predicaments, and Deterritorialized Nation-States. New York: Gordon and Breach, 1994. Bauer, Elaine and Paul Thompson. “‘She’s always the person with a very global vision’: The Gender Dynamics of Migration, Narrative Interpretation and the Case of Jamaican Transnational Families.” Gender and History. Vol. 16, No.2. 2004. Bayor, Ronald H., ed. Race and Ethnicity in America: A Concise History. New York: Columbia University Press, 2003. Beach, Charles M., Alan G. Green and Jeffrey Reitz, eds. Canadian Immigration for the 21st Century. Montreal: McGill-Queen’s University Press, 2003. Bean, Frank D. and Stephanie Bell-Rose, eds. Immigration and Opportunity: Race, Ethnicity, and Employment in the United States. New York: Russell Sage Foundation, 1999. Bernal, Richard L. “The IMF and Class Struggle in Jamaica, 1977-1980.” Latin American Perspectives. Vol. 11, No. 3. Destabilization and Intervention in the Caribbean, 1984. Berry, J.W. and J.A. Laponce, eds. Ethnicity and Culture in Canada: The Research Landscape. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1994. Berry, Kate A. and Martha L. Henderson, eds. Geographical Identities of Ethnic America: Race, Space, and Place. Reno and Las Vegas: University of Nevada Press, 2002. Bonnett, Aubrey W., and G. Llewellyn Watson. Emerging Perspectives on the Black Diaspora. Lanham, MD: University Press of America, 1990. Bookman, Milica Z. Ethnic Groups in Motion: Ethnic Competition and Migration in Multiethnic States. London: Frank Cass Publishers, 2002. Borjas, George J. “Immigrants in the U.S. Labor Market: 1940-80.” The American Economic Review. Vol. 81, No. 2. Papers and Proceedings of the Hundred and Third Annual Meeting of the American Economic Association, 1991. Bourdieu, Pierre. “The Forms of Capital.” In John G. Richardson, ed. Handbook of Theory and Research for the Sociology of Education. Westport, Connecticut: Greenwood Press, 1986. Braziel, Jana Evans and Anita Mannur, eds. Theorizing Diaspora: A Reader. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing, 2003. Brettell, Caroline B. Anthropolgy and Migration: Essays on Transnationalism, Ethnicity, and Identity. New York: Altamira Press, 2003.

Bibliography

173

________. “Is the Ethnic Community Inevitable? A Comparison of the Settlement Patterns of Portuguese Immigrants in Toronto and Paris.” Journal of Ethnic Studies. Vol. 9, No. 3. 1981. Bryce-Laporte, Roy Simon. “Introduction: New York City and the New Caribbean Immigration: A Contextual Statement.” International Migration Review. Vol. 13, No. 2. 1979. Bryce-Laporte, Roy S. and Delores M. Mortimer. Caribbean Immigration to the United States. Washington, D.C.: Research Institute on Immigration and Ethnic Studies, Smithsonian Institution, 1976. Butterfield, Sherri-Ann P. “We’re Just ‘Black’: The Racial and Ethnic Identities of Second-Generation West Indians in New York.” In Philip Kasinitz, John H. Mollenkopf, and Mary C. Waters, eds. Becoming New Yorkers: Ethnographies of the New Second Generation. New York: Russell Sage Foundation, 2004. Byron, Margaret and Stephanie Condon. “A Comparative Study of Caribbean Return Migration from Britain and France: Towards a Context-Dependent Explanation.” Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers. Vol. 21, No. 1. 1996. Calliste, Agnes. “Race, gender and Canadian immigration policy: Blacks from the Caribbean, 1900-1932.” Journal of Canadian Studies. Vol. 28, No. 4. 1994. Calliste, Agnes. “Canada’s Immigration Policy and Domestics from the Caribbean: The Second Domestic Scheme.” In Jesse Vorst ed., Race, Class, Gender: Bonds and Barriers, 2nd ed. Toronto: Garamond Press, 1991. Campbell, Malcolm. “The Other Immigrants: Comparing the Irish in Australia and the United States.” Journal of American Ethnic History. Vol. 14, No. 3. 1995. Castles, Stephen and Mark J. Miller. The Age of Migration, International Population Movements in the Modern World, Third Edition. New York: Guildford Press, 2003. Castro, Max J., ed. Free Markets, Open Societies, Closed Borders? Trends in International Migration and Immigration Policy in the Americas. Miami: University of Miami North South Center Press, 1999. Chamberlain, Mary. Narratives of Exile and Return. New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1997. ________, ed. Caribbean Migration: Globalised Identities. London and New York: Routledge, 1998.

174

Bibliography

Chaney, Elsa M. Migration from the Caribbean Region: Determinants and Effects of Current Movements. Washington, D.C.: Georgetown University Center for Immigration Policy and Refugee Assistance, 1985. Chiswick, Barry R., ed. Immigration, Language, and Ethnicity: Canada and the United States. Washington, DC: American Enterprise Institute, 1992. Cohen, Robin. Global Diasporas: An Introduction. Seattle: University of Washington Press, 1997. ________, ed. Theories of Migration. Brookfield, VT: Edward Elgar Publishing Company, 1996. Coleman, James S. Foundations of Social Theory. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1990. ________. “Social Capital in the Creation of Human Capital.” American Journal of Sociology. Vol. 94 Supplement, 1988. Cooper, Derek W. “Migration from Jamaica in the 1970s: Political Protest or Economic Pull?” International Migration Review. Vol. 19, No. 4. 1985. Corbett, David C. Canada’s Immigration Policy: A Critique. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1957. Cornelius, Wayne A., Takeyuki Tsuda, Philip L. Martin, and James F. Hollifield, eds. Controlling Immigration: A Global Perspective, Second Edition. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 2004. Cornell, Stephen and Douglas Hartmann. “Conceptual Confusions and Divides: Race, Ethnicity, and the Study of Immigration.” in Nancy Foner and George M. Fredrickson, eds. Not Just Black and White: Historical and Contemporary Perspectives on Immigration, Race, and Ethnicity in the United States. New York: Russell Sage Foundation, 2004. Couch, Stephen R., and Roy Simon Bryce-Laporte, eds. Quantitative Data and Immigration Research. Washington, D.C.: Research Institute on Immigration and Ethnic Studies, Smithsonian Institution, 1979. Daenzer, Patricia. Regulating Class Privilege: Immigrant Servants in Canada, 1940-1990. Toronto: Canadian Scholars Press, 1993. Daneshvary, Nasser, Henry W. Herzog, Jr., Richard A. Hofler, and Alan M. Schlottmann. “Job Search and Immigrant Assimilation: An Earnings Frontier Approach.” The Review of Economics and Statistics. Vol. 74, No. 3. 1992. Daniels, Roger. Guarding the Golden Door: American Immigration Policy and Immigrants Since 1882. New York: Hill and Wang, 2004. Davis, Carla P. “Beyond Miami: The Ethnic Enclave and Personal Income in Various Cuban Communities in the United States.” International Migration Review. Vol. 38, No. 2. 2004.

Bibliography

175

Davison, R. B. West Indian Migrants: Social and Economic Facts of Migration from the West Indies. London: Oxford University Press, 1962. Dawkins, Freda. Canada and Immigration: Public Policy and Public Concern. Kingston and Montreal: McGill-Queen’s University Press, 1988. Dogan, Mattei and Ali Kazancigil, eds. Comparing Nations: Concepts, Strategies, Substance. Oxford and Cambridge: Blackwell, 1994. Driedger, Leo. Race and Ethnicity: Finding Identities and Equalities, Second Edition. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003. Dunn, Marvin. Black Miami in the Twentieth Century. Gainesville: University Press of Florida, 1997. Edie, Carlene J. Democracy by Default: Dependency and Clientelism in Jamaica. Boulder: Lynne Rienner Publishers, 1991. ________, ed. Dual Dependency: Patron-Clientelist Relations in Jamaica. Thesis (Ph. D.) Los Angeles: University of California, 1984. Eisner, Gisela. Jamaica, 1830-1930: A Study in Economic Growth. Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1961. Fernandez, Ronald. America’s Banquet of Cultures: Harnessing Ethnicity, Race, and Immigration in the Twenty-First Century. London: Praeger Publishers, 2000. Field, John. Social Capital. London and New York: Routledge, 2003. Foner, Nancy. In a New Land: A Comparative View of Immigration. New York: New York University Press, 2005. ________. “West Indian Identity in the Diaspora: Comparative and Historical Perspectives.” Latin American Perspectives. Vol. 25, No. 3. Race and National Identity in the Americas, 1998. ________. “Towards a Comparative Perspective on Caribbean Migration.” in Mary Chamberlain, ed. Caribbean Migration: Globalised Identities. New York: Routledge, 1998. ________. “What’s New About Transnationalism? New York Immigrants Today and at the Turn of the Century.” Diaspora. Vol. 6, No. 3. 1997. ________. “Race and Color: Jamaican Migrants in London and New York City.” International Migration Review. Vol. 19, No. 4. 1985. ________. Jamaican Migrants: A Comparative Analysis of the New York and London Experience. New York, N.Y.: New York University, Faculty of Arts and Science, Center for Latin American and Caribbean Studies, 1983. ________. “West Indians in New York City and London: A Comparative Analysis.” International Migration Review. Vol. 13, No. 2. 1979. ________. ed. Islands in the City: West Indian Migration to New York. Berkeley: University of California Press, 2001.

176

Bibliography

________. ed. New Immigrants in New York City: Race and Ethnicity Among Migrants in New York City. New York: Columbia University Press, 1987. Foner, Nancy, and George M. Fredrickson, eds. Not Just Black and White: Historical and Contemporary Perspectives on Immigration, Race, and Ethnicity in the United States. New York: Russell Sage Foundation, 2004. Foner, Nancy, Rubén G. Rumbaut and Steven J. Gold, eds. Immigration Research for a New Century: Multidisciplinary Perspectives. New York: Russell Sage Foundation, 2000. Freeman, Gary P. “Migration Policy and Politics in the Receiving States.” International Migration Review. Vol. 26, No. 4. 1992. Freeman, Lance. “Does Spatial Assimilation Work for Black Immigrants in the US?” Urban Studies, Vol. 39, No. 11. 2002. Friedberg, Rachel M. “You Can’t Take It With you? Immigrant Assimilation and the Portability of Human Capital.” Journal of Labor Economics. Vol. 18, No. 2. 2000. Gale, Stephen. “Explanation Theory and Models of Migration.” Economic Geography. Vol. 49, No. 3. 1973. Glazer, Nathan, “Assimilation Today: Is One Identity Enough?” In Tamar Jacoby, ed. Reinventing the Melting Pot: The New Immigrants and What it Means to be American. New York: Basic Books, 2004. Glick Schiller, Nina, Linda Basch, and Cristina Blanc-Szanton, eds. “Towards a Transnational Perspective on Migration: Race, Class, Ethnicity, and Nationalism Reconsidered.” Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences. New York, N.Y.: New York Academy of Sciences, 1992. Gmelch, George. Double Passage: the Lives of Caribbean Migrants Abroad and Back Home. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1992 Gordon, Monica H. The Selection of Migrant Categories from the Caribbean to the United States: the Jamaican Experience. New York: New York University, Faculty of Arts and Science, Center for Latin American and Caribbean Studies, 1983. Goulbourne, Harry, and Mary Chamberlain, eds. Caribbean Families in Britain and the Trans-Atlantic World. London and Oxford: MacMillan Education Ltd., 2001. Grasmuck, Sherri and Patricia R. Pessar. Between Two Islands: Dominican International Migration. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1991. Green, Alan G. and David A. Green. “Canadian Immigration Policy: The Effectiveness of the Point System and Other Instruments.” The Canadian Journal of Economics Vol. 28, No. 4b. 1995.

Bibliography

177

Grenier, Guillermo J. and Alex Stepick III, eds. Miami Now! Immigration, Ethnicity, and Social Change. Gainesville: University Press of Florida, 1992. Guiraudon, Virginie and Christian Joppke, eds. Controlling a New Migration World. London and New York: Routledge, 2001. Gutierrez, David G., ed. Between Two Worlds: Mexican Immigrants to the United States. Wilmington, DE: Scholarly Resources, Inc., 1996. Halli, Shiva S. and Leo Driedger, eds. Immigrant Canada: Demographic, Economic, and Social Challenges. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1999. Hammar, Tomás, Grete Brochmann, Kristof Tamas, and Thomas Faist, eds. International Migration, Immobility and Development: Multidisciplinary Perspectives. Oxford and New York: Berg, 1997. Hamill, Pete. “The Alloy of New York.” In Tamar Jacoby, ed. Reinventing the Melting Pot: The New Immigrants and What it Means to be American. New York: Basic Books, 2004. Hardwick, Susan W. “Migration, Embedded Networks and Social Capital: Towards Theorising North American Ethnic Geography.” International Journal of Population Geography. Vol. 9, No. 2. 2003. Harris, Nigel. Thinking the Unthinkable: The Immigrant Myth Exposed. London: I.B. Tauris Publishers, 2002. Hawkins, Freda. Canada and Immigration: Public Policy and Public Concern. Second Edition. Kingston and Montreal: McGill-Queen’s University Press, 1988. Henke, Holger. The West Indian Americans. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 2001. Henry, Frances. The Caribbean Diaspora in Toronto: Learning to Live with Racism. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1994. ________. “Caribbean Migration to Canada: Prejudice and Opportunity.” In Barry B. Levine, ed. The Caribbean Exodus. New York: Praeger, 1987. Hintzen, Percy C. West Indians in the West: Self-Representations of an Immigrant Community. New York: New York University Press, 2001. Hirschman, Charles, Philip Kasinitz and Josh DeWind, eds. The Handbook of International Migration: The American Experience. New York: Russell Sage Foundation, 1999. Holzer, Harry and David Neumark. “Assessing Affirmative Action.” Journal of Economic Literature. Vol. 38, No. 3. 2000.

178

Bibliography

Iqbal, Anwar. “New Law Allows Deportation of Naturalized US Citizens.” The Dawn, January 6, 2005, retrieved from http://www.dawn.com/2005/01/06/ top11.htm. Itzigsohn, Jose. “Migrant Remittances, Labor Markets, and Household Strategies: A Comparative Analysis of Low-Income Household Strategies in the Caribbean Basin.” Social Forces. Vol. 74, No. 2. 1995. Isajiw, Wsevolod W. Understanding Diversity: Ethnicity and Race in the Canadian Context. Toronto: Thompson Educational Publishing, Inc., 1999. Jackson, J.A., ed. Migration. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1969. Jackson, Patrick Thaddeus, and Daniel Nexon. “Globalization, the Comparative Method, and Comparing Constructions.” In Daniel M. Green, ed. Constructivism and Comparative Politics. London: M.E. Sharpe, Inc., 2002. Jacoby, Tamar, ed. Reinventing the Melting Pot: The New Immigrants and What it Means to be American. New York: Basic Books, 2004. James, Franklin J., Jeff A. Romine, and Peter E. Zwanzig. “The Effects of Immigration on Urban Communities.” In Cityscape: a Journal of Policy Development and Research. Vol. 3, No. 3. 1998. Jasso, Guillermina and Mark R. Rosenzweig. “Do Immigrants Screened for Skills do Better than Family Reunification Immigrants?” International Migration Review. Vol. 29, No. 1. 1995. Jaynes, Gerald. “Immigration and the Social Construction of Otherness: ‘Underclass’ Stigma and Intergroup Relations.” In Nancy Foner and George M. Fredrickson, eds. Not Just Black and White: Historical and Contemporary Perspectives on Immigration, Race, and Ethnicity in the United States. New York: Russell Sage Foundation, 2004. Joppke, Christian and Steven Lukes, eds. Multicultural Questions. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999. Kage, Joseph, “The Recent Changes in Canadian Immigration Regulations.” International Migration Review. Vol. 2, No. 1. 1967. Kalmijn, Matthijs, “The Socioeconomic Attainment of Caribbean American Blacks.” Social Forces. Vol. 74, No. 3. 1996. Kalra, Bankim and Hsin Yu-Yu. "Immigration in Global Cities: A Comparative Study of New York and Toronto as Immigrant Cities.” Unpublished, retrieved from http://sitemaker.umich.edu/bankimportfolio/files/ comparative_analysis.pdf, 2003. Kasinitz, Philip. Caribbean New York: Black Immigrants and the Politics of Race. Ithaca and London: Cornell University Press, 1992.

Bibliography

179

Kasinitz, Philip, John H. Mollenkopf, and Mary C. Waters, eds. Becoming New Yorkers: Ethnographies of the New Second Generation. New York: Russell Sage Foundation, 2004. Keely, Charles B. “Effects of the Immigration Act of 1965 on Selected Population Characteristics of Immigrants to the United States.” Demography. Vol. 8, No. 2, 1971. Kelson, Gregory A., and Debra L. DeLaet. Gender and Immigration. Washington Square, N.Y.: New York University Press, 1999. Kivisto, Peter. Multiculturalism in a Global Society. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing, 2002. ________. “Theorizing Transnational Immigration: A Critical Review of Current Efforts.” Ethnic and Racial Studies. Vol. 24, No. 4. 2001. Knörr, Jacqueline, and Barbara Meier, eds. Women and Migration: Anthropological Perspectives. New York: Campus Verlag and St. Martin’s Press, 2000. Lamming, George. The Emigrants. London and New York: Allison and Busby, 1980. Lee, Erika. “American Gatekeeping: Race and Immigration Law in the Twentieth Century.” In Nancy Foner and George M. Fredrickson, eds. Not Just Black and White: Historical and Contemporary Perspectives on Immigration, Race, and Ethnicity in the United States. New York: Russell Sage Foundation, 2004. Lee, Everett S. “A Theory of Migration.” Demography. Vol. 3, Issue 1. 1966. LeMay, Michael C., ed. The Gatekeepers: Comparative Immigration Policy. New York: Praeger, 1989. Levine Barry B., ed. The Caribbean Exodus. New York: Praeger, 1987. Levitt, Peggy. The Transnational Villagers. Berkeley: University of California Press, 2001. Lewis, Gordon K. “Foreword.” In Ransford W. Palmer, ed. In Search of a Better Life: Perspectives on Migration from the Caribbean. New York: Praeger, 1990. Lewis, Gregory. “Since 2000, Broward has been Nation's No. 1 Choice for Blacks.” South Florida Sun-Sentinel. September 30, 2004. Lewis, Oscar. La Vida: A Puerto Rican Family in the Culture of Poverty – San Juan and New York. New York: Random House, 1966. Lin, Nan. Social Capital: A Theory of Social Structure and Action. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2001. ________. Social Resources and Social Action: A Theory of Social Capital. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2000.

180

Bibliography

Lofstrom, Magnus. “Labor Market Assimilation and the Self-employment Decision of Immigrant Entrepreneurs.” Journal of Population Economics. Vol. 15, No. 1. 2002. Loveless, Stephen C., Clifford P. McCue, Raymond B. Surette, and Dorothy Norris-Tirrell. Immigration and Its Impact on American Cities. Westport, CT: Praeger, 1996. Maingot, Anthony P. Caribbean Migration as a Structural Reality. Florida International University Latin American and Caribbean Center Occasional Papers Series, 1983. ________, ed. Small Country Development and International Labor Flows: Experiences in the Caribbean. Boulder: Westview Press, 1991. Maldonado, Lionel and Joan Moore, eds. Urban Ethnicity in the United States: New Immigrants and Old Minorities. London: Sage Publications, 1985. Marshall, Dawn. “A History of West Indian Migrations: Overseas Opportunities and ‘Safety-Valve’ Policies.” In Barry B. Levine, ed. The Caribbean Exodus. New York: Praeger, 1987. Martin, Philip L. “The United States: The Continuing Immigration Debate.” In Wayne A. Cornelius, Takeyuki Tsuda, Philip L. Martin, and James F. Hollifield, eds. Controlling Immigration: A Global Perspective, Second Edition. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 2004. ________. “Comparative Migration Policies.” International Migration Review. Vol. 28, No. 1. 1994. Massey, Douglas S. “Economic Development and International Migration in Comparative Perspective.” Population and Development Review. Vol. 14, No. 3. 1988. Massey, Douglas; Arango, Joaquin; Hugo, Graeme; Kouaouci, Ali; Pelligrino, Adela, and Taylor, J. Edward. Worlds in Motion: Understanding International Migration at the End of the Millennium. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1998. McCoy, Terry L. and Charles H. Wood. Caribbean Workers in the Florida Sugar Cane Industry. Gainesville, Florida: Center for Latin American Studies, University of Florida, 1982. McLean Petras, Elizabeth. Jamaican Labor Migration: White Capital and Black Labor, 1850-1930. Boulder and London: Westview Press, 1988. McWhorter, John. “Getting Over Identity.” In Tamar Jacoby, ed. Reinventing the Melting Pot: The New Immigrants and What it Means to be American. New York: Basic Books, 2004. Mitchell, Christopher. “International Migration, International Relations, and Foreign Policy.” International Migration Review. Vol. 23, No. 3. 1989.

Bibliography

181

Mitchell, Katharyne. “Transnational Discourse: Bringing Geography Back In.” Antipode. Vol. 29, No. 2. 1997. Model, Suzanne. “Where New York’s West Indians Work.” In Nancy Foner, ed., Islands in the City: West Indian Migration to New York. Berkeley: University of California Press, 2001. ________. The Socio-economic attainment of Caribbean Blacks: a four-nation comparison. Toronto: Robert F. Harney Professorship and Program in Ethnic Immigration and Pluralism Studies, University of Toronto, 1999. ________. “Caribbean Immigrants: A Black Success Story?” International Migration Review. Vol. 25, No. 2. 1991. Moss, Philip and Chris Tilly. Stories Employers Tell: Race, Skill, and Hiring in America. New York: Russell Sage Foundation, 2001. Murdie, Robert A., Adrienne S. Chambon, J. David Hulchanski and Carlos Teixeira. “Housing Issues Facing Immigrants and Refugees in Greater Toronto: Initial Findings from the Jamaican, Polish and Somali Communities.” unpublished paper retrieved from http://www.hnc. utoronto.ca/publish/issues.pdf, 1995. Mark Myrie, Donovan Germain, Handel Tucker, Glen Browne, “Untold Stories.” Performed by Buju Banton. Polygram Records, 1995. Neckerman, Kathryn M., Prudence Carter, and Jennifer Lee. “Segmented Assimilation and Minority Cultures of Mobility.” Ethnic and Racial Studies. Vol. 22, No. 6. 1999. Neuwirth, Gertrud. “Toward a Theory of Immigrant Integration.” In Halli, Shiva S. and Leo Driedger, eds. Immigrant Canada: Demographic, Economic, and Social Challenges. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1999. ________. “The Marginalization of South East Asian Refugees.” In Vaughan Robinson, ed. The International Refugee Crisis: British and Canadian Responses. Houndmilles, Basingstoke, Hampshire: The MacMillan Press in association with the Refugee Studies Programme, University of Oxford, 1993. Newbold, Bruce K. and John Spindler. “Immigrant Settlement Patterns in Metropolitan Chicago.” Urban Studies. Vol. 38, No. 11. 2001. Ogbar, Jeffrey O.G. Black Power: Radical Politics and African American Identity. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2004. Ong, Aihwa. Flexible Citizenship: The Cultural Logics of Transnationality. Durham: Duke University Press, 1999. Opoku-Dapaah, Edward. Somali Refugees in Toronto: A Profile. Toronto: York Lanes Press, 1995.

182

Bibliography

Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. Globalisation, Migration and Development. Paris: OECD, 2000. Palmer, Ransford W. Pilgrims from the Sun: West Indian Migration to America. New York: Twayne Publishers, 1995. Palmer, Ransford W., ed. In Search of a Better Life: Perspectives on Migration from the Caribbean. New York: Praeger, 1990. Parai, Louis. “Canada’s Immigration Policy, 1962-74.” International Migration Review. Vol. 9, No. 4. 1975. Pastor, Robert. “The Impact of U.S. Immigration Policy on Caribbean Emigration: Does it Matter?” In Barry B. Levine, ed. The Caribbean Exodus. New York: Praeger, 1987. Pastor, Robert A., ed. Migration and Development in the Caribbean: The Unexplored Connection. Boulder and London: Westview Press, 1985. Peach, Ceri. “Pluralist and Assimilationist Models of Ethnic Settlement in London 1991.” Tijdschrift voor Economische en Sociale Geografie, Vol. 88, No. 2. 1997. Peach, Ceri, Vaughan Robinson and Susan Smith, eds. Ethnic Segregation in Cities. Athens, GA: University of Georgia Press, 1981. Pedraza, Silvia, and Ruben G. Rumbaut. Origins and Destinies: Immigration, Race, and Ethnicity in America. Toronto: Wadsworth Publishing Company, 1996. Pessar, Patricia R., ed. Caribbean Circuits: New Directions in the Study of Caribbean Migration. New York: Center for Migration Studies, 1997. ________, ed. When Borders Don’t Divide: Labor Migration and Refugee Movements in the Americas. New York: Center for Migration Studies, 1988. Peterson, George E. and Wayne Vroman, eds. Urban Labor Markets and Job Opportunity. Washington, D.C.: The Urban Institute Press, 1992. Petersen, William. “International Migration.” Annual Review of Sociology. Vol. 4. 1978. Piché, Victor, Jean Renaud, and Lucie Gingras. “Comparative Immigrant Economic Integration.” In Shiva S. Halli and Leo Driedger, eds. Immigrant Canada: Demographic, Economic, and Social Challenges. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1999. Portes, Alejandro. “Social Capital: Its Origins and Applications in Modern Sociology.” Annual Review of Sociology. Vol. 24, No. 1. 1998. ________. “Embeddedness and Immigration: Notes on the Social Determinants of Economic Action.” The American Journal of Sociology. Vol. 98, No. 6. 1993.

Bibliography

183

Portes, Alejandro; Guarnizo, Luis E.; Landolt, Patricia. “The Study of Transnationalism: Pitfalls and Promise of an Emergent Research Field.” Ethnic and Racial Studies. Vol. 22, No. 2. March 1999. Portes, Alejandro and Ruben G. Rumbaut. Immigrant America: A Portrait, Second Edition. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1996. Portes, Alejandro and Alex Stepick. City on the Edge: The Transformation of Miami. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1993. Portes, Alejandro and Min Zhou. “The New Second Generation: Segmented Assimilation and Its Variants Among Post-1965 Immigrant Youth.” Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Sciences. Vol. 530, 1993. Putnam, Robert D. Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community. New York: Simon & Schuster, 2000. ________. “Bowling Alone: America’s Declining Social Capital.” Journal of Democracy. Vol. 6, No. 1. 1995. ________. ed. Democracies in Flux: The Evolution of Social Capital in Contemporary Society. Oxford; New York: Oxford University Press, 2002. Putnam, Robert D., Robert Leonardi, and Raffaella Y. Nanetti. Making Democracy Work: Civic Traditions in Modern Italy. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1993. Reimers, David M. Unwelcome Strangers: American Identity and the Turn Against Immigration. New York: Columbia University Press, 1998. Richardson, John G., ed. Handbook of Theory and Research for the Sociology of Education. New York: Greenwood Press, 1986. Richmond, Anthony H. “Immigration and Structural Change: The Canadian Experience, 1971-1986.” International Migration Review. Vol. 26, No. 4. 1992. Roberts, G.W. The Population of Jamaica. Cambridge: Conservation Foundation at the University Press, 1957. Rodriguez, Margarita. Different Paths, Same Destination: U.S.-Bound Nicaraguan and Cuban Migration in a Comparative Perspective. Dissertation (Ph.D.). University of Miami, 1999. Rogers, Reuel. “‘Black Like Who?’ Afro-Caribbean Immigrants, African Americans, and the Politics of Group Identity.” In Nancy Foner, ed. Islands in the City: West Indian Migration to New York. Berkeley: University of California Press, 2001. Rumbaut, Rubén G. and Alejandro Portes, eds. Ethnicities: Children of Immigrants in America. New York: Russell Sage Foundation, 2001.

184

Bibliography

Sassen-Koob, Saskia. Exporting Capital and Importing Labor: the Role of Caribbean Migration to New York City. New York: New York University, Faculty of Arts and Science, Center for Latin American and Caribbean Studies, 1981. Segal, Aaron. “The Caribbean Exodus in a Global Context: Comparative Migration Experiences.” In Barry B. Levine, ed. The Caribbean Exodus. New York: Praeger, 1987. Senior, Clarence, and Douglas Manley. A Report on Jamaican Migration to Great Britain. Kingston, Jamaica: The Government Printer, 1955. Silvera, Makeda. Silenced: Talks with Working Class Caribbean Women about their lives and Struggles as Domestic Workers in Canada. Toronto: Sister Vision, 1989. Simon, Rita James and Caroline Brettell. International Migration: The Female Experience. Totowa, NJ: Rowman and Allanheld Publishers, 1986. Simpson, Alan K. and Romano L. Mazzoli. “United States Immigration Policy.” Population and Development Review. Vol. 8, No. 4. 1982. Sowell, Thomas. “Three Black Histories.” In Thomas Sowell with Lynn D. Collins, eds. Essays and Data on American Ethnic Groups. Washington: Urban Institute, 1978. Stasiulis, Daiva K. and Abigail B. Bakan. Negotiating Citizenship: Migrant Women in Canada and the Global System. New York: Palgrave McMillan, 2003. Stinner, William F., Klaus de Albuquerque, and Roy S. Bryce-Laporte, eds. Return Migration and Remittances: Developing a Caribbean Perspective. Washington, D.C.: Research Institute on Immigration and Ethnic Studies, Smithsonian Institution, 1982. Stone, Carl. Democracy and Clientelism in Jamaica. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction, Inc., 1980. ________. Electoral Behaviour and Public Opinion in Jamaica. Kingston: Institute of Social and Economic Research, University of the West Indies, 1974. ________. Class, Race, and Political Behaviour in Urban Jamaica. Mona, Jamaica: Institute of Social and Economic Research, University of the West Indies, 1973. Taft, Donald R., and Robbins, Richard. International Migrations: the Immigrant in the Modern World. New York: The Ronald Press Company, 1955.

Bibliography

185

Tandon, B.B. “Earning Differentials among Native Born and Foreign Born Residents of Toronto.” International Migration Review Vol. 12, No. 3. 1978. Taylor, J. Edward. “The New Economics of Labor Migration and the Role of Remittances in the Migration Process.” International Migration. Vol. 37, No.1. 1999. Thomas, Deborah A. “Politics Beyond Boundaries: A Review Essay of Current Works on Nationalism, Migration, and Cultural Production within the Black Atlantic World.” Identities: Global Studies in Culture and Power. Vol. 11, No. 2. 2004. Thomas-Hope, Elizabeth. Caribbean Migration. Barbados: University of the West Indies Press, 2002. ________. “Return Migration to Jamaica and its Development Potential.” International Migration. Vol. 37, No. 1. 1999. ________. “Globalization and the Development of a Caribbean Migration Culture.” In Mary Chamberlain, ed. Caribbean Migration: Globalised Identities. New York: Routledge, 1998. Thompson, Paul and Elaine Bauer. “Evolving Jamaican Migrant Identities: Contrasts between Britain, Canada and the U.S.A.” Community, Work and Family. Vol. 6, No. 1. 2003. Torczyner, James L. The Shaping of Toronto’s Black Identity: A Demographic Analysis of the Black Community in Toronto and Regions. Montreal: McGill Consortium for Ethnicity and Strategic Social Planning, 2003. Trotter, Joe W. “The Great Migration, African Americans, and Immigrants in the Industrial City.” In Nancy Foner and George M. Fredrickson, eds. Not Just Black and White: Historical and Contemporary Perspectives on Immigration, Race, and Ethnicity in the United States. New York: Russell Sage Foundation, 2004. Tucker, Robert W., Charles B. Keely, and Linda Wrigley, eds. Immigration and U.S. Foreign Policy. Boulder: Westview Press, 1990. Van Hear, Nicholas. New Diasporas: The Mass Exodus, Dispersal, and Regrouping of Migrant Communities. Seattle: University of Washington Press, 1998. Vertovec, Steven. “Conceiving and Researching Transnationalism.” Ethnic and Racial Studies. Vol. 22, No. 2. 1999. Vickerman, Milton. “Tweaking a Monolith: The West Indian Immigrant Encounter with ‘Blackness.’” In Nancy Foner, ed. Islands in the City: West Indian Migration to New York. Berkeley: University of California Press, 2001.

186

Bibliography

________. Crosscurrents: West Indian Immigrants and Race. New York: Oxford University Press, 1999. Walcott, Rinaldo. Black Like Who? Writing Black Canada. Toronto: Insomniac Press, 1997. Waldinger, Roger. Still the Promised City? African-Americans and New Immigrants in Postindustrial New York. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1996. Waldinger, Roger and David Fitzgerald. “Transnationalism in Question.” American Journal of Sociology. Vol. 109, No. 5. 2004. Waldinger, Roger and David Fitzgerald. “Immigrant ‘Transnationalism’ Reconsidered.” Los Angeles: Department of Sociology, UCLA, Paper 5, 2003. Walker, James W. St. G.. The Black Loyalists: The Search for a Promised Land in Nova Scotia and Sierra Leone, 1783-1870. New York: Africana Publishing, 1976. Waters, Mary C. “Growing Up West Indian and African American: Gender and Class Differences in the Second Generation.” In Nancy Foner, ed. Islands in the City: West Indian Migration to New York. Berkeley: University of California Press, 2001. Waters, Mary C. Black Identities: West Indian Immigrant Dreams and American Realities. New York: Russell Sage Foundation, 1999. ________. “Ethnic and Racial Identities of Second-Generation Black Immigrants in New York City.” International Migration Review. Vol. 28, No. 4. 1994. Weber, Max. Economy and Society: An Outline of Interpretive Sociology.Vol I and II, Guenther Roth and Claus Wittich, eds. New York: Bedminster Press, 1968. Weeks, John R. Population: An Introduction to Concepts and Issues. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth/Thompson Learning, 2002. Western, John. A Passage to England: Barbadian Londoners Speak of Home. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1992. Westmoreland, Guy T. Jr. West Indian Americans: A Research Guide. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 2001. Wilson, Kenneth L. and Alejandro Portes. “Immigrant Enclaves: An Analysis of the Labor Market Experiences of Cubans in Miami.” The American Journal of Sociology. Vol. 86, No. 2. 1980. Wiltshire, Rosina. “Implications of Transnational Migration for Nationalism: The Caribbean Example.” In Nina Glick Schiller, Linda Basch and Cristina Blanc-Szanton, eds. Towards a Transnational Perspective on

Bibliography

187

Migration: Race, Class, Ethnicity, and Nationalism Reconsidered. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences. New York: New York Academy of Sciences, 1992. Winks, Robin W. The Blacks in Canada: A History, Second Edition. Montreal and Kingston: McGill-Queen’s University Press, 1997. Wood, Charles H. and Terry L. McCoy. “Migration, Remittances, and Development: A Study of Caribbean Cane Cutters in Florida.” International Migration Review. Vol. 19, Issue 2, 1985. Woolcock, Michael. “Social Capital and Economic Development: Toward a Theoretical Synthesis and Policy Framework.” Theory and Society. Vol. 27, No. 2. 1998. Yang, Philip Q. “Explaining Immigrant Naturalization.” International Migration Review. Vol. 28, No. 3. 1994. Zelinsky, Wilbur and Barrett A. Lee. “Heterolocalism: An Alternative Model of the Sociospatial Behaviour of Immigrant Ethnic Communities.” International Journal of Population Geography. Vol. 4, No. 4. 1998. Zhou, Min. “Segmented Assimilation: Issues, Controversies, and Recent Research on the New Second Generation.” In Charles Hirschman, Philip Kasinitz and Josh DeWind, eds. The Handbook of International Migration: The American Experience. New York: Russell Sage Foundation, 1999.

This page intentionally left blank

Index

Acculturation, 15, 19, 104-106, 108, 109, 150 Affirmative action, 26, 47, 101103, 109, 126, 130, 131, 159, 163, 164 Africans, 114, 116, 124 African Canadians, 114-115, 127, 132, 134 Age, 48-49, 61-62, 70, 87, 89-90 Asians, 94, 122 Bahamians, 116 Barbadians, 2, 115 Broward County, 6-8, 45, 48, 71, 117, 149 Business ownership, 8, 46, 47, 51, 69-70, 80, 98, 109, 158, 164 Castro, Fidel, 5, 20 Children of immigrants, 160. See also Second generation Churches, 49, 108, 122 Citizenship, 2, 3, 47, 87, 137, 142145, 151, 154 Civil rights movement, 123, 125, 132 Cuba, 2, 20, 91, 117, 151 Cubans, 8, 11, 29, 33, 38, 91, 98, 151 Cumulative causation, 21, 27, 54 Domestic workers, 2, 3, 22, 56, 92, 115 Dominicans (Dominican Republic), 24, 37, 48, 91, 113 Dual citizenship, 143-144, 151 Dual labor market, 21, 23, 31 Economic integration, 94 Employment equity, 27, 101-103,

130, 158, 159 Ethnic enclaves, 8, 11, 19, 24, 25, 29-31, 33, 113, 121, 124, 126, 162 Ethnicity, 25, 102, 110, 113, 120, 123, 132, 164 Gender, 22, 23, 49, 51, 60-61, 100, 122, 158 Globalization, 20, 39, 135 Group consciousness, 113, 121134 Group identity, 110, 121, 124, 127, 131, 134 Haiti, 91, 117 Haitians 8, 30, 38, 91, 106-107, 130 Heterolocalism, 19, 32-33, 164 Hispanics, 71, 100 Home ownership, 43, 69-70 Identity, 120, 122, 134, 144, 146, 152, 153, 160 Caribbean, 1, 106, 123, 126, 130 Cultural, 106 Dual, 143 Ethnic, 15, 32, 33, 123, 127, 131, 132, 133, 145 Group, See group identity Jamaican, 48, 124, 130, 146 National, 137, 145, 146, 164 Racial, 110, 120, 124, 127, 132 Immigrant organizations, 12, 13, 15, 19, 26-27, 28, 31, 35, 44, 45, 46, 47, 49, 85, 107-110, 122, 128134, 147, 151, 164 Immigration policies, 3, 12, 13,

189

190 15, 26, 39, 44, 46, 47, 48, 58, 81, 82-93, 108, 109, 111, 115, 158, 159, 161, 163 Canada, 82-90, 109, 115, 116 United States, 90-93 Income, 12, 27, 28, 43, 47, 51, 64, 66, 68-69, 70, 80, 81, 100, 154, 155, 158, 161 Institutionalist model, 26 Institutions, 14, 19, 26, 27, 35, 40, 44, 94, 110, 112, 121, 122, 123, 125-126, 129130, 131, 133 Jamaica Labour Party, 5 Jamaican Canadian Association, 26, 46 Labor market, 12, 13, 15, 23, 26, 31, 39, 44, 47, 61, 81, 91, 93-98, 99, 105, 106, 108, 109, 150, 158, 159, 163, 164 Labor migrant, 2 Temporary, 92 Latin Americans, 8 Latinos, 8, 26, 122 Manley, Michael, 4, 5, 20, 55 Melting pot, 106 Mexicans, 2, 98-99 Mexico, 82, 98 Migrant networks, 17, 19, 24, 25, 27-31, 36, 49, 55, 56, 93, 100, 107, 108, 112113, 118, 126, 128, 153, 162, 164 Migration selectivity, 66, 118 Mosaic, cultural, 32, 106 Multiculturalism, 106 Neoclassical economic theory, 21 New household economics of migration, 21, 22, 61 Nurses, 5, 22, 64, 89, 103 Occupation, 23, 28, 39, 43, 47, 49, 51, 64, 66-68, 69, 70, 80, 86, 91, 93, 94, 97,

Index 100-101, 109, 123, 133, 155, 158, 159 Panama Canal, 2 People’s National Party, 4 Poverty, 31, 106 Race, 11, 25, 39, 48, 93, 101-103, 105, 113, 115, 120, 122, 123-127, 129, 130, 132134, 163-164 Racial prejudice, 70, 96, 102, 105, 125, 131, 159, 163 Remittances, 22, 27, 34, 35, 47, 137-140, 142, 149, 151, 153, 160, 161 Residential patterns, 15, 17-18, 31-33, 37, 43, 51, 70-71, 112, 159, 163-164 Return migration. See returned migrants Returned migrants, 24, 25, 111 “Salad bowl,” 106 San Francisco, West Indians in, 8 Second generation, 107, 164. See also Children of immigrants Segmented assimilation, 33, 104106, 163 Segmented labor market. See dual labor market Segregation, 122-125, 131 Self-employment, 98-99, 158 Slavery, 11, 17, 114-115, 124-125 Social capital, 8, 17, 19, 27-31, 35, 38, 99, 107-108, 134 Sociospatial patterns, 17, 31, 33, 163 Stereotype, 23, 27, 29, 40, 99 Undocumented migrants, 6, 82, 153 United Kingdom, 3, 5, 40, 135 Visible minorities, 18, 93, 94, 100, 101, 102, 132, 134 Women, 2, 3, 22, 23, 49, 61, 101, 102, 114, 115, 150 World systems, 21, 23