Abstracts Volume 6

“Social and Economic Inequality and Asian Americans in the United States”

Elizabeth A. Segal
Arizona State University

Keith M. Kilty
Ohio State University

and

Rebecca Y. Kim
Ohio State University

Abstract: Describing social and economic inequality within the Asian American community is difficult. Depending on how “Asian American” is defined, there are twenty to thirty cultures, countries of origin, and a wide range of identities and circumstances that influence economic and social well-being. It is almost presumptuous to attempt to categorize such a diverse collection of identities as one group. At the same time, Asians and Pacific Islanders have been an increasing population group in the U. S. over the past thirty years. A common conception of them now is that of the “model minority;” i.e., as a minority group which has through hard work rather than political confrontation achieved the American Dream. Simple economic and educational comparisons suggest that Asian Americans have done quite well. Yet those comparisons are misleading. When controlling for educational status, Asian Americans have lower incomes than their White counterparts. Asian Americans, especially recent immigrants, also have higher poverty rates, whether for individuals, families, or children, than Whites. Overall, the impact of race continues to be significant for the well-being of this minority group, putting them at a disadvantage in American society.

“Race, Immigration, and Public Policy: The Case of Asian Americans”

Keith M. Kilty
Ohio State University

Abstract: Race is one of the most defining characteristics for American society, and it has figured prominently in immigration policy throughout U. S. history. The first law related to immigration was the Naturalization Act of 1790, which restricted naturalized citizenship to “whites.” During the nineteenth century, increasing immigration from Asian countries began, first with the Chinese and later with the Japanese, Asian Indians, and Filipinos. During periods of need for cheap labor, these immigration streams were initially welcomed. However, during economic declines, hostility increased toward Asian immigrants, leading to restrictive public policy. These exclusionary policies began with the Page Law of 1875 and the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882, culminating in the National Origins Quota Law of 1924, which virtually excluded all Asians from immigration to the U. S. It was not until 1952 that the situation began to change and that most foreign-born Asians were allowed to become naturalized U. S. citizens. During the past thirty years, the Asian American population has increased dramatically, largely because of increased immigration. Awareness of the history of exclusionary public policy needs to be kept alive, particularly now that concerns are increasingly being voiced by some national leaders about immigration. These latest outcries reflect the nativism and racism of the past and can already be seen in current legislation directly about immigration policy as well as indirectly through restrictions on immigrants’ access to human services through public welfare policies.

“Challenging the ‘Asian Pacific American’ Rubric: Constructions of Ethnic Identity among Samoan Youth in Hawaii”

David T. Mayeda
University of Hawaii at Manoa

and

Scott K. Okamoto
Arizona State University

Abstract: In recent years, a number of Asian American scholars have attempted to incorporate Pacific Islanders into the Asian American rubric by coining the term “Asian Pacific American.” Using qualitative interview data, this paper suggests that by including Pacific Islanders into Asian American Studies, Asian American scholars have glossed over unique concerns pertinent to Pacific Islander communities. Specifically, this paper examines the identity constructions of Samoan adolescents that serve to perpetuate marginalization in the population, in order to illustrate the distinct differences between Pacific Island and Asian American youth. The article recommends that Pacific Islander communities be referenced independently under a more appropriate rubric identified by the population itself.

“Immigrants’ Use of Welfare after Welfare Reform: Cross-Group Comparison”

Younghee Lim
Ohio State University

and

Stella M. Resko
Ohio State University

Abstract: The Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act (PRWORA) of 1996 represented a significant shift in U. S. public policy, rendering immigrants ineligible for most federal means-tested programs. We use the 1999 Current Population Survey (CPS) data set to provide the cross-sectional description of immigrants’ use of public transfer programs, particularly focusing on Asian American immigrants. Little is currently known about the economic well-being of Asian immigrants and their program participation in the wake of recent welfare reform. This research contributes to the knowledge of Asian immigrants’ reliance on public assistance and their socio-demographic characteristics in comparison with other racial/ethnic groups.

“The Effects of the U. S. Public Welfare System upon Elderly Korean Immigrants’ Independent Living Arrangements”

Kyu-taik Sung
University of Southern California

and

Mee Hye Kim
Ewha Womans University (South Korea)

Abstract: Elderly Korean persons who immigrated to the United States often live in a situation coined “multiple jeopardy” (being old, poor, and minority; having low educational attainment, language problems, and cultural differences). Contrary to the assumption that Asian elders often live with their adult children, these elderly tend to live separately, thus ignoring their traditional custom of intergenerational co-residence. Consequently, the lives of these elderly are dramatically different from their peers in Korea where the tradition of filial piety is still prevalent. This divergence of customs for elderly Korean Americans living in the United States has given rise to our research. Based on a review of the findings of three studies about elderly Korean immigrants, we discuss major factors influencing their decisions to live separately from their adult children. The results of this review show that public welfare programs are a major factor associated with their preference for more independent lifestyles.