Residential and Demographic Patterns of Immigrants In Texas at A 

Glance: Focus on Mexico Foreign-Born Immigrants 

 

Yann-Yann Shieh, American Institutes for Research, Washington DC, yshieh@air.org

Pamela Rogers, University of Texas at Austin, Texas, progers@mail.utexas.edu

Introduction 

State of Texas has the longest border with Mexico than any of the three U.S. states bordering Mexico. As one of the most 

dynamic regions in the world, the U.S.-Mexico border region extends 2,000 miles from the Gulf of Mexico to the Pacific 

Ocean, 1,254 miles of which are along the Texas border. Decades before the passage of NAFTA in 1994, Mexican 

immigrants journeyed to Texas to work as temporary migrant agricultural laborers.1

 However, since the late 1980s the 

international trade flows between the United States and Mexico has increased not only the truck traffic at ports of entry but 

the entry of Mexican immigrants following the trail of commerce. The large metropolitan areas of Texas and other urban 

centers in the United States have become the new agricultural fields of immigrants. Data have shown that by the end of the 

1990s, the population in the largest Texas counties and Mexican states along the Texas-Mexico border reached 13.6 million. 

According to Mexico’s census estimates, the population of the Mexican states bordering Texas—Chihuahua, Coahuila, 

Nuevo Leon, and Tamaulipas—increased 22 percent, to almost 12 million, from 1990 to 2000, adding 2.2 million residents. 

On the U.S. side, the population of El Paso, Webb, Hidalgo and Cameron counties increased by about 391,000 inhabitants, 

from 1.4 million in 1990 to 1.8 million in 1999—a 29 percent increase.2

Little empirical research is available about the trajectories of immigrants, that the spatial mobility, mainly, housing and workseeking experience, mainly, economic mobility, of recently arrived immigrants in Texas. The proximity of Texas to Mexico 

and the size of the Mexican foreign-born population underscore the importance of this research. This research extends 

naturally from existing work on remittances and migration behavior among Texas Mexican residents, and upon colonia-type 

housing developments both in the Texas-Mexico border. This study makes a considerable contribution to the study of 

immigrant employment and residential search studies. The research also helps academicians and policymakers decide the 

most viable approaches to undertake in researching this population group. 

Brief Literature Review

Household Composition

The large influx of immigrants have also affected national trends in household composition. From 1940 to 2000, the most 

common household size was represented by two people. The household size declined from 4.60 people in 1900 to 2.59 in 

2000, or by 44 percent. The percent of married-couple households also declined from more than 78 percent to 52 percent of 

all households. At the same time the share of one-person households increased more than any other from 9.5 percent in 1950 

to 26 percent in 2000. The growth in one-person households can also be an indicator of immigration as recent immigrants 

tend to be male, single, and living in households which consist of unrelated persons. In the traditional Gateway cities, the 

higher number of households may represent a more established community while the higher number of one-person 

households in the Hispanic community in emerging Gateway cities represent newer arrivals to the community. In the new 

Latin destinations, Suro and Singer show that 22 percent of households represented nonfamily households. 

 

1

 See David M. Reimers, Still the Golden Door: The Third World Comes to America (New York: Columbia University Press, 

1985); Rodolfo Acuna, Occupied America: A History of Chicanos (New York: Harper & Row, 1981). 

2

 David E. Lorey, ed. United States-Mexico Border Statistics since 1990 (University of California, at Los Angeles, UCLA 

Latin American Center Publications, 1993), pp. 7-13 and pp. 25-38; and INEGI, “XII Censo General de Poblacion y 

Vivienda, 2000,” December 2, 2000 (http://www.inegi.gob.mx/difusion/ espanol/bvinegi/cpyv/indice.html) quoted in “State 

Functions at the Texas-Mexico Border and Cross-border Transportation,” Texas Comptrollers’ Office, January 2001. 
 

Population Change in Texas

 

The tremendous population change experienced in Texas during the 1990s mirrored national patterns. Between 1980 and 

2000, the U.S. population grew by 11.43 percent in 1980, 9.78 in 1990, and 13.15 in 2000. In 2000, the total population of 

Texas of 20, 851, 820 million, had increased by 22.76 percent from 1990, 19.38 percent in 1990, and by 27.08 percent in 

1980. Between 1980 and 2000, the Hispanic population increased by 45.3 percent in 1980, 53.68 percent in 1990, and 

123.38 percent between 1980 thru 2000. By 2000, the Hispanic or Latin population was estimated at 6, 669, 666 million, and 

was largely located in the main industrial and economic hubs located along IH-35: Houston, Dallas, Austin, and San Antonio. 

Moreover, a larger number of Hispanics or Latinos lived in Harris (1,119,751) and Dallas (662, 729) counties alone than in 

the thirteen contiguous counties along the Texas-Mexico border. 

Similarly, the percent change by race/ethnicity in Texas between 1980 and 2000 mirrored national trends. As minority 

populations have continued to increase in Texas, the proportion of the population of Anglo or African-American has not 

experienced significant growth and the Hispanic population as has become more diversified. In 1990 Anglos represented 

60.6 percent of the population yet by 2000 their dominance had declined to 53.1 percent. Anglos increased in 1980 by 10 

percent, declined by 7.61 percent in 1990, and increased 18.44 betweens the 1980 thru 2000 period. African Americans 

experienced a lower population increase of 16.7 percent in 1980, 22.53 percent in 1980 and 43.08 across 1980 thru 2000. 

Concentrated primarily in urban areas such as Dallas and Houston, the African American proportion of the population 

remained steady throughout 1980 to 2000 at roughly 11.6 percent of the population. Hispanics, on the other hand, 

represented 21 percent of the population in 1980, 25.6 percent of the population in 1990, and 32 percent of the population in 

2000. However, although the actual numbers are still small in comparison to Hispanic populations, he most dramatic 

increase all racial and ethnic categories has been the Asian population. In the 1980s the Asian population increased by 88.78 

percent in the 1980s, 81.15 percent in the 1990s, and by almost 242 percent between 1980 thru 2000.3

 The Other racial and 

ethnic category, representing the influx of Asian and other minorities, represented a slight 1.4 percent of the population in 

1980, 2.2 percent in 1990, and 3.3 percent in 2000. 4

Although the Mexican origin population continues to be the largest Hispanic population in Texas, increasing by 30 percent 

from 3,899,518 million in 1990 to 5,071,963 million in 2000, other Hispanic groups are also arriving. The decade of the 

1990s saw a dramatic increase in other Hispanics such as Central Americans. As indicated in Table 5 in the Appendix, the 

Honduran and Guatemalan populations increased by 128 percent and 58 percent. Other Hispanics such as Puerto Ricans, 

increased their population share by 52 percent throughout the decade. 

The majority of growth in the foreign-born population in Texas during the 1990s, particularly after 1995. As seen in Table 

A1, Texas’s foreign-born population increased by 69 percent in the 1990s to 1, 335,524 million, compared to the growth in 

the 1980s. In the five-year periods leading up to the 1980s, the foreign-born population increased by 772,500 and during the 

1980s by an additional 791, 618. However, the almost doubling of the population during the 1990s, compared to other 

periods dating as far back as 1965, demonstrates the dramatic impact the decade had on the foreign-born population. 

Considering the number of immigrants who arrived since 1995, it is not surprising that few have achieved legal status. The 

five-year residency requirements preclude residents from achieving citizenships during that waiting period. However, many 

individuals who arrived ten years ago or even longer, have not become citizens. As indicated in Table A2, only 10 percent 

immigrants who arrived during 1990 and 2000 have achieved citizenship, compared to 37 percent who arrived during the 

1980s. 

 

3

 State Data Center, Texas A&M University, Table 1: Population and Percent Change by Race/Ethnicity in the State of 

Texas, 1980-2000. 

4

 Ibid., Table 2: Proportion of the Population in each Race/Ethnicity Group in 1980, 1990, and 2000, Numerical Change 1980 

to 1990 and 1990 to 2000 by Race/Ethnicity, and Proportion of Net Change. 
 

Table A1. Year of Entry for the Foreign-born Population in Texas, 1965-March 2000 

 

 

Texas 

Total Population 2000 20,851,820 

Total Foreign-Born 2,899,642 

Date of Arrival: 

 1995 to March 2000 791,434 

 1990 to 1994 544,090 

 1985 to 1989 398,395 

 1980 to 1984 393,223 

 1975 to 1979 290,453 

 1970 to 1974 182,296 

 1965 to 1969 99,595 

 Before 1965 200,156 

SOURCE: U.S. Census Bureau; Data Set: Census 2000 Summary File 3 (SF 3) - Sample Data. 

Table A2. Citizenship Status of the Foreign-Born in Texas, 1990-2000 

 Texas 

Total: 2,899,642 

Year of entry 1990-2000 46% 

Naturalized citizen 10% 

Not a citizen 90% 

Year of entry 1980 to 1989: 27% 

Naturalized citizen 37% 

Not a citizen 63% 

Year of entry before 1980: 27% 

Naturalized citizen 63% 

Not a citizen 37% 

SOURCE: U.S. Census Bureau; Data Set: Census 2000 Summary File 3 (SF 3) - Sample Data 
 

Homeownership

 

Data on housing can highlight the process of social stratification or residential segregation. Because it is one of the most 

important generators of wealth, it is associated with socioeconomic and residential mobility. Differential access to 

homeownership can intensify racial and ethnic stratification processes. The location of the home, size, age, value, and type 

and mortgage cost are socioeconomic indicators of residential segregation. Richard Alba and John Logan studied two spatial 

processes, assimilation and stratification, in national homeownership patterns of racial and ethnic groups (1992), including 

Hispanics and non-Hispanic whites, American Indian, Asian and Blacks. The majority population showed higher 

homeownership levels than minority population, especially in suburban areas, and minority groups tended to settle in central 

city areas. Using PUM data (5 percent) from the 1980 Census, the authors found a strong correlation between 

homeownership and other individual-level variables, namely, age, household composition, socioeconomic position, and 

language acculturation. Although Anglos registered high percentages of homeownership, other groups were roughly divided 

in the middle between homeowners and renters. Of special interest in the finding were the location of homeownership of 

certain groups, the majority of Anglos and some minority groups (Cubans, Koreans, Asian Indian, and American Indian) 

have the highest percentage of homeownership in the suburbs while Blacks and Puerto Ricans had the highest percent of 

homeownership in the central cities. Other groups such as the Chinese and Mexican were equally divided between the central 

city and the suburb. 

Many housing studies use data from the Panel Study of Income Dynamics or the Annual Housing Survey. For example, 

Elena Gouskava and Frank Stafford’s study, based on data from the Panel Study of Income Dynamics (PSID), found that 

wealth and home ownership rates have increased modestly for the nation as a whole. While the PSID study primarily studies 

white and African American households, a small number of non-black, or Hispanic, households have been added in recent 

years but were excluded from Gouskava and Stafford’s analysis. Nevertheless the study found that the white/black gap 

remained large and the average level of wealth among African American remained low, opening up questions that the 

Hispanic sample.5

Ethnic Entrepreneurship and Employment

The importance of social networks for immigrant employment is well documented in the literature (Gurak and Caces 1992; 

Kritz and Zlotnik 1992; Massey et al. 1987, 1993; Portes and Bach 1985; Portes and Borocz 1989; Waldinger 1986; Bailey 

and Waldinger 1991). Granovetter (1973, 1985) first examined the importance of embedded networks of interpersonal 

relations for economic actions, theorizing that weak ties based on acquaintances rather than family or close friends serve as 

bridges between networks because strong ties such as family members are thought to be connected to the same networks. 

Since the 1980s several case studies and theories of ethnic entrepreneurship have emerged. Ivan Light (2002, 2001, 1980)

used case studies of Asian ethnic entrepreneurs and middlemen in Southern California and Los Angeles to theorize the 

collective and individualistic strategies ethnic entrepreneurs. Bonavich (1973) studied the role of middlemen (or 

“sojourners”), who concentrate in narrow economic niches. Aldrich and Waldinger 1990 examined different types of ethnic 

entrepreneurial markets. Research has also focused on different success rates of entrepreneurship by group as related to 

differences in social and human capital characteristics (Bates 1994; Light 1972; Sanders and Nee 1996; Yoon 1991). Massey 

and Denton (1993) found that although residential segregation may be beneficial in the early stages of ethnic 

entrepreneurship, its long-term effect proven to be detrimental because of its interaction with socioeconomic structures, that 

is, the limited effective demand in segregated urban areas. These authors also found that segregated urban areas were areas of 

high crime, and hence not conducive to favorable business climates. Thomas Bailey studied immigrants and restaurants in 

New York City, and the relationship between minority groups and entrepreneurs. Traditional economists have long used 

labor market segmentation theories to study industrial restructuring and labor market segmentation processes at the national 

and regional levels. Spatial mismatch theories have also been used to identify labor demand within and outside of labor 

markets, as determined by spatial proximity. Few studies, however, have addressed the job seeking activities of immigrants 

and their housing choices, focusing more on labor market activity and the representation of immigrants in service or 

construction sectors. Within the literature on job-seeking or the entrepreneurial activities of immigrant, hardly any 

information is available of the use of technology, credit services, economic incentives of migrant communities. 

 

5 Trends in household wealth dynamics, 1999 – 2001 - September, 2002; 

http://psidonline.isr.umich.edu/Publications/Papers/TrendsIndynamics1999-2001.pdf. Home ownership rates rose slightly 

from 61 percent to 67 percent (p.2). 
 

Research Questions 

This research study uses quantitative approach to examine the demographic information, job and residential search behaviors, 

among recent Mexican foreign-born immigrant populations in Texas. The focus on Mexican foreign-born immigrant in Texas 

is because among immigrants in Texas, Mexican foreign-born population accounts for near 30%. Using census data, this 

work sheds light on two primary areas. 

 

 

First, the study addresses a set of questions largely contextual, based on the housing and person character data derived from 

Census. The data identify the percentage of the foreign-born Mexicans who currently live in the Texas, period of residency in 

the United States, demographic information (age, household composition, etc.), as well as socioeconomic characteristics 

(median household income, households on public assistance, language acquisition, owner-occupied households), and other 

relevant demographic data. Questions of interest are the following: 

1. What characteristics distinguish Mexican foreign-born immigrant people in Texas? 

2. What are the major socioeconomic characteristics of Mexican foreign-born immigrant in Texas such as income and 

employed status? 

3. What are the education characteristics of Mexican foreign-born immigrant people in Texas? 

4. What is the Mexican foreign-born immigrant housing status? 

The second part of questions seek to explain the mobility patterns of recent arrivals of foreign-born individuals by 

determining the trajectory of homeownership and social mobility including education attainment established in the first 

section. Questions of interest are as follows: 

1. What facilitates Mexican foreign-born immigrants’ move from being sharers or renters upon arrival to later tenure 

housing arrangements as they become settled? 

2. What are the major factors relating to Mexican foreign-born immigrants’ education attainment? 

3. What are the major factors relating to Mexican foreign-born immigrants’ person total income behavior? 

4. What is the relationship between the search for work behavior and its translation into spatial patterns of mobility and 

residence? 

Methods 

Databases

This study is based on data from the U. S. Census 5% Public-Use Microdata Sample (PUMS) of the 2000 decennial census to 

analyze the residential mobility patterns of immigrants in Texas. The Census long form Summary File 3 (SF 3) was sent to 17 

percent of housing units, together with the short form Summary Form 1 (SF1) which was sent to 83 percent of housing units, 

form a complete count of the U.S. population. The SF3 contains many available variables. Information on population, age, 

year of arrival, residence prior to the United States, gender, race/ethnicity, housing unit data, household relationships, 

income, education, workforce, ancestry, citizenship, employment status, occupation categories, industry, class of worker, 

income levels, household earnings, and poverty status are available. Census data is also available on sharer or owner 

householder type, type of housing units, year structure was built, number of rooms, year householder moved into the unit, 

number of occupants per room, value of the owner-occupied units, gross rent as a percentage of renter-occupied units, and 

others. 

Data analysis

Descriptive analyses are used to answer the research questions and to summarize immigrants’ characteristics. Regression 

analyses are also performed to examine the immigrant spatial mobility and the relationship among language acquisition, 

income, education and tenure of homeowners and renters. 

The 2000 PUMS file structure is hierarchical and contains two basic record types of 314 characters each: the housing unit 

record and the person record. Each record has a unique identifier (serial number) that links the people in the housing unit to 

the proper housing unit record. Due to the hierarchical nature of the data, the hierarchical model approach is performed. 
 

Results 

The data derived from the 2000 Census here represent 530,686 households and 1,138,586 persons in the household who were 

Mexican immigrants in Texas. To provide a detailed context of the characteristics of Mexican immigrants, descriptive data 

analyses from the housing and person records are conducted. The results are presented below. 

Household Demographic Characters

The average number of persons living in a household was 4.28 persons ranging from 1 person to 27 persons. Near 51% of 

household members were from 4 to 6 persons (see table 1). Nearly 61% of households rented a house with an average rent of 

$432, and 39% owned a house with an average property value of $50,000 to $59,999 (see table 2). The majority of 

households (47%) moved in the house in 1999 and 2000 followed by 1995 to 1998 (42%) (see table 3). 31% of household 

owned a two-bedroom place, 27% owned a one-bedroom place, 25% owned a three-bedroom place, and 10% owned a studio 

without any bedroom (see table 4). 39% of the household owned a vehicle, 35% owned two vehicles and 12% did not have 

any vehicle (see table 5). In terms of household structure, 65% of them were married coupes and 23% of them were either 

male-headed or female headed (see table 6). The majority of households did not have any individuals 65 years old or older 

living there, and 43% of households had at least one to two children under the age of 18 years old (see table 7). Spanish was 

spoken in 97% of households, and 42% indicated linguistic isolation (see tables 8 and 9). 

Table 1. Number of Persons in Household for Mexican Immigrants in Texas 

Num person records 

follow house record Frequency Percent 

1 30784 5.80 

2 70951 13.37 

3 95928 18.08 

4 115040 21.68 

5 95076 17.92 

6 58511 11.03 

7 29790 5.61 

8 15870 2.99 

9 8243 1.55 

10 5044 0.95 

11 2233 0.42 

12 1851 0.35 

13 478 0.09 

14 410 0.08 

15 240 0.05 

16 66 0.01 

17 93 0.02 

19 21 0.00 

22 27 0.01 

24 15 0.00 

27 15 0.00 

Total 530686 100.00 
 

Table 2. Household Home Ownership and Average Property Value or Rent for Mexican Immigrants in Texas 

Home Ownership Frequency Percent 

Average property value 

or rent Minimum Maximum 

Owner-occupied 208796 39.35 $50,000 to $59,999 Less than $10,000 $1,000,000 plus 

Renter-occupied 321890 60.66 $432.08 $4 $2,200 

Total 530686 100 

Table 3. Year Moved in for Mexican Immigrants in Texas 

Year Moved In Frequency Percent 

1999 / 2000 247706 46.68 

1995 to 1998 221214 41.68 

1990 to 1994 30252 5.70 

1980 to 1989 17879 3.37 

1970 to 1979 8742 1.65 

1969 / earlier 4893 0.92 

Total 530686 100.00 

Table 4. Number of Bedrooms in Household for Mexican Immigrants in Texas 

Bedrooms Frequency Percent 

0 54231 10.22 

1 144927 27.31 

2 166865 31.44 

3 130529 24.60 

4 29155 5.49 

5 4979 0.94 

Total 530686 100.00 

Table 5. Number of Vehicles in Household for Mexican Immigrants in Texas 

Vehicles 

available Frequency Percent 

0 63530 11.97 

1 208490 39.29 

2 184767 34.82 

3 53168 10.02 

4 14341 2.70 

5 3834 0.72 

6 2556 0.48 

Total 530686 100.00 

Table 6. Household Structure for Mexican Immigrants in Texas 

Household Structure Frequency Percent 

Married couple 345129 65.03 

Male-headed 54629 10.29 

Female-headed 67408 12.70 

Nonfamily 63520 11.97 

Total 530686 100 
 

Table 7. Number of People over 65 and Children under 18 in Household for Mexican Immigrants in Texas 

 People 65 years plus in household children under 18 years in household

Number Frequency Percent Frequency Percent 

0 489928 92.32 188200 35.46

1 31342 5.91 114172 21.51

2 8732 1.65 115808 21.82

3 612 0.12 72272 13.62

4 66 0.01 27926 5.26

5 8615 1.62

6 2479 0.47

7 6 0 772 0.15

8 

 

 

294 0.06

9 109 0.02

10 15 0

11 24 0

Total 530686 100 530686 100

Table 8. Language Use in Household for Mexican immigrants in Texas 

Household language Frequency Percent 

English only 14342 2.70 

Spanish 513663 96.79 

Other language 2681 0.51 

Total 530686 100.00 

Table 9. Linguistic Isolation in Household for Mexican immigrants in Texas 

Linguistic isolation Frequency Percent 

 not linguistic isolated 306095 57.68 

 Linguistic isolated 224591 42.32 

Total 530686 100.00 

Person Demographic Characters

Data from the person record file shows that among Mexican foreign-born immigrants in Texas, 55 % were male and 46% 

were female. 62% were between the ages of 25 and 64 with an average age of 31, ranging from 5 to 93 (see tables 10 and 11). 

For people 25 years or older, only 15% completed high school, only near 6% obtained bachelor degree or higher, and the 

majority of them had less than a high school education (see table 12). 62% of persons at least 15 years old had been married 

and 27% of them had never been married (see table 13). For school attendance or enrollment status, only 17% of them had 

been enrolled in school since February 1, 2000. Among those attendees, 96% enrolled in public schools or college (see table 

14). 13% attended undergraduate college, 27% were in high school, 28% were in middle school, and only 2% were in 

postsecondary higher education programs (see table 15). In terms of language, 94% spoke a non-English language, and 6% 

spoke English only. Among those non-English speakers, 56% spoke English well and 44% spoke English poorly (see tables 

16 and 17). With respect to citizenship status, 81% were not citizens of the United States, 17% were U.S. citizens by 

naturalization, and 2% had been born aboard with American parents (see table 18). For people who worked in 1999, the 

average age was 33 with ranges from 16 to 93, the average working hours per week was 41 with ranges from 1 to 99, the 

average weeks working in 1999 was 42 with ranges from 1 to 52, and the average income for people worked in 1999 was 

$18,324 (see table 19). When asking people about their residency five years ago, 70% were in the United States and 30% 

were out of the country (see table 20). When asking people if they are looking for work, near 65% said no and only 10% said 

yes (see table 21). In terms of people’s occupation, 86% were private-employed, 5% were government-employed, and 7% 

were self-employed (see table 22). 
 

Table 10. Sex Distribution for Mexican Immigrants in Texas 

Sex Frequency Percent 

Male 631246 55.44 

Female 507340 44.56 

Total 1138586 100.00 

 

Table 11. Age Group Distribution for Mexican Immigrants in Texas 

Age group Frequency Percent 

5-15 128266 11.27 

16-24 270313 23.74 

25-64 710465 62.40 

65 and older 29542 2.59 

Total 1138586 100.00 

Table 12. Education Attainment for Mexican Immigrants in Texas Age 25 or Older 

Frequency Percent 

no school 80871 10.93 

elementary school 203711 27.53 

less high school 231136 31.23 

high school 109658 14.82 

some college 73754 9.97 

bachelor or higher 40877 5.52 

Total 740007 100.00 

Table 13. Marital Status for Mexican Immigrants in Texas Age 15 or Older 

Marital Status Frequency Percent 

Married 635178 62.07 

Widowed 22178 2.17 

Divorced 42764 4.18 

Separated 42434 4.15 

Never married 280846 27.44 

Total 1023400 100.00 

Table 14. School Enrollment Status of Mexican Immigrants in Texas 

School Enrollment/Attended 

since Feb 1, 2000 Frequency Percent 

% with 

Attendees only 

no, not attend since Feb 1 939798 82.54 

yes, public school/college 189985 16.69 95.57 

yes, private school/college 8803 0.77 4.43 

Total 1138586 100 100.00 
 

Table 15. Grade Level Attending of School Attendees for Mexican Immigrants in Texas 

School enrollment: Grade 

level attending with 

Attendees only Frequency Percent 

Nursery school, preschool 2910 1.46 

Kindergarten 9253 4.65 

Grade 1 to Grade 4 45731 23.00 

Grade 5 to Grade 8 56273 28.31 

Grade 9 to Grade 12 54636 27.48 

College undergraduate 25681 12.92 

Graduate/professional school 4304 2.17 

Total 198788 100.00 

Table 16. Proportion of Non-English Language Speakers for Mexican Immigrants in Texas 

Non-English Language Frequency Percent 

Yes 1075028 94.42 

No 63558 5.58 

Total 1138586 100.00 

Table 17. English Ability of Non-English Language Speakers for Mexican Immigrants in Texas 

English Ability Frequency Percent 

Speaks English poorly 602635 56.06 

Speaks English well 472393 43.94 

Total 1075028 100.00 

Table 18. Citizenship Status of Mexican Immigrants in Texas 

Citizenship Status Frequency Percent 

Yes, born aboard-Am 

parent/parents 17650 1.55 

Yes, US citizen by naturalization 193685 17.01 

No, not a citizen of the United 

States 927251 81.44 

Total 1138586 100.00 

Table 19. Descriptive Analysis Results of People Who Work in 1999 for Mexican Immigrants in Texas 

For people who worked in 1999 N Mean SD Minimum Maximum 

Age 682062 32.66 10.39 16 93 

Weeks worked in 1999 682062 42.48 14.00 1 52 

Hours per week in 1999 682062 40.91 10.99 1 99 

Person's Total Income in 1999 682062 18323.79 22564.31 0 719000 

Table 20. Residence Five Years Ago of Mexican Immigrants in Texas 

Residence 5 years ago Frequency Percent 

No,out US-out US/PRico 339047 29.78 

No,dif house in US/PRico 799539 70.22 

Total 1138586 100.00 
 

Table 21. Work Search Behavior of Mexican Immigrants in Texas 

Looking for work Frequency Percent 

Yes, looking for work in last 4 

weeks 45739 9.81 

No 300791 64.49 

Not Reported 119876 25.70 

Total 466406 100.00 

 

Table 22. Occupations of Mexican Immigrants in Texas 

Occupation Frequency Percent 

Privately employed 687707 85.92 

Govt. employed 43031 5.38 

Self-employed 57027 7.12 

Not employed 12626 1.58 

Total 800391 100.00 

Regression Analysis Results

To better understand Mexican foreign-born immigrants and Texas’s housing behavior, a further analysis using logistic 

regression analysis was conducted to examine the unique relationship of household characteristics with homeownership. The 

regression coefficients or odds-ratios of each variable indicate the unique relationship of the particular variable with 

homeownership. As shown in table 23, the number of persons in the household, the overall household income in 1999, the 

household structure, as well as language isolation were significantly related to homeownership. As for household structure, 

married couples were 3.87 times more likely than non-married couples to own a house after controlling for all other 

variables. Similarly, households that were not isolated linguistically were two times more likely than linguistically isolated 

households to own a home after controlling for all other variables. 

Table 23. Results of logistic regression analysis predicting on home ownership for household by household demographic 

backgrounds 

Predictor variables Home ownership 

Regression coefficient Odds-ratio 

Constant -2.531* 0.080* 

Number of persons in household 0.059* 1.061* 

Household income in 1999 0.000* 1.000* 

Household Structure 

Married couple 1.354* 3.873* 

Male-headed 0.256* 1.292* 

Female headed 0.828* 2.289* 

Language isolation (no/yes) 0.729* 2.072* 

Note. Cox & Snell R Square=0.119; -2likelihood ratio=644048.373 

* Significant at the .05 level. 
 

To better understand Mexican foreign-born immigrants in Texas’s high school education attainment, we selected a group of 

people whose age was 25 or older to further analyze using logistic regression analysis techniques to examine the unique 

relationship of person information with high-school education attainment. The regression coefficients or odds-ratios of each 

variable indicate the unique relationship of the particular variable with high-school education attainment. As shown in table 

24, gender, person’s English ability, person’s citizenship status as well as person’s total income in 1999 were significantly 

related to high-school education attainment. It is noteworthy that males age 25 or older were less likely to attain high school 

degree than their female counterparts after all other variables were controlled. As for English ability, people who speak 

English well were 3.5 times more likely to earn high school education than people who speak English poorly after controlling 

for all other variables. Similar to the significance of English ability, Mexican foreign-born immigrants in Texas age 25 or 

older who were U.S. citizens were 1.3 times more likely than people who were not U.S. citizens to attain a high school 

education even after all other variables were considered. 

 

 

 

 

Table 24. Results of logistic regression analysis predicting on high school degree attainment for people age 25 or higher by 

person demographic backgrounds 

Predictor variables High school attainment 

Regression coefficient Odds-ratio 

Constant -1.408* 0.245* 

Gender (male/female) -0.430* 0.650* 

English ability (well/poorly) 1.260* 3.524* 

Citizenship (yes/no) 0.276* 1.317* 

Person total income in 1999 0.000* 1.000* 

Note. Cox & Snell R Square=0.106; -2likelihood ratio=779895.324 

* Significant at the .05 level. 

In addition, in order to know Mexican foreign-born immigrants in Texas’s personal total income in 1999, people with age 25 

or older were selected for further analysis using regression analysis technique to examine the unique relationship of person 

information with person income. As shown in table 25, gender, person’s English ability, person’s citizenship status as well as 

person’s high school education attainment were significantly related to person’s total income. It is noteworthy that males age

25 or older tended to earn more income than their female counterparts after all other variables were controlled. As for 

English ability, people who speak English well tended to earn $5,131 more than those who speak English poorly after 

controlling for all other variables. Similarly, Mexican foreign-born immigrants in Texas age 25 or older who were U.S. 

citizens tended to have higher incomes than people who were not U.S. citizens after all other variables were considered. 

People aged 25 years or older who had a high school education also had higher incomes than those who did not have a high 

school education after all other variables were considered. 

Table 25. Results of regression analysis predicting on person total income in 1999 for people age 25 or higher by person 

demographic backgrounds 

Predictor variables Person total income in 1999 

Regression coefficient t 

Constant 3497.163* 77.952 

Gender (male/female) 11977.850* 235.341 

English ability (well/poorly) 5130.605* 91.826 

Degree attainment (high 

school/less than high school) 4937.364* 85.733 

Citizenship (yes/no) 3872.809* 61.893 

Note. R=0.338; R Square=0.114; Adjust R Square=0.114 

* Significant at the .05 level. 
 

 

Summary and Conclusions 

One of the primary goals of this analysis is to provide largely contextual demographic information including household and 

person characteristics for Mexican foreign-born immigrants in Texas. Results show that the average number of persons 

living in a household was 4.28 persons. Near 61% of household rented a house and 39% owned a house. Majority household 

(47%) moved in the house in 1999 and 2000 following by 1995 to 1998 (42%). In terms of household structure, 65% of them 

were married coupes and 23% of them were either male-headed or female headed. 97% of household language was Spanish 

and 42% of household indicated they were linguistically isolated. In addition, among Mexican foreign-born immigrants in 

Texas, 55 % were male and 46% were female. 62% were between the ages of 25 and 64 with an average age of 31. For 

people 25 years old or older, only 15% completed high school education, only near 6% obtained bachelor degree or higher, 

and the majority of them had less than a high school education. 62% of persons at least 15 years old were married. 94% 

spoke a non-English language and 6% spoke English only. Among those non-English speakers, 56% spoke English well and 

44% spoke English poorly. With respect to citizenship status, 81% were not a citizen of the United States. For people who 

worked in 1999, the average age was 33, the average working hours per week was 41, the average weeks working in 1999 

was 42, and the average income for people who worked in 1999 was $18,324. In terms of people’s occupation, the majority 

were employed in the private sector (86%). 

The second goal of this study seeks to explain the mobility patterns of recent arrivals by determining the trajectory of home 

ownership and social mobility, for example, education attainment, established in the first research goal. Findings suggest that

the number of persons in the household, overall household income in 1999, household structure, as well as language isolation 

were significantly related to homeownership. Gender, English ability, citizenship status, as well as personal total income in 

1999 were significantly related to high-school education attainment. Similarly, gender, English ability, citizenship status, as 

well as a person’s high school education attainment were significantly related to person’s total income. These findings are

consistent with Richard Alba and John Logan’s study using Census 1990 data. The authors found a strong correlation 

between homeownership and other individual-level variables, namely, age, household composition, socioeconomic position, 

and language acculturation. 

These results represent an initial step in using this multi-level database to examine the potential effects of household and 

person background information on home ownership, academic, and income outcomes. These preliminary results suggest that 

language ability and education attainment have a positive effect on the likelihood of Mexican immigrants owning a house. 

The results also suggest that immigrant homeownership may be increased by promoting immigrant enrollment in language 

programs that provide either a credential or a certificate, which would further enhance the attractiveness of immigrants to stay 

in school to complete a program. 

Research into mobility patterns of immigrants presents an avenue to further our understanding of the immigrant experience. 

As noted above, this analysis is somewhat exploratory and could be refined in a number of ways. It may be the case that 

household and person information have a differential effect on the likelihood of owning a house. Future analyses will 

consider these and other refinements. 
 

References 

Alba, Richard D., and John R. Logan 

1992 “Assimilation and stratification in the homeownership patterns of racial and ethnic groups.” International Migration 

Review 26, no. 4: 1314-41. 

Aldrich, Howard, John Carter, Trevor Jones, David McEvoy, and Paul Velleman 

1985 "Ethnic residential concentration and the protected market hypothesis." Social Forces 63:996-1009 

Durand, J, Douglas, Massey, and R.M. Zenteno 

2001 “Mexican Immigration to the United States: Continuities and Changes.” Latin America Research Review, 36 (1): 

107-27. 

Foley, Douglas 

1973 “Institutional and Contextual Factors Affecting the Housing Choices of Minority Residents.” In Segregation in 

Residential Areas, edited by A.H. Hawley and V.P. Rock, 85-147. Washington, DC: National Academy of Sciences. 

Granovetter, Mark 

1973 "The Strength of Weak Ties." American Journal of Sociology 78:1360-80. 

1983 "The Strength of Weak Ties: A Network Theory Revisited." In Sociological Theory 1983, edited by Randall Collins, 

201-33. Jossey-Bass. 

1985 "Economic Action and Social Structure: The Problem of Embeddedness." American Journal of Sociology 91:481-

10. 

Jenkins, J.C. 

1977 “Push-Pull in Recent Mexican Migration to United States.” International Migration Review 11 (2): 178-89. 

Jones, Richard C 

1984 “Changing Patterns of Undocumented Mexican Migration to South Texas.” Social Sciences Quarterly 65 (2): 465-

81. 

1995 “Immigration Reform and Migration Flows: Compositional and Spatial Changes in Mexican Migration after the 

Immigration Reform Act of 1986.” Annual Association of American Geographers 85 (4) (December): 715-730. 

2003 “The segregation of ancestry groups in San Antonio.” Social Science Journal 40, no. 2: 213-33. 

Kritz, Mary M., and Hania Zlotnik 

1992 "Global Interactions: Migration Systems, Process and Policies." In International Migration Systems: A Global 

Approach, edited by Mary M. Kritz, Lin Lean Lim, and Hania Zlotnik, 1-16. London: Oxford University Press. 

Krivo, L.J. 

1990 “The Hispanic Immigrant Context and Housing Market Conditions: A Comparison of Anglo and Hispanic 

Populations.” Working paper #10, IUP/SSRC, Committee on Public Policy Research on Contemporary Hispanic 

Issues, The Center for Mexican American Studies, The University of Texas at Austin. 

Logan, John R., Richard D. Alba, and Thomas L. McNulty 

1994 "Ethnic economies in metropolitan regions: Miami and beyond." Social Forces 72:691-724. 

Logan, John R, Richard D. Alba, and Wenquan Zhang 

2002 “Immigrant Enclaves and Ethnic Communities in New York and Los Angeles.” American Sociological Review 67, 2 

(April): 299-322 

Massey, Douglas S. 

1985 “Ethnic Residential Segregation: A Theoretical Synthesis and Empirical Overview.” Sociology and Social Research

69:315-360. 
 

1986 “The Social-Organization of Mexican Migration to the United States.” Annals of the American Academy of Political 

Science 487 (September): 102-13. 

1987 “Understanding Mexican Migration to the United States.” American Journal of Sociology 92 (6) (May): 1372-1403. 

Massey, Douglas, Rafael Alarcon, Jorge Durand, and Humberto Gonzalez 

1987 Return to Aztlan: The Social Process of International Migration from Western Mexico. University of California 

Press. 

1993 "Theories of International Migration: A Review and Appraisal." Population and Development Review 19:431-66. 

Massey, Douglas S., and Nancy A. Denton 

1987 "Trends in the Residential Segregation of Blacks, Hispanics, and Asians: 1970-80,” American Sociological Review

52 (December): 802-25. 

1988 "The dimensions of residential segregation." Social Forces 67:281-315. 

1989 "Residential Segregation of Mexicans, Puerto Ricans, and Cubans in U.S. Metropolitan Areas." Sociology and 

Social Research 73:73-83. 

1992 "The Residential Segregation of Asian Origin Groups in U.S. Metropolitan Areas." Sociology and Social Research

76:170-77. 

Massey, Douglas S., and Mitchell L. Eggers 

1989 "The ecology of inequality: Minorities and the concentration of poverty 1970-1980." 

American Journal of Sociology 95:1153-1188. 

Massey, Douglas S., and J. Durand, H. Gonzalez, et al. 

1985 “The Social-Organization of Mexican Migration to the United States.” Population Index 51 (3): 413. 

Massey, Douglas, and R. Zenteno 

2000 “A Validation of the Ethnosurvey: The Case of Mexico-U.S. Migration.” International Migration Review 34 (3) 

(Fall): 766-793.

Massey, Douglas S., Michael J. White, and Voon-Chin Phua 

1996 "The dimensions of segregation revisited." Sociological Methods and Research 25:172-206. 

Poulsen, Michael., and James Forrest, Ron Johnston 

2002 “From Modern to Post-Modern? Contemporary ethnic residential segregation in four US metropolitan areas.” Cities 

19, 3 (June):161-73. 

Ward, Peter 

1999 Colonias and Public Policy in Texas and Mexico: Urbanization by Stealth. Austin, Tex.: University of Texas Press. 

U.S. Census 

2000 “Residential Segregation of Hispanics or Latinos: 1980 to 2000.” Chapter 6. In Housing Patterns - "Racial and 

Ethnic Residential Segregation in the United States: 1980-2000. U.S. Government Printing Office. 

2002 Texas 2000: Summary Population and Housing Characteristics. 2000 Census of Population and Housing. U.S. 

Government Printing Office. 

 October 2002. 

2003 Foreign-Born Population in the United States. U.S. Government Printing Office. February 2003. 

2003 The Hispanic Population in the United States: March 2002. U.S. Government Printing Office. June 2003. 
 

Appendix 

The following tables present some of housing record results for all immigrants in Texas. Table A shows that 48% of 

Texas immigrants owned the house and near 52% rented. Majority of them moved into their home before 1995. Near 44% 

moved in around 1999 and 2000 (table B). English is still the dominant language in the household (67%), Spanish follows by 

English as a household language (26%) (table C). Near 51% of household/family type are married family household (table 

D). Only 8% of household have one member at age of 65 or higher (table E). For member age 18 or younger, 45% of them 

have at least 1 to 4 younger members at home (table F). 

Table A. Home Ownership 

Home Ownership Frequency Percent 

Owned w/mortgage or loan 1644104 37.25 

Owned no mortgage or loan 467483 10.59 

Rented for cash 2199039 49.83 

Occupied no pay cash-rent 102814 2.33 

Total 4413440 100.00 

Table B. Year Moved In 

Year Moved In Frequency Percent 

1999 / 2000 1929109 43.71 

1995 to 1998 1910332 43.28 

1990 to 1994 211493 4.79 

1980 to 1989 170962 3.87 

1970 to 1979 106725 2.42 

1969 / earlier 84819 1.92 

Total 4413440 100.00 

Table C. Household language 

Household language Frequency Percent 

English only 2956911 67.00 

Spanish 1162989 26.35 

Other IndoEuropean 143142 3.24 

Asian/Pacific 

Islander 117685 2.67 

Other language 32713 0.74 

Total 4413440 100.00 

Table D. Household/family Type 

Household/family Type Frequency Percent 

fam hhold: married-couple 2234896 50.64 

fam hhold: mhholder,no wife 236661 5.36 

fam hhold: fhholder,no husband 627466 14.22 

Nonfam hhold: mhholder,live Alone 475979 10.78 

Nonfam hhold: mhholder,not live 

Alone 231187 5.24 

Nonfam hhold: fhholder, live Alone 461728 10.46 

Nonfam hhold: fhholder, not live 

Alone 145523 3.30 

Total 4413440 100.00 
 

Table E. People 65 years plus in household 

People 65 years plus in household Frequency Percent 

0 3929020 89.02 

1 349787 7.93 

2 129542 2.94 

3 4346 0.10 

4 483 0.01 

5 177 0.00 

6 42 0.00 

7 6 0.00 

9 37 0.00 

Total 4413440 100.00 

Table F. People under 18 years in household 

People under 18 years in 

household Frequency Percent 

0 2358380 53.44 

1 825403 18.70 

2 734317 16.64 

3 333219 7.55 

4 110178 2.50 

5 33470 0.76 

6 11454 0.26 

7 3849 0.09 

8 2152 0.05 

9 765 0.02 

10 135 0.00 

11 63 0.00 

12 21 0.00 

26 31 0.00 

28 3 0.00 

Total 4413440 100.00 

In looking at the person record data, the percentage of male and female are the same, sharing 50% each among immigrants in 

Texas (table G). Majority report their race group as one race, 3% report two races (table H). 44% got married and 9% got 

divorced (table I). Tables J to L present the education information for immigrants in Texas. 81% are US citizen (table M) and 

51% are employed (table N). 

Table G. Sex 

Sex Frequency Percent 

Male 5226006 49.80 

Female 5266951 50.20 

Total 10492957 100.00 
 

Table H. Major Race Groups Marked 

Major Race 

Groups Marked Frequency Percent 

One Race 10189043 97.10 

Two Races 286571 2.73 

Three Races 15396 0.15 

Four Races 1565 0.01 

Five Races 268 0.00 

Six Races 114 0.00 

Total 10492957 100.00 

Table I. Marital Status 

Marital Status Frequency Percent 

Now Married 4568050 43.53 

Widowed 263582 2.51 

Divorced 950100 9.05 

Separated 262098 2.50 

Never Married (inc under 15 

yrs) 4449127 42.40 

Total 10492957 100.00 

Table J. School Enrollment/Attended since Feb 1, 2000 

School 

Enrollment/Attended 

since Feb 1, 2000 Frequency Percent 

no, not attend since Feb 1 7213176 68.74 

yes, public 

school/college 2947890 28.09 

yes, private 

school/college 331891 3.16 

Total 10492957 100.00 

Table K. School enrollment: Grade level attending 

School enrollment: Grade 

level attending Frequency Percent 

NIU 7213098 68.74 

Nursery school,preschool 85877 0.82 

Kindergarten 223840 2.13 

Grade 1 to Grade 4 852373 8.12 

Grade 5 to Grade 8 722378 6.88 

Grade 9 to Grade 12 603375 5.75 

College undergraduate 632462 6.03 

Graduate/professional 

school 159554 1.52 

Total 10492957 100.00 
 

Table L. Educational Attainment 

Educational Attainment Frequency Percent 

No schooling completed 404534 3.86 

Nursery school to 4th grade 1150224 10.96 

5th grade / 6th grade 627134 5.98 

7th grade / 8th grade 582520 5.55 

9th grade 429013 4.09 

10th grade 359808 3.43 

11th grade 349149 3.33 

12th grade, no diploma 314787 3.00 

High school graduate 1877980 17.90 

Some college,under 1 year 636493 6.07 

One plus yrs college,no 

degree 1387300 13.22 

Associate degree 433891 4.14 

Bachelors degree 1345939 12.83 

Masters degree 396779 3.78 

Professional degree 131939 1.26 

Doctorate degree 65467 0.62 

Total 10492957 100.00 

Table M. Citizenship Status 

Citizenship Status Frequency Percent 

Yes,born US 8501254 81.02 

Yes,born PRico,Guam,USVirIs,Am 

Samoa/NMarianas 32743 0.31 

Yes,born aboard-Am parent/parents 118392 1.13 

Yes,US citizen by naturalization 426650 4.07 

No,not a citizen of the United States 1413918 13.47 

Total 10492957 100.00 

Table N. Employment Status Recode 

Employment Status Recode Frequency Percent 

NIU 2129457 20.29 

employed, at work 5415830 51.61 

employed, but not at work 111410 1.06 

Unemployed 356122 3.39 

Armed Forces, at work 100042 0.95 

Armed Forces, w/job-not at 

work 567 0.01 

Not in labor force 2379529 22.68 

Total 10492957 100.00