ABSTRACT Title of Document: FROM URBAN ENCLAVE TO ETHNOBURB: CHANGES IN RESIDENTIAL PATTERNS OF CHINESE IMMIGRANTS Ying Wang, Doctor of Philosophy, 2012 Dissertation Directed by: Professor Roberto Patricio Korzeniewicz Department of Sociology In recent decades, immigrant settlement in the United States has undergone tremendous changes. Chinese immigrants, who have long been known for their concentration in inner city Chinatowns, now are increasingly becoming suburban residents. In contrast to the predictions of the spatial assimilation model, many suburban Chinese immigrants are not assimilating into mainstream society culturally and structurally; rather, they are forming ethnic clusters of residential areas and business districts in suburbs?ethnoburbs. Little theoretical explanation has been offered for the emergence and growth of ethnoburbs. Focusing on the Chinese community in the Greater Washington, DC metropolitan area, in this dissertation I first portray the changes in residential patterns of Chinese immigrants and verify the emergence of ethnoburbs in DC area by Geographic Information System (GIS) mapping; second, I reevaluate spatial assimilation theory by analyzing degree of segregation and predictor of residential location using 1970 and 2010 IPUMS data; third, I conduct in-depth interviews with community leaders and residents from DC?s Chinatown and inner suburbs to further examine spatial assimilation theory and to provide individual perspectives about the changing dynamics of the Chinese community in DC area; last, I propose new conceptual models to address the nature and implications of studying ethnoburbs. My conclusion is that the changes in the residential patterns of Chinese immigrants reflect a ?paradoxical outcome? of assimilation (Zhou 2009). As the assimilation theory predicts, many Chinese immigrants have transformed their socioeconomic gains to spatial mobility and residential assimilation into white-dominant suburbs; however, the emergence and growth of ethnoburbs contradicts some of the predictions of the assimilation model. Rather, as Li (2009) has proposed, ethnoburbs have emerged under the influence of the changing local and global economy, race relations, immigration policies, and increasing transnational connections. Further research will be needed to predict how long ethnoburbs will persist. FROM URBAN ENCLAVE TO ETHNOBURB: CHANGES IN RESIDENTIAL PATTERNS OF CHINESE IMMIGRANTS By Ying Wang Dissertation submitted to the Faculty of the Graduate School of the University of Maryland, College Park, in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy 2012 Advisory Committee: Professor Roberto Patricio Korzeniewicz, Chair Professor Reeve Vanneman Professor Sonalde Desai Associate Professor Ping Wang Professor James G. Gimpel ?Copyright by Ying Wang 2012 TABLE OF CONTENTS Chapter 1: Introduction ....................................................................................................... 1 Immigrants? Residential Patterns .................................................................................... 3 Chinese Immigrants in DC Area ..................................................................................... 5 Chapter 2: Theoretical Approaches to Immigrant Settlement .......................................... 11 From Cultural Assimilation to Spatial Assimilation ..................................................... 11 Ethnic Solidarity and Ethnic Economy ......................................................................... 18 Racial Formation .......................................................................................................... 22 Transnationalism ........................................................................................................... 25 Empirical Studies .......................................................................................................... 28 Ethnic Enclave ............................................................................................................... 32 Ethnic Community ......................................................................................................... 34 Ethnoburb ...................................................................................................................... 35 Chapter 3: Chinese Immigration and the Development of Chinese Communites ............ 39 1840-1960s Chinese Immigration and the Formation of Chinatown ........................... 39 Post-1965 Chinese Immigration and the Development of Chinese Communities ........ 45 The Past and Present of Chinatown in DC ................................................................... 47 Chapter 4: Research Design and Quantitative Methodology ............................................ 51 Research Design and Data ............................................................................................ 51 Quantitative Analysis .................................................................................................... 52 Spatial/GIS Analysis ...................................................................................................... 53 Index of Dissimilarity .................................................................................................... 54 Determinants of Residential Location ........................................................................... 55 Model Description ......................................................................................................... 58 Determinants of Residential Location ........................................................................... 59 Chapter 5: Qualitative Methodology and Respondents Description ................................. 62 Data Collection and Sample ......................................................................................... 62 Positionality .................................................................................................................. 64 A Demographic Profile of Respondents ........................................................................ 65 Limitations ..................................................................................................................... 71 Chapter 6: Demographic Trends of the Chinese Community in DC Area ....................... 72 Chinese Residential Patterns in DC Metro Area: 1970-2010 ....................................... 73 Examples: Localities with Greatest Growth in Chinese Population, 1970-2010 ......... 77 Rockville: The Largest Chinese Ethnoburb in the DC Area ......................................... 78 Wheaton: Diverse Multiethnic Community ................................................................... 80 Gaithersburg and Germantown: Newer and Farther Ethnoburbs ................................ 82 McLean: Perfect Location, High Cost .......................................................................... 86 Chapter 7: Push and Pull Factors: The Decline of Chinatown and the Rise of the Ethnoburb .......................................................................................................................... 89 The Shift of Employment Opportunities ........................................................................ 90 The Importance of Education ........................................................................................ 93 Ethnic Concentration and Ethnic Economy .................................................................. 96 Summary ...................................................................................................................... 105 Chapter 8: Formal and Informal Institutions: Sustaining Ethnic Identity and Cultrual Heritage ........................................................................................................................... 109 Integrating the Community: The Role of Formal Institutions ..................................... 110 Connection between Culture and Cuisine: The Role of Informal Institutions ............ 114 Summary ...................................................................................................................... 117 Chapter 9: Impacts of Transnationalism on the Chinese Community ............................ 120 Brain Drain: Chinese Students and Intellectuals ........................................................ 120 Another Residential Pattern: Transmigrants and Semi-residents ............................... 124 Summary ...................................................................................................................... 127 Chapter 10: Conclusion ................................................................................................... 131 CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION Since the early 20th century, numerous studies have been conducted on immigrant adaptation. One important focus of contemporary immigration studies has involved exploring the immigrant1 settlement, especially the changing dynamics of immigrant?s residential patterns (Singer et al. 2008; Massey 2008; Li 2006; Li 2009). Places like Little Italy, Little Havana, and Chinatown are viewed as traditional immigrant communities (Singer et al. 2008). These traditional immigrant communities are often considered ethnic enclaves and are located in inner-city neighborhoods. Yet, over the past 50 years, metropolitan areas have undergone major restructuring, as did immigrants? settlement patterns. Immigrants, especially Asian immigrants, are more and more spatially dispersed and suburbanized. This project is about a newly emerged spatial form of immigrant settlement: ?ethnoburb? (Li 2006; 2009). To explore the emergence and growth of ethnoburbs, I focus on Chinese immigrants? residential patterns in the greater Washington, DC metropolitan area (DC area). The project has several goals. First, I will identify changes in the residential patterns of Chinese immigrants and verify the emergence of ethnoburbs in the DC area, using statistical analysis and in-depth interviews. Second, beyond a geographical understanding of this new pattern of immigrant residential settlement, I will examine the extent to which new settlement patterns are explained by 1 In official parlance, the Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration Services (formerly the Immigration and Naturalization Service) uses the term ?immigrant? to denote a person admitted to the U.S. for permanent residence. The Census Bureau considers anyone who is not born a U.S. citizen to be foreign-born (Singer 2004; U.S. Census Bureau 2008). existing theories on immigrants? assimilation. Finally, I discuss the determinants and context of the change in residential patterns of Chinese immigrants. The spatial assimilation theory, which posits that the socioeconomic upward mobility of immigrants will be translated into their residential integration into mainstream society (Massey and Denton 1985), has successfully explained the experiences of European immigrants and has partially explained the suburbanization of Chinese immigrants in recent decades?especially former Chinatown residents who leave Chinatown for better-quality and White-dominant suburban neighborhoods after they accumulate adequate human capital. However, instead of culturally and structurally assimilating as the spatial assimilation model predicted, new Chinese suburbanites not only spatially concentrate but also establish ?ethnoburbs??suburban ethnic clusters that replicate many features of inner-city ethnic enclaves (Li 2006, 12). In many metropolitan areas such as DC, New York, and Los Angeles, these ethnoburbs stand in contrast to downtown Chinatowns (Li 2009). While Chinatowns in many cities are diminishing, the number and the size of ethnoburbs have been increasing. Spatial assimilation theory, however, cannot provide an explanation for the emergence and growth of these ethnoburbs. Although the emergence of ethnoburbs has received scholarly attention (Li 2006; 2009; Wen et al. 2009), it remains understudied. Prior studies on ethnoburbs and Chinese/Asian suburbanization are largely descriptive; an analytical model has yet been missing. It may be difficult to identify a single theoretical model to explain ethnoburbs. Rather, ethnoburbs emerged as a result of the impacts of assimilation, ethnic solidarity, racial formation, and globalization (Light 1972; Bonacich 1978; Portes 1985; Min 1988; Omi and Winant 1994; Li 2006; 2009). The emergence of an ethnoburb not only reflects the change in local economy, policy, and race relations, but also links with the increasing transnational connections. As Li (2006, 13) stressed, an ethnoburb must be examined within the context of the global economy and immigration policies at all time: ?[i]t is the combination of changing geopolitical and global economic contexts and shifting immigration policies that made it possible for ethnoburbs to take root and grow.? Recognizing the changes in immigrants? residential patterns as well as understanding the context associated with such changes is important. It will not only improve our knowledge of a particular group, but it will also enhance socioeconomic justice for all groups (Li 2006, 22). Although the purpose of this project is not to create a new theory, it is the hope that this study can fill in the gap of the literature and call attention to a more comprehensive and up-to-date conceptual model of immigrant settlement. Immigrants? Residential Patterns It is important to study the settlement of immigrants and changes in immigrants? residential patterns. On the one hand, immigration plays a significant role in shaping the local economic, cultural, and political dynamics (Borjas 2001; Card 2001); on the other hand, immigrant settlement reflects a complex expression of race relations, cultural ties, economic and political conditions, and public reception (Newbold 1999, 258). The change in immigrant settlement might signal a shift in local labor markets and the immigration policy. For instance, different immigration policy may bring in immigrants equipped with different resources and residential priorities, and may result in different immigrant settlement patterns. For communities that are receiving more immigrant residents, the urban environment is becoming increasingly multiracial and thus is experiencing new race relations (Singer 2004, 16). Studying the patterns and trends of immigrant settlement is significant to understanding overall race relations and the new context of localities (Wen et al. 2009, 426). The shift in immigrant settlement patterns and the dramatic change of the composition of new immigrants suggest new theoretical and empirical approaches (Waters and Jimenez 2005). Classical theories are not as applicable to today?s immigration as it was to early European immigrants. Many theories need to be revised in order to reflect the experiences of new immigrants who entered the United States during and after the mid-20th century. Not only are the new immigrants significantly different from earlier waves, but the social, political, and economic context of the United States as a host society also has changed tremendously over the past five decades. Empirically, studies have largely been focused on traditional immigrant gateways (i.e. Los Angeles, New York, and San Francisco); yet newly emerged immigrant communities in smaller cities, towns, and suburban areas remain understudied (Waters and Jimenez 2005). Little research examines immigrant settlement patterns in new immigrant magnets (i.e. DC, Houston, and Atlanta). These emerging immigrant gateways had a low percentage of foreign-born population until 1970, but the proportion of immigrants increased significantly in these metropolitan areas in the post-1980 period (Singer 2004, 5; Wen et al. 2009, 432). Today, suburbs are among the fastest growing settlement destinations for immigrants, yet they are much less studied than inner-city ethnic enclaves. With the number of immigrants residing in suburbs constantly increasing, it is critical to look at newly emerged suburban ethnic communities (Frazier and Margai 2003; Waters and Jimenez 2005). The social construction of race, the dynamics of racialization, and the role of the ethnic economy in the development of newly emerged ethnic communities are important research topics that are worth exploring but remain understudied. Chinese Immigrants in DC Area While my research is informed by the larger concerns discussed above, the focus of this study is on Chinese Americans2 in the greater Washington, DC metropolitan area. I chose Chinese immigrants for several reasons. First of all, Chinese Americans make up one of the fastest-growing minority populations in the United States. According to the 2010 American Community Survey (ACS), there are 3,456,912 Chinese Americans, constituting 1.1 percent of the U.S. population and accounting for nearly one in four Asian Americans (22.2%). The Chinese American population increased more than 30 percent between 2000 and 2010. More importantly, Chinese make up an increasing proportion of recent immigrant arrivals to the United States. In the 1950s, the arrival of Chinese immigrants in the United States only numbered about 25,000, while over 649,000 new Chinese immigrants arrived during the 2000s. Like the composition of the general Asian American population, which is predominantly made up of the foreign-born, Chinese American communities are also predominantly comprised of foreign-born Chinese (69%). Of the immigrant arrivals to the United States since 2000, some 36.5 percent have been Chinese (U.S. Census Bureau 2010). There are many studies investigating residential patterns among African Americans, Hispanics, and Whites in the United States, but little research has been done on residential patterns of Chinese; and 2 In this project, Chinese immigrants and Chinese Americans are used interchangeably. They both refer to all the people who indicate their race as ?Chinese? when they fill out the Census questionnaire, which may include people who are Cantonese, Taiwanese, and Southeast Asian Chinese diaspora. Data used in this project is ?Chinese alone? or ?single-ethnic Chinese.? barely any research has been focused on the changing patterns of spatial distribution of Chinese immigrants in the new century, despite the fact that they make up such a significant proportion of recent immigrants. Second, studies have demonstrated that the post-1965 Chinese immigrants are extremely diverse in their socioeconomic background. Unlike their predecessors, most of whom were uneducated laborers, recent Chinese immigrants are bimodal?they are divided between a low-skilled working class and an affluent well-educated middle class. Differences in their background lead to variations in settlement patterns. No longer considering Chinatown an ideal destination, the middle class new Chinese immigrants tend to spread out in suburbs that give them access to good public schools, great amenities, and nearby professional job sites. As new residents of the once predominantly White territories, the Chinese are striving to preserve their cultural heritage and ethnic traits. Chinese ethnoburbs, with Chinese residential concentrations as well as Chinese business districts, can be found in most?if not all?suburbs with a visible Chinese population (Li 2009). Los Angeles? Monterey Park, New York?s Flushing, and DC area?s Rockville are prime examples of the emerging Chinese ethnoburbs. These ethnoburbs share the same characteristics: suburban location; very high proportion of Chinese residents; and a high concentration of Chinese businesses. The development of Chinese ethnoburbs provides a fascinating opportunity to look into, it not only as a window into the socio-demographic and spatial change of Chinese immigrants, but also as a product of the ?glocal? context of these changes. Chinese communities have been affected by changes in the local and global economies and politics; at the same time, the transformation of these Chinese communities has contributed to the shifts in the local and global economies and politics (Li 1998; Zhou and Lin 2005; Cheng 2006; Li 2009). Last but not least, since studies of the Chinese residential pattern suggest that middle class Chinese immigrants tend to have higher levels of residential integration in White-dominant affluent suburbs (Fong 1994; Li 2009), some use these conclusions to argue that Chinese residential patterns conform to the spatial assimilation model. I believe my study allows for a critical examination of these inferences. The greater Washington, DC metropolitan area includes the surrounding counties in Maryland and Virginia, is the 7th largest metropolitan areas in the United States, with more than five million residents (Singer 2003, 1). According to the U.S. Census definition, the greater Washington, D.C. metropolitan area refers to the Washington- Arlington-Alexandria, DC-VA-MD-WV Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA). The 2010 census-defined Washington, DC MSA includes 25 jurisdictions: the District of Columbia; Calvert, Charles, Frederick, Montgomery, and Prince George?s counties in Maryland; Arlington, Clarke, Fairfax, Fauquier, Loudon, Prince William, Spotsylvania, Stafford, and Warren counties and Alexandria, Fairfax, Falls Church, Fredericksburg, Manassas, and Manassas Park cities in Virginia; and Jefferson county in West Virginia (Singer 2003; U.S. Census Bureau 2010). In this project, I use the term ?DC area? for convenience. For analytical purposes, this project mainly focuses on the District of Columbia, the Inner Core, and the Inner Suburbs of DC area, for 90 percent of all immigrants reside in these three areas (Singer 2003). The DC area is one of the largest magnets of immigration in the United States3, yet it has attracted much less scholarly attention compared to traditional immigrant gateways such as New York, Los Angeles, and San Francisco. Thus, my project focuses on this understudied metropolitan area. Immigration has greatly changed the settlement of DC area. While it used to be a ?highly segregated, biracial landscape of Blacks and Whites,? the DC area is now an ?international metropolis? (Friedman et al. 2005, 210). Thanks to the large influx of immigrants that began in the 1970s and continues today, the ethnic profile in DC area has become very heterogeneous (Friedman et al. 2005). Table 1 indicates the percent change of foreign-born population in the District, the Inner Core, and the Inner Suburbs of DC area. Between 1970 and 2000, the largest influx of immigrants occurred in the inner suburban counties. Montgomery County, Fairfax County, and Fairfax City experienced the largest growth of immigrants over this period (Singer 2003). Immigrants in DC area are also diverse in terms of their national and regional origin. The top five countries or regions of immigrant origin are, respectively: El Salvador (12.6% of foreign-born population), Korea (5.5%), India (5.5%), Vietnam (4.5%), Mexico (3.9%), and China (3.9%) (Singer 2003, 9). DC is a popular site for Asian immigrants. As of 2010, DC ranked sixth in receiving immigrants from Asia4 (U.S. Census Bureau 2010). Among all groups, Asian immigrants are more likely to settle in suburbs than in the inner city (Singer 2003, 9). 3 The DC area is ranked seventh in terms of the metro area with the largest foreign-born population. 4 The top six metropolitan areas with the largest Asian immigrant population are: Los Angeles, New York, San Francisco, San Jose, Chicago, and DC, respectively. Table 1. Foreign-Born Population by Jurisdiction in the Washington, DC MSA, 1970-2000 Foreign Born Population Percent Change 1970 1980 1990 2000 1970-2000 District of Columbia 33,562 40,559 58,887 73,561 119.2 Inner Core 16,473 33,205 54,514 85,293 417.8 Arlington County 11,797 22,337 36,516 52,693 346.7 Alexandria City 4,676 10,868 17,998 32,600 597.1 Inner Suburbs 77,544 166,641 342,389 588,272 658.6 Montgomery County 36,667 70,128 141,166 232,996 535.4 PG County 23,882 40,036 69,809 110,481 362.6 Fairfax County 16,169 54,109 127,506 237,677 1369.9 Fairfax City 520 1,461 2,900 5,451 948.3 Falls Church City 306 907 1,008 1,667 444.8 Source: U.S. Census Bureau; Singer 2003, 5 In this project, I would like to first explore the change in residential patterns of Chinese immigrants. I use Geographic Information System (GIS) maps to illustrate how residential patterns of the Chinese have changed since 1970. I evaluate the spatial assimilation model by replicating the type of segregation analysis advanced by Zhou and Logan (1991). I also conduct in-depth interviews with community leaders and residents from DC Chinatown and inner suburbs to further explore the emergence of ethnoburbs and individual perspectives about the changing dynamics of the Chinese community. By exploring local residents? experiences, I am aiming to identify why Chinese immigrants chose ethnoburbs as their residential locations, as well as how ethnoburbs have emerged in DC area. Overall, I seek to understand the ways in which new Chinese immigrant communities challenge the notion of assimilation and speculate the emergence and growth of ethnoburbs. This dissertation proceeds as follows: Chapter II addresses theoretical approaches and selected empirical studies of immigrant settlement, and then compares the concepts of ethnic enclave, ethnic community, and ethnoburb. Chapter III provides the historical background of Chinese immigration and the development of Chinese communities in the United States. Chapter IV describes the research design, quantitative methodology, and the findings from the quantitative analyses. Chapter V describes the qualitative methodology and provides sketches of each respondent of the study. Chapter VI portrays the demographic trends in DC area and the transformation of the Chinese community in DC. Chapter VII to Chapter IX presents the findings from the interviews. Chapter VII discusses the decline of DC Chinatown and the rise of the ethnoburb. Chapter VIII discusses the role of formal and informal institutions in shaping the transformation of the Chinese community in DC. Chapter IX describes the impacts of transnational connections and the global economy on the changes of Chinese community. Chapter X presents the conclusions and implications of this dissertation. CHAPTER 2: THEORETICAL APPROACHES TO IMMIGRANT SETTLEMENT The discussion of immigrant settlement in the social science literature focuses largely on immigrant adaptation and assimilation (Massey and Denton 1985; White, Biddlecom and Guo 1993; Logan, Zhang and Alba 2002; Myles and Hou 2004; Marrow 2005). However, many earlier studies focused on early European immigrants or African Americans and Hispanics, and less research has dealt with the residential patterns of Asians or of any particular Asian group. In this chapter, I will revisit the classical models and some empirical studies of immigrants? residential patterns, then I will review which theory is more useful to understand recent patterns of Chinese immigrant settlement and the emergence of ethnoburbs. In the end, I will review three concepts that are at the center of this research: the ethnic enclave, ethnic community, and ethnoburb. The first two concepts are used interchangeably sometimes, yet in this research it is important to distinguish between them. Because ethnoburb is a relatively new term as well as a new form of immigrant settlement, it is necessary to review the background of its emergence. From Cultural Assimilation to Spatial Assimilation Since the early 20th century, large numbers of immigrants from Europe began to settle in the United States and scholars have advanced various theories on immigrant adaptation. One of the most influential theories was put forth by Robert Park (1950), who argued that race relation followed a cycle composed of four stages: contact, competition, accommodation, and assimilation. Among these four concepts, assimilation has been the most frequently used for understanding immigrant adaptation in American society. Assimilation, in its early definition, is ?a process of interpenetration and fusion in which persons and groups acquire the memories, sentiments, and attitudes of other persons and groups and, by sharing their experience and history, are incorporated with them in a common cultural life? (Park and Burgess 1969, 735; Alba and Nee 1999, 137). Eventually, a ?cultural solidarity? is achieved (Park 1930). Immigrants? residential settlement is an important dimension of assimilation. At both macro and micro levels, groups with less spatial mobility have limited access to important resources such as health care, educational facilities, and jobs (Massey and Denton 1985, 104). Residential segregation thus perpetuates social stratification. To what degree an ethnic group is spatially assimilated determines the assimilation experience of that group in many other dimensions (White, Biddlecom and Guo 1993, 94-95). Milton Gordon (1964) later elaborates on the process of assimilation by describing three stages of assimilation: cultural (acculturation), structural (integration), and marital (intermarriage). In Gordon?s account, acculturation is inevitable; however, successful acculturation does not ensure the completion of the other two stages. Since ?acculturation without integration? is common among racial minority groups in the United States, Gordon?s analysis of American society leads to the conclusion that ?structural pluralism? is a more accurate description than ?cultural pluralism? (Alba and Nee 1999, 140). As Alba and Nee criticize, Gordon assumes that acculturation involves ethnic group members adapting to and borrowing traits from the White middle class culture; it seems that Gordon is standardizing the acculturation process. Other drawbacks in Gordon?s account include: the assimilation process in his account seems to be static; the distinction between individual and group levels of ethnic change is overlooked; and occupational mobility and economic assimilation are not addressed (Alba and Nee 1999, 142). Gans (1973) adds a dynamic dimension to Gordon?s static formulation of the assimilation process: immigrants gradually integrate into the mainstream society and gradually lose their distinctive ethnic identities. To immigrants, a step closer to more ?complete? assimilation means a further step away from their ethnic community; and vice versa (Alba and Nee 1999, 140; Li 2009). This notion, known as ?straight-line assimilation,? describes adaptation patterns among different generations of immigrants. The level of assimilation always increases while the amount of ethnic traits reduces from the first generation to their offspring. Gans argues that during the integration process, though immigrants? ethnicity may persist for generations, only a set of ?symbolic meanings? are attached to their identities, ?with little social or psychological content? (Gans 1979; Li 2009, 12). Gans overlooks the variation of immigrant adaptation processes and the diversity of cultural persistence. In contrast to Gans? predictions, however, most Asian immigrants preserve their identities and ethnic culture. In the 1980s and 1990s, social scientists began to recognize the inadequacy of the classical assimilation approach in the field of immigration studies. Classical assimilation theory asserts that immigrants from diverse backgrounds will eventually give up their distinctive identities and ethnic traits and ?melt into the mainstream? (Zhou 1997). New immigrants entering the United States during and after the mid-20th century, however, exhibit significant differences from earlier immigrants. There are significant changes in the background of immigrants and changes in the United States as the host society?the majority of new immigrants are no longer from Europe, rather, they come from Latin America and Asia. These new immigrants? phenotypical characteristics are much more diverse, which become barriers to their full integration into the White mainstream society. Being ?racially distinct? from the majority group, new immigrants are facing extra difficulty and challenges to ?blend in? the American melting pot (Portes and Zhou 1993; Xie and Greenman 2005, 2). Moreover, American society also has undergone tremendous changes. The United States has moved from a manufacture-based to a service-based postindustrial economy. This new economy produces large demand for both highly educated professional workers at the top and low-skilled service workers at the bottom, but not much in between (Portes and Zhou 1993; Zhou 1997; Xie and Greenman 2005, 5). Therefore, the classical assimilation model may not be applicable to the experiences of new immigrants and the changing context of immigration incorporation. First-generation new immigrants are more likely to move up to the middle class; however, new immigrants are also less likely to acculturate even with their socioeconomic mobility. Due to the diverse and constantly changing context within the host society, immigrant adaptation may go through divergent paths and result in different consequences. The classical assimilation framework seems to be too homogeneous to explain the diverse paths and outcomes of immigrant adaptation. Immigrants who achieve high socioeconomic outcomes may not necessarily become similar to the mainstream group. The segmented assimilation theory recognizes the diverse patterns of immigrant adaptation and the segmented nature of American society (Portes and Zhou 1993; Zhou 1997; Portes and Rumbaut 1996; 2001). The segmented assimilation model argues that immigrants, especially the second generation of immigrants, may assimilate by taking divergent assimilation paths including conventional upward assimilation (i.e., as the ?straight-line? assimilation predicts in classical assimilation theories), downward assimilation (i.e., acculturation and assimilation into the urban underclass and leads to poverty), and selective acculturation (i.e., the deliberate preservation of the immigrant community?s culture and values, accompanied by economic integration) (Portes and Rumbaut 2001, 54). The segmented assimilation theory attracts great scholarly attention as it addresses a particular group of contemporary immigrants?undocumented immigrants and their offspring, who are completely omitted in the classical assimilation framework. The model adds a fresh point that immigrant adaptation may not always be a straight-line trajectory; and socioeconomic achievement and acculturation are not always tied to each other (Zhou 1997, 999). However, as argued by Xie and Greenman (2005), the empirical evidence is ambiguous and the model is open to alternative interpretations (Xie and Greenman 2005, 4). The theory is also more descriptive rather than analytical in that it indicates the three divergent assimilation paths without providing adequate explanations or implications. In recent years, the model of spatial assimilation, or residential assimilation, has been widely discussed. The concept of spatial assimilation views the spatial distribution of immigrants as a reflection of the stage of their assimilation, usually measured by the extent of residential closeness with the majority group (Massey and Denton 1985). In other words, residentially assimilated immigrants tend to live in similar residential locations where the majority group members are found. The spatial assimilation theory argues that an important outcome of socioeconomic advancement for immigrants is residential integration into mainstream society (Massey and Denton 1985, 94; Alba and Nee 1999). The theory is based on the key assumption that individuals convert socioeconomic achievement into a better-quality residential location, often by leaving disadvantaged ethnic enclaves for affluent majority-dominant areas; and their residential patterns may transform from ethnic clustering to spatial dispersion (Massey and Denton 1985; Charles 2003; Myles and Hou 2004). In addition, the theory posits that cultural assimilation is correlated with residential assimilation. The length of time in the United States and English proficiency of immigrants are both positively linked to residential proximity with the majority group (Charles 2003). Likewise, after immigrants residentially integrate with the majority group, the community is likely to become culturally homogeneous (Myles and Hou 2004). According to the spatial assimilation approach, when new immigrants arrive, due to their limited human capital and social capital, they are likely to reside in places where they can find social and cultural support as well as employment opportunities. These places tend to be ethnic enclaves that are residentially segregated from the mainstream society. Thus segregation is natural among new immigrants (Clark 1992; White et al. 1993; Alba and Nee 1999; Logan et al. 2002). Little Italy and Chinatown were prime examples of ethnic enclaves where many early immigrants called home (Logan, Zhang and Alba 2002). But this settlement is temporary for some immigrants. As they adapt to the mainstream culture and achieve social mobility, they tend to convert socioeconomic outcomes into residential improvements. They exit from the enclave and move into more affluent communities with better public schools, nicer neighborhoods, and better amenities. These communities are usually dispersed in suburbs where residents are predominantly from the majority group. This process enables ethnic minority group members to increase their contacts with the ethnic majority, and thus ?desegregation? may take place (Massey and Denton 1985; Massey and Denton 1988; Alba and Nee 1999, 143). To immigrants in the United States, becoming a member of a relatively advantaged White-dominant suburban communities is a key stage in the assimilation process, and it is usually based on the socioeconomic achievements of the immigrants. The spatial assimilation model has been demonstrated to reflect the experiences of most early European immigrant groups. Most Germantowns, Greektowns, and Little Italies today have nothing but their symbolic meaning left. Their former residents have successfully integrated into the mainstream society and become part of the melting pot. The exodus of Chinese immigrants from Chinatowns to suburbs in recent decades seems to be in line with the spatial assimilation model as well. Chinese immigrants are converting their socioeconomic gains into residential closeness with the White dominant group (White et al. 1993, 96). Yet acculturation is neither a precondition nor an outcome of all Chinese immigrants? residential improvement. New Chinese immigrants do not necessarily go through the enclave-then-suburb procedure; rather, many Chinese newcomers settle in suburbs right after their arrival in the United States because they bring with them higher socioeconomic status than did earlier waves of immigrants. It seems that the length of time spent in the United States is no longer an important factor in Chinese immigrants? settlement (White et al. 1993). Furthermore, the assimilation model predicts that following residential proximity with the majority group, immigrants will fully adapt to the mainstream society culturally and structurally. In contrast with the prediction, after achieving socioeconomic mobility and moving into the White-dominant suburban communities, many Chinese immigrants preserve their ethnic heritage and cultural values?their strong cultural ties and greater economic and educational resources make it possible to maintain a distinct culture. To some extent, they are still separate from the mainstream culture. Spatial assimilation theory does not seem to reflect this unique pattern of ?achieving economic success without assimilating culturally? (Fong 1994, 159). Thus the theory only has limited applicability to Chinese immigrants. More importantly, the spatial distribution of Chinese immigrants is not as dispersed or completely merged with the White-dominant communities as the theory predicts. Suburban Chinese residents not only concentrate but also establish ethnic business centers. Chinese-language business signs, Chinese restaurants and stores are found in many suburban Chinese communities. Chinese ethnoburbs have emerged and grown rapidly across the country. Spatial assimilation theory does not seem to explain the emergence and growth of the ethnoburb. Ethnic Solidarity and Ethnic Economy In ethnoburbs, Chinese immigrants are noticeably clustering in large numbers in certain neighborhoods (i.e., Rockville in Maryland, Monterey Park in California) and their Chinese communities replicate many features of inner-city Chinatown enclaves (Li 2009). What hold them together? Ethnic solidarity theories offer some explanations in how the institutions and social dynamics facilitate the formation of ethnoburbs (Portes 1981; Sanders and Nee 1987; Min 1988). Classical ethnic solidarity theorists assert that immigrant groups are forced to cluster based on economic and racial reasons (Light 1972; Bonacich and Modell 1978). The persistence of ethnic solidarity is explained within the framework of the reactive- ethnicity model (Hechter 1975; Nielsen 1985). Historically, residential segregation and ethnic concentration result from racial discrimination. Racism prevented immigrants from finding employment opportunities in the general economy, thus the dominant economic activities of immigrant communities were small ethnic businesses and trade (Bonacich and Modell 1978; Fong 1994). Most ethnic enclaves are equipped with social services and other ethnic institutions. Ethnic enclaves provide immigrants not only havens from the hostile world, but also social support that enhances their economic success (Light 1972). The diffusion-competition model states that ethnic concentration and solidarity are enhanced by the increasing competition among different groups (Nielsen 1980; 1985). In a market economy, immigrants, minorities, and the majority are more likely to compete for the same occupation or the same resource. The increase of inter-group tension is manifested by an enhanced solidarity within a group (Nielsen 1985, 134). The reactive model predicts that the greater the cultural division and economic inequalities between groups, the greater the likelihood of ethnic solidarity (Hechter 1975); whereas the competition model predicts the opposite?ethnic solidarity is more likely to be enhanced when the cultural division and stratification between groups diminish, because in that case members of different groups are more likely to compete for the same resources (Nielsen 1985, 134). Contemporary studies have challenged the reactive model. Scholars stress that the development of the ethnic enclave is a voluntary act rather than a reactive one (Portes 1981; Portes and Bach 1985; Min 1988). After the barriers of spatial mobility have been reduced, many immigrants still cluster in enclaves and concentrate in ethnic businesses. In Portes and Bach?s study, over 40 percent of Cuban immigrants are self-employed not to react to the immigration policy or to the host society; rather, ethnic solidarity ?serves to provide entrepreneurs with privileged access to immigrant labor and to legitimize paternalistic work arrangements? (Portes 1981, 291). The reactive model may be applicable during a certain period of time (i.e., between the 1880s and 1960s when institutional exclusion and racism was prevalent), but it is not up-to-date for today?s immigrants and modern race relations. On the other hand, recent studies on immigrant settlement and ethnic economy are more consistent with the competition model. To survive in the host society, many immigrants establish their own businesses to cater to the needs of members from their group as well as to reduce direct competition against other groups. Immigrants are often disadvantaged in the mainstream labor market due to limited English proficiency and their different cultural background. Yet, in their enclaves or in ethnic businesses, they are able to get around without having to know English and American culture; and they do not even have to have extensive interactions outside of their ethnic group (Portes 1981; Sanders and Nee 1987, 746). Such ethnic-owned and ethnic-operated businesses are known as the ethnic economy (Li 2009, 21-22). The development of the ethnic economy and ethnic solidarity are correlated structurally and spatially. Immigrant residential clustering is often associated with the concentration of ethnic businesses. An ethnic economy plays a critical role in facilitating the emergence and growth of ethnoburbs: Ethnic concentrations may also give rise to common ethnic interests, ?reinforcing a sense of identity. In addition, industrial or business concentrations foster competitive cross- ethnic contact, which in turn promotes ethnic consciousness and solidarity? (Waldinger, Aldrich, and Ward 2006, 34). My research seeks to more clearly identify the prime motivations for ethnic clustering. Besides economic reasons, immigrants from similar ethnic and cultural backgrounds are likely to have similar preferences when it comes to residential choices. Such preferences may facilitate ethnic clustering. Among Asians, who are known for their emphasis on education, it might be the case that the reputation of school districts and the ranking of local public schools are of particular importance in residential decision-making. Therefore, Asian immigrants would be more likely to cluster in preferred school districts. It might also be the case that many immigrants also prefer to live close to established ethnic centers where restaurants, grocery stores, services, and other ethnic institutions are accessible. Their joining into the well-established ethnic clusters facilitates the growth of these clusters and in turn draws more immigrants (Allen and Turner 2005, 271). My research seeks to ascertain the relative weight of each of these motivations in the emergence of ethnoburbs. The ethnic solidarity theory provides explanations for the concentration of Chinese immigrants in suburbs and their preservation of ethnic features. However, this theory exaggerates the economic dependency of immigrants on kinship or ethnic group support. In fact, recent immigrants are not as dependent on the social and cultural support provided by ethnic enclave or their co-ethnic group as their predecessors. Many Chinese immigrants who arrived in the recent decades have never been dependent upon ethnic group assistance. Rather, they find jobs in the mainstream sectors and settle in the White- dominant suburbs. Therefore, the ethnic solidarity theory might be applicable to the ethnic clustering feature of ethnoburbs, but might not be able to explain why ethnoburbs are replacing or standing in contrast to the downtown ethnic enclaves. Racial Formation In contrast to the assimilation theory, which posits that minorities are inevitably merging into mainstream society, racial formation theory argues that race relations and adaption are dynamic phenomena that are constantly in flux (Omi and Winant 1994; Fong 1994). Despite the fact that many recent Chinese immigrants are well equipped with education, skills, and bilingual ability, they cannot be exempt from racialization and being involved in racial tensions (Fong 1994). Emphasizing on the racialization experiences of Chinese immigrants, the racial formation theory provides a different standpoint for the emergence and growth of ethnoburbs. When increasing numbers of Chinese immigrants settle in White-dominant suburbs, race and ethnicity are spatially constituted and socially constructed (Li 2009). To cope with mainstream society and the increased racial tensions in White-dominant suburbs, Chinese immigrants redefine their racial/ethnic identities, preserve their ethnic/cultural traits, selectively limit their social networks to co-ethnics, and cluster in residential locations. The concept of racialization, introduced by Omi and Winant, states that racial minorities are always forced to confront the conflict between the mainstream culture and their own cultural traditions, as well as between the assigned racial identity and their own identity, and sometimes they face pressures to give in their own traditions and identities, and accept the assigned identities and associated racial meanings (Omi and Winant 1994, 79-80). The racialization process is not only the static notion of ?color?, but also about how a minority group has been assigned racial meaning (Lopez 2003, 5). Racial formation is defined as ?the sociohistorical process by which racial categories are created, inhabited, transformed, and destroyed? (Omi and Winant 1994, 55). Within the racial formation framework, race is no longer seen as a static status, but is conceptualized as the ?combination of an individual?s or group?s lived experience in the political, economic, and cultural spheres of a given society? (Lopez 2003, 18). In practice, the racial meanings and the general treatment (i.e. prejudice and discrimination) that a racially stigmatized minority group receives significantly shapes the experiences of this group, as well as the interpretation of such experience (Lopez 2003; Zhou and Bankston 1998). Generally speaking, racial formation processes occur at two levels: the macro level and the micro level. The macro-level racial formation process focuses on the racial dimensions of social structure, of state activity and policy, and it deals with the current pattern of racial formation at the level of the public sphere, in which the public debate and mobilization takes place (Omi and Winant 1994). For example, the ?color-blind? racial politics and ?hands off? policy orientation are considered macro-level racial formation processes. Conversely, the micro-level racial formation focuses on everyday experiences of individuals: At the micro-social level, racial projects also link signification and structure, not so much as efforts to shape policy or define large-scale meaning, but as the applications of ?common sense.?? Unconsciously, we ?notice? race? We utilize race to provide clues about who a person is. This fact is made painfully obvious when we encounter someone whom we cannot conveniently racially categorize?someone who is, for example, racially ?mixed? or of an ethnic/racial group we are not familiar with. Such an encounter becomes a source of discomfort and momentarily a crisis of racial meaning (Omi and Winant 1994, 59). In terms of residential settlement, racial formation theory views the suburbanization of immigrants and minorities as a redesign of spatial divisions of race and ethnicity. The adaptation experiences of immigrants can be viewed as micro-level racial projects. The successful incorporation of Chinese and other minorities in the White-dominant suburbs transformed all suburban residents into legitimate citizens regardless of race or ethnicity (Cheng 2006). Chinese suburban residents are racialized in their day-to-day life?when they are assigned racial meanings through racial projects at the level of lived experience; when they have to redefine their distinctive ?Chinese? identity and adopt mainstream values; and when they face tension and competition against other racial groups, especially the dominant group. The racialization dynamic is different in ethnoburbs than from that in enclaves. In ethnoburbs, ethnic newcomers who are in the territory of White Americans have more interactions with Whites and other racial groups than enclave residents do within their own enclaves. Establishing ethnic businesses and maintaining ethnic identities in the suburbs also generates competition between existing suburban residents and businesses and the ethnic newcomers. Moreover, Chinese immigrants are increasingly participating in the mainstream labor force rather than clustering in ethnic businesses, in turn, they are having more interactions with the majority group and are inevitably involved in inter-group competitions. In sum, the racial formation theory considers the ethnoburb a spatial expression of race relations and racialization dynamic. Despite its merits, racial formation theory has rarely been applied to immigrant adaptation, especially immigrant settlement, and therefore lacks empirical evidence. It is difficult to empirically test the causal relationship between racial tension and ethnic concentration in suburbs, but I hope to assess the role of race, especially how race affects immigrant adaptation and settlement, via in-depth interviews. Transnationalism Transnationalist theories are among one of the most popular threads in today?s immigration studies. The assimilationist assumption states that immigrants will eventually lose their ethnic traits and integrate to the mainstream, whereas the transnationalist approach notes that immigrants conduct activities across the national borders and maintain substantial ties to their countries of origin while they settle in the host society (Vertovec 2003). The two theoretical approaches are not contradictory to each other. As Portes (2003) indicates, the more ?established? immigrants are more likely to engage in transnational activities; moreover, transnational activities may generate and support new forms of adaptation of immigrants and their offspring (Portes 2003, 887). For example, immigrant entrepreneurship is often associated with economic activities in both the host and the sending countries (Portes and DeWind 2007). Immigrant settlement, according to the transnationalist theory, is closely connected to the changing global economy and immigration policies. During the 20th century, many metropolitan areas have undergone massive transformation. There has been spatial dispersion of businesses and industries and followed by relocation of central city residents to nearby suburbs in many cities (Sassen 2012). In developed countries such as the United States, central cities have declined and both population and employment have been suburbanized (Lim 2005, 21). Local transformation and the increase of global interconnections create the conditions necessary for the establishment of ethnoburbs (Li 2009, 30). In the case of Chinese immigration, economic restructuring and changing immigration policies in both China and the U.S. stimulate Chinese professionals and entrepreneurs to join new immigration waves. Ethnoburbs, with more ideal living environments and better school districts, attract investment by Chinese professionals and entrepreneurs. The formation of an ethnoburb calls for a strong ethnic economy, and the development of an ethnic economy enhances the ethnoburb. The growth of ethnoburbs further accelerates local and global economic restructuring (Li 2009, 44). Thanks to advanced technology, improved transportation, relaxed international trade policies, and increased globalization, many immigrant communities become transnational and are no longer constrained by national borders (Portes 1996). Immigrants are increasingly involved in transnational activities and embedded in more than one society. These immigrants, whose ?daily lives depend on multiple and constant interconnections across international borders and whose public identities are configured in relationship to more than one nation-state,? are considered ?transmigrants? (Glick Schiller et al. 1995, 48; Glick Schiller et al. 1992). Transmigrants are not permanent settlers in the host country nor are they permanent returnees in their home country; rather, they travel back and forth between the two countries. Increased transnational activities lead to changes in community formation. A new type of community, a transnational community, is made up of transnational migrants who ?live their lives across borders and engage in recurrent, enduring, and significant cross-border activities, which may be economic, political, social or cultural? (Castles 2007, 40; Portes, Guarnizo and Landolt 1999). In transnational communities, ?transnational networks and social relations are particularly evident? among migrants (Vertovec 2009, 13; Portes 1996). Transnational activities and connections are not new among migrants. International migrants in the 19th and early 20th centuries were engaged in such activities. In the United States, for example, Chinese immigrants in the late 19th century were maintaining ties with their oversea families by sending remittances, making back-and- forth trips, and bringing their families to reunite when possible. Chinese immigrants associations were also established to facilitate connections among Chinese immigrants and between the two countries (Vertovec 2009). The rapid development of technology makes international trips and communications more convenient and frequent. The flow of capital across border goes far beyond remittances?many Chinese immigrants are now actively engaging in transnational businesses. Immigrant associations not only have grown in size and numbers: some of them are also working with government programs to facilitate return migration and to strengthen transnational connections. Empirically, transnational activities in Chinese communities have been much less studied than the transnational experiences of immigrants from Latin America, despite the fact that many contemporary Chinese immigrants have been involved in transnational activities and global connections. The understanding of Chinese immigrant settlement will benefit from a transnational perspective. I rely on in-depth interviews to reveal ethnoburbs as transnational communities and Chinese individuals as transmigrants. Empirical Studies Although theoretical explanations of immigrants? residential settlement lack consensus, most empirical studies in recent years have demonstrated a link between immigrants? increasing socioeconomic status, level of acculturation, and level of residential assimilation. Numerous studies have tested spatial assimilation theory, yet empirical results are mixed regarding the applicability of the spatial assimilation model. Findings consistently show that Asians tend to be less segregated from Whites than Blacks are. The spatial assimilation model seems to work relatively well for Asian and Hispanic immigrants whose degree of residential proximity with Whites goes up while their socioeconomic status and level of acculturation increase (Denton and Massey 1988; Alba and Logan 1993; Logan et al. 1996; Charles 2003; Wen et al. 2009). However, the emergence and growth of ethnoburbs suggest that the classical spatial assimilation model needs to be reevaluated (Li 2006; 2009) Zhou and Logan (1991) investigated the residential patterns of Chinese residents of the New York metropolitan area, examining whether the assimilation model adequately accounts for the diversity in personal characteristics of the Chinese who live in different parts of the metropolis and for the segregation of the Chinese from other racial and ethnic groups. From analyses and field interviews, they conclude that the residential patterns of Chinese in New York are related to socioeconomic status?the Chinese are more likely to live in the suburb (i.e., Queens or Brooklyn) if they have a higher socioeconomic status and if their family situation promotes it. Confirmed by field interviews, residential mobility is an expression of socioeconomic mobility. Although this result seems to conform to the spatial assimilation model, other findings of their study support a modification of the model. Recent immigrants are as likely as the native born to live in peripheral areas, which conflicts with the cultural assimilation model. Another limitation of the assimilation model is the existence of an ethnic enclave economy remains unexplained. Chinese families maintain links to the ethnic enclave even while enjoying upward social mobility. White, Biddlecom and Guo (1993) examine the residential assimilation of Asian Americans using 1980 U.S. Census data. With particular attention to socioeconomic characteristics, immigrant status, and ethnicity, they found that social mobility and spatial mobility are connected in that Asian Americans translate their socioeconomic achievements into residential assimilation; however, duration of residence in the U.S. does not seem to have a particularly strong influence on residential assimilation. Their results indicate that the diversity within the Asian American group (i.e. specific Asian ethnic identity, contexts of arrival) needs to be taken into account. Alba and colleagues (2000) found that individual socioeconomic status, acculturation, and suburban residence are strongly associated with residence in richer White-dominant neighborhoods, which is consistent with the spatial assimilation model. However, when comparing with previous findings from 1980, the longitudinal results do not quite conform the spatial assimilation model. The impact of immigration is evident and the racial/ethnic diversity within affluent suburban neighborhoods has been increasing, especially for neighborhoods with more Asian and Hispanic residents than White residents. Logan, Zhang, and Alba (2002) hypothesize that immigrant enclaves are mostly concentrated with labor immigrants, while ethnic communities? residents are more likely to be entrepreneurs and professional immigrants. Their results mostly support this expectation, although stronger evidence is found on the side of the immigrant enclave. In their study, they compare New York, an older style of urban development, with Los Angeles, a newer and more decentralized style of development. Although most ethnic groups have established suburban settlements in both areas, greater suburbanization of immigrant neighborhoods is found in Los Angeles. In terms of the theoretical model, the process of assimilation and self-segregation operate on every ethnic group to varying degrees. Their study indicates that in Los Angeles and New York, such ethnic communities are formed out of preference, rather than economic constraints. Their findings challenge the spatial assimilation model. With the observation of the racial and ethnic residential settlement patterns in the Columbus, Ohio, MSA, Brown and Chung (2008) tested three conventional theoretical frameworks?assimilation, stratification, and resurgent ethnicity. They argue that the first two frameworks focus on forces that are less relevant today, while the resurgent ethnicity framework lacks applicability to today?s reality. The three conventional frameworks all overlook the role of market economy in today?s racial/ethnic residential mosaic. They then adopt a market-led pluralism model, which is articulated in terms of five components: building, lending, selling/renting, consuming, and local communities. Empirical support for the new framework is drawn from secondary data and interviews. Their study finds weak support for the spatial assimilation model. They conclude that development opportunities for communities, profit opportunities for enterprises, lifestyle choice opportunities for households are at the center of the composition of a community. Their findings lead to the conclusion that discriminatory real estate practices might remain?as some consumers may take racial/ethnic composition of a community into account but it is relatively low in priority; however, market forces have played the leading role in today?s ethnic communities. Wen and colleagues (2009) provide a nation-wide study of the changing prevalence of ethnoburbs using 1990 and 2000 Census tract-level data. They reconfirm the fast growth of ethnoburbs across the country. Also, they find that although ethnoburbs are more visible in Asian communities, Hispanic and Black ethnoburbs have developed as well. Their findings demonstrate the positive relationship between socioeconomic gains and neighborhood socioeconomic status and percent of Whites in the neighborhood. Acculturation, measured by length in the United States and language skills, are also positively linked to neighborhood socioeconomic status and percent of Whites in the neighborhood. The spatial assimilation model is relevant in explaining these causal links. However, the authors also indicate that many ethnoburban residents are professionally assimilated but largely preserve their cultural traits and tend to live close to other co- ethnics. The spatial assimilation model cannot explain this ?voluntary segregation? (Wen et al. 2009, 453). These empirical findings indicate that although some features of the spatial assimilation model are applicable to today?s immigrant residential patterns, modifications and updates are definitely necessary. A more comprehensive and up-to-date conceptual model that addresses the multiethnic nature of immigrant suburban communities is in urgent need. Ethnic Enclave Ethnic enclaves refer to the spatial clustering of immigrants and ethnic businesses (Zhou 1998). Immigrant enclaves and ethnic enclaves are usually used interchangeably. In Portes? definition, an ethnic enclave is ?immigrant groups which concentrate in a distinct spatial location and organize a variety of enterprises serving their own ethnic market and/or the general population. Their basic characteristic is that a significant proportion of the immigrant labor force works in enterprises owned by other immigrants? (Portes 1981, 291). Immigrants with limited human capital and cultural/social capital usually rely on these enclaves for employment opportunities for mostly ethnic labor jobs and social support; this is also the reason why immigrant enclaves are formed. To new immigrants who are in their initial stage of adaptation, ethnic enclaves are of particular importance. By clustering in ethnic enclaves upon arrival, newcomers are given opportunities to accumulate human capital and to achieve social mobility in the foreign land. However, participation in ethnic enclaves is arguably a rewarding experience for all immigrants, although there are many limitations in ethnic enclaves. Jobs in ethnic enclaves are always characterized as low wage, with undesirable work conditions, requiring no or low skill, and have an ethnic orientation since they are immediately available and do not require English proficiency (Sanders and Nee 1987). Ethnic enclaves are also known for their less desirable locations, being overcrowded and isolated from mainstream society (Logan et al. 2002). Examples of immigrant enclaves include Little Italy, Little Havana, Chinatown, and Japantown. Besides the hostile environment that causes the formation of ethnic enclaves as a segregated haven for immigrants, the segmented labor market, or dual labor market, is also a driving force of the creation of ethnic enclaves. The labor market in the United States is relatively segmented and polarized: in the capital-intensive primary sector, workers hold secure, professional jobs with high salaries and pleasant working conditions; whereas workers in the labor-intensive secondary sector take unstable, unskilled jobs with low wages and undesirable working conditions. Primary-sector workers are considered capital because employers invest in them by providing high-level training and education. Conversely, secondary-sector workers are expendable to employers because the cost to lay them off is little. The inherent dualism between labor and capital translates into a segmented labor market (Massey 1999). Given the conditions of the secondary sector, it is difficult to attract native workers. To fill the shortfall in demand, some immigrants are recruited, while some voluntarily participate in the secondary sector because their limited human capital does not open the doors to the primary sector (Massey 1999, 38). Although jobs in ethnic enclaves are predominantly secondary-sector, they provide ladders to social mobility for immigrants. At the same time, enclaves also provide immigrant kinship ties and social networks that are important means of incorporation into mainstream society. Historically, ethnic enclaves have played significant roles in meeting survival needs for immigrants with little human and social capital as well as providing them opportunities and resources for social mobility (Zhou 1992; Logan et al. 2002; Zhou and Lin 2005). In recent decades, ethnic enclaves in many cities have been diminishing in size and function. The assimilationist approach stresses that it is due to the inevitable assimilation process that ethnic enclaves are eventually going to dissolve (Zhou and Lin 2005). Scholars have argued, by contrast, it is because the post-1965 immigrants are extremely diverse in their socioeconomic backgrounds (Zhou 1992; Logan et al. 2002; Luk and Phan 2006). A large proportion of post-1965 immigrants are equipped with adequate human capital and good English skills when they enter the United States. Instead of heading to ethnic enclaves and secondary sector labor market, they choose affluent neighborhoods in more desirable locations to settle in and find professional jobs in the primary sector of the labor force. With lower replenishment by newcomers, many ethnic enclaves have begun to shrink. Ethnic Community Ethnic community, also called immigrant neighborhood or immigrant community in some scholarly works, by contrast, is formed through a different social process and has different characteristics. Ethnic communities can be found in desirable locations such as safe and well-to-do suburban neighborhoods where mainstream jobs are available. Immigrants and minorities who live in ethnic communities generally have wider options and more resources than enclave resident immigrants. The degree of exclusion by other groups and segregation from the mainstream society is also much lower in ethnic communities than in enclaves, but ethnic community residents may purposely maintain ethnic traits and prefer to live close to co-ethnics (Logan et al. 2002, 300). All ethnic enclaves have a high density of ethnic population and are isolated from other groups, but ethnic communities are open to all groups with low to medium ethnic density (Li 2009). Therefore, racial dynamic is more complex in ethnic communities as residents need to deal with more inter-group interactions and tensions. Another important distinction between an ethnic enclave and an ethnic community is that an extensive division of labor and a highly differentiated class can be found in ethnic communities, but not in ethnic enclaves (Portes and Jenson 1987, 769). While jobs in ethnic enclaves are primarily secondary-sector, economic activities in ethnic communities may vary from professional jobs to self-employment, and from transnational corporations to ethnic-oriented small businesses. Ethnoburb Wei Li constructs the term ?ethnoburb? as a new form of immigrant suburban settlement: a unique form of an ethnic community. Ethnoburbs are ?suburban ethnic clusters of residential areas and business districts in large metropolitan areas?; they are ?multiethnic communities in which one ethnic minority group has a significant concentration but does not necessarily constitute a majority? (Li 2009, 1). Ethnoburbs differ from traditional ethnic enclaves in many ways?ethnoburbs are located in suburbs; ethnic density in ethnoburbs is much lower than in enclaves; on average, the economic and occupational status of ethnoburban residents is higher than enclave residents (Li 2009). Like the traditional ethnic enclave such as Chinatown, ethnoburb is a form of immigrant adaptation in the host society. The transformation from enclave to ethnoburb reflects the changes in immigration policy, global economy, international geopolitics, transnational connections, and race relations (Fong 1994; Li 1998; 2005; 2006; 2009). Ethnoburb is a phenomenon perpetuated by the post-1965 immigration. The 1965 Immigration Act brought in huge numbers of socioeconomically diverse immigrants, which had a great impact on immigrant adaptation and settlement. The Chinese immigrant population, for example, not only increased significantly since the 1970s, but also differs from the old timers in socioeconomic backgrounds. The 1965 Immigration Act disproportionately drew wealthier, highly educated Chinese immigrants to the United States. For example, as of 2000, 65 percent of the foreign-born Chinese in the United States between ages 25 and 34 have attained four or more years of college education (Zhou and Lin 2005, 271). To these middle-class and upper-class immigrants, inner-city ethnic enclaves are not desirable places to live. Many of them head to suburbs with nice neighborhoods, good schools and professional job sites. Due to common priorities and concerns, new Chinese immigrants end up being neighbors of each other in these suburbs. New and scattered Chinese suburban communities have emerged. Immediately understanding the changing market and the desire to cater to the ethnic needs, Chinese businesses quickly followed the residents? move to the suburbs. Then the developing suburban ethnic economy created demand for more Chinese services and workers, which drew more working-class Chinatown residents to join the exodus. With continuing replenishment of new immigrants and former Chinatown residents, ethnoburbs have added and multiplied in more and more areas. Eventually large, visible Chinese ethnoburbs with attached commercial districts could be found across the country (Kwong and Miscevic 2005; Li 2009). Similarly, ethnoburbs of other ethnic groups have emerged in many metropolitan areas. As one form of ethnic communities, economic activities in ethnoburbs are much more diversified than in ethnic enclaves. Large amount of recent immigrants carry international capital with them and are transnational entrepreneurs. Living in ethnoburbs, these immigrants? economic activities may involve the ?globalization of capital and international flows of commodities, skilled labor, and high-tech and managerial personnel? (Frazier and Margai 2003, 118). At the macro level, the dramatic increase of international trade and finance has transformed many American metropolitan areas to ?world cities? (i.e., New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, Washington, DC). Such metropolitan areas become ideal sites of ethnoburbs (Li 2009, 33). As Li (2009) stresses, the formation of ethnoburbs has to be examined within the transnational context and the changing global economy, international relations as well as local policies all need to be taken into account. Ethnoburbanites may adopt certain mainstream values, but most of their ethnic traits and cultural heritage have been preserved. In Chinese ethnoburbs, Chinese- language schools, Chinese churches, and Chinese social clubs are prevalent, which creates a unique sense of community (Frazier and Margai 2003, 118; Li 1998). Although living in White-dominant suburbs and working mainstream jobs, the majority of ethnoburbanites still prefer to social with co-ethnics, participate in ethnic organizations, and eat at ethnic restaurants at their leisure. The emergence and development of ethnoburbs as well as the unique spatial and cultural landscape in ethnoburbs have posed a challenge to the spatial assimilation paradigm. Current-day Chinese communities have transformed from ethnic enclaves to ethnoburbs. This research is aiming to explore this transformation and the determinants that perpetuate the transformation. CHAPTER 3: CHINESE IMMIGRATION AND THE DEVELOPMENT OF CHINESE COMMUNITIES Understanding the history Chinese immigration and the context of the development of Chinese communities in the United States provides a better knowledge of today?s Chinese community and Chinese immigrant settlement. This chapter reviews: early (1840-1960s) Chinese immigration and the formation of Chinatown in major American cities; contemporary (post-1965) Chinese immigration and the development of Chinese communities; and the past and present of the Chinese community in DC area, which is the setting and the focus of this study. 1840-1960s Chinese Immigration and the Formation of Chinatown Chinese began immigrating to the United States in the early 1840s. The first wave of Chinese immigrants mainly involved contract laborers, who were essentially imported to work on plantations in Hawaii. Many businessmen on the U.S. mainland saw Asian workers as a new and great source of labor, so they brought more and more Chinese workers to the United States to build railroads and do manual labor as low-paid workers on farms and factories, mostly in California. Beginning in the 1840s and 1850s, there were about 46,000 Chinese laborers moved to Hawaii between 1840 and 1900, and about 380,000 to the U.S. mainland between 1849 and 1930 (Takaki 1998, 31). Known as the ?Gold Rush,? the discovery of gold at John Sutter?s Mill in 1848 established a key starting point on dramatic migration to California from all over the world (Mark and Chih 1993, 5). California was named ?Gam Saan? (means Gold Mountain in Cantonese) and there were rumors about how easily to find gold in America. A significant influx of Chinese immigrants also excitingly joined the ?Gold Rush.? During the 19th century, a Chinese worker might earn three to five dollars a month in South China; whereas he could make thirty dollars a month working for the railroad. Coming back to their villages with several hundred of dollars they saved over hard work and simple life in America, they became very rich people in their hometown (Mark and Chih 1993, 5-6; Takaki 1998, 34-35). With the hope for quick riches, over 225,000 Chinese came to the United States between 1850 and 1880 (Wong 2006, 110). The vast majority of those early Chinese immigrants were uneducated and with few skills. With dreams of becoming rich, they left their homeland to escape poverty, war, and starvation. Dreams were quickly dashed for most of them as the host society turned out to be hostile and extremely racist. As discriminatory U.S. immigration policies prevented Chinese women from immigrating, very few Chinese women made their journey to the United States. Many Chinese men had to bear with the disheartening separation from their families. From 1850 to 1910, the ratio of men to women ranged from 13:1 to 20:1 (Takaki 1998, 40; Glenn 1983). Therefore, Chinese men populated early Chinese communities and the growth of the communities depended solely on new immigrants. During the 19th century, Chinese communities in the United States were small and growing slowly. While the majority of them were wage-earning workers and labor contractors, quite a few Chinese migrants were shopkeepers and merchants (40 percent in San Francisco and Sacramento, and 15 percent in the rural regions) (Takaki 1998, 79-80). After the completion of railroads and mining, many Chinese ex-railroad workers and ex- miners moved to metropolitan cities where jobs could be found in ethnic businesses. As a result, the settlement of Chinese immigrants experienced the process of urbanization between late 19th century and mid-20th century. Visible Chinese communities? Chinatown, were formed in many urban areas. The San Francisco Chinatown was the first Chinese community in the United States. It was highly segregated due to racial prejudice, discriminative housing regulations, and anti-Chinese violence (Mark and Chih 1993). Upon arrival, Chinese newcomers found themselves surrounded by ?green-eyed? white people with ?hairy faces? and blunt discrimination. Depicted by Takaki in his book, ?in San Francisco, as they were driven through the streets in wagons, Chinese were often pelted with bricks thrown by white hoodlums? (Takaki 1998, 73). When they entered Chinatown, the travelers were so relieved to stay away from the ?foreign devils? and glad to find ?Chinese faces delighting the vision, and Chinese voices greeting the ear? (Takaki 1998, 73). In each city, Chinatown was essentially a segregated enclave; each was a self- governing, self-sustaining community (Zhou 1992; Zhou and Lin 2005). It provided employment opportunities and social support for early Chinese immigrants. Due to discrimination and prejudice, very few Chinese were able to find jobs in the mainstream community, so they created they own business or worked for other Chinese. Self- employment and ethnic-oriented businesses were prevalent among Chinese immigrants? most of the Chinese laborers worked in service industry, especially in restaurants and laundries. By 1870, Chinese accounted for 72 percent of all laundry workers in California (Takaki 1998, 92). By the end of the 19th century, the Chinese had spread geographically. Besides California, Chinese immigrants could be found constructing the railroads across Washington, Idaho and Montana; developing farms in Oregon and Arizona; working in plantations throughout the South (Mark and Chih 1993; Takaki 1998). The influx of Chinese immigrants also continued to increase. Between 1868 and 1882, an average of 12,000 Chinese workers immigrated every year (Mark and Chih 1993; Takaki 1998). Chinatown also provided the immigrants with a cultural environment where they could speak their native language and follow their customs without fear of intimidation (Zhou 1992). To integrate the community and better support each other, early immigrants formed kinship associations, district associations, and labor groups. These associations established Chinese language schools to educate the younger generation, and they offered legal consultations and medical services to Chinese immigrants. More importantly, they encouraged the residents to be more politically vocal and proactive (Mark and Chih 1993). To the early Chinese immigrants, who continuously suffered from racial hostility and heartbreaking separations from their family members, Chinatown was an oasis in the desert, a harbor of refuge, and a home in a strange land. Despite Chinese laborers? important role, collectively, in the development of American industry and agriculture, the widespread and increasing Chinese population generated antagonistic feelings from the host society. The Chinese were considered by many to be a threat to White racial purity and a xenophobic attitude quickly developed among the general population. In the 1870s, the Chinese became scapegoat for the economic crisis (Mark and Chih 1993). Considerable institutional resistance to the Chinese immigration and anti-Chinese sentiment were prompted across the country (Mark and Chih 1993; Wong 2006). Chinese were depicted as heathen, inferior, and savage in mass media; many anti-Chinese violent incidents took place (Mark and Chih 1993; Takaki 1998; Wong 2006). Under intense public pressure, the U.S. government enacted the Chinese Exclusion Act on May 6, 1882. That was the first and only time the U.S. government implemented legislation to specially ban a particular ethnic, racial, or nationality group from the country. Under the Act, all Chinese laborers, whether skilled or unskilled, were excluded from entry to the United States for 10 years. Only merchants, scholars, teachers, and officials were exempted from such restrictions. Those who were exempted had to obtain identification certificates issued by the Chinese government that they were qualified to immigrate. The law also prohibited the naturalization of Chinese (Takaki 1998; Kwong and Miscevic 2005, 101; Wong 2006). The Act effectively halted Chinese immigration to the United States. As a result, there was a dramatic decline in the Chinese population in the U.S.?from 105,465 in 1880 to 89,863 in 1900 to 61,639 in 1920 (Takaki 1998, 111- 112). The Exclusion Act and other discriminatory legislation left the Chinese victims in many spheres, including residential, which resulted in substantial residential concentration and segregation of the Chinese. Chinatowns in major urban areas, which were developed in the late 1800s and early 1900s, have persisted throughout the 20th century (Kwong and Miscevic 2005). World War II (WWII) was a watershed, not only in the history of Chinese Americans, but also in world history. The United States and China became allies, who were dedicated to fighting common enemies. That unprecedented cooperation between the two countries affected the status of Chinese Americans. Several events, including the lobbying efforts by Chinese scholars, politicians, and community leaders, resulted in the final repeal of the Exclusion Act. All U.S. laws that prohibited immigration of Chinese to the United States were abolished in 1943. The bill not only granted an annual entry quota of 105 persons of Chinese ancestry, it also extended naturalization rights to Chinese immigrants in the United States. The new immigration policy, which emphasized reunification of families, resulted in a large wave of female immigrants; many Chinese couples were reunited after having spent decades apart (Mark and Chih 1993; Kwong and Miscevic 2005). Between the WWII and 1965, several significant events took place and each had tremendous consequences for Chinese Americans. In 1949, the Chinese Communist Party declared the foundation of People?s Republic of China in Beijing, and Chiang Kai-Shek and his Chinese Nationalist Party (also known as KMT) forces fled to Taiwan. The Communist victory in China brought approximately 5,000 Chinese professionals and students to the United States as ?Displaced Persons?, and most of them were given permanent resident status under the Displaced Persons Act of 1948 (Takaki 1998, 417). Mainland China also became the enemy of the United States, as the U.S. government was in support of Chiang and the Nationalist government in Taiwan (Kwong and Miscevic 2005). Shortly after, the outbreak of the Korean War (in June 1950) sharpened the conflict between China and the United States. As a result, Chinese immigration was significantly reduced during the 1950s. The tension between the two countries finally eased in 1972, when President Nixon had a historical meeting with Chinese Chairman Mao Zedong in Beijing (MacMillan 2007). Given the historical context, the pre-1965 Chinese communities were primarily made up of low-skill laborers, refugees, and a few merchants, students, and scholars. Post-1965 Chinese Immigration and the Development of Chinese Communities In the mid-1960s, the composition of the Chinese community began to change drastically as a result of changes in the U.S. immigration policy. Passage of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965 abolished the discriminatory National Origins Formula, which resulted in a new chapter in the history of immigration in the United States. It is always considered the milestone in Chinese and Asian immigration (Zhou 1992). The 1965 legislation led to enormous waves of new immigrants that were significantly different from their predecessors. The 1965 immigration law resulted in an unprecedented increase in the Chinese population in the United States. From 1960-1970, the Chinese American population increased from 237,292 to 435,062, almost doubled (Mark and Chih 1993, 111). They represented the third largest group of immigrants in the 1960s, after Mexicans and Filipinos. Unlike the early immigrants who were mostly bachelors, many Chinese newcomers came with their families. New immigrants had extremely diverse backgrounds. Although the majority of post-1965 Chinese immigrants had skills and education, some of the immigrants were poorly skilled workers who were being reunited with their families and refugees. The war in Vietnam in the late 1970s initiated large flows of Chinese diaspora immigrants to the United States. They joined Vietnamese and other Southeast Asians as refugees (Wong 2006). On the other side of the spectrum, tides of post-1965 immigrants were from the professional class (Takaki 1998). The diverse class backgrounds of the post-1965 Chinese immigrants resulted in the polarization of the Chinese American community?it was composed by low-skilled working class immigrants, on one side of the invisible dividing line, and members of the affluent professional middle class on the other side. In terms of settlement, while the working class continued to cluster in inner-city Chinatowns, the middle class Chinese, meanwhile, headed for modern homes in the suburbs. Many of the middle-class Chinese clustered in the same suburban communities because of shared priorities and concerns? for example, safety, cleanliness of the neighborhood, quality schools, good public amenities, reasonable cost, and proximity to their work sites. Since the 1970s, Chinese communities in U.S. suburbs have emerged and developed at an unexpected pace. A term ?ethnoburb? has been coined by Wei Li to describe such Chinese communities (Li 2009). Monterey Park, in a Los Angeles suburb, is a typical ethnoburb; nearly half of its residents are Chinese and it stands in contrast to the old downtown Chinatown. Although many residents (mostly the elderly) of Chinatowns throughout the United States have chosen to stay put, there has been an exodus of Chinese residents to the suburbs, and that has diminished in size and function of the Chinatowns. Many of the Chinatowns, including those in San Francisco, Washington, DC, and Los Angeles, are now little more than tourist destinations (Kwong and Miscevic 2005; Li 2009). The transition from Chinatown to ethnoburb in DC area will be discussed in later chapters. From 1965 to the present, changes in legislation, in both China and the United States, have affected immigration of Chinese. On June 23, 1978, then-Chinese leader Deng Xiaoping, in a landmark address at Tsinghua University, encouraged Chinese students to study abroad because that was an effective way to advance development of China (Li 2008). After Deng?s speech, China relaxed its migration policy, and an increasing number of Chinese students moved to the United States and other developed countries to further their education. Many of those students stayed in adoptive countries after graduation, and they worked as skilled professionals and changed their status from sojourners to permanent immigrants. Impacts of immigration policy on settlement patterns will be discussed later. Altogether, there have been three major waves of Chinese immigrants to the United States: the 19th century pioneers who were ?gold rushers? and laborers; the post- 1965 newcomers who consisted mainly of high-skilled professionals, students, family members of earlier immigrants, and refugees; and post-1980 (or recent) immigrants, who, while from similar backgrounds as those in the second wave, generally had a higher socioeconomic status than previous Chinese immigrants. Because of differences in the timing of immigration to the United States, there is considerable diversity among the American-born Chinese population. Some of them are fourth- and fifth-generation Chinese descendants from the 19th century pioneers, while some are second-generation children of recent immigrants (Wong 2006, 118). Such cultural and background diversity of Chinese immigrants and their offspring has resulted in the complex, but unique, spatial distribution of Chinese communities in the United States. The Past and Present of Chinatown in DC The Greater Washington, DC Area, known by the U.S. Census Bureau as the Washington-Arlington-Alexandria, DC-VA-MD-WV Metropolitan Statistical Area, is home to 98,774 Chinese Americans, representing 1.8 percent of the total metropolitan population of 5,538,106 according to the 2010 U.S. Census. This region is one of the fastest growing communities of Chinese Americans. However, the Chinese residents are scattered through the metro area as opposed to congregating in one community. For nearly 50 years, Chinese have been moving into Maryland communities?such as Rockville, Gaithersburg, and Columbia?that make up the northern suburbs of DC. Chinese are also showing a preference for communities in Virginia, including Falls Church and Fairfax, which make up the U.S. capital?s southern suburbs. Before exploring the present Chinese American communities in DC area, I would like to review the formation of the DC Chinatown and the historical experiences of the Chinese community in DC. To shield Chinese residents from discrimination and to provide them with economic and social support, the DC Chinatown was established in the mid-1800s. Diminished substantially in recent decades, the existing Chinatown is now located between New York Ave and G street, 5th and 8th streets in downtown Washington, DC. It is a small tourist neighborhood with about 20 ethnic business and a lot more chain stores such as Starbucks, Legal Sea Foods, and Potbelly Sandwich Shop (Cooper 2012). That is in sharp contrast to the mid-1900s, when the DC Chinatown had about one thousand Chinese residents and many Chinese businesses. Initially, the DC Chinatown only had a dozen buildings and less than 100 residents, mostly male (Asian American Arts and Media 1991, 25). DC Chinatown grew rapidly in the early-1900s. By 1927, the population of DC Chinatown reached 600; and by 1936, the population reached 800. The Chinese established a few vendors in the marketplace, some restaurants and shops?most of which were laundries (Asian American Arts and Media 1991; Hathaway and Ho 2003; See Appendix A for a detailed historical timeline). The stories of residents of DC Chinatown reflected the general Chinese American immigrant experience. Many of the early immigrants, who came to DC in 1930s and 1940s, not only found jobs in Chinatown?s ethnic businesses but also considered Chinatown ?a haven from racial discrimination? (Hathaway and Ho 2003, 48). As seen in many other places, the 1965 Immigration Act resulted in an influx of educated and skilled Chinese immigrants to the DC metro area, yet many of them did not choose Chinatown as their settlement destinations. Instead, they settled in DC suburbs. Meanwhile, more and more Chinatown residents were moving out to suburban communities. Chinatown began to lose its members and shrink in size. By 1966, the Chinese population reached 3,000 in DC, with more than 10 percent lived in Chinatown (Asian American Arts and Media 1991). Since the late-1900s, Chinatown has experienced dramatic change, the Verizon Center (formerly the MCI Center), a new convention center, many clothing companies and Western chain restaurants?including Starbucks, Dunkin? Donuts and McDonald?s? have settled in Chinatown. The new development has resulted in significant changes to Chinatown. For example, property values rose sharply, which made it impossible for the Chinese businesses to cover their rent. Seventh Street, which used to have four Chinese restaurants, has been transformed into a row of chain stores. Although old timers continued to hold on to the cultural heritage, the dilution of Chinatown is inevitable. By 1989, only 25 percent of properties in Chinatown were owned by the Chinese (Asian American Arts and Media 1991). No longer a community with a large number of residents, DC Chinatown is now a magnet that attracts developers; however, the DC Chinatown community still serves as a distinctive enclave where Chinese can receive social and cultural support. Organizations, such as the Chinatown Community Cultural Center and Chinatown Revitalization Council, still play important roles in promoting and preserving Chinatown?s cultural identity. Through various events and programs that celebrate the rich Chinese culture and history, such organizations enrich the lives of Chinatown?s residents and visitors. CHAPTER 4: RESEARCH DESIGN AND QUANTITATIVE METHODOLOGY A mixed methodological design is being used in this project, which provides information from quantitative, qualitative, and geographical perspectives. In this chapter, research design, quantitative method, spatial analysis, and statistical model will be introduced. Research Design and Data The main purpose of this project is to describe the change in Chinese immigrant settlement in DC area and to examine the determinants of such change. This analysis is unique in several ways. First, the focus of this research is on an understudied metropolitan area. Second, my research uses the most up-to-date census data. Third, my research originally combines mapping, statistical analysis, and in-depth interviews to capture not only the spatial trends and socio-demographic features of the Chinese community in DC, but also the sociocultural elements that help explain the objective conditions and subjective motivations that promote the emergence and the growth of ethnoburbs. Conclusions are based on quantitative analysis, and are supplemented by GIS maps and in-depth interviews. The quantitative data provides important information about socioeconomic status and degree of segregation, yet it does not document the lived experience of residents and the dynamic context. By adopting the in-depth interview as a supplemental approach, I am able to reveal individual Chinese immigrant?s experiences and perspectives in order to provide contextual data to my project. GIS maps, as the third component of my methodology, are used to illustrate the spatial trends of DC?s Chinese community. From the maps, people can visualize the change of residential patterns of Chinese immigrants in DC over time and space. Quantitative Analysis In order to test spatial assimilation theory, the analysis takes two procedures. Following previous scholars (Alba and Nee 1997; Xie and Greenman 2005), assimilation is defined as the closeness of cultural and social distances that separate immigrants from mainstream American society. The first procedure tests the social distance, for which I replicate Zhou and Logan?s (1991) measurement for the degree of segregation. Segregation is measured as evenness of distribution, indicated by the index of dissimilarity (D). This index measures the total differences of spread of two groups in a region and is a common measurement in the immigration settlement literature (Skop and Li 2005, 177; Park and Iceland 2011). For this procedure, I use the census tract-level data in summary tape file 2 (SF2) of the 2010 Census. Also replicating Zhou and Logan?s research design, the second procedure addresses the socioeconomic and cultural determinants of residential location for Chinese households. For residential locations, I use the Public Use Microdata Area (PUMA) to identify where the housing unit is located. As the lowest level of geography in the 2000 onwards 5% census sample, PUMA serves as a good unit of analysis. Socioeconomic status is measured by education, income, occupation, and home ownership. Level of acculturation is measured by English language ability, citizenship, and length in the United States. American Community Survey (ACS) 2006-2010 5-year data is being used for this procedure. The assumption of the spatial assimilation model is that as immigrants acquire greater socioeconomic resources, they convert these resources into spatial forms? neighborhoods that are usually dominated by non-Hispanic Whites and are with better amenities; this spatial transition is also accompanied with linguistic and other forms of acculturation. In other words, residential locations are positively linked to socioeconomic status and level of acculturation of immigrants. Therefore, my hypothesis, derived from the spatial assimilation theory, predicts that as the socioeconomic status and level of acculturation of Chinese immigrants becomes higher, they are more likely to live in the ethnoburb PUMA. Spatial/GIS Analysis GIS maps are made based on the 1970, 1980, 1990, and 2000 census tract-level data in Summary File 2 (SF2) to visualize the spatial transformation of Chinese residential patterns in DC area from 1970 to 2000 (summary of mapping results is provided in Chapter VII). Because of the boundaries changes between the 1970 and 2000 censuses, an assumption is commonly used to map data across decades. It is assumed that population is evenly distributed within each census tract. In this case, the tract population from different decennial year can be ?matched? with each other. GIS maps are included in the Appendix. Index of Dissimilarity The degree of segregation is measured by the index of dissimilarity (D). The equation is: D= Where ci refers to the Chinese population of the i th census tract, C is the total Chinese population of the DC MSA, wi is the White population of the i th census tract, and W is the total White population of the DC MSA. This analysis is limited to tracts with a total population (of all races) of over 50 in the area. This measure indicates the probability that the Chinese are likely to physically ?confront? the non-Hispanic Whites by sharing a common tract of residence (Myles and Hou 2004, 36). The lower the degree of segregation from non-Hispanic Whites is, the higher level of assimilation is implied. Table 2 presents values of the index of dissimilarity for the DC area as of 2010. According to previous research (Massey and Denton 1988; Zhou and Logan 1991, 391; Myles and Hou 2004; Park and Iceland 2011), dissimilarity indices between 0 to .30 suggests a low degree of residential segregation; between .30 to .60 a moderate segregation; and above .60 a high degree of segregation. From Table 2, Chinese residents are least segregated from non-Hispanic Whites in Montgomery County (.194), where the largest Chinese ethnoburb in DC area is located. They are also less segregated from Whites in Inner Suburbs (.266) than in Central City (District of Columbia) (.417) and in Inner Core (.427). The degree of segregation in Inner Suburbs is lower than that in the DC area (.350), while the latter is lower than that in Central City. The results demonstrate 1 2 ci C ? wi Wi=1 N ? that should Chinese immigrants are ?assimilated,? Inner Suburbs are the place to live. In my second procedure, I will use place of residence as the dependent variable and the hypothesis is: socioeconomic status and level of acculturation are positively linked to the likelihood of living in Inner Suburbs. Table 2. Index of Dissimilarity (D) of Chinese from non-Hispanic Whites in the DC Area, 2010a D Number of Tracts District of Columbia .417 10 Inner Coreb .427 9 Inner Suburbsc .266 219 Montgomery County .194 119 DC MSA .350 314 aTracts with a total Chinese/White population of 50 or more. The source is SF2, U.S. Census 2010. bInner Core includes Arlington County and Alexandria City. The source is Singer 2003. cInner Suburbs include Montgomery County, PG County, Fairfax County, Fairfax City, and Falls Church City. The source is Singer 2003. Determinants of Residential Location Binary logistic regression model is used in this project to analyze the determinants of residential location. As socioeconomic status of the immigrants is at the heart of spatial assimilation theory, it is important to examine whether those coefficients for socioeconomic variables are significant. Level of acculturation is also associated with residential location according to the theory, thus coefficients for acculturation variables are also going to be tested. Data is limited to Chinese residents that are 25 years and older. Residential location for the household is the dependent variable. A nested analysis is conducted for comparative purposes. Three categories are created to represent the enclave, the ethnoburb, and the rest of the DC metro area?the Chinatown PUMA, the Rockville PUMA, and the rest. Socioeconomic status variables include per capita household income, years of education (of the household head), occupational prestige (of the household head), and home ownership. The level of acculturation is measured by English language proficiency, citizenship, place of birth (foreign born/native born), and the year of immigration. Year of immigration is measured by five categories: the immigrant came to the United States before 1965, between 1965 and 1980, between 1981 and 1990, between 1991 and 2000, and after 2000. Family situation variables include the presence of children. Table 3 presents the general characteristics of Chinese residents in the DC area. Nearly one in fifth (18.3%) of Chinese immigrants live in the ethnoburb PUMA; while 2.4 percent live in the Chinatown PUMA; and the rest (79.3%) set their home in the rest localities of DC area. From Table 3, it seems that citizenship and English proficiency are not associated with residential location. Occupational prestige score does not seem to vary much across locations. Visible differences can be found in education, income, and year of immigration between enclave and ethnoburb residents; also between enclave residents and non-enclave non-ethnoburb residents. Presence of children also seems to be significant different among the three locations. This preliminary result is slightly different from Zhou and Logan?s (1991), but to what extent these variables have impacts on residential location will be tested later. Table 3. General Characteristics of Chinese Residents (25 Years of Age and Older) in the Greater DC Area, 2010 Chinatown PUMA Rockville PUMA Rest Total 78 589 2559 % 2.4 18.3 79.3 Education % Less than high school 23.1 9.0 10.4 % High school graduate 14.1 8.3 9.6 % Some college 10.3 8.5 9.8 % College degree earned 21.8 26.1 25.2 % Post college degree 30.8 48.0 45.2 Income Median household income 2010 62,346 116,580 116,605 Occupation Mean occupational prestige score (Nakao & Treas) 32.7 34.0 33.9 Year of Immigration % Foreign born 64.9 94.7 88.0 % Pre-1965 3.8 3.2 5.6 % 1965-1980 7.7 17.8 18.0 % 1981-1990 24.4 27.2 23.2 % 1991-2000 17.9 27.3 25.8 % post -2001 10.3 17.8 14.0 Citizenship % U.S. citizen 64.7 61.8 66.6 English Proficiency % Very Well 59.0 48.9 55.6 Presence of own children % With children 25.6 60.0 52.6 Model Description The procedure is to conduct binary logistic regression to estimate determinants of residential location. In the first model of the nested analysis, the dependent variable is whether the household lived in the Chinatown PUMA or in the rest of the DC area (coded 0 for Chinatown PUMA residence and 1 for the rest). In the second model of the nested analysis, the DC PUMA is dropped from the model. The dependent variable in the second model is whether the household lived in the Rockville PUMA or in the rest of the DC area (coded 0 for Rockville PUMA residence and 1 for the rest). Maps of the Chinatown PUMA (PUMA number 01005) and the Rockville PUMA (PUMA number 01003) are included in Appendix E. Socioeconomic status is measured by years of education the household head has completed, household income, and occupational prestige of the household head. Among these variables, years of education is represented by five dummy variables (less than high school, high school graduate, some college, Bachelor?s degree, and post Bachelor?s degree, with less than high school as the omitted category). Occupational prestige is following Nakao and Treas? measurement. Acculturation levels are measured by years of immigration, citizenship (coded 0 for non-citizen and 1 for U.S. citizen), place or birth (coded 0 for foreign-born and 1 for born in the U.S.), and English proficiency (coded 0 for limited English proficiency and 1 for speaking English only or very well). Years of immigration is represented by five dummy variables (immigrated before 1965, between 1965 and 1980, between 1981 and 1990, between 1991 and 2000, and immigrated after 2000, with before 1965 as the omitted category). For family situation, presence of children is included in the model (coded 0 for without children and 1 for with children present). Determinants of Residential Location The goal of the regression analysis is to test to what extent socioeconomic status and level of acculturation affect Chinese immigrants? residential location. Table 4 presents the factors predicting the residential location. In Model 1, the results are suggesting the odds of living outside of the enclave for the Chinese; while Model 2 predicts the odds of living in the non-ethnoburban suburb (the Chinatown PUMA is omitted in Model 2) for the Chinese. In Model 1, for socioeconomic variables, two out of the four education variables significantly increase the odds of non-enclave residence. If the household head holds a Bachelor?s degree, his/her household is more likely to move out of Chinatown. If the household head has finished graduate school, then the household is much more likely to live out of the enclave. Household income and occupational prestige score do not seem to have any significant effect on Chinese immigrants? residential locations. None of the acculturation variables show significant effect on residential locations of the Chinese. Having children in the household significantly increases the odds for the Chinese to live out of Chinatown. Model 2 shows very similar results to Model 1. As the Chinatown PUMA is omitted in Model 2, the determinants in this model are predicting the odds of living in the suburbs as opposed to the ethnoburb (Rockville PUMA). Again, education and presence of children have significant effects on the residential location. However, these effects are negative in Model 2. It indicates that the household head with a Bachelor?s degree or with a post Bachelor?s degree is more likely to stay in the ethnoburb, as opposed to the outer suburb. Having children in the household also increases the likelihood to live in the ethnoburb for Chinese families. Other socioeconomic variables, such as household income and occupational prestige, are not showing significant effect on residence. No significant effect is found for acculturation variables either. Table 4. Residence of the Chinese in DC MSA with Implied Odds Ratios, 2006-2010a Model 1: Enclave vs. the Restb Model 2: Ethnoburb vs. the Restb B S.E. Odds Ratio B S.E. Odds Ratio High school graduate .840 .561 2.316 -.024 .276 .976 Some college 1.175 .631 3.239 -.176 .279 .839 Bachelor?s degree 1.480* .573 4.395 -.587* .240 .556 Post Bachelor?s degree 1.992** .609 7.331 -.652** .240 .521 Household income .000 .000 1.000 .000 .000 1.000 Occ. Prestige Score .015 .019 1.015 .002 .005 1.002 Imm. 1965-1980 .112 1.140 1.118 -.455 .327 .634 Imm. 1981-1990 -.643 1.061 .526 -.470 .318 .625 Imm. 1991-2000 -.929 1.062 .395 -.257 .320 .773 Imm. post-2001 -.543 1.124 .581 -.334 .343 .716 Citizenship .149 .436 1.160 .285 .149 1.330 English proficiency -.734 .406 .480 .167 .116 1.182 Presence of children .838* .350 2.313 -.323** .112 .724 a The analysis is limited to Chinese householders 25 years of age or older. The source is ACS 5-year data, 2006-2010. b Model 1: N of the Enclave is 78; N of the Rest is 2,559. Model 2: N of the Enclave is 589; N of the Rest is 2,481. * p < .05 (one-tail) ** p < .01 (one-tail) The findings are partly consistent with the spatial assimilation theory. In Model 1, the significant effect of education on non-enclave residence conforms to the assimilation model. However, in Model 2, completion of higher education or graduate education is positively associated with ethnoburban residence. In other words, the first model suggests that completion of college and graduate school increases the likelihood of Chinese immigrants? exodus from Chinatown, which conforms to the assimilation model. Yet the second model suggests that completion of college and graduate school decreases the dispersion of Chinese immigrants in the suburbs. The Chinese seems to become less dispersed when they acquire more education, which conflicts with the assimilation model. Why do the Chinese get less dispersed as they acquire more education? Do acculturation factors matter at all for Chinese immigrants? residence? How important is having children in the household to Chinese immigrants in terms of their residential choice? More direct answers to these questions are drawn from the interviews in latter chapters. CHAPTER 5: QUALITATIVE METHODOLOGY AND RESPONDENTS DESCRIPTION In order to further explore the determinants of residential choices, qualitative methods are used in this project to capture lived experiences and perceptions of individual Chinese residents. This chapter focuses on the description of the qualitative methodology, including data collection, sample selection, and a demographic profile of the respondents. Data Collection and Sample Qualitative data for this project are collected mainly from in-depth, open-ended interviews. Fifteen interviews were conducted in the DC area between September 2011 and June 2012. Respondents included community leaders, Chinese organization leaders, Chinese business owners, professionals, and long-term residents of Chinatown as well as of Chinese ethnoburbs in the DC area. My sample is drawn from the District of Columbia as well as its suburbs. For respondents from the District of Columbia, I choose long-term residents of Chinatown to explore the change in Chinatown from individual perspectives. The majority of my respondents are Rockville residents because Rockville is the largest and the fastest growing Chinese ethnoburb in the DC area. I also selected a couple of respondents from McLean in order to represent perspectives from the non-ethnoburb suburban area. I use a snowball sampling method in selecting the respondents. First, I contacted the largest Chinese American organization in the local area, the Organization of Chinese Americans- DC Chapter (OCA-DC), and asked them to refer me to potential respondents after informing them of my research project. I was also able to work with the Chinatown Community Cultural Center (CCCC), a Chinese organization located in the DC Chinatown. With the great support and help from both organizations, I was able to approach community leaders, business owners, and Chinatown seniors for interviews. Moreover, I also participated in a couple community events held by the two organizations, which allowed me to conduct observation for my study. The size of my sample is 14. The interviewees were informed of the research purpose before interviewing. Interviews were done in Mandarin and/or English, depending on the respondent?s English proficiency and preference. Each interview ranged from 30 to 60 minutes in length. All interviews were conducted in a face-to-face setting except for one. Because of the busy schedule of the respondent, we had a 30- minute phone interview instead of doing a face-to-face talk. Before each interview, I let my informants read and sign the consent forms, and they were also asked to fill out a short paper survey asking their residence, age (in 5-year intervals), length in the United States, occupation, and family situation. Some interviews were audio-recorded with the permission of the interviewees. Written notes were taken for all interviews. All interviews are transcribed and non- English interviews are translated. For the sake of confidentiality, pseudonyms are used for the interviewees throughout the project. Interview questions focused on determinants of residential location decisions, their interaction patterns with members from other racial groups in the community, their experiences and perspectives of the changes in the Chinese community in DC, and their participation in transnational activities (included in Appendix C). Business directories, Chinese-language periodicals, and other documentary sources were also reviewed. From the interviews, respondents addressed the decline of Chinatown, the rise of Rockville as a Chinese ethnoburb, the factors that made them (or their friends/family members/neighbors) move to Rockville (or other suburban destination in the DC area), their perspectives of the change in the local Chinese community, their interactions with other community members, and their perspectives and involvement of transnational connections (results are discussed in later chapters). In addition to the interviews, ethnographic fieldwork and observations were conducted in 2011. I attended two Chinese community events organized by the OCA-DC and the CCCC. First, I attended the annual OCA-DC Gala to observe the program of the event, the demography of participants, and their behaviors and interactions at the event. I also approached several event organizers (who are board members of the OCA-DC) and participants to learn about their perceptions. Second, I participated a DC Chinatown documentary screening and seminar organized by the CCCC, where I conducted interviews with several participants in addition to the observation. Field notes were taken at both events and were revised to add more details afterwards. Positionality My identity has a great impact on the research. I am a female Chinese graduate student, born and raised in a big city of China. I used to live in Rockville and now I live in Reston. Therefore I am familiar with the suburbs in both Maryland and Virginia. My identity and residence made my interviewees view me as an ?insider,? and the interviewer-interviewee dynamic usually took the form of a friendly and sharing conversation. Language is another important factor of creating the ?insider? atmosphere. As a native speaker in Mandarin, respondents who speak English as their second language have the option to communicate with me in their native language. This not only avoided misunderstandings, but also ensured that interviewees could describe complex stories without difficulty. During the interviews, respondents used a lot of ?we/us/our? when describing feelings and experiences, like ?our community.? They were willing to share their stories with me; they often said, ?I?m glad you are asking me these questions,? and ?I?m happy you are doing this research.? Thus, I feel I have the privilege in collecting the interview data due to my identity and the language I speak. Despite the privileges, being a Chinese researcher also has disadvantages. Since Mandarin was used for some interviews, I had to translate these interview transcripts into English afterwards. Even though I tried my best to maintain the original meanings of my interviewees? original words, in the process of translating, I acknowledge that some narratives may have lost some of their original meanings, and this problem cannot be completely avoided. A Demographic Profile of Respondents In this section, I outline the profile of each respondent in this project. As aforementioned, pseudonyms are given to protect their privacy. Also, broad categories of their occupations are used for the same purpose. Mr. Wei Wei is a first-generation Chinese immigrant living in Rockville. He is now in his mid- thirties. Originally from a northern province of China, Wei came to the United States for graduate school about 15 years ago. After obtaining his PhD in a Bio-Science major, he began working as a research scientist at a research-focused company in another state. About eight years ago, he accepted a job offer at NIH and moved his family to Rockville. At the time of the interview, he was a father-to-be. Wei is an active participant and sometimes the organizer of the Chinese Student and Scholar Association at NIH. Ms. Sun Sun is a first-generation Chinese immigrant in her mid-thirties. She came to the United States for graduate school after completing her college degree in Shanghai, where her hometown is. She worked as a post-doctoral research fellow in an American university after she graduated with her PhD in humanities. She was offered an assistant professor position in a university in Beijing, which is her dream job. However, Sun?s husband has a full-time job in Rockville. The couple keeps their house in Rockville where Sun?s husband lives. Sun spends most of her time in Beijing when the semesters start, and visits her husband during summer and winter breaks. She considers herself a ?semi-resident? in both Beijing and Rockville. Mr. Ming Ming is a first-generation Chinese immigrant in his late thirties. He has been living in the United States for over 15 years and has about 10 years of work experience in this country. He first came to the United States as a graduate student. After receiving two Master?s degrees, he began working. Over these years, his immigration status has changed from an F1 student visa, to an H1-B work visa, to permanent residency, and then to naturalized citizenship. Now he works part-time at a medical equipment company in DC area and lives with his wife and two children in McLean. He started his own business in Shanghai in 2009, which turns him to a transnational resident. He travels frequently between China and the United States. He also communicates with his business partners and clients in China remotely while he is in the United States. Mr. Kuo Kuo is a 1.5 generation5 Chinese immigrant from a northern province in China. He immigrated to the United States as a teenager. He completed high school and college in upper New York state. Now in his mid-thirties, he works at a financial service firm in McLean, where he has worked since graduation from college. A father of a six-years-old, Kuo used to live in Herndon and now lives in McLean. Ms. Yee Yee is a first-generation Rockville resident. Her husband and she migrated from Taiwan to the United States in the late 1980s. They owned a hair salon in Taiwan, so they brought with them the capital, skills, and experiences with running a salon business when they came to the States. They lived in Wheaton for a short period of time after they moved to the United States. After some research and comparison, they chose Rockville to 5 1.5 generation refers to people who immigrate at their early teen ages. open their hair salon as well as to purchase a house. Their salon has celebrated its 20th anniversary. Mr. Tong Tong is a first-generation Taiwanese immigrant and Gaithersburg resident. He is in his late forties. He came to the United States in the 1990s for graduate school, after graduating from college in Taiwan. He holds a degree in Accounting and used to work for big accounting firms. In the early 2000s, he opened his own accounting and tax service business. His business and home are both located in Gaithersburg. Mr. and Mrs. Chin The Chin couple were both born and raised in DC Chinatown. They are Chinatown old- timers. Mr. Chin?s father used to own a small Chinese restaurant, but had to close it and retired in the 1990s. Ms. Chin?s parents are early immigrants from Taishan, Guangdong?a southern province of China where the majority of pre-1965 Chinese immigrants are from. The Chin couple has almost spent their entire life in DC Chinatown. Now, both are in their late sixties and are retired, they still enjoy living in Chinatown. Their two children were born and raised in Chinatown, but both children chose to move to Northern Virginia after college. Although having the option to live with their children in Virginia, the Chin couple prefers staying in Chinatown and only visiting their children periodically. Mr. and Mrs. Chin are both active members of the CCCC and are working hard on advocating for Chinatown preservation. Mr. Lee A first-generation Taiwanese immigrant and Rockville resident, Lee has been living in Rockville since 1986. He is in his mid-forties. Lee works full time as a non-profit organization executive. He is also a board member of several Chinese organizations in the DC area. He considers himself an active ?community worker.? Mr. Lok Lok is a second-generation Chinese American born in DC Chinatown. His parents are originally from Taishan, which is also Mrs. Chin?s parents? and many early Chinatown residents? hometown. Now, in his mid-forties, Lok is an attorney and lives in DC. Considering himself a Chinatown old-timer, Lok is well aware of the decline in Chinatown. He voluntarily works with the CCCC and other Chinese organizations on Chinatown preservation. Mr. Chang Chang is a second-generation Chinese American and is in his early seventies. Born in the South, he moved to the DC area several decades ago and he is now a Wheaton resident. Before his retirement about 10 years ago, he worked for a non-profit organization in DC. Now that he is retired, he devotes his time to the Chinese community. He works actively on organizing community events and advocating for community empowerment. Ms. Lau Lau is a second-generation Rockville resident. She was born and raised in Rockville. She attended college in another state, but a job offer made her move back. She is in her late fifties. Lau is a long-term member of a Chinese church in Rockville. Though her church as well as from her own observation, she has witnessed the dramatic change in Rockville over the past decades. Ms. Chao Chao is a 1.5-generation Chinese immigrant from Guangdong province. She is now in her late forties and lives with her husband and one child in Gaithersburg. She works in the government. Chao is a member of a Chinese organization. Attending and organizing community events makes her feel accomplished. Ms. Zeng Zeng is in her early thirties. She came to the United States after finishing one year of high school in China. She continued her high school in Maryland and attended a college in Virginia. After her graduation, she decided to be an individual entrepreneur. She has an online retail store that caters to consumers in China. She sells clothing and shoes that she purchases in the United States and sends to her Chinese costumers. Although she needs to travel to China several times a year, she spends most of her time at her house in North Potomac. Limitations Due to time constraints and resource limitations, the sample of this project is limited in the following aspects: first, among many localities in the DC metro area, only seven are represented: Rockville, Chinatown, DC, McLean, Gaithersburg, Wheaton, and North Potomac. Given that the ethnic enclave (Chinatown) and the ethnoburb (Rockville) are the focus of this project, the sample is able to serve the research goal. For future research, a wider range of localities will ensure more comparative studies. Second, the sample is exclusively Chinese. Although the demographic data provides some comparison between non-Hispanic Whites and Chinese, other racial groups such as Blacks and Hispanics, are omitted in this project. Future research should explore more interracial interaction, and its impacts on residential patterns. CHAPTER 6: DEMOGRAPHIC TRENDS OF THE CHINESE COMMUNITY IN DC AREA In this chapter, I provide a detailed description of the setting of this project, the DC metropolitan area. Using Census data from 1970 to 2010, I portray the demographic change of the Chinese community in DC over the past 50 years. I also identify important ethnoburbs as case examples and review the demographic changes at each locality. The Greater Washington, DC Area, known by the United States Census Bureau as the Washington-Arlington-Alexandria, DC-VA-MD-WV Metropolitan Statistical Area, is home to 91,291 Chinese Americans, representing 1.6 percent of the total metropolitan population of 5,582,170 according to the 2010 U.S. Census. Metropolitan DC is very multiethnic, and Chinese is the fifth largest ethnic group in the area. DC?s Chinese community is the ninth largest Chinese community in the nation as of 2010. However, DC?s Chinese community is one of the fastest growing communities. Between 1970 and 2010, DC?s Chinese population has increased by 1015.71 percent, which is a much faster than the increase rate of the nation?s Chinese population (675.65%). As seen in many other cities in the United States, the 1965 Immigration Act resulted in a large influx of new Chinese immigrants to the DC metro area. For the new immigrants with education, skills, and capital, Chinatown could no longer cope with their needs for employment and housing. Since 1965, Chinese newcomers began to bring changes to the residential pattern in DC. The Chinese residents are scattered through the metro area as opposed to congregating in one community. For nearly 50 years, Chinese have been moving into Maryland communities?such as Rockville, Gaithersburg, and Germantown?that make up the northern suburbs of DC. Chinese are also showing a preference for communities in Virginia, including McLean and Fairfax, which make up the capital?s southern suburbs. Chinese Residential Patterns in DC Metro Area: 1970-2010 Before the rise of ethnoburbs, Chinatown and downtown DC constituted the largest and most important Chinese community in the DC metro area. In 1970, approximately one third (29.2%) of DC?s Chinese people lived in Chinatown, which accounted for 31.5 percent of the total Chinatown population (Table 5, p. 151). Besides Chinatown, there was no Chinese community in the DC area with comparable density. Rockville, the largest Chinese ethnoburb today, was a small community with 114 Chinese that only accounted for 0.3 percent of the city?s population, whereas the share of the White population was 92.3 percent. The share of the Chinese population in other popular ethnoburbs in the DC area, such as Gaithersburg, North Potomac, Alexandria, Arlington, Fairfax, and McLean, was also extremely low?all below 0.5 percent (Table 5). Before the rise of Rockville, Wheaton-Glenmont (Wheaton for convenience) use to be a popular destination for both new immigrants and ex-Chinatown residents, as evidenced in some interviews. In 1970, the Chinese population in Wheaton was 377, accounting for 0.6 percent of the city?s population. Silver Spring, a city adjacent to Wheaton, had 419 Chinese residents. The two cities had the largest Chinese populations in 1970 besides Chinatown (Table 5). In 1980, the Chinese became the dominant group in Chinatown for the first time?accounting for 41.8 percent of the total Chinatown population, while Whites accounted for 22.2 percent. The Chinese population (484) in Chinatown also significantly surpassed the White population (257). In DC suburbs, the Chinese population experienced a much faster increase. While Chinatown?s Chinese population increased by 29 percent, the Chinese populations in Rockville and Alexandria increased five times; and almost eight times in Gaithersburg. Wheaton and Silver Spring still had fairly large Chinese populations, 939 and 665, respectively. However, Arlington surpassed these two cities and Chinatown, became the city with the largest Chinese population (1,033). Budding Chinese clusters emerged in DC?s suburban areas. By 1980, almost 78 percent of DC?s Chinese people chose to live in the suburbs. The GIS map echoes the demography. In general, the Chinese settlement in DC has become more and more dispersed from 1970 to 1980 (Appendix A: Map 1 and Map 2), yet, the Chinese population was sparse in the suburbs until 1980. From the 1980 map, we can clearly see the emergence of Chinese ethnoburbs in Montgomery County, Prince George?s County, and Arlington County (Appendix A: Map 2). The 1980s is the booming stage for many Chinese ethnoburbs in the DC metro area. As of 1990, over 90 percent (92.0%) of the Chinese were suburbanites (Table 5). In addition to Rockville, there are quite a few suburban cities experiencing noticeable increases in Chinese populations since 1980, as evidenced in Table 5 and Table 6 (p. 152). Chinatown, however, only had a slight increase in Chinese population between 1980 and 1990?from 484 to 514. Chinatown was also losing its White residents at a much higher rate over this decade. The White population dropped from 257 to 91, and the share of Whites in Chinatown declined from 22.2 percent to 11.6 percent. The total population of Chinatown decreased from 1,157 to 787 as well, which signaled the decline of Chinatown and the exodus of its residents. Rockville, Potomac, Wheaton, and Arlington, each had over 1,500 Chinese residents, became the four largest Chinese communities in the DC area. North Potomac and Gaithersburg also witnessed significant increases in their Chinese populations. Gaithersburg gained some 1,000 Chinese residents over these 10 years (Table 5). Montgomery County, especially the northwestern part of the county, became an area of the largest Chinese concentration. The DC metro area now had two noticeable Chinese ethnoburbs: one was located in the northwestern part of Montgomery County, with Rockville as its center; and the other was located in the north part of Virginia, with Arlington and its adjacent cities as the central area. From the 1990 map (Appendix A: Map 3), the growth of Chinese ethnoburbs was evident between 1980 and 1990. By 1990, many tracts in the northwestern part of Montgomery County had more than 500 Chinese residents; some even had more than 1,000 Chinese residents. As evidenced in Table 6, between 1980 and 1990, many localities in Montgomery County experienced the greatest growth in Chinese population. Rockville and Potomac each had over a 100 percent increase in Chinese residents (134.2% and 172.0%, respectively). Gaithersburg experienced over a 400 percent rise in its Chinese population, whereas the city?s overall population only increased by less than 50 percent. Germantown, a city with 9.721 residents in 1980, witnessed 323.3 percent increase in its total population; and its Chinese population increased from 84 in 1980 to 468 in 1990 (457.1%). In 2000, it is evident that the ethnoburb in Rockville was not only growing significantly, but it had also formed its own center. All the tracts with 1,000 or more Chinese were located in the ethnoburbs; downtown Chinatown, with 450 Chinese residents, was no longer a recognizable cluster for Chinese (Appendix A: Map 4). Since 2000, Chinatown?s Chinese residents lost their dominance. While the Chinese population kept dropping in Chinatown (decreased by 12.5%), the White population skyrocketed to over 700 percent. With only 91 White residents in 1990, the DC Chinatown gained 650 more White residents from 1990 to 2000. This decade was obviously a booming stage for Chinatown in general. The Verizon Center (formerly known as the MCI Center), opened in 1997, attracted many retailers, tourists, and residents to Chinatown. Chinatown went through a significant transition over this decade. On the one hand, it gained more residents and businesses, and experienced a rise in its property values and rent, while on the other hand, it began to lose its Chinese residents and Chinese businesses. In short, Chinatown became more commercialized but less ?Chinese.? Compared to the last decade, the growth in Maryland ethnoburbs became slower between 1990 and 2000. Rockville, Gaithersburg, Germantown, and North Potomac still experienced approximately a 90 to 150 percent increase in their Chinese population, whereas Silver Spring and Wheaton began to lose their popularity among Chinese residents. Silver Spring experienced a slight decline (3.3%) in its Chinese population and Wheaton had a small increase (22.8%). Similarly, in Virginia, the two Inner Core localities?Alexandria and Arlington, both had a moderate increase in their Chinese population; whereas further down to the West of DC, a new Chinese residential cluster was emerging in Reston. Between 1990 and 2000, the Chinese population increased by 521.9 percent in Reston, far surpassing the city?s increase in its total population (16.2%). From 2000 to 2010, Chinatown continued to lose its Chinese residents with a decline rate of 12 percent. White residents, for the first time since 1970, regained their dominance in Chinatown. The percentage of Whites was 63.8 percent in Chinatown, while the Chinese represented only 14 percent of the total Chinatown population in 2010. Silver Spring and Wheaton were also experiencing a loss in their Chinese residents over this decade (5.7% and 31.7%, respectively). However, unlike Chinatown, which was growing rapidly (92.5% increase in total population), Silver Spring and Wheaton were slowly declining (6.6% and 16.3%, respectively). In contrast, Germantown, a further suburb to the Northwest of DC neighboring Gaithersburg, was a blooming Chinese ethnoburb. Germantown?s Chinese residents increased almost three times (298.2%) between 2000 and 2010, while the city?s population only increased by 55.9 percent. In Virginia, most localities with noticeable Chinese populations were growing except for Reston. Reston had experienced a sharp gain in its Chinese residents during the 1990-2000 decade, but began to see a decline from 2000 to 2010. The Chinese population in Reston dropped by 49.4 percent. In sum, the general trend of Chinese residential patterns in the DC metro area is becoming more dispersed and more towards the farther suburbs in Maryland and Virginia. In Maryland, despite the largest ethnoburb in DC area, Rockville, which is also the center of Chinese businesses, many satellite ethnoburbs were emerging and growing rapidly, such as North Potomac, Gaithersburg, and Germantown. Virginia, however, is witnessing a slightly different pattern. Instead of forming a centralized ethnoburb, the Chinese in Virginia are residentially scattered. There are smaller clusters in many localities, such as Alexandria, Arlington, McLean, and Reston, yet, none of them is comparable to Rockville in size and concentration. Examples: Localities with Greatest Growth in Chinese Population, 1970-2010 Rockville, Wheaton, Gaithersburg, Germantown, and McLean are suburbs in the DC metro area that have experienced the greatest growth in Chinese populations at different times from 1970 to 2010. Respondents from the project also represent these localities. According to Table 6, most localities experienced the fastest growth in their Chinese populations between 1970 and 1980?the increase rate was 462.3 percent for Rockville, 531.6 percent for Gaithersburg, 149.1 percent for Wheaton, and 1088.9 percent for McLean. The following sections outline the characteristics of each locality and list the factors that Chinese residents are likely to be interested in. Rockville: The Largest Chinese Ethnoburb in the DC Area Rockville is widely known among DC locals for the large concentration of Chinese residents and Chinese businesses. DC?s Chinese proudly refer to Rockville as ?DC?s Monterey Park,? although it is much smaller than Monterey Park in size and Chinese population. Located at the core of Montgomery County, approximately 15 miles northwest of downtown DC, the city of Rockville is home to 5,278 Chinese, representing 8.6 percent of the city?s total population of 61,209 (U.S. Census Bureau 2010). Before turning into a Chinese ethnoburb and a multiethnic community, Rockville was dominated by White residents in 1970 (92.3%). In 2010, the racial composition was: 52.8 percent non-Hispanic White, 20.6 percent Asian, 14.3 percent Latino, and 9.6 percent Black (Figure 1). Figure 1: Racial Composition of Rockville, 2010 Rockville is a major hub of high-tech and bio-tech industries in the DC metro area, ranging from software, biotechnology, to data management. Lockheed Martin Information Systems, Westat, Booz Allen Hamilton, Quest Software, BAE Systems, and Shire Pharmaceuticals are among the top 20 employers in Rockville (City of Rockville, Annual Financial Report 2011). Known for their high concentration in the Science and Technology fields, large numbers of Chinese employees can be found in these companies. Many Chinese choose Rockville as their settlement destination for the proximity to work. From Table 7, Rockville and Gaithersburg are the two Chinese ethnoburbs in Maryland that residents tend to travel less to work than other localities; whereas in Virginia, Arlington and McLean are the two places that residents tend to travel less. This could be due to the hubs of professional work-sites in Rockville and McLean. On average, residents of the two localities as well as nearby residents do not have to spend too much time on their commute. Table 7: Mean Travel Time to Work for Residents in Selected Localities in DC MSA, 2010 Mean Travel Time to Work in Selected Localities, 2010 City Travel Time (Minutes) Chinatown, DC 20.7 Arlington CDP, VA 26.5 McLean CDP, VA 28.0 Reston CDP, VA 28.5 Alexandria City, VA 29.6 Gaithersburg City, MD 30.6 Rockville City, MD 30.7 Fairfax City, VA 31.4 Potomac CDP, MD 31.5 North Potomac CDP, MD 33.9 Silver Spring CDP, MD 34.2 Wheaton-Glenmont CDP, MD 34.5 Germantown CDP, MD 34.7 Source: Selected Economic Characteristics: 2006-2010 ACS 5-Year Estimates On average, the educational level of Rockville residents (25 years and older) is fairly high. Almost 90 percent (89.1%) have completed high school or higher, 52.9 percent have Bachelor?s or higher degrees, and 28.6 percent have graduate or professional degrees. Rockville is also home to top-ranked public schools, such as Thomas Wootton High School and Richard Montgomery High School (U.S. News 2012). As Chinese immigrants always emphasize education, they are attracted to Rockville for its high-quality public school systems. Wheaton: Diverse Multiethnic Community The city of Wheaton is approximately 10 miles north of downtown DC. Like its neighbor, Silver Spring, Wheaton has a ?stunningly? diverse resident body (Price and Singer 2008, 150). Out of 48,284 total residents, non-Hispanic Whites only account for less than 30 percent, while Latinos are the largest racial group in Wheaton (Figure 2). Wheaton used to be exclusively White in 1970 (96.2%), but the city experienced a significant demographic shift since 1990, featuring a dramatic increase in its minority and foreign-born populations. Between 1990 and 2010, Wheaton?s Latino population has increased from 13 percent to 42 percent (U.S. Census Bureau 1990; 2010). In comparison, Wheaton has experienced a rapid increase in its Chinese population between 1970 and 1980 (149.1%), but the increase rate slowed down since 1990 and the Chinese population declined by 31.7 percent between 2000 and 2010 (Table 6). Unlike Rockville, there are not many major firms establishing their headquarters in Wheaton. Rather, thanks to its multiethnic demography, Wheaton has been designated by the State of Maryland as an Arts and Entertainment District (Montgomery County Government News Release 2005). According to the County Executive Douglas Duncan, ?this is a well-deserved honor for Wheaton, especially given its diverse mix of ethnic restaurants, expanding arts community and, of course, the world-renowned Chuck Levin?s Washington Music Center? (Montgomery County Government News Release 2005). Widely known for its ethnic and cultural diversity, Wheaton is a community ?filled with mom-and-pop restaurants and small grocery stores? (Price and Singer 2008, 151). Compared to Rockville, the educational level of Wheaton residents is much lower. Less than 80 percent (78.1%) have completed high school or higher, 34.2 percent have Bachelor?s or higher degrees, and 15.5 percent hold graduate or professional degrees. Meanwhile, it is also difficult to find a high-ranked public school in Wheaton. Given the scarce professional employment opportunities in Wheaton and the less ideal school system, Wheaton may not seem like a top-choice destination for recent Chinese immigrants who are middle class and well educated. As a result, today?s Chinese residents in Wheaton are more likely to be working class and are either self-employed or work in ethnic businesses. Along Georgia Avenue and Randolph Road, Chinese restaurants and small stores are neighboring those ?mom-and-pop restaurants and small grocery stores,? mostly owned by ethnic minorities. Many of Wheaton?s Chinese residents used to be Chinatown residents or Chinatown workers. Figure 2: Racial Composition of Wheaton, 2010 Gaithersburg and Germantown: Newer and Farther Ethnoburbs Gaithersburg and Germantown, both located to the northwest of downtown DC, are two neighboring cities of Montgomery County. Due to similar demographic profiles and histories of growth, the two cities are examined in the same section. In 1970, the two cities were places with small populations that were exclusively White. Yet, both cities emerged as clusters of Chinese residents and businesses after the development of Rockville. In other words, they are newer Chinese ethnoburbs, but farther in the suburbs of DC. In 2010, there were 3,203 Chinese residents in Gaithersburg, accounting for 5.3 percent of the city?s population; whereas the Chinese population of Germantown is 4,321, representing 5 percent of its total population. The rapid increase in Chinese population took place in Gaithersburg between 1980 and 1990. Over those 10 years, the Chinese population in Gaithersburg increased from 240 to 1,220. The Chinese population in Germantown did not reach 1,000 until 2000. Between 2000 and 2010, Germantown experienced a similar increase in its Chinese population?the amount of Chinese residents increased from 1,085 to 4,321 (Table 5). In addition to the rapid growth of Chinese populations, both cities experienced the increase in the share of ethnic minorities as well as new immigrants. As of 2010, only 40 percent of Gaithersburg residents are non-Hispanic Whites; similarly, 36.3 percent of Germantown residents are White (Figure 3 and 4). Neighboring Rockville, Gaithersburg and Germantown are located close enough to those high-tech and bio-tech firms that employ many Chinese immigrants. However, Gaithersburg and Germantown are much more affordable in terms of housing, especially Germantown (Price and Singer 2008, 152). In 2009, the estimated median house or condo value in Germantown was $340,200, which was lower than that of Wheaton ($355,600) and Gaithersburg ($372,100), and much lower than that of Rockville ($488,900) (Table 8). Table 8: Estimated Median Home Value in Selected Localities in DC MSA, 2010 Estimated Median Home Value in Selected Localities, 2010 City Value ($) McLean CDP, VA 887,300 Potomac CDP, MD 868,200 North Potomac CDP, MD 628,900 Arlington CDP, VA 574,900 Rockville City, MD 488,900 Chinatown, DC 476,000 Alexandria City, VA 473,500 Fairfax City, VA 473,200 Silver Spring CDP, MD 455,000 Reston CDP, VA 422,600 Gaithersburg City, MD 372,100 Wheaton-Glenmont CDP, MD 355,600 Germantown CDP, MD 340,200 Source: Selected Housing Characteristics: 2008-2010 ACS 3-Year Estimates Although public schools in the two cities are not as high-ranking as Rockville schools, Chinese immigrants still consider moving to Gaithersburg or Germantown due to its proximity to Rockville?the center of professional work sites and Chinese businesses, with a much more affordable living cost. Similarly, many Chinese business owners choose to open their businesses in Gaithersburg and Germantown for the cheaper rents. With the continuous growth in Chinese residents and businesses, Gaithersburg and Germantown began to transform into satellite Chinese ethnoburbs. Figure 3: Racial Composition of Gaithersburg, 2010 Figure 4: Racial Composition of Germantown, 2010 McLean: Perfect Location, High Cost Located only 10 miles from downtown DC, McLean is known for its great location. McLean is home to many major companies? headquarters including Capital One, MicroStrategy, Science Applications International Corporation, Freddie Mac, and Hilton Worldwide Corporate. Next to Tysons Corner Center, which is the largest high-end shopping mall in the DC metro area, there are about ten high-rise office buildings where Ernest & Young, Deloitte, PricewaterhouseCoopers, KPMG, MITRE and many other companies call home. The concentration of so many major companies makes McLean, with a total 18.5 square miles of land, becomes the financial and business triangle of DC area. Moreover, the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) is also located in McLean. Thanks to the closeness to DC, easy access to the metro line, and concentration of major professional work sites, McLean is home to a great number of high-ranking government officials, Congress and Senate members, corporate executives, as well as high-skilled professionals (Crowley 2006). Packed with highly influential people in the country?s politics and economy, McLean has been given another name??home of America?s ruling class? (Crowley 2006) Furthermore, the school district of McLean is also excellent. From elementary schools to high schools, many nationally top-ranked public schools are located in McLean. Given its perfect location, great school system, and concentration of businesses, McLean is among the most popular places to live in the DC area. In turn, home values in McLean are the highest in the area. The estimated median home value in McLean is $887,300, which is twice more expensive than homes in Gaithersburg, Germantown, and Wheaton (Table 8). Back in 1970, McLean was a town with 98 percent White residents and only 27 Chinese. Four decades later, McLean is still predominately White, but the Chinese population is 1,984 and accounts for 4.1 percent of the city?s total population. In addition to Chinese, Asian Indians and Koreans are also present in noticeable numbers in McLean, making Asian the second largest group in McLean (Figure 5). Overall, although McLean is the ideal residential location in many ways, its high real estate values may be beyond what many Chinese immigrants can afford. As a result, nearby cities with lower living costs like Arlington, Alexandria, and Fairfax are among Chinese immigrants? popular choices. Figure 5: Racial Composition of McLean, 2010 Table 9: Comparison of Suburban Localities in DC Area Locality Professional Work Sites School District Racial Composition House Value Class of Chinese Residents Ethnic Business Rockville Many Excellent Diverse Above average Middle Concentrated Gaithersburg A few Acceptable Diverse Affordable Working and Middle Dispersed Wheaton Few Not ideal Very diverse Low Working Small clusters McLean Many Excellent White- dominant Highest in DC MSA Upper- middle Dispersed CHAPTER 7: PUSH AND PULL FACTORS: THE DECLINE OF CHINATOWN AND THE RISE OF THE ETHNOBURB ?For education, for work, and for better neighborhoods.? --Mrs. Chin, 2nd generation Chinese American, Chinatown Resident As evidenced in the previous chapter, the Chinese community in DC?s Chinatown has gone through tremendous decline since the 1990s; meanwhile, ethnoburbs in Maryland and Virginia have received increasing numbers of Chinese residents. In general, early Chinese immigrants in Chinatown share similar backgrounds in their socioeconomic statuses and geographic origins. Chinese residents in the ethnoburbs, however, are made up of people with diverse backgrounds?from first generation to second or third generation, from working class restaurant workers to upper-class bankers, and from Shanghainese to Taiwanese?and like their different backgrounds, they all have different reasons and concerns when choosing to move to the ethnoburb. This chapter explores the determinants of this change through analyzing the interviews with Chinatown residents as well as ethnoburbanites. By sharing what they have been through or what they have observed in their communities, the interviewees help us understand the change in DC?s Chinese community from individual perspectives. For a person or a household, choosing where to live is one of the most important decisions. Determinants of their decisions are always complex and multi-dimension. Although different households may have different concerns and priorities, it is evident that three major determinants can be generalized from the interviews: work, education, and convenience. Proximity to work, good school districts, and easy access to ethnic businesses and services are among the top priorities for Chinese immigrants when they are deciding where to settle down. However, these are by no means the only concerns. Homebuyers will consider factors like affordability, potential resale value, and many more. In this chapter, the three major determinants that are evidenced in the interviews? work, education, and convenience?will be discussed. The Shift of Employment Opportunities Many post-1965 Chinese immigrants are well equipped with education, skills, and capital upon their arrival; therefore, they no longer rely upon the ethnic job opportunities in Chinatown as their predecessors did. Pre-1965 immigrants were forced to live and work in Chinatowns due to limited resources and scarce choices. Recent Chinese immigrants as well as the younger generation Chinese Americans are more likely to find employment opportunities in the mainstream labor force. Large numbers of Chinese are employed at high-tech, bio-tech, and financial services firms as well as research institutions located in hubs of industries such as Rockville, Bethesda, McLean, and Arlington. All of the McLean resident respondents said they chose to settle in their current neighborhoods either because they ?work in McLean? or it is ?convenient to go to work.? Mr. Kuo, a 1.5 generation McLean resident since the early 2000s, confirmed that at his company, a financial industry, a large proportion of his co-workers are Chinese and many of them live in McLean or nearby cities such as Vienna, Falls Church, and Fairfax. Coming to the United States as a teenager, Kuo has spent over 20 years in this country. He went to high school and college in up-state New York. After graduating with his Bachelor?s degree, he received a job offer in McLean. ?I thought about living in McLean,? said Kuo, ?but as a fresh college grad with an entry-level job, I just couldn?t afford it.? Although rent was much cheaper a decade ago, it was still beyond the budget for Kuo. He settled in Herndon for several years. During that period of time, he got married and had a child. ?Then I wanted to live closer to McLean. The shorter commute allows me to spend more time with my family. I can help out if they need me. When I lived in Herndon and my child was little, there was one time that he got sick and I was at work, so my wife called me. I immediately asked for personal leave and headed home. But it took me at least 30 minutes to get home. On that day, the 30 minutes felt like 30 hours for me when I was driving and worrying about my kid?So, I decided to buy a house in McLean. Now, my commute is less than 10 minutes.? For people with families, proximity to work means not only convenience, but also provides better balance between work and family. Similarly, Rockville is a popular place to live also because of its proximity to professional work sites. According to Mr. Lee, a first-generation Rockville resident since 1986, ?More and more Chinese moved to Rockville in the late 1980s and 1990s, mainly because of employment opportunities.? Ms. Chao moved from another state to Rockville due to a job offer from NIH. Mr. Ming chose to purchase a house in McLean partially because it is convenient for him to go to work. Similarly, respondents who are Gaithersburg residents said they liked the location for its proximity to work. Chinatown residents are also well aware of the shift in employment along with the shift in residence. Younger-generation Chinatown residents are likely to move out to the suburbs for entrepreneurial and professional opportunities. As Mrs. Chin, a second generation Chinatown resident who has been living in DC Chinatown for over 50 years, noted: Our kids were born and raised in Chinatown. For college, my son went to UMD (University of Maryland) and my daughter went to UMUC (University of Maryland University College). After their graduation from college, they both found jobs in NoVA (Northern Virginia). Now both of them are living in NoVA?my son lives in Arlington, and my daughter lives in Alexandria. Meanwhile, although the urban development in Chinatown in the 1990s has turned an ethnic enclave into a prosperous place that attracts continuous waves of tourists, it also caused Chinatown to lose its ?Chineseness? and Chinese residents. Despite the exodus of the younger generation, many Chinatown old-timers had to move out because of the high rent. As more and more chain businesses (i.e., McDonald?s, Ann Taylor) open their stores in Chinatown, the rent skyrocketed so much that many Chinatown business owners could no longer afford it. Mr. Chin?s father used to own a small Chinese restaurant in Chinatown. Since the 1990s, due to the increase in rent, the profit became worse day by day. Finally Chin?s father closed the restaurant and retired. Chin remembered that was ?a hard decision? for his father, ?we supported his retirement, it was good for his health anyway, but we all knew he was quite reluctant to close it. He wasn?t planning to?he kinda had to close it.? Mr. Lok, who was born in Chinatown but now works as an attorney and lives in DC, still identifies himself as a Chinatown old-timer. He has witnessed the change in Chinatown and shared his insights: The essence of DC Chinatown has become so commercialized. The Chinese community has now been severely diminished. Many Chinese businesses and families had to leave Chinatown simply because of high property taxes and unaffordable rent. As an old-timer, it is very sad and disheartening to see this change. People have argued that this change may have been a natural evolution, but it was clearly driven by the lack of economic or financial incentives offered to encourage the development and expansion of DC Chinatown where Chinese businesses and families could survive and thrive. The preferential treatment of big business over the support of Chinese business owners and residents was the key reason. As evidenced in the interviews, post-1965 immigrants and Chinatown?s younger generation have more opportunities in the mainstream labor force. In turn, they are more likely to settle in localities where professional work sites concentrate. Chinatown then loses its younger-generation residents and no longer has the influx of new immigrants. Rent and property tax skyrocketed due to commercialization in Chinatown since the 1990s, many old-timers were forced to move out and Chinese business owners had to close or move their Chinatown businesses. All these factors caused the decline in Chinatown?s Chinese population. The shift in employment opportunities is also an important determinant of residential choice. The Importance of Education Chinese parents are known for their emphasis on their children?s education (Li 2009; Zhou 2009). As a result, it is not surprising that many respondents put the quality of the school district at the top of their priority lists when it comes to residential choice. The exodus from Chinatown, especially the exodus of Chinatown?s younger-generation, is partially due to education. Mr. and Mrs. Chin, who were both born and raised in Chinatown and have lived in Chinatown for their entire lives, shared their story. Both of their parents were first-generation immigrants from Taishan, Guangdong (a province in southern China), where the majority of early DC Chinatown immigrants are from. The chain migration successfully moved almost the entire village to the United States. When newcomers made their way to enter the country, they joined their relatives and friends in DC Chinatown and would not even consider other places to reside. People move out of Chinatown for education, for work, and for better neighborhoods? Chinatown is not the nicest neighborhood in DC area, and doesn?t have good schools either. We both went to the Thomson Elementary School here in Chinatown. For schools, there are definitely better choices in Maryland and NoVA (Northern Virginia). The younger generation also prefers to live in the suburbs after they grow up. Now that they have the choice, they want their kids to go to better schools. Rockville, the largest ethnoburb and the most popular suburban destination for Chinese immigrants in the DC area, is well known for its high-quality public school systems. It is home to top-ranked public schools such as Thomas Wootton High School and Richard Montgomery High School (U.S. News 2012). McLean is also known for its excellent school systems. From elementary schools to high schools, many nationally top- ranked public schools are located in McLean. For respondents who are Rockville or McLean residents, ?school district? and ?education? are significant determinants of their residential choices. Despite the short commute to work, another important reason that made Mr. Kuo move to McLean from Herndon was his kid?s education. He always knew the strength of McLean?s school district, yet having his own child gave him the push to finally move to McLean. In his words: I am a finance guy, so I always weigh costs and benefits. McLean is a great, great location and great school district?I knew it since the very beginning. But it costs a lot to live in McLean. After I had my own kid, it was totally worth it. I want my kid to have the best education that I can provide. Well, maybe I can say now it is cost- efficient to live in McLean. For residents without children living in the same households, school district is still an important determinant because of the resale value. For example, although being single and without child, Mr. Wei chooses to live in Rockville. Despite the convenience of working in Bethesda, he mentioned other factors he took into account such as the good school district and convenience. He explained: ?Although I don?t have kids, a good school district will help a lot when I sell my place. All my friends and my real estate agent said so.? It should be noticed that early Chinese immigrants also valued education and would like to provide their next generation with good education opportunities. However, most of the early immigrants were working-class, low-skilled, and did not speak fluent English. They did not have much choice due to their limited resources. DC Chinatown?s second generation, like the Chin couple who were born in Chinatown in the 1940s, spent their entire life in Chinatown. As much as their parents were willing to provide them the best, they attended less desirable schools and did not go to college. They both worked ethnic-related jobs in Chinatown. But, thanks to their hard work as well as new race relations, more resources and opportunities were available for Chinatown?s third generation. Chin?s children both acquired their education outside of Chinatown, and eventually left Chinatown for more desirable locations. Over the three generations, socioeconomic achievement has been transformed to residential mobility. In this sense, the case of the Chin?s family shows support to the spatial assimilation theory. Yet, why do Mr. and Mrs. Chin choose to stay in Chinatown even with the option to move to the suburbs? More discussions about immigrants? residential patterns will be explored in latter chapters. In sum, Rockville and McLean are both popular residential locations among Chinese immigrants thanks to their high-quality public school systems. Meanwhile, both localities are also hubs of many companies. This combination of the two advantages attracts lots of Chinese immigrants, who then settle in the two localities. However, Rockville is widely known as the ethnoburb in the DC area, whereas McLean is merely one of the clusters of suburban Chinese. McLean is incomparable to Rockville in terms of the proportion of its Chinese residents and the Chinese population. What differentiates Rockville and McLean from each other is the concentration of ethnic businesses. Although there is a fairly large Chinese population in McLean, there is no visible concentration of Chinese businesses. Yet, availability of a variety of Chinese businesses and ethnic services is one of the important determinants of residential location for many Chinese immigrants. Ethnic Concentration and Ethnic Economy In Chinatown, enclave economy is the dominant mode of economic activities among its residents. Most Chinatown residents operate or work in businesses that are located in the enclave. These enclave businesses are bounded by coethnicy and have an ?integrated cultural component? (Zhou 2009, 100-102). Enclave economy is the traditional form of ethnic economy. Contemporary ethnic economy is no longer strictly bounded by coethnicity and location. Rather, it ranges from a Chinese restaurant located in a White-dominant suburban neighborhood to a Chinese-owned IT firm in Silicon Valley (Li 2009). Studies indicate that contemporary ethnic economy and ethnic community are increasingly correlated ?not only functionally but also spatially? (Li 2009, 26). The interviews seem to conform to this notion. The exodus of residents and ethnic businesses in Chinatown was taking place simultaneously, and had impacts on each other. Meanwhile, the Chinese population concentration in the ethnoburb is accompanied by the concentration of ethnic businesses, and the development of ethnic economy in the ethnoburb reinforces the population concentration. This section discusses the Intercorrelation between residential concentration of Chinese immigrants and ethnic economy, through examining interview narratives. Since the 1970s, DC Chinatown began to lose its residents. Some residents moved to suburbs for cheaper housing as rents skyrocketed in Chinatown; whereas some others headed for more desirable neighborhoods with better school systems as they acquired socioeconomic mobility. As a result, Chinatown?s ethnic businesses did not have as many coethnic customers as they used to. With the increasing rent and less business, some businesses owners joined the exodus while some chose to close their businesses. As evidenced in the Chins? story, Mr. Chin?s father had to close his restaurant because it was no longer profitable. In the past, people used to come to Chinatown for grocery and Chinese food; now it is going in the opposite direction. Residents of Wah Luck house, mostly Chinese seniors, have to take the shuttle to go to the Great Wall Supermarket in Falls Church, Virginia, for groceries once a month. Mr. and Mrs. Chin also shared similar experiences: Chinatown is much smaller than it used to be when we were young. Lots of people moved out (of Chinatown), so lots of businesses were shut down. There used to be a Chinese grocery store in Chinatown. People drove from Maryland and Virginia to get groceries here. But it was closed. Now it is just the opposite?Chinatown people have to travel to Maryland or Virginia for groceries. Chinatown has become more and more commercial, but much less ?Chinese.? Old-timers like myself, we all feel sad about it. Mr. Lee, whose friend used to own a grocery store in Chinatown but moved his business to Wheaton in the 1980s, recalled: His store used to be so popular?everybody came to his store for Chinese groceries, people even traveled from Maryland and Virginia to his store. But since the 1970s, more and more people moved out of Chinatown. He began to lose customers. Business went worse. Rent also became so high that he could not afford it anymore. So he moved to Wheaton with his family?he closed his Chinatown store and opened a new store in Wheaton. The exodus of Chinese businesses also took away the liveliness of Chinatown. As depicted in Yi Chen?s documentary and interviews with Chinatown old-timers, people do not conduct their daily lives in Chinatown anymore. According to Mr. Wan, a second- generation Chinatown resident: The Chinatown present day has its benefits, but the thing I miss is the actual everyday life and work type of routine that was there in the past. In the past, there were more Chinese people living in Chinatown, and conducting their lives on a daily basis from day to night, 24/7. You saw evidence of that. You saw Chinese people, Chinese families, and Chinese kids hanging out when you walked around, whereas now if you see a Chinese person there, it?s probably a waiter, someone who works in a restaurant?in the day they come to work and in the evening they are gone back to the suburbs to live. Of course the senior citizens are still there, and they have the Wah Luck House. They actually live down there. But other than senior citizens, you really don?t see too much what you call ?Chinese families? who really conduct their daily lives down there. They are just commuters; that?s who they really are. And when that happens, the businesses there do not cater to people who don?t live there, so most businesses down there cater to tourists. What I?m hoping for is a fine balance of everything. You can?t have too much culture and none of the revenue, that?s not going to work. And if you have too much revenue, then the culture you have is not going to be genuine; it?s just going to be a version of the cultural design to sell more and more things. So I?m just hoping for a balance, and that?s all. It?s about coexisting with other things (Chen 2012). Mr. Lok, a second-generation DC resident who identifies himself as an ?old-timer? of DC Chinatown, shared his insights about the exodus from Chinatown: The essence of DC Chinatown has become so commercialized. The Chinese community has now been severely diminished. Many Chinese businesses and families had to leave Chinatown simply because of high property taxes and unaffordable rent. As an old-timer, it is very sad and disheartening to see this change. People have argued that this change may have been a natural evolution, but it was clearly driven by the lack of economic or financial incentives offered to encourage the development and expansion of DC Chinatown where Chinese businesses and families could survive and thrive. The preferential treatment of big business over the support of Chinese business owners and residents was the key reason. Chinatown old-timers have witnessed the movement of residents and businesses from Chinatown to Wheaton, as Mrs. Chin recalled: ?Since the 1970s, we saw more and more people moving to Wheaton [from Chinatown]. Stores and restaurants were being opened there?some of those stores used to be located in Chinatown the owners moved their stores to Wheaton. Then more stores just attracted more people. Because it is smaller than Chinatown, we used to call Wheaton ?small Chinatown.?? Wheaton?s demographic trend echoes Mrs. Chin?s observation. There was a rapid increase in Wheaton?s Chinese population between 1970 and 1980. Due to the proximity from DC, people who work in Chinatown also preferred to live in Wheaton for the cheaper rents. In general, Wheaton replicates many features of DC Chinatown. Most of the Chinese residents in Wheaton are working class and are participating in the ethnic economy. In 1990, however, the increase rate of Wheaton?s Chinese population slowed down. The population began to decrease since 2000. The location and affordable rents of Wheaton not only attracted Chinese people from Chinatown, but also new immigrants. Ms. Yee?s story is telling. Yee is a first-generation Taiwanese immigrant and a Rockville resident. She migrated with her husband from Taiwan to the United States in the 1980s. They owned a hair salon in Taiwan and they planned to open a similar business in the United States, therefore they were equipped with capital, skills, and experience of running a salon business when they immigrated to the host society. Upon their arrival, they rented a small apartment in Wheaton as their temporary home. While living there, they were seeking a location for their permanent home as well as their salon business. For the salon location, they were looking for a locality with an increasing Chinese population and a concentration of Chinese businesses. ?Concentration means a lot to the business,? Yee explained, ?Yes, there might be competition. But an established cluster of Chinese businesses will bring in a lot of Chinese customers. That?s all we want. You don?t want to be the only Chinese business in the neighborhood. You want people to come here for multiple purposes, like groceries, food, and haircuts?that will bring you more customers.? Finally they chose Rockville. Although Rockville was ?far less developed back then,? a sizeable Chinese community was being formed and they saw the great potential of Rockville. ?Almost every week, we either saw or heard that our Chinese friend/neighbor was moving to Rockville or buying in Rockville. I was like: okay, Rockville it is! I knew Rockville would be a perfect location for our salon. I just knew it.? Ms. Yee and her husband immediately decided to open their hair salon in Rockville. Catering to Chinese immigrants? needs and featuring the Asian styles, their hair salon soon became very popular in the developing-in-progress Chinese community. For convenience to work, Ms. Yee and her family also bought their house in Rockville. As aforementioned, Wheaton is a multiethnic city with a diverse resident body. Unlike Rockville and McLean, Wheaton does not have many professional work-sites or quality public schools. Wheaton?s residents are more likely to be from the working-class, whereas Rockville is a typical middle-class suburban community. Wheaton?s Chinese residents with socioeconomic resources like Ms. Yee are more likely to leave Wheaton for more desirable locations to settle down. Chinese residents who have stayed in Wheaton today have formed their small-scaled ethnic clusters. Along Georgia Avenue and University Boulevard, two main streets in Wheaton, there are about 20 Chinese- owned restaurants, convenient stores, and shops. Mr. Chang, a second-generation Chinese American and Wheaton resident, has been living in Wheaton for over 30 years. He retired from a non-profit organization in DC about 10 years ago. While working there, he chose to live in Wheaton because of its proximity to DC. Chang?s house is close to the Wheaton metro station. Since the extension to Wheaton opened in 1990, commuting to DC is very easy via the red line metro. Now that he is retired and does not need to go to DC that often, Chang still likes living in Wheaton. Regarding the convenience, Chang said: It is convenient [to live in Wheaton]. I hate driving and I don?t have a car, so metro access is a must for me. And everything I need is available here [in Wheaton]. Chinese restaurants, Chinese groceries, and my folks?I know this is a tiny community compared to Rockville, but everyone knows each other. Most of us are from Guangdong. We are like a big family here. This is a very integrated community. Plus, we are close enough to Rockville. The red line metro takes me there without any hassle. I go to Rockville quite often, for community events, for meetings, and sometimes for shopping. Many of my old neighbors and old folks have left Wheaton. They are in Rockville, Gaithersburg, Germantown, and Virginia. But for me, Wheaton works just fine. I?m not going anywhere. In contrast to the small-scaled clusters in Wheaton and the decline in Chinese businesses in Chinatown, Rockville has the largest concentration of Chinese businesses in the DC metro area. Dozens of Chinese restaurants, grocery stores, and service providers, such as travel agencies and herbalists, are located along Rockville Pike, the main road in Rockville. Table 10 presents the concentration of Chinese businesses in the DC area. In addition, an increasing number of Chinese business plazas are being established in Rockville. Chinese immigrants from Hong Kong, Taiwan, and the mainland cities of Shanghai, Beijing, and Guangzhou are drawn to Rockville by the excellent public school system and many other good amenities (Kwong and Miscevic 2005). During the 1980s and the 1990s, the number of Chinese-language schools and Chinese churches in Montgomery County tripled, in order to serve the fast-growing Chinese population. Mr. Lee, a first-generation Taiwanese immigrant, who moved to the United States and settled in Rockville in 1986, recalled: There used to be only two Chinese-language schools, a couple of Chinese churches and one Chinese grocery store in Rockville. More and more Chinese moved to Rockville during the late 1980s and 1990s. With the fast growing Chinese population, Chinese ethnic services increased rapidly. Now, there are more than 30 Chinese- language schools, over 20 Chinese churches, and all types of Chinese organizations such as Chinese cultural centers and Chinese senior community services. Table 10: Advertised Chinese Businesses in Greater DC Area, 2011 Source: Chinese Yellow Pages 2011. Rockville, MD: Washington Chinese News. Two decades have passed since Ms. Yee became a Rockville resident. She has witnessed the rapid growth of the Chinese community and the ethnic economy in Rockville. When she just opened her salon, there was only one small Chinese grocery store and several Chinese restaurants and services in Rockville. Now, there are three Chinese grocery stores (including a huge Chinese super market) and numerous Chinese restaurants, bakeries, and service providers along the Rockville Pike. ?I can spend a ?day- in-Taiwan? here in Rockville,? Ms. Yee said with a smile, ?I can begin my day with a pearl milktea and an egg tart at the Bread Corner?it?s a cute Chinese bakery near Rockville Town Center, owned by Taiwanese. Oh, you can read Chinese newspapers while enjoying your tea. In the morning I can go to a Chinese nail salon if I want to. There are plenty of them. Chatting with them in Min Nan definitely makes me feel at home. For lunch I have lots of choices, too. Bob?s noodle 66 is one of my favorite Taiwanese restaurants. I always order oyster pancake and stinky tofu?something you won?t miss if you are at the Night Market in Taipei. Can you imagine you can get it all here? Then I can go to a teahouse, or get foot massage, or?well, you get the idea. It?s just so convenient.? Being a service provider herself, Ms. Yee also enjoys the convenience and availability of ethnic-oriented services in Rockville. The development of the ethnic economy in the ethnoburb significantly affects the residential pattern of the Chinese immigrants. More Chinese business owners choose Rockville over other places in DC area as their business locations. The convenience and availability of various ethnic businesses and services then draw more Chinese residents to the community. Like Ms. Yee, Mr. Tong chose Gaithersburg as the location for his accounting and tax service. Mr. Tong came to the United States in the 1990s for graduate school after completing college in Taiwan. He used to work for big accounting firms, but in the early 2000s, he saw the need for Chinese-speaking accountants in the fast-growing Chinese community and decided to open his own business. Tong has served the Chinese community for over 10 years. His service includes tax preparation, small business accounting, personal financial planning, new business formation and the like. The majority of his clients are Chinese. According to Mr. Tong, his clients ?are really happy that they can have their tax taken care of in their native language. Some of my clients speak English very well, but when it comes to complicated money-related issues such as tax and accounting, they prefer dealing with it in Chinese. That?s why I?m here.? Since 1990, the increase rate of the Chinese population in Gaithersburg surpassed the rate in Rockville. Yet, the property values in Gaithersburg are much more affordable than that of Rockville. Tong bought his house in Gaithersburg and rented an office space for his business in Gaithersburg as well, but near the border between Gaithersburg and Rockville. That location brings him clients from both the Gaithersburg and Rockville communities. Although some of Tong?s clients are from Virginia, West Virginia, and Pennsylvania, the majority of them are from nearby localities. For Chinese residents who are service-receivers, the convenience and availability of a variety of ethnic businesses is one of the determinants of their residential choices. Rockville residents, regardless of their generation and background, all expressed that they appreciate the convenience of living in Rockville and the concentration of Chinese businesses was one of the factors that attracted them to Rockville when they were house- hunting. Sun said her real estate agent considered it a selling point as well. In her words: ?When my husband and I were house-hunting. Our agent encouraged us to choose Rockville, not only because it is close to my husband?s company, but also for its convenience. Our agent told us, ?You?ll like it! It?s so convenient that you don?t have to cook.? Well, we both are foodies?I admit we moved to Rockville for the Chinese food.? After they settled down in Rockville, Sun accepted a job offer in Beijing and only spent a couple of months each year at their Rockville home. They thought about whether they should move to a cheaper place or keep this house. But, the convenience finally made them decide not to move. Sun said, ?now that I?m not home. The don?t-have-to-cook part means even more to my husband.? The spatial relationship between ethnic community and ethnic business are evidenced in Yee and Tong?s stories. The development of ethnic businesses is enhanced by the growth of ethnic communities in suburbs; at the same time, the continuous increase of ethnic populations expands ethnic businesses in suburban areas. Therefore, the decline of enclave economy in Chinatown and the development of ethnic economy in ethnoburbs definitely affect the residential patterns of Chinese immigrants in the local area. Summary This chapter outlines the three major determinants of Chinese respondents? residential choices: proximity to work, quality school district, and access to ethnic businesses and services. Pre-1965 Chinese immigrants, with little human and social capital, are more likely to concentrate in the secondary sector of labor force. These low-wage, low-skilled jobs are generally located in ethnic enclaves. Therefore, early Chinese immigrants did not have much choice but to cluster in the ethnic enclave, where they resided, worked, and socialized. Post-1965 Chinese immigrants, however, are different from their predecessors in their socioeconomic backgrounds. Many of post-1965 Chinese immigrants are equipped with adequate human capital and fluent English proficiency when they enter the United States. Instead of working in the enclave, many of them find professional, high- skilled jobs in the primary sector of labor force. They exhibit a different trajectory from their predecessors in that they skip Chinatown as their first destination in the United States; many of the recent immigrants head to the suburbs directly from their home country; some pursue their education first, and then find jobs and purchase homes in the suburbs after graduation. As a result, recent Chinese immigrants are more likely to reside in localities with more professional work sites. In the DC area, downtown DC, Rockville, and McLean are hubs of companies. Considering the proximity to work, cities that are close to or have easy access to these hubs are popular residences for recent Chinese immigrants. The Chinese are widely known for their emphasis on education. With the shared priority, Chinese immigrants are likely to choose residences with preferred school districts if they have the option. Especially, when they become parents, they are willing to provide their children with the best educational opportunities regardless of their class. Early Chinese immigrants, who almost spent their entire lives in Chinatown, did not always having the option of moving to places with better school systems due to their limited resources. To some Chinatown families, it may take three generations to acquire adequate socioeconomic resources and achieve residential mobility. Yet, recent Chinese immigrants have more options to choose their residential locations as they have more social and human capital than their predecessors. For their children?s educational opportunities as well as for the resale value, newcomers are more likely to choose localities with better school systems. Therefore, Rockville and McLean, the two cities with nationally top-ranked public schools, are popular among Chinese immigrants. Early Chinese immigrants are more likely to be dependent upon kinship and ethnic group support because of their little social capital. Segregated from the mainstream society, Chinatown also provides the residents almost everything they need to conduct everyday life, such as ethnic food, social services, and a network. Post-1965 Chinese immigrants do not need to rely on the ethnic support provided by the enclave, but they still prefer the accessibility of ethnic goods and services regardless of their place of residence. As the residential concentration has shifted from Chinatown to the suburbs, Chinese businesses realize the demand and move to the suburbs as well to cater to the needs of suburban Chinese residents. The movement of Chinese businesses facilitates the further growth of the suburban Chinese community and in turn attracts more Chinese immigrants. Rockville is the prime example of the correlated growth of Chinese residents and Chinese businesses. There are not only large numbers of Chinese businesses located in Rockville, but they also vary in types?from restaurants to health care, catering to all kinds of the demand of the Rockville Chinese community. In other cities, such as McLean and Wheaton, Chinese businesses are much more scattered and are limited in number and variety. Overall, it is by no means fortuitous that Rockville has become the largest ethnoburb in the DC area. Rockville is the hub of many high-tech and bio-tech companies where large amounts of Chinese are employed; it also has one of the best school districts in the area, and it is home to a variety of Chinese businesses. In addition, the estimated median house value of Rockville is $488,900, which is much more affordable than other localities with good school districts, such as McLean ($887,300), Potomac ($868,200), and North Potomac ($628,900) (Census Bureau 2010). With the combination of the three determinants, that means a lot to Chinese immigrants, in addition to the relative affordability, Rockville is unsurprisingly the most popular residential destination among the Chinese. Although interviews only provide individual stories and perspectives, in fact, they reflect the macro-level impacts. The changes in immigration policies resulted in the difference in socioeconomic backgrounds between post-1965 and pre-1965 Chinese immigrants. Although they may share similar priorities and preferences regarding residential location, the level of their capital possession differentiates their choices. Also, new race relations led to the shift of employment opportunities, which in turn have impacts on the residential patterns. CHAPTER 8: FORMAL AND INFORMAL INSTITUTIONS: SUSTAINING ETHNIC IDENTITY AND CULTURAL HERITAGE ?I really hope my child can keep some of the Chinese heritage.? --Ms. Chao, 1.5-generation Chinese Immigrant, Gaithersburg Resident Before the 1965 Immigration Act changed the make up of Chinese immigrants as well as the social environment of the host society, enclave institutions including home and kinship associations and small credit unions were crucial to Chinese immigrants. These ethnic-oriented institutions functioned to meet the economic and social needs of early Chinese immigrants, such as helping them find employment opportunities and providing them social support (Zhou 2009, 107). Contemporary Chinese immigrants, due to their diverse socioeconomic backgrounds, are no longer dependent on those institutions for the basic needs. Their different residential patterns also generate new adaptation concerns and different demands. Many Chinese now live in dispersed White- dominant suburban communities and are facing the challenges of redefining their own and their next generation?s ethnic and cultural identities. As Chinese suburban residents are separated from the enclave, they maintain ethnic and cultural identities through formal and informal institutions. Organizations, media, and churches play instrumental roles in uniting residents and integrating the community as formal institutions. In addition, to some extent Chinese businesses serve as a mechanism for maintaining cultural roots (Oberle and Li 2008). Contemporary Chinese organizations, Chinese religious institutions, and the ethnic economy all play important roles in integrating the dispersed Chinese community. Drawn from the interviews, this chapter provides a discussion of how formal and informal institutions play their roles in sustaining the ethnic and cultural essence of a Chinese ethnoburb. Integrating the Community: The Role of Formal Institutions Traditional enclave institutions are no longer functional for the new settlement pattern. Due to their diverse backgrounds, Chinese ethnoburbanites are more likely to unite through Chinese organizations instead of hometown or kinship associations. Organization of Chinese Americans-DC Chapter (OCA-DC) is the largest and the best- known Chinese organization in the DC area. With its mission to advance the social, economic, and political well-being of Chinese as well as Asian Americans, the organization holds a variety of educational programs and cultural events. Through these events, they not only promote ethnic culture but also encourage civic engagement and political involvement of the Chinese and other Asian groups. Members of the OCA and participants of the events cross racial group boundaries, which resemble the multiethnic landscape of the DC metro area. OCA members also include Chinese immigrants with diverse backgrounds. Some are first-generation newcomers, while others are second- and third- generation Chinese Americans. Walking into the Chinese restaurant where the OCA-DC Annual Gala was held, I saw some 200 attendees gathering together. Twenty round tables were set up in the restaurant, and each table could seat 10 people. The majority (over 95%) of attendees were of Chinese descent. From talking to the president of OCA-DC, I learned that most of them were long-term members. This event is their biggest annual get-together, in addition to smaller events such as Summer Picnic, Moon Festival Event, etc. At the registration desk, attendees signed in, purchased the tickets to the Gala, and also paid their annual dues for their membership. ?OCA-DC is mainly dependent upon those dues,? said the president, ?we do have small sponsors, but our funding largely comes from our membership dues. People know that we are here for them and we are also dependent on them.? Many attendees, when writing their checks to pay for the dues, would purposely overpay and make the excessive amount as their donation to OCA-DC. At the Gala, several awards were given to people who made contributions to the Chinese community. The president explained, ?We just wanted to recognize the people who have done a lot for the community, and let the community know their names.? For example, a 2011 Award recipient, Edwin Chow, is the executive director of Chinese Culture and Community Service Center. Chow has dedicated himself to voluntarism in building a bridge between Chinese Americans and China. He has led many community service activities such as organizing youth groups to work at nursing homes and juvenile detention centers. After the awards, a traditional 10-course Chinese dinner was served. Usually started with two appetizers and a soup, the 10 courses always have a combination of fish, lobster, pork, chicken, vegetables, and ends with one or two desserts. The vice president of OCA-DC who was in charge of the menu for the Gala proudly said, ?Some people may think it is the food that attracts people to attend the Gala. Well, I wouldn?t say it?s completely wrong. But food is an important part of the Chinese culture. We are here, getting together as a community, and appreciate the food together. I?m proud of it and happy to see people are enjoying the dinner.? The entire Gala event lasted for three hours. When the program was over, that was when attendees socialized with each other. It was apparent that many of them knew each other; there were a lot of hugs, laughs, and catch-ups. But, there were also new members who were attending the Gala for the first time. OCA-DC leaders walked around all the tables, met every attendee, and introduced new faces to old members. The president said, ?Most new members are new to this community as well. They might have moved from another state, or they might have just arrived in the U.S. It is our job to help them feel at home here. Many of our members enlarged their network through us.? When the last attendee left, that was the time that OCA-DC board members could finally relax. They hugged each other, and congratulated each other for the accomplishment of another successful annual event. As all board members are volunteers, they all have daytime jobs and other obligations. Each year, they begin the Gala planning several months ahead of the event day, and spend a whole day setting up, getting ready, greeting people, and cleaning up on the Gala day. ?It is totally worth it,? said the president and the vice president, ?It is the biggest event of OCA-DC, and also the biggest event in the DC Chinese community. So it brings people together.? Through the events and the educational programs, OCA-DC not only brings together the Chinese adults, but also educates the next generation. Many participants bring their children to the annual Gala, the Mooncake Festival, and the Summer Picnic. OCA-DC leaders and members also have their families engage in the activities. Ms. Chao, a 1.5-generation Gaithersburg resident and OCA-DC member, always brings her school-aged, biracial daughter to the events. She said, Her [Chao?s daughter] father is non-Chinese, so we don?t speak Chinese at home. But I really hope my child can keep some of the Chinese heritage. So I send her to a Chinese language school every weekend; I bring her to all the OCA-DC events so that she can see how we celebrate Chinese festivals like Mooncake festival and Chinese New Year. I don?t know how much Chinese heritage she will keep when she is a grown-up. But now that she?s still young and learning new stuff, I want to try my best?.so far so good, she likes the language school and she?s been having fun at the events. When she?s older, I?m thinking about sending her to study traditional Chinese painting. She likes drawing, so I?m thinking maybe I can reinforce some of the traditional Chinese culture through that. Chinese church, another important formal institution, is also instrumental in enhancing ethnic solidarity. Chinese people with different backgrounds?new immigrants, second- generation Chinese Americans, Taiwanese, and people from mainland China?are brought together at the church. The role of the Chinese church in the Chinese community is far beyond its religious nature. Mr. Lee, who has been a long-term member of a Chinese church in Rockville, reported that his church, which is made up of Chinese people from Taiwan and from mainland China, was a focal point through which people related to the community. Ms. Lau, a second-generation Chinese American and Rockville resident, is a member of another Chinese church in Rockville. She was born and raised in Rockville, went to school in another state, and a job offer made her move back to Rockville. She chose to be back in Rockville not only because it is her hometown, but mainly because of its well-known school systems and closeness to work. Over the years of living in Rockville and going to the same Chinese church, Ms. Lau noticed the significant increase in the Chinese population in Rockville in her church. ?Members of our church have increased significantly over the past 10 years. Many new church members are recent immigrants from China. They get to know the new place and make new friends through our church.? To newcomers, the Chinese church serves as a bridge between the two cultures that helps them adapt to the host society. As Ms. Lau described, After moving to the United States, no matter how rich or how well-educated you are, this is still a strange place. At my church, whenever we have someone new, we will take turns to show them around in Rockville and introduce them to people, so that they will know where to get grocery, who they should talk to if they have issues with something. We always hold events for newcomers, like welcome party or special sessions for new members, house warming party after they purchase a new home, etc. You know, just to make sure they know we are here, as a community. This is something we carry on. Lau also takes her children to the church as often as she can. It is her hope that her children, the third-generation Chinese Americans, can maintain some ?Chinese heritage.? They can barely speak any Chinese, which Lau feels sad about. She also takes them to the events held by the OCA-DC, especially for Chinese New Year and the Mooncake Festival. She said, ?Everyone loves festivals. Celebrating Chinese festivals at least reminds them that they are Chinese.? Unlike pre-1965 immigrants, new Chinese immigrants are not as dependent on ethnic institutions for social support and employment opportunities. Rather, they are economically independent. Their goals in participating in Chinese organizations are enlarging social network, sustaining ethnic identity, and educating the younger generation about the cultural heritage. To some proactive Chinese immigrants, by participating in (or leading) Chinese organizations, they would like to empower the Chinese community and improve social and political participation of the Chinese. Connection between Culture and Cuisine: The Role of Informal Institutions The concentration of ethnic businesses in the ethnoburb not only stimulates the growth of the ethnic population, but also enhances ethnic solidarity. The development of ethnic economy is intertwined with the sociocultural development of the ethnic community (Zhou 2009, 107). Chinese ethnic businesses serve as informal institutions that bring the community together and sustain the ethnic identities. As aforementioned, many Chinese immigrants were attracted to Rockville for its concentration of ethnic businesses. Mr. Wei jokingly referred to the food in Rockville as a key reason for his residential choice. In his words, ?if you are looking for great food, the variety of Chinese restaurants, and the convenience?Rockville is definitely the go-to place in this area.? For Chinese immigrants, their everyday life, residence, and ethnic businesses are correlated. All of the respondents who are Chinatown, Wheaton, Rockville and Gaithersburg residents said that they ?go to Chinese restaurants often? because of the closeness and the concentration of Chinese restaurants. Residents of McLean and North Potomac only go to Chinese restaurants ?sometimes.? Moreover, having lunch or dinner at a Chinese restaurant is a social opportunity or family time for most respondents. In Lau?s words: ?When I was little, there weren?t many Chinese restaurants in Rockville. My parents often took me to Chinatown for Chinese food. Now it?s everywhere [in Rockville]. My children like Chinese food. I take them to the Chinese places quite often. I always believe food is an important part of Chinese culture. I?m glad they appreciate the Chinese food.? Similarly, Chao?s family goes to Chinese restaurants regularly as well. Her daughter, although biracial, learned to use chopsticks at a young age. First-generation Chinese immigrants are also concerned about their next generation?s cultural heritage. Most first-generation respondents speak Chinese with their children at home. Some even try to teach their children the dialect (such as Shanghainese, Minnan) in addition to standard Chinese (Mandarin). Kuo said he and his wife tried very hard to maintain a pure Chinese environment for their son. When he turned three and went to daycare for the first time, the only English words he could understand were ?hi,? ?thank you,? and ?bye.? Yet, Kuo was not worried. ?Kids pick up language extremely fast,? he said, ?now he speaks perfect English. But we still insist on speaking Chinese with him. Otherwise he?ll lose it.? Kuo believed the bilingual ability would help his son get more opportunities in the long run. Like Kuo, many other Chinese parents shared similar stories and similar hopes for their children. Second-generation and intermarried Chinese parents, who have a hard time keeping a Chinese-spoken environment for their children at home, also hoped their children could be bilingual in both languages. Chinese language school is very popular in Rockville. As evidenced in Lee?s interview, there are more than 30 Chinese language schools in Rockville now. Parents from diverse backgrounds, even non-Chinese parents, send their children there to learn Chinese. There are several local Chinese-language newspapers in the DC metro area. The most widely circulated are Washington Chinese News and Asian Gazette. Local Chinese organizations and Chinese businesses rely on these media outlets to let the Chinese residents know about their activities and promote themselves. As evidenced in many interviews, both organization leaders and business owners are well aware of the importance of media outlets. ?We used to send postcards to invite members to our events, but it is not cost-efficient,? said the president of OCA-DC, ?It takes time?you have to print and send out those postcards way ahead of time. All of us [organization board members] are volunteers, so it is hard for us to do that. Plus, it costs lots of money. We tried emails, too. But some seniors either do not check emails frequently or do not own email accounts, so we couldn?t reach all the members via email. So, putting our event flyer in a Chinese newspaper is the most efficient way. We can make sure that we reach out to a wider range of Chinese people. It does cost us some money, but [it is] totally worth it. And Washington Chinese News always gives us a nice discount for the ad. We both are serving the local Chinese community, so they promote us and we promote them?we work together.? Informal institutions, such as Chinese restaurants and Chinese media, function as magnets that bring people together and enhance ethnic solidarity. Unlike formal institutions, they function in an unorganized way, but they influence people in their daily lives. As Chinese residents dine in the Chinese restaurants, serve Chinese food in their kitchen with the food they get from Chinese grocery stores, and read Chinese newspapers, they are sustaining the ethnic identity. As Chinese parents speak Chinese to their children, teach them how to use chopsticks, feed them the Chinese food, and send them to Chinese language schools, they are passing on the cultural heritage. Summary Unlike the pre-1965 Chinese immigrants who cluster in enclaves and only interact with coethnics, today?s Chinese immigrants are dispersed, participate in the mainstream economy, and interact with people with various ethnic backgrounds. As a result, the basic aspects of their identities?culture and descent, are not as well defined as their predecessors. ?Culture? includes diverse factors like religion, language, customs, nationality, and political identification; whereas ?descent? involves heredity and a sense of group origins (Omi and Winant 1994, 15). The ethnic identity is far beyond a biological feature, rather, it is socially constructed. Living in multiethnic or White- dominant neighborhoods, Chinese immigrants do not want their ethnic identities to lose all meaning. For the respondents in this project, their ?nationality? and ethnic nationalism have been weakened during the process of adaptation; however, their cultural heritage is something they would like to try their best to sustain and to pass on to the future generations. The incentives of sustaining ethnic identity and cultural heritage are complex. First, there is definitely emotional attachment. Even to Chinese Americans (i.e., Ms. Lau) who do not have direct connections to China, the sense of belonging is still meaningful. Second, as evidenced in previous studies, shared ethnic and cultural backgrounds enhance social capital that broaden immigrants? social network, emphasize mutual ties, and increase opportunities (Portes 1998; Greve and Salaff 2005, 10-11). Last, but not least, as the minority in the host society, a united, integrated ethnic group is much more powerful than dispersed individuals. To increase political participation and to obtain the best interest for the Chinese as a group, it is important to sustain the common ethnic identity and cultural heritage. In sum, today?s Chinese immigrants are much more dispersed and scattered in their residential patterns, but formal and informal institutions play important roles in pulling them together. In their day-to-day life such as going to Chinese church, sending kids to Chinese language school, dining in Chinese restaurant, shopping at Chinese grocery stores, celebrating Chinese festivals, and attending events held by Chinese organizations, Chinese immigrants are not only maintaining the cultural heritage and ethnic identity but also passing on the legacy to the younger generation. Compared to the traditional enclave institutions, contemporary institutions have different roles and functions. As pointed out by scholars, contemporary institutions ?furnish a protective social environment? and ?help immigrants and their children move ahead in the mainstream society? (Zhou 2009, 109; Zhou and Lin 2005). CHAPTER 9: IMPACTS OF TRANSNATIONALISM ON THE CHINESE COMMUNITY ?A window was opened to me, from my home country.? --Mr. Ming, 1st generation Chinese immigrant, McLean resident and transnational resident The Chinese community in the DC area has been deeply affected by transnational connections. The transnational network and the global economy also perpetuated the change in the Chinese community. Brain Drain: Chinese Students and Intellectuals As a highly educated metro area, the DC area features many prestigious higher education institutions, such as Georgetown University, the George Washington University, American University, University of Maryland, and George Mason University. These universities have attracted large numbers of Chinese students every year. Many Chinese residents in the DC area used to be students?they found professional jobs and stayed after they graduated. According to Ms. Lau, who has been living in Rockville for about 30 years, the population of Chinese students began to rapidly increase since the 1980s; especially students from mainland China significantly increased in numbers after the late 1970s. Ms. Lau?s observation is consistent with the historic change in the Chinese migration policy. As mentioned in Chapter IV, Chinese leader Deng Xiaoping?s address in 1978 had substantial impacts on Chinese immigration to the United States. China relaxed its migration policy after 1978; moreover, large numbers of Chinese students and scholars came to the United States to continue their education, with only a small part of them returning home. The DC area is also home to a number of large research institutes. The National Institutes of Health (NIH) is the largest and the most reputable institute in this area, where hundreds of Chinese scholars and visiting fellows conduct their research and work. Because of the closeness to NIH, Rockville is a popular location for NIH employees. Chinese employees at NIH make up an important part of the Chinese community in Rockville. Many Rockville residents mentioned in their interviews that some of their neighbors work at NIH. Chinese employees at NIH also play an active role in integrating the Chinese community in the DC area. They founded the Chinese Student and Scholar Association at NIH, with the mission to facilitate communication and interaction among Chinese students, scholars, and local Chinese communities. This association currently has over 400 members, and hosts regular events such as the Chinese New Year Celebration, a Spring Hiking, a Summer Picnic, and a Fall Tennis Tournament, in order to bring Chinese people together. Moreover, most Chinese employees at NIH are actively involved in transnational activities. Many of them travel between China the United States frequently for conferences and meetings. Most first-generation respondents in this study went through the same trajectory of their immigration?coming to the United States as students, finding a job after graduation, and later applying for permanent residency and naturalized citizenship. In order to be a college or graduate student in an American institute, a Chinese student has to pass a series of exams (TOFEL, GRE, GMAT, LSAT, etc.). In addition to the examination fees, there are application fees for almost every single American institute. Studies have demonstrated that only the Chinese students with adequate resources can make it to the United States (Louie 2004). Therefore, compared to pre-1965 immigrants, contemporary Chinese immigrants who settle in the United States via an educational trajectory are highly selected. They are also tightly connected with their home country. Unlike their predecessors, sending remittances is no longer a common mode of transnational activity among contemporary Chinese immigrants. Instead, their transnational connections include academic communication, business cooperation, and transnational trade between the two countries. Ms. Zeng?s story is telling. Zeng is a 1.5-generation Chinese in her early thirties who now lives in North Potomac. She came to the United States after finishing one year of high school in China. She continued her high school education in Maryland and attended a college in Maryland. After her graduation, she saw the huge potential in the Chinese market and decided to be an individual entrepreneur. It was a hard decision as her parents were not very supportive. She recalled, ?As traditional Chinese parents, they wanted their daughter to have a normal job and live a normal life. So it was unacceptable that I got my BA but didn?t want to go out to work.? She finally convinced her parents that she could live much better with her plan. Zeng then opened an online retail store catering to consumers in China. She sells clothing and shoes that she purchases in the United States to her Chinese consumers. The economic boom in China has resulted in a group of young and wealthy people. Some of them are the next generations of the early investors who ?jumped into the sea? and earned a lot of money during China?s economic reform in the 1980s; some are investors themselves. Zeng described her customers: ?They love designer clothes and shoes, but not all of those stuff are available in China. Some might be available in the Chinese market a couple of months later than in the United States. Some editions or styles cannot be found in China. And they can?t shop on American websites. They don?t feel comfortable reading English. Plus, not all the websites ship to China. So I help them buy the stuff they need, I ship that to them and charge them a certain processing fee.? More and more people have realized the big potential in this market, and there are a lot of online retail stores conducting the same business as Zeng does. Zeng said it was fortunate that she ?started early,? so she has an established group of loyal customers. Zeng has a super busy schedule everyday. Because of the time difference (Beijing time is 12 hours ahead of Eastern time), Zeng has to stay up late to communicate with her customers almost every night. During the daytime, she shops for her customers and works on packing, shipping, bookkeeping and all the logistics. She also needs to travel to China several times a year, in order to meet some of her VIP customers and to learn more about the Chinese market. Now the profit from her store is enough to support her whole family. Though her parents stopped pushing her to find a ?normal? job, they were still worried about her future. In Zeng?s words, ?They still can?t see me doing this forever. They hope to see me getting a job with insurance and the like. Now I?m self-employed and I buy insurance out of my own pocket for my family and myself. I guess the online business thing still seems insecure to them. Well, even I don?t know what I?m gonna do in 10, 20 years?? Although transnational activities and connections are not new among immigrants, there are new modes of transnational activities with the change in global economy. Some of these changes cause different lifestyles of Chinese immigrants, as evidenced in Zeng?s story; some have impacts on the residential patterns of Chinese immigrants. Another Residential Pattern: Transmigrants and Semi-residents In the host society, immigrants inevitably experience racial prejudice and even discrimination to a certain extent. Since the 1960s, discrimination at the institutional level and in the legal systems such as ?de jure? segregation had been eliminated, thus, today?s racial discrimination and prejudice were problems on the individual level (Omi and Winant 1994). Moreover, the racial experiences that immigrants encounter are subtle and indirect most of the time. However, regardless of the type of racial experiences?subtle or blatant discrimination and prejudice, immigrants are likely to make important decisions based on their experiences. From the interviews, it is apparent that some Chinese immigrants adjust their settlement plans according to their experiences in the host society, especially in the labor force. Race has played an important role in Chinese immigrants? residential patterns. In this chapter, I will review the factors that perpetuate the transitional feature of the Chinese community. Among respondents who are transmigrants now, besides ?opportunities in China,? all of them have mentioned ?glass ceiling? or ?bottleneck? in their career as a key determinant in their settlement decisions. Ming identifies himself as a transnational resident. After receiving two Master?s degrees, he worked in the United States for about 10 years. Over the 15 years has lived in the United States, his immigration status has changed from an F1 student visa, to an H1-B work visa, to a permanent residency, and then to naturalized citizenship. He now works part-time at a medical equipment company in the DC area and lives with his wife and two children in McLean, Virginia. In others? views, Ming is a perfect example of an immigrant who has settled his roots in the host society and achieved the American dream. But, to Ming, he feels his career is at a ?bottleneck.? In his words: I have been working in the same company for so long?my performance has always been very good, but my title does not reflect it. A couple years ago, I thought I was eligible for a promotion?but they chose my co-worker, who is a White guy. That was not the first time I experienced this, and of course was not the last time. I quit my previous job and joined the current company because of unfairness in promotions. Ironically, now I realize it is the case everywhere. You know, when similar scenarios happen again and again, you just know it is not a coincidence. And I have confidence in myself, I know it is not my problem either. As an immigrant, I am forever a foreigner, even after I got a green card and citizenship. I can feel the prejudice, but it is so subtle that I cannot complain?I cannot even tell my boss this is prejudice. I guess that?s the so-called ?glass ceiling.? So I started to think about my life: my career, my future, and my family. What should I do? Bear with the bottleneck, hang in there, and be happy with what I have achieved? This is what most immigrants choose to do, isn?t it? But as I said, I have faith in myself?I work so hard that I believe I deserve better. Well, when I was suffering from the career bottleneck, a window was opened to me in 2009, from my home country. In 2009, Ming?s friends invited him to start their own medical equipment business in Shanghai. After some research about the market, he agreed and began his transnational life ever since. His wife and school age children enjoy the American life style and prefer to stay put. He also wants his children to go to school in the United States. Therefore, he travels frequently between the two countries. He changed his full-time position to a part- time one, in order to give him more flexibility to travel. While keeping his part-time job in the United States, he takes care of his Shanghai business in his spare time. Multimedia communication such as Skype provides him the opportunity to work on his business remotely. According to him, ?I choose this transnational life because I am trying my best to find balance in between. On the one hand, I can?t let go of the golden opportunity in China, where I can fully develop my career and don?t have to put up with prejudice. But, on the other hand, my family and I are so used to the American life style. We love the laid-back life style, the outdoor activities, and the big yard. Most importantly, I want my kids to go to school in the UNITED STATES It is not because I do not trust the education in China, I just think they fit in better in American schools because they were born and raised there.? Sun used to be a post-doctoral research fellow in an American university after she graduated with her Ph.D. in the humanities. She was offered an assistant professor position in a university in Beijing. After serious discussion with her family, she decided to take the position and moved to Beijing. But her husband, who has a full-time job in Gaithersburg, Maryland, chose to stay in the United States. The couple views their plan as a temporary solution. According to Sun, Working in academia has always been my dream. I would love to get a faculty position in an American university, but I had an extremely tough time finding one after my graduation. The only thing I could get was a post-doc. Maybe it is my major?majoring in the humanities, it is too hard for me to compete with American students. Although I believe I have conquered the language barrier and cultural background through my graduate studies and have proved it with my Ph.D. degree, I am still being judged as a foreigner. This is something I can?t help with. Maybe it is just me?but when I got the job offer from a university in Beijing, I was so excited and so grateful. Finally, I felt the long journey of my Ph.D. study was fruitful. Salary-wise, the position is not that attractive. However, what impresses me the most is the research funding. There are lots of research grants in China and they are much easier to apply for. I can feel that the Chinese government values research a lot and is willing to make investments in scientific research. Over a million Chinese dollar (RMB) research grants have been allocated to my research team to hire more research assistants, purchase equipment, and to improve the laboratory. As a scholar, I am extremely grateful. However, the plan is not perfect because Sun?s husband works in Gaithersburg and would prefer not to quit his current job. ?This is the trade-off,? Sun says, ?We would like to keep some of our roots in the United States Besides his job, there are many other reasons that we do not want to be permanent returnees?the lifestyle, the environment, public education for our children?It is a hard decision that me and my husband get into this long distance situation, but this situation is definitely temporary. In a few years, I might apply for faculty positions in the United States again. With my experiences in Chinese academia, probably I will be more competitive. Also, although I work in Beijing right now, I maintain close connections with my previous colleagues and professors in the United States. I travel to the United States frequently for international conferences and academic talks. I also visit my husband quite often using my vacation. My department understands my situation and gives me quite a lot flexibility to travel. Overall, I feel that I made the right decision, returning to Beijing has helped me to achieve my career goals.? Summary In general, experiences of contemporary Chinese returnees are quite different from their predecessors? in many ways. First, many of the newcomers had transnational capital prior to their arrival, contributing to their economic stability in the host society as well as to their connections with their home country. Second, the changing global economy has resulted in new opportunities in transnational trade and commercial activities. Third, individuals are no longer permanent settlers in one place; rather, they are actively involved in transnational activities and facilitate transnational connections. The majority of returnees from the United States continue to be actively involved in transnational activities. They travel frequently between China and the United States, carrying capital and culture in both directions. According to Liu (2012), there are about 100,000 Chinese overseas students and scholars who travel between receiving countries and China. At the macro level, the contexts in China and in the United States have both undergone dramatic change. The increase of Chinese returnees reflects the historical changes in China. Emerging opportunities are bringing people back to China. Moreover, the tide of returnees is a product of increasing globalization and transnationalism, and in turn maintains and improves global connections. Reverse migration is neither a ?brain drain? nor a ?reverse brain drain?; rather, it is brain circulation through which connections across national borders are facilitated. The trend of returnees is likely to continue as long as opportunities persist in China. Racial discrimination is a feature of the American society, the product of centuries of systematic exclusion, exploitation, and disregard of racially defined minorities (Omi and Winant 1994, 69). The roots of discrimination are in the racially organized social order. When Chinese immigrants are in their home country, they never receive unfair treatment because they are Chinese. Since they are the dominant group in China, they have the privileges. But, they lost their privileges in the United States. Regardless of the type of discrimination?subtle or direct, racial discrimination is based on White supremacy. Receiving unfair treatment based on their race, Chinese immigrants are undergoing an important stage of racialization?they are racialized as exploitable workers, perpetual foreigners and the unprivileged racial group members. On the micro level, the experiences of the two respondents may not reflect racism, at least not direct and blatant racism. However, their experiences and feelings reveal racial stratification and labor market differentiation. Their race (and perhaps their immigrant status) has prevented them from reaching their full career potential in the host society. Chinese immigrants are trying out new ways to maximize their benefits in both host and home countries. As in Ming?s case, his business in Shanghai fulfills his career goal and brings him substantial monetary returns and, at the same time, his family is setting roots in the Virginia suburbs while enjoying the relaxed lifestyle, pleasant weather, quality schools, and spacious housing that they are unlikely to find if they move back to Shanghai. Similarly, public education in the United States and the American lifestyle are also important determinants for Sun and her husband?s settlement plan. On the macro level, global economic restructuring, especially the rise of China?s economy, has led to more alternative opportunities for immigrants. China?s policy towards returnees and oversea investors also play important roles. Since the 1990s, the Chinese government implemented many programs and policies to attract oversea Chinese immigrants to return. For example, the Chinese government increased investment in higher education and allocated additional funds for returnee scholars (Zweig 2006). As evidenced in Sun?s story, the research funding in her university in Beijing convinced her to accept the job offer. To facilitate the settlement of returnees in China, the government has simplified residency and entry visa requirements for oversea scholars and investors (Zweig 2006, 73). For Chinese immigrants, such as Ming, who has taken naturalized U.S. citizenship but is investing on his business in China, these policies are extremely helpful. With all the efforts that the Chinese government has made, the oversea Chinese are maintaining increasing levels of transitional connections, which also shifts the residential patterns of overseas Chinese communities as more and more Chinese are becoming transnational residents or semi-residents. CHAPTER 10: CONCLUSION Due largely to the implementation of the 1965 Immigration Act, and the subsequent influx of new immigrants, Chinese communities in the United States have transformed from urban enclaves to ethnoburbs. Post-1965 Chinese immigrants are much more diverse in their socioeconomic backgrounds than their predecessors. A large proportion of post-1965 Chinese immigrants are equipped with adequate human capital when they arrived and instead of heading to ethnic enclaves, they choose affluent neighborhoods in the suburbs to settle in. With lower replenishment by newcomers, Chinatowns in many cities have shrunk. In addition to the differences in socioeconomic backgrounds between newcomers and earlier immigrants, various other factors, including changes in the global economies, race relations, immigration policies, and increasing transnational connections, have had an influence on the transformation of the Chinese community. In contrast to the predictions of the spatial assimilation model, many suburban Chinese immigrants are not assimilating into mainstream society culturally and structurally; rather, they are forming ethnic clusters of residential areas and business districts in suburbs?ethnoburbs. Little theoretical explanation has been offered for the emergence and growth of ethnoburbs. This dissertation selected the DC area as the setting of the study with the aim of portraying the changes in residential patterns of Chinese immigrants as well as examining the determinants of such change. From 1970 to 2010, the Chinese community in DC area has undergone tremendous change. In 1970, almost one third of DC?s Chinese lived in Chinatown and Chinatown used to be a growing cluster of Chinese immigrants during the 1970s. Since 1980, Chinese immigrants in the DC area are becoming more and more dispersed. Meanwhile, ethnoburbs such as Rockville began to rapidly develop since the 1980s. Today?s Rockville has not only the largest Chinese population, but also the biggest concentration of Chinese businesses. In contrast, Chinatown?s Chinese population is decreasing year by year, and Chinatown has become more commercialized and less ?Chinese.? Close to Rockville, satellite ethnoburbs, such as Gaithersburg, North Potomac, and Germantown, are emerging and growing rapidly. Similar to what happened in Los Angeles and New York, the Chinese community in DC area has also transformed from a Chinatown enclave to a Rockville ethnoburb and has become more dispersed. Rockville?s Chinese community shares lots of similarities with the Monterey Park ethnoburb in Los Angeles: Chinese residents in both ethnoburbs are generally middle-class and well educated. Second, a combination of quantitative analysis and in-depth interviews has been adopted to examine the determinants of residential choice. The results of quantitative analysis are mixed. The index of dissimilarity for the DC area in 2010 shows support of the assimilation model and it appears that the further out in the suburb, the smaller the index is, which indicates that the Chinese are more dispersed and more similar to the White residents in suburbs than in inner city enclaves. The two binary logistic regression models, however, only partially conform to the assimilation model. In the first model that compares Chinese residents in DC Chinatown with Chinese residents in the rest of DC area, education has a significant positive impact on residential location; whereas in the second model that compares Chinese residents in DC ethnoburbs with those in the rest of DC area (excluding Chinatown), the impact of education is negative. In other words, the first model suggests that completion of college and graduate school increases the likelihood of Chinese immigrants? exodus from Chinatown, which conforms to the assimilation model. Yet the second model suggests that completion of college and graduate school decreases the dispersion of Chinese immigrants in the suburbs. The Chinese seems to become less dispersed when they acquire more education, which conflicts with the assimilation model. In order to further explore the determinants of residential choices, interviews were conducted to capture lived experiences and perceptions of individual Chinese residents. From the interviews, three major determinants of Chinese respondents? residential choices can be concluded: proximity to work, quality school district, and access to ethnic businesses and services. Post-1965 Chinese immigrants, with more human capital than their predecessors, are more likely to reside in localities with more professional work sites. The Chinese are widely known for their emphasis on education. With that shared priority, Chinese immigrants are likely to choose residences with preferred school districts if they have the option. For their children?s educational opportunities as well as for the resale value, Chinese newcomers are more likely to choose localities with better school systems. Although recent Chinese immigrants do not need to rely on the ethnic support provided by the enclave, they still prefer the accessibility of ethnic goods and services. As the residential concentration has shifted from Chinatown to the suburb, Chinese businesses realize the demand and move to the suburb as well to cater to the needs of suburban Chinese residents. The movement of Chinese businesses facilitates the further growth of the suburban Chinese community and in turn attracts more Chinese immigrants. Rockville has the combination of the three aforementioned factors: it is the hub of many high-tech and bio-tech companies where large numbers of Chinese are employed, has one of the best school districts in the area, and is home to numerous Chinese businesses. Rockville is unsurprisingly the most popular residential destination among the Chinese in DC area. Also drawn from the interviews, Chinese immigrants in DC area, although residentially dispersed, are sustaining their ethnic identity and culture through formal and information institutions. They also try their best to pass on the cultural heritage to their next generations. The incentives of sustaining ethnic identity and cultural heritage are complex. Besides the emotional attachment, which is the sense of belonging, respondents believe that shared ethnic and cultural backgrounds enhance social capital, increase opportunities, and empower the community as a whole. In DC area, formal and informal institutions play important roles in pulling the Chinese community together. In their day- to-day life such as going to the Chinese church, sending their children to Chinese language school, dining in Chinese restaurant, shopping at Chinese grocery stores, celebrating Chinese festivals, and attending events held by Chinese organizations (i.e., OCA-DC), Chinese immigrants are not only maintaining their cultural heritage and ethnic identity but also passing on the legacy to the younger generation. The Chinese community in DC area is characterized by extensive transnational connections. Transnational network and global economy have perpetuated the change in the residential patterns of the Chinese community in DC area. The changing global economy has resulted in new opportunities in transnational trade and commercial activities and individuals are no longer permanent settlers in one place. As evidenced in the interviews, some respondents travel frequently between China and the United States, carrying capital and culture in both directions, and consider themselves transnational residents. Some of them choose to be transitional residents due to economic opportunities in China, and some of them choose to do so because of a ?glass ceiling? in the United States. They believe they are unprivileged racial group members in the host country, and would like to reach higher career goals in their home country where they have the privilege. Yet at the same time, their families are setting roots in American suburbs and prefer the relaxed lifestyle, pleasant weather, quality schools, and spacious houses that they are unlikely to find if they move back to China. On the micro level, the respondents? experiences reveal racial stratification and a labor market differentiation in that their race has prevented them from reaching their full career potential in the host society. On the macro level, their transnational residency reflects the shifts in China?s policy. The Chinese government has increasingly implemented policies and programs that are favorable to returnees to attract more oversea Chinese to make contributions to the Chinese economy. This dissertation provides useful information to current issues in public policy. Understanding the change in residential patterns is important for analytical purposes as well as policy making. Though focusing on the Chinese community in DC, this study not only provides insights to local policy makers, but also sheds light on the diverse experiences of immigrants nationwide. Ethnoburb, a new model for immigrant settlement, is understudied. Because ethnoburban residents are significantly different from Chinatown residents in many ways, different immigrant policies are required to adapt to this new settlement pattern. Methodologically, this project innovatively combines GIS mapping, statistical analysis, and in-depth interviews because each method has drawbacks and needs each other to provide supplemental information. The quantitative data provides important information about socioeconomic status and the degree of segregation, yet it does not document the lived experience of residents and the dynamic context. By adopting the in- depth interview as a supplemental approach, I am able to reveal individual Chinese immigrant?s experiences and perspectives in order to provide contextual data to my project. Needless to say, this dissertation has limitations. First, the sample size of the interviewees is not big enough to represent the diversity of Chinese residents in DC area. An ideal sample for future research may include a greater variety of generations, class, gender, origins, and residences. For example, a comparison between Chinese residents of Rockville with Chinese residents of other parts of Montgomery County would be an interesting addition. Also, with an expanded sample of second-generation and third- generation respondents, a more detailed intergenerational comparison would provide more strength to this project. Among the many localities in the DC metro area, only seven are represented: Rockville, Chinatown, DC, McLean, Gaithersburg, Wheaton, and North Potomac. Given that the ethnic enclave (Chinatown) and the ethnoburb (Rockville) are the focus of this project, the sample is able to serve the research goal. For future research, a wider range of localities will ensure more comparative studies. Second, the sample is exclusively Chinese. Although the demographic data provides some comparison between non-Hispanic Whites and Chinese, other racial groups such as Black and Hispanic, are omitted in this project. How different are these patterns from other racial groups? Do they also concentrate in the Chinese ethnoburbs (i.e., Rockville) because of the convenience and the quality school districts? Future research should explore residential patterns of other racial groups and the determinants of these patterns. In addition to in-depth interviews, anonymous surveys may be distributed to a wider sample to ask sensitive race-related questions. For example, how does racial composition play a role in affecting Chinese immigrants? residential choices? How comfortable do Chinese immigrants feel about being neighbors with certain racial groups? These are interesting additions to this project and will provide a social psychological perspective to understand the residential patterns. Third, due to the small sample size, gender and marital status are not taken into account in this project. In each household, who is making decisions in terms of residential choice? Does marital status affect the householder?s residential choice? It is important to further explore these issues in future research. Fourth, a multinomial logistic regression model may be considered for future research. Instead of dividing into two models (i.e., enclave vs. the rest and ethnoburb vs. the rest) as in this project, the DC area can be divided into three categories: PUMA in Maryland, PUMA in DC, and elsewhere. It is more sophisticated and more accurate than the two PUMAs. Another intriguing extension of the statistical analysis could involve combining U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service longitudinal data with census- tract information in order to trace the residential assimilation process, taking into account information omitted from the census such as immigrant visa type (White et al. 1993). Although ethnoburbs are continually growing, there are uncertainties about their future. Will ethnoburbs dissolve like Chinatowns? How long will ethnoburbs persist? Further research is needed to answer these questions. Last but not least, it would be helpful to conduct comparative studies between different ethnoburbs (i.e., Monterey Park, Flushing) in the United States. For example, comparative research of demographic trends, statistical analysis, and interviews will provide revealing information and progress our understanding of this new settlement pattern. In closing, this study has confirmed the emergence and growth of the ethnoburb in DC area. The changes in the residential patterns of Chinese immigrants in the DC area reflect a paradoxical outcome of assimilation. Although Chinese immigrants have transformed their socioeconomic gains to spatial mobility, as predicted by the assimilation model, the concentration of Chinese residents and Chinese businesses in the ethnoburb as well as Chinese immigrants? sustaining of their cultural heritage contradicts some of the predictions of the assimilation theory. The ethnoburb is a result of the changing local and global economy, race relations, immigration policies, and increased transnational connections. As a new immigrant settlement pattern, the emergence and the growth of ethnoburb requires adjustments in local and immigration policy as well as modifications of the immigrant adaptation theories. APPENDIX A: Chinese Population in DC Metro Area by Census Tracts, 1970-20006 6 Included in Shinagawa and Kim, 2008. A Portrait of Chinese Americans. College Park, MD: Asian American Studies Program. APPENDIX B: Historical Timeline of DC Chinatown 1851 First Chinese resident settled in Washington 1882 Congress passes the Chinese Exclusion Act 1884 First Chinatown on Pennsylvania Avenue includes 100 inhabitants 1908 Population of the first Chinatown reaches 400 1927 Federal Triangle project announced, forcing Chinatown to move 1928 Population of Chinatown reaches 600, mostly men 1931 Chinatown relocates to H Street, N.W., along with 398 inhabitants 1935 Chinese Christian Church established, with services at Mt. Vernon Episcopal Church, Mount Vernon Square 1936 Population of Chinatown reaches 800 1939 Chinese Community Church buys property for its new church site at 1011 L Street, N.W., just north of Massachusetts Avenue 1943 Chinese Exclusion Act repealed, establishing quota of 105 Chinese immigrants per year, and restoring the rights of Chinese immigrants 1945-53 Heavy Chinese immigration accompanied WWII and its aftermath 1965 Immigration Act results in increased immigration, including family members and educated overseas Chinese from outside China 1968 Riot following the death of Rev. Martin Luther King affects Washington took place. Although Chinatown was not burned nor looted, fewer people traveled to Chinatown after the riot 1972 A proposal to build the Convention Center threatened the physical destruction of Chinatown and possible relocation of 13% of the population 1973 Chinatown residents circulated a petition to protest the displacement of the community. As a result, the Convention Center site was moved from 7th and H streets to 9th and H Streets, NW 1982 The Washington Convention Center opened in December 1986 The Chinatown arch, a joint venture of the Beijing and Washington, DC governments, is built across H Street between Sixth and Seventh streets, N.W., part of an attempt to revitalize the Chinatown community 1997-present The MCI Center and a new Convention Center are completed, and Chinatown becomes a magnet for developers Source: Asian American Arts and Media 1991; Hathaway and Ho 2003 APPENDIX C: Interview Questions 1. When did you move to DC area? 2. Which county and town did you settle in? Where do you live now? 3. Why did you choose the current community? What do you value most when you are choosing a community to live? What are the most important factors you take into account? 4. Please describe the Chinese community in your town. Compare and contrast the past and the present, what have changed most? 5. In your opinion, what factors have contributed to the change in the Chinese community? 6. Please describe in details the Chinese community in the past?how many Chinese ethnic businesses were there? Chinese churches? Chinese-language schools? 7. How often do you travel to China/Taiwan/Hong Kong? 8. Please describe your connections with China/Taiwan/Hong Kong (work-related as well as everyday life). APPENDIX D: TABLES Table 5: Changes in White and Chinese Population in Selected DC MSA Localities, 1970-2010 Source: U.S. Census Data 1970, 1980, 1990, 2000, and 2010. National Historical Geographic Information System. Table 6: Increase Rate in Selected Localities in DC MSA, 1970-2010 Increase Rate in Selected Localities in DC MSA, 1970-2010 Area 1970-1980 1980-1990 1990-2000 2000-2010 Chinese in the U.S. 107.7% 113.5% 59.2% 46.1% Chinese in DC MSA 86.8% 104.1% 47.8% 37.6% Chinatown, DC 28.7% 6.2% -12.5% -12.0% Total Population of Chinatown, DC -2.9% -32.0% 86.8% 92.5% Chinese in Rockville City, MD 462.3% 134.2% 92.4% 82.8% Total Population of Rockville City, MD 5.4% 2.3% 5.7% 29.2% Chinese in Gaithersburg City, MD 531.6% 408.3% 94.7% 34.9% Total Population of Gaithersburg City, MD 216.7% 49.6% 33.1% 13.9% Chinese in Germantown CDP, MD n.a 457.1% 131.8% 298.2% Total Population of Germantown CDP, MD n.a 323.3% 34.7% 55.9% Chinese in Wheaton-Glenmont CDP, MD 149.1% 66.9% 22.8% -31.7% Total Population of Wheaton-Glenmont CDP, MD -26.6% 10.5% 7.4% -16.3% Chinese in Arlington CDP, VA 104.2% 74.2% 54.3% 27.1% Total Population of Arlington CDP, VA -12.4% 12.0% 10.8% 9.6% Chinese in McLean CDP, VA 1088.9% 105.9% 62.2% 85.1% Total Population of McLean CDP, VA 101.5% 7.0% 2.0% 23.6% Source: U.S. Census Data 1970, 1980, 1990, 2000, and 2010. National Historical Geographic Information System. APPENDIX E: PUMA Maps Bibliography Allen, James P. and Eugene Turner. 2005. ?Ethnic Residential Concentrations in United States Metropolitan Areas.? Geographical Review 95, 2: 267-285. Alba, Richard and Victor Nee. 1999. ?Rethinking Assimilation Theory for a New Era of Immigration.? in The Handbook of International Migration: The American Experience, edited by Charles Hirschman, Philip Kasinitz, and Josh DeWind, 137-160. New York: Russell Sage Foundation. American Community Survey. 2010. Selected Housing Characteristics: 2008-2010 American Community Survey 3-Year Estimates. Asian American Arts and Media, Inc. 1991. Chinatown, DC: A Photographic Journal. Washington, DC. Borjas, George J. 1998. ?To Ghetto or Not to Ghetto: Ethnicity and Residential Segregation.? Journal of Urban Economics 44, 2: 228-253. Brown, Lawrence A. and Su-Yuel Chung. 2008. ?Market-Led Pluralism: Rethinking Our Understanding of Racial/Ethnic Spatial Patterning in U.S. Cities.? Annals of the Association of American Geographers 98, 1: 180-212. Card, David. 2001. ?Immigrant inflows, native outflows, and the local labor market impacts of higher immigration.? Journal of Labor Economics 19: 22-64. Charles, Camille Zubrinsky. 2003. ?The Dynamics of Racial Residential Segregation.? Annual Review of Sociology 29: 167-207. Catsles, Stephen. 2007. ?The Factors that Make and Unmake Migration Policies.? in Rethinking Migration: New Theoretical and Empirical Perspectives, edited by Alejandro Portes and Josh DeWind, 29-61. New York: Berghahn Books. Chen, Yi. (Director and Producer). 2012. DC Chinatown Documentary Project. Cheng, Cindy I-Fen. 2006. ?Out of Chinatown and into the Suburbs: Chinese Americans and the Politics of Cultural Citizenship in Early Cold War America.? American Quarterly 58(4): 1067-1090. City of Rockville, Maryland. 2011. Comprehensive Annual Financial Report, Fiscal Year 2011. Rockville, MD: Department of Finance. www.rockvillemd.gov/government/cafr/cafr_fy11.pdf (last accessed on October 18, 2012) Clark, William A.V. 1992. ?Residential Preferences and Residential Choices in a Multi-Ethnic Context.? Demography 29: 451-456. Cooper, Rachel. 2012. ?Chinatown in Washington, DC: A Neighborhood Profile.? About.com Guide http://dc.about.com/od/neigborhoodprofiles/p/Chinatown.htm (last accessed on March 20, 2012) Crowley, Michael. 2006. ?Welcome to McLean, Home of America?s Ruling Class.? The New Republic. September 11, 2006. http://www.tnr.com/article/politics/archive/welcome-mclean-home-americas- ruling-class (last accessed on October 17, 2012) Foggo, J. G. III. 1993. ?Stranger in a strange land recalls the purple heart battalion.? Reflections, pp. 25. Fong, Timothy P. 1994. The First Suburban Chinatown: The Remaking of Monterey Park, California. Philadelphia: Temple University Press. Frazier, John W. and Florence M. Margai. 2003. Multicultural Geographies: The Changing Racial/Ethnic Patterns of the United States. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press. Friedman, Samantha, Audrey Singer, Marie Price, and Ivan Cheung. 2005. ?Race, Immigrants, and Residence: A New Racial Geography of Washington, D.C.? Geographical Review 95, 2: 210-230. Gans, Herbert J. 1973. ?Introduction.? In Ethnic Identity and Assimilation: The Polish Community, edited by Neil Sandberg, vii-xii. New York: Praeger. Gans, Herbert J. 1979. ?Symbolic Ethnicity: The Future of Ethnic Groups and Cultures in America.? Ethnic and Racial Studies 2:1-19. Glenn, Evelyn Nakano. 1983. ?Split Household, Small Producer and Dual Wage Earner: An Analysis of Chinese-American Family Strategies.? Journal of Marriage and Family 45, 1: 35-46. Glick Schiller, Nina, Linda Basch, and Cristina Szanton Blanc. 1995. ?From Immigrant to Transimmigrant: Theorizing Transnational Migration.? Anthropological Quarterly 68, 1: 48-63. Greve, Arent and Janet W. Salaff. 2005. ?Social Network Approach to Understand the Ethnic Economy: A Theoretical Discourse.? GeoJournal, 64, 1: 7-16. Hathaway, David and Stephanie Ho. 2003. ?Small but Resilient: Washington?s Chinatown Over the Years.? Washington History 15, 1: 42-61. Hetcher, Michael. 1975. Internal Colonialism: The Celtic Fringe in British National Development. Berkeley: University of California Press. Kantrowitz, Nathan. 1973. Ethnic and Racial Segregation in the New York Metropolis. New York: Praeger Publishers. Kwong, Peter and Dusanka Miscevic. 2005. Chinese America: The Untold Story of America?s Oldest New Community. New York: The New Press. Li, Wei. 1998. ?Los Angeles? Chinese Ethnoburb: From Ethnic Service Center to Global Economy Outpost.? Urban Geography 19, 6: 502-517. Li, Wei, Gary Dymski, Yu Zhou, Carolyn Aldana, and Maria Chee. 2002. ?Chinese American Banking and Community Development in Los Angeles County.? Annals of Association of American Geographers 92, 4: 777-796. Li, Wei (Ed.). 2006. From Urban Enclave to Ethnic Suburb: New Asian Communities in Pacific Rim Countries. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press. Li, Wei. 2009. Ethnoburb: The New Ethnic Community in Urban America. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press. Li, Xisuo. 2008. ?Three Major Waves of Student Emigration in Chinese History.? International Talent 9: 16- 18. Liaw, Kao-Lee and William H. Frey. 1998. ?Destination Choice of the 1985-90 Young Adult Immigrants to the United States: Importance of Race, Educational Attainment, and Labor Market Forces.? International Journal of Population Geography 4: 49-61. Light, Ivan H. 1972. Ethnic Enterprise in America: Business and Welfare Among Chinese, Japanese, and Blacks. Berkeley: University of California Press. Lim, Gill-Chin. 2005. ?Globalization, Spatial Allocation of Resources and Spatial Impacts: A Conceptual Framework.? in Globalization and Urban Development, edited by Harry W. Richardson and Chang-Hee C. Bae, 13-27. Berlin: Springer. Lin, Jan. 1998. Reconstructing Chinatown: Ethnic Enclave, Global Change. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press. Liu, Lisong. 2012. ?Return Migration and Selective Citizenship: A Study of Returning Chinese Professional Migrants from the United States.? Journal of Asian American Studies 15, 1: 35-68. 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: 299-322. Lopez, Nancy. 2003. Hopeful Girls, Troubled Boys: Race and Gender Disparity in Urban Education. New York: Routledge. Louie, Vivian. 2004. Compelled to Excel: Immigration, Education, and Opportunity Among Chinese Americans. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. MacMillan, Margaret. 2007. Nixon and Mao: The Week that Changed the World. Random House. Mark, Diane Mei Lin, and Ginger Chih. 1993. A Place Called Chinese America. The Organization of Chinese Americans. Massey, Douglas S. 1985. ?Ethnic Residential Segregation: A Theoretical Synthesis and Empirical Review.? Sociology and Social Research 69: 315-350. Massey, Douglas S. 1999. ?Why Does Immigration Occur? A Theoretical Synthesis.? in The Handbook of International Migration: The American Experience, edited by Charles Hirschman, Philip Kasinitz, and Josh DeWind, 34-53. New York: Russell Sage Foundation. Massey, Douglas S., and Nancy A. Denton. 1985. ?Spatial Assimilation as a Socioeconomic Outcome.? American Sociological Review 50: 94-110. Massey, Douglas S. and Nancy A. Denton. 1988. ?Suburbanization and Segregation in U.S. Metropolitan Areas.? American Journal of Sociology 94:592-626. Marrow, Helen B. 2005. ?New Destinations and Immigrant Incorporation.? Perspectives on Politics 3, 4: 781-799. Min, Pyong Gap. 1988. Ethnic Business Enterprise: Korean Small Business in Atlanta. New York: Center for Migration Studies. Montgomery County Government News Release. 2005. ?Wheaton Designated Arts and Entertainment District by State.? Released on 12/6/2005. http://www6.montgomerycountymd.gov/apps/News/press/PR_details.asp?PrID=1633 (last accessed on September 28, 2012) Myles, John and Feng Hou. 2004. ?Changing Colours: Spatial Assimilation and New Racial Minority Immigrants.? The Canadian Journal of Sociology 29, 1: 29-58. Newbold, K. Bruce. 1999. ?Spatial Distribution and Redistribution of Immigrants in the Metropolitan United States, 1980 and 1990?. Economic Geography 75, 3: 254-271. Nielsen, Francois. 1980. ?The Flemish Movement in Belgium after World War II: A Dynamic Analysis.? American Sociological Review 45: 76-94. Nielsen, Francois. 1985. ?Toward a Theory of Ethnic Solidarity in Modern Societies.? American Sociological Review 50, 2: 133-149. Oberle, Alex and Wei Li. 2008. ?Diverging Trajectories: Asian and Latino Immigration in Metropolitan Pheonix.? in Twenty-First-Century Gateways: Immigrant Incorporation in Suburban America, edited by Audrey Singer, Susan W. Hardwick, and Caroline B. Brettell. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press. Omi, Michael and Howard Winant. 1994. Racial Formation in the United States: From the 1960s to the 1980s. New York: Routledge and Kegan Paul. Park, Julie and John Iceland. 2011. ?Residential Segregation in Metropolitan Established Immigrant Gateways and New Destinations, 1990-2000.? Social Science Research 40, 3: 811-821. Park, Robert Ezra. 1930. ?Assimilation, Social.? In Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences, edited by Edwin Seligman and Alvin Johnson, 281-283. New York: Macmillan. Park, Robert Ezra. 1950. Race and Culture. Glencoe, IL: Free Press. Park, Robert Ezra and Ernest W. Burgess. 1969. Introduction to the Science of Sociology. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. (Originally published in 1921) Portes, Alejandro. 1981. ?Modes of Structural Incorporation and Present Theories of Immigration.? in Global Trends in Migration, edited by Mary M. Kritz, Charles Keely, and Silvano Tomasi, 279-297. New York: Center for Migration Studies. Portes, Alejandro. 1996. ?Globalization from Below: The Rise of Transnational Communities.? in Latin America in the World Economy, edited by Roberto Patricio Korzeniewicz and William C. Smith, 151- 168. Westport, CN: Greenwood Press. Portes, Alejandro. 1998. ?Social Capital: Its Origins and Applications in Modern Sociology.? Annual Review of Sociology, 24: 1-24. Portes, Alejandro. 2003. ?Conclusion: Theoretical Convergences and Empirical Evidence in the Study of Immigrant Transnationalism.? International Migration Review 37, 3: 874-892. Portes, Alejandro and Robert L. Bach. 1985. Latin Journey: Cuban and Mexican Immigrants in the United States. Berkeley: University of California Press. Portes, Alejandro and Josh DeWind. 2007. Ed. Rethinking Migration: New Theoretical and Empirical Perspectives. New York: Berghahn Books. Portes, Alejandro, Luis E. Guarnizo and Patricia Landolt. 1999. ?The Study of Transnationalism: Pitfalls and Promise of an Emergent Research Field.? Ethnic and Racial Studies 22, 2: 21-237. Portes, Alejandro and Leif Jensen. 1987. ?What?s An Ethnic Enclave? The Case for Conceptual Clarity.? American Sociological Review 52, 6: 768-771. Portes, Alejandro and Robert D. Manning. 1986. ?The Immigrant Enclave: Theory and Empirical Examples.? in Competitive Ethnic Relations, edited by Susan Olzak and Joane Nagel, 47-68. New York: Academic Press. Portes, Alejandro and Ruben G. Rumbaut. 1996. Immigrant America: A Portrait. Berkeley: University of California Press. Portes, Alejandro and Ruben G. Rumbaut. 2001. Legacies: The Story of the Immigrant Second Generation. New York: Russell Sage Foundation. Portes, Alejandro and Min Zhou. 1993. ?The New Second Generation: Segmented Assimilation and Its Variants.? The Annals of the Academy of Political and Social Science 530:74-96. Price, Marie and Audrey Singer. 2008. ?Edge Gateways: Immigrants, Suburbs, and the Politics of Reception in Metropolitan Washington.? in Twenty-First-Century Gateways: Immigrant Incorporation in Suburban America, edited by Audrey Singer, Susan W. Hardwick, and Caroline B. Brettell. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press. Sanders, Jimy M. and Victor Nee. 1987. ?Limits of Ethnic Solidarity in the Enclave Economy.? American Sociological Review 52, 6: 745-773. Sassen, Saskia. 2012. Cities in a World Economy. 4th Edition. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Shinagawa, Larry and Dae Young Kim. 2008. A Portrait of Chinese Americans: A National Demographic and Social Profile of Chinese Americans. College Park, MD: Asian American Studies Program. Singer, Audrey. 2003. At Home in the Nation?s Capital: Immigrant Trends in Metropolitan Washington. Brookings Greater Washington Research Project. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution. Singer, Audrey. 2004. The Rise of New Immigrant Gateways. The Living Cities Census Series. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution. Singer, Audrey, Susan W. Hardwick, and Caroline B. Brettell (Eds.). 2008. Twenty-First Century Gateways: Immigrant Incorporation in Suburban America. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution. Takaki, Ronald. 1998. Revised and Updated edition. Strangers from a Different Shore: A History of Asian Americans. Boston, MA: Little, Brown and Company. U.S. Census Bureau. 2010. Selected Population Profile in the United States 2010: American Community Survey 1-Year Estimate. http://factfinder2.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?pid=ACS_10_1YR_S020 1&prodType=table (last accessed on December 6, 2011) U.S. News. 2012. ?Best High Schools in Maryland.? www.usnews.com/education/best-high-schools/maryland (last accessed on September 28, 2012) Vertovec, Steven. 2003. ?Migration and Other Modes of Transnationalism.? International Migration Review 37, 3: 641-665. Vertovec, Steven. 2009. Transnationalism. London and New York: Routledge. Xie, Yu and Emily Greenman. 2005. ?Segmented Assimilation Theory: A Reformulation and Empirical Test.? Paper presented at the annual meeting for the Population Association of America, Philadelphia, April, 2005. Waldinger, Roger, Howard Aldrich, and Robin Ward. 2006. Ethnic Entrepreneurs: Immigrant Business in Industrial Societies. BookSurge Publishing. Waters, Mary C. and Tomas R. Jimenez. 2005. ?Assessing Immigrant Assimilation: New Empirical and Theoretical Challenges.? Annual Review of Sociology 31:105-125. Wen, Ming, Diane S. Lauderdale, and Namratha Kandula R. 2009. ?Ethnic Neighborhoods in Multi Ethnic America, 1990-2000: Resurgent Ethnicity in the Ethnoburbs.? Social Forces 88, 1: 425-460. White, Michael J., Ann E. Biddlecom, Shenyang Guo. 1993. ?Immigration, Naturalization, and Residential Assimilation among Asian Americans in 1980.? Social Forces 72, 1: 93-117. Wong, Morrison. 2006. ?Chinese Americans.? in Pyong Gap Min (Ed.), Asian Americans: Contemporary Trends and Issues, 2nd Edition. Thousand Oaks, CA: Pine Forge Press. Zhou, Min. 1992. Chinatown: The Socioeconomic Potential of an Urban Enclave. Philadelphia: Temple University Press. Zhou, Min. 1997. ?Segmented Assimilation: Issues, Controversies, and Recent Research on the Second Generation.? International Migration Review 31, 4: 957-1008. Zhou, Min. 2009. Contemporary Chinese America: Immigration, Ethnicity, and Community Transformation. Philadelphia: Temple University Press. Zhou, Min and Carl Bankston III. 1998. Growing Up American: How Vietnamese Children Adapt to Life in the United States. New York: Russell Sage Foundation. Zhou, Min and Mingang Lin. 2005. ?Community Transformation and the Formation of Ethnic Capital: Immigrant Chinese Communities in the United States.? Journal of Chinese Overseas 1, 2: 260-284. Zhou, Min and John R. Logan. 1991. ?In and Out of Chinatown: Residential Mobility and Segregation of New York City?s Chinese.? Social Forces 70, 2: 387-407. Zhou, Yu. 1998. ?Beyond Ethnic Enclaves: Location Strategies of Chinese Producer Service Firms in Los Angeles.? Economic Geography 74, 3: 228-251. Zweig, David. 2006. ?Competing for Talent: China?s Strategies to Reverse the Brain Drain.? International Labor Review 145, 1/2: 65-90.