Morbidity and Region of Birth: Does the Immigrant Health Paradox Apply Outside the Case of Latinos?

• In Event: 469 - Section on International Migration Roundtables (one-hour)
  In Refereed Roundtable: Table 04. Migrant Well-Being

Abstract

Research suggests that Mexican immigrants to the United States appear to have equivalent or better health than native-born Whites despite having lower socioeconomic status. This finding has generated a vast literature, originating largely in the fields of demography and medical sociology, on the “immigrant health paradox”. We seek to examine systematically how well theories of an immigrant health paradox apply to four groups of immigrants, with a focus on differences by region of birth. We begin by identifying which of the four groups in our study have a health advantage relative to the U.S.-Born. We then test the extent to which this advantage is paradoxical (i.e- persists in the face of lower socioeconomic status). Finally, we assess the contribution of various health-related mechanisms to the health disparities found. Using nine years of data from the National Health Interview Survey, this study employs logistic regression models to compare the rates of heart disease among four immigrant groups to that of native born Whites. Marginal effects plots depict the magnitude and significance of observed differences. We further estimate the relevance of selection, reverse migration and lifestyle factors to each immigrant group’s health profile. The results reveal diversity in health advantages across immigrant groups as well as in the extent to which these advantages persist despite low SES. Similarly, the contribution of various health-generating mechanisms varies based on immigrant group. Our results suggest that assumptions of immigrant health superiority, especially those presuming robust to socioeconomic deprivation, are not well-founded outside the Mexican case.

Authors

• Alla Chernenko, University of Utah

• Jen'nan G. Read, Duke University