







































Abstract: This paper addresses the socioeconomic status of second-generation Middle Eastern North African 
(MENA) immigrants in the United States. Measurements of educational attainment, salary income, employment 
status, and occupation are considered. Overall, second-generation MENA immigrants achieve higher levels of 
education and salary incomes than both non-MENA whites and blacks, but falter on employment outcomes as a 
whole. Particular ethnic groups, such as Iranians and Yemenis, have accomplished higher educational levels than 
both whites and blacks, yet unemployment rates are amongst the highest of all. Upward mobility from their first-
generation parents is achieved as well. By ethnic group, Egyptian individuals prove to have outpaced their MENA 
peers on multiple measurements, however not on all. Several ethnic groups stand out in these measurements of 
socioeconomic status.

Aisthesis      Volume 10,  201925

A Comparative Study: The Socioeconomic Integration of 
Second-Generation MENA Immigrants

by Mateen Karimi

Introduction
 Immigration from the Middle Eastern region to 
the United States has occurred in three waves over 
the past century (Foad, 2013b). The first wave arrived 
between the late 1800s and mid-1920s, during which 
predominantly Arab Christians from the Ottoman 
province of Syria (modern day Lebanon, Palestine, 
and Syria) came overseas to settle. The Johnson-
Reed Immigration Act of 1924 effectively ended this 
first wave, severely restricting immigration from this 
part of the world. The second wave arose during the 
1940s to 1960s due to growing political instability 
in the region, such as the Arab-Israeli War of 1948 
and popular revolts in Egypt and Iraq. Many of the 
immigrants of this wave were better educated that the 
previous, which predominantly included established 
elites who had fled these countries experiencing 
upheaval. The third and final wave came after the 
passage of the Immigration and Nationality Act 
of 1965, thereby removing many of the restrictive 
quota limitations of the 1924 immigration policy. 
This allowed for a massive immigration of Middle 
Easterners to the United States, which still continues 
to this day. Many of the newcomers of this third wave 
have similar education levels as the second wave, 
but are far greater in number and include a higher 
percentage of Muslims. In fact, “nearly 800,000 
immigrants officially arrived to the U.S. from 1967 
to 2003” (Foad, 2013b). Many of them have joined 

mainstream America by participating in the U.S. 
economy, voting in elections, and starting their own 
families.
 While much research has focused on first-
generation immigrants from the Middle East and their 
socioeconomic integration into American society, 
little attention has been dedicated to understanding 
the relative integration of their descendants. These 
descendants are categorized as second-generation 
immigrants. These are individuals born in the United 
States to at least one foreign-born parent, according 
to the U.S. Census Bureau. Second-generation 
immigrants, of multiple ethnic backgrounds, have 
been studied through many lenses, whether that be 
social, political, or economic (Trejo & Duncan, 2015; 
Portes & Zhou, 1993; Tran & Valdez, 2017). 
 There are three important reasons as to why it 
is important to study this particular immigrant 
population in the first place. First, existing literature 
has primarily focused on first-generation MENA 
migrants integrating into European society; 
however, MENA migrants who come to the United 
States are very different (Foad, 2013a). The cost of 
immigrating to the U.S. is higher than that of Europe 
due to the long distance and lack of ethnic enclaves. 
Immigrants who expect high returns on their move 
usually decide to migrate, and thus, MENA migrants 
to the U.S. tend to be much better educated, earn 
higher incomes, and are more likely to permanently 



A Comparative Study: The Socioeconomic Integration of Second-Generation MENA Immigrants

Aisthesis      Volume 10,  201926

reside in the U.S. (Foad, 2013a). It is expected that 
the children of first-generation MENA immigrants 
will follow in suit, regarding socioeconomic status. 
Second, the MENA immigrant community is a 
rapidly growing population. According to Foad 
(2013a), “the immigrant community from the 
MENA region in the U.S. had a seven-fold increase 
between 1970 and 2000, growing from fewer than 
200,000 to over 1.5 million. Contrast this with the 
only three-fold increase in the general immigrant 
population over this period” (p. 5). MENA migrants 
also have higher fertility rates than the rest of the 
U.S. populace, which means that this immigrant 
population is expected to grow. And third, the 
general opinion of MENA immigrants by the 
rest of the U.S. population is overtly negative. In 
fact, the ratio of negative-to-positive opinions of 
Middle Eastern immigrants is about 2-to-1 among 
the American populace, according to a recent 
2015 Pew Research Center report (Smith, 2017). 
Survey respondents were asked if Middle Eastern 
immigrants make mostly “a positive impact” on U.S. 
society. This negative-to-positive ratio was higher 
than that of immigrants from Latin America, Africa, 
Europe, and Asia. Furthermore, European and Asian 
immigrants had the exact opposite results, where 
positive feedback was greater than negative feedback. 
However, the survey found multiple MENA ethnic 
groups surpassing the rest of the U.S. population on 
median household incomes. Whether the second 
generation has made considerable strides is explored 
at length in this study. It is now more important 
than ever to determine if the descendants of MENA 
immigrants have adjusted socioeconomically into 
the U.S. economy. 
 This study specifically highlights the 
socioeconomic integration of individuals who were 
born in the United States to at least one foreign-born 
parent from the MENA region. Their socioeconomic 
integration is measured by the following variables: 
educational attainment, salary income, employment 
status, and occupation. This paper will address two 
of the questions proposed in Tran and Valdez’s 
(2017) study on assessing Latino assimilation: 
First, how do these individuals fare in comparison 
to their native peers? Non-MENA majority whites 
and non-MENA minority blacks will be used as 
the reference groups for assessments of integration. 

Second, do they outperform their parents? Since the 
Current Population Survey (CPS) does not contain 
data on the respondents’ parents, my strategy is to 
compare second-generation MENA to their proxy 
first-generation parents, using the lagged birth 
cohort method. This comparison will determine the 
progression of the second generation, which was 
the same approach used in Tran and Valdez’s (2017) 
research. This paper will also address a third question 
that was not explored in Trans and Valdez’s (2017) 
study:  Which second-generation ethnic groups stand 
out the most according to these four measures? The 
purpose of this assessment is to highlight differences 
in experiences among the second-generation MENA 
population. 
    
Terminology   
 Please note that the term integration, and not 
assimilation, is being used in the context of this 
project, since assimilation implies a rejection of one’s 
parent culture to completely adopt the host society’s 
culture (Mata, 2014). The term integration does not 
assume cultural assimilation. According to Merriam-
Webster (2019), integration is the “incorporation as 
equals into society or an organization of individuals 
of different groups (such as races).” There are 
many different ethnic groups that comprise the 
MENA immigrant population. Second-generation 
Algerians, Egyptians, Emirates, Iranians, Iraqis, 
Israelis/Palestinians, Jordanians, Kuwaitis, Lebanese, 
Libyans, Moroccans, Saudis, Sudanese, Syrians, 
and Yemenis are considered in this paper, due to 
the available data provided by the CPS. Economists 
have used the terms assimilation and integration 
interchangeably for evaluating how well second-
generation immigrants have incorporated themselves 
into the U.S. economy, yet the term integration is 
used to avoid any cultural implications that are not 
explored in this study.
 There are a few more terms to clarify that will 
be used frequently throughout this report. Based on 
the U.S. Census Bureau definition, immigrants of 
the first generation “refers to those who are foreign 
born. The second generation refers to those with at 
least one foreign-born parent. The third-or-higher 
generation includes those with two U.S. native 
parents” (U.S. Census Bureau, 2016). Please note that 
second generation and third-or-higher generation 



A Comparative Study: The Socioeconomic Integration of Second-Generation MENA Immigrants

Aisthesis      Volume 10,  201927

immigrants are all native-born. Foreign-born is 
defined as anyone who is not a U.S. citizen at birth, 
and native-born persons are anyone who is born in 
the United States, Puerto Rico, or a U.S. Island Area. 

Assessment of Socioeconomic Integration
 The essential question that arises when assessing 
one’s socioeconomic integration is, who or what 
is the frame of reference? Nearly all assessments 
have a “rubric” or a grading system that follows 
a standard. Research exists on the question of 
second-generation integration into U.S. society, 
and many of these researchers have used the native 
U.S. population as the standard. Full socioeconomic 
integration of second-generation MENA immigrants 
will require those who have met the thresholds 
of average education level, salary income, and 
employment status of the native majority at the very 
least. In Tran and Valdez’s (2017) publication, they 
consider second-generation Latino assimilation by 
comparing their education and occupation levels to 
three groups: non-Hispanic whites, non-Hispanic 
blacks, and Puerto Ricans. They named whites as 
the “native majority” and grouped blacks and Puerto 
Ricans as the “native minority.” My research follows 
a very similar rubric, but leaves Puerto Ricans out of 
the assessment, where comparisons are made with 
only non-MENA native majority whites and non-
MENA minority blacks. In accordance to Tran and 
Valdez’s (2017) findings, whites are at the upper end 
of the socioeconomic status spectrum, while blacks 
are at the lower end. This is the rubric used by the 
publication in question, and their assessments of 
integration are explained next.
 Since comparisons are being made with two 
reference groups, there are five possible assessments 
that can result. The first is if such persons outperform 
native whites on the three variables mentioned in 
the previous paragraph. These immigrants would 
have a second-generation advantage over the native 
majority. For a second-generation immigrant 
cohort to fully integrate into U.S. society in only 
one generation would be remarkable. As Tran and 
Valdez (2017) point out, “this is the most optimistic 
scenario, but it is also the most unrealistic, given 
the fact that it took about three generations for the 
offspring of European immigrants who arrived at 
the turn of the twentieth century to achieve parity 

with the mainstream” (p. 162). The second scenario 
would be the second-generation achieving parity, 
but not outperforming the native majority, which 
would be categorized as long-distance social mobility. 
The third scenario would be deemed short-distance 
social mobility, in which second-generation MENA 
immigrants outperform the native minority but 
still have yet to catch up to the native majority. This 
suggests progress on behalf of the second generation, 
but this may require one or more generations to catch 
up to the native majority. The fourth possibility—
stagnation—would involve the second generation 
achieving parity with the native minority. According 
to Tran and Valdez (2017), “[t]his is a situation where 
there is very little progress toward upward mobility 
among the second generation, especially considering 
the relatively low level of socioeconomic attainment 
among the minority groups and the large racial gap 
in attainment in the United States” (p. 162). And 
finally, there is second-generation disadvantage, 
which is when the second generation falls below the 
thresholds of the native minority. 

Assessment of Socioeconomic Progression     
 This paper aims to provide a full picture 
of socioeconomic integration, examining the 
socioeconomic status of second-generation MENA 
immigrants on multiple fronts. Thus, another 
comparison with the parents of the second generation 
will be discussed. Variables of educational attainment 
and occupation are used to facilitate this comparison. 
This allows us to determine the intergenerational 
mobility of the second generation. Since the Current 
Population Survey does not contain data on the 
actual parents of each respondent, my strategy is to 
compare second-generation MENA individuals to 
their proxy first-generation parents, using the lagged 
birth cohort method. This is explained in further 
detail in the methodology section of the paper. 
Three possible scenarios can arise after comparisons 
are made. First, the second generation performs 
better than the first generation, resulting in second-
generation progress. Second, the second generation 
achieves parity with their parents, which is deemed 
second-generation stagnation. This means that the 
mobility process is slightly delayed and may require 
an additional generation for progress to be achieved. 
Third, the second generation performs worse, which 
would be considered second-generation decline.



A Comparative Study: The Socioeconomic Integration of Second-Generation MENA Immigrants

Aisthesis      Volume 10,  201928

Assessment of Socioeconomic Distinction     
 Comparisons between second-generation 
MENA ethnic groups on the variables of educational 
attainment, salary income, employment status, 
and occupation are also made in this paper. 
The goal of this assessment is to seek out ethnic 
groups that stand out substantially from the rest 
of the second-generation MENA population. Such 
comparisons may reveal patterns in relative levels 
of socioeconomic integration in order to better 
understand the experiences of the adult children of 
MENA parents.    
 Unfortunately, there is no known “established” 
rubric available from economic research for 
making this particular assessment. This is simply 
made based on observations from CPS data. The 
motivation behind making this assessment is solely 
for the purpose of highlighting differences that may 
arise between second-generation ethnic groups. 
Understanding the socioeconomic differences 
between ethnic groups will help give us a clearer 
picture of their socioeconomic integration into U.S. 
society. There are numerous cultural and religious 
distinctions that exist amongst the MENA immigrant 
population, regardless of generation. Whether those 
distinctions translate socioeconomically has yet to 
be explored extensively in academic research. 

Methodology      
a. Data Sources
 The increasing diversity of experiences among 
the second-generation MENA population is the 
starting point of this project (Bozorgmehr et al., 
2010; Nigem, 1986). Due to the increasing number 
of MENA arrivals during the post-1965 wave, the 
diversity of the MENA immigrant population has 
increased substantially. According to the Migration 
Policy Institute, “Post-1965 arrivals consisted of 
a wider mix of people seeking family unification, 
education and employment opportunities, and safety 
from war and persecution” (Cumoletti & Batalova, 
2018). The focus of this research is to examine the 
children of these arrivals who came shortly after the 
1965 policy change. 
 To capture this diversity, the Annual Social and 
Economic Supplement to the Current Population 
Survey (CPS ASEC) is used as the data source (Flood  
et al., 2018). This is a nationally representative survey 

that includes a diverse sample of MENA immigrants, 
both foreign and native born. A dataset of second-
generation MENA who were born in the United 
States were pooled over a span of six years, 2011-
2017. However, only the years 2011, 2013, 2015, and 
2017 were included to avoid any non-overlapping 
results of survey respondents. This is because the 
survey design adopts a 4-8-4 sampling scheme, in 
which households are included in the survey for the 
first four consecutive months and excluded for the 
next eight months, before returning for the last four 
consecutive months. Other economists have applied 
the same strategy as well (Tran & Valdez, 2017). 
Cross-tabulation results were created using an online, 
public-use analysis program that compiles U.S. 
Census data. This program is called the Survey and 
Documentation Analysis (SDA) program and was 
developed by UC Berkeley. The analysis capabilities 
of this program go beyond cross-tabulation alone. 
For more information, please refer to the Appendix 
section. 
 A note on CPS ASEC: This survey is administered 
by the Census Bureau through both in-person 
and telephone interviews every month to monitor 
basic trends in the population. It uses a probability 
sample of about 60,000 occupied households from 
all 50 states and the District of Columbia. There are 
some strengths and weaknesses of the CPS ASEC 
supplement. One strength is that it is currently 
the only data source that provides nationally 
representative samples of second-generation adults 
in the United States. Another strength is that it 
contains adequate sample sizes for a majority of the 
second-generation ethnic groups that are considered 
in this paper. Yet, there are some weaknesses as well. 
 First, not all of the ethnic groups from the MENA 
region are included in the birthplace variable of the 
CPS ASEC supplement. The U.S. Census Bureau 
held a forum in 2015 to define the countries included 
under the MENA category for data collection, and 
not every single country of birth is listed in the 
CPS (Buchanan et al., 2016). Second, some second-
generation, and even first-generation, ethnic groups 
have very small populations in the U.S., which may 
present a potential limitation in the significance of 
the results. Nonetheless, this research attempts to 
analyze the socioeconomic integration of a sample 
of U.S. citizens that has not been explored through 



A Comparative Study: The Socioeconomic Integration of Second-Generation MENA Immigrants

Aisthesis      Volume 10,  201929

multiple lenses before. Third, CPS ASEC data 
cannot address social mechanisms and processes 
that underlie patterns of assimilation or inequality. 
Fourth, the CPS ASEC does not contain information 
about parental educational or socioeconomic 
backgrounds, so my assessment of intergenerational 
mobility is indirect. This complication is avoided 
by using the lagged birth cohort method (Tran 
& Valdez, 2017), a technique that allows me to 
indirectly compare outcomes of second-generation 
respondents with a cohort of first-generation 
individuals who are most likely their proxy parents. 
Essentially, the lagged birth cohort method assumes 
that the duration of one immigrant generation 
is about 25 years. Using this method, a second-
generation MENA age cohort of 25 to 64-year-olds is 
compared to a first-generation MENA cohort of 50 
to 89-year-olds. This is the approach that economists 
Tran and Valdez (2017) used to assess second 
generation Latino assimilation.  
      
b. Different Dimensions of Socioeconomic Integration
Four variables are measured: educational attainment, 
wage and salary income, employment status, and 
occupation type. 

i. Educational Attainment: EDUC1 indicates 
respondents’ educational attainment, as 
measured by the highest year of school or 
degree completed. Average years of education 
are computed for the following groups: (1) 
Second-Generation MENA by Ethnic Group, 
(2) Second-Generation MENA U.S. Citizens, 
(3) Third Generation+ non-MENA Whites, (4) 
Third Generation+ non-MENA Blacks, (5) First-
Generation MENA by Ethnic Group, and (6) 
First-Generation MENA Foreign Born. 

ii. Wage and Salary Income: INCWAGE indicates 
each respondent’s total pre-tax wage and salary 
income in U.S. dollars—that is, money received 
as an employee—for the previous calendar 
year. Average salary incomes are computed for 
the following groups: (1) Second-Generation 
MENA by Ethnic Group, (2) Second-Generation 
MENA U.S. Citizens, (3) Third-Generation+ 

1 Variable abbreviation used by CPS ASEC

non-MENA Whites, and (4) Third-Generation+ 
non-MENA Blacks. 

iii. Employment Status: EMPSTAT indicates 
whether persons were part of the labor force—
working or seeking work—and, if so, whether 
they were currently unemployed. Unemployment 
and employment rates are calculated for the 
following groups: (1) Second-Generation 
MENA by Ethnic Group, (2) Second-Generation 
MENA U.S. Citizens, (3) Third-Generation+ 
non-MENA Whites, and (4) Third-Generation+ 
non-MENA Blacks. The unemployment rate is 
defined as the percentage of individuals who are 
unemployed in the labor force. The labor force 
is defined as the combined total of unemployed 
and employed persons. The unemployment 
rate is calculated by dividing the number of 
persons unemployed by the number of persons 
in the labor force and multiplying by 100. On 
the contrary, the employment rate is defined as 
the percentage of individuals who are employed 
in the labor force. This percentage is calculated 
by dividing the total number of individuals 
employed by the total number of persons both in 
and not in the labor force, and then multiplying 
by 100.

iv. Occupation: OCC reports the respondent’s 
primary occupation. Respondents who held 
more than one job were asked to report the job 
at which they worked the largest number of 
hours. For persons who were employed at the 
time of the survey, OCC refers to the job worked 
during the preceding week; unemployed persons 
and those not currently in the labor force were 
to give their most recent occupation. Percentage 
of individuals in Professional/Managerial Level 
Occupations and Low-Level Service Occupations 
are calculated for the following groups: (1) 
Second-Generation MENA by Ethnic Group, 
(2) Second-Generation MENA U.S. Citizens, (3) 
First-Generation MENA by Ethnic Group, and 
(4) First-Generation MENA Foreign Born. In 
the context of this study, Professional/Managerial 
Level Occupations include Chief Executives, 
Managers, Math/Computer Science, Engineers, 
Legal Professions, Education, and Healthcare. 



A Comparative Study: The Socioeconomic Integration of Second-Generation MENA Immigrants

Aisthesis      Volume 10,  201930

Low-Level Service Occupations include Personal 
Service, Construction, Mechanics & Repair, 
Production, and Transportation.

Note: Please refer to the Appendix for elaboration 
on tables and calculations. Averages were calculated 
based on cross-tabulation results from the SDA 
program. 

c. Explanation of Measurements for Comparison
i. All four variables are measured for second-
generation MENA immigrants, aged 25-64. The 
reasoning behind observing an adult cohort 
until age 64 is because the official retirement age 
is 65 in the United States.

ii. In regards to first-generation MENA 
immigrants, only the variables of educational 
attainment and occupation are used for 
comparison with the second generation. Salary 
incomes tend to vary over time, and observing 
an age cohort that falls above the retirement 
age may skew the employment status results. 
Occupations, however, are still considered for 
purposes of assessing intergenerational mobility, 
since first generation MENA respondents who 
are not in the labor force can list their previously 
held occupation. Economists have used both 
educational attainment and occupational status 
of first- and second-generation immigrants to 
make this assessment (Tran & Valdez, 2017; 
Bozorgmehr et al., 2010). Some have even 
suggested that the CPS provide supplemental 
data on family background of each respondent. 
According to Duncan and Trejo (2015), “The 
supplementary survey should also collect 
information on the family background of each 
respondent (e.g., the educational attainment, 
occupational status, income, and social status of 
their parents and siblings). This would allow for 
estimates of intergenerational socioeconomic 
mobility…” (p. 129). 

iii. Occupational clusters were chosen according 
to Foad’s (2013b) study, “Waves on Immigration 
from the Middle East.” He investigated the 
occupational clustering of several major 
immigrant groups in the United States, using 

first-generation MENA immigrants as the main 
comparison with other groups. Many of the 
same occupational clusters are used in this paper. 
Please note that Foad only used percentages of 
individuals in each occupational category to 
make comparisons. 

Results
1. Assessment of Socioeconomic Integration
      We begin with descriptive results on educational 
attainment, salary/wage income, and employment 
status of second-generation MENA immigrants. 
As an entire group, the average years of education 
is 16, the average salary income is $54,175.01, 
the average unemployment rate is 7.5%, and 
the employment rate is 72.5%. On variables of 
educational attainment and salary income, second-
generation MENA immigrants surpass both non-
MENA majority whites and non-MENA minority 
blacks (Table 1). However, the unemployment 
rates and employment rates do not follow a similar 
pattern. Second-generation MENA immigrants have 
lower unemployment rates than blacks but higher 
than whites. Their employment rates outpace blacks 
but not whites. In other words, this places them in 
the hierarchy between blacks and whites regarding 
employment status in the United States.

 

By ethnic group (Table 2), second-generation 
socioeconomic integration varies by variable. 
Second-generation Egyptians, Iranians, Israeli/
Palestinians, Lebanese, Libyans, Moroccans, Saudis, 
and Yemenis all have higher years of education than 
non-MENA whites. Emirates and Syrians achieve 
parity with whites. Algerians, Iraqis, and Jordanians 
do not outperform whites but do achieve parity 
with blacks, and Sudanese fall below blacks on this 
measurement. For salary income, second-generation 
Egyptians, Emirates, Iranians, Israelis/Palestinians, 



A Comparative Study: The Socioeconomic Integration of Second-Generation MENA Immigrants

Aisthesis      Volume 10,  2019

Jordanians, Lebanese, Libyans, Moroccans, Saudis, 
and Sudanese outperform whites. Algerians, Iraqis, 
and Syrians have higher salaries than blacks but not 
whites, and Kuwaitis and Yemenis have lower salaries 
than blacks. Thus, high educational outcomes 
of particular groups, such as second-generation 
Yemenis, do not necessarily translate into higher 
incomes. 
 In terms of employment status, second-
generation Algerians, Emirates, Israeli/Palestinians, 
Jordanians, Kuwaitis, Libyans, Moroccans, Saudis, 
and Syrians all have unemployment rates lower than 
whites. Egyptian, Lebanese, and Sudanese all have 
unemployment rates higher than whites but lower 
than blacks. Iranians, Iraqis, and Yemenis all have 
unemployment rates greater than blacks. Please 
note that very few second-generation Kuwaitis were 
surveyed, according to separate data collected by the 
researcher. 

2. Assessment of Socioeconomic Progression
 Table 3 below provides a very simplified summary 
of the educational attainment and occupational 
clustering of both first- and second-generation 
MENA immigrants. As shown, second-generation 
MENA have achieved a greater number of years 

of education, in addition to a shift in occupational 
percentages. A greater percentage of the second-
generation MENA workforce has coalesced into 
professional/managerial positions and less so for 
low-level service positions.

 
 
 

 
 
 
 

 Figures 1, 2, and 3 on the following pages all 
display the intergenerational mobility of second-
generation MENA immigrants by ethnic group, in 
regards to educational attainment and occupations.2 
On educational attainment, second-generation 
Egyptian, Iranian, Iraqi, Israeli/Palestinian, 
Jordanian, Lebanese, Moroccan, Saudi, and Yemeni 
populations outperform their first-generation 
proxy parents. Sudanese and Syrian perform the 
same as their parents, and Algerian, Emirate, 
and Libyan underperform the first generation. 
Second generation Egyptian, Iranian, Iraqi, Israeli/
Palestinian, Jordanian, Lebanese, Moroccan, 
Sudanese, and Yemeni all gravitate to professional/
managerial occupations in greater percentages 
and less towards low-level service occupations. 
For Algerian, Emirate, Libyan, Saudi, and Syrian, 
the contrary is true. Detailed statistics of these bar 
charts pictured on the next page are located in the 
Appendix section. 

2 Data is limited for particular groups, such as Kuwaiti, 
Emirate, and Libyan groups.

31



A Comparative Study: The Socioeconomic Integration of Second-Generation MENA Immigrants

Aisthesis      Volume 10,  2019

3.  Assessment of Socioeconomic Distinction 
 Across the four variables measured for the 
second-generation MENA population, there is a 
lot of variability in results. No single ethnic group 
stands out the most on all four variables; however, 
individually by particular variables, distinction is 
still demonstrated by some. Concerning educational 
attainment and percentage of individuals in 
professional/managerial positions, second-
generation Egyptians stand out the most, where they 
have an average of 19 years of education and 79.6% 
of persons in high-skill level occupations. Iranians 
have the lowest percentage of persons in low-skill 
occupations. On measures of average salary income, 
Libyans have the highest at $99,299.60. There is a six-
way tie for first place in regards to unemployment 
rates. Algerians, Emirates, Israelis/Palestinians, 
Jordanians, and Libyans all have unemployment 
rates of 0%. Out of these groups, Libyans have an 
employment rate of 100%. For further information 
on employment status, please refer to Table 2. Please 
note that some of these significant results are due to 
low sample sizes. Sample sizes of ethnic groups are 
located in the appendix section.  

Discussion and Conclusion
 Understanding the socioeconomic integration 
of second-generation MENA immigrants has been 
explored through multiple lenses in this paper, and 
assessments are made based on comparative data, 
hence the title of this research. Three questions were 
to be answered by the end of this paper, and those 
three questions were as follows: (1) How do these U.S. 
citizens fare in comparison to their native peers?; (2) 
Do they perform better than their parents?; and (3) 
Which second generation ethnic groups stand out 
the most, according to these four variables? 
 On the first question of socioeconomic 
integration, the second-generation MENA population 
as a whole has achieved second-generation advantage 
on measurements of educational attainment and 
salary income. Their level of education is between 
a bachelor’s degree and a master’s degree, whereas 
the educational level of non-MENA majority whites 
falls between a high school diploma and a bachelor’s 
degree. This is considered to be the highest 
benchmark for this particular assessment. Even 
the salary incomes of second-generation MENA 
immigrants are around 20% higher than whites. The 
significance of this reality is that what was achieved in 
one generation by MENA immigrants was achieved 
by three or more generations of non-MENA whites 

32



A Comparative Study: The Socioeconomic Integration of Second-Generation MENA Immigrants

Aisthesis      Volume 10,  2019

and blacks. To put this in context, the findings of 
Tran and Valdez (2017) concluded second-generation 
disadvantage for Mexicans and Puerto Ricans, 
whereas other Latinos achieved parity with native 
whites. Thus, second-generation MENA immigrants 
demonstrate very striking results compared to their 
Latino counterparts. 
 However, their employment status does not follow 
the same positive trend, where unemployment rates 
are greater than whites but less than blacks. Thus, 
short-distance social mobility has been achieved for 
this group altogether. The cause for this discrepancy 
is unknown, yet one could speculate the influence 
of discrimination and/or political biases that exist 
in American society, which have been explored by 
sociological researchers in the past. In Awad’s (2010) 
study from the University of Texas-Austin, the aim 
was to determine “the impact of acculturation, 
ethnic identity and religious affiliation on perceived 
discrimination for persons of Arab and Middle 
Eastern descent” (p. 1). The results of this study 
indicated that Arab/Middle Eastern Americans 
who reported lower levels of “dominant society 
immersion,” which is code for assimilation, tended 
to report higher levels of discrimination. Another 
study by Eshghavi (2017) demonstrates the impact 
of political attitudes on the personal experiences 
of Iranian-Americans both in public and private 
settings. Whether discrimination is a factor in the 
employment outcomes of second-generation MENA 
immigrants has yet to be explored in academic 
research, but the discrepancy does beg the question 
of why.
 By individual ethnic group, second-generation 
Egyptians, Iranians, Israeli/Palestinians, Lebanese, 
Libyans, Moroccans, and Saudis all have second-
generation advantage on measures of education and 
salary income. Algerians and Iraqis fall under the 
short-distance social mobility category for the same 
two measurements. Sudanese fall below blacks on 
education in particular, which places them in the 
second-generation disadvantage category. Kuwaitis 
and Yemenis fall below blacks in terms of income, 
thus placing them in the same category as Sudanese. 
What is most intriguing about the results, however, 
is the fact that second-generation Iranians and 
Yemenis have higher educational attainment levels 
than both whites and blacks, yet they have higher 

unemployment rates than both of those groups. 
Unemployment rates for Iranians and Yemenis are 
11.8% and 16.6% respectively, higher than the 10.5% 
unemployment rate for blacks. A similar pattern 
holds true for Egyptians, where the unemployment 
rate (6.4%) is higher than whites (4.9%), regardless 
of the fact that their educational levels and incomes 
surpass them substantially. The cause for this 
paradox needs to be explored in future research 
by ethnic group as well, along with individual case 
studies that shed light on the personal experiences of 
second-generation MENA Americans. 
 Intergenerational mobility of the second 
generation was also explored in the context of 
educational and occupational variables. Overall, 
second-generation progress is achieved, where on 
average second-generation MENA individuals 
obtain 16 years of education compared to 14 years of 
their first-generation counterparts. A similar pattern 
of progress is demonstrated where 58.9% of second-
generation MENA immigrants are, or have been, in 
professional and/or managerial positions. Close to 
half (49%) of first-generation MENA immigrants 
have the same professions. One can also observe 
a decrease in percentage of MENA immigrants 
having low-skill occupations from one generation 
to the next. All of these results point in a positive 
direction, suggesting that the descendants of MENA 
immigrants who came to the United States have 
been on an upward trajectory. Similar results were 
found in the Tran and Valdez (2017) publication 
regarding second-generation Latinos. However, 
there is still evidence of second-generation decline for 
Algerians, Emirates, and Libyans on measurements 
of education and occupational status. 
 Finally, socioeconomic distinction cannot be 
properly assessed for one particular ethnic group, 
since there is significant variability in the data across 
the outcome variables. However, second-generation 
Egyptians stand out as having the highest education 
levels and greatest percentage of individuals in 
professional/managerial occupations out of any 
other group. Further analysis needs to be dedicated 
to answering why second-generation Egyptian 
immigrants surpass all of their MENA peers on these 
two variables in particular. Future research studies 
may be required to answer the question of which 
second-generation ethnic groups perform the best in 

33



A Comparative Study: The Socioeconomic Integration of Second-Generation MENA Immigrants

Aisthesis      Volume 10,  2019

relation to their parents. This leads to our discussion 
on some of the limitations in this paper. Two major 
limitations for analysis point to (1) ethnic attrition 
and (2) lacking and/or missing data from the sample 
in question. 
 Subjective measures of ethnic/racial identification 
may have played a role in determining the results of 
this research, since survey respondents with multiple 
identities have the discretion to reveal their ethnic 
identity or parental heritage as they wish. Some 
may even be reluctant to participate in such surveys 
given their fears of governmental and/or legal action 
from the U.S. federal government (Awad, 2010). 
Economists, such as Duncan and Trejo (2015), call 
this potential limitation “ethnic attrition.” Factors 
of intermarriage, religious identity, ethnic identity, 
upbringing, and social class can have an impact 
on what respondents choose to reveal to surveyors 
of CPS. For particularly large ethnic groups, such 
as Egyptian, Iranian, Iraqi, Israeli/Palestinian, and 
Sudanese populations, ethnic attrition does not 
have the potential to construe the results. However, 
for much smaller populations, this factor can play 
a greater role. In addition, missing or lacking data, 
especially for second-generation Kuwaitis, can 
tamper with proper assessments of socioeconomic 
integration. It is suggested that this research be 
expanded upon at a later date, which would include 
a larger sample, assuming the second-generation 
MENA population will grow in population and 
diversity. 
 Nonetheless, insight on the socioeconomic 
integration of this immigrant population is very 
limited, and such research can produce a prospective 
outlook on future generations of MENA immigrants. 
Along with many other immigrant populations, 
as suggested by Tran and Valdez’s (2017) work 
on second-generation Latino assimilation in the 
aftermath of the 2008 recession, second-generation 
MENA immigrants have demonstrated positive 
results. Yet, relatively negative employment outcomes 
encourage further investigation into the motivations 
and causes behind these findings. 

Acknowledgments 
 I’d like to thank my research mentor Professor 
Delia Furtado of the University of Connecticut 
Department of Economics for all of her guidance, 

Mr. Robert Holster for his philanthropy that made 
this research possible, Dr. Moscardelli for his 
wisdom and inspiration, and of course, my family 
and friends. There is no way that this research project 
could have existed without everyone’s help and belief 
in me. Thank you.

References
Awad, G. H. (2010). The impact of acculturation and 

religious identification on perceived 
discrimination for Arab/Middle Eastern 
Americans. Cultural Diversity and Ethnic 
Minority Psychology, 16(1): 59-67.

Borjas, G. J. (1982). The earnings of male hispanic 
immigrants in the United States. Industrial & 
Labor Relations Review, 35(3), 343-53.

Bozorgmehr, M., & Douglas, D. (2011). Success(Ion): 
Second-generation Iranian Americans. Iranian 
Studies, 44(1), 3-24. 

Buchanan, A., Magdaliz, A., F., & Marks, R. (2016). 
2015 Forum on ethnic groups from the Middle East 
and North Africa. Washington, DC: Population 
Division, U.S. Census Bureau.

Card, D. (2005). Is the new immigration really so 
bad? The Economic Journal, 115(507), 300-23. 

Cumoletti, M., & Batalova, J. (2018). Middle Eastern 
and North African immigrants in the United 
States. Migration Policy Institute. Retrieved 
from https://www.migrationpolicy.org/article/
middle-eastern-and-north-african-immigrants-
united-states

Duncan, B., & Trejo, S. (2015). Assessing the 
socioeconomic mobility and integration of U.S. 
immigrants and their descendants. The Annals 
of the American Academy of Political and Social 
Science, 657(1), 108-35. 

Eshghavi, M., & Koirala, S. (2017). Intersectionality 
in the Iranian refugee community in the United 
States. Peace Review: A Journal of Social Justice, 
29(1), 85-9. 

34



A Comparative Study: The Socioeconomic Integration of Second-Generation MENA Immigrants

Aisthesis      Volume 10,  2019

Flood, S., King, M., Rodgers, R., Ruggles, S., and 
Warren, J. R. (2018). Integrated Public Use 
Microdata Series, Current Population Survey: 
Version 6.0 [dataset]. Minneapolis, MN: IPUMS. 
https://doi.org/10.18128/D030.V6.0

Foad, H. S. (2013a). Educational outcomes and 
intergenerational mobility of second generation 
migrants from the Middle East to the United 
States: A comparative study. Working Paper.

Foad, H. S. (2013b). Waves of immigration from 
the Middle East to the United States. Social 
Science Research Network Journal, 1-20.

Integration. (2019). In Merriam-Webster Dictionary. 
Retrieved from https://www.merriam-webster.
com/dictionary/integration

Mata, I. (2014). Domestic disturbances: Re-
imagining narratives of gender, labor, and 
immigration. Austin, TX: University of Texas 
Press.

Nigem, E. T. (1986). Arab Americans: Migration, 
socioeconomic and demographic characteristics. 
The International Migration Review, 20(3), 629-
49.

Portes, A., & Zhou, M. (1993). The new second 
generation: Segmented assimilation and its 
variants. American Academy of Political and 
Social Science, 530, 74-96.

Pew Research Center. (2013). Second generation 
Americans: A portrait of the adult children of 
immigrants. Washington, DC: Author.

Smith, N. (24 July 2017). Middle Eastern immigrants 
make the U.S. stronger. Bloomberg. 
Retrieved from https://www.bloomberg.com/
opinion/articles/2017-07-24/middle-eastern-
immigrants-make-the-u-s-stronger

Tran, V. C., &Valdez, N. M. (2017). Second-
generation decline or advantage? Latino 
assimilation in the aftermath of the great 
recession.” International Migration Review, 51(1), 
155-90. 

U.S. Census Bureau. (2016). Foreign born: Frequently 
asked questions (FAQs). Retrieved from https://
www.census.gov/topics/population/foreign-
born/about/faq.html

35



Note: Sample numbers for interested groups vary by the four 
measurements used in this paper. Such information can be 
accessed in the spreadsheets below. 

A Comparative Study: The Socioeconomic Integration of Second-Generation MENA Immigrants

Aisthesis      Volume 10,  2019

Appendix Link to Spreadsheets
A. Second Generation MENA: https://docs.google.
com/spreadsheets/d/1mX-KdBx8Jlz2ksRXDIT23F8
6Yz8zd2JRp9Xw21ED-Xs/edit?usp=sharing

B. First Generation MENA: https://docs.google.com/
spreadsheets/d/1GNyfen-ciVU4ybaIIlrLKWmleFK
LxLrVVZfK0mzaViE/edit?usp=sharing

C. Third Generation + non-MENA U.S. Population: 
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1fCCRT_
sJ3B6Tx5Oap0zrME8PjOgJXnVJTIJ1myK3CDI/
edit?usp=sharing

Explanation of Calculations
Please refer to the Google spreadsheet links above 
for tables and display of calculations.

Example: Average Educational Attainment of Second-
Generation MENA by Ethnic Group

1. Tables were divided into six categories: 
“High School or Less,” “High School Diploma 
or Equivalent,” “Bachelor’s Degree,” “Master’s 
Degree,” “Professional School Degree,” and 
“Doctorate Degree.” The following number of 
years were assigned to each category: 0-11, 12, 
16, 18, 21-22, 25-29. Midpoints were calculated 
for each range.

2. Using cross-tabulation results from CPS data, 
two tables are produced representing Second-
Generation MENA by Ethnic Group. Father and 
mother’s birthplace is represented in the two 
tables.

3. Average years of education for each ethnic 
group are calculated as follows: 

a. Percentages in each cell are multiplied by 
the midpoint of each range represented in the 
columns above that cell. (For columns with no 
ranges, no midpoint is calculated.)
b. Next, the addition of those products are 
then divided by 100. 

4. Since there are two tables, one representing 
father’s birthplace and one representing mother’s 
birthplace, one single table is created to compile 
the average years of education by ethnic group 

36



A Comparative Study: The Socioeconomic Integration of Second-Generation MENA Immigrants

Aisthesis      Volume 10,  2019

for both tables. This is for the sake of simplicity 
when making comparisons.
5. An average of those values are calculated 
from the two tables, resulting in one value that 
represents each second-generation MENA 
ethnic group.

Example: Average Wage and Salary Income of Second-
Generation MENA by Ethnic Group

1. Tables were divided into seven categories, 
which were $0-9525, $9526-38700, $38701-
82500, $82501-157500, $157501-200000, 
$200001-500000, and $500000+. These categories 
were chosen based on the official 2018 Federal 
Income Tax Brackets. In the case of the $500000+ 
category, I apply a range of $500001-1000000 
in order to facilitate calculations. However, 
it is important to also note that this particular 
income tax bracket applies to individuals who 
make any income above $500,000.

2. Steps 2-5 above; however, using salary 
incomes, not years of education.

Example: Employment Status of Second-Generation 
MENA by Ethnic Group

1. Tables were divided into five categories: 
“Armed Forces,” “Employed,” “Unemployed,” 
“Not in Labor Force,” and “Retired.”

2. Unemployment and Employment rates were 
calculated for each ethnic group based on 
weighted N values provided in the tables. 

3. Steps 4 & 5 above; however, using 
unemployment and employment rates, not years 
of education.

Example: Occupations of Second Generation MENA 
by Ethnic Group

1. Tables were divided into fourteen categories, 
which were represented by occupational 
clusters that cover a multitude of professions: 
“Chief Executives,” “Managers,” “Math/
Computer Science,” “Engineers,” “Legal 
Professions,” “Education,” “Media, Artists, and 
Athletes,” “Healthcare,” “Personal Service,” 
“Sales,” “Construction,” “Mechanics & Repair,” 
“Production,” and “Transportation.”

2. Percentage of persons in professional/
managerial positions and low-level service 
occupations were calculated for each ethnic 
group based on weighted N values provided in 
the tables. 

3. Steps 4 & 5; however, using occupation 
percentages, not years of education.

        

37


