Factors that explain the difference between the poverty rates for immigrants and non-immigrants is a culture of poverty and can rely on the theory of Oscar Lewis

How is relative poverty measured is also important. And changes in the population over time: think that naturalizations change the distribution of the population between immigrants and not immigrants. Kind regards.

Thanks for your answers.

Some extra info in case it helps. I measure poverty using three measures: relative income poverty, material deprivation and subjective financial strain. I am working with country of birth precisely to avoid the problem of naturalization.

I am particularly interested in change i.e. factors that may explain a growing gap between migrants and non-migrants,  I can think of some possible explanations: changes in the labor market, in number of migrants and origin, in legislation, etc. Any references would be extremely welcome.

Further details can be obtained from these books:

Card, D. and S. Raphael (eds.) (2013). Immigration, Poverty, and Socioeconomic Inequality. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.

Card, D., & Raphael, S. (Eds.). (2013). Immigration, poverty, and socioeconomic inequality. Russell Sage Foundation.

Also, Chou's work can be helpful.

Chou, K. L. (2013). Familial effect on child poverty in Hong Kong immigrant families. Social indicators research, 113(1), 183-195.

All the best.

Once again, please clarify.  The question asked about migrants, but all the answers are about immigrants/non-immigrants (this one can be more than one category). There IS a difference: migrants either come and go or keep moving, most  often depending on where there is work and don't necessarily cross borders, i.e. stay in their own country.  Here in the US, there are citizen migrant workers in agricultural or construction work,  thus seasonal. Immigrants move from one country to another and stay.

Thanks Thomas, these look v pertinent.

Mary-Helen, Thanks for your question. I was thinking of international migrants (born in a different country).

If they are born in a different country, they would be immigrants, no?  The references provided by Thomas Antwi Bosiakoh are on immigrants/immigration.  For research to be accessible and useful internationally, we must use terminology universally understood OR explain what and why of the difference in meaning. This, in my opinion, is evidenced by the responses on immigrants, given a question on migrants.

Hello Alba,

I do agree with Ms. Castanuela about the need to be accurate but I also disagree with the "terminology being universally understood". That very concept is quite problematic. As to your question, what are you definning as migration? There are two forms, out of country migration and in country migration. I am assumoing it is the former but you need to make that distinction clear. I also would suggest a look into the underground economy, i.e.cash economy or make this point clear to the reader. Secondly, it appears you are looking at migrants as a homogeneous group and that could not be farther fron an accurate discription, Having been born and raised in California until the age of 26 and living near the Salinas Valley migrants have different places of origins,speak diffenent languages, different cultures, ect.

In my are of study Critical Social Theory we also find a pigmentocracy exists. In other words the differing levels of melanin equates to more pay ,social status, and more trusted than those of darkerskin.

Third, your migrant non-migrant is vauge. What is the non-migrant group? Citizens, imigrents,, people living in country on a workers permiyt, an educational visa please make that clear. One again I am assuming you mean something to the effect of citizens, or pernement residence status, married into and the like. If this is your non migrant group two big factors are missing from your poverity measurements one being wealth (stocks bonds property ect) and second a relitvly new concept that is (I am sorrybut the name escapes me for the moment) but the concept is if one losses his/her job how long can maintain your current standard of living.

As to the causes of the flucuations, many factors are all contributing factors such as crop harvest, unemploymet rates, number of incomes, gender, sexuality, price of gass and gold, weathe, ect.r

You are taking on a big project. my suggestion would be to to narroe the scope as much as possible and the first thing I would do is define what you mean by youth. Say something like, this research is a study of 15-25  year old migrants and 15-25 citizens .....and the purpose of this study is an attempt to uncover the factors which createsthe  flucations in poverty leves as it .....

I hope this helps

You have a good start just narrow the focus, define your terms,  define the ages, and remember migrants ore not a homogeneous group (choose one nation state) it will make it easier to write and help narrow the scope.

Douglas 

Douglas R. Daugherty:  Please explain why this is a problematic concept: "terminology being universally understood."  To simply, we know in the US that the British have different terms for the same person, place or thing, as do Latin Americans in the Spanish language, in different countries.  If a scientist conducts research and uses such a term (different meaning  in different countries), the very first thing to do is define it as he/she is using it in the research, especially if it can be of significance and useful across the globe.

One of the first thing that I taught my students in research, when they did research proposal assignments was that the variables under study had to be defined; the importance of which has been evident with this question, where you yourself have pointed out possible distinctions in meaning.

Finally, just in case you misunderstood what I wrote/said, "terminology universally understood OR explain what and why of the difference in meaning," I was (sort of) being facetious with that first  part and I apologize, as its sort of a style I use to stress the OR part, to emphasize the why/importance of  that, the second part. ("explain what and why of the difference in meaning.")

In other words, as a writer, editor, wordsmith, and one who loves words and their precise meaning, I know that there in NO SUCH THING! (terminology universally understood).  Even my usual example of the word apple to discuss "agreed on meaning" has been spoiled- need I explain why?. 

Regards, Mary Helen

Well Ms. Castanuela,

It is good to hear (actually) read from you, I hope your adressing me by my full name is also in jest, I thought my mother had changed names!

Yes I was refering to the notion of a universal meaning and I still am even to the "explain what and why of the difference in meaning". Being a word smith and a lover of preciseness I shall assume that difference between definition and meaning is understood. This is what is the problematic, the very notion of or the essence of meaning. In the vast majority of scholarship on meaning I find to be lacking in one critical are, that being the overcoming of ideological problem. In sum, perception is the first step in the process of meaning making. Perception is the recognition of external sensory information such as the writen word, visiually, listening, all are recived to us as "sensory information".. From the moment of input of sensory information we begin to try to make sense or assing meaning to this new input.In cognitive science this is explained as "catigorizing" by way of commonalities between new and old sensory input thus the notion of concepts. For example "roughness" is a concept and in the mental catigory (concept) many seamily non related objects are placed, such as sandpaper and a cats tongue. Or soflness a babbys behind and silf sheets. 

The problematic is before this new sensory information is catigorized perception has a filter in which all sensory data if filterd and that filtering mechanism is ones world view or ideology. To be even more precise even before new sense data is recieved ideology is at work, This is one aspect to the problematic I refer to. Secondly in Gramam philosophical writing  there are words used that simply do not translate very well and meaning becomes subjective and I am also assuming you know the consequences of a subjectiviity. One such word I can thiink of is Heiidegger's use of the term "Dasing" and even in the translated explaintation the vast majority of scholars in philosophy and english agree it just not the same. The same is true for many Indigenious langueges, as well as langueges based in conceptual events.

Last and final part of the problematic is as you well know words are metaphors, our languege is metaphorical. When I use the word water what comes to mind? A mental image of a lake maybee, the ocean, a bath, ect but H2O doen not. Words arre representationaL of some thing or some concept and therefore no such universal meaning is to be found. due to the fact we are not homogeneous. 

I hope this explains my use of the word.

Look forward to reading from you soon

Douglas

One potential factor is the increasing legal restrictions on access to Social Protection for migrants (for instance, the NRPF rule in the UK, and the recent restrictions in access to rented housing and access to healthcare in the 2014 Immigration Act).

Weber, F (2012) "Borderline Justice: The Fight for Refugee and Migrant Rights" (Pluto) is useful in discussing the growth in legal restrictions on the welfare rights of migrants to the UK from a lawyers perspective. On young people specifically, I've think  Bloch et al (2014) "Sans Papiers: The social and economic lives of undocumented migrants" (Pluto) is also really helpful.