Annual Conference and EventsCivic Health IndexCivic Data ChallengeThe Civic 50CivicNationAwards
A Snapshot of Miami and Minneapolis-St. PaulTale of Two Cities: Civic Health in Miami and Minneapolis-St. PaulJanuary 24, 2011
 The Twin Cities experienced a relatively constant growth throughout the 20th Century. Miami’s growth was relatively modest for the first 50 years following its founding. In the post-World War II era, fueled by retirees in search of a warmer climate and lower taxes, entrepreneurs in search of opportunities and, ultimately, refugees seeking safe haven, Miami’s growth was nothing short of explosive. During the last half of the 20th Century, Miami grew from a southern tourist and retiree destination into an international city that is one of the most diverse in the nation. Immigration has made an important contribution to the growth and development of both Minneapolis-St. Paul and Miami. In Minneapolis-St. Paul, much of that immigration occurred in the last half of the 19th Century. Spurred by the need for settlers and workers, the state and the railroad companies created immigration recruitment offices to bring new settlers from Europe. By the time of the 1900 census, 29% of Minnesotans were foreign born and a majority of the remainder had at least one, and in most cases, two foreign-born parents.6 Minnesota ranked seventh among the states in the percentage of its population that was foreign born. By the turn of the century, the large waves of immigration from Germany, Sweden, and Norway were substantially complete and the process of acculturation was well underway; more than three-quarters of the state’s immigrants had been naturalized and most spoke English. In recent years, Minnesota has experienced a modest increase in immigration, most notably from Asia and Latin America. In 2009, about two-thirds (64.5%) of Minneapolis residents were native born and another quarter had relocated to the area from another state. Fewer than one out of ten (8.8%) were foreign born (Figure 2). The immigration experience in Miami has been more recent and, in many ways, more complex than in Minneapolis-St. Paul. Until the 1960s, Miami looked very much like a traditional southern city that did not necessarily welcome minorities with open arms. It was a city “. . . in which blacks were denied most basic rights: whites, including the police and the Klu Klux Klan, could harass and even kill blacks with impunity. Blacks could not swim in the ocean or in the public parks. They could not eat at the downtown lunch counters.”7 Following the failure of the Bay of Pigs invasion in 1961, the large-scale influx of Cuban immigrants, many of whom were well-educated land and business owners in Cuba, began a process that would transform Miami. A first wave of Cuban immigration brought about 250,000 refugees to the United States by 1964. Beginning in 1965, Freedom flights transported an additional 300,000 Cubans to the United States by the early 1970’s. These first two waves “. . . laid the foundation for a viable economic enclave in South Florida. The economic enclave founded by middle class Cubans in these two cohorts accommodated all subsequent arrivals from Cuba and served as a magnet for immigrants from all over Latin America.”8 In 1980, the opening of the Port of Mariel provided an opportunity for another 125,000 to seek refuge. Cubans in this last wave of immigration had grown up in post-revolutionary Cuba and generally were not of the same middle- and upper-class status as earlier waves. The resulting South Florida Hispanic community served as a haven for refugees fleeing conflicts throughout the Caribbean, including Haitians, Columbians, and Nicaraguans. Today, Miami is truly a global city and, in many ways, it looks more like mid-21st Century America than anywhere else in the country.9 More than a third (36.9%) of Miami’s residents are foreign born and fewer than a third (30.5%) are native to the state (Figure 3). The vast majority (85.2%) of Miami’s 2 million foreign-born citizens were, of course, born in Latin America and not quite half (47.5%) have been through the naturalization process. That means that more than a million Miami residents (about 20%) are not citizens. In Minneapolis-St. Paul, about 150,000 of the 280,000 foreign born are not U. S. citizens—just under 5% of the metro area. As will be true for the U. S. at mid-century, non-Hispanic whites are no longer a majority in Miami. At about 38% each, the metro area is evenly divided between Hispanics and non-Hispanic whites. At 19.2%, there is also a substantial minority of blacks from throughout the Caribbean and African Americans. This picture stands in sharp contrast to Minneapolis-St. Paul, where eight out of ten (81.6%) residents are non-Hispanic white, and African Americans are the largest minority group at 6.3% of the population. The Cuban and Haitian enclaves in Miami, along with other Hispanic communities, have important implications for the acculturation process. As Perez (1992) notes, the Cuban enclave is institutionally complete. “Cubans in Miami can, if they wish, literally live out their lives within the ethnic community. . . . The existence of the enclave also has evident implications for the process of acculturation. The completeness of the enclave has the effect of slowing down that process, for it tends to insulate the immigrant from the ‘dominant’ society and culture, allowing for the retention of the culture of origin.”10 At the same time, the Cuban enclave, in particular, has provided significant economic opportunities for newly arriving immigrants and it has served as the core of the political success that the Cuban community has enjoyed in South Florida. One indicator of the strength and completeness of the Hispanic enclave is language. More than 2.6 million (48.7%) of the metro-area’s residents speak a language other than English at home. More than a million (23.3%) do not speak English very well (Figure 4). In contrast, 12%—about 380,000—of Minneapolis-St. Paul residents speak a language other than English at home and 5.2%—about 160,000—do not speak it very well. Differences in patterns of immigration and ethnicity in Miami and Minneapolis-St. Paul are reflected in the income and educational characteristics of the two communities. As Figure 5 shows, Minneapolis-St. Paul residents have higher levels of educational attainment than Miami residents. In Miami, 8.4% have less than a 9th grade education and almost one out of five (17.6%) do not have a high school diploma. Only 3% of Minneapolis-St. Paul residents have less than a 9th grade education and only 7.4% have less than a high school degree. At the other end of the educational spectrum, more than a third (37%) of Minneapolis-St. Paul residents have a college degree while only just over a quarter (28.8%) of Miami residents are college graduates. Since education provides opportunities for income, it is not surprising that incomes are higher in Minneapolis-St. Paul than in Miami. In fact, the annual median family income in Minneapolis-St. Paul ($82,448) is more than $20,000 higher than that of Miami ($59,104). It is also worth noting there is greater income disparity in Miami than in Minneapolis-St. Paul. According to a study published by the DC Fiscal Policy Institute, out of 40 large U. S. metropolitan areas examined, Miami ranks third highest in terms of income inequality, behind Washington, D.C. and Atlanta, GA.11 The U. S. Census Bureau’s 2007 American Community Survey shows Miami has a higher level of income inequality than the nation as a whole and Minneapolis-St. Paul has less inequality than both Miami and the nation. Poverty levels also are considerably higher in Miami than in Minneapolis-St. Paul (Figure 6). About 13% of Miami residents had earnings below the poverty level in 2009, compared with 8.6% in Minneapolis-St. Paul. Children under five years of age and seniors over 65 in Miami had poverty rates that were on the order of double those in Minnesota. It is important to note that there are significant differences between communities that comprise the Miami metropolitan area. The region is not homogeneous. Community differences arise from at least two important factors. The first is the concentration of Hispanic immigrants and African Americans within the city of Miami. The second is a large-scale, “class-selective” white-flight that took place in the city of Miami and outlying Dade County beginning in the 1980s. White-flight was a reaction to multiple race riots that broke out in response to police shootings in the 1980s as well as continued immigration following the exodus from Haiti and the Mariel boatlift. During the 1980s, Miami-Dade County lost almost a third of its native white population. This, of course, contributed to income disparity in the city. “Non-Hispanic white laborers and production workers left in great numbers, while higher-class workers, notably executives and managers, remained or moved into Dade County.”12 As a result of these dynamics, population characteristics within the region are sharply different. For example, more than half of Miami-Dade County is foreign born compared with about 30% in adjacent Broward County and only 22% in Palm Beach. The vast majority (70%) of Miami-Dade County residents speak a language other than English and more than a third (35%) do not speak English very well. In Broward County, half that number (35%) speaks a language other than English at home and in Palm Beach only about 26% do so. Income and education are sharply different as well; Miami-Dade County families earned about $51,000 in 2009, compared with about $65,000 in Broward County and almost $66,000 in Palm Beach. In Miami-Dade County, almost one out of every four residents (23.2%) does not have a high school degree. These differences are an important part of understanding patterns of civic engagement within the metropolitan region. If you like this kind of content, sign up for an NCoC.net account and we'll customize your homepage recommendations based on your interests..
|
Recently Popular Tags
Baby Boomers
Business
Charitable Donations
Citizenship
Civic Engagement
Civic Health
Civic Learning
Deliberative Democracy
eCitizenship
Economy
Education
Elections
Expressing Political Views
Family & Friends
Gender
Generations
GenX
Government
Military
Millennials
Participating in Politics
Philanthropy
Policy
Political Involvement
Politics
Public Policy
Race
Religion
Service
Service-Learning
Social Entrepreneurship
Staying Informed
Trust
Understanding Politics & Government
Volunteering
Voting
|
||
| 202.955.6183 | conference@ncoc.net 1201 15th Street NW • Suite 420 • Washington, DC 20005 Copyright © 2000-2013 The National Conference on Citizenship. All Rights Reserved Privacy Policy | Glossary of Terms |
Follow Us on:    |
||
;){kind=link}
;){kind=link}
;){kind=link}
;){kind=link}
;){kind=link}