An Analysis Of Poverty In Hmong American Communities

Diversity in Diaspora
Hmong Americans in the Twenty-First Century
Edited by
Mark Edward Pfeifer, Monica Chiu, and Kou Yang
University of Hawai‘i Press
Honolulu
Pfeifer - Diversity in Diaspora.indb 3 8/12/2012 7:00:14 PM

© 2013 University of Hawai‘i Press
All rights reserved
Printed in the United States of America
18 17 16 15 14 13 6 5 4 3 2 1
[CIP to come]
University of Hawai‘i Press books are printed on acid-free
paper and meet the guidelines for permanence and
durability of the Council on Library Resources.
Designed by Wanda China
Printed by [TK]

v
Contents
Introduction vii
Monica Chiu
PART I
Hmong Social and Political Adaptation in the United States 1
1 The American Experience of the Hmong: A Historical Review 3
Kou Yang
2 Hmong Americans: A Demographic Portrait 54
Mark Pfeifer
3 An Analysis of Poverty in Hmong American Communities 66
Yang Sao Xiong
4 Civic Values and Political Engagement in Two Hmong American
Communities 106
Carolyn Wong
5 Electoral Participation in the Hmong American Community:
An Initial Analysis 131
Stephen Doherty
PART II
Intersections of Hmong Identity with Gender and Age 149
6 Great Expectations: The Struggles of Hmong American High
School Boys 151
Bic Ngo and Pa Nhia Lor

vi Contents
7 Women in the Hmong Diaspora 165
Dia Cha
8 Hmong Americans: The Conceptualization and Experience of
Aging in the United States 188
Linda Gerdner
PART III
Hmong Arts and Literature 207
9 The Double Diaspora: China and Laos in the Folklore of Hmong
American Refugees 209
Jeremy Hein
10 “Reharmonizing” the Generations: Rap, Poetry, and Hmong Oral
Tradition 233
Nick Poss
11 Haunting and Inhabitation in Yang’s Latehomecomer:
A Hmong Family Memoir 247
Monica Chiu
12 Hmong American Studies: A Bibliographic Essay 269
Mark Pfeifer
List of Contributors 287
Index 291

66
3
An Analysis of Poverty in Hmong
American Communities
Yang Sao Xiong
Despite Hmong Americans’ daily struggle to use whatever limited re-
sources they can find to make ends meet, they remain one of America’s
most underprivileged ethnic groups. For example, in 2000 nearly 60 per-
cent of Hmong Americans ages twenty-five and over had less than a high
school graduate education, compared to the nation’s 20 percent. Thirty-
eight percent of Hmong Americans lived in poverty in 1999, compared to
12.4 and 12.6 percent of the nation’s population and Asian Americans, re-
spectively (U.S. Census 2004). Since their settlement, scores of studies have
documented Hmong Americans’ difficult adjustments to various aspects
of life in American cities, from health to education and culture, from legal
institutions to employment and politics (Yamasaki 1978; Bishop 1984; Fass
1986; Scott 1986; Trueba, Jacobs, and Kirton 1990; Lee 1993; Miyares 1998;
Lo 2000; Hein 2006). Past studies have helped clarify important aspects of
Hmong Americans’ dynamic socioeconomic incorporation. Through their
efforts and findings, we are more informed about the enduring sources and
consequences of poverty for Hmong American communities. Neverthe-
less, the questions of why poverty persists, what kinds of progress Hmong
American families have achieved, and to what extent progress has been
made remain far from being sufficiently addressed. The purpose of my re-
search study is to examine the subjective meanings that Hmong Americans
attribute to poverty, identify the strategies that families use to counteract
economic hardship, and provide an analysis of the crucial factors that make
poverty an enduring problem for Hmong American families in California.
In the sections that follow, I start by reviewing the relevant research
literature on poverty and immigrant incorporation that has been advanced
in the past few decades. Next, I describe the research methodology that I

An Analysis of Poverty 67
used to collect data. Then I give a brief background of the Hmong Ameri-
can context and discuss the findings of my study. I argue that the conditions
of poverty in Hmong American communities are better explained by “seg-
mented assimilation theory” than by “culture of poverty” arguments. I sug-
gest that the segmented assimilation theory can be strengthened by clarify-
ing how key institutions in the contexts of reception facilitate or constrain
individuals’ opportunities. I conclude by discussing some implications of
my study for understanding immigrant outcomes in American society.
Literature and Background
The research literature on social stratification in the United States is volu-
minous. The arguments and explanations provided on the topics of poverty
and social mobility are just as varied and numerous. Among members of
the social scientific community, however, there is no single agreed upon
theory of poverty, of its origins, its transmission, or of its emancipation.
That forms of poverty persist in American society is undeniable. The ques-
tion of how poverty persists is as much sociological as political. As Corco-
ran (1995) points out, one of the enduring questions in empirical research
on poverty has been how and whether poverty gets transmitted from one
generation to the next.
On the topic of poverty transmission, researchers during the past sev-
eral decades have presented a number of theories. During the late 1950s
to late 1960s, one of the debates surrounding poverty involved the “culture
of poverty” theory, which was introduced by Lewis (1968a) and upheld by
others in various forms (Banfield 1970; Herrnstein and Murray 1994). This
cultural explanation holds that children who are born into lower-class, de-
teriorated families (black families in particular) will end up just as poor as
their parents, because they grow up inheriting the lower-class values, poor
behavior, attitudes, and outlooks that make them less successful at work
and life. Because, the argument continues, these values and attitudes are
psychological—that is, a part of the subcultures in which these children
live—external circumstances cannot do much to change these family val-
ues and attitudes; consequently, a “vicious cycle of poverty” is expected to
result (Lewis 1968b).
Subsequent works, however, have rejected the cultural explanations
for ethnic or social group success and failure. Instead, factors such as indi-
vidual and parental level of education have been found to play important
roles in determining occupation (Blau and Duncan 1967). Beyond the role

68 Xiong
of education, other studies also recognize the intersecting role of race and
racial discrimination in disadvantaging nonwhites, including those better
educated (Duncan 1968, in Corcoran 1995). In general, students of poverty
have occupied themselves with the task of identifying individual as well as
structural factors that affect the social mobility of particular classes and
races in society.1
Perhaps due to poverty’s far-reaching consequences for
select segments of the population and for American society, social scien-
tists, journalists, policy makers, and laypersons alike have theorized about
the different causes of poverty through particular lenses.
In When Work Disappears, William J. Wilson recognizes the im-
portance of both macrostructural constraints and culturally transmitted
modes of behavior in affecting opportunities. He argues that structural
processes such as changes in the new global economy, which affect changes
in the distribution of jobs and in the level of education required to obtain
employment, resulted in the “simultaneous occurrence of increasing job-
lessness (i.e., declining involvement in or lack of attachment to the formal
labor market), and declining real wages for low-skilled workers” (Wilson
1996, 54). The decline of the mass production system made available fewer
lower-skilled jobs. On the other hand, industries that saw high growth usu-
ally are those that demanded ever higher levels of technical training and
education but are found increasingly in suburbs rather than inner cities.
According to Wilson, these structural forces systematically block oppor-
tunities, especially for the uneducated, the poor, and blacks in inner cities
such as Chicago’s South Side.
Moreover, in response to the systematic denial of opportunities and
their economically marginal positions of joblessness and poverty, indi-
viduals adopt nonmainstream behavior (“ghetto-related behaviors”) and
attitudes that allow them to adapt to the harsh conditions under which
they live (Wilson 1996). But, as Wilson implies, since many of the poor live
in neighborhoods where other poor people also live, the risk that ghetto-
related behavior and feelings of low self-efficacy get transmitted from one
generation to the next is real. According to Wilson, “accidental cultural
transmission” refers to a process whereby an “individual’s exposure to cer-
tain attitudes and actions is so frequent that they actually become part of
his or her own perspective.” (1996, 78). Although he avoids the extreme
notion of a “culture of poverty” explanation of poverty, Wilson suggests
that people’s culturally shaped behaviors, attitudes, and skills, which con-
stitute their “cultural repertoires,” play an important role in shaping their
adaptive responses to the problems of joblessness and poverty in Ameri-
can cities.

More recently, students of race-ethnicity and immigration have sought
to understand the assimilation of “new waves” of immigrants to American
society by considering factors that go beyond individuals’ cultural behav-
iors. The concept of assimilation and the research that followed from it
are not new creations (see Hirschman 1983; Rumbaut 1997; Alba and Nee
1997). However, one of the new and most promising theories of immigrant
outcome is the “segmented assimilation theory” (Portes and Zhou 1993;
Portes and Rumbaut 1996; Zhou 1997). Rejecting the classical assimilation
perspective that predicts immigrants will follow a single path to full incor-
poration in their host societies, segmented assimilation theory recognizes
that immigrant groups can experience multiple, ideal-typical outcomes—
upward, downward, or lateral mobility (Zhou and Xiong 2005). To survive
and advance in society, immigrants, who come from various ethnic and
class backgrounds, must confront a mainstream that is shaped historically
by systems of class and racial stratification. Segmented assimilation theory
emphasizes the set of unique contexts of exit and reception, whose interac-
tion can independently determine immigrant groups’ levels of opportuni-
ties and disadvantages in the host society.
Within segmented assimilation theory, the contexts of exit refer to the
political conditions under which an immigrant group exited their previous
country (i.e., whether they are refugees, labor migrants, undocumented,
etc.) and the sets of social class standing, as well as human and social capi-
tal, such as language, job skills, and education that immigrants bring along
with them. The contexts of reception entail a number of factors: the poli-
cies of the receiving government (whether exclusive, passive acceptance, or
active encouragement); the manner of reception by the public (prejudiced,
indifferent, supportive); the existence and type of co-ethnic networks at the
destination (poor, entrepreneurial, or professional; cohesive or not, etc.);
and the conditions of the labor market (the extent of bifurcation) (Portes
and Rumbaut 1996, 2001). The contexts of exit and reception are unique to
national-origin groups; the interaction among particular combinations of
conditions in the contexts of exit and of reception make possible distinct
modes of incorporation, which in turn can lead to multiple, varied, ideal-
typical outcomes (Portes and Borocz 1989; Portes and Zhou 1993). An im-
migrant group’s chance of successful adaptation in their new destination
depends on how effectively its racial and class background characteristics
interact with particular combinations of conditions in the contexts of exit
and reception to promote positive outcomes for the group.
Portes and Rumbaut argue that—especially for post-1965 immigrant
and refugee groups, who tend to exhibit great diversity in class back-

70 Xiong
grounds—contexts of exit play an even more important role than contexts
of reception. Through their study of the Indochinese mental outlook, they
observed that the “effects of such past experiences tend to decline [with
respect to demoralization] while those associated with their present condi-
tion become increasingly important.” What they found was that although
Indochinese refugees’ contexts of exit (shaped primarily by the experiences
of war and trauma) were responsible for their demoralization, length of
time upon settlement in the context of reception exacerbated demoraliza-
tion. They add, “In other words, contexts of exit gradually lose significance
as contexts of reception gain salience” (Portes and Rumbaut 1996, 174).
The question of how contexts of reception actually gain salience or
significance over time remains understudied, and the mechanism be-
hind this process requires explication through empirical research. A case
study focused on Hmong American individuals’ and families’ experienc-
es with poverty and the strategies they use to counteract it could clarify
the mechanisms that facilitate or constrain this group’s socioeconomic
incorporation.
Data and Field Procedures
The data on which my analysis is based are from the U.S. Census and quali-
tative data. The qualitative data consist of field observations and in-depth
interviews with Hmong American individuals and households in Sacra-
mento and Fresno Counties of California during October 2004 through
January 2005. Fresno and Sacramento Counties were chosen as research
sites for two main reasons. First, Fresno and Sacramento constitute two
of the oldest and largest sites of Hmong refugee settlement in California.
As settlement areas where dense kinship and social networks have been
established, these sites afford researchers an opportunity to study Hmong
American families’ strategies of mobilizing resources from extended net-
works to deal with poverty. Second, Fresno was chosen because of its more
rural, agricultural setting and Sacramento for its more urban setting. As
past research has shown, place of residence often determines the types of
economic and social opportunities available to residents. One’s residence
or neighborhood can facilitate or restrict one’s access to employment op-
portunities, quality schools, and other important resources (Massey and
Denton 1993; Raphael 1998; Zhou and Bankston 1998).
Participants were recruited nonrandomly, by word of mouth, tele-
phone, and e-mail correspondence. In some cases, I asked members of

households whom I previously interviewed to suggest Hmong American
individuals they knew in the community. This “snowball” technique al-
lowed me to learn about participants’ connection to extended kinship and
ethnic networks, which may serve as sources of support or buffers against
hardships. To allow for a more focused analysis, a set of criteria was used to
select participants for this study. I interviewed households that met all of
the following characteristics: The head of household is between the ages of
thirty and sixty-five; at least one adult in the home has been in the United
States for ten years or longer; and the head of household has lived in Fresno
or Sacramento continuously in the twelve months prior to the interview.
I assumed that these criteria would yield individuals who have sufficient
knowledge of the local Hmong American community and its developments
over time; are old enough to be in the position to deal with families’ fi-
nancial circumstances; and have had at least ten years to adapt to life and
challenges in America. Investigating the adaptive strategies that Hmong
American households use over time could provide a more accurate picture
of their dynamic adjustment process: As they encounter changing needs
and conditions, they modify expectations and find new, creative means to
overcome difficult situations and achieve long-term goals.
From October 2004 to January 2005, I interviewed a total of twelve
households containing twenty-eight persons, with six households drawn
from each of the two counties. Parents as well as their working-age chil-
dren were interviewed. My questionnaire contained both closed and open-
ended questions aimed at collecting basic demographic information as well
as perspectives and experiences. The interviews lasted from one hour to
three hours and all took place at participants’ homes. Most interviews were
done in the Hmong language, since it is what most participants felt more
comfortable using. I conducted only a few interviews in English, and these
were with younger, high school or college-educated participants. I took
quick notes during each interview and typed up a detailed account of the
interview one or two hours afterward. Because I had family members in
northern California and relatives in the research sites, many of the research
participants either knew my family or they knew my relatives that live in or
near their neighborhoods. While I see myself as a “native researcher” with
a relatively privileged educational background and in a position of relative
authority, I tried to maintain objectivity throughout the data collection and
analysis process. By keeping a proper distance from the data and being at-
tentive of when and where cultural norms get expressed or suppressed,
evoked or violated, I think I have been able to grasp most of the partici-
pants’ understandings about and experiences with poverty.

72 Xiong
Hmong Americans’Contemporary Contexts
Conditions of Poverty
Although dispersed across nearly all fifty states and the District of Co-
lumbia, three-fourths of all Hmong in the country are concentrated in just
three states: California, Minnesota, and Wisconsin. In 2000, Hmong per-
sons under eighteen years of age made up 55 percent of the Hmong Ameri-
can population, while 3 percent of Hmong Americans were sixty-five years
old or over (U.S. Census 2004). Though often criticized for its weaknesses
as a social indicator in a changing economy and society, the official U.S.
measure of poverty remains a well-known measure of poverty.2
In 1999,
the U.S. Census reported that 12.4 percent of all Americans lived below
the poverty line. This national rate was lower than the state of California’s
14.2 percent at that time. Still, the state’s poverty rate is much lower than
Fresno County’s 22.9 percent and slightly higher than Sacramento County’s
14.1 percent (U.S. Census 2005). These aggregate figures, however, hide
the tremendous diversity in terms of racial, ethnic, gender, national origin,
immigration, and family backgrounds that can be found in many of Cali-
fornia’s major cities.
Census data indicate that Hmong Americans continue to have some
of the highest rates of poverty.3
The poverty rate for the nation’s Hmong
American population was 37.8 percent, or more than three times the na-
tional poverty rate (U.S. Census 2004). Compared to other Southeast Asian
American groups, Hmong Americans’ poverty rate is one of the highest.
For example, Cambodians have a 29 percent poverty rate; Laotians, non-
Hmong, 19 percent; and Vietnamese, 16 percent (U.S. Census 2004). These
poverty rates are significantly higher than Asian Pacific Islanders’ 11 per-
cent and non-Hispanic whites’ 8 percent. Southeast Asian Americans’ pov-
erty rates are closer to African Americans’ 22 percent and Hispanics’ 21
percent poverty rates (U.S. Census 2001).
At the state level, Hmong Americans also display low socioeconomic
status. Table 3.1 shows that by 2000, 11.4 percent of Hmong Americans
in California had achieved an associate, bachelor, or a higher education
degree. Hmong men have, on average, a higher level of educational attain-
ment compared to Hmong women. Also, a greater proportion of men (45
percent) are employed compared to women (31 percent). More than half
of the Hmong American population is below the age of eighteen, and this
helps explain why only slightly half of the Hmong American population is
foreign born. Thirty-eight percent of Hmong Americans worked in 1999,

Table 3.1
Demographics of Hmong in the United States and in California in 1999 and 2000
total
PoPulation
PerCent
feMale
PerCent
foreign
born1
average
house-
hold size
PerCent
under 18
years
PerCent
65 years
and over
PerCent
with aa or
ba degree
or higher2
Median
household
inCoMe 1999
Median
faMily
inCoMe
1999
PerCent
eMPloyed
in 1999
PerCent
of Persons
below Pov-
erty 1999
United States 281,421,906 50.9 11.1 2.59 25.7 12.4 30.8 $41,994 $50,046 62 12
Hmong in U.S. 169,428 49.1 55.6 6.28 56.0 2.8 13.2 $32,076 $32,384 47 38
California 33,871,648 50.2 26.2 2.87 27.3 10.6 33.7 $47,493 $53,025 58 14
Hmong in
California
65,095 50.9 53.1 8.2 56.6 2.9 11.4 $24,524 $24,372 38 53
Male, Hmong — — — — 56.8 2.3 16.3 — — 45 —
Female, Hmong — — — — 56.5 3.5 6.9 — — 31 —
Source: Hmong National Development 2004 and U.S. Census Bureau 2003, 2004.
Notes: 1.Based on Census PUMS sample data. 2. Includes only persons 25 years and over.
Pfeifer
-
Diversity
in
Diaspora.indb
73
8/12/2012
7:00:18
PM

74 Xiong
but this is lower than the state’s 58 percent employment rate. The Hmong
median family income in 1999 was $24,372, which was substantially low-
er than the state’s $53,025, the nation’s $50,046, and Asian Americans’
$59,324 (U.S. Census 2004). Indeed, Hmong Californians’ median family
income is about eight thousand dollars less than that of all Hmong Ameri-
cans ($32,384). This suggests that the problem of poverty may be worst for
Hmong Americans in California than in other states.
Data from the American Community Survey show that Hmong Amer-
icans’ socioeconomic status has increased since the 1990 and 2000 Census-
es (Pfeifer 2008). For instance, in the 2009 American Community Survey
(ACS), the Hmong median household income was $45,608 compared to
the nation’s $50,221 (U.S. Bureau of the Census 2010). The ACS indicates
also that about 47 percent of Hmong Americans owned a home. Further-
more, 11 percent of Hmong Americans over age twenty-five had achieved
a bachelor’s degree and 3 percent had attained a graduate or professional
degree. However, over 50 percent of Hmong American workers remain
concentrated in a few occupations: production, transportation, and ma-
terials moving (30 percent) and sales and office occupations (22 percent).
The rest of my paper tries to go beyond numerical figures and to describe
personal experiences, struggles, and strategies made under difficult social
and material conditions.
Fresno and Sacramento
Since the early 1980s, Hmong former refugees who previously settled in
states such as Iowa, Kansas, Utah, and Oregon began migrating to Califor-
nia, in part because of its moderate climate and more favorable public as-
sistance programs. Fresno, which has historically been the site of intensive
agriculture, had farmland and relatively cheap housing. When this infor-
mation reached them through friends and relatives, the prospect of put-
ting their farming skills to use to achieve self-sufficiency attracted many
Hmong families. But hundreds of Hmong families decided to take part in
secondary migration during the mid-1980s also because of the desire or
need to reunite with kinsmen and co-ethnics already in Fresno. As I shall
discuss later, these networks remain crucial sources of economic and social
support to Hmong American families.
Subsequently, many Hmong American families from other states and
other areas of California chose to settle in Fresno and nearby cities, such
as Merced and Stockton—all part of California’s agriculture-rich Central
Valley. From these cities, Hmong American families later moved to both

northern and southern areas of California. Between 1990 and 2000, the
Hmong American population of Sacramento County grew from 5,700 to
16,300. During that decade, the Hmong American population in Fresno
grew from 18,300 to 22,500. In 1999, the U.S. Census counted 65,095
Hmong Americans in California. Of this number, about 34 percent lived in
Fresno County, while 25 percent resided in Sacramento (U.S. Census 2000).
Results
In the Hmong American communities of Sacramento and Fresno, patrilo-
cal extended families remain common. As shown in table 3.2, nearly half
of the households interviewed are extended. There are a few households
where married sons and their wives and children live in the same house as
their parents and unmarried siblings. This accounts for the average family
size of eight persons. The majority of Hmong American families, however,
are nuclear; that is, parents and unmarried children live in the same house-
hold, sharing food, taking care of domestic work, and caring for young
children. Nine of the twelve households have at least one person currently
attending a college or graduate school. Although the majority of the house-
holds interviewed now own their homes, it is definitely worth noting that
on average it took families sixteen years after their arrival to the time they
purchased their first homes.
Of the twelve households in my study, I interviewed thirteen women
and fifteen men. Of the women interviewed, all but one were married; of
the men, all were married except for three. The average age of my par-
ticipants was forty-two years, but they ranged from nineteen to fifty-nine
years old. Although most were born in Laos, all heads of households and
their spouses stayed for several years (three to seventeen years) in the ref-
ugee camps of Thailand prior to immigrating to the United States. The
group’s average year of arrival in the United States is 1986, but one family
came as early as 1978 and another as late as 1995. On average, the Hmong
families have been in the country for nineteen years.
Table 3.3 shows the languages that participants speak well, their high-
est completed level of education, and their primary activities. All of the
men over the age of thirty indicated that they speak Hmong and Lao well,
and nearly all of them also speak Thai. In contrast, none of the women
reported speaking Lao or Thai well. Not surprisingly, nearly all men and
women have had at least some adult school education. Two persons have
attained bachelor’s degrees. This number, however, does not mean that the

Table 3.2
Household demographics
head of
household
tyPe of
household
rent or
own hoMe?
if own,
year
bought
nuMber of
years to first
hoMe-ownershiP
total Persons
in h.h. inClud-
ing head
Children
in h.h.
6 to 18
years old
Children
in h.h.
under 6
years old
Persons in
College or
College
graduate
1A Extended Family Own 2000 22 8 1 1 0
2A Nuclear Family Own 2004 17 11 4 0 0
3A Extended Family Rent — — 6 0 1 0
9A Nuclear Family Rent — — 4 0 0 1
11A Extended Family Rent — — 7 2 1 1
12A Nuclear Family Rent — — 10 5 1 3
Average 15.8 8.1 2.7 0.7 1.7
Pfeifer
-
Diversity
in
Diaspora.indb
76
8/12/2012
7:00:18
PM

participants do not have other family members currently attending col-
lege or graduate school. As shown in table 3.2, three-fourths of all house-
holds have at least one person in college or graduate school. Fourteen of the
twenty-eight participants are employed full time, two work part-time, and
twelve are not in the labor force.
Though of modest backgrounds, the sampled households are not rep-
resentative of the overall Hmong American population in Fresno or Sac-
ramento—or California. At least with respect to homeownership rate and
household annual income, the sampled households are relatively better off
than the rest of the Hmong Americans in the state. But it is reasonable to
claim that these families are fairly representative of Hmong families that
have been in the United States for about nineteen to twenty years. Their
stories do not suggest quick and easy paths to success; rather, their stories
suggest gradual progress toward success by working together, making sac-
rifices, asking for help, and making use of skills. If the progress of these few
households is generalizable, then understanding which household strate-
gies are effective could help the poorer or poorest pockets of Hmong com-
munities anticipate what they must do to overcome poverty.
The Sense of Poverty
According to Max Weber (1968), the correspondence between social ac-
tions and their subjective meanings can be clarified through interpretive
understanding. Following this, I shall assume that understanding individu-
als’ sense of relative standing within a context will help clarify their sense
of poverty or level of deprivation in that context. Knowing how individuals
define poverty should in turn help us understand the actions they take to
respond to or counteract poverty.
During the course of my interviews with participants, one phrase
surfaced as unique to Hmong speakers, especially among elderly men and
women. As I finished listening to a story of how Hmong traditionally re-
garded “cov muaj thiab cov pluag” (the haves and have-nots) in the villages
of Laos, a fifty-five-year-old man articulated almost with a sigh,
Peb Hmoob, peb tuaj nyob lub teb chaws no tau nees-nkaum tawm
xyoo lawm; tab sis, peb tseem tsis tau vam meej xws luag, vim feem
coob tseem txom nyem, ua lub neej tsis xws luag. Cov me tub me nyu-
am nim no, yog leej twg tsis rau siab npaj lub neej ces yeej yuav txom
nyem. [For Hmong, we have been in this country for twenty or more
years now; but, we still do not have equal prosperity, because most

Table 3.3
Respondent demographics
Person/
City1
gender
age
oCt.
2004
Marital
status
birth-
PlaCe
Country
Prior
to u.s.
year of
arrival
language(s) resPon-
dent sPeaks well
highest eduCa-
tion CoMPleted PriMary aCtivity2
1A / S Male 54 M Laos Thailand 1978 Hmong, Lao, Thai, English Some Adult School Employed Full Time
1B / S Female 50 M Laos Thailand 1978 Hmong, some English Some Adult School Housekeeping, NLF
2A / S Male 43 M Laos Thailand 1987 Hmong, Lao, Thai, English Some Adult School Employed Full Time
2B / S Female 42 M Laos Thailand 1987 Hmong Some Adult School Housekeeping, NLF
2C / S Male 20 S Thailand Thailand 1987 Hmong, English H.S. Graduate Employed Full Time
3A / F Male 26 M Laos Thailand 1992 Hmong, English Some City College Employed Full Time
3B / F Female 19 M Thailand Thailand 1991 Hmong, English H.S. Graduate Employed Full Time
4A / F Male 54 M Laos Thailand 1984 Hmong, Lao Some Adult School Disabled, NLF
4B / F Female 53 M Laos Thailand 1984 Hmong Some Adult School Employed Full Time
5A / F Male 55 M Laos Thailand 1979 Hmong, Lao, Thai, English Some Adult School Employed Full Time
5B / F Female 53 M Laos Thailand 1979 Hmong Some Adult School Housekeeping, NLF
6A / F Male 34 M Laos Thailand 1995 Hmong, Lao, English Some Adult School Employed Full Time
6B / F Female 24 M Thailand Thailand 1986 Hmong, English BA degree Housekeeping, NLF
7A / F Male 53 M Laos Thailand 1989 Hmong, Lao, Thai Some Adult School Disabled, NLF
7B / F Female 50 M Laos Thailand 1989 Hmong Some Adult School Housekeeping, NLF
8A / F Male 48 M Laos Thailand 1989 Hmong, Lao, Thai, English Some Adult School Employed Full Time
8B / F Female 46 M Laos Thailand 1989 Hmong Never attended Housekeeping, NLF
8C / F Male 28 S Laos Thailand 1989 Hmong, English, Thai C.College Grad Employed Full Time
9A / S Male 52 M Laos Thailand 1980 Hmong, Lao, Thai, English 5 years Adult Employed Full Time
(continued on next page)
Pfeifer
-
Diversity
in
Diaspora.indb
78
8/12/2012
7:00:18
PM

Person/
City1
gender
age
oCt.
2004
Marital
status
birth-
PlaCe
Country
Prior
to u.s.
year of
arrival
language(s) resPon-
dent sPeaks well
highest eduCa-
tion CoMPleted PriMary aCtivity2
9B / S Female 50 M Laos Thailand 1980 Hmong Some Adult School Disabled, NLF
10A / S Male 42 M Laos Thailand 1987 Hmong, Lao, Thai, English AA degree Employed Full Time
10C / S Male 24 S Thailand Thailand 1987 Hmong, English Some Univ. Employed, part-time
11A / S Male 46 M Laos Thailand 1987 Hmong, Lao, Thai, English GED Employed Full Time
11B / S Female 42 M Laos Thailand 1987 Hmong 3 yrs Adult School Employed Full Time
12A / S Male 59 M Laos Thailand 1987 Hmong, Lao, Thai Some Adult School Housekeeping, NLF
12C / S Female 23 S Thailand Thailand 1987 Hmong, English BA degree Employed, part-time
Notes: 1. Persons sharing the same number are part of the same household; S means Sacramento; F means Fresno. 2. NLF means “not in labor force.”
Pfeifer
-
Diversity
in
Diaspora.indb
79
8/12/2012
7:00:19
PM

80 Xiong
people are still poor, unable to live a life on par with others. If the
children of today do not work hard to plan for their lives, they will
become poor.]4
In the above context, the phrase “txom nyem” means poor. But the phrase
also refers to hardships or deprivation more generally. “Ua lub neej xws
luag” means literally to live a life on par with others. What constitutes such
a life for Hmong individuals? And who are these “others” to whom indi-
viduals compare themselves?
Participants referenced both material and nonmaterial aspects of
what a life on par with others means. Muaj vaj muaj tsev (having a yard
and house) and having a decent car were the most common responses. Be-
ing financially stable and not having been loaned money from other people
are also very important. But, for many individuals, living a life on par with
others means more than just possessing sufficient money or material re-
sources. It means also having a supportive, caring spouse and family. By
“family,” many Hmong American individuals mean having children to live
with. Ideally, conflicts in the home should be little or none and children
should be obedient and grow up to become responsible, self-sufficient
adults. If possession of a home, vehicle, sufficient financial resources, and
family constitutes a life on par with others, then lack of these things spells
poverty. Oscar Ornati’s observation that “The poor, in other words, wish to
become the nonpoor” (1967, 37) succinctly captures most Hmong Ameri-
can individuals’ worldview.
One of the questions in the questionnaire asked participants, “Com-
pared to other people, where do you see yourself in terms of economic well-
being?” Each person was instructed to select a number from one to ten writ-
ten as positive integers below a number line, with one indicating “poorest”
and ten indicating “much better off.” The phrase “other people” (luag lwm
tus) was deliberately used to capture an individual’s self-defined comparison
group. On this question, a majority of the participants chose numbers four
to six (indicating “average” standing) and seven to eight (“above average”).
However, some chose one or two and added “yus yeej nyob qhov tsis muaj
xwb” (I’m definitely at the without [wealth] level). Some pointed and said, “I
think I fit between those two numbers” (e.g., between two and three). Indi-
viduals’ sense of poverty, as their responses indicate, recognizes gradations
of poverty as well as absolute poverty. Still, others hesitated to reply imme-
diately. They asked, “Do you mean that I am comparing myself to Hmong
Americans or to non-Hmong?” and offered, “I would know what number
to pick if you tell me the group to which I’m supposed to compare myself.”

Anticipating these replies—as I have learned from pretesting the sur-
vey—I also used a question as a follow-up to the first in order to identify
participants’ comparison group(s): “To whom or which group of people do
you compare yourself?” In general, most participants reported that they
compared themselves to other Hmong Americans in the same city. When
inquired about who these people were, the replies ranged from immediate
brothers to clan members, to other Hmong Americans in the local context,
and to Hmong sab teb chaws tim ub (in the old countries: Laos and Thai-
land). Comparing themselves to Hmong in Laos or Thailand, participants
also explicitly distinguished between poverty “here” and poverty “there.”
Although both the younger and older individuals believed that teb chaws
no yeej zoo lawm ntau (this country is much better off), they remain keenly
aware of their immediate, unsettling economic situations here.
Some participants compared themselves to both Hmong Americans
and non-Hmong (and adjusted their numbers on the line accordingly),
which included their coworkers, cov Mev (Mexicans/Latinos), cov dub
(blacks), neeg Meskas dawb (whites), and the homeless. Participants gener-
ally recognized and pointed out that some members of other racial groups
in American society (e.g., blacks, whites, those homeless, on the streets,
etc.) are in much poorer conditions compared to their own or their family’s
situation. In this sense, a distinction is made between being poor and be-
ing destitute—the latter indicates the lack of basic necessities of life: food,
shelter, and clothing. Generally, when they compared themselves to other
Hmong Americans, participants chose average to above average numbers
on the line. On the other hand, most persons selected average to below av-
erage numbers when they compared themselves to non-Hmong. One plau-
sible explanation for why participants chose “above average” when com-
paring themselves to other Hmong is because they are among the “above
average” group on most socioeconomic indicators, such as income, educa-
tion, and home ownership.
More than just having family, however, some participants take living
a life on par with others to include muaj liaj ia teb chaws (having land and
country) and muaj vaj huam sib luag (having equal liberty and justice).
From this sentence and the longer quote by the fifty-five-year-old man ref-
erenced above, one thing becomes clear: Hmong American individuals are
keenly aware that poverty not only burdens the individual or household, but
it also has implications for their entire ethnic group, especially the group’s
economic and sociopolitical standing in American society. In other words,
some participants recognize that poverty and civil liberties are intertwined,
and without improvement in one, the other cannot be achieved or alleviated.

82 Xiong
For the older generation of Hmong speakers, ua lub neej xws luag
represents an individual as well as a family and ethnic community ideal
about what it means to have moral and economic equality within society.
As ideals, these metaphors of equality and inequality reflect individuals’
motivations and outlook on the past, present, and future. But what are
the prospects that Hmong Americans and their U.S.–born children will
achieve levels close to these ideals? Given the limited material resources
that Hmong American families have acquired since their immigration and
the persistent conditions of economic hardship in which they and their co-
ethnics live, I believe that this possibility will depend primarily on indi-
viduals’ and families’ ability to cope with and counteract poverty. Next, I
turn attention to their strategies.
Individual and Family Strategies for Combating Poverty
Hmong American households generate and use income in a number of
ways. In Fresno as well as in Sacramento, the primary way that Hmong
American households generate income is by working full time or part-
time—or both. As shown in table 3.3, sixteen of the twenty-eight persons
interviewed were employed full time or part-time. Individuals were em-
ployed in various job positions. These positions included school bus driver,
carpenter, cashier, janitor, supervisor of small technology firm, electronic
assembly, dialysis technician, truck driver, school program coordinator,
manager of an electronics firm, custodian, and packaging worker. Although
two of the sixteen employed full time reported that they also worked part-
time on other jobs during the weekends, most persons worked only one job
full time. With the exception of one person who commuted weekly to stay
and work as a carpenter in the San Francisco Bay Area, all of the employed
participants held jobs in their hometown, Sacramento or Fresno.
In general, Hmong American households have multiple wage earn-
ers. As table 3.4 shows, the sampled households have, on average, three
wage earners. Using the census public use microdata samples, I found that
Hmong American households in California have, on average, two work-
ers in the home (actual mean: 2.45, not shown). When the incomes of the
sampled household members are combined, the median earned income
per household in October 2004 was $4,050. Not surprisingly, the largest
households also have the lowest income per capita, which also may explain
their reliance on multiple forms of public assistance.
Pooled income helps alleviate at least some of the economic hardships.
Most participants consistently reported that rent and food are the most ex-

Table 3.4
Household Income
head
household
total
Persons
in h.h.
inClud-
ing head
nuMber of
full or Part
tiMe workers
in household
h.h. inCoMe
froM work
in oCt. 2004
household
annual
inCoMe froM
all sourCes1
rent to
inCoMe
ratio2
rent to
wage
ratio
aPProx.
inCoMe
Per
Person3
does h.h. reCeive any forM
of PubliC assistanCe?4
1A 8 4 $5,000 $60,000 0.14 0.14 $7,500 None
2A 11 4 $4,167 $50,000 0.34 0.34 $4,545 Yes, Medical
3A 6 4 $5,000 $60,000 0.10 0.10 $10,000 Yes, Medical and WIC; SSI
4A 10 2 $1,300 $36,000 0.50 1.15 $3,600 Yes, TANF, FS, and Medical; SSI
5A 9 5 $4,500 $54,000 0.13 0.13 $6,000 Yes, Medical; SSI
6A 4 1 $1,600 $27,600 0.43 0.63 $6,900 Yes, Medical and WIC
8A 3 2 $4,000 $52,800 0.16 0.18 $17,600 No, but SSI
9A 4 2 $4,100 $56,400 0.11 0.12 $14,100 Yes, SSI and Medical
10A 11 3 $6,700 $80,400 0.21 0.21 $7,309 Yes, Medical
11A 7 3 $3,500 $49,200 0.34 0.40 $7,029 Yes, Medical; SSI
Median* 8.1 2.8 $4,050.0 $51,400.0 0.24 0.34 $6,964
Notes: 1. Author’s estimates, based on household’s earned income and public assistance income, including Food Stamps and SSI. 2. For those who
owned homes, self-reported mortgage payments was used. 3. Author’s estimates, based on dividing total household income from all sources by
household size. 4. Medical is California’s version of Medicare; FS means Food Stamps; TANF means Temporary Assistance for Needy Families; WIC
stands for Women, Infants and Children Supplemental Nutrition Program. SSI (Supplemental Security Income) usually is not counted as Public As-
sistance in the Census.
*Bold figures on this row are calculated averages rather than medians.
Pfeifer
-
Diversity
in
Diaspora.indb
83
8/12/2012
7:00:19
PM

84 Xiong
pensive items. As table 3.4 indicates, the average rent-to-wage ratio for the
sample households was 0.34; in other words, households spend over a third
of their earned income for rent or mortgage. Pooling their income, family
members help pay the family’s rent or mortgage and buy food. Families
also use pooled income to purchase furniture and more expensive appli-
ances such as freezers, washers, and dryers. Some of the regular and costly
expenses for Hmong households also include car insurance, car payments,
and gas.
Members of households act as a unit to generate income and to deter-
mine how it gets spent. In some families, it is the father who recommends
when working-age children should start working. One father explained, “I
usually recommend the children to find work so that they can earn income
to help themselves, and so they can help us pay for some of the expenses,
especially our house mortgage.” A forty-one-year-old Hmong woman and
mother of eight children explained, “When we don’t have enough [income
for the household], we [self and spouse] tell the children that they should
work to help out.” All families reported that they benefit from the financial
contributions that working members make to the household. When asked
to describe how their working sons help the family cover its expenses, a
couple responded as follows:5
Husband [year of arrival: 1987]: Yes, it helps somewhat. We [self and
spouse] still buy most of the things, like food and clothing and other
things for taking care of the house. But, Toua and Chue give some of
their income to help pay for our house mortgage. Lee [third eldest
son] works. But his job [food preparer at a local fast-food restaurant]
is unstable/irregular and his income changes often. Sometimes it’s
barely enough for himself.
Wife: Our sons [Toua works as retail-clothing store salesman; Chue
works part-time as a medical assistant], do provide some support.
They contribute to paying for expenses like the monthly house pay-
ment. And when the whole family doesn’t have any money left, we
[self and spouse] and the older kids realize this, so everyone must
use money sparingly, and buy only those absolutely necessary. For
example, only food products. But even if it’s not enough for food,
there must be enough money saved for the house rent.
This couple’s remarks illustrate how Hmong American households in gen-
eral manage and earmark money: The legally required or essential items

come first (rent or mortgage, utility bills, car payments) and must be paid
on time. These are followed by necessary consumables that can be partially
deferred, such as food and water. Things of less immediate necessity, such
as clothing, home care products, and so on come next. Finally, wants that
can wait are postponed until other necessary expenses have been paid.
Many Hmong American individuals, especially elders, are keenly
aware that they live in a society quite different from their former home-
lands. “Here,” everyone nyob tiv nuj tiv nqi (constantly is in debt). An el-
derly man who arrived in 1989 remarked about his audiotaped conversa-
tion with his relatives in Laos: “I tell them, ‘Although you all live [in Laos]
without much income, at least you have your [farm] land and your homes
to yourselves. Here, other people claim it’s the land of abundance; but, we
have rent each month, car payments all the time, and everything else I can
think of requires money first. There is not much we can call our own.’.”
Although the “property” that a typical Hmong family owned in Laos
was usually nothing more than their self-made wooden house and a couple
of square yards of farmland, it was still property that could be freely used.
The notion that everybody constantly owes something has literal and con-
notative meanings. On one hand, Hmong Americans are well aware that
ownership of property is a marker of achievement and a first step to at-
taining relative “equality” in America’s capitalist economy. On the other
hand, endless payments (e.g., rent) without prospect for ownership mark
the condition of Hmong Americans as economically unstable and politi-
cally volatile. Ownership of property and the legitimate claim to property
can be achieved through other means.
One way is through investing in human capital. Although generating
income and earmarking income are important household strategies for
overcoming economic hardship, they are not the only things that Hmong
American families do. Families also are actively engaged, to the extent pos-
sible, in investing in human capital. All Hmong parents interviewed con-
sidered the investment of time and money in their children’s education as
one of their most important responsibilities. When asked to describe what
she desires most for her five children who were still attending high school
and junior high, Yee articulated,
I definitely want them to follow their elders [i.e., Yee’s son and
daughter who currently are at four-year California universities]. I
keep telling them to wake up early, to be well-behaved students, and
work diligently in school so they can earn good grades, so that good
colleges will accept them. I remind them almost all the time that,

86 Xiong
until they’ve completed school with an [higher] education degree,
they should never think about marrying.
Adults who arrived with knowledge of English or have learned Eng-
lish at their local adult schools invest in human capital in various ways. In
1989, Teng (born in 1962 in Laos) arrived in the United States with his wife
and three young children. Within three months, he was told by California’s
Greater Avenues for Independence (GAIN) program to either attend adult
school or find work in order to continue his family’s eligibility for cash aid
or AFDC.6
Teng chose the former and remained in adult school during the
first three years. But during that time he also worked part-time as a fur-
niture stockman, earning minimum wage. After he finished adult school,
Teng applied for and enrolled at the nearby city college, taking courses
toward the mechanic certificate. After seven months, Teng completed his
certificate of mechanic training.
Certified as an auto mechanic, Teng went back to work at a local ma-
chine shop. However, after two months he found the work to be unsatisfy-
ing. Asked why he quit the job, Teng replied without any hesitation, “Nws
yog ib yam es yus tes yeej tsis tau so, ntxuav dawb hlo li” (It’s something
where your hands never get to rest or stay clean). Teng decided to take ad-
ditional courses at the community college. And after a year, he completed
his associate’s degree, certifying his training in medical assistance. Though
starting off as a medical assistant, Teng eventually climbed up the ranks
and became a medical technician, earning $19 per hour, plus full health
benefits for him and his family. Sixteen years after his arrival, Teng was
finally able to buy a house in what he calls the “quieter area” of town—“less
crowded, but in the next several years, I would like to move to a better
neighborhood. Those [neighborhoods] where usually only white families
live. They have nicer schools and teenagers won’t be standing around, mis-
behaving on the streets.”
Kinship and Community Strategies for Counteracting Poverty
Far from being isolated from society, Hmong American individuals and
households are embedded in larger kinship and ethnic networks. It is from
these networks that individuals and families draw social as well as econom-
ic resources for alleviating hardships. Traditionally, kin groups served as
both social support and social control. Members of the kin group directed
and enforced appropriate behavior, including the norms of obligation and
reciprocity. For many Hmong men and women, the clan and subclan are

valued as essential sources of financial and social support.7
A forty-six-
year-old Hmong man explains the crucial role of an individual’s subclan:
“Muaj mob muaj nkeeg los luag tsuas tias, koj cov kwv tij ne? Muaj xaiv
muaj lus los, kawg tos seb yus cov kwv tij puas pab xwb.” (“During serious
illness, others will ask only, Where are your brothers? In times of legal or
social conflict, one depends on one’s brothers, the only ones who might
offer a hand.”) Many men and women (though not all) hold dear the belief
that during times of family crises, such as divorce, trials, illness or death,
only the subclan can be relied on to provide unconditional support, mor-
ally and financially. When I inquired about their help seeking decisions,
most married men and women replied that they would ask members of
their subclan before asking anybody else on matters such as borrowing
more than $1,000 worth of money, seeking advice about medical illness,
and resolving problems in the family.
Indeed, it is within kin and ethnic circles that simple and more elabo-
rate rotating funds associations are found. Participants acknowledge that
they have relatives in the local context who take part in at least one form
of rotating fund or another. In Fresno, as is also the case in Sacramento,
some Hmong American groups establish rotating funds to help individual
families pay for sons’ wedding expenses. These wedding funds usually have
only subclan members as contributors and recipients, primarily because
the members of a bride and groom’s subclans are the ritual negotiators and
decision makers at weddings. There are also general rotating funds, such as
those established by groups of friends, coworkers, co-ethnics, or relatives
to use for down payments or one-time payments on expensive items such
as automobiles, homes, small businesses, and large supermarkets.
The most common form of rotating funds association is the household
life insurance association; this association involves a moderate amount of
money (usually over $10,000) and usually a large number of contributors,
sometimes residents of various cities and states. The fund is used primarily
to cover funeral costs for the family of the deceased. The life insurance fund
is most elaborate in that it requires the appointment of money collectors,
who act as both accountants and policy managers, and at least one director
who oversees the distribution of the collected money. These various rotat-
ing funds associations arose primarily because Hmong American families
saw the need to pool money to meet the ever rising costs of cultural events
(weddings and funerals), as well as personal and commercial endeavors,
including the purchase of homes and the starting up of small businesses.
The strong sense of obligation between members of the subclan stems
partially from their membership in shared religious communities. Hmong

88 Xiong
adults acknowledge the important religious function that the subclan con-
tinues to serve. A fifty-four-year-old Hmong man explained his reluctance
to move out of state or leave the rest of his subclan members:
Two or three years ago, when many Hmong families moved from
here [Sacramento] to live in other states [North Carolina, Minne-
sota, Oregon, etc.], my family stayed. Before one decides to move, for
a Hmong person, it is important that he has somebody in the group
who can perform the religious rituals. Without them [the cultural
specialists], we would have to go ask others for help, if there are even
any in the new town.
The rituals of healing, naming, renaming, soul calling, and other major rites
of passage (birth, marriage, death) are an integral part of Hmong American
family life. By requiring group members to be together in order to carry out
certain rituals, the subclan serves the function of keeping families together.
At the same time, social ties and social obligation are reinforced each time
that religious functions bring clan members together to collectively accom-
plish a set of rituals.
Despite their important social functions, however, kinship networks
have their limits and individuals realize this. When asked to identify to
whom she would turn for help with finding a job, Nancy, a twenty-three-
year-old Hmong American woman, responded,
I don’t think my cousins would be able to help me. Many of them
aren’t working right now. And, the ones that are working, they’re in
the companies [i.e., doing assembly line work, packaging, computer
parts repair, etc.]. I mean, I think I would say that the [only other]
way to get a decent job here [in the United States] is by getting a col-
lege degree.
Embedded in this statement is the participant’s undeclared but common-
sense understanding of the importance of having social connections. Not
just any connection will do, however; having a meaningful relationship
with the “right” type of social circle is crucial. From the young woman’s
point of view, having cousins who do not work in or have connections to
the high-status occupations is of little help. Nancy’s statement exemplifies
other individuals’ belief in a merit-based labor market that requires and
rewards persons with formal degrees. As a proficient English speaker and
college-educated adult, however, Nancy is not as constrained as some of

the Hmong elders in the community who speak Hmong, Lao, and Thai
well enough to navigate the refugee processing centers of Thailand but lack
full, unaccented proficiency in English and the formal school credentials to
legitimate their skills.
Despite having multiple wage earners, many Hmong American house-
holds still find it necessary to apply for public assistance to help them pay
for the basic expenses: rent, utilities, water, food, telephone, clothing, home
furniture, and car insurance and gas. Public assistance takes the form of
Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF), food stamps, and Medi-
Cal. However, few of the families interviewed actually receive food stamps
or TANF. The more common form of public assistance that households
receive consists of only Medi-Cal—California’s version of Medicare, which
helps qualified members of the household afford limited medical expenses,
including emergencies. Supplementary Security Income (SSI) is also an
important source of income that helps provide disabled persons with a
monthly income for living expenses.
Discussion: Crucial Determinants of Poverty
The real work of understanding the present social and economic condi-
tions of Hmong Americans must begin by understanding their unique
contexts of exit and reception. In the following sections, I incorporate our
understanding of Hmong American family and network strategies with a
discussion of how social processes in the contexts of exit and reception im-
pact their ability to counteract poverty. In doing so, I intend to clarify how
the contexts of exit and reception work on the ground. If contexts of recep-
tion gain significance for immigrants’ social and economic well-being over
time, then how they do so requires an explanation that attends to empirical
evidence. As my discussion below will make clear, the social processes and
factors that comprise the contexts of exit and reception enable but also
constrain Hmong Americans’ strategies to overcome poverty.
Context of Exit: Pre-Migration Experiences and Forms of Capital
In Laos and Thailand most Hmong had no access to formal education. The
few young men and fewer young women that attended secondary school
in these countries were usually children of the most privileged segments of
society; that is, usually only those who held public offices or could afford to
pay for education fees. Hmongs’ residence in the mountainous countryside

90 Xiong
of Laos and later in barbed-wired refugee camps of Thailand largely iso-
lated them from urban centers. Their predominant occupation as unpaid
farmers and, occasionally, low-budget merchants in Laos meant that only
a few among their ranks ever acquired entrepreneurial experience or the
skills and financial capital to run businesses. Consequently, most Hmong
had very limited exposure to urban lifestyles and even less knowledge of
the dominant U.S. groups’ social norms.
Having stayed in socially isolated Thailand refugee camps for pro-
longed periods, most Hmong families emigrated with very few economic
resources and little information on hand. The vast majority of Hmong fam-
ilies arrived with very limited English proficiency and low levels of formal
education. Though skilled in two or three non-English languages and expe-
rienced in farming and crop harvesting, most of the skills Hmong men and
women brought with them became socially devalued. Devalued, these skills
became nontransferable in the new labor market contexts. Lacking both
socially recognized human and cultural capital, most Hmong adults found
it extremely difficult to secure full-time employment that paid meaningful
wages. In addition to unemployment and underemployment, many of the
adult and elderly Hmong population, especially veterans of the Secret War
of Laos, arrived with difficult health conditions and disabilities. Following
their resettlement, some Hmong were diagnosed with unheard of illnesses
and highly stigmatized medical conditions: post-traumatic stress disorder,
depression, sudden death syndrome, diabetes, hypertension, tuberculosis,
cancer, and—more prevalent among men—gout and kidney diseases.
The contexts of exit influence Hmong Americans’ perception of pov-
erty and their unique ways of coping. Foreign-born Hmong persons share
a collective memory of the social life “back then” in the villages of Laos or
refugee camps of Thailand. This collective memory enables Hmong Amer-
ican men and women to engage in social discourse not only with co-eth-
nics in the local context but also with Hmong in the old countries. Social
discourse shapes Hmong Americans’ perceptions and their collective rep-
resentations of poverty and perceived needs. As discussed above, Hmong
individuals distinguish between poverty in the local contexts and poverty
abroad. Making this distinction helps individuals define and evaluate their
social status vis-à-vis their international counterparts. More importantly,
such distinction colors the outlook of Hmong on their present conditions
in local contexts, making their sense of deprivation at least more bearable
and their future outlook more hopeful.
Perceiving American society as more or less a merit-based society,
Hmong parents optimistically remind their children about the back-break-

ing, from-dawn-to-dusk farmwork on the mountains of Laos and the real
consequences of not working hard or not achieving a higher education de-
gree. However, because most Hmong foreign-born parents lack the socially
valued human and cultural capital and live in poverty along with their chil-
dren, they usually can provide only insufficient financial and social support
for their children. To survive and to advance socially and economically,
the children of Hmong refugees cannot depend solely on their parents or
even their extensive kinship networks. It is not surprising then that Hmong
adults actively participate in what Gary S. Becker (1964) calls investments
in human capital, of which the most important forms are education and
job training. But to take part in the process of investing in human capital
means that Hmong Americans must confront a mainstream society whose
major organizational forms, such as schools and corporations, have his-
torically been stratified along race and class lines. As I shall come back to
below, stratification in schools has immediate and long-term consequences
for Hmong Americans’ ability to succeed or become upwardly mobile in
the United States.
Context of Reception: Government Policies and Public Sentiments
Although states such as California aided Hmong families’ resettlement
process by providing necessary amounts of public assistance to qualified
families and their dependent children, the overall context in which Hmong
families found themselves was far from favorable. As Norman L. Zucker
notes, the Migration and Refugee Assistance Act of 1975 was passed by
Congress despite “nativistic and racist public hostility towards Indochi-
nese” (1983, 174). During the early 1980s, the U.S. policy of distributing
Southeast Asian refugee families across the states—in order primarily to
prevent overwhelming pressure on individual states’ and cities’ social ser-
vices and secondarily to rapidly assimilate them into mainstream America
(Zaharlick and Brainard 1987)—had unintended consequences for Hmong
families.8
Geographically isolated, Hmong families were separated from
their clan members and co-ethnic networks, which have been their pri-
mary source of linguistic, cultural-religious, economic, and social support.
Living among niag mab niag suav (strangers and foreigners) and unable to
communicate in English, Hmong families confronted the combined tur-
moil of loneliness, inability to communicate, culture shock, nostalgia for
the communities they left behind, a sense of powerlessness, and a yearning
for community, especially a Hmong-speaking community.
Since the mid-1980s, Hmong families engaged in secondary internal

92 Xiong
migration in order to reunite with clan members and co-ethnic communi-
ties (Finck 1986). States such as California, Minnesota, and Wisconsin be-
came “favored” destinations, in part because of their moderate climate (in
the case of California), farming land, cheaper housing, and more favorable
public assistance programs. Ethnic networks, however, were the main driv-
ing force behind these state-to-state migrations. The process of secondary
migration brought segments of the Hmong community face-to-face with
public sentiments and overt prejudice at the local level. For example, in
1996, local residents publicly opposed the settlement of additional families
of Hmong refugees in Yuba County, a rural area in northern California. The
stated argument was that Hmong would overburden the social services in
the area; the overt prejudice was that Hmong residents were undeserving
of public assistance. 9
Public sentiments combined with local communi-
ties’ enforcement of state housing regulations prohibiting “overcrowding”
of apartments seriously limited the options of Hmong to live where they
desired. Unwelcome in some areas and unable to afford rent and cost of
living in others, Hmong families settled in areas where their kinsmen and
other Hmong already lived.
Because they had little or no income at all upon arrival, nearly all
Hmong American families have had to apply for and rely on some form of
public assistance. The Hmong’s larger than average size families became,
in the context of reception, an economic liability, especially from the point
of view of federal and state welfare officials. Family size has consequences
for family well-being, to be sure. But social sentiments reinforced through
laws have powerful effects not only on a family’s emotional well-being but
also its future outlook on life. The social stigma that goes hand-in-hand
with the “acceptance” of public assistance is too important to be ignored.
Though certainly helped by government policies that provide them with
concrete financial aid, Hmong must confront societal attitudes that often
equate receipt of public aid with deviance and dependency.
Labeled as hill tribes, denounced as welfare recipients, and exoticized
by the majority society and mainstream media, Hmong American families
and their children have come to be keenly aware of the social and economic
consequences of receiving public assistance. As Grosser and Sparer noted,
the price of welfare assistance frequently is “the imposition of higher moral
standards on welfare clients than on the population at large” (1967, 295).
Those who are on welfare are usually considered less deserving of the po-
litical and social rights that other more self-sufficient families enjoy. Con-
fronted by ever vigilant welfare officials, including case workers of Hmong
background, most Hmong American individuals learn to have great distaste

for the moral inferiority and mental health problems with which people in
poverty are often associated. Poverty becomes more than just economic
privation; it is experienced and understood as social stigma with real and
lasting consequences for individuals’ self-esteem and behavior.
Context of Reception: Ethnic Communities and Labor Market Forces
As the evidence above indicates, kinship and ethnic networks provide im-
portant social and economic support for Hmong American individuals and
families. What Hmong American kinship and co-ethnic networks lack,
however, is a sufficient entrepreneurial or professional base. From the very
beginning, Hmong refugees settled in cities that had no preexisting Hmong
community. Later groups of Hmong refugees were more fortunate to ar-
rive in cities with sizable Hmong American “enclaves”—that is, residential
clusters or agglomerations. These residential clusters exist alongside other
ethnic enclaves, such as the Vietnamese business enclaves in south Sac-
ramento. However, scant research has been done on the extent to which
Hmong Americans interact with members of Vietnamese American en-
claves or what kinds of commercial exchanges exist between them. Hence
discussions of their commercial interdependence come at best from only
anecdotal evidence. Nevertheless, the reality is that, until recently, Hmong
American communities throughout the United States contained neither
a strong entrepreneurial nor professional base. For example, U.S. Census
data from 1990 reveal that in California and Minnesota, only 4 percent of
Hmong Americans age twenty-five years or older have achieved a bach-
elor’s degree or higher; the figure for Wisconsin, the state where Hmong
Americans had the highest average level of education, was only slightly
higher at 6 percent (Carroll, Lor, and Camane 2000).
Indeed, if ethnic enclave is defined as a “concentration of [ethnic]
firms in a physical space—generally a metropolitan area—which employ
a significant proportion of workers from the same minority” (Portes and
Jensen 1989, 930), then it is clear that Hmong American communities his-
torically lacked ethnic enclaves. Whether one considers the Hmong-owned
small businesses in Sacramento or in Fresno, the fact that during the past
three decades only thirty to sixty businesses have come into existence in
an ethnic population of sixteen thousand and twenty-two thousand says
something about the context in which Hmong individuals and families
originally settled and presently live. I believe it is a reliable indicator of the
gradual emergence of an ethnic enclave community, but it is a phenom-
enon that also confirms the Hmong American community’s lack of a strong

94 Xiong
entrepreneurial ethnic enclave to begin with. What are the implications of
the lack of a strong ethnic enclave?
The absence of well-developed ethnic enclaves means that Hmong
Americans have neither a formal nor informal enclave economy with
which to turn for employment or training. As Light (2006) points out,
ethnic and immigrant economies—both their formal and informal sec-
tors—could serve as “buffers” against economic hardship for members of
some immigrant groups. Ethnic economies operate as buffers to the ex-
tent that the businesses in them provide ethnic members with employment
opportunities that otherwise are unavailable in the mainstream economy.
Ethnic businesses provide, in this sense, a buffer against complete unem-
ployment (Light 1972, 2006). Lacking strong ethnic economies, however,
Hmong American individuals, with or without education credentials, must
compete with occupational sectors within the mainstream labor market
directly or seek other means to earn income.
Lacking an entrepreneurial ethnic enclave, as well as start-up capital
and business management experiences, few Hmong Americans have been
able to employ others or become self-employed. Anecdotal evidence sug-
gests that Hmong American owners of small businesses are usually those
who have migrated earliest or are part of the “first wave” of Hmong immi-
gration. What is commonly acknowledged in the community is that many
Hmong business owners who opened small businesses, of which a pre-
dominant number are grocery stores, did so through the pooling of funds
through friends and kinsmen. Once stores open, they rely on family and
clan members who work as accountants, cashiers, and food stockers. Be-
cause Hmong American grocery stores import a limited variety of “ethnic”
food and grocery products, these stores are largely dependent on locals and
Hmong clientele for their limited profits—and indeed for their ability to re-
main in business. The high cost of operating businesses probably explains
the relatively low number of Hmong-owned small businesses in Fresno and
Sacramento. Whatever factors may have contributed to Hmong Ameri-
cans’ difficulty in opening small businesses, it is clear that most Hmong
Americans are employed in the mainstream labor market rather than in
ethnic enclaves. Though employed in the mainstream, Hmong American
workers have a long way to go until they become of the mainstream.
Conditions of inequality in the mainstream labor market help explain
immigrants’ economic incorporation (Portes and Rumbaut 1996). More
specifically, as the nation’s economy underwent changes, especially indus-
trial restructuring and corporate downsizing, certain low-skill and semi-
skilled industries have shrunk and certain types of occupations have been

eliminated or replaced by other service-related occupations. Over the past
fifty years, the American manufacturing industry has shrunk from about
one-third of the labor force to 15 percent, while the service industry has
more than doubled, growing from 12 percent to one-third of all workers
(Portes and Rumbaut 2001, 57). The occupations in the service industry
are, however, bifurcated between low-wage, menial, or personal services
and highly paid jobs that usually require advanced technical and profes-
sional skills. A bifurcated labor market creates a situation in which there
exists high labor supply demand at these two extremes (unskilled low-wage
and professional highly paid) but greatly diminished job opportunities in
the middle strata (the semiskilled). Immigrants and their children confront
this “hourglass” labor market. Thus, unless individuals have advanced edu-
cation degrees, they will likely have to compete with the masses for the
unskilled and semiskilled jobs.
An Alternative Explanation
Hmong American individuals and families not only desire education for
their children; many families also actively invest in it. Despite these con-
certed strategies, many Hmong American families remain in poverty. What
alternative explanation might account for this?
Although in their daily social discourse Hmong Americans, like most
other Americans, emphasize “working hard in school and going to college,”
the structural processes that create exclusion and closure in the public and
postsecondary schools are rarely spoken of, let alone challenged. Placing
almost complete trust in teachers and in public schools, most Hmong par-
ents are unaware of the school district processes that, although probably
well intentioned, systematically block their children’s access to colleges
and universities. As I have examined elsewhere, it is the processes of state-
mandated selective testing, legalized classification, multilayered tracking,
and long-term nonredesignation that pose some of the most serious ob-
stacles to English learners’ opportunity to learn, their access to programs,
and their opportunity to advance beyond high school (Xiong 2004). As the
state’s third-largest group of English learners, Hmong American students’
limited access to institutions of higher education could directly impact
their opportunities to learn and to acquire the education credentials re-
quired for most stable careers in American society.
Possession of human capital alone, however, seldom guarantees ac-
cess to industries and occupations, whether they are menial, semiskilled,
or professional. Often what is also needed is possession of the right kind of

96 Xiong
“social capital”; that is, actual or potential resources linked to possession of
durable networks of social relationships that can serve positive ends, such
as providing access to employment and rewards in the marketplace (Bour-
dieu 1986; Bourdieu and Wacquant 1992; Lin 2001). At present, the labor
market sector (professional occupations), which many children of Hmong
refugees wish to enter, is far removed from the Hmong kinship and ethnic
networks. Strong social capital at the level of kinship and co-ethnic net-
works has only limited positive effects on Hmong economic position, since
the members of these social networks are only beginning to penetrate the
professional sectors of the mainstream market.
Without cohesive social networks that can facilitate access to employ-
ment, especially professional employment, individuals must confront pro-
cesses of social exclusion (e.g., preferential job recruitment and selective
hiring, altered rules of job entry and promotion) that operate in the labor
market. These processes of exclusion deny employment opportunities to
some ethnic groups but serve to maintain the system of job monopoly for
other ethnic groups in select niches (see Waldinger 1994, 1997). In my view,
it is the processes of social closure that operate in the state’s public schools
as well as in the primary labor market that create and sustain systems of
racial and class stratification in American society. Class, gender, and racial
stratification systems in these key institutions reproduce conditions that
exacerbate and keep many Hmong American families in poverty.
Theoretical and Policy Implications
Useful as a set of sociological hypotheses, the theory of segmented assimila-
tion can be improved once we have clarified how the contexts of reception
gain significance over time. In short, the context of reception’s increased
significance in shaping immigrants’ and refugees’ outcome(s) in society is
due to the structures of closure in schools and labor markets. While the
contexts of exit and reception of Hmong in the two California counties
studied are unique and cannot be generalized, I believe that the way the
contexts of reception impose themselves on Hmong is a phenomenon gen-
eralizable to most recent immigrant and refugee groups. Although the con-
texts of exit determine immigrant groups’ initial social status and shape
their sense of relative need in the host society, it is with social institutions
in the context of reception that immigrant groups must most immediately
interact.
To survive and advance, status groups must participate in mainstream
social contexts. Two crucial contexts are schools and the labor market.

Here, they must confront the structures of closure, operating through
exclusion, monopolization, and usurpation. These structures powerfully
determine the conditions of opportunity and the structure of positions
in various sectors of society (Murphy 1988). Interest groups—employers
and capitalists—of the mainstream market periodically define and impose
higher educational credential requirements for entrance and participation
in the organizations they control (Collins 1979). At the same time, process-
es of differentiation in the educational system track working-class students
toward manual and semimanual occupations, reproducing the class status
of groups rather than uplifting them (Willis 1977).
But even when immigrants overcome these obstacles and achieve a
college education or advanced degree, degrees do not guarantee entrance to
mainstream labor markets. As Raymond Murphy points out, “Whether par-
ticular skills are judged necessary, valuable, or even present, and hence the
exchange value of the credentials claimed to certify their existence, depends
on the nature of the overall societal context and its power structure” (1988,
182). Access to the “power structure,” or the set of social networks that
maintains it, rests on immigrants’ capacity to mobilize all available forms
of capital to usurp the processes of social exclusion that create and main-
tain social closure in the labor market, as well as other major organizational
forms—indeed, all sectors of social life. Segmented assimilation theory can
be strengthened by expanding its concept of the contexts of reception to
include the state’s primary ideological apparatus: the school system. The
school system should be emphasized as one of the key contexts because
schools have direct consequences for ethnic immigrants as they undergo so-
cialization, acquire American expectations of socioeconomic success, and
seek socially recognized, legitimate ways to achieve these expectations.
Researchers can shy away from “culture of poverty” arguments that
persist in various forms in academia, in the popular press, and in the pub-
lic’s mind, or we can confront these arguments directly. The underlying
assumption behind the culture of poverty argument is that the concentra-
tion of people in social and physical space increases the risk of cultural
transmission of disadvantages—that is, transmission of deviant attitudes,
beliefs, and even behavior. Though often cast as “structural approaches,”
research on residential concentration and racial-ethnic segregation follow
a parallel logic: Isolation in social and physical space impacts groups’ access
to opportunities, and the lack of integration with the “mainstream” or its
dominant groups increases the risk of class-status reproduction for minor-
ity groups. Neither the cultural nor the “structural” approaches sufficiently
explain the persistence of poverty.

98 Xiong
The cause of poverty is rarely its location. For example, although the
vast majority of Hmong American individuals are unemployed poor and
working poor, some among them also hold professional and managerial
positions in the same local context. As Ornati observed several decades
ago, “Certain areas have a high proportion of poor because a high propor-
tion of their population has those personal traits that link the individual
to poverty” (1967, 39). In writing “personal traits,” Ornati was well aware
of society’s changing standards that require and reward particular “traits”
(e.g., possession of a college degree) but devalue others. As Ann Swidler
points out, action is not determined by one’s cultural values or preferenc-
es; rather “action and values are organized to take advantage of cultural
competencies” (1986). That is, culturally shaped skills, habits, and styles
constitute social agents’ cultural repertoire, which allows them to respond
to a very similar local context in quite different ways. In the final analysis,
it is not individuals’ cultural values (or lack of these) that determine their
outcomes; rather, it is the set of complex, intertwining individual, family,
community, and structural factors, historically shaped but periodically in-
fluenced by systems of class and racial stratification—especially stratifica-
tion in schools and labor markets—that collectively determines individual
and group outcomes.
What must be done to alleviate conditions of poverty in Hmong
American communities and prevent a “vicious cycle of poverty”? First,
my study challenges the assumption that Hmong American families and
their children follow a vicious cycle of poverty. Considering their recency
as a group to the United States, I believe Hmong Americans, especially
the first and second generation, have made significant gains in the areas of
education, income, homeownership, and professional occupation. There is
reason to expect they will continue to do so under the appropriate set of
circumstances. What many Hmong American families lack are concrete
financial resources. Government policies that place time limits (years or
even months) on eligibility for public assistance programs but make no sus-
tained investment in improving services in public sectors—especially civil
rights, education, training and retraining, housing, health insurance, and
transportation—will continue to have a negative impact on Hmong Ameri-
can families’ ability to move out of poverty. On the issue of Hmong Ameri-
can student education, appropriate and timely changes need to be made to
the discriminatory state policy that selectively tests, arbitrarily classifies,
and systematically tracks Hmong American and other linguistic minority
students (see Xiong 2004).

Conclusion
This study represents one attempt to understand Hmong Americans’ con-
temporary experiences with poverty in one state. It relies largely on the
insights of segmented assimilation theory, especially its concepts of the
contexts of exit and the contexts of reception, to explain Hmong’s initial
and ongoing struggles with poverty. It argues that Hmong’s early experi-
ences with poverty are attributable to the fact that the vast majority of them
arrived in the United States as political refugees with very limited knowl-
edge of dominant group social norms and limited transferable human and
social capital. As a result, Hmong families confronted a multiplicity of ma-
terial challenges—namely, unemployment and underemployment, as well
as social challenges—racial prejudices and social stigmas attached to public
assistance usage and dependency. Furthermore, Hmong’s postsecondary
migration struggles with poverty can be attributed to their lack of strong
ethnic enclaves and the presence of a bifurcated, racially stratified, com-
petitive labor market, both conditions that reinforce Hmong’s economic
disadvantages (unemployment, underemployment, and reliance on public
assistance).
Despite the persistent socioeconomic challenges confronting Hmong
Americans, some among them are gradually “making it,” as indicated by
their ability to own homes, no matter how modest, and the increasing
number of college and graduate students within many Hmong American
families. However, my study suggests that, although many Hmong Ameri-
can adults and their children are making gradual progress toward escap-
ing poverty—especially as they invest in human capital and pool family
and kinship resources—they, like many other immigrant communities,
continue to encounter institutionalized practices of racism and social clo-
sure in important institutions—specifically the school systems and the
mainstream labor market. These systems of social closure, I suggest, will
pose significant obstacles to upward mobility for Hmong Americans, in-
cluding their later generations. Despite Hmong and other Southeast Asian
Americans’ disadvantaged social position in the United States, they play
important roles in the livelihood and development of many of America’s
most vibrant communities, and future work should continue to examine
these groups’ modes of social, economic, and political incorporation and
outcomes.

100 Xiong
Notes
I thank Min Zhou, Elizabeth Frankenberg, Rebecca Emigh, and Nao
Xiong for their invaluable comments on earlier drafts of this chapter.
I am also grateful to Mark Pfeifer and two anonymous reviewers for
their helpful comments. I thank Yee H. Vang and Gaosang Xiong for
their research assistance. I gratefully acknowledge the UCLA Insti-
tute of American Cultures and the Asian American Studies Center
for a 2004–2005 Ethnic Studies research grant, which helped fund
this study.
1. See, for example, Wilson’s (1987) study of the “black underclass.”
2. Created in the early 1960s, the federal measure of poverty has a set of
thresholds that are compared with families’ income to determine their official
poverty status. Poverty thresholds vary by family size, the number of children
under age eighteen, and, for some family types, the age of the family head.
The federal poverty measure was originally developed as “an indicator of the
cost of a (family’s) minimum diet times three to allow for expenditures on all
other goods and services” (Citro and Michael 1995). The multiplier of three
represented the after-tax income of the average family in 1955 relative to the
amount it spent on food; and in 1963, the central threshold for a family of
four (two adults and two children) was about $3,100. As an important social
indicator, the official federal poverty threshold affects not only perceptions of
well-being in America but also public policies and access to federal and state
welfare programs.
3. The only nationally representative source of data on Hmong’s poverty
is the U.S. Census Bureau’s Public Use Microdata Samples.
4. Throughout this chapter, I use the Hmong Roman Popular Alphabet
writing system (developed in the early 1950s by French and American lin-
guists) to convey as closely as possible the original thoughts of the research
participants. All translations are mine.
5. All interviewee names throughout this paper are pseudonyms to pro-
tect the identity of the research participants.
6. “California’s Greater Avenues for Independence (GAIN) Program is a
statewide initiative aimed at increasing the employment and self-sufficiency of
recipients of Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC)” (Freedman et
al. 1994).
7. The “clan,” Leepreecha (2001) argues, “is the most important group
membership that identifies an individual.” In Hmong society, the clan is “a ge-
nealogical organization which unites members who are assumed to be descen-
dants of a common ancestor although they might not be able to trace their
relationship back to any known ancestor” (2001, 50). The Hmong term for clan

is xeem (sounds like “sing”). Hmong men who share the same clan are consid-
ered brothers or relatives (kwv tij), while women who share the same natal clan
name become sisters (viv ncaus). The subclan refers to a generally smaller unit
of the clan but larger than the lineage (relationship of father-child, brother-
brother and brother-sister). Membership in a subclan is established through
the sharing of the clan and also of certain important rituals and ceremonies.
8. The Indochinese Refugee Assistance Program provided 100 percent
reimbursement to states for the cost of resettlement, health, income mainte-
nance, and social services (Zucker 1983).
9. In a letter to the Appeal Democrat of Yuba/Marysville, California, on
July 2, 1996, a resident wrote:
We don’t need any more Hmongs [sic] here. Have you noticed the new cars
and vans they drive? It is our tax dollars buying them. How many of the
widows of the Americans killed in action get their medical bills paid and are
they driving new cars? Do they get their medical bills paid or do they have
to work to pay them?
My son-in-law and a nephew went to Vietnam and fought for our
country. They saw their buddies killed in action and others crippled in
World War II. He doesn’t get a big check or food stamps. We don’t owe a
dime to any of these people that our boys fought and died to save. Enough is
enough...think of our people first.—Ms. R.
References Cited
Alba, Richard, and Victor Nee. 1997. “Rethinking Assimilation Theory for
a New Era of Immigration.” International Migration Review 31, no. 4:
826–874.
Banfield, Edward. 1970. The Unheavenly City. New York: Little Brown.
Becker, Gary S. 1964. Human Capital: A Theoretical and Empirical Analy-
sis, with Special Reference to Education. New York: Columbia University
Press.
Bishop, Kent A. 1984. “The Hmong of Central California: An Investigation and
Analysis of the Changing Family Structure during Liminality, Accultura-
tion and Transition.” EdD thesis, University of San Francisco.
Blau, Peter M., and Otis Dudley Duncan. 1967. The American Occupational
Structure. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
Bourdieu, Pierre. 1986. “The Forms of Capital.” In Handbook of Theory for Re-
search in the Sociology of Education, edited by John G. Richardson, 241–
258. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press,.
Bourdieu, Pierre, and Loic Wacquant. 1992. An Invitation to Reflexive Sociol-
ogy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

102 Xiong
Carroll, Wayne, Tua Lor, and Elina Camane. 2000. “Hmong Population Re-
search Project.” University of Wisconsin-Eau Claire (accessed March 1,
2005). http://www.uwec.edu/econ/research/hmong/HEducation.htm.
Citro, Constance F., and Robert T. Michael, eds. 1995. Measuring Poverty: A
New Approach/Panel on Poverty and Family Assistance. Washington,
D.C.: National Academy Press.
Collins, Randall. 1979. The Credential Society: An Historical Sociology of Edu-
cation and Stratification. New York: Academic Press.
Corcoran, Mary. 1995. “Rags to Rags: Poverty and Mobility in the United
States.” Annual Review of Sociology 21: 237–267.
Fass, Simon. 1986. “Innovations in the Struggle for Self-Reliance: The Hmong
Experience in the United States.” International Migration Review 20, no.
2: 351–380.
Finck, John. 1986. “Secondary Migration to California’s Central Valley.” In The
Hmong in Transition, edited by Glenn L. Hendricks, Bruce T. Downing,
and Amos S. Deinard., 184–186. New York: Center for Migration Studies
of New York.
Freedman, Stephen, Daniel Friedlander, James A. Riccio, Mary E. Farrell, Ve-
ronica Fellerath, Stacey Fox, and Daniel J. Lehman. 1994. “GAIN: Benefits,
Costs, and Three-Year Impacts of a Welfare-to-Work Program.” Execu-
tive Summary, MDRC Publication (accessed March 1, 2005). http://www
.mdrc.org/publications/175/execsum.html.
Grosser, Charles F., and Edward V. Sparer. 1967. “Social Welfare and Social
Justice.” In Community Action against Poverty, edited by George A. Brager
and Francis P. Purcell. New Haven, CT: College and University Press.
Hein, Jeremy. 2006. Ethnic Origins: The Adaptation of Cambodian and Hmong
Refugees in Four American Cities. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
Herrnstein, Richard, and Charles Murray. 1994. The Bell Curve: Intelligence
and Class Structure in American Life. New York: Free Press.
Hirschman, Charles. 1983. “America’s Melting Pot Reconsidered.” Annual Re-
view of Sociology 9: 397–423.
Hmong National Development, Inc. 2004. Hmong 2000 Census Publica-
tion: Data and Analysis. Washington, D.C.: Hmong National Develop-
ment, Inc., and Hmong Cultural Center (accessed April 1, 2009). http://
hmongstudies.org/2000HmongCensusPublication.pdf.
———. Undated. “Statistics Pertaining to the Socio-economics of Southeast
Asians (2000 Census)” (accessed December 1, 2003). http://www.hndlink
.org/economicstat.htm.
Lee, Serge Chia. 1993. “Stress, Social Support Systems, and Psychosocial Well-
Being of Hmong Refugee Adults.” PhD diss., University of Washington.
Leepreecha, Prasit. 2001. “Kinship and Identity among Hmong in Thailand.”
PhD diss., University of Washington.
Lewis, Oscar. 1968a. La Vida: A Puerto Rican Family in the Culture of Poverty:
San Juan and New York. London: Panther.

———. 1968b. “The Culture of Poverty.” In On Understanding Poverty: Perspec-
tives from the Social Sciences, edited by Daniel P. Moynihan, 187–200.
New York: Basic Books.
Light, Ivan H. 1972. Ethnic Enterprise in America. Berkeley and Los Angeles:
University of California Press.
———. 2006. Deflecting Immigration: Networks, Markets, and Regulation in Los
Angeles. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
Lin, Nan. 2001. Social Capital: A Theory of Social Structure and Action. Cam-
bridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
Lo, Fungchatou. 2000. “The Promised Land: Socioeconomic Adjustment of the
Hmong in Milwaukee, 1976–2000.” PhD diss., University of Wisconsin,
Milwaukee.
Massey, Douglas S., and Nancy A. Denton. 1993. American Apartheid: The
Making of the Underclass. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Miyares, Ines Maria. 1994. “Ethnic Enclave Formation and Function: A Study
of Hmong Refugees in the United States.” PhD diss., Arizona State
University.
Murphy, Raymond. 1988. Social Closure: The Theory of Monopolization and
Exclusion. Oxford, New York, and Toronto: Oxford University Press.
Ornati, Oscar A. 1967. “Poverty, Affluence, and Opportunity.” In Community
Action against Poverty, edited by George A. Brager and Francis P. Purcell.
New Haven, CT: College and University Press.
Pfeifer, Mark. 2008. “Cambodian, Hmong, Lao and Vietnamese Americans
in the 2005 American Community Survey.” Journal of Southeast Asian
American Education and Advancement 3: 1–21.
Portes, Alejandro, and Jozsef Borocz. 1989. “Contemporary Immigration: The-
oretical Perspectives on Its Determinants and Modes of Incorporation.”
International Migration Review 23, no. 3: 606–630.
Portes, Alejandro, and Leif Jensen. 1989. “The Enclave and the Entrants: Pat-
terns of Ethnic Enterprise in Miami before and after Mariel.” American
Sociological Review 54, no. 6: 929–949.
Portes, Alejandro, and Rubén G. Rumbaut. 1996. Immigrant America: A Por-
trait. 2nd ed. Berkeley: University of California Press.
———. 2001. Legacies: The Story of the Immigrant Second Generation. Berkeley:
University of California Press.
Portes, Alejandro, and Min Zhou. 1993. “The New Second Generation: Seg-
mented Assimilation and Its Variants.” Annals of the American Academy
of Political and Social Science 530: 74–96.
Raphael, Steven. 1998. “Inter- and Intra-Ethnic Comparisons of the Central
City–Suburban Youth Employment Differential: Evidence from the Oak-
land Metropolitan Area.” Industrial and Labor Relations Review 51, no.
3: 505–524.
Rumbaut, Rubén G. 1997. “Assimilation and Its Discontents: Between Rhetoric
and Reality.” International Migration Review 31, no. 4: 923–960.

An Analysis Of Poverty In Hmong American Communities

An Analysis Of Poverty In Hmong American Communities

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to An Analysis Of Poverty In Hmong American Communities

Similar to An Analysis Of Poverty In Hmong American Communities (15)

More from Steven Wallach

More from Steven Wallach (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

An Analysis Of Poverty In Hmong American Communities