(More than twice as many Hispanics and Asians live in the suburbs as do African Americans, although, for reasons discussed below, it is more difficult to differentiate enterers from exiters in these groups.)
All of these enterers lack a historical connection to--and many lack knowledge of, or affinity for--the center city that anchors their new suburban home.
Other domestic migrants join these nonmetropolitan enterers in their suburban communities.
(93) Evidence from the 2000 Census suggests that many immigrant suburbanites are true enterers: they move directly to the suburbs upon arriving in the United States.
Yet while these realities press us to question our fragmented system of local governance, the entrance account substantially complicates the claim that metropolitan regions are today's "communities." The difficulty is that central cities likely play only a small role in the economic lives of most suburban enterers. The metropolitan employment balance shifted to the suburbs three decades ago: by 1990, the number of suburb-to-suburb or intrasuburb commuters outnumbered traditional suburb-to-center-city commuters by a two-to-one margin.
Even if claims of "abandonment" are factually problematic in an era of suburban entrance, there is little question that cities continue to suffer the effects of, and enterers continue to enjoy the benefits of, exiters' past actions.
For example, past acts of defensive incorporation enable enterers to enact exclusionary land-use policies that limit economic mobility within metro regions, thereby shielding themselves from the fiscal and social burdens that plague center cities.
But it is reasonable to assume that many enterers are (or believe themselves to be) net beneficiaries of interjurisdictional competition.